Fish Or Man

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Unimpeachable Behavior

New evidence reveals courts not correct 100% of the time! Shocking.

Todays news story of an innocent man in jail for 13 years and a discussion started yesterday going on over at Rivrdog seems connected.

It took 13 years for the Federal court of appeals to step in and order a judge to hear evidence to decided if a new trial was warranted. Like Terri, they had not actually decided on a new trial only the possiblity of one. The original evidence used to acquire the conviction was weak at best, yet he might well have been reconvicted with that evidence if it wasn't for a witness stepping forward. From news story;

According to court testimony, Souter and Ringler met at a bar and later attended a party. He said she decided to walk along the highway after she refused to let him drive her home. Souter said he returned to the party.

For years, medical experts disagreed about how Ringler was injured. One said she was probably hit by a vehicle, another said the wound matched the shape of a whiskey bottle found on the road nearby.

In January, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found "sufficient doubt" about Souter's guilt to order a federal judge to determine if he deserved a new trial.

Then a new witness came forward.

The woman, whose name has been sealed by the judge, read about Souter's appeal and recalled that her father's motor home had a broken mirror in 1979 and he had refused to talk about how it was damaged.

If you want to feel better about the system you support which has destroyed yet another innocent life, just tell yourself he was an "asshole" that deserved it.