Dirty larry
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 2
This is not true.Because an appellate review is not the same - not even close - to a trial. It's only a review. They don't look at the evidence and basically re-try the case; they only look for procedural errors.
Appellate claims take many forms, some review evidence presented, some consider new evidence, and some simply review rulings for procedural errors.
I don't suppose you could provide us with an example or two?It may also result in evidence formerly allowed to be ruled inadmissible under fresh eyes and without the prejudice that permeated the atmosphere at the time.
If you feel justice has not been served, Then I suspect the place to start is to offer some sort of challenge to the convictions.the truth is important to me...call me crazy but that's how I feel.
It wasn't Griffis' opinion that Echols was a violent psychotic dabbler in Satanism, it's a documented fact.I think a big factor was Arkansas in that time period - jury prejudice - good ole boyisms; a complete misunderstanding of occult ritual killings and the evidence that would accompany them; the complete and utter farce of an expert witness on the occult etc.
The jurors already have - The presumption is guilt now.Let's get to the truth.
It's up to the Defense to prove actual innocence - and they have failed for a decade and a half in three seperate courts.
Why do you suppose that is?