Wouldn't it be an interesting world if we could look at people that committed murder and estimate that it's unlikely that they'll murder again, so hey, it would be an injustice for those murderers to be punished.
Regarding everyone handling things differently, when murderers lie, have no alibi, stage a murder scene, accuse innocent people of murder, make up ludicrous explanation for evidence, and lie some more, they are not actually handling things differently, they are handling things in the exact same way as other murderers.
Otto, I have read many of your posts, and while I respect your passion for, and knowledge of the case, I'm not sure you are entirely objective. For example:
1. Comparing the whole of convicted murderers to AK and RS, is not apples to apples, and making this comparison is bias.
2. I did not say a murderer that would not commit again should be released. I said a) there is significant doubt as to whether or not they are guilty...more than in most murder cases and b) I doubt these 2 in particular would commit murder again...if indeed they did the first time.
3. You stated that AK and RS have "no alibi, stage a murder scene, accuse innocent people of murder, make up ludicrous explanation for evidence"
- not having an alibi does not equal guilt. I have no alibi for Nov 1st, 2007...should I be a suspect?
- it is your opinion that they staged the scene. This is not fact.
- I grant you the accusation of PL. This has always troubled me.
- the only ludicrous explanation for evidence that I am aware of is RS's explanation for MK's DNA on the knife. I completely agree that this sounds crazy. But. In the totality of the evidence and statements in the case, this is small. Not to discount it, as I am also troubled by it.
Otto, I respect your opinion, and recognize that you know more about the case than I do, but you are not helping your position by twisting facts. You're better than that.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk