SCHMAE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 13,146
- Reaction score
- 2,932
Right. If everything we know was allowed and all that we know should not have been was thrown out and a fresh set of 24 eyes saw it and then convicted him , I would feel a lot better about his conviction.Questions for anyone who may know:
1.) Did SA ever say he actually saw her actually drive away? Or did he simply just walk back into the house and that was the end of it?
2.) When did these women claim that he raped them?
3.) When did the informant claim he told him about the torture chamber? What was he given in return?
And like I said before - I don't care if they have a videotape of him actually murdering her, he deserves a new trial simply based upon the plethora of unconstitutional depriving SA of his due process rights. Return the case for a new trial. Leave out all the stuff we know is tainted (the key, the blood stains in the car, any evidence that Manitowoc found, Brandan's confession, etc...and any fruits from that confession.) And then try him again legally. But how any person in the legal community and on this board, who really know the law, can feel good about this conviction is absolutely beyond me.
ETA For those who think this is only about SA and BD , I have news for you . This is about us ALL. The idea of a fair trial is one that is rammed down our throats for all of our lives and yet we can see here clearly that is not the case. You could be walking home from a stranded car, stumble across a body and now YOU are a POI, just like that. If you happened to be anxious or suspicious or had some blood on you from a hard day or work or hunting or fighting in a bar, then you will be really counting on your ' fair trial'. Even the guilty ' deserve' a fair trial and these two trials were not fair, no matter what.