Kind of a nothing burger of an article. I expected to learn about the case, both pro and con. Aside from a few snippets about the case, it's just a rehash of the usual sides debating the death penalty.
Kind of a nothing burger of an article. I expected to learn about the case, both pro and con. Aside from a few snippets about the case, it's just a rehash of the usual sides debating the death penalty.
I agree; I read the entire thing, expecting a detailed explanation (as in the article about the Glossip case) and we are told only that there was no DNA evidence and that the defense claims that the witnesses can't be trusted. (Now, there's a first!)
There is no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another from this story.
Kind of a nothing burger of an article. I expected to learn about the case, both pro and con. Aside from a few snippets about the case, it's just a rehash of the usual sides debating the death penalty.
I agree; I read the entire thing, expecting a detailed explanation (as in the article about the Glossip case) and we are told only that there was no DNA evidence and that the defense claims that the witnesses can't be trusted. (Now, there's a first!)
There is no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another from this story.