>Yes, it is a problem. I would not have to be Johnie Cochran to shoot a million holes through this case, at least enough to provide reasonable doubt. I would have called the psychiatrist to the stand and asked why he labeled a man a sociopath without ever meeting him. And I would have asked why his nickname was Dr. Death. I surely would have called the Thompsons to the stand. And of course Todd.
>

All of this is valid in the trial phase but not in the sentencing phase.

*snip*

>
>I agree that it does not matter what happened after the trial, but how can you assume he had a competent attorney at some point? Blind faith in our amazing legal system?
>

"Competent" may be too strong a word. The assumption being made is that he had a lawyer at some point who was working with a license to practice law and had not been sanctioned previous to the case.


*snip*
>Agreed. But one of their witness's, Carey Tood, clearly perjured himself. As did Richard Cordell and Riley Rogers for the prosecution. And McEachern's testimony is questionable at best.
>

There is proof that there was perjured with respect to unrelated issues but there is no proof that perjury was done with respect to the facts of the case.

*snip*
>
>It does to me. To me, there are obvious problems with the death penalty. If I could be 100% certain a person was guilty, I would have no problem with it. And it speaks to George W. ability to govern when with a case like that comes before him, and he sees no problems with it. Here is Republican Governor who thinks otherwise:
>
>http://chicagonorth.about.com/citiestowns/midwestus/chicagonorth/library/weekly/aa032600a.htm

It seems that this situation is more an indictment of the Illinois justice system than capital punishment.

*snip*
>And as the OJ trial clearly proved to me, 12 jurors saying a man is innocent or guilty does not exactly restore my faith in the legal system. And if the OJ case did not convince you, I don't know what will.

Personally, I think the "correct" verdict came back. Before I get a stream of WTF, I do not think the "right" verdict came back. I thought the case that was put on by Clark and Dodd could have been better put together by my junior high school Civics class.

*snip*
>
>>1. He was a violent predicate felon who should have been executed for if not the first murder then at least the second.
>
>Amazing that you can render judgement like that without hearing the case.

According to the report, he confessed to the second crime. I don't need to hear the case. Personally, I don't think confessing to something to make it quicker and less painless to the prosecution should get you any brownie points. If you did the crime, you should pay the penalty. In my mind, if you kill someone or if you are responsible for the death of someone during the commission of a crime (felony murder), then you should die. I don't believe in life without parole for these types of crimes.

Does that make me a hard-ass? If so, so be it. It's also probably why I would never be elected to a public office. :-)