Eyewitnesses at various sniper shootings swore that the sniper drove off in a white van. Or a Burgundy Caprice. They were so sure, in fact, that police repeatedly caught the snipers at roadblocks but waved them through because they weren’t driving the cars that the witnesses were positive were connected to the shootings.
So all those witnesses were wrong. More people died because of that, actually. I’m not blaming the witnesses, God knows. It wasn’t their fault. It was a stressful situation.
But it leads me to wonder how many people are on death row…mostly because of eye witness testimony. And of those people, how many of them are physically larger than cars, and thus even easier to ID? I’m guessing none. How many of them are, in fact, smaller than cars and probably tougher to ID? I’m guessing all.
But hey, no one’s ever been wrongly executed because of misidentification. Right? We’re all certain of that. Why, we’re as certain of that as we are of what kind of car the snipers were driving.
The sniper’s been stopped. The death penalty lives on. And state governments remain the biggest serial killers in America.
Food for thought.
PAD
• 
Yeah, and the evidence, particularly DNA…
I bet you right now that there’s not a single person on Death Row anywhere who is there solely based on eyewitness reports. It’s a specious argument, at best.
If you want to make an argument against the Death Penalty, you’re more than welcome to. I just think you’re really stretching for one here.
-Augie
There’s one very good argument against the death penalty. It’s the one that it all boils down to when all the others have been argued away.
There’s no margin for error in the death penalty.
None.
The simple fact is that we CAN make mistakes. Maybe not very often. Maybe not even enough to be ‘statistically signifigant’.
How statistically signifigant is one human life?
Choose carefully who you apply the penalty of death to. Because once it’s done, there’s no changing of the mind. No new evidence that changes the complexion of the case. No chances of redemption.
There’s just a body, still and lifeless, placed far beyond any concept of guilt or innocence ever again.
And that’s why I continue to oppose the death penalty.
As I’ve said repeatedly, if the state has the right to rob someone of his liberty, then I don’t see a drastic difference in depriving someone of his life. Also, even if mistakes are made in cases that involve life imprisonment, you don’t get those ten, twenty years back, either.
Philosophically, I have no problem with the death penalty (though, I admit a strong bias against criminals in the first place — I pretty much have zero sympathy for them).
I do understand and appreciate the arguments made about the possibility of mistakes. I’m all for as fair a justice system as possible (one that we have for the most part). But I’d rather fix that. I don’t see much good in letting innocent people rot in prison for their entire life anyway. I don’t see the improvement in destroying someone’s life and saying, “Well, at least you aren’t dead!”
I know where PAD stands on this and we can agree to disagree. I think ultimately, it’s because I’m an atheist. I mean, I can understand a religious person not supporting the death penalty. It makes perfect sense (in fact, I often wonder why religious people *do* support the death penalty). A higher judge will punish them. Fine. But I don’t believe in a higher judge and it gnaws at me that someone can live the rest of the days alloted to him after having deprived someone of theirs.
Personally, I’m of two minds on this topic. On the one hand, I do think our justice system isn’t always that accurate. And if a jury says someone is guilty, but the person still swears up and down they didn’t do it, who do you believe? Mr. David has a point that I hadn’t quite thought about in that manner: if we or the jury or the judge wasn’t there, who do you believe. I find it surprising that so many eyewitness accounts of the snipers mentioned the wrong vehicle. And not just a model, or a color, but completely the wrong vehicle. On the flip side, I think there are definitely people walking around in today’s society that have more than proven they can’t coexist peacefully and need to be removed because they are constantly a danger to everyone else. Every case should be seen as individual, though. You can’t say anyone who has taken someone else’s life should give there own as forfeit. What about the guy defending his home and family from an intruder? Or the abuse woman who grabs a steak knife when her husband comes after her? Or the young motorist who runs over a suicidal man who jumps in front of the car (it happened to a friend of mine)? Even people as vile as rapists and child abusers shouldn’t neccessarily be executed, because personally I think a child could be coached into believing they were molested. If you can prove it absolutely, then yes, kill the f*ckers. But we don’t always have enough proof.
Maybe we should follow some of George Carlin’s suggestions…
the popsicle squid goes “gong” when all the other dishes run out of toilet paper.
the end.
Sorry, but the whole reason we have a moratorium on executions here in Illinois is that Death Row inmates like Rolando Cruz, convicted on eyewitness testimony and lies by jailhouse snitches (almost certainly told what to say by prosecuters), have been released and we need to look at every case individually. Sadly, we haven’t done the smart thing yet and simply eliminated the death penalty, but I figure that will be done eventually. Than we can look back, historically speaking, and see this as one of those embarassing periods, such as “women couldn’t vote?” In this case it will be “we paid our government to murder people?”
It’s possible that some day DNA testing will be so widely available that virtually no one could be falsely convicted. Of course, that assumes there is some DNA-testable evidence left behind at the scene, that it’s significance is correctly interpreted, that it’s not a plant, etc. (Okay, I’m being silly with that last one; why on earth would a criminal plant someone else’s DNA at the scene of a crime? Why, that would be immoral, and unethical to boot.)
But my understanding of things as they are now is that some people convicted before DNA testing was a practical possibility have been denied their request to have the evidence tested now. I think the court reasoning goes like this: if the test shows the person was guilty after all, then the test is a waste of time; if the test is inconclusive it’s a waste of time; and if the test shows the person was not guilty, it’s a disruption to the system.
I mean, if we were talking about freeing an innocent person that would be one thing, but anyone who has been convicted is guilty, by definition, and why should we be doing favors for guilty people?
And imagine how upsetting it is to the family of the victims when convicted people are able to have new tests done (or, worse, get released because the tests indicate they were not guilty after all?) Here they thought matters were settled, that this person would be executed, and they’d have closure at last — and now bleeding-hearts want to un-settle the whole thing again, over a trivial such as whether it’s the right person or not?
I believe that a great number of people on death row are indeed guilty of the crimes they were convicted of (and are fairly unpleasant people who are better off being kept somewhere separated from the world at large). But I do believe that there can be, have been, and will continue to be people wrongly convicted who have been on death row, some of whom have been executed.
I should add that I am opposed to the execution of those rightly convicted as well. I believe the means justify the end. If the end we desire is a world in which people have respect for the lives of others and do not kill others in cold blood, then the way to get to that kind of world is to practice that ideal ourselves.
By the way, I greatly enjoyed PAD’s Hulk story about the execution of Crazy Eight (Hulk # 390, if memory serves). When I’m travelling and pass by a comics store, I sometimes look through the back issues bin, and when I can find a cheap copies I buy them to give away as gifts. I’m also greatly enjoying the new Captain Marvel issues, which contain some interesting explorations of Rick’s and CM’s different beliefs on killing.
In response to Stephen Robinson’s comment above where he states “if the state has the right to rob someone of his liberty, then I don’t see a drastic difference in depriving someone of his life.”
Stephen,
Here is the point you’re missing in this discussion. If a mistake was made, liberty can be restored. A life can’t.
Another anti-death penalty argument:
It costs the government more to execute an inmate than to give him/her life imprisonment.
Save tax dollars. End the death penalty.
However, in the end, the system was developed by people, and people make mistakes (I learned this in one of the Frank Miller Daredevil comics when a kid brought a gun to school after seeing a fight between Daredevil and Bullseye).
It is worse than that sometimes: A while ago I saw a report about the death penalty in the USA. There was one case of a man convicted of murder. When he was sentenced to death the witnesses, inmates of a prison, admitted that they had been lying. But, no, the conviction stands and this man is still scheduled to be executed one day. It is sick.
This is an extreme case, of course. But here in Britain there are now and again reports about people who spent many years in prison until it is found out that their conviction was unsafe or that it was even impossible that this person did it.
Nobody has the right to take another person`s life, unless it happens as a last resort in self defense, to save someone else and within certain limits in a war situation.
It makes me sick when the US government is preaching about human rights but at the same time sentences people to death. I have just seen a report about three innocent Afghans who were finally released after 11 months from the camp in Cuba. They never had a trial, they haven`t had a chance to see their families. And there are other things done in the name of “the war against terrorism” that are simply wrong.
How far will Bush go? I don`t know and that scares me.
Something else that might be interesting for you, PAD, in case you haven`t noticed the postings in question when the New Frontier book “Restoration” came out:
Shelby`s decision to hand over the scientists to be executed caused quite a stir among German and Austrian fans I know. Among other things, some wondered if this happened because it is an American series and maybe perhaps you are even pro-death penalty.
It is good to know that you are not.
On the argument that the death penalty is expensive:
One reason it’s so expensive is the process of nearly infinite appeals frequently afforded to a death row inmate.
A guy gets sentenced to die, and 12 years later, he’s still calling his lawyer with some new evidence.
The simple fact that a person can be “sentenced to die” and live for twelve years or more is absurd.
I am in favor of the death penalty — if a person can’t prove their innocence in court or after numerous appeals, then they blew it. It sounds harsh, but if I were on death row, that reasoning would get me to work harder establishing my case before I made an appeal.
If there was a cap to how long a person can have to prove their innocence, say two years, then it wouldn’t be nearly as expensive as getting the machines ready, holding a press conference, then shutting them off again because another appeal is going through.
For those who have a legitimate case to be rejected, such as those convicted before DNA testing was available, we owe them that much if they ask. Saying that they are a reason to not have the death penalty, however, is another bird entirely.
The death penalty as is needs to go. The long wait, the endless string of appeals, all of it.
I believe, however, that a death penalty of some kind is in order. Nothing as brutal as the Texas death penalty (a couple of guards catch an inmate alone and throw a brick at his head), but something quick and less traumatic. The guy who’s been on death row two years when his number’s up isn’t going to be as much of a wreck as the guy who’s been dodging it for twelve when his number’s up. THAT’s cruel and unusual.
I believe that there are cases where the death penalty is appropriate. That said, I think that the criterion of “beyond reasonable doubt” is not the correct one to apply to levying a death sentence.
If we’re going to sentence a person to death, we have to be certain that the person is actually guilty of the crime beyond unreasonable doubts. Is it possible to construe any sort of theory by which we could manage to believe that this person is really innocent?
If so, then the death penalty is inappropriate, because there’s a chance that we’re wrong. And being wrong is not acceptable.
To all the people above who think DNA evidence is somehow infallible… it’s not, far from it. Not even with the more rigorous procedures used in criminal cases.
If anything, the situation is worse because of the faith people put in genetic “fingerprinting”. There are just as many sloppy scientists and unsound lab procedures as there are quack doctors, ambulance-chasing lawyers and astigmatic eyewitnesses.
What Peter is saying about eyewitnesses isn’t new or groundbreaking. Studies have shown that eye witness testimony can be the worst type of “evidence” there is. I’m sure some of you may remember that piece that was done on one of the magazine shows (20/20, I think), that showed how a room full of witnesses were unable to identify an actor who was hired to walk into the room, snatch the teacher’s purse and run out.
I also remember an episode of Law & Order in which Ben Stone (Michael Moriarty), reacting to an opposing attorney pointing out to him that he had no witnesses to the crime his client was accused of, said, “Witnesses are like dessert. They’re nice, but they’re not necessary.” I wonder how prevalent this view is in the legal field.
While I don’t share Peter’s total opposition to the death penalty, I do agree with him to the extent that the way in which is handled now is, like everything else our governments do, inept, inefficient and incompetent. I would have nothing against as society in which the death penalty is administered after a rigorous process in which every defendant from the poorest level of society gets the same defense as those from the richest, in which all doubt is satisfied, and the proof of guilt is of such a quality that there is no possibility of wrongful conviction. Since we obviously don’t live in that world, I’d put a moratorium on the death penalty nationally until our governments overhauled the system to reach that level of quality, and until then, make exceptions only in cases where the guilt was established with the aforementioned level of certainty.
Toby: Even people as vile as rapists and child abusers shouldn’t neccessarily be executed, because personally I think a child could be coached into believing they were molested.
Luigi Novi: This was pretty much proven in the McMartin trial in Manhattan Beach, CA. You can read about this disgusting witch hunt at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_mcmar.htm
Nekouken: I am in favor of the death penalty — if a person can’t prove their innocence in court or after numerous appeals, then they blew it.
Luigi Novi: A defendant shouldn’t have to prove their innocence in court. It is the state that should have to prove him guilty. As for after appeals, well, you’re assuming that the system is necessarily geared towards helping the wrongly convicted show that they were. Obviously, it isn’t. Some are obviously able to show that they were wrongly convicted, but others presumably are not.
<>
Maybe they were waved through because they were looking for a white men in a white van. Various people who called the tips line with descriptions of Mohammad and his car were told the police were looking for a white van driven by a white man and hung up on. It wasn’t only the killers who were hung up on by surly law enforcement employees, but witnesses with descriptions of the shooter and the car and with license plate numbers.
Heck, even after the murderers names were announced the New York Times was still trying to connect Captain Allah and Bucky to skinhead militia groups. As far as I know the Aryan Nation won’t allow Irish Catholics, much less black Muslims, to join their ranks.
How many more deaths did this racial profiling contribute to? 2? 5? None? It’s hard to say. I’m just glad they are being tried in Virginia. Regardless of race, creed, or religion, the death penalty will be administered.
Oh, and just a little quiz for everyone. Who in the room is opposed to the death penalty but is pro abortion? Just curious where your priorities stand in protecting the innocent.
Pro-Death Penalty and Pro-Abortion Alan, so not quite your target.
Repeat offenders and violent offenders should be offed, and the “mentally handicapped” shouldn’t be exempt either.
If you aren’t able to tell teh difference between righ and wrong because of a mental handicap, then there’s no reason not to think you’ll do it again…
Opposed to the death penalty, yes.
Pro-choice, also yes.
Opposed to the death penalty for a variety of reasons.
Pro-choice for many reasons, but the key one in this context is that I remain unconvinced as to when life begins, and know that many others feel the same. I’m not comfortable with non-theraputic abortion, but I simply don’t believe that fetuses under a certain age are truly alive. If someone could first convince me otherwise and then convince me that all other opinions are wrong and that all abortion is therfore murder, I would change my mind.
And even then, I would still put the life of the mother first. And I would never, ever tell a rape or incest victim that she must carry to term the product of so heinous a violation of her body.
And for what it’s worth, while I oppose the death penalty, I don’t protest it too loudly when it happens because sometimes, even if I don’t think man has the right to issue such decrees, the recipient fo the punishment deserves it.
All’s I can say is that thinking in black and white ain’t as easy as it once was. 🙂
Augie:
Your Lyin’ Eyes is a column about precisely what you say: there are people on Death Row convicted solely on eyewitness testiomony.
Nekouken:
Read up on the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Inmates no longer have “nearly infinite” appeals; in many cases, they are restricted to one, and if that doesn’t go through–even if there was a mistake, even if additional evidence like DNA subsequently becomes available–they’re SOL and get executed anyway.
And here in Texas, a convict has only 60 days after his trial to introduce new evidence. After that, too bad, so sad.
The scales of justice are by no means tilted in favor of the defendant.
Hmm..
If one of the reasons that a person is against the death penalty is that, if there was a mistake, there is no way to give life back to the person who has been incorrectly punished, shouldn’t the same concept apply to abortion? If you don’t know whether life begins at conception, birth, some time after birth[*], and a life-or-potential-life is extinguished, if it is later proven that life begins earlier, there is no way to restore the life to the child-or-potential-child who was incorrectly punished.
This argument would only apply to people who don’t have a specific belief on when life begins. If you believe it starts e.g. at birth, third trimester, second trimester, or sometime after birth, then anything before that would be fair sport.
Just a thought.
Avi
[*] — I read a couple weeks ago, though I unfortunately can’t find the article now, about a doctor who believes that a baby is not “alive” for a few days after birth, until his/her brain develops to a certain level of activity; therefore, according to this doctor, aborting a baby after birth, but before they reach that stage, shouldn’t be considered murder either. Obviously, there are very, very few people who would agree with him on that, but it is another option in the when-life-begins debate.
“incorrectly punished” are the keywords here. You can’t justify punishing someone by killing them. Not on moral grounds, not on (at least Judeo-Christian) religious grounds.
Abortion is not about punishment. It is always regrettable, but sometimes necessary.
The weird thing about this is that on the Charlie Rose last night (Monday), Charlie had Scott Turow on, whose words were almost identical to those that PAD himself wrote. And the thing about capital punishment was that Turow was in favor prior to the publication of his newest book, and afterwards was against it due largely to DNA testing and just how inaccurate eyewitnesses could be.
I’m somewhere in the middle on the death penalty. I don’t think it should usually apply to those who have committed a single murder, but I do think if someone is a mass murderer then it should be used. Most of the mass murdering cases I’ve heard of, the evidence that the convicted person was guilty was overwhelming way beyond all doubt. Many of them have admitted that they were guilty and some even say that if they are released, they WILL kill again and again and again. I just see no point in NOT executing those people. Also, even if someone is only convicted of one murder and they admit they are guilty and show no remorse and did not do it in self-defense then I still think they should be executed.
On a related note, I think this sniper situation is further evidence for the need for more efficient gun-control.
Luigi – The statement “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like. A defendant may not have the burden of proof, but if the prosecution can make their case, the defendant can be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and if possible, will have to do some work to undo whatever damage has been done.
Though it’s true what you say about appeals, there should be a reasonable limit on them.
Alan – Pro-death penalty, pro-choice, though if there were an alternative that was more effective than adoption and its ilk and less grotesque than abortion, I would be pro-life. I believe people should have a chance to screw up before we kill them, but at the moment idealism isn’t available to us.
Greg – You got me there. I haven’t studied penal law since high school, which I graduated from in ’96.
Generally speaking, I feel that there’s a compromise out there that works in the case of most hot-button topics. The death penalty, abortion, and gun control would all be easily remedied if both sides were willing to do a little extra work.
Hey, you know what? We can make mistakes by putting the wrong people in jail. Should we give up on jailing people too?
We can make mistakes while we’re driving. Should we revoke everyone’s drivers licenses now?
This is not an argument for bailing on the death penalty, only an argument for being careful how it’s done.
One of the best comments I’ve heard in opposing the death penalty was from a fellow collegue of mine at a News/Talk radio station.
He said, “I’m completely against the death penalty, simply because of the remote possibility that someday I may be subjected to it. And I don’t wanna die.”
The comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek, of course. The guy doesn’t have criminal tendencies, but he allowed for the possibility that circumstances beyond his control, *hypothetically* could lead to him being subject to the death penalty and if that were the case, he’d rather live. So, there ya go.
Me? I think they should make it a choice for the criminal. Like a menu item.
“Yes, sir. Now, you’ve been found guilty of first degree murder. Is that correct? Good. Now, would sir prefer to spend the rest of your natural life locked up with *no* chance for parole whatsoever, or would sir just like to die now and get it over with? I’ll be back with your drink order while you decide.”
— Michael Brown
(tongue also in cheek)
You know what? Innocent people do get sent to prision in America, and, nine times out of ten, it’s because of our reliance on witnesses. The mock trial case I was on last year (and took state championship, by the way) involved an 18-year-old case, so there was no small amount of research on the subject.
Eyewitnesses are extraordinarily unreliable. A human brain does not record information like a videotape, placing all the little bits of information in specific order, and memory does not degrade like a videotape, where the orignial pattern get’s obscured by new information.
Rather, the human brain records memory as thousands of sensory signals that are each filed away like so many corporate tax records. Then, every time we remember something, the event is reconstructed in our brain, piece by piece.
But this process, also like corporate tax records, is often inaccurate. We can put a bit of information out of order, or put something there that wasn’t there in reality. To use the sniper as an example, we can remember a white van where there was a red SUV, or a white man where there was a black guy. Or we can remember seeing two people get shot from left to right, when it was actually the other way around.
This reconstruction is also why we often remember, say, a specific sound or smell without remembering where it’s from. This is also why such things can jog our memory. We remember a sound and our mind pulls all the little bits of information associated with that sound.
Unfortunately, while witnesses are the least accurate evidence in a trial, they’re also the most pursuasive. As I said, my mock trial team took the state championships last year, and every time we won it was because we had better witnesses.
Another example, from a half-remembered episode of “Frontline,” is case in Illinois where a young black man named “Colin” was arrested in connection with a convienence store shooting when the actual suspect was a young black man named “Colin” who lived down the street.
Because he was a juvinile, this Colin was put in a seperate facility from the men who had said, “Colin did it,” and his trial was already underway when they first saw each other. The first words out of the other suspects mouth were, “That’s not colin.”
But the trial had begun, and the D.A. was required to try for a conviction. Even after the other Colin was arrested in a neighboring county and confessed, the D.A. still had to try for a conviction. And he got it.
He got it on the strength of one witness, the victim. This woman was absolutely positive that the first Colin, the innocent one, was the one who had shot her. Keep in mind, she was shot. In the face. The bullet went through both her hands, up to block it, and drove it’s way an eigth of an inch into her skull.
The D.A. said, “Is this man the person who shot you in the head?”
She said, “Yes.”
And he was convicted, even though the robbers themselves had said he wasn’t involved, and another man had come forward to confess, and there was no evidence to place him at the crime scene, he was convicted.
The judicial system in America is only as smart as the people in the Jury (as any regular viewer of “Malcom in the Middle” will tell you) and the people in the Jury are the people who weren’t smart enough to get out of Jury duty (as any regular viewer of “The Simpsons” will know).
–J’myle
P.S. As for abortion, I dare any man who it pro-life to walk up to a woman and say, “Let me tell you how to be pregnant.” Then we’ll see the death penalty.
The whole “death penalty is wrong because you can never be 100% sure” is an irrelevant argument… advanced DNA matching (now down to getting a match from just one cell) may be able to prove crimes 100%.
But it’s still wrong.
Governments should not be engaged in killing their own civilians, guilty or otherwise. It’s permanent, it can never be compensated for… and it’s wrong.
Check the countries that allow the death penalty. Not the best company to be in.
Nekouken said: “if a person can’t prove their innocence in court or after numerous appeals, then they blew it.”
Is that so? And here I thought that the STATE had to prove the accused’s guilt, but it’s the Other way around! Aaah, now I get it!
From the Sniper’s son(Not his sidekick) per Reuters:
Muhammad’s son Lindbergh Williams, 20, also backed the death penalty.
“Even though he is my father, in my eyes, you reap what you sow. If you were man to enough to do it, you are man enough to pay the consequences,”
On the argument that the death penalty is expensive:
One reason it’s so expensive is the process of nearly infinite appeals frequently afforded to a death row inmate.
A guy gets sentenced to die, and 12 years later, he’s still calling his lawyer with some new evidence.
The simple fact that a person can be “sentenced to die” and live for twelve years or more is absurd.
I am in favor of the death penalty — if a person can’t prove their innocence in court or after numerous appeals, then they blew it. It sounds harsh, but if I were on death row, that reasoning would get me to work harder establishing my case before I made an appeal.
The fact that someone can appeal his or her case isn’t an argument against the death penalty. It’s a definition of the justice system. Would you really want a system that said, “We’re going to kill you, and we won’t let you introduce new evidence that you’re innocent, no matter how convincing it is, because that’s expensive”?
–Daniel
There’s this picture my dad cut out the newspaper. It’s about 30 years old,in black and white. It shows about 20, maybe 30, prison inmates, all of which were executed. They’ve since proven, through DNA, that they were all innocent. I can’t remember the exact details and don’t have the article here, but that’s the jist of it.
Mike
Re: proving innocence & DNA evidence
Yes, once a person has been found guilty, they have to discredit the prosecution’s argument and/or come up with counter evidence. And DNA evidence is great for reliably placing someone at the crime, or away from the crime.
However, DNA evidence is only useful if it’s actually performed. And proving innocence can be very difficult if you don’t have good enough counsel. If you look at most people on death row, most of them don’t have highly-paid lawyers. Inadequate counsel /is/ a reason to have a retrial, but it’s not always used. If a man can get sentenced to death and denied a retrial when his lawyer slept through the proceedings, then it’s obvious that these recourses don’t always work. If you have the money to pay for good legal counsel, you get full advantage of the system. If you don’t, you better hope you get Atticus Finch assigned to you.
There are people on death row due to eyewitness testimony alone. There are also people there due to lack of money. That’s what gets sick.
Mike Posted:
<<“There’s this picture my dad cut out the newspaper. It’s about 30 years old,in black and white. It shows about 20, maybe 30, prison inmates, all of which were executed. They’ve since proven, through DNA, that they were all innocent.”>>
What DNA evidence? Who says they were proven innocent? Was it a credible organization or a group of demagogues who have no problem with lying to push their agenda?
There are a lot of people who insist the Holocaust never happened. Just because a fringe group of lunatics say something did or didn’t happen and that they claim they have evidence that supports their claim doesn’t make that claim true.
And DNA evidence doesn’t always stand up in court. For every Bill Clinton who is caught in a crime, perjury in his case, by DNA evidence there is an OJ Simpson who goes free.
Thought I’d use the handle I use on comics boards this time.
Anyway, one thing I thought was interesting when the sniper suspects were arrested (and about to be) was that witnesses were describing a “blue or burgundy” Caprice. The car, as we all know now, turned out to be dark blue. The “blue or burgundy” thing reminded me of something I observed a few years back. I attended the wedding of a couple of friends of mine, and a young lady I know was in attendance. I distinctly remembered her wearing a burgundy dress at the reception, but when I saw pictures with her in them later, the dress was dark blue. I even commented on it, and she said no, it was definitely a dark blue dress. I wonder if the same thing happened with some of the witnesses who saw the suspects’ car when they described it to police.
I’ll pass on the political hot-button issues for the moment…