"flipper" wrote in message
...
They did appeal but one has to 'know' the missing evidence in order to
explain it's missing and I don't think that was known as the time of
the appeal.

My understanding is that if you find significant new evidence at any point in
time while someone's serving their sentence, you can always ask for the case
to be reconsidered?

Sutton apparently believes a drug dealer but, even if so, the proper
terminology is "he claims" but not, as Sutton like to do, as a "fact."

Standard trick -- present things as fact that are, in acutality, an opinion,
hope no one calls you on it, and over time expect they'll be taken as fact.

Sutton states as 'fact' that the 'drug smuggler' was 'fleeing' but the
medical evidence obtained during removal of the bullet clearly
supports the agents contention that his body was twisted back in their
direction preparatory to (they thought) firing at them.

Yeah, but isn't this like the Kennedy assassination, where plenty of people
still maintain the shooter was in the grassy knoll? -- Ever with plenty of
good evidence, if the result isn't intuitively "obvious," it's difficult to
convince a jury of what "must" have happened.

so overall the safer
approach for everyone involved is to quit shooting, and 'of course' you've
always been informed that safety is your first priority on this job."

What? You're worried about collateral damage to a prairie squirrel?

More your partner, actually. If I were partnered with a guy who emptied a
clip without getting a hit whereas I got the guy in the butt on my first shot,
you can bet I'd be asking for a new partner. :-)

The man's own family said he's been running drugs since he was 14 and
never moves them without being armed.

Oh yeah, there's no question the drug dealer is a scummy guy that the world
would probably be better off without... bet he still deserves his due process
and all.

I think you've made a lot of good points for the defense here, flipper -- you
clearly have superior knowledge of the this case than I do, so I'll quit
arm-chair refereeing what might or might not have happened and concede that
it's not at all clear that justice was served. All the more reason that
Bush's commutation was a proper course of action.

No, the best option is to have a fair and competent IA

As a society, yes, but as an individual officer I'd personally just work on
finding a new job. :-)

---Joel