Quote:
|
The reporter simply presented the opinions of the investigators who stood up and told us he was innocent. I call that newsworthy. That never happened in the Manson case.
|
He is if he's trying to present a case for innocence, especially one that happened years ago. Presenting only one side is clear bias. Here a convicted murderer had his case overturned and they still explained information on the record as to why he was convicted in the first place.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/3641280/detail.html
This story talks about prior history as well in discussing a new trial.
http://www.wnbc.com/news/3841523/detail.html
Another...
http://www6.law.com/lawcom/displayid...news&flag=full
This is a famous case about the couple convicted of murder because of their dogs. It was overturned and the evidence is listed in detail.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/0617...entencing.html
Quote:
|
It is not considered bias to present only new evidence. No reporter is expected to re-report a case that has already public record.
|
It didn't stop them when it came to either Bush or Kerry's service records and their history. And if a reporter is abdicating an issue on a position (which they clearly did) then they have a duty to present both sides. Not just a biased printing of evidence which backs only their pre-conceived notions.
Quote:
|
But ultimately their job is to get convictions. They are not accountable to the police. The police give them the evidence, and the DA uses it (or does not). That is where the relationship ends.
|
And that's my point, the police gave them that evidence that he was guilty. They didn't just gather it on their own.
Quote:
Ahh I see, so I am guilty of murder if I am simply standing next to the crime scene? So if I am present at the crime, and there is no evidence I pulled the trigger and no evidence that I coerced anyone to pull the trigger, I am guilty of murder and worthy of execution? 
|
It depends, were you robbing them at the time? I'm not sure how this part is so confusing, the law CLEARLY states that if murder is commited in the commission of a felony you are guilty of murder. I quoted the statute to you below.
Quote:
|
This applies to cases in which the suspects are involved in another felony. Here is a cursory summary of the Tafero case:
|
Which only further proves my point above. That snippet doesn't even mention that they were in the midst of committing a felony.
Quote:
|
Can you make a case that Tafero killed the policemen while committing a felony? Neither could the DA, which is why the DA convinced Rhodes to testify against Tafero and name him as the trigger man. Then Rhode's confessed to doing it himself.
|
I don't have to, they made the case themselves. He and his wife
admitted they were in the middle of a large drug deal at the time that it happened. The DA's job is to get as much evidence as possible. Getting him to name Tafero as the shooter is just another piece.