Are you sure your comment isn’t “awaiting moderation”?

I posted a comment a couple of hours ago. I’m still “awaiting moderation”.

I’ve never had a comment held before. Guess it may be something new or a wordpress glitch.

Mr. Spindell,

Of the top 10 evil leaders in our world history, which one do you think Mr. Byrne should have selected to exemplify his position? Maximilien Robespierre? Ruhollah Khomeini? Leopold II of Belgium?
How many of the readers of this blog are familiar with these leaders? Is it likely that Hitler would be the best illustrative selection based upon the public acceptance that he was the most evil leader of the twentieth century?

It doesn’t really matter. Your argument is based on emotion, not logic. I have read, and re-read, Mr. Byrne’s post that has caused you discomfort. How pointing out that Obama may have been able to take advantage of his race, as stated in one paragraph, makes the Hitler (3 paragraphs later, and separated by argument concerning media bias) reference attributable to Obama is the stuff of pure fantasy, or a need to explore such a fantasy.

There’s a reason that members of the armed forces can choose not to follow an unlawful order. In the U.S., that reason is the Supremacy Clause (Article 6) of our Constitution. If the service member chooses to follow the unlawful order they can be held personally responsible. (See Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804))

You’re fighting a battle that exists only in your mind. I hope you win.

You said; “CBS and NBC are not too “far left” and in fact are demonstrably right of center.

Demonstrably? Base upon what? -Their ownership and corporate support for Reagan? How about the content of the news that they report? –If I tell everyone I know to vote for Obama, and provide numerous reasons to support my endorsement, but vote for McCain myself; Was the content of my message liberal or conservative?

You consider the media to be conservatively bias. I consider FOX to be conservatively bias, and find CBS and NBC to be liberally bias. (I rarely watch ABC.)

–You base your determination of bias on ownership and twenty year old support. I base my determination on what I have observed from the content of their reporting.

You provided hyperlinks to liberal websites that (may) support your argument. (I say “may”, because you just provide a link to the website…not any article that provides specific support) Here! -I’ll give you some conservative sites that disagree. -And I’ll give you the courtesy of direct links to supporting argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1253799/posts
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1711822/megyn_kelly_vs_us_weekly_stunning_proof_of_media_bias/

The majority of journalists admit they are liberal.

I describe myself to be a moderate conservative. You describe yourself as a “leftist hippie”, and an “unreconstructed liberal”.

Are any of your viewpoints considered to be aligned with those normally associated with conservatives? -I’m trying to establish your perspective.

“BUSH (like Hitler)” is somehow attributed to my feelings about President Obama?? Because I have some sneaky clever agenda?
YOU’RE WRONG!!!

I guess -The SPACE SHUTTLE (like the Appollo program)- must now be associated with hippies. -because I included them all in the same post. I’m a sneaky SOB.

“I think that most people, whether they agree with me or not, would not accuse me of having “tunnel vision” politically.”
But of course, what self-described leftist hippie, unreconstructed liberal could ever be accused of having political “tunnel vision”? Have you ever thought of working for NBC, CBS, or MSNBC?

Is Keith Olbermann too liberal, not liberal enough, or perfect?
–I see Limbaugh as too conservative.

FFLEO -Watched “Media Malpractice” last night. –It’s worth viewing. Like many other political documentaries, they don’t do enough to support their claims with supporting evidence…which leaves me skeptical. A number of the claims presented have merit, while others are more, based on biased opinion.

Obama was definitely the media darling. Was that because of the historical significance of the first African-America with a realistic chance of becoming POTUS? Quite possibly..and a reasonably ascertained. Did that turn into bias? –I everything that is stated in the documentary is true..then I believe so. –Like I said; I need to validate a large number of their claims.

I intend to view it with some liberal friends. We’ll pause the movie and do some fact checking. –I’ll get back to you.

Christoph,
You may think what you will of my points and ascribe to me paranoia. However, you do admit that my remarks were “well-crafted,” although what you characterize as “assault” I would characterize as rejoinder. Given this at least they were made clearly even if you do not find them persuasive. Be that as it may, I’ve reread the exchange between Mr. Byrne and myself and I stand by the reasoning I used and his lack of specific answers to the issues I raised. To wit: CBS and NBC are not too “far left” and in fact are demonstrably right of center. Also bringing Hitler into the discussion out of nowhere makes no sense. Mr.Byrne’s proffered rationale that it was done to illustrate that a leader without followers has no power, is I think highly unpersuasive as justification. Unless Mr. Byrne was being careless in his analogies, which his writing skill belies, he at least to me appears to be disingenuous.

Finally, this statement from Mr. Byrne:

“From the middle, I can see both left and right. From the far left, you can only see to the right.”

Is totally belied by the body of writing that I’ve done on JT’s site. I think that most people, whether they agree with me or not, would not accuse me of having “tunnel vision”
politically. Perhaps Mr.Byrne is as he says, but to me his deliberate word choices and characterizations, are exemplary
of someone at pains to hide his true agenda. Only his future postings will show that and if their body shows that I’ve been precipitous in judgment, I will apologize

I have had experience with the FEDERAL criminal justice system. In the states lawyers can “dance” and get some things done but the feds are impossible.

I understand that this was a state case appiled to the federal Supreme Court. And that is where the game ENDS.

If anyone ever thinks the feds will ever rule in sympathy with the “accussed” they’re dreaming. They will manipulate the Constitution to support ruling against the “defendant”. Even when the defendant raises a relevant issue on appeal they’ll just say it wouldn’t have made a difference.

The feds will do anything to protect a conviction and that is partly what this is about. They have that attitude that if they crack the door open to one then all of a sudden everybody in jail is going to kick open the door. And that’s what they’re wary of too. They look down the road with suspicion of what a certain ruling might lead to. And if they think it may be advantageous to criminals looking to appeal their cases they’re going to do everything they can to twist the Constitution to fit there purposes.

That’s what they certainly do with criminal cases anyway. Nothing is ever on the level. The deck is always stacked against the accussed

Review of Mr. Byrne’s posts is not demonstrative of any prior or current attacks on the President’s character. I really can’t blame him for refusing to participate in Mr. Spindell’s flight of the imagination.

Mr. Spindell is an articulate man. Regrettably, his well-crafted assault is unwarranted and exhibits a modicum of paranoia. Following Mr. Spindell’s logic, any word may be coupled with any statement. In effect, anything can mean whatever Mr. Spindell wants it to mean. This is convenient for Mr. Spindell, but, overtly unfair to Mr. Byrne.

I stepped in some dog poop today. Boy did it stink. I think I may have got some on the floor mat of my car, and I could still smell it when I had lunch at McDonalds.

Mr. Spindell will likely determine that I was wanting to say that McDonalds smells like dog poop, but I was “sneaky”, “tricky” or “terminally disingenuous” because I didn’t word my statement in the way that would make it conform to what he “expected”.

Nuff said indeed.

My comment prior to this:

“However, in your case I believe that you do not engage in an honest exchange of ideas, as illustrated by your posts and I prefer not to waste my time playing with the terminally disingenuous. There is a Rovian aroma emanating from your words.”

Nuff said.

Let us know your comments about Media Malpractice soon after your viewing. Thanks.

I’m always willing to engage in reasonable debate. However, I’m not interested in defending what Mike has decided I meant, based upon something that he has heard others say.

Please review my comment from 1, June 18, 2009 at 10:06 pm, and tell me how a rational person can conclude that I presented a comparison of President Obama with Adolf Hitler. -I just don’t see it, and it was not my intent.

I’m more than capable of making my point, and I’m not afraid to defend my position. -IF that is my position.

If I wanted to compare President Obama to Adolf Hitler…I would do so. (If I had any information to support such a claim) Further, I would support my position with historical similarities relevant to such accusations.

This evening, I intend to watch “Media Malpractice”. -I have know idea if the conclusions have merit, but I’ll make an “informed” decision after I watch it.

Jim, you are letting feelings get in your way. Mike is a lot of things but insulting for insulting’s sake is not one of them. If you are offended, that reaction is the only thing you actually have control of. You’re not unskilled. Don’t get mad. Prove him wrong. But when you let feelings get in the way, it will only lead you to mistakes in tactics or strategy. Mike hasn’t given you the equivalent of the finger. He’s pointed out potential weaknesses that may have unsavory consequences for your ego – no one wants to be thought of as a loon loopy enough to compare Obama to Hitler (there’s plenty to criticize without putting on a tinfoil hat and making false comparison/association), but Mike’s characterization of your presentation is not without merit. Exposing bias of the opposition is perfectly fair tactically. So cowboy up, Jim. This is an entertaining exchange. Don’t walk away mad.

Mike Spindell is an able debater and he will not concede easily nor back off from a worthwhile debate.

You fail to recognize perspective:

From the middle, I can see both left and right. From the far left, you can only see to the right.

The two sites that you linked do nothing but bash conservative viewpoints. -Hardly a ringing endorsement of their so-called impartial analysis.

Tell us; on what issues do you consider your views to be more conservative than those held by the mainstream..and why? Just so you don’t think I’m asking you to do something that I would not: I’m absolutely 100% against the death penalty…and (if you read my comments on this Court decision..I disagreed with the majority.

“This is why you’re a tricky guy Jim. You brought Hitler, of all people, into the discussion from out of the blue twice. No context existed to bring Hitler into the discussion.”

As I told you before, I brought up Hitler to demonstrate how leaders have no power without loyal followers and a lack of corrective action from an apathetic citizenry. Just because two names appear in the same comment doesn’t mean the actions of one are automatically attributed to the other.

“At the same time one of the prevalent memes of many far right wingers is that President Obama is the new Hitler.”

Prejudice: (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

“I am not someone who immediately demonizes people who disagree with me because they have a different political agenda and there is much true conservatives have to offer in political commentary. However, in your case I believe that you do not engage in an honest exchange of ideas, as illustrated by your posts and I prefer not to waste my time playing with the terminally disingenuous.”

Mike, I had it with your insulting commentary. You’re an arogant …

Jim,
This gives lie to your stating you don’t have an agenda. There is no evidence that you have to offer that CBS and NBC lean too far left, if so prove it, while there is an abundance of evidence proving its bias towards the right.

See:

http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.fair.org/

You make a false statement and rather than providing backup, you try to preclude argument by triangulating the views of those who would disagree with you. Sophisticated to be sure, but deceitful and disingenuous to be accurate.

“I never compared President Obama to Hitler. Nope; Nada; not even once.”

This is why you’re a tricky guy Jim. You brought Hitler, of all people, into the discussion from out of the blue twice. No context existed to bring Hitler into the discussion. At the same time one of the prevalent memes of many far right wingers is that President Obama is the new Hitler.

I am not someone who immediately demonizes people who disagree with me because they have a different political agenda and there is much true conservatives have to offer in political commentary. However, in your case I believe that you do not engage in an honest exchange of ideas, as illustrated by your posts and I prefer not to waste my time playing with the terminally disingenuous. There is a Rovian aroma emanating from your words.

“And if that were true what is the motive for such a thing to happen?”

Perhaps the country was ready to be led by an obviously intelligent black man. I don’t find anything wrong with that.

The fact that he is black motivated a lot of African American and racially sensitive voters. Hence, the reason I think he was elected, in part, because of his race…rather than in spite of his race. –I think that’s a good thing.

You read WAY TOO MUCH into my comment. Your rant is all over the place. Please don’t assume I have an agenda; I do not.

1. My analysis of the media is not based on who owns the station, but their current programming and delivery. Face it, the mainstream media are whores. They go where they can make money. Currently, the money is made by promoting a liberal agenda.

2. Are you really trying to convince me that EVERYONE who supported Reagan is currently conservative? Do you really want us to believe that Walt Disney still controls ABC from the grave?

3. I never compared President Obama to Hitler. Nope; Nada; not even once. If anything, my comment would be closer to comparing G.W. Bush to Hitler…but I didn’t make that connection either. -You did that all by yourself.

4.“Hitler burned down the Reichstag” No he didn’t! He had people sheeple do it for him. What I was pointing out is that no madman has any power without followers and general apathy of the citizenry.

“Again the disguised allusion to our President and an ignorant one at that.” The only allusion is an illusion in your head.

“I’m still not sure if President Obama was elected because he is black…or in spite of being black. I think the former is more likely. -Not that there is anything wrong with that….That was just the sentiment that prevailed.”

I have heard a lot of spin since Mr.Obama has been President,But I have”Never” heard it in those terms.You must have really dug down deep for that one.And if that were true what is the motive for such a thing to happen? Media frenzy,you say. I don’t think so.

Jim Byrne,
Your statement regarding the 4 major networks is incorrect.

CBS is owned by Viacom a firm that regularly donates to conservative candidates and causes. Viacom is run by the conservative Redstone family. Previously owned by Westinghouse, with the same conservative bent. Prior to that was owned by Laurence Tisch who was a Republican bigwig and wanted CBS news to report to its Entertainment division.

NBC is owned by GE, the company that financially supported
Ronald Reagan, is one of the largest defense contractors and has been historically a place where conservative pols came for campaign donations.

ABC is owned by Disney. Its’ founder Walt was a far right winger and hater of Jews. It has since embraced Jews and gays, but in all other respects has remained a fount for money for conservative causes.

FOX we already agree on.

For a good, short article on this check the link below:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/why-media-ownership-matters

However, given your comment I must warn you it is a “left wing” source. Incidentally, my opinions don’t come from this but from the fact that the 3 major networks at the time, FOX
didn’t exist, of Reagan’s inaugural all changed ownership into conservative hands withing 6 to 12 months of his taking office.

“Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.”

I’ll give you this Jim, you are adept at sneaking in your agenda. What has Hitler to do with this save for the current faux-conservative/Republican tactic of comparing President Obama with Hitler? As a Jew I personally resent this. you may not like the President, but Hitler (along with Stalin) was an evil, madman bent on death and destruction. You may not like our current President, but the implication that he in any way compares to Hitler is exceedingly ignorant and vile.

“I don’t think the voters made an informed decision as much as they followed the media frenzy.”

GW Bush had a popularity rating of 29% going into this election. Why was that? I anticipate that you might answer that the media was against him, you know the “left wing” media as faux conservatives like to put it, but the truth is the media is not now, nor ever has been left wing. I’m in my 7th decade and have been watching TV and reading the papers since I was six. This “left wing” media meme is Republican propaganda and always has been. The evidence is there to see en masse, but why don’t you see for yourself, your ideas are too old and tiresome for me to try to show you.

The voters informed decision was to throw the Republicans out of office in droves, but the Republicans gutless deceivers that they are, need to pretend it was the public being fooled. You really seem to have contempt for the common people, would that you were as informed as many of them.

“I don’t think becoming sheeple was a conscious choice. I think the mainstream media lulled them into it.”

In this you are restating the point I made in my post, however, why do I suspect that your perspective is quite different than mine? Oh yeah:

“If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.”

Finally though you tip your well concealed hand with this, although you don’t write it too clearly:

“Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.”

Again the disguised allusion to our President and an ignorant one at that. Hitler was elected chancellor with 34% of the vote, the financial backing by Germany’s major industrialists (and some Americans like GW Bush’s grandfather) and the SA a group of armed street thugs numbering perhaps 100,000. He wasn’t by himself and most Germans didn’t at first want him.

And:

“Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.”

Hitler is being falsely blamed, his regime and WWII was the result of the German “sheeple?” I think not Jim. Hitler burned down the Reichstag (the German Congress building, so they couldn’t meet) and immediately grabbed dictatorial power. That at least sounds like a good comparison to GW Bush. The second part of blaming congress is just another Republican falsehood put in play because the People were smart enough to understand that the Republican game was to do nothing for them and everything for the “Haves” of this country.

You are crafty Jim, but unfortunately you are either ignorant of history, or don’t really care about lying to forward your agenda. Ignorance and/or deceitfulness are not appealing qualities.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/why-media-ownership-matters

“As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, “There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it.”

We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to side with Alaska in this case — continuing the Bush administration’s opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing.

Thursday’s ruling will inevitably allow some innocent people to languish in prison without having the chance to definitively prove their innocence and with the state never being completely certain of their guilt.”

Any person should look at this way. The end result is you have no constitutional right to try to prove your innocence.

So if you are picked up,charged,tryed and sentenced?

You better have the best attorney money can buy or influence. After the conviction unless the STATE give you additional right the court is only obligated to give you minimal due process in exsistance at that time.

But the corally is no law(s) may be made to convict for a crime that was not in existence at the time that a person committed an unchargeable crime. Yeah right.

http://scotusscores.com/

Pretty package and informative data.

So you are picked up,charged,tryed and sentenced?

I don’t think the voters made an informed decision as much as they followed the media frenzy.

The country was frustrated. They wanted change..and the person with the least baggage got elected.

Was Obama really the most qualified candidate we could find? I hope not.

I’m still not sure if President Obama was elected because he is black…or in spite of being black. I think the former is more likely. -Not that there is anything wrong with that….That was just the sentiment that prevailed.

I don’t think the 3 major networks are conservative. I think FOX is, but CBS and NBC lean too far to the left to be considered conservative. –If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.

I don’t think becoming sheeple was a conscious choice. I think the mainstream media lulled them into it. More importantly, both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the current state of affairs. Not enough people are willing to stand up and say NO MORE.

Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.

Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.

We reap what we sow.

Jim Byrne,
While I understand your sentiment and share a similar one, I must say that for me I hate the use of the term “sheeple” and all it connotes. The last 50 years in the US have seen an attack on education by some conservatives in alliance with Christian Fundamentalists. Solid teaching of history/civics has declined markedly. Television news has been purposely focused on celebrities, sports and stock market reports. Local TV news is awash in “if it bleeds, it leads” and at the same time both parents in the family are working harder and longer at jobs, which pay them less when compared to the living standard. The union movement has been decimated and the 3 main networks taken over by right wing corporations. Cop shows prevail along with staged reality shows and meaningful drama has fallen by the wayside. Reading is discouraged and pursuit of the trivial is encouraged.

The people are hardly sheep, but keeping them in ignorance has been part of the plan all along by an elite fighting to
maintain and expand its prerogatives. I don’t believe that most people are stupid, but their lives have been diminished
by overwork and lack of mental stimulation. Yet with all that going on this last year the majority got it right. (think what you will of President Obama but it is remarkable that “the sheeple” elected a black man, with a Muslim name and a father who remained in Africa despite his Harvard degree.

I don’t mean to attack you with this, but merely to point out to you that when we think ourselves above the mass of people because of our insights, we might well be failing to give them the credit they deserve. In the process we push them towards those who have theirs and our worst interests at heart.

E called and said she is doing well. She is doing out patient. I have called her everyday to make sure she knows I care.

It has been much better here – not so hostile. What do you think the common denominator is or isn’t?

I still can’t believe one of the posters accused me of being you.

Well Swartmore Mom, Some people have been trained to be gender and race neutral. They cannot see how Good looking I am with my mustache. They can’t see you and your inner and outer beauty. It is their loss. Not ours as we know the truth as we know it.

I know that the change I am speaking of. How are you this fine day. Have you noticed I have not felt the need to remove heads here lately? I wonder what is missing? I know I am taking on a better attitude.

How is E?

I am so sorry that these type of asswipes run the rules and don’t want change unless the change is good for them. What they leave us with is nothing but the change.

I feel like Oliver.

Form over substance.

Justice is just too much trouble for some judges to hassle with.

is this as straight forward as it seems?

Why is this a federal issue? If the other states allow DNA testing why dosent Alaska?

Why wouldnt Alaska allow the man a DNA test? Could he have appealed under a different arguement and what would that have been?

Is this a states rights issue but I would think an individual right would trump a states right?
*************************************

As Palin has proved all too often, you don’t need DNA Testing. It is a waste of money as there is only one. They have to utilize bite marks. Thats the best they can do. I understand that can be difficult. But not as difficult in Arkansas, as you need 32 people to have a full set of teeth. Oh well.

Why is this a federal issue? If the other states allow DNA testing why dosent Alaska?

Why wouldnt Alaska allow the man a DNA test? Could he have appealed under a different arguement and what would that have been?

Is this a states rights issue but I would think an individual right would trump a states right?

You must be channeling the English.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8106590.stm

Those Nasty candy assed circle jerking asswipes. What they said is you have to have finality in a courts order and that the court speaks through its orders. And to make the order subject to changes additions and deletions no one will have respect for the court.

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmm. Let me think?

Did my respect for the court change. If the legislature wants to change it they can. But we are not. This is absolute BS.

With that reasoning. No Radar should be used as it is technology that was invented after the public safety became a question. Make the cops pace em. Heck can’t use a Datamaster anymore thats new technology.

Let me see, person on death row, new science comes about, shows that it it not this person. The DNA fingerprint is now decided between 2 people and it not you. But you had a substantial probability it was you at the conclusion of the trial. You are convicted.

I say let them all eat cake.

Get rid of your computers.

The answer is YES.

Just like a parent defending their child…or a sister defending her brother. Many times they only see what they want to see.

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” -Albert Einstein

The dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens is deserving of a standing ovation. -He called out the majority.

“Given these facts, the majority’s assertion that Osborne “attempt[ed] to sidestep state process” by failing “to use the process provided to him by the State” is unwarranted.”

Establishing a freestanding right to access DNA evidence for testing would force us to act as policymakers, and our substantive-due-process rulemaking authority would not only have to cover the right of access but a myriad of other issues. We would soon have to decide if there is a constitutional obligation to preserve forensic evidence that might later be tested. Cf. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U. S. 51, 56–58 (1988). If so, for how long? Would it be different for different types of evidence? Would the State also have some obligation to gather such evidence in the first place? How much, and when? No doubt there would be a miscellany of other minor directives. See, e.g., Harvey v. Horan, 285 F. 3d 298, 300–301 (CA4 2002) (Wilkinson, C. rehearing). ”

***************

And another thing, we can’t have all these jury trials in criminal cases. Think of all the money we’d save by simple bench trials with people who’ve heard it all before. It will start a slippery slope towards real justice I tell you!! And the flood gates…why they will open wide and allow anyone–even those with weird surnames and funny accents–to actually be heard by their peers who sometimes might even be shamed into granting actual justice. It’s the end of the world as we know it, and we have no time for such foolishness as we are about the business of making money!!!

I came across this tidbit from 2000:
Va Judge: Inmates Can Get DNA Test

““DNA testing is becoming so accurate that any intelligent judge is going to say, `If there’s any doubt, you should have a right to test.’ If they can prove your guilt, why can’t you prove your nonguilt?” said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative civil liberties group that is not involved in the Harvey case.”

Excellent posting. I’m struck by your statement above. You’re right but I wonder if it occurs to any of them that by doing so in this manner the achieve the opposite effect. Are they so willfully blind?

The Court relies on Osborne’s parole hearing testimony as an admission of guilt. –Everyone knows that you must admit to the crime and express remorse (even if you are innocent) before parole will be considered.

“While acknowledging that Osborne’s prior confessions were “certainly relevant,” the court concluded that they did not “necessarily trum[p] . . . the right to obtain post-conviction access to evidence” in light of the “emerging reality of wrongful convictions based on false confessions.” Id., at 1140.”

The police found an axe handle in Osborne’s room. However, the police already had an axe handle found at the scene of the crime. Therefore, the axe handle in Osborne’s room is meaningless.

”The dilemma is how to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice. That task belongs primarily to the legislature.”

The Court appears to be more interested in preserving the “faith” in our legal system than ensuring anyone’s right to liberty. Forty-six states have found DNA access to be of such importance, that they enacted statutes to ensure access. It is reasonable to believe that 46 states would consider such access to be a constitutional right.

”The federal statute, for example, requires a sworn statement that the applicant is innocent.”

Again…this provision is two-pronged. If you want parole..you must admit to the crime..if you want DNA testing…you must proclaim your innocence. –Both must be considered to be coerced.

Osborne’s right to due process is not parallel to a trial right, but rather must be analyzed in light of the fact that he has already been found guilty at a fair trial, and has only a limited interest in post-conviction relief.”

Incomplete science..presented as evidence…cannot be considered to provide the result of a “fair trial”. In fact, it is just the opposite….It is tainted. While it may be accepted as fact during trial, further testing may demonstrate the weakness of such evidence.

”It is difficult to criticize the State’s procedures when Osborne has not invoked them. This is not to say that Osborne must exhaust state-law remedies.”

The Court is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. The Court is definitely inferring that Osborne should have made such a request in the state courts.

Alito concurring: “I see no reason why a Brady claimant could not bypass the state courts and file a §1983 claim in federal court, contending that he has a due process right to search the State’s files for exculpatory evidence.”

Why not? It would seem reasonable that access to such should be made available via sunshine laws. Burdensome yes…

The guiding issue in all of these cases should be to fully ensure that the wrong person is not punished, just because LEO’s and Prosecutors can’t admit, even to themselves, that they might have been mistaken. The formulaic usage of such things as lawyer’s missing due dates, or the last appeal having been made, should never take precedence over ensuring that the correct conviction was made.