Rather then the real reason it won't get as much attention, because of human nature, knowing he was positively guilty of this heinous crime, and wanting to see him put to death because of it. Which proves the death penalty has little to do with Justice and more to do with feeding the animalistic human yearning of vengeance, which is why it's probably a good idea that the victims relatives don't have legal rights in these situations, especially if, or should I say when they do catch the wrong guy.
The arguments have nothing to do with that, it's that one conviction seemed incredibly hazy and the other did not. But while even I would like to see this guy put to death, overall the chance that innocent people could be executed is enough to put a stay on it all.
Hey man if the system were perfect, and we could know 100% that the people we were executing were guilty, screw lethal injection, hang the mother****ers.
But since we can't, I'd say it's just not right.
Having said that I'd rather be put to death myself quickly then have to sit in prison for 60 years or some ****.
The freegin' pope chimed in on the one for crying out loud. It got the press.
The evidentiary hearing was held in June 2010, during which affidavits from several prosecution witnesses from the trial changing or recanting their previous testimony were presented. Some of the affidavits implicated one of the original prosecution witnesses, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, in the crime, and other affiants asserted they had been coerced by police. The State presented witnesses, including the police investigators and original prosecutors, denying coercion. Evidence that Coles had confessed to the killing was excluded as hearsay because Coles was not subpoenaed by the defense to rebut it.