Beyond this quote, the detail that impressed me was that she and her husband cherished, among other new experiences of freedom after his imprisonment, "Playing Frisbee. Hiking. Exploring Atlanta in Moore's 2006 Honda Civic."
Hey I still drive a 2004 Civic.
Oh boy! 5,4,3,2.......Hey I still drive a 2004 Civic.
Where do you draw the line between humility and just plain cheap? (Maybe at 2005?)
and if you need room, start removing some of next years men's awardee's
Not an attack, but Maya, through her families involvement with Jonathan Irons, first came to support his innocence while still at UCONN. Throughout her entire (to date!) stellar career with the Lynx she maintained that belief and through her commitment secured Jonathan's freedom. My assumption is that her romantic interests in him grew out of her deepening relationship over time not the other way around. Forgive me but I'll go with Maya's take and the vacating of his conviction by the courts, that Jonathan didn't need to 'turn over a new leaf' but rather deserved the opportunity to live a life of freedom after spending decades in jail after being falsely convicted.
That's fine, you can believe who you want. Just from what I've read about the case, I'm not convinced he was innocent. And he did definitely need to "turn over a new leaf", unless you think the drug trade is ok.
Did you read press reports only or did you make an effort to read the historical record of court submissions, including details of actual circumstances before and after the event, etc. - everything factually relevant to the case? Another way to look at it, of course, is the reverse and ultimately believe that the Court did the right thing: vacating the conviction to clear his name. Coincidentally, I am sure you underscored the 23 years because it is an auspicious number for Maya.
I have never been able to find all the details of this case. Specifically, what was the basis for accusing him in the first place? I understand he was 16 a the time, so I would hope he has changed now that he is forty. Also, it seems that the police made quite a few mistakes in this case. But that does not mean innocence.
I'd be right on the cusp then (2005 Frontier).Hey I still drive a 2004 Civic.
Where do you draw the line between humility and just plain cheap? (Maybe at 2005?)
One of the wonderful things about our legal standards of criminal justice, at least in theory, is it matters not one whit whether the court — and much less, you — can be "convinced" of his innocence. The burden of proof is wholly on the accusers.
No, I did not read everything. I did read quite a bit though. Including a very well done article from a lawyer going over the case. Granted it came down to mostly circumstantial evidence. And I'm not saying that the trial was fair or that he should have been convicted (and he shouldn't have gotten 50 years). However, I think more than likely, he probably did do it.
On the flip side, there are probably just as many, if not more, who are innocent but in jail because of any number of manipulations by those who enforce the law. And, they have no hope of ever getting their sentences commuted or overturned.
I suggest you go through Google Scholar to look at serious studies on wrongful convictions of innocents, from light sentences to death row. It might shed more light on the different layers of the issue.
