[kahljorn]

He's the exception that proves the rule. Proof that no matter what you do, no matter how obvious or clear cut the evidence is, if you know how to manipulate the system, you can make a career out of being on Death Row.

I don't really get how this is relevant but alright. Maybe retarded criminals have a right to a limelight before they are killed. It could be counted as a check on the system. Although, maybe it's morally outrageous to give criminals that type of notoriety. **After reading that he's still alive and on death row, I see how it's relevant.

Just make sure they don't escape. Hmm, while I'm here, does anyone have any examples of murdering nutters escaping and killing MORE people? That's probably a good argument for killing them the first time around.

there's a lot of examples of prisoners killing prison guards, other prisoners etc. inside of jail.

Yet here he is, more than 25 years after the fact, still living on "Death Row" and still claiming he should be given a new trial. Ironically, many of the other principals in the trial - witnesses, lawyers and family members of the victim - are now deceased.

So is he caught up in appeals, or just waiting for his turn to be executed?

So you think they should have killed him sooner -- if they were going to kill him?

Sorry about the tone of my response, but this case really hits home for me in a way that few other death-penalty cases do.

i won't be positive until you answer my questions, but it seems like your frustration has more to do with the way it was handled, or the system, and other periphery issues than the actual killing of people for being convicted of committing fucked up shit.