Quote From: hotinpaI am not the mom in your quote I am the other mom. I took it upon myself to question the system after my son's conviction. I reviewed all the evidence In doing so I have found evidence of innocence that was overlooked. This evidence makes the confession false. You say that a jury of their peers ( many people) took the time to hear all the evidence and come to a conclusion. Not in this case. They did not hear it all. The defense says that this case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not a scientist, however, when scientists ( 4) tell me that my son was not there I believe them. So what I am saying is that this mom did her homework and did not make a statement of innocence without evidence to support it.
Dear Hot in PA
I am MWHMom, thanks for the support. I also looked fully in to my son's case and there is overwhelming proof of his innocence. Because of the court appointed lawyers in our case and their failure to investigate the crime all of the evidence was overlooked. Of course every Mother wants to eblieve that her son could never do anything like this but when you uncover proof that he didn't and you have experts to back you up then it makes it just not a Mother thing any longer. I have always said that if the prosecution had proof ( not just the word of a jailhouse snitch and a false confession of a co-defendant, both of who got deals and are no longer in prison) then I would accept it and go on.
For the person that dosen't believe that a conviction can be had by just a jailhouse snitch an a false confession then they should read the Beverly Monroe case.
