jimicus

Whoa.

Hang on a minute.

Are you seriously suggesting that the difference between results for Ricky and a.n.other wrongly convicted person could come down to Ricky writing to his lawyer and suggesting avenues for investigation - and Mr. A.n.other discussing it verbally so having no written evidence that such avenues had been discussed?

So does that mean you don't actually know if you're in Heaven or Hell until you try the beer?

In terms of the very rich I think they should pay a lot more in taxes and they should give away their wealth over time. It has been very fulfilling for me and is my full time job.

​

Considering how much lobbying power the very rich have, what steps have you taken to lobby for this?

Sounds a bit like a pilot. Most of the time a computer's doing the driving; the driver earns his money when something goes horribly wrong with the automated systems.

Yeah, I understand that.

But the point I'm driving at is that Mr. A.N. Other might be languishing in a cell, charged with murder but yet to face trial, thinking "It's okay, once my lawyer follows up the stuff I told her to, I'll be out of here. Probably won't even be a trial". He takes solace in thinking he'll be a free man soon, and doesn't bother to write any letters.

By the time he realises she didn't do her job, it's too late. He's being railroaded through a process that is far more interested in sending someone to prison than in finding the truth.

And - as you say - his options in terms of appeal look a lot grimmer. A strong avenue ("My lawyer didn't do her job!") is effectively closed because there's no evidence.

If that doesn't scare the shit out of anyone, I don't know what would. "There but for the grace of God...." and all that.