This was broadcast on "Al Jazeera America" highlighting the case of death row inmate Willie Mannings.
JB: When you heard about the FBI sending out letters that there was bad testimony about the forensics in your case and a whole bunch of other cases, how did you react to that?
JB: When you heard about the FBI sending out letters that there was bad testimony about the forensics in your case and a whole bunch of other cases, how did you react to that?
WM: That was a huge sense of relief, especially because it sheds a light on so many other cases where this has happened. I believe that the State knows that they have an innocent person incarcerated.
"I believe" is a weak assertion. To "believe" allows for others to believe otherwise. He does not state that the State knows they have an innocent man, nor does he state that he is, in fact, that innocent man.
JB: If you had to boil it down in a nutshell, what do you want people to know about your case?
WM: We should take a closer look at the system as a whole. My case will bring a lot to light. I don’t believe that there’s any perfect system. But this is not as advertised. This system is broken. You have many, many, many more Willie Mannings out there, who came before me and as long as the system stays the same there’ll be many more coming behind me.
To avoid a reliable denial by bringing forth "many, many many..." is not expected. Evidence being faulty is different than "I didn't kill..." Any of these questions, from de facto innocence, should produce the reliable denial which uses the pronoun, "I"
JB: What is your hope for the future? Do you think this is going to work itself out?
WM: One day. I thought it would be a lot sooner. I thought it’d be back in 1997 or so. But when you have innocent people, then you have innocent people for real, and those who are for real can never lose hope.
The subject does not say that he did not do it, nor does he directly state his innocence.
7 comments:
I had been looking forward to seeing what Gerry and Kate Mccann would say at the libel trial today in Portugual. But looks like they didn’t speak today after all.
News today “Madeleine libel trial suspended for ten days as Amaral changes lawyer”
Gerry and Kate are not happy about this. So for that I am happy. They have had way to much work for them and so even the slightest annoyance to them makes me happy.
"WM: One day. I thought it would be a lot sooner. I thought it’d be back in 1997 or so. But when you have innocent people, then you have innocent people for real, and those who are for real can never lose hope."
__________
He seems to further distance himself from the innocent "for real" by using "those". He does not include himself in this group. I wonder what a follow on question regarding "hope" would have elicited from him?
He was given three chances to say he didn't do it and he didn't. He couldn't even give the old I'm innocent statement.
I don't know - I never heard the reporter ask him if he was guilty, if he killed someone, if he was innocent, what really happened etc. Why would he need to issue a reliable denial at this point? He has been released from prison and the assumption is, surely in his mind and the reporter's mind at least, that he is innocent. So looking for a reliable denial when one isn't expected because that is not what the conversation is about doesn't make sense to me.
What the H are you talking about, wreyter72? He has not been released from prison. He has been sentenced to death twice for different crimes. He is on death row twice.
This case isn't worthy of this site.
We'll excuse the H out of me Anon 246. LOL. I thought this was the case of the man recently freed, duh. Stuff happens, man.
Post a Comment