A fascinating read, scholaris. It should make one question the processes of our legal system. Just because someone is convicted doesn't mean they were guilty. Similarly, just because someone was declared innocent doesn't mean they weren't guilty.
A faulty argument i've seen made in a number of verdicts is that the 'victim had no reason to lie'. This is like trying to ascribe method to madness.
Thank you very much. One of the more conflicting cases in that list was Nathaniel Woods. The public speculation in it varied greatly. On the one hand, Woods clearly violated Alabama's accomplice law. The state had the right to charge him accordingly. Society at large proclaimed him innocent of not shooting the police officers, but never addressed his culpability of the crime.
Also, misconduct between defense and prosecution sealed Woods' fate. Since Woods didn't play ball with the prosecution, the prosecutor suddenly proclaimed that Woods was the mastermind. However, had the defense adequately prepared Woods, then he would never have seen the death penalty. I wonder if that was deliberate on the defense's part or sheer incompetence.