etaka wrote:
> mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote
> 
> 
>>>That was a very amusing premise. Since they were already convicted, ie
>>>"guilty", how would the researchers know they should not have been?
>>
>>Looking at things such as lousey lawyers (ie, fell asleep during the
>>trial), suppressed evidence, etc.
> 
> 
> Having a poor defense or having evidence suppressed does not mean one
> is not guilty. It's not like finding different DNA on a dead rape
> victim, years after another man is executed for it.
> 

True, but the article mentioned that. It is one of the best arguments 
that the false imprisonment rate generated by the study is a generous 
overestimate.

KWW