No, we aren't.after several exchanges I think you and I are both saying much the same thing.
No, what is misleading is your refusal to acknowledge that the only claims remaining to Echols are actual innocence claims.What is misleading is your demand that supporters produce "proof of actual innocence" when that is not required to overturn a verdict.
Not in Echol's case - those claims have all been exausted years ago.Certainly appellants have the burden of showing a trial was procedurally flawed
The only reason the Federal court has held his Habeas Corpus writ in abeyance all these years is so that he could exaust the State DNA claim.
I suggest you look into not only Echol's dockets, but the actual appeals process in general.