Now that the merry go round of deja vu arguments has hopefully died, can we take a closer look at the District Attorney's actions please? He has.. 1) Insisted that the wm3 sexually molested, mutilated and murdered three children. 2) Agreed to every petition for evidence testing put forward by the defense. 3) Irrelevantly, and gratuitously, attached Jessie's post conviction confession to the back of a response to DNA requests. 4) Refused an offer from Damien Echols defense to move straight to a retrial. 5) Refused an offer from Jason Baldwin's defense to let the other two engage in an Allford plea deal without him. 6) Demanded that Jason Baldwin enter an Allford plea after Jason put on record that he would prefer a retrial, on pain of cancelling the deal with the other two. 7) Told several lies, or at best half truths, in the press conference immediately following the wm3's release. 8) Agreed to let three men, who he publically claims to believe are sadistic, sexual child killers, (see point 1), go free with time served. 9) Places no travel restrictions on them. 10) Allows two of them to associate with each other. 11) Allows all three an exception to appear at a film premiere together, despite that being against their release conditions. Does anybody understand where the DA is coming from after reading the above? I mean, it looks in parts as if he thinks the wm3 are guilty and he's trying to do the right thing. Then it looks, in other parts, like he's an idiotic paper pusher who is merely trying to cover the various cock ups made by the police, prosecutors and judge. Then again, in other parts, it almost looks as if he is sympathetic to the wm3 and their supporters. I just don't know what to make of him. If I was in his voting constituency I would be really torn between throwing rotten eggs at him, or campaigning for his re-election. What do the rest of you think?