Having provided undisclosed research for both civil and criminal cases, I have been thinking about the resulting outcomes, especially criminal cases, where convictions are overturned due to a technicality. For example, ineffective assistance of counsel (extremely common), fruit of the poisonous tree (rare), etc. When news of a notorious killer, take Joseph E. Duncan III, appeals their sentencing, for example. Most who followed that case are outraged. And, arguably, rightly so... even though appeals must be afforded to all, due to potential innocents. This, btw, is why I do not support the calls for the governor, or the president, for that matter, to pardon SA or Brendan. While I do think Brendan made a false confession, due to the paucity of evidence of him actually being at the various crime scenes (i.e., the bedroom, garage, etcetera), I also think it is extremely important that these cases stay within the appeals courts. Even if the results seem unfair. To do otherwise, imho, would set a dangerous precedent. As for SA? While I have toyed with alternate theories, and even feel the prosecution did not make their case beyond a reasonable doubt, I am still of the opinion that the man is guilty of murdering Ms. Halbach. It should be stated however, if Ms. Zellner finds exculpatory evidence, I have no problem changing my pov. In any event, I have been mulling this over, and am interested in what others think.