Arella Mae, you are arguing with a person who expresses almost nothing but anger and contempt, regardless of the topic.
BillRM is so self-righteous and arrogant he is definitely in the same category as the type of religious person (really more of a straw-man) he continuously stereotypes and attacks, but he is unable to see that and, he's so defensive, I doubt you'll be able to help him see that.
Even in this thread, apart from the obvious fact that his comments are based in almost no knowledge of the legal case, he is the one who fails to respect differing opinions. Those who feel that the WM3 were unjustly convicted on the basis of flimsy evidence will of course feel relieved about their release. Those convinced that the three are guilty, will feel upset about it. But, BillRM seems unable to grasp that legitimate difference of opinion, or the fact that this case has gone on for 18 years, with many appeals decisions and rulings which have also affected people's perceptions of the guilt or innocence of these three men. Instead, he harps on the fact that, because these three were convicted by juries, no one should entertain the thought that the verdicts might have been wrong.
Despite any real knowledge of what went on in that community at the time of the trials, or the many factors that might have tainted the justice process during those trials, BillRM has decided that the original verdicts are all that count, and that they trump all other considerations regarding the possible wrongful incarceration of three men, and the near execution of one of them. His insensitivity to the value of human life--the lives of these three men--is breathtaking. Three children were brutally murdered, and justice for those victims would not be served by the wrongful imprisonment of possibly innocent men.
This case should always have been a search for the truth of what happened to those children, but a rush to judgment, in an atmosphere of community near-hysteria, may have seriously obstructed that search. The doubts that people have about those original verdicts are very legitimate doubts, and if BillRM had any real knowledge of this case, he would be aware of that. Instead of intelligently discussing why the differences of opinion exist, and persist, which would be hard for him to do given his lack of familiarity with this case, he instead resorts to snide comments, sarcasm, and insults--juvenile tactics rather than meaningful discussion--directed at those who are relieved that the WM3 might finally have received some measure of justice at the hands of the state. He seems to be doing this only to satisfy his own needs for attention, but, in the process, he clearly reveals his lack of respect for anyone else's opinions. It's his way or the highway--and people who are that rigid and inflexible in their thinking cannot meaningfully discuss any topic with anyone--and BillRM proves that in thread after thread.
Since BillRM has such apparent faith in those original jury verdicts, I would like him to tell us what evidence that was presented at those trials that he found the most compelling. What about the evidence convinced him that these three men were guilty of those murders beyond a reasonable doubt?
I mean, surely he can't be dumb enough to feel that, just because a jury says so, means that their verdict is irrefutable proof of guilt or innocence, beyond just the legal pronouncement. Did he even agree with the O.J. verdict, or the Casey Anthony verdict? What about all the men wrongfully convicted of rape who were later exonerated by new DNA evidence? Would he cling to their original jury verdicts too? BillRM knows full well that people in the public make up their own minds about guilt, apart from the jury verdict--he himself does that all the time.
So, I want to repeat what I said before, in (a probably futile) attempt to engage BillRM in a meaningful discussion about the actual substance of this legal case. There is no point in his quibbling about whether people should or should not feel relieved or happy about the release of the WM3, if he doesn't understand and address the legal issues in this case that have resulted in those differing emotions. So...
Since BillRM has such apparent faith in those original jury verdicts, I would like him to tell us what evidence that was presented at those trials that he found the most compelling in terms of pointing to guilt. What about the evidence at trial convinced him that these three men were guilty of those murders beyond a reasonable doubt?