A texas man was charged and executed with the murder of his children by arson. When he was questioned about the deaths of his children he came up with multiple stories all differing from one another. This could easily be due to shock. Then the police started coming up with more and more evidence against him such as: gas stains on the wall, and no electrical damage (as he claimed). Things started looking worse and worse for him but he still held his innocent claim. He claimed he didn't murder his children right up until they injected him with toxins.
The real controversy here is his innocence. Even though there was no hard evidence proving that he committed the murders, he was still charged with murder. The lawyers begged him to plea guilty with a life-sentence, but he stuck to his innocence and paid the highest price. Did he give up his life to prove his innocence or was it simply a con to force people to stop thinking of him as a murderer. Did we execute a human being without knowing for sure what happened?
No comments:
Post a Comment