[srge]

Although I'm not an expert on this case, it's wise to remain skeptical when hearing only one party's perspective on a court decision. The science in question might be dubious, but there could be other evidence, or the story might be more complex than it appears.

I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but we've already witnessed significant exaggerations and manipulations from the defense in public cases. The Serial podcast comes to mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer.

[rossant]

Anyone can make their own opinion by reading the petition [1] and the opposition to the petition. [2]

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/266633/202...

[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/202...

[gregw2]

Thank you, the second document was a helpful counterbalanced context to the original post and helpful in my assessment whether I should write the Texas governor for clemency.

A lot of people have spent a lot of time reviewing this case. It’s not so simple.

[jjulius]

>I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but we've already witnessed significant exaggerations and manipulations from the defense in public cases. The Serial podcast comes to mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer.

None of what you're referring to is new at all, and, unless this idea/concept is new to you (which is OK!), shouldn't really cause a shift in worldview. Parties on each side of cases such as these will often exaggerate and attempt to manipulate the court of public opinion, have done so for eons, and will continue to do so.

[gregw2]

For this case, I did a quick scan for the “other perspective” and ran across this, for those interested:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/11/robert-roberson-texa...

I have not yet found a link to the 2023 appeals court ruling.