Ed Graf has completed nearly 25
years of a life sentence for burning his two stepsons to death. The evidence
against him was damning...until it wasn’t. The science, apparently never proven
even at the time of Graf’s conviction, has now changed even more. Bullshit
theories, once widely accepted for no other reason than that they were widely
accepted, have given way to testing and reasoned judgment.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
has ruled that Graf will either get a new trial, or be released. The
prosecution can still bring charges, but they will not have any evidence of
arson to use against him; why not? Because even their own expert says that
there was none.
There is a significant pile of
circumstantial evidence against this man, such as insurance policies taken out
on each of his children; in movies that is always
a clear indicator of guilt and I imagine it was reported with much glee by the
media at the time. Ed Graf was no angel, having been fired from a bank for
embezzlement previously.
I make no assumption of Mr. Graf’s
guilt or innocence. The life insurance policies, while appearing suspicious
when they are reported as nothing but life insurance policies, were actually also
college funds. He may have simply been responsibly planning for his children’s
future. Embezzlement, if he committed that, is a non-violent, fairly passive
crime.
But I want to draw your attention
to this quote from the ABC article:
“Prosecutors support a new trial for Graf on the basis
of the new analysis, but insist he is guilty.
"In a capital murder case, letting a conviction stand in light of the possibility that an individual
was convicted on science now known to be false is unconscionable,"
prosecutors said in a January court filing.”
(Emphasis mine)
In my mind, there is no better
attitude for the justice system to have. They believe he’s guilty, but they’re
not willing to use that belief as a shield against proving it.
Next post, I want to talk about the changing opinions on the signs of abuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment