The SF Chronicle thinks Echols was exonerated


SF lawyer unlocked door for condemned man:

Definition of EXONERATE

1: to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2: to clear from accusation or blame

In one of my most recent posts about the West Memphis 3 hype machine I noted how at least one journalist has fallen for the line of crap spewed forth by the WM3 defenders. It’s not just that journalist either. Many other journalists have fallen in lock and step with the supporters never questioning the WM3 party line.

The article I linked to is an interview with attorney Dennis Riordan. He’s basically the head honcho of the Damien Echols legal team, hired by Echols’ wife Lorri Davis. One of his other clients is Barry Bonds so that should tell you soemthing. In his interview Riordan spews the same old crap about how the ‘DNA evidence’ implicates Terry Hobbs. It doesn’t. This is stuff we’ve all heard before so I was going to pass on posting about this article until i read this sentence from the interview’s author.

Riordan represented Damien Echols, who spent 18 years on death row in Arkansas before he was exonerated and freed in August 2011.

I’m not sure if this is biased journalism or just lazy journalism. The West Memphis 3 were released after accepting an Alford Plea. That isn’t even close to exoneration.

Per Wikipedia

An Alford plea (also called a Kennedy plea in the state of West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, an “I’m guilty but I didn’t do it” plea and the Alford doctrine) in United States law is a guilty plea in criminal court, where the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence. Under the Alford plea, the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Emphasis mine.

Like it or not chalupas, they pleaded guilty and are for the record convicted killers, especially your outcast messiah Echols.

For The Chronicle not to research this well established fact shows that most news media isn’t about the truth but what will get the most eyeballs on their stories.

The SF Chronicle and Craig Newmark. Conflict of interest?


Craigslist Foundation boot camp coming August 14th!:

This is a blog post by Craig Newmark hosted by the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper.

It’s about some symposium that Newmark will be at to promote community through social media or some such. However my issue is not with Newmark but with The Chronicle itself.

Now in The Chronicle’s defense they do post these disclaimers about their blogs.

Editor’s note:
This is an City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content.

City Brights are prominent local citizens and experts with a unique Bay Area perspective that is often enlightening, sometimes infuriating and always thought-provoking.

However with all the crimes that craigslist is facilitating, especially in the areas of prostitution and human trafficking, is this not a conflict of interest? Should The Chronicle be allowing Craig Newmark to generate content for them when craigslist is a classifieds competitor to the Chronicle? Is this why the human trafficking protest at the office of craigslist last month got such negative press?

Granted that Mr. Newmark is merely just the face of craigslist these days however this reeks of some kind of collusion.