Maybe before you start commenting on whether the evidence is overwhelming or weak, it would help if you did some honest analysis on the most damning parts of it. Instead you jdistill it down to an issue of one guy said he was there, and another guy said he was not.

It is true that one issue in this case is that Robert Fitzgerald's eye witness testimony convicted Griffin. Yes it is true that another eye witness who was not called at the trial, Conners, says that he saw the shooters, and that Griffin was not one of them. Conners can at least prove he was at scence, because he himself took a bullet. He says that Robert Fitzgerald was not at the shooting scene. If that is all we had it would be he said/he said. But that isn't all we have, and that isn't all that Herbert says in his article and that isn't the only information availble for someone who wanted to learn all of the facts instead of expressing an uninformed opinion.

The most troubling issue is that the Police Officer who was first on the scene of the crime has changed his story in favor of Griffin's innocence. That police officer, Micheal Ruggeri, stated in court that when he arrived on the scene, that Fitzgerald was giving medical attention to the murder victim. He now says that when he arrived on the scene that the only people present were the murder victim and the wounded Conners. So you actually have two witnesses who say the Fitzgerald was not there. Also, Ruggeri and Conners both undermine Fitzgerald's testimony concerning why he was at the crime scene. According to Fitzgerald, his car was broken down within 20 feet of the shooting. Conners says, that if there had been a car that close, he would have taken shelter behind it. Instead he lay flat on the ground The police officer says that there was no car there when he arrived.

Ruggeri says that he got a description of the car and the shooters from the wounded Conners and that he did not see Fitzgerald at the scene until 3 or 4 minutes later. He says that he asked Fitzgerald at that time if he saw anything and that Fitzgerald said that he saw nothing.

Note that the reason Fitzgerald was in St.Louis was because he was in the witness protection program as a witness in an unrelated case. The jury didn't believe him in that case and acquitted the defendant. Fitzgerald is now deceased and was unvaiable to investigators.

Another matter of note, is that Griffen pled guitly to another murder but maintained that he was innocent in the Moses's killing.

The original prosecutor discounts the NAACP investigation in part by noting that 30 minutes before the shooting, a police detective saw a man who "looked like Griffin" with someone who was carrying something that looked like a shotgon. The shooters used a handgun and a rifle.

Based upon the information developed by the NAACP , St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce has reopened an investigation of the case. Although the murder happend 25 years ago, Joyce has assigned two top lawyers to investigate the crime as if it just happened. The NAACP invesigators have provided Ms. Joyce's office with evidence that they believe points to three individuals who actually committed the murder.

It will be interesting to come back and visit this issue when Joyce's office concludes its investigation and talk about credibility. I'll be looking forward to it.

Keith, those are interesting points, but Herbert didn't include them in his article, so I had no way of knowing about them. The obvious question is why Connors was not called to testify for the defense. There is nothing in the article about Fitzgerald's counsel being incompetent (the usual explanation offered by death penalty opponents for the conviction). The police officer's testimony is interesting, but as Herbert notes:

"The officer says he can't explain why he supported Mr. Fitzgerald's false testimony at the trial."

Well, that's a big red flag. Is he admitting he perjured himself?

I'll admit, the way you and Herbert make it sound, it does seem like maybe the guy was innocent of this particular crime. But the fact remains that he was convicted by a jury which knew a lot more about the case that either you or I.