You're right, I don't get at all where you're coming from here. How in the world you can say a man who shot an unarmed person through a locked door, underwent police and prosecutor's investigations, had private counsel, and was unanimously convicted in a jury trial, was somehow "railroaded" is way beyond me. In what possible sense is that the case? This defending of Wafer here by you and others really seems to have some other motivation beyond the pure facts of the case, which is why I asked the question about what the interest is in continuing to do so.

As for stretching the truth, how in the world are the chapped hands and footprints of the victim any possible legal excuse for the killing that occurred? How is citing those legally inconsequential things not going to great lengths to try to build an excuse for a crime?