Quick himself participated actively with the prosecutors. Hardly a good example for anything other than how liars frequently collaborate to create an even bigger lie. Wake up, mate. If he had not confessed, he would be a free man now because then they would actually have had to prove things.
You are using a highly publicised and highly unusual case to make a mostly unrelated point. It's OK. Just don't expect me or anyone else to accept the reasoning.
So if a lunatic "confesses" to have committed several crimes you should take his words for it without the most thorough examination of every detail?
Same thing again. You can't stand the thought that prosecutors and cops are themselves criminals who bust an innocent lunatic to promote their careers and by doing this are letting real murderers get away. That thought is unbearable to you, because in your world authorities "must" be trustworthy. So it's better to say "Well, it's his own fault. This is an unusual case".
Not what I said. Read my post again.
Liars collaborating was what I said. Notice how I didn't exactly call anyone involved trustworthy? Yes, it's a sad, sad case where the real murderers are still at large, but it's not proof of anything, Lit, except that there was no justice involved in his case. I never thought it was a bad thing to have him locked in because he was so clearly a nutter but sadly the investigations all stalled with his conviction.
What that has to do with the discussion at hand and what Schleed said about his uncle being a nice and liberal guy I have no idea.
But I suppose that is what discussion boards are for.