When accused persons are found not guilty, it's not acceptable to slander them publicly or dispute their innocence in the media or in public forums. So why is it OK to defend convicted criminals and bad mouth prosecution witnesses as one particular poster has done in this instance?

To make occurrences like the convictions of Dreyfus, Timothy Evans, the Birmingham Six or the Al-Jazeera journalists in Egypt less likely in future. The only way to keep the criminal justice system honest is to presume that all judicial procedures are as unjust as the Salem witch trials unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

I have no inside info on the Harris case and haven't been following it, so I'm in neither the "hang him" or "free him" camp.

Does Lizzie actually know anything about it that the rest of us don't?