No, I'd say that's significant, if true. But I'd also say a lot of information is left out or possibly misrepresented.
1- lack of a gun or DNA means nothing, this isn't the fantasy world of CSI. Remember that the shell casings were linked to a shooting earlier that Davis was at.That's significant in my opinion, cuz it really narrows down the number of possible suspects to a small group.
2- if the witnesses were threatened with having charges fabricated against them then that would be significant, and yes, a new trial should be given. But if they were given a deal to reduce other nonrelated charges against them (remember the guy he bragged to in his jail cell and his friend that testified against him ) in return for testifying against Davis, and this is being twisted into intimidation.... well then that means nothing either. And what is this alarming number? 1? One notices that the number is never given, only referred to as an "alarming number", an obvious ploy to appeal to the emotions rather than to the logic.
3- the guilty always profess their innocence, so this means nothing.
4- why did many of the witnesses recant 'years later'? When I hear that, I assume that these were the same people that say they were intimidated back then, but were really given a deal to testify, and now wish to recant now that the statute of limitations on their prior charges has expired. This is never examined in the anti DP crowd, because if I'm right, would hurt their cause. However, I admit to have no knowledge of this, but it proves my belief that your quote leaves a lot of information out. If they really wanted to raise serious doubts about his conviction, they should try to anticipate these questions and answer them beforehand.
5- "some of the witnesses didn't get the chance to recant......" But the question is - WOULD they have recanted back then, or are these the same guys that now have had their statute of limitations run out on them now, if I am indeed correct in my theory? And how many is "some"? Again, this Q should have been answered beforehand by the anti DP crowd waaaaay before this point. Facts and specifics are glossed over to appeal to the emotional folks again, rather than presenting evidence that could be used in court.
6- ".... procedural bind...." Again a red herring with the goal of appealing to the overly emotional. It really takes an unreasonably cynical person to actually believe that there is absolutely no way to get this case looked at if there is new evidence. Here's a circumstance where new DNA evidence would absolutely prove his innocence - so it's a lie to say that this is an impossibly high standard. Another appeal to the overly emotional. But what exactly is the beef here? There's NOT any new evidence, but some witnesses that would recant their testimony, which means that if they didn't testify back then, then this wouldn't have happened in court, which doesn't necessarily mean that he would have been found innocent. There could have been other another way to pursue the prosecution of Davis under these circumstances. Too many variables to list....
In the end, you need to realize that the stories one reads in the newspapers, etc are all about selling product. And sensationalism sells. Also you need to realize that the anti DP crowd feel passionate about their beliefs - which I can respect - and will lie if they feel they need to in order to get what they want. I don't know how old you are, but I remember a case back in the late 80's of some kids going 'wilding' in NY Central Park. They beat a 110 lb woman jogger nearly to death - crushed her skull, she lost 2/3 of her blood, and was pronounced doa at the hospital, even though she survived - and raped her. The kids bragged about it in the jail, confessed about it on videotape to the cops with their parents sitting there. There was semen found on the woman, but it wasn't from any of the 6 defendants. But newspapers at the time claimed that since the semen didn't come from any of the 6, they were all innocent - which is bullshit because they weren't convicted on the semen evidence, but rather on their confession. And here's the kicker - 10 yrs later news stories come out with the breathtaking story that new DNA evidence proves that the 6 were innocent - a total lie. It only proved that there was a sixth, unidentified kid there - a point that the 6 admitted to when they said that there 'some dude they didn't know taking his turn'.
Always remember who's giving you the facts before you make a judgement...
