I don't think you'll find any reference to that thought in my post. Feel free to assume--it's your choice.

My point was that this particular situation, in which a key witness has recanted and others have admitted the crime, is one in which there are "mitigating circumstances" in the eyes of some for which the end justifies the means.

It will be easy for some to dismiss this case because the man who was convicted and executed "deserved killin' anyway"--he was a known gang member and drug dealer who was himself suspected in several shootings and killings. Of course, the point is that he was executed for something he didn't do, and convicted on false, perjured, and perhaps some manufactured evidence.

A slam-dunk case, such as those where those wrongly convicted were exonerated by DNA evidence, would have been preferable. Circumvents all those nasty moral ambiguities, you know.