Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has yet another question to pose to his readers today.

Why are some people always convinced of a convicted killer’s pleas of innocence? Regardless of the killer being named Mumia, “Tookie,” or Coleman… Someone is always willing to believe the convict. Why is that? Your Maximum Leader is fine with believing someone’s word all through the accusation and trial. But after the trial ends in conviction your Maximum Leader starts on his “why should I believe the convict” mode. Mebbe that makes him a bad person. Mebbe his experience tells him that convicts - or should he say convicted felons to be more specific - have a general tendency to lie… Particularly where the question concerns their guilt or innocence.

In case you missed it, Roger Keith Coleman - who was executed in 1992 - did actually rape and murder his sister-in-law. The latest DNA tests confirm it. Of course, none of this evidence is new. An old DNA tests (you know the old completely unreliable ones that were used in the OJ trial) pointed the bloody finger of guilt at Roger Keith Coleman back in 1990.

This is a news story because for many years a number of groups have said that Coleman was innocent and executed. The current Governor of Virginia, and presidential hopeful, Mark Warner agreed to allow DNA laden samples from the crime scene and from Coleman’s person be tested to (he hoped) prove that Coleman was guilty. Tests in. Coleman guilty. Now perhaps we can all move on to some other case…

Carry on.