Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Probably 13 minutes wasn’t long enough to tell a story this complicated. Here’s what Simon boiled down and left out: There weren’t two lawyers who knew Logan was innocent and signed an affidavit saying so — there were four. One of them had no ethical obligation to Wilson — he represented Wilson’s accomplice in the murder. Furthermore, the police and prosecutorial work that convicted Logan was disgraceful. Evidence as compelling as the murder weapon — which police confiscated during a manhunt for Wilson after he shot and killed two police officers (an unrelated crime) — wasn’t pursued.
Perhaps Kunz and Coventry mean to impress us with how little wiggle room the canons of the law allowed them. But if the canons are that absolute and they obey them that absolutely, then they’re turning ethics into ideology. I wish Simon had stopped them right there and asked if he’d heard right: Without the permission of Wilson, a street thug, the killer of three men, you would have let him rule you from the grave, while an innocent man continued to rot in prison? I suppose they would have, but I’d much rather believe they had no intention of allowing such a travesty and realized that if they asked Wilson’s permission he might refuse it—and might even put his refusal in writing. No, I’d much rather they were telling us a white lie now than believe that they’d actually have let those canons keep Logan in prison forever.
There will be more here and elsewhere. ABC World News is working up a story of its own.
