No rational person, hearing from all parties involved, can conclude anything but that Lorinda Swain was knowingly wrongfully accused by her son and then wrongfully convicted by the court. Now that her son and his brother have recanted and other witnesses have come forth, the motivation behind the county prosecutor's actions is downright pathological. Apparently, it is just too much for her office to admit that a mistake had been made by one of her predecessors. When Judge Sindt ruled for a retrial, if the prosecutor is so convinced that Lorinda is guilty, then why doesn't she retry her? The obvious reason is that she has no case. She has no credible witnesses willing to testify against Lorinda. So, instead, she takes the cowardly way out and appeals the judge's decision. And one has to wonder about what is in the mind of an appeals court, which chooses to overturn the original trial judge's ruling for a retrial. On what basis does an appeals court think they know better than the original trial judge?

Carl Marlinga drove home the point that a prosecutor's calling is not to win cases, but to seek justice. It is sad how so many prosecutors operate on other principles. No, I don't think they are all bad; many are very good. But when they are bad, they are so bad! because they have the power to ruin people's lives, something they care little about.