Interesting quotes from the internet that somebody might examine.
1) "This has nothing to do with right or wrong," he said. "I am innocent. You are killing an innocent man. I have tried to tell you over and over."
~ Joseph Mulligan, just before his execution in 1987
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/05/16/Mulligan-dies-blaming-his-lawyers/9929548136000/
http://joshsmith.xyz/audio-witness-to-an-electrocution-the-georgia-execution-tapes/
"Much of the prosecution's case rested on the testimony of Timothy Helms, who was granted immunity in return for testifying that Mr. Mulligan shot Captain Doe once in the head and Mrs. Miller four times."
"Mr. Mulligan maintained that he was not guilty. He said he was on a bus traveling from Atlanta to Savannah when the killings occurred."
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/16/us/georgia-man-executed-after-appeal-to-high-court.html
"When Fitt first contacted Mulligan, the appellant insisted that he had not been in Columbus on the day of the crime, but had been with his family in Beaufort, South Carolina. Fitt explained to Mulligan that a "family alibi" is not often persuasive, and would probably result in a conviction, but Mulligan was adamant. Immediately thereafter, the prosecutor, Mr. Mullins Whisnant, indicated his willingness to recommend a life sentence if Mulligan would plead guilty. Once again, Fitt explained this to his client and told him that a plea would be "a safe way to go if there was any danger at all of ... being convicted." Fitt Deposition at 15. Mulligan was adamant that he did not commit the crime and would not plead guilty."
https://murderpedia.org/male.M/m1/mulligan-joseph.htm
The prosecution claims the two victims were sitting in the front seat of a moving car, and the two killers, Mulligan and the person who testified in exchange for immunity, were sitting in the back seat.
Then, the prosecution claims, the first victim was killed by a shot from the person in the back seat, who then told the other killer to grab the steering wheel.
The driver was shot in the left eye and the bullet exited the right temple.
https://notinmyname.livejournal.com/22789.html
There are a lot of problems with the story the prosecution presented. One very obvious problem was that this was supposedly a premeditated murder, and according to the prosecution the killers had a lot of opportunities and places to commit the murder. But they waited until they were sitting in the back seat of a moving car, with a second victim who was not a target.
This looks a lot more like a simple carjacking or robbery which the police 'fakesolved' by fabricating their case.
On April 12, 1974 the victims were murdered.
In August the accused was indicted. In other words there were no immediate witnesses nor anything leading to a quick arrest, despite numerous gunshots in a moving car that then hit a mailbox and a stop sign.
The police eventually claimed they had two witnesses, plus one of the killers, granted immunity, who could identify the killer.
The prosecutor claimed that a partial fingerprint on the car window matched the accused, but at the trial that fingerprint testimony was 'weakened'.
The accused had a strong 'family alibi', but his own lawyer told him that a family alibi would not work, and appears to have pressured him to change it. Numerous character witnesses were offered who would testify, but none were used at the court.
There is no indication the accused had any history of crime, and the motive, theft, is somewhat contradicted by the prosecutor's story that the supposed killer paid the supposed accomplice $1,000 to drive him to the killing.
Nobody explains why he would benefit from life insurance on his brother in law. The implication is that the prosecutor suggests his sister was part of the plot, but that was never mentioned explicitly. The appearance is that the prosecutor is applying pressure for a guilty plea by making an implicit threat against the accused's sister.
The general circumstances of the killing, going to socialize with the brother in law, then killing him in a moving car, make no sense.
There are many smaller indications as well that the series of events described by the prosecution is not accurate.
https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1980/35314-1.html
https://openjurist.org/771/f2d/1436/mulligan-v-kemp
~
2) "The fox I'm holding up was an exciting catch, because for days he successfully avoided our snare sets, even relieving himself on a few of them ... but we figured him out and now he'll be part of warm hat. Animal furs are truly the only way to avoid frostbite during Alaska winters,"
"Next week we're hoping for a wolf."
In Progress