The Guardian | May 1, 2012
Rupert Murdoch deemed 'not a fit person' to run international company - "Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate conceded that MPs had fastened on 'hard truths' in a parliamentary report into the phone-hacking scandal that also concluded he was 'not a fit person' to exercise stewardship of a major international company. A chastened News Corporation accepted that the culture, media and sport select committee was right to highlight 'serious wrongdoing at the News of the World' and that its response to hacking allegations was 'slow and too defensive'. It also accepted the committee's verdict that former employees misled parliament, including the former editor of the News of the World. But Murdoch's company adopted a more defensive tone in responding to the MPs' hostile description of its 81-year-old patriarch, noting that it considered the verdict 'unjustified and highly partisan' because it was only agreed following a vote that saw five Labour MPs and the sole Liberal Democrat, Adrian Sanders, outvoting a Conservative bloc."

The link to Parliament's report is HERE. The damning language on Murdoch is found on page 75 of the report, Item No. 229, which reads as follows:

"On the basis of the facts and evidence before the Committee, we conclude that, if at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications. This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude,therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company."

"I could have" misheard Roger Clemens tell me he used human growth hormone."

He won silver at the 2008 Olympics and Gold at last year's world champs. He won Gold just 3 days after Norway lost 77 people in their Columbine-esque tragedy.

26 y/o.

I can't imagine how his family and country feel.

I wanted to reply, but I didn't want my comment deleted for being off-topic. So ... I'm putting it here in case anyone else finds it interesting. Of course, the IP is making an argument, not trying to show both sides. If you want both sides, you may want to start with this article by a local newspaper.

It certainly sounds like the prosecution made mistakes. But I can understand why charges were brought in the first place. A medical examiner (I think that was his title) went back and forth, but concluded that Christine Morton had been killed before her husband said he went to work. It helped that the Mortons had eaten at a restaurant, and so, investigators knew when and what she had eaten.

Christine's family and friends told investigators that they suspected her husband, who they said was controlling and kept fighting with her because she wouldn't acquiesce to sex with him as much as he wanted. He had left a note to her, complaining that she had not had sex with him the night before, on his birthday. He later said that he was upset, but not angry.  

The police reported that a sheriff's deputy searched a nearby construction site on the day of the murder and found only an old bandanna, but it had no blood on it.

The next day, the victim's brother came to investigators with a baggie containing a bloody bandanna that he said he found at the construction site. There was no DNA testing then, and certainly no unbroken chain of custody. Attorneys argued over its admissibility, and the attorneys for Michael Morton -- well-respected Austin defense lawyers -- said they would try to verify its authenticity, but it was not brought up in trial.

Recent DNA testing of the bandanna was what exonerated Morton.

Here's what else the Innocence Project mentions: The victim's mother told an investigator what her 3-year-old grandchild told her -- that the man with her mother was a monster, presumably not "Daddy." But 3-year-olds weren't (and perhaps still aren't) considered reliable witnesses. Murderers sometimes wear masks or other things to hide their identity. Plus, the father had had sole custody for several weeks.