Hank Skinner Case

From the readings on the Hank Skinner case, I think that injustice was averted in the case. Regardless of the findings of additional testing, Skinner has a right to due process, which includes the examination of all evidence available. While I cannot make a claim regarding Skinner's innocence, the seemingly one-sided nature of the control of evidence seems to directly benefit those prosecuting a case. The cost-benefit of the situation clearly favored a stay of execution. There is no way to undo an execution, but a stay allows for the full pursuit of justice while taking precautions against an uncorrectable mistake.
Many of the articles seemed to take a one sided approach when reporting on the Skinner case. The primary focus of the articles tended to be on the impact the findings of the appellate courts would have on the broader justice system in Texas. The articles also tended to focus on the lack of DNA testing that had taken place, and offered little additional insight into why the prosecution declined to pursue DNA testing and why the court did not require the evidence be tested. The assumptions made in the articles do not foster a sense of objectivity.
The two web sites provide an interesting contrast in the case for the general public. Based on my readings from each site, I would imagine that the creators of each site possess only as much knowledge as any member of the public. Both websites fail to project a sense of objectivity or analysis, both completely forgoing any sort of fair representation. The similar construction of each site is interesting, in that both could have been made by the same individual. Both sites served to sensationalize the case in each polar extreme. Neither tool is particularly effective at persuasion due to the lack of consideration given for a balanced argument. I wonder what the motivation was for the creators of the sites. I also wonder which site was created first.
The ability for propaganda postings like these sites to influence public opinion is real. A waterfall effect can stem from unaccredited sources like these. A single mainstream journalist could fail to perform their due diligence and lend credence to some of the more moderate arguments made in the postings. The arguments made on both side focus more on sensationalism and generalization than actual matters of fact. This threatens both the integrity of the justice system and the ability of the accused, beyond just Skinner, to receive a fair trial.