The October commentary focused on objectivity "as a way of life." We stressed the need for an investigator never to be so entwined with the conclusion he or she reaches that there is never room for doubt. When new evidence appears -- even if subsequent to the issuance of a report -- we would expect an investigator to fairly consider its implications and make adjustments as appropriate.

Since the October commentary we found a news release dealing with a person convicted of the murder of security guard. Michael Austin, the convicted murderer, had to this point served 27 years in jail. The reason for the article was that the recent reassessment of the evidence in the case had convinced the Governor of Maryland that the accused had been wrongly convicted. Among the evidentiary issues that appeared convincing were the following.

1. The person's time sheets at work provided corroborating evidence to his claim that he was at work at the time the murder took place. His attorney never placed such documents into evidence.

2. Co-workers had been available who could have testified of his presence at work, but again were not called as witnesses by his attorney.

3. An eyewitness had first told the police that the killer was, "a light-skinned black man, about 5-foot-8. Austin is 6-foot-5 and dark-skinned."

The facts so far suggest a travesty, a circumstance of tragic proportions, perhaps even Kafkaesque. But the article's slant on the matter is even more infuriating. The writer implies that the culprit is an incompetent defense attorney (now deceased) who failed to call witnesses or subpoena relevant documents. I would argue that whatever the failings of the attorney, the police and prosecutor exhibited more blameful behavior. It would be a dereliction of their responsibilities to have brought charges without first having themselves collected evidence of the sort noted above. But more frightening is the possibility that they knew of the exonerating evidence and refused to seriously consider its clear implications for Austin's innocence.

Again we see public officials -- individuals who have in their power the ability to deny liberty, and even life, to defendants -- who are so blinded by the notion of "winning" that they choose clearly immoral methods to achieve that flimsy objective. Investigators (and prosecutors) only win when they collect all the relevant evidence in a case, and they collect it correctly. They only win when they draw logical conclusions based on that evidence.

Our society loses immeasurably when a silly sort of individual glory overcomes any sense of decency among those with whom we entrust the criminal justice system. And although we can never really get into the head of those who perpetrated this injustice, we can easily believe that they had some ulterior motive to ignore such evidence that as so easily accessible to anyone who was committed to finding the truth.