It really is a very weirdly framed article, it makes it out as if everyone else was wrong and forceful and she was simply being brave and good by speaking up nearly 30 years later, even though while it was wrong of the cops to not investigate properly, as a juror she had the duty to speak up.
It's nice she eventually did, but it doesn't make her an admirable person for only doing it after the victim lost a third of his life.
But why are you most angry at the juror who stuck with her conviction the longest? There were 11 other jurors who convicted the man without a second thought.
Don’t get me wrong, they weren’t great either. Some of them probably racist bullies, others just wanted to convict the guy who the cops said did the really bad things because “Police and state guy say you did it” is enough for some people.
But “I sat with the knowledge I had given the wrong verdict while a man rotted in jail for 30 years” doesn’t come across as the heroic or even mildly positive story the journalist seemed to be going for in the article either. It’s good she did something about it eventually but it’s good in a “So I finally stopped punching my dog in the face” kinda way. Poor fucking guy had his life stolen and she’s part of the reason why.
Is she worse than the other actors in this shameful play? No of course not. But I’m not sure there are any heroes here.
It's nice she eventually did, but it doesn't make her an admirable person for only doing it after the victim lost a third of his life.