I just read through all fourteen pages of the LA Times story and come away feeling that while the young Bruce Lisker was no angel, there is far more than reasonable doubt concerning his guilt. Monsue's discredited letter to the parole board (PDF) smacks, if not of a dirty cop, at least a cop who doesn't like to admit the possibility that he may be wrong and is willing to lie (perhaps even to himself) in order to foreclose such a possibility even being considered.

My opening question (What if Lisker is released pending possible retrial or appeal?) is not a question based on the idea that he is guilty or represents some intolerable risk to society. It's a question of what happens as a practical matter, i.e. how does someone in this situation find a place to live, pay their bills and just generally live/get along day to day with this matter both in their past and continuing to hang over their heads?

To a large extent, those same questions apply to anyone who has spent years incarcerated. (I tend to believe that much recidivism is the result of former inmates not being able to get a fresh start once released, effectively relegated to poor jobs and hope-sapping poverty outside of prison.)

The potential culprit pointed to in the LA Times article is dead and if he was in fact the murderer, no justice is possible. It seems that this was a sloppy and perhaps intentionally tainted ("Hey, he's the guy! Why waste time looking at any facts that say otherwise?") investigation. I hope that there is, if not a happy ending, at least a fair and just ending.