Case of political posing?

Re "D.A. to retry Lisker in mother's 1983 slaying," Aug. 22

I am so happy to see that the district attorney has so much extra money that he can afford to retry someone who has already spent 26 years in prison for a crime he may or may not have committed. This is another milestone in political posturing. Surely he has more recent and pressing crimes to prosecute -- say something that happened in the 21st century?

Pat Allison


Except for an understandable "confession" made by a mere kid trying to secure a plea deal, Bruce Lisker has proclaimed his innocence all along.

He's already served more than 26 years for his mother's murder. Two federal judges have concluded that there is very little evidence supporting the original conviction, much of which has been debunked.

There are serious questions about the sloppy investigation of the case and the poor representation that Lisker received from his attorney.

And yet Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley has decided to spend my tax dollars, tie up our overburdened courts and take up the time of hundreds of our local jury pool in order to retry the case?

I find this seriously disturbing.

The next time Cooley's name appears on a ballot, I'll have to think very seriously about his judgment before I will again put an X in the box by his name.

Steve Campbell



So the district attorney has opted to retry Lisker for murder, a decision he's pursuing "despite the findings of two federal judges who concluded that there was very little evidence supporting the original conviction," as The Times wrote.

Not to mention the fact that the man has already served 26 years for a crime he probably did not commit.

What a boneheaded move. What a waste of time, resources and taxpayer dollars.

Anne Riffenburgh

South Pasadena


Trials are expensive. The city of Los Angeles is in the midst of a huge budget crisis. The taxpayers of Los Angeles deserve to know the cost of the D.A.'s justice.

At the very least, from the day the (re)trial starts, The Times should run continuing reports detailing the accumulating costs of the trial.

Bob Hunka

Los Angeles


Just what does the D.A. expect to accomplish except to spend more taxpayer dollars for a cause that is already lost, when what he should be doing is asking the man to forgive that office for taking away more than 20 years of his life?

Even a judge, after all this time, could see that Lisker's "confession" was bogus. Why can't our D.A. see that? What is his secret agenda?

Shame on the entire office if it continues to go forward with this.

Terry Snyder

Los Angeles

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World