Here’s a letter I got in my inbox yesterday:

I’m reaching out to Peoria media about a former Peoria resident’s fight for justice against State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons.

In 1977, when Johnnie Lee Savory was 14, he was falsely accused and unjustly convicted for killing his best friend and his best friend’s sister in their hometown of Peoria, Illinois.

With the help of Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, he was paroled and released in late 2006, after spending 30 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Since Johnnie’s release from prison, he has organized a broad coalition of support from some of the most influential and respected lawyers and legal minds in the country.

With nothing to personally gain, Johnnie’s supporters all agree that his case from start to finish was grossly mishandled, and that the evidence used to convict him demands DNA testing.

And yet Kevin Lyons inexplicably refuses to hand over the evidence. You might say that Lyons is afraid to put his money where his mouth is — except the Center on Wrongful Convictions has offered to pay for the tests.

Johnnie has started a campaign called Justice for Savory to shine a light on this injustice.

The campaign’s blog just posted a story on Kevin Lyons called “‘In the palm of some fool’s hand’: the case of Johnnie Lee Savory. [Here’s the link.]

Also, we just posted a youtube video by Rob Warden, the executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions. In the video, Mr. Warden explains why Johnnie’s case demands DNA testing and addresses why Lyons is afraid of the truth. [Here’s the link to the video.]

This story was reported in the Journal Star back in April 2005. At that time, Kevin Lyons had this to say:

“The question is, as always in this case, ‘Why not? What do you have to lose? What is the harm?’ The answer is that there is no finish line in this case,” Lyons said. “They want some blood testing from a pair of pants that regardless of the result will not be a pivotal factor in this case.”

[Chicago attorney Christopher] Tompkins disputes that.

“The evidence against him is so thin. The only evidence which is the basis for Mr. Savory ‘s conviction is the testimony of three witnesses, two of whom have recanted and the physical evidence which we are seeking to test in this lawsuit,” he said. “The law evolves . . . Part of the constitutional guarantee of due process is that Mr. Savory should have access to this testing.”

Lyons disagrees.

“The most compelling part that Johnnie Lee Savory returns to the scene of the crime and related to police in conversation things that only a person in that house, prior to the discovery of the bodies, could have known,” Lyons said.

It’s being brought up again now, obviously, because Lyons is up for reelection. Despite Lyons’ explanation, I still don’t see why it would hurt anything, even if there is “no finish line.” Savory’s supporters would be paying for the testing. If it ends up not proving anything, so what? The taxpayers won’t be out any money.