Whoa, that's weird. He expresses no concern for crimes committed by his fellow inmates but does want to point out the malfeasance of the state. This makes a kind of sense, whether it's true or not. I do wonder how much he knows about this. Does he know a lot because he was claiming this as part of his appeal and he believes he is innocent? Is that credible? Does the fact of malfeasance mean the crimes weren't committed or only that civil rights of criminals (due process) were violated?

okay one last thing. Yes, in an appeal before the state killed him, they raised the issue that the medical examiner's office made an error, which seems pretty plausible considering everything that happened. If they won that appeal, then he would still be alive. He wasn't saying that he was fully innocent, just that the set of charges would have been different such that he wouldn't be on death row. So no, it's not weird for him to bring it up or to have an understanding of that office. His life literally depended on it. Your heuristics have lead you to bad assumptions.