If that is the case, you well know how false confessions are obtained.
Yes, I do, and as noted it is
extremely unlikely that FOUR men would confess without some involvermnt.
What drills do you refer to, and what point do you mean to make by referring them?
Oh come on!!!! I know how we get confessions, Surely you understood that?
Well, since you ask... Now that I know you work in law enforcement? No, I don't; I expect you to adopt defensive attitude on the subject of wrongful convictions, and half expect it to be manifest by a surly "I've been there/done that/ know more than you" attitude.
Not hardly, I've been doing this for almost thirty years, I've seen more than I wanted, but I haven't and I hope never "see it all" or get an attitude like you describe. Wrongful convictions happen, everyone knows they do, but this stretches the odds.
Is that how we judge guilt or innocence? Your hunch?
You know better than that too, you were taking my reasonable conclusion and equating it to a jury's declaration....knowing perfectly well that's not what I intended, you're just trying to score a point.
yeah, but folks jacked up on bogus charges usually think that if they can just get their story told, just explain what happened, they'll be okay. They don't understand that once the police start interrogating and gathering evidence (that's the biggie) and BELIEVE THEY DID IT, the police are now their enemy... and the innocent get locked up, sometimes because they don't have the proper mindset (that police/state are their enemy)
Yup! It happens...no arguement with that......BUT FOUR MEN?
All willing to take a fall, knowing that someone else actually did it? ( and you are NOT going to convince ALL FOUR beleaved that they were guilty of something they didn't do, the odds just aren't stacked that way) Sorry, but you are not going to convince me that they had no involvement in some form or another.
"Fincher confessed to the murder, also implicating Saunders, Richardson, Swift and Thames. Police arrested and interrogated the other four, securing confessions, which were wildly inconsistent with each other. Despite the fact that all five supposedly admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim, pre-trial DNA testing on semen recovered from the victim matched an unknown male and excluded all five teenagers.
“What are the chances that five boys would have sex with a woman and not leave their trace?"
Ever hear of condoms? LOL!!!! All that aside, they obviously had SOME connection to the crime somehow....does that make them guilty of murder.....perhaps not. But in some jurisdictions being a part of a crime in which someone gets killed can get you a murder conviction even if you weren't the "triggerman". Obviously we don't know all the facts here, and probably never will. The author of that artical had an agenda to push, maybe a good one, but an agenda nevertheless, so we are unlikely to get all the information needed to judge from his writings.
Perhaps the single most interesting thing about this case is the lack of information regarding their trial and the competancy of their representation. Did they have a jury trial? Or did they plead before a judge and accept sentencing without a jury? Were they actually the victims of a defense attorny trying to make a quick buck by giving them lousy counsel? We can't tell from the information provided...and we are unlikely to get more information.
