That is a matter of opinion. He may be biased, but do nothing legally incorrect.
I’m pretty sure only 1 person actually said this, so don’t act like this is the #2 topic of discussion here. Most of us feel they are incompetant fools, or liars, but few are arguing they did anything wrong from a legal technicality standpoint.
Again, pretty much everyone here agrees that legally it was an acceptable verdict, but they are arguing whether they should have paying closer attention, or we not intelligent enough, were lied to, etc.
Bricker, you seem like a smart guy, can I plead with you again to use your knowledge to contribute constructively to the thread, as I mentioned above, rather than nitpicking and attacking everyone you feel is inferior to you.?
Substitute the word “n*gger” for “hick” above and perhaps you will see why I cannot take this all that seriously. You are parading your prejudice and calling it truth.
You really don’t know how a trial works?
Again, you are mischaracterizing the circumstances of the trial to a point way beyond reasonable disagreement.
I guess I wasn’t clear.
I don’t believe you when you claim that the fiber expert said that the testimony about the fiber matches was “meaningless”. I think that was something you decided, and are mischaracterizing the sworn testimony as saying something it did not. So, sorry, but if you are going to continue to argue that I should dismiss the fiber evidence because the expert involved said it should be dismissed, I will have to assume that you cannot come up with any evidence to carry your point.
Again, I wasn’t clear. I don’t believe that what you are saying is true, unless and until you can show that it is, and that the circumstances are as you describe.
If you can’t show it in the transcript, then I have no reason to believe you, and to disbelieve the testimony under oath, which was subject to all the opportunities to impeach afforded by our criminal justice system.
Bottom line is, I am not willing to take your word for it over the findings of the court and the jury. I trust them; I don’t trust you.
Again, you keep asserting that the confessions were coerced. The jury and the courts, both the criminal and the appellate courts, found no reason to believe that this was the case. And you can’t seem to come up with anything to establish it besides saying that it was so, over and over.
Again, for - what now, the third time? - **please produce some evidence that this alleged “bloody black guy” that you are going on about was a “more realistic target” of an investigation. **
In the interest of facts - the lake knife was a huge rambo style thing, and Byers was a smaller folding knife. The main argument was which knife would truly leave the wounds found.
I think Bricker asked about this as well - Chris had serious scarring on the inside of thighs, which some conclude as evidence of abuse beyond his admitted belt whipping and spanking.
Actually, as I have pointed out, there are plenty of other people that don’t believe it was coerced.
The thing about forming your opinions from docu-dramas is that they fail to present a neutral view. The producers set out to tell a story: biased hicks convict poor kids for being “different.” And then everything in their movie, or on their website, is selected to tell that story.
The main proponents of the confession’s voluntariness are, of course, Detective Sergeant Mike Allen, Inspector Gary Gitchell, and Detective Bryn Ridge. They were present for the confession. Miskelley signed a statement which read: I have read this statement of my RIGHTS and I understand what my RIGHTS are. I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time. I understand and know what I am doing, no promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or force has been used against me.
That’s obviously evidence that the confession was voluntary.
The defense made the following arguments that the confession was coerced:
[ul]
[li]the confession was the product of a promise of reward or leniency[/li][li]age and mental capacity of the accused rendered his confession involuntary[/li][li]the cumulative factors of: use of the circle diagram, the polygraph, the picture of the victim, and the tape recording of the boy’s voice; all combine to create psychological overbearing[/li][li]the failure to have a parent sign his waiver-of-rights form rendered his confession per-se involuntary[/li][li]the failure of Detective Allen to make it clear that there was no legal obligation for Miskelley to comply with his request to come to the police station [/li][li]the failure of the police to record the interrogation in its entirety[/li][/ul]
Both the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court reviewed each claim and found each to be lacking. So they, too, count as people that don’t believe the confession was coerced.
Now, when you say “literally” no one else does, what did you really mean?
True. But it’s for the person making the claim to show proof of the claim. You have to show that he IS biased.
Please re-read my first post in this thread. I am arguing that the judge, jury, and prosecution lawyers involved acted appropriately.
You and I must be reading different threads:
I’m reacting to over-the-top claims. If the statements were, “I have to say, I’m not persuaded that the jury got it right,” I’d have no beef here. But no, it can’t ever be just that a mistake was made, that reasonable people can disagree. No, no - the judge was biased, the police were incompetent, the jury was a bunch of unwashed hicks, not like us smart people here.
Bullshit.
There are plenty of reasons to question the truthfulness of the confession. Why does it have to be the product of misconduct to be wrong? There are plenty of reasons to question the guilt of the accused boys – why must they have been railroaded?
Shodan- from crime library, and got the words meaningless and inconclusive wrong-
On January 17, 2001, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported that Lisa Fugett Sakevicius, the chief criminalist at the Arkansas State Crime Lab had died. Sakevicius had originally given expert testimony on fiber analysis during the Echols/Baldwin trial in her capacity as the fiber expert for the State and told the court that the fiber “evidence” she had examined was “inconclusive.”
About the black guy- are you really saying that on the night of a brutal bloody slaying, a strange man covered in blood near the scene is 100% not relevant?
The evidence the cops collected was destroyed- how do we know what it contained?
I personally don’t see hick and nigger as synonymous- hick I am using to mean a person lacking formal education, one that may not have the background to understand fully everything going on in a murder trial, what to ignore, accept, what this and that means, etc. You’re telling me in your opinion and a hypothetical, 12 uneducated people are just as able to understand a murder trial as 12 highly educated with a knowledge of law? That is what I feel juries should be- paid smart people who are familiar with law.
You think 12 liberal educated people would be duped at the idea the defendant doesn’t have a SOUL and therfore is guilty?
People now think it is- you must understand, as I know you do, the defendants had no money for Schreck and Baden, et al, they had to use what they were given- should they not be able to get the best possible defense, regardless of financial status? If OJ were a nobody, would he be in jail? Of course. No one who gave any testimony struck me as being very smart- one of the lawyers had a fucking mullet. If they had had Cochran and Dershowitz and Bailey, and the jury was not a bunch of hicks, would they be in jail?
Of course, you’re right. If they had a decently funded defense, they would almost certainly not be in jail now.
Does that make the judge biased or incompetent?
Does that make the cops liars?
Does that make the jury idiots?
No. All of them were responding to what was in front of them AT THE TIME. If your point is that wealthier people get a better experience from the criminal justice system… um, yeah. They do. In leaps and bounds.
That doesn’t make anyone corrupt, incompetent, or idiotic.
When you cite proof that the confession was voulantary because he signed it, that tells me you’re either having us all on, or your real name is Lt. Philip Gerard of the Stafford Police Department.
I would remind you again that he got nothing right in the confession withut being led, and even then got things wrong, when he got something wrong he was corrected, and he offered nothing new at all- not a shoe near the body, not anything, but you know all this already. As Fat Chance noted, you are now just attempting to dazzle us with your knowledge of legalese. The debate was never about that, my requests for disbarment aside. You are being obtuse, obviously on purpose and responding to direct requests with meaningless asides.
Can you give me one expert outside the case who calls the confession freely given, yes or no? If yes, who?
And can you tell me again how often the Supreme Court overturns a murder conviction without new evidence?
As has already been repeatedly shown, the “confession” was coerced from a retarded kid who had no lawyer present, it’s full of holes, it contained no information that the cops didn’t already know and it consists mainly of the mentally challenged kid just agreeing to whatever the cops told him to say, even when the facts were totally wrong. Three hours of the interrogation are missing from the tape, a baseball bat is visible on the table during what is taped and the retarded kid was told he could go home if he agreed to follow the script that they fed him. All through the “confession,” the cops have to keep leading him and correcting him on his facts. No one with a brain or a conscience could read that transcript and sincerely believe it was a genuine confession.
The evidence that another kid “ran his mouth off” about it came only from dubious hearsay testimony from compromised witnesses. It’s bullshit, just like the “confession” was bullshit.
I’ll never understand why some people are so intransigent about admitting the obvious reasonable doubt in this case. They’re usually not even willing to read the transcripts or watch the documentaries.
Bricker, your own point 3 that you say is a main topic of conversation (and which the above is in reference to) is that people are aguing whether the jury reached a verdict correctly as a matter of law, then you procede to post 2 quotes showing a number of people not arguing about a matter of law and only 1 where someone says the judge should get kicked out (which has nothing to do with pont 3 anyway)?
My point stands, you are picking out the one or 2 things you can jump on and ignoring the theme.
I guess we are reading different threads.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m reacting to over-the-top claims. If the statements were, “I have to say, I’m not persuaded that the jury got it right,” I’d have no beef here. But no, it can’t ever be just that a mistake was made, that reasonable people can disagree. No, no - the judge was biased, the police were incompetent, the jury was a bunch of unwashed hicks, not like us smart people here.
[\QUOTE]
I think people are basically saying - “I have to say, I’m not persuaded that the jury got it right,” Then, they are saying maybe one of the reasons they got it wrong was because certain actors appear incompetant or biased. Or they are saying, there appears to be a culture based on religion and fear that may sway a jury to make emotional decisions, rather than decisions based on fact. etc.
If you disagree, then please tell us why. The whole “but it was technically legal” thing is useless, I think most of us agree already.
Can you give a cite that the defense expert agreed it was not a bite mark, and if it was, was not adult sized (not saying you are wrong, I just remember it a different way)
Second - I think to most people are pointing out Byers lost his teeth just when the possible bite mark became a big issue and was in the courts, and because he gave 2 completely different reasons for losing them, on tape.
And also, if anyone knows the reiligious affiliation of the 12, and if they believe the devil is real.
Bricker, one more thing- you say you feel the confession was coereced, but could see how a smart judge could rule otherwise- could you elaborate on this? What specific aspects could be seen as freely given- other than the signature at the bottom? Because if you can’t, wouldn’t that show either bias or incompetence?
However, I would note that the experts that have opined otherwise are either not “outside the case” either (Dr. Richard Ofshe) or were those found by a group trying to overturn the verdict.
I don’t know. I know that in fifteen seconds of trying, I found overturned cases in the same month as the Miskelley verdict… but noone of them were murder cases. In fact, that month the Miskelley verdict was the only murder cases considered by the Arkansas Supreme Court. I can guess – and my guess is that murder cases are overturned with some regularity. I would not be surprised to find three murder cases a year overturned in whole or in part.
Relevance? Are you suggesting there should be some sort of per se disqualification of a juror who believes the devil is real?
A smart judge could look at the fact that Miselley was seventeen years old, and just thirty-seven days away from his eighteenth birthday, when he confessed, and reason that in other cases, persons as young as fifteen and sixteen have been held capable of giving voluntary confessions, and so discard the “he was too young” argument. A reasonable judge could conclude that a nearly-eighteen-year-old was capable of comprehending his Miranda rights and of waiving those rights.
That determination is at the heart of the decision to admit the confession. Did Miskelley understand his rights, and did he waive them? It’s reasonable to say that his age, his previous experience with the justice system, and the tape-recorded evidence of his repeatedly hearing his right to remain silent and repeatedly waiving it are reason enough to admit it.
There’s a concept in judicial review called “abuse of discretion.” A reviewing court does not ask, “Would I make the same decision?” It asks, “Could a reasonable, rational judge make this decision, even if I personally don’t agree with it?”