Where are you getting that?
Getting what?
The worst single abuse under our judicial system is, in my opinion, the rules that permit us to treat mentally retarded people precisely the same way as those of average intelligence when it comes to confessions.
You’re right. Evidence was adduced that this nearly-eighteen-year-old had an IQ of 72 and that he read at a third-grade level.
But the law is clear, and laid out in the court’s affirmance: a low score on an intelligence-quotient test does not mean that a suspect is incapable of voluntarily making a confession or waiving his rights. Oliver v. State, supra; Hart v. State, 312 Ark. 600, 852 S.W.2d 312 (1993); Hill v. State, 303 Ark. 462, 798 S.W.2d 65 (1990). The Oliver case is particularly on point. There, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a fifteen-year old with an IQ of 74 and a second-grade reading level was capable of comprehending his Miranda rights and of waiving those rights. Miskelley’s situation is almost identical; in fact, he was two years older than Oliver and had a slightly higher reading level.
So we can, and should, inveigh against that state of the law, and seek to have our elected officials change it.
But we can’t call a judge biased or incompetent for following the law. Indeed, he would be wrong to say, “I know our supreme court has found a fifteen-year old with an IQ of 74 and a second-grade reading level was capable of comprehending his Miranda rights, but they’re fulla shit: an 18 year old with an IQ of 72 and a third-grade reading level is not.”
The judge would be making a specific ruling, not a general one. He could say “I find that this kid was not able to understand his rights.”
Is there anything which restrains a judge from finding that the confession has been coached or manipulated by the police or is that something only a jury can decide?
This is sort of what I was talking about - “inconclusive” in this context means something like “not definitely probative in and of itself”. It does not mean “worthless”. And putting the word “evidence” in scare quotes does little to enhance anyone’s credibility. Fiber evidence is evidence - there is nothing equivocal about it.
I am asking, for the fourth time, that you produce some indication that this person has any relevance to the case.
It has not been definitely established by any real evidence at all that this “bloody black guy” existed, or that he has any relevance. That’s the advantage of a court proceeding - you can’t just throw out anything that occurs to you and expect it to stick.
You are complaining about the lack of solid evidence in this case. What solid evidence do you have that this other guy is really the one who committed the murder? Be so kind as to produce it.
And keep in mind that, if you are arguing that anyone in the vicinity with blood on him must be the murderer, the DNA tests are being conducted on blood that was found on a necklace belonging to the defendant, IIRC. And one of the defendants admitted drinking blood.
And we have other evidence linking these three to the murders. What have you got for this “bloody black guy” besides speculation?
Or that it ever existed? Or that it wasn’t hair from Bigfoot or a splinter from the True Cross?
If you want to argue that they didn’t get a fair trial, you are going to have to do better than some evidence that you cannot produce, because it might contain proof of their innocence. Maybe it was a signed statement from God Almighty that these people were guilty as Cain.
sigh
OK, let’s try again - show me the evidence that all twelve people on the jury had no formal education.
Same thing - please demonstrate that all twelve people were non-liberals, and convicted all three because they believed that they had no SOULs.
This is why I made the analogy of “hick” and n*gger. You are merely asserting, “well, everybody knows they are all stupid, and you can’t believe a word they say.” You could equally say that all blacks are lazy welfare cheats, and that therefore any verdict reached by a majority-black jury must be wrong by definition.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan- you can’t be asking me to prove the bloody black guy was absolutely connected to the crime can you? If you are, I cannot- therefore, it must be irrelevant- what are you getting at? They did investigate, collected evidence and lost it- the cops admit to this.
You don’t think a decent second suspect is a way of casting reasonable doubt? If I think Bill ate my cookies, but have no proof and Bob has crumbs on his face, is that not reasonable doubt? You have lost me. It is not an attorney’s to prove someone else did it- although that would help- it is their job to show reasoanble doubt, which this shows, especially when the cops could have discounted the guy if they had not lost the evidence they admittedly collected from the bathroom.
If you are saying the black guy never existed- from crime library
On the night of the murders, at 8:42 p.m., the police received a call from Marty King, the manager of the Mr. Bojangles Restaurant near Robin Hood Hills. He reported that a black man “dazed and covered with blood and mud” had been in the women’s restroom for about an hour. Officer Regan Meek followed up the call by driving up to the drive-through window. She testified later that she had not gone inside as the restaurant was out of her ward. She also agreed that it had been near to the area where the boys were last seen. After the boys were found, police followed up on this report and took blood samples from the toilets. These samples however were mysteriously lost and no results are known. This incident became much more significant when laboratory reports showed that two human hairs were found on the victims’ clothing, one of which was Negroid in origin.
What say you to that?
Sure, but he needs some factual basis for his finding. He can’t just say, “As a gut feel, this kid didn’t understand his rights.”
No, in fact, that’s a job for a judge; he makes a threshhold determination. If he finds ‘no,’ then the jury never hears the confession. If he finds ‘yes,’ then the jury makes their independent determination.
But again – the judge has to be able to point to a reason.
You don’t have to prove “absolutely” – but you do have to show some evidence beyond mere speculation. You have to show some connection, some nexus. You cannot say, “Well, he might have been, so let’s discuss it.” There has to be some foundation.
The basis would be the kid’s mental incapacity combined with his lack of representation.
That would be easy in this case. The police are clearly and pervasively seen to be leading and correcting the kid’s narrative.
ETA: I’m not saying that a judge would have to make these findings, only that he could have and (IMO) should have.
The argument about whether these convictions were legally valid is a different question from whether it was correct. A jury can just get it wrong sometimes.
Would the Bojangles incident, coupled with an unidentified Negroid hair found on one of the three, count?
And for a second ignore his age and IQ- you don’t think a judge can read the confession and see clearly where the cops lead him on, correct him, ignore mistakes he makes, etc. Wouldn’t that be an indicator to a non-biased and competent person, especially one who makes his living at this, that something is wrong here?
Well, we agree. The fact that he didn’t is not evidence of corruption, bias, or incompetence. He didn’t HAVE to find that way. He could have. He perhaps even SHOULD have.
Of course! Completely agree. I have said before that I’m not comfortable with the jury’s verdict. There are people in this thread that feel like this must mean the police were incompent, the jury were hicks, the judge was biased. No. How about, simply, “The jury got it wrong?”
Bricker, may I ask your opinion on regular people serving on murder trials?
Absolutely yes.
Those two things would allow the defense to place the incident before the jury.
The Bojangles incident alone? No. Coupled with the hair? That’s sufficient nexus.
Are you telling me that those two things existed and yet the jury was not allowed to hear about the man?
I don’t believe you.
No. The judge could easily have said to himself, “This is a person who has had previous run-ins with the law. He’s not going to admit to things he didn’t do.”
As jurors? I’m in favor of it.
The cops were correcting his narrative BECAUSE he was admitting to things he didn’t do or see (e.g. sodomizing the victims).
Your cite says “she testified later…”
To whom did she testify about the incident, if not the jury?
Is no one else stunned by the irony of a “small town” Southern police force ignoring a blood-covered black man* seen on the night of the crime and instead “railroading” three white guys to conviction?
Sheriff Clark must be spinning in his grave.
*this is a much more evocative image than the traditional “bushy-haired stranger”.
I’m pretty sure that means Meeks testified later, at the trial - later, meaning after the incident at Bojangles, cause she did testify about the Bojangles incident at Echols/Baldwin - not sure about Miskelley’s trial.
And from the trial transcript of Miskelley, cross on Lisa Sakevicius:
Q: Isn’t it true that there was a Negroid hair found on the victim Byers or was recovered on the body or something that was covering the body?
A: I think that was off of a sheet used to cover his body.
Diogenes the Cynic:
However, I’m not sure about the “jury wasn’t allowed to hear about the man” statement. She testified about the incident, and so did the police about losing the blood samples. So they did hear, or am I missing something?
Bricker, as usual, is doing a better job than I could at keeping the other side focussed.
All I would add is a question - does the board believe that the Negroid hair(s) are stronger evidence than the fibers, less strong, or equally strong, in terms of their probative value?
Regards,
Shodan
If the boy was known to be around black people, I wouldn’t think much of it. If he did not associate with anyone black, I would think the hair would be stronger than a fiber, especially if the fiber was not unique to the Echols household.
My personal feeling is 50% the stepfather did it, 25% Echols and friends, 15% black guy, 10% someone else.