Reporting of new info in West Memphis 3 case- biased or unbelievably stupid?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
By the same token, there are no such things as “cults” - right?
[/quote]

Actually there IS an academic definition for a “cult.” it’s a new religious movement which arises independently of any previously existing movement. That’s all the word means. It does not contain any value judgement on the content of the movement. All religions start as either cults or sects (a “sect” being a movement which breaks away from a previous movement). A successful cult or sect may lose those designations and become “Churches” (e.g L.D.S.), but academically speaking, “cults” and “sects” are only designations for circumstances of origin. They DO have a meaning, and New Religious Movements (The PC term) are a real field of study. I took classes on them myself.

Yet there’s a common understanding of what we generally mean, even though two reasonable people may differ on the inclusion of a particular faith or practice in the word.

The popular uses and understandings of the word “cult” are just wrong. Such usages exist but they do not reppresent the academic definition of the word and those usages of the word is not what’s meant by academic expertise in cult movements.

I was using the word in the meaning you suggest: religious movements that are non-traditional in the United States.

But this expert had no credentials or education or indeed even basic knowledge of non-traditional movemnents. I repeat, he did not know the difference between Paganism and Satanism. He also didn’t know the meaning of the word “cult.”

I rather suspect that the court was using it in the same way, since one aspect of the guy’s qualifications was studying what he called “cause-oriented” and “belief-oriented” non-traditional groups operating in society which have malevolent tendencies. As an example of “cause-oriented” societies he gaves gangs, like the Crips and the Bloods, and as an example of belief-oriented groups he gave Satanists.

1. He didn’t know anything about Satanism
2. Satanists are no more prone to malevolence than any other group. One of the creeds is to “harm no one.” More significantly, one of the Satanic “11 Commandments” is “Do not harm little children.”

There is nothing violent about Satanism. Satanists do not practice human sacrifice. Satanists do not kill children. Everything this guy said about Satanism was factually false. he was propogating his own religious beliefs, not any actual learned expertise.

I understand that the judge shouldn’t necessarily be expected to know that and that’s probably exactly how this guy gets himself into witness chairs. The judges have no idea that his “expertise” is completely fraudulent. I only wish the defense attorneys had been a little better prepared. With a little preparation, Bricker, you would be able to tear this guy to absolute shreds and make the prosecution look ridiculous for putting him on the stand. I realize this is an inherent problem of the public defender system, though, not a legal impropriety.

He wrote four books, one being “A Primer For Law Enforcement on Non-Traditional Groups.”

So what? What’s he written that’s been peer reviewed?

So it appears to me he is using the word “occult” not in a academically rigorous manner, but as shorthand for “non-traditional, belief-oriented groups,” and it’s a distinction his voir dire testimony makes clear.

But he has no academic background in studying non-traditional religions or new religious movements and indeed his testimony makes it clear that he knew nothing about them. His testimony consisted only of his own (mostly erroneous) religious beliefs about those religions.

My analogy to creationism was not intended lightly. In the field of religious sociology, this guy really is the equivalent of a creationist, but unfortunately, a lot of people – including some judges and police officers – don’t know enough about the field to realize that.

[Wee_Bairn]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
How is the judge supposed to know enough detail about the world of non-traditional practices to make this determination?

[/QUOTE]

So he should say “I don’t know the first thing about the occult, his credentials should good, hell, let him testify?” Its only natural for a juror to accept the testimony of an 'expert" as fact, which makes it dangerous when a person is not as he claims. I don’t know what the law says on this, but surely in something as important as a murder trial, some in-depth checking should be done, by the judge, a panel- someone.

And here is a quote from the deputy attorney general, right after **closing down ** the mail order school this guy got his degree from:

Deputy Attorney General Asher Rubin blasted the school in his complaint, calling it “a diploma mill which had been preying on California consumers for too many years.” The suit also calls Columbia Pacific a “phony operation” offering “totally worthless [degrees]…to enrich its unprincipled promoters.”

[Wee_Bairn]

And, the woman local news reporter in Anytown, MS got canned for not fact checking Borat- shouldnt a murder trial have something similar? Can’t a mistrial be declared if a key witness is found to not have the credentials to have qualified as an expert in the first place?

[kidchameleon]

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
And, the woman local news reporter in Anytown, MS got canned for not fact checking Borat- shouldnt a murder trial have something similar? Can’t a mistrial be declared if a key witness is found to not have the credentials to have qualified as an expert in the first place?
[/QUOTE]

You don’t have to be good at what you do to be an expert witness. The defense should have ripped him apart but didn’t. And Miss Reporter has a job that relies heavily on the opinion of the public, the justice system does not.

[Clark_K]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
There are two flaws in our system that, in my view, contributed to this potential miscarriage of justice.

>snip<

Now, none of these relate to bias, incompetence, or malice. Those are the charges I stepped into the thread to defend. Anyone who is, as you suggest, merely arguing that the legal process does not always produce justice has no argument from me. But frankly, the tone of the thread has NOT been that.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I haven’t followed this case, although I see it brought up every so often as an example of injustice. Have the appeals been exhausted? If not, do you think the problems in this case merit a new trial? Or would it take something entirely new, such as dramatic DNA evidence, to overturn the verdict?

If the appeals have been exhausted, is there any other recourse for the defendants? As someone who understands the limitations of the legal system, would you support a pardon from the governor?

Just interested in your take on what could happen, given the flaws you see.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
So he should say “I don’t know the first thing about the occult, his credentials should good, hell, let him testify?” Its only natural for a juror to accept the testimony of an 'expert" as fact, which makes it dangerous when a person is not as he claims. I don’t know what the law says on this, but surely in something as important as a murder trial, some in-depth checking should be done, by the judge, a panel- someone.
[/quote]

Actually, that is someone’s job: the defense.

When the prosecution offers up a weak or unreliable expert, the defense should be able to show the jury what a fraud the guy is. All the evidence you’re typing out here, about how worthless this guy is, should have been shown to the jury. A real expert should have been called to the stand to rip apart the conclusions this guy came to.

That’s what the defense is for.

[Martin_Hyde]

I definitely agree the expert sounds pretty weak. But I can’t believe that it’s a requirement to testify as an expert that your degree comes from a University that meets a certain threshold of prestigiousness (I believe earlier in this thread it was mentioned his degree came from an institution that was accredited on the state-level.) Nor can I imagine as a requirement to testify as an expert, you have to prove you’ve published peer-reviewed articles on the subject matter.

I mean, I can imagine a scenario where you call an auto mechanic or a bricklayer as an expert witness, and I can’t imagine a scenario where either would have peer-reviewed articles on their field.

The lack of a degree from a nationally accredited university, the lack of any peer-reviewed published articles, and the apparent lack of accurate information about the “field” you’re talking about may make you a bad expert witness, but I don’t think it’d make you ineligible to testify. If the guy was really that terrible, it should have been pretty easy to call in a prof in religious studies from the U of Arkansas or something (which is a nationally accredited institution) to rebut his BS.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Bricker, I see what the law says about experts, but I ask you- a mail order degree in a phony field? Would you want a doctor working on you who got his degree online from the University of Phoenix?
[/QUOTE]
Again with the garbage.

The University of Phoenix is an accredited university. My wife teaches math there.

More of your bullshit “facts”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Again with the garbage.

The University of Phoenix is an accredited university. My wife teaches math there.

More of your bullshit “facts”.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

He made a mistake in hiis hypothetical but The University of Phoenix is not where this “expert” got his mail order degrees. He got them from an unaccredited diploma mill called Columbia Pacific University and he took no classes to get them.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Martin Hyde

I believe earlier in this thread it was mentioned his degree came from an institution that was accredited on the state-level.)

That was an error on Bricker’s part. CPU was only authorized (for a time) to operate and award degrees in California. It was never accredited. From here:

The bureau further stated that students who received degrees or credentials from CPU before June 25, 1997 should not be affected because the school had legal authorization to operate until that date. This merely means that the school was allowed to issue degrees. It does not mean that the school was accredited or that employers should regard the degrees as representing education equivalent to that of accredited schools. During the 1980s, an official of the California Postsecomdary Education Commission confirmed to me that CPU had been authorized to operate but was not accredited [4].

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I understand that the judge shouldn’t necessarily be expected to know that and that’s probably exactly how this guy gets himself into witness chairs. The judges have no idea that his “expertise” is completely fraudulent. I only wish the defense attorneys had been a little better prepared. With a little preparation, Bricker, you would be able to tear this guy to absolute shreds and make the prosecution look ridiculous for putting him on the stand. I realize this is an inherent problem of the public defender system, though, not a legal impropriety.

[/QUOTE]

Yup. That’s exactly it.

We place a lot of trust in the adversarial system – we assume that when two sides are each represented by a zealous advocate, we will learn the truth.

But when one side is crippled by ridiculous funding and time limitations… the system stops working with a high degree of confidence. I admit that I never once had a murder trial, but I had serious felonies, a great deal of trial work, and the one time I did have to discredit an expert, I think I did a pretty good job - that case ended with an acquittal on the top count.

But I’m no longer a PD. And I’m not all that ashamed to admit that one major reason is I wanted things like a house and a car that wasn’t ten years old and used when I bought it.

The people that are left at PD work are generally:

[ul]
[li]young, and just getting free trial experience for a few years before trading up their jobs;[/li][li]older and enough of a True Believer to be willing to trade a life of quasi-poverty for the opportunity to do needed work;[/li][li]any age and just not good enough to get hired anywhere that isn’t desperate[/li][/ul]

Why are the West Memphis 3 in prison right now?

That’s why.