Gov. Kaine pardons innocent men after 10 years

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

So they say. So you believe all four men are innocent and confessed for the hell of it.
OK good for you. I don't.

If they are moronic enough to admit to raping/killing a woman that they in fact had nothing to do with, then too bad for them and let them rot. I know I wouldn't. It just doesn't pay to lie.
Basically I don't consider it reasonable to accept that four adult males would confess to a rape/murder of a woman in which they had nothing to do with.

Ah so justice should be served based on testimony of the accused. Nice plan...

If you did some research you would see there are a myriad of reasons people confess when they didnt do it. Should we use your barbaric rule in all cases like this? Someone confesses, BAM! auto convict?

Isn't falsely confessing obstructing justice? I think they got exactly what they deserved if they were innocent. They should get the same penalty for falsely confessing to a crime as they would have gotten if they were guilty.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: monovillage

I don't have to post proof , you have to post proof i am, OR get a confession from me. Which you won't.

Anymore than you can post proof that the pardoned sailor was guilty so why did you waste everyone's time suggesting he could be?

 

[mugs]

:thumbsup: to the Innocence project, though if these guys are truly innocent I hope they get an unconditional pardon or their convictions are overturned. I don't know what it's like to have a family member be the victim of a violent crime, but I hope they realize that Michelle Moore-Bosko may not be the only victim of this crime. Punishing someone for the crime is not justice.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Isn't falsely confessing obstructing justice? I think they got exactly what they deserved if they were innocent. They should get the same penalty for falsely confessing to a crime as they would have gotten if they were guilty.

Then coercing a person to confess a crime should also have the same punishment as committing the crime.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

So they say. So you believe all four men are innocent and confessed for the hell of it.
OK good for you. I don't.

If they are moronic enough to admit to raping/killing a woman that they in fact had nothing to do with, then too bad for them and let them rot. I know I wouldn't. It just doesn't pay to lie.
Basically I don't consider it reasonable to accept that four adult males would confess to a rape/murder of a woman in which they had nothing to do with.

Ah so justice should be served based on testimony of the accused. Nice plan...

If you did some research you would see there are a myriad of reasons people confess when they didnt do it. Should we use your barbaric rule in all cases like this? Someone confesses, BAM! auto convict?

Isn't falsely confessing obstructing justice? I think they got exactly what they deserved if they were innocent. They should get the same penalty for falsely confessing to a crime as they would have gotten if they were guilty.

Were you not such a titanic idiot you would know what what you are doing is typical of idiots, it's called blame the victim.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

So they say. So you believe all four men are innocent and confessed for the hell of it.
OK good for you. I don't.

If they are moronic enough to admit to raping/killing a woman that they in fact had nothing to do with, then too bad for them and let them rot. I know I wouldn't. It just doesn't pay to lie.
Basically I don't consider it reasonable to accept that four adult males would confess to a rape/murder of a woman in which they had nothing to do with.

Ah so justice should be served based on testimony of the accused. Nice plan...

If you did some research you would see there are a myriad of reasons people confess when they didnt do it. Should we use your barbaric rule in all cases like this? Someone confesses, BAM! auto convict?

Isn't falsely confessing obstructing justice? I think they got exactly what they deserved if they were innocent. They should get the same penalty for falsely confessing to a crime as they would have gotten if they were guilty.

Is there a special school you graduate from to get that dense?

 

[monovillage]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: monovillage

I don't have to post proof , you have to post proof i am, OR get a confession from me. Which you won't.

Anymore than you can post proof that the pardoned sailor was guilty so why did you waste everyone's time suggesting he could be?

Because they confessed to complicity in the rape and murder of the young woman.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: monovillage

I don't have to post proof , you have to post proof i am, OR get a confession from me. Which you won't.

Anymore than you can post proof that the pardoned sailor was guilty so why did you waste everyone's time suggesting he could be?

Because they confessed to complicity in the rape and murder of the young woman.

The whole point of the story is:

1. One of those convicted has since confessed to acting alone in committing the crime.
   
2. Governor Kaine, who probably has more of the facts than you, found ample evidence that the others were coerced into giving false confessions.

That's at least enough to meet the standard of "reasonable doubt" regarding that confession you think means so much.

Sorry you're a bit slow on reading comprehension so I'll repost a little of it in shorter blocks. Regarding Governor Kaine:

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said he doubted their level of involvement'
.
.
The four men did not conclusively prove their innocence, but there were "grave doubts about at least the level of their complicity in the crime," he said. Each confessed to the murder. After they were convicted, they claimed their confessions were coerced.

Regarding whether the confessions were true:

Derek Tice said he originally confessed to the killing because he and his fellow sailors were threatened with the death penalty.

"(I was told) 'You're guilty. You're going to die. How does it feel to know you're going to get the needle?' After 16 hours of that with no hope of getting out of that room, any man, any man would confess," he said.

Please go home and grow a set of ethics, child. Or, if you prefer, I could add a statement to my sig file that says:

I'm not saying monovillage is a rapist and a murderer, but he hasn't posted any proof that he isn't. :shocked:

It'll be all over the forums in every one of my posts, and as much as AT is tracked by Google, within a day or two, anyone will be able to search for your user name and find that statement. I'll leave it to you to explain it to everyone who asks you about it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

So they say. So you believe all four men are innocent and confessed for the hell of it.
OK good for you. I don't.

If they are moronic enough to admit to raping/killing a woman that they in fact had nothing to do with, then too bad for them and let them rot. I know I wouldn't. It just doesn't pay to lie.
Basically I don't consider it reasonable to accept that four adult males would confess to a rape/murder of a woman in which they had nothing to do with.

Ah so justice should be served based on testimony of the accused. Nice plan...

If you did some research you would see there are a myriad of reasons people confess when they didnt do it. Should we use your barbaric rule in all cases like this? Someone confesses, BAM! auto convict?

Isn't falsely confessing obstructing justice? I think they got exactly what they deserved if they were innocent. They should get the same penalty for falsely confessing to a crime as they would have gotten if they were guilty.

They falsely confess because they're intimidated by the police into believing that they're doomed to be convicted regardless, and if they DO confess they at least will be able to plea-bargain and get a lighter sentence.

People also confess because they've been interrogated non-stop for hours on end, sometimes with (illegal) brutal, physical police assaults meant to soften them up. And when the suspect reaches their limit, they confess.

Also, most of the false confessions are obtained against less-than-rocket-scientist suspects. Being stupid - and not knowing ones rights - makes someone extremely vulnerable to falsely confessing.

Confessing out of fear, out of pain and exhaustion, and/or out of stupidity is not "obstructing justice." In fact, it's the police actions that induce an innocent person to confess that constitute obstruction of justice.

 

[monovillage]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: monovillage

I don't have to post proof , you have to post proof i am, OR get a confession from me. Which you won't.

Anymore than you can post proof that the pardoned sailor was guilty so why did you waste everyone's time suggesting he could be?

Because they confessed to complicity in the rape and murder of the young woman.

The whole point of the story is:

1. One of those convicted has since confessed to acting alone in committing the crime.
   
2. Governor Kaine, who probably has more of the facts than you, found ample evidence that the others were coerced into giving false confessions.

That's at least enough to meet the standard of "reasonable doubt" regarding that confession you think means so much.

Sorry you're a bit slow on reading comprehension so I'll repost a little of it in shorter blocks. Regarding Governor Kaine:

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said he doubted their level of involvement'
.
.
The four men did not conclusively prove their innocence, but there were "grave doubts about at least the level of their complicity in the crime," he said. Each confessed to the murder. After they were convicted, they claimed their confessions were coerced.

Regarding whether the confessions were true:

Derek Tice said he originally confessed to the killing because he and his fellow sailors were threatened with the death penalty.

"(I was told) 'You're guilty. You're going to die. How does it feel to know you're going to get the needle?' After 16 hours of that with no hope of getting out of that room, any man, any man would confess," he said.

Please go home and grow a set of ethics, child. Or, if you prefer, I could add a statement to my sig file that says:

I'm not saying monovillage is a rapist and a murderer, but he hasn't posted any proof that he isn't. :shocked:

It'll be all over the forums in every one of my posts, and as much as AT is tracked by Google, within a day or two, anyone will be able to search for your user name and find that statement. I'll leave it to you to explain it to everyone who asks you about it.

You post that? And you want me to grow a set of ethics ? You bully and intimidate and you want me to learn about morality? You threaten me with that type of cyber slime throwing and I'm supposed to go home and learn..... what?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: monovillage

You post that? And you want me to grow a set of ethics ? You bully and intimidate and you want me to learn about morality? You threaten me with that type of cyber slime throwing and I'm supposed to go home and learn..... what?

Ahh!!! NOW, I understand. Not only has your moral compass become degaussed, but your sarcasm meter is broken, as well. :laugh:

Here... I'll make it easy for you, child. If you'll recall, this goes back to your first post in reply to Moonbeam's post:

Money brings lots of unjustice. Maybe this time it bought justice.

You replied:

and maybe it didn't

The question is, why would you even contemplate whether the pardons were some measure of belated justice, and what evidence do you have to support challenging Governor Kaine's determination?

If you have none, you're simply blowing malicious smoke all over the reputations of three U.S. servicemen you don't know from squat without any justification, whatsoever.

My posts were intended to point that out to you and give you the opportunity either to justify your implied accusation or to be a gentleman and back off from it. Either would be the response of anyone with a shred of ethics and an IQ greater than a single digit.

The question is whether you get that, or are you really that much of an ethical tard?

 

[monovillage]

This quote by Gov. Kaine in the press conference
"During a news conference, Governor Kaine said, "They have raised grave doubts about the level of their involvement" in the crime. He added, "I have wrestled with the multiple confessions these men made to different people at different times and the careful apology Joseph Dick made in court to the family. But I am the only person now that has looked at all of the evidence in all four cases... I think the men have demonstrated any involvement they had is significantly lesser than Omar Ballard's, the primary perpertrator of this crime... This has been a challenging matter, but I think we got it right."

He does not call then innocent. The header of the original post says "Gov Kaine pardons innocent men after 10 years" The actual facts are that he didn't pardon them, it's a conditional pardon which is not the same thing and he also says "that they have raised great doubts about the level of their involvement" which is not "innocent". The influence that Grisham yields due to his fame and political contributions played a large part in getting these conditional pardons. I have a difficult time of believing that 4 different men at different times would confess to some complicity in the rape and murder if they were totally innocent. You only quoted what Tice said about his confession, what about the other 3 ? My comment that maybe this money and influence didn't buy justice is not out of line. Sorry, but i just can't wrap my mind around the fact that 4 different men would confess to some involvement in a rape and murder if they were innocent, it's so abhorrent of a crime to me that confessing to something like that is too much to believe.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

So they say. So you believe all four men are innocent and confessed for the hell of it.
OK good for you. I don't.

If they are moronic enough to admit to raping/killing a woman that they in fact had nothing to do with, then too bad for them and let them rot. I know I wouldn't. It just doesn't pay to lie.
Basically I don't consider it reasonable to accept that four adult males would confess to a rape/murder of a woman in which they had nothing to do with.

Ah so justice should be served based on testimony of the accused. Nice plan...

If you did some research you would see there are a myriad of reasons people confess when they didnt do it. Should we use your barbaric rule in all cases like this? Someone confesses, BAM! auto convict?

Isn't falsely confessing obstructing justice? I think they got exactly what they deserved if they were innocent. They should get the same penalty for falsely confessing to a crime as they would have gotten if they were guilty.

Were you not such a titanic idiot you would know what what you are doing is typical of idiots, it's called blame the victim.

yeap. damn you are right.

sad part is there are a lot of idiots like him. they truly beleive that IF you confese you did the crime. they can't understand that the police have experiance getting people to confess.

 

[Slick5150]

Its the same reason why people in the intelligence business don't try to "coerce" information out of people, because when pushed hard enough they'll tell you whatever it is you want to hear to get you to stop. In this case, it was telling policemen (who most likely had already written the confession for them) that they'd sign it because they were scared shitless. Police got what they wanted, case closed, job well done..

..or not.

Should be an investigation into the cops who got that "confession" in the first place.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: monovillage
1. It's a conditional pardon, not an actual pardon
2. It was funded by and influenced by John Grisham who coincidentally is writing a screenplay about it.
3. 3 men confessed to some level of complicity in the rape and murder of the woman.
4. Being held for 16 hours and threatened with "the needle" would not be enough to get me to confess to complicity in a rape and murder. Would it be enough for you?
5. I have no idea if there was any other evidence, do you?

4. More like bawling in the first half hour and admitting to every open crime in the book.

 

[TruePaige]

More police acting like storm troopers than officers of the law.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: shira
The case is almost open-and-shut that these men are NOT guilty. At the time they were being prosecuted, another man - who had no relationship with these four - and who was in prison for another crime, told one of this companions that he committed the crime. When that jailhouse confession was reported to the authorities, that individual "came clean" and confessed. Furthermore, he stated that he was the only participant in the crime. When genetic testing became available, the genetic evidence at the crime scene matched ONLY him.

During the confessions of the four other men, none of them mentioned the fifth man. Finally, there was absolutely no physical evidence tying any of these four to the crime scene, and no witnesses. And the initial confessions of these men didn't correspond to the actual crime.

What possible prosecutorial theory can explain why - if all five were involved in the crime - the one did not implicate the four and the four did not implicate the one?

The four men were subjected to endless interrogations, and it's well established that false confessions are not all that hard to obtain, IF you know the right buttons to push.

It's a travesty that these men were not given full pardons.

All good points, and hopefully full pardons will be coming soon.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Money brings lots of unjustice. Maybe this time it bought justice.

Maybe money bought injustice. Nobody here is in a position to say that these men were guilty or innocent.

Neither Grisham nor Kaine were in the courtroom or on the jury.
The confessions weren't claimed to be coerced until AFTER the convictions.

After they were convicted, they claimed their confessions were coerced.

These four guys had a chance to consult with a lawyer before trial.
If you were coerced into confessing, but later got to talk to your lawyer, wouldn't you recant your confession BEFORE trial?

Did all four of these guys have the worst lawyer in the U.S.?

Twelve people (I'm assuming the juries had 12) with presumably no bias judged each of these men guilty. A transcript of a trial only contains spoken words. It does not contain gestures, emotions, or reactions. In short, it does not contain the whole story of a trial. Kaine did not have ALL the evidence available at trial, even if he had extra evidence not presented at trial.

If Kaine believes these guys are innocent, why not grant a full pardon? What's this half-ass conditional pardon stuff?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't substantial new evidence allow for a re-trial? Why did Kaine have to get involved at all?

I'd be very interested to know why "30 former FBI agents as well as some ex-prosecutors have backed the men, saying they are not guilty. " I'd believe these guys over Grisham (who has a screenplay pending) and Kaine (who took a boatload of money from Grisham).

If the four are innocent, they deserve a full pardon and an apology from the cops who took their confessions. If they are guilty, they should rot in jail.

Either way, I feel bad for the victim's family.