Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 7:16:28 GMT -5
In what's called an Alford plea, they would agree that prosecutors have a solid amount of evidence against them -- likely enough to win a conviction.
Normally, when defendants plead guilty in criminal cases, they admit that they've done the crime in question. But in an Alford plea, defendants are allowed to insist they're innocent, says Kay Levine, a former prosecutor who now teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at Emory University in Atlanta. I saw this last night. Very confusing. I'm sure those guys must be fairly desperate to obtain their freedom, but, and especially considering the extreme nature of the crime .. I think they're making a terrible mistake. I'm sure there are people here and there who will not read all the content of these articles and ignore the bit about the Alford Plea. The result may be that release from prison will put them at risk for worse things than hard time. The "Alford Plea" sounds very similar to a plea of "Nolo Contendre", or "no contest". Beth, you and and then skipped over an important note: The heinous nature of the crime. All too often, when prosecutors have no real evidence of guilt, they try the crime itself instead of the accused. There's a couple of old sayings. About grand juries: "you can indict a ham sandwich" - meaning that an indictment actually does not show guilt of any sort. And - "inflame the jury enough and they'll convict the judge, bailiff, and one another". |
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Aug 22, 2011 9:07:36 GMT -5
It is a tough situation.......for all involved......you have a horribly brutal case......involving children....you have an entire town frightened and demanding someone hang and usually elected officials in charge of those investigating and trying the case......that can definitely be a pretty bad mixture for someone caught up in that.
I thought the info from the profiler was extremely interesting.........that it was someone they knew and trusted....that there were signs of custodial abuse situation......it's been a long time since I read anything on this case.....I may have to go looking thru all the players involved
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 22, 2011 9:15:55 GMT -5
In what's called an Alford plea, they would agree that prosecutors have a solid amount of evidence against them -- likely enough to win a conviction.
Normally, when defendants plead guilty in criminal cases, they admit that they've done the crime in question. But in an Alford plea, defendants are allowed to insist they're innocent, says Kay Levine, a former prosecutor who now teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at Emory University in Atlanta. I saw this last night. Very confusing. I'm sure those guys must be fairly desperate to obtain their freedom, but, and especially considering the extreme nature of the crime .. I think they're making a terrible mistake. I'm sure there are people here and there who will not read all the content of these articles and ignore the bit about the Alford Plea. The result may be that release from prison will put them at risk for worse things than hard time. The "Alford Plea" sounds very similar to a plea of "Nolo Contendre", or "no contest". Beth, you and and then skipped over an important note: The heinous nature of the crime. All too often, when prosecutors have no real evidence of guilt, they try the crime itself instead of the accused. There's a couple of old sayings. About grand juries: "you can indict a ham sandwich" - meaning that an indictment actually does not show guilt of any sort. And - "inflame the jury enough and they'll convict the judge, bailiff, and one another". you are sort of correct. it is similar, but not actually. alford is only acknowledging that the state has enough evidence to convict you. nolo contendre is a guilty plea, which can't be used against you in a civil action, or even another criminal action in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Aug 23, 2011 15:44:35 GMT -5
With this plea......will the police still be able to check out other possible suspects??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2011 18:30:09 GMT -5
I don't know about the police there - but I can bet it wouldn't happen here. I was involved with police investigations (federal/military, city/county) and noted very common factors:
At first, you're surprised by what is done by people you'd least suspect. Then, little by little, you come to believe that EVERYBODY is guilty of SOMETHING - whether they've been caught or not.
Causing the police, generally, to be concerned primarily with closing cases - and not so much caring if they've paired the right suspect to the right crime. If they can hang it on you - they will.
In the case in question - why would they bother? They've closed the case already - their job is done.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726 
|
Post by Jessiealan on Aug 23, 2011 20:26:56 GMT -5
They could if they wanted, but I think the prosecutor would need to request it, or they would need to have a very compelling piece of evidence pointing directly at another suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 28, 2011 12:40:16 GMT -5
The widely held public opinion has been that the W. Memphis 3 were/are innocent. That's the way it's been for many years and I don't think any of this will change things.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 9, 2011 8:45:46 GMT -5
The sad thing about criminal trials is that the onus of guilt stays with the accused for life. Even if the defense sweeps the field and disproves every accusation, resulting in acquital - the public will still believe that "a smart lawyer got him off". Trials are supposed to determine fact, but they do not; the result is nothing, more or less, than the OPINION of those sitting in judgement. The day after the execution of the first woman (Chipita Rodriguez) hanged by the new State of Texas, events proved that she was innocent and that no crime had in fact been committed. However - there is no court in any jurisdiction (city, county, state, or federal) that will address the question of guilt vs innocence once the fatal deed is done. 150 years later, by a special act by the joint houses of the Texas legislature (and a proclamation by the then governor) Chipita was declared innocent. Yet death penalty advocates insist that she was guilty all the same .... Very interesting. I found a few statements here a bit hard to swallow. In the first place, anyone who witnesses the OJ Simpson & the Casy Anthony trials would have a tough time saying that our legal system demands that the accused is assumed guilty, untill proven innocent. In most cases...it's just the opposite....it's nearly impossible to find them guilty. No ammount of proof seems sufficient. In the case of the Memphis three.....we're forgetting something. An eye witness to the murder of two boys. I agree with Jim.....the evidence, including the confession of one of the murderers...was compelling. I hope they DO feel the wrath of the American public, fed up with killers getting off with murder....as should OJ Simpson & Casy Anthony. I hope they are hounded to their graves. As for Chipita Rodriguez.....I looked that one up. So long ago...1863....before the Civil War, in a very remote part of a remote land. Who know's? You would have to have been at the trial....she refused to speak in her own defense. She sure as hell was never "proven innocent"....however she WAS found guilty. We quite frequently "address the question of guilt vs. innocence after the deed is done", That is why we wait 10 to 30 YEARS....exhausting appeals before we execute some of the most dangerous monsters that have been found guilty. In America, ALL criminals, from thieves to murderers have, and avail themselves of, our right to appeal convictions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 12:27:40 GMT -5
And in the case of Chipita, refusing to speak in her own defense -
How could she say ANYTHING - except that she didn't do it - being totally ignorant of events?
In reading up, did you happen to notice that the only real evidence they had against her was that she was "uncommonly ugly"?
She allegedly killed the man for the gold he was carrying. The dead man's horse, grazing downstream - with the "stolen" gold, for which he was allegedly murdered, still in the saddle bags - is pretty eloquent proof of innocence.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 13:20:24 GMT -5
And in the case of Chipita, refusing to speak in her own defense - How could she say ANYTHING - except that she didn't do it - being totally ignorant of events? In reading up, did you happen to notice that the only real evidence they had against her was that she was "uncommonly ugly"? She allegedly killed the man for the gold he was carrying. The dead man's horse, grazing downstream - with the "stolen" gold, for which he was allegedly murdered, still in the saddle bags - is pretty eloquent proof of innocence. now, that comment is lunatical beyond belief, and i think she was innocent. just what does the gold being still in the saddlebags have to do with anything? the chap was dead, and had been murdered. the ONLY question was who did it. the gold has absolutely no relevance |
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 12, 2011 10:14:16 GMT -5
And in the case of Chipita, refusing to speak in her own defense - How could she say ANYTHING - except that she didn't do it - being totally ignorant of events? In reading up, did you happen to notice that the only real evidence they had against her was that she was "uncommonly ugly"? She allegedly killed the man for the gold he was carrying. The dead man's horse, grazing downstream - with the "stolen" gold, for which he was allegedly murdered, still in the saddle bags - is pretty eloquent proof of innocence. You accept "proof" rather easily..... "evidence" is what the gold was.....certainly not anywhere near "proof of innocence". She may very well have gotton "cold feet" & dumped the gold, or perhaps simply lost the gold while escaping to bury it....who knows? Her son is reputed to have been involved. So Texas in 1863 didn't know how to speak Spanish, so she wouldn't have been "understood"  So all innocent people have nothing to say in thier defense, simply because they didn't do it? If that were true, why would we even bother with first hand testimony, or trials at all? So the ONLY evidence against her was that she was uncommonly ugly? I realize that court records have probably been lost......but if early "Texicans" executed everyone who was ugly....uncommon or not, the state wouldn't be populated very well. ;D OR....she may have been innocent...there certainly isn't any proof either way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 14:02:06 GMT -5
And in the case of Chipita, refusing to speak in her own defense - How could she say ANYTHING - except that she didn't do it - being totally ignorant of events? In reading up, did you happen to notice that the only real evidence they had against her was that she was "uncommonly ugly"? She allegedly killed the man for the gold he was carrying. The dead man's horse, grazing downstream - with the "stolen" gold, for which he was allegedly murdered, still in the saddle bags - is pretty eloquent proof of innocence. now, that comment is lunatical beyond belief, and i think she was innocent. just what does the gold being still in the saddlebags have to do with anything? the chap was dead, and had been murdered. the ONLY question was who did it. the gold has absolutely no relevance No, he wasn't murdered; and yes, the gold still being present had everything to do with it. It was obvious that the man's horse balked while crossing the stream, threw him, and he hit his head on a rock. Had he been murdered, it would have been FOR the gold - which was still in the saddle bags. But don't worry about it. The case has been studied for almost 150 years, precisely BECAUSE there's no way to posthmously prove innocence - the best that could be done was acknowledgement of innocence by joint legislative action and proclamation by the governor. And yet you still say she's guilty - proving my point that your assertion simply cannot be either proven or disproven. |
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 12, 2011 15:12:02 GMT -5
now, that comment is lunatical beyond belief, and i think she was innocent. just what does the gold being still in the saddlebags have to do with anything? the chap was dead, and had been murdered. the ONLY question was who did it. the gold has absolutely no relevance No, he wasn't murdered; and yes, the gold still being present had everything to do with it. It was obvious that the man's horse balked while crossing the stream, threw him, and he hit his head on a rock. Had he been murdered, it would have been FOR the gold - which was still in the saddle bags. But don't worry about it. The case has been studied for almost 150 years, precisely BECAUSE there's no way to posthmously prove innocence - the best that could be done was acknowledgement of innocence by joint legislative action and proclamation by the governor. And yet you still say she's guilty - proving my point that your assertion simply cannot be either proven or disproven. Not "obvious" at all Lewis.... If his horse balked and threw him, then the horse also wrapped John Savage's body in a burlap bag. One governmental agency a court, after questioning people & looking at the facts, including the killing AXE marks on his body, wrapped in a burlap sack... with Chipita refusing to testify on her own behalf... found her guilty & hung her on a Mesquite tree. The other, over a hundred years later, with no contact whatever with either Chipita OR witness, OR the body of John Savage, found her "innocent".... Just don't buy it...just more political correctness run amok. |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 13, 2011 6:04:29 GMT -5
now, that comment is lunatical beyond belief, and i think she was innocent. just what does the gold being still in the saddlebags have to do with anything? the chap was dead, and had been murdered. the ONLY question was who did it. the gold has absolutely no relevance No, he wasn't murdered; and yes, the gold still being present had everything to do with it. It was obvious that the man's horse balked while crossing the stream, threw him, and he hit his head on a rock. Had he been murdered, it would have been FOR the gold - which was still in the saddle bags. But don't worry about it. The case has been studied for almost 150 years, precisely BECAUSE there's no way to posthmously prove innocence - the best that could be done was acknowledgement of innocence by joint legislative action and proclamation by the governor. And yet you still say she's guilty - proving my point that your assertion simply cannot be either proven or disproven. your propensity for being wrong is astounding. NO lad, the gold being there has absolutely NO evidentiary value whatsoever. it says NOTHING other than the motive for his killing was not the gold, or that the perpetrator was scared off for some reason after the killing without taking the gold. the one thing that it conclusively does NOT say is that chipeta was innocent. the comment that had he been murdered it would have been for the gold is simply lunatical. there are many more reasons that individuals commit murder than gold. the reality is that, if chipeta had killed him, the overwhelming probability is that it was similar to juanita of downieville. she would have been trying to prevent him from raping her. the gold is a total non issue the idea that the horse balked and threw him is even more insane. that is totally beyond the realm of possibility |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 13, 2011 6:06:56 GMT -5
No, he wasn't murdered; and yes, the gold still being present had everything to do with it. It was obvious that the man's horse balked while crossing the stream, threw him, and he hit his head on a rock. Had he been murdered, it would have been FOR the gold - which was still in the saddle bags. But don't worry about it. The case has been studied for almost 150 years, precisely BECAUSE there's no way to posthmously prove innocence - the best that could be done was acknowledgement of innocence by joint legislative action and proclamation by the governor. And yet you still say she's guilty - proving my point that your assertion simply cannot be either proven or disproven. Not "obvious" at all Lewis.... If his horse balked and threw him, then the horse also wrapped John Savage's body in a burlap bag. One governmental agency a court, after questioning people & looking at the facts, including the killing AXE marks on his body, wrapped in a burlap sack... with Chipita refusing to testify on her own behalf... found her guilty & hung her on a Mesquite tree. The other, over a hundred years later, with no contact whatever with either Chipita OR witness, OR the body of John Savage, found her "innocent".... Just don't buy it...just more political correctness run amok. our pal has a propensity for conjuring up craziness, or repeating the hallucinations of others, even in the face of conclusive proof that such a thing never happened |
|
Omega
