rationalization
My friend, I'm going to give you a chance to admit that was a disengenuous and euphemistic statement made by an ardent supporter before I embarass you.

What I'm saying how fucked up and weird he might be is irrelevant to whether or not he committed this particular crime.

I don't know, I've never looked too hard into the case, but I've yet to see anything coming close to convincing me that these three guys did this particular crime and that it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So, go nuts.

See what I mean folks?
rationalization
This people are incapable of admitting anything that might implicate our heros.

Innocent lambs chewed up and spit out by a merciless and discriminatory system, I tell ya

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can't imagine that any (hypothetical) prosecutorial claim that a defendant's denial shouldn't stand on account of said defendant's mental deficiencies would be met with anything but derision. And for good reason.

As arguments go, the "He's dumb, hence his confession can't be relied on" defense is pretty weak sauce.

My point was that the confession of this one really stupid guy, without corroborating evidence, isn't particularly compelling. Of course it would form part of the prosecution's case, but in response to MiB, what else have you got that firmly ties those dudes to that crime? I don't mean to generalise that stupid people's confessions aren't legitimate, only that this sprcific example seems rather flimsy without something else.

I really couldn't care less about them personally, I've never even seen any of those documentaries.

You make confessions sound like they're some kind of banality. They're kind of a big deal.

I KILLED JONBENET RAMSAY!

See, that wasn't so hard.

(waits for FBI)

Forgive any errors of typing, I'm jabbing fat fingers at an iPhone here. It would depend on the circumstances of the confession - I'd need to know why exactly the police picked that one really stupid kid to ask if he did it and why his confession was considered any more credible than mine just was. I know next to nothing about this case, I was merely trying to point out that MiB's counter-argumets seem pretty weak.

He confessed twice (MiB's silly "he's confessed so many times I've lost count" is misleading), very different accounts, both confessions at odds with facts known to the police. He's stated he was coerced into both of them (corroborated by a court-appointed expert on false confessions). He's a simple idiot, easily manipulated.

Like you, I have no dog in this fight; I'm not convinced of their guilt or their innocence. But dismissing this guy's confessions is really not a big deal.

They are pretty weak. They're barely counter-arguments at all ("Echols was a weirdo! No one else looks quite as guilty as them even though there's no evidence against them!")...


... except for that darn bottle of Evan Williams. That could be explained a few different ways, but it just doesn't sit right with me, and is basically the only thing keeping me from joining the "they're INNOCENT! Justice has been served!" party.

Nor me - however from the information I'm already aware of, I'm fairly sure there isn't sufficient evidence to credibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did it. Maybe they did it, I don't know and I don't really care.

I don't even own a dog.

I have a cat.

I don't know if anybody remembers those two cadets who murdered that girl in Texas in the mid-90's....one of those here and gone "everybody's talking about" buzz moments you barely recall afterwards. But before David Graham and Diane Zamora confessed, my cousin was initially the only suspect. He was the dead girl's ex-boyfriend, she'd left him and he'd not taken it very well, and he was the last person anybody they had yet talked to had seen her with. He was a long-haired manic depressive living in Texas, so there you are. Anyway, they broke down my uncle's door in the middle of the night and hauled him off in his underwear, and he'll readily tell you that by day three he was ready to confess....he was near suicidal anyway, and of course interrogation techniques are designed to produce confessions....but right before he did he was told he was free to go. A few hours later he saw on the news that somebody else had been arrested for the crime, and the media storm started.

So the point is, he didn't do this thing, but until the real killers were discovered almost by accident every piece of evidence available seemed to suggest it was probably him, and if they'd given him another hour he probably would have confessed to it.

Is he really, though?

First of all, his IQ is above the recognized threshold for mild retardation (69 or below).

Secondly, the 72 score that everyone talks about was given to him after his arrest, when it was understood a lower score might have positive implications.
He had taken two tests previously, scoring 73 and 74. His performance score (research the WAIS if you want to know what this means) was 84 and 88 on the
first two tests, but dropped to 75 on the third after his lawyers told him a low score might help him avoid the death penalty.

Thirdly, watch Paradise Lost, there's a scene of Jessie interacting with his family. Tell me if you think he's "retarded".


The term "mentally retarded" is an extremely loaded one, of course. Supporters attach it to Misskelly reflexively. It helps to convince themselves, I'm sure.
rationalization

No, it's not. research is our friend

Who ever claimed the guy wasn't able to carry on a conversation? He's of lower-than-normal intelligence, he's not a vegetable - and even if his mental faculties weren't in question:


What about the actual content of his confessions makes them reliable if they're contradictory and don't conform to the known facts?

I don't know, I'm asking you MiB.

Of course when you say things like this it kind of betrays your assertion that you have "no dog in this fight."

As I previously stated, that is the euphemism of the century.

Maybe Jim Naseum has some thoughts on this, but one account I read suggested that the Japanese criminal justice system relies on coerced confessions, true or not. I don't know if false confessions are particularly rare even when folks are properly mirandized and not subject to marathon interrogations.

Any word on these guys writing a book with Casey Anthony?

Bam! Lawyered!

Sorry, you're right, somehow I was counting the two confessions prior to conviction as one. Is there a fourth?