Lately I have been reading and listening to a lot of true crime material. A common theme seems to be emerging about false confessions. Cases like the Norfolk Four, Austin Yogurt Shop Murders, West Memphis 3, etc... all have common themes. Investigators that start with suspects (or a theory) then build the evidence to fit that theory instead of allowing the evidence to guide the investigation. They also include long drawn out interrogations and what amounts to coercion as the suspects are spoon fed details of the case. The other big common denominator is that all of the suspects usually swim in the shallow end of the pool IQ wise. Stats show that of the 300+ post conviction exonerations from DNA or other evidence at least 30% of those exonerated had made false confessions. It just makes me think about how many others are locked up in similar situations with no DNA recourse.

The Northfolk four is an especially fucked up case because the actual murderer confessed to doing it alone and only his DNA matched. He continued to say it was only him until the prosecution made him a deal to implicate the other guys (who he had never met) to take the death penalty off the table. It seems in this case the police and DA's office chose saving face over ethics. Now Norfolk is gonna have to pay upwards of $60 million in damages as the Norfolk four have been fully pardoned. The city is fully funded without litigation insurance and only about $7 million in reserve for settlements. This should be interesting as that settlement can bankrupt the city which inturn just screws the citizens of all Norfolk as they will be left with the bill.

I guess the one lesson to learn is to always keep an attorneys card in your wallet and the first thing to come out of your mouth during an interrogation is L-A-W-Y-E-R.



http://pilotonline.com/news/lo...92-602cf41f768f.html

Wrongly convicted “Norfolk Four” threaten $68 million in lawsuits, and the city has no insurance

By Eric Hartley
The Virginian-Pilot
May 24, 2017
NORFOLK

Lawyers for the “Norfolk Four,” the Navy sailors wrongly convicted in the rape and murder of an 18-year-old woman in 1997, have threatened to sue the city for $68 million or more – a potentially catastrophic threat to the municipal budget.

Separate claims sent to the city over the past month say Norfolk police officers, including then-Detective Robert Glenn Ford, coerced false confessions from the men and hid evidence that could have kept them free.

“It is time for Mr. Tice to receive the compensation for the many years of his life that were unjustly taken away from him,” wrote a lawyer for one of the men, Derek Tice.

Lawyers for the other three – Joseph Dick, Danial Williams and Eric Wilson – wrote that they could file suit if the city doesn’t begin settlement negotiations by June 1. None of the four men’s lawyers could be reached for comment Wednesday.

If Norfolk were ordered to pay tens of millions at once, it could mean a tax increase or steep cuts in city services.

Norfolk has only $7 million in the reserve fund it uses to pay lawsuit judgments. The city is entirely “self-insured,” meaning it alone is responsible for covering damages. In contrast, some cities have insurance policies that help pay catastrophic lawsuit judgments.

The City Council discussed the Norfolk Four case in a closed-door meeting May 9, City Attorney Bernard Pishko said.

Afterward, interim city manager Doug Smith announced Norfolk will put $2 million into its “risk management” reserve fund, bringing the total to $7 million. Smith did not mention the Norfolk Four.

The city has another $5 million in an economic-downturn reserve, Budget Director Greg Patrick said.

The Norfolk Four served the mayor and city attorney with notices of claim, which are required before filing suit against a government in Virginia. The city released copies of the claims Wednesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Pilot.

Mayor Kenny Alexander declined to comment on the case, and Pishko didn’t respond to a call and email seeking comment Wednesday.

+5
Norfolk Four Pardons
This photo combination provided by the Navy shows former sailors Eric Wilson, left, Danial Williams, Joe Dick and Derek Tice. Known as the "Norfolk Four," they were granted absolute pardons by Gov. Terry McAuliffe in the 1997 rape and killing of Michelle Moore-Bosko. DNA evidence linked another man, Omar Ballard, to the crimes.

U.S. Navy via AP
The notices list Tice’s damages as $10 million or more, Dick’s as $20 million or more and Williams’ and Wilson’s as at least $19 million apiece.

Plaintiffs can seek any amount in a lawsuit, and it’s common for people who ask for millions to settle for a fraction. But the Norfolk Four case has drawn worldwide attention, and a federal judge ruled last year that the men were clearly innocent.

Three of the men – Dick, Tice and Williams – were convicted of rape and murder. They served a decade behind bars before being released in 2009, following conditional pardons by then-Gov. Tim Kaine. Wilson, who was convicted of rape but not murder, had already served his sentence by 2009 and was denied a pardon.

In their notices, lawyers for the men say the effects of the wrongful convictions lingered for years after they were out of prison.

All four had to register as sex offenders until they were pardoned by Virginia’s governor this year. Wilson’s lawyer, Stephen Northup, wrote that being on the registry limited where he could live and work, and he couldn’t adopt his stepson.

+5
Michelle Moore-Bosko
Michelle Moore-Bosko and her future husband, Billy Bosko, at their high school prom.

Courtesy photo
On July 8, 1997, Michelle Moore-Bosko was found dead by her husband. She had been raped, stabbed and strangled in the couple’s apartment.

Police soon suspected one of her neighbors, Williams, who was known to have a crush on Moore-Bosko. Williams’ roommate, Dick, also became a suspect.

Under questioning, both men admitted to having intercourse with Moore-Bosko while she struggled, and they also said they stabbed her.

Dick led police to Wilson, who eventually told investigators he had held Moore-Bosko down while Williams raped her.

+5
Norfolk Four Pardons
Eric Wilson poses March 29, 2017, at his home in Jourdanton, Texas. Wilson is one of four men known as the "Norfolk Four," who have long claimed police bullied them into falsely confessing to the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko in Norfolk. Wilson was recently pardoned by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, ending a decades-long fight to clear his name. A pardon was the only recourse for Wilson, whose attempts to get his rape conviction thrown out in court had failed because of a technicality.

Darren Abate | The Associated Press
Dick repeatedly changed his story, adding supposed new perpetrators, and eventually included Tice in the account.

“It is clear that Dick was a dupe for the police, whom they could manipulate to get any story they wanted,” U.S. District Judge John Gibney Jr. wrote in the 2016 ruling that concluded the four are innocent.

Like the others, Tice initially denied any involvement but ultimately confessed to the rape and murder.

Williams and Dick pleaded guilty to rape and murder to escape the death penalty. In separate trials, Tice was convicted of rape and murder, and Wilson was convicted of rape but acquitted of murder.

But the four men left no DNA in the apartment.

In 1999, Omar Ballard, whose DNA was at the scene, confessed that he alone raped and murdered Moore-Bosko.

The Norfolk Four all later said a detective, Ford, forced false confessions out of them.

In an unrelated case, Ford was convicted in 2011 of taking money from criminals in exchange for trying to win them leniency in court.

He is scheduled to be released in 2022, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons records.

In 2009, Kaine granted partial pardons to Tice, Williams and Dick and released them from their life sentences, though their convictions remained in place. Wilson already was free, and Kaine denied his request for clemency.

This March, Gov. Terry McAuliffe granted absolute pardons to the four.

+5
Robert Glenn Ford
Buy Now
Retired Norfolk Detective Robert Glenn Ford was sentenced for taking money from criminals in exchange for getting them favorable treatment in courts. Here, he walks to the front door of the U.S. District Court building in Norfolk in 2011.

L. Todd Spencer | The Virginian-Pilot
During a public meeting May 2, City Council members said they were concerned about whether the city had enough money to pay lawsuit judgments.

The Norfolk Four case appeared to be on their minds, the claims having been served on the city just days earlier.

But they carefully avoided any mention.

“I think we all heard today about some ongoing potential big chunks of risk,” Vice Mayor Theresa Whibley said.

The city is considering buying insurance that would take care of some lawsuit judgments. But it would cover only events that happened after the date the insurance is in place, so the city will be on the hook for the Norfolk Four cases regardless.

At the May 2 meeting, Councilwoman Angelia Williams Graves said she wanted more information about how much the city could have to pay out.

“Because we do have some things that are coming down the pipe, so I would like – I think I would like this offline, like a worst-case scenario,” Graves said.

The next week, the council and city attorney discussed the Norfolk Four behind closed doors.

Check out "Generation Why" podcasts. It is two guys I know from Missouri who discuss popular crime cases/theories.

This is the problem with the death penalty.

It seems to me that pardons are inadequate here. The state needs to reconvene the court and enter a judgment of innocent. Pardons carry an implication of guilt.

Police interrogations are, by nature, adversarial. Say nothing, get a lawyer. Some cops/prosecutors just don't care about justice.

This is precisely why in the last ten years I've grown to be an opponent of the death penalty. Not because I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, but because the idea of an innocent man being put to death by his government is so reprehensible to me that it completely negates anything of benefit to us as a society.

Frankly, I'd rather see 1000 guilty men go free than just one man wrongly executed.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This is precisely why in the last ten years I've grown to be an opponent of the death penalty. Not because I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, but because the idea of an innocent man being put to death by his government is so reprehensible to me that it completely negates anything of benefit to us as a society.

Frankly, I'd rather see 1000 guilty men go free than just one man wrongly executed.

Well said. I have thought that way for as long as I can remember.

Life imprisonment can be imposed. In a case like the Norfolk Four, there is no way that the lost years can be returned, but at least the wrongly convicted are still alive and compensation, however inadequate, can be granted.

In the case of somebody who actually is guilty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole will protect society.

Maybe a murderer does not deserve to live; that is an issue that can be debated by both sides, but there is absolutely no question that an innocent person does not deserve to be killed by the state.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This is precisely why in the last ten years I've grown to be an opponent of the death penalty. Not because I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, but because the idea of an innocent man being put to death by his government is so reprehensible to me that it completely negates anything of benefit to us as a society.

Frankly, I'd rather see 1000 guilty men go free than just one man wrongly executed.

I agree with the wrongly executed part, but some cases are so plain, so unambiguously straight forward that there is no doubt about who is guilty. My standard is something on the order of Jack Ruby, who I saw shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on live TV.

This is one reason the perps being killed in the act are so prized. No chance of getting the wrong guy, fewer innocents are harmed, or witnesses no showing, or disappearing, or bribed, no plea bargaining or recidivism, no official corruption, etc.

Maybe people don't really understand "beyond a reasonable doubt."

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This is precisely why in the last ten years I've grown to be an opponent of the death penalty. Not because I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, but because the idea of an innocent man being put to death by his government is so reprehensible to me that it completely negates anything of benefit to us as a society.

Frankly, I'd rather see 1000 guilty men go free than just one man wrongly executed.

I am so divided on the death penalty... it is soooo permanent. My brother in law was murdered by some assholes in KC MO 20 years ago. They stole his fucking car. Bob was not a gang banger, instead he worked his ass off as a grocery store manager. He really worked his ass off to customize hit car and pay for his apartment. It fucked my MIL up forever, it followed her to the grave. It fucked my wife's life up for 10 years until she could wrap her head around what had happened. I don't know if executing these assholes would have helped the family members. I'm moving towards welding the cell door shut and calling it a day.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Police interrogations are, by nature, adversarial. Say nothing, get a lawyer. Some cops/prosecutors just don't care about justice.

Prosecutors are motivated by wins and convictions. It is not to say that they don't care about justice, but they don't get promoted for concluding that they can't convict or that the cops got the wrong guy.

Frankly, I'm a bit torn over this debate. The death penalty is deserved in many cases and maybe the rate seems to be increasing. At the same time the life sentence places a burden on society to house/feed an alleged criminal for his life or until he's eligible for parole. The death sentence starts out with an automatic appeal and leads to years of litigation mostly at public expense. While I won't argue that there are not lazy/corrupt prosecutors who may bend the rules to fit an agenda, I really don't know that that's the norm.

So while we're going this direction, what's the general consensus about ISIS/Muslim terrorism. I've seen threads here where we most of us have the view 'kill em all let God sort it out'.

I'll STFU now.

A little more background on the Norfolk 4: the original suspect was looked at by detectives because a neighbor pointed him out stating he had a crush on the victim. The women who fingered him to the popo was actually in a relationship with the real killer. So they bring the suspect in and go at him for 11 hours until he confesses. A few months later the DNA comes back and it's not a match. Detectives go back at him and say ok who else was in on it. At this time he fingers his roommate. Now the roommate also gets locked up and once again the DNA doesn't match either guy. It goes like this until there are 7 guys implicated in the attack of which only 4 falsely confesssd and get locked up. The real perpetrator in the meantime attacks another women in the same complex and is in jail. He confesses to the murder via a letter to another woman he's trying to threaten. So now the cops are stuck. They have false confessions from multiple suspects and only one real killer who admits to doing it himself. At this time the cops concoct a story where the seven suspects are trying to get into the victims apartment and here comes the actual murder walking by the parking lot who offers to help them break in. All of the suspects except the actual killer were in the Navy at the time. The victim was also the wife of a Navy man who had just come back from deployment to find his wife murdered.

All of th de guys spent a decade or more in Jail. When they were originally conditionedly pardoned around 2009 they were not declared innocent and were forced to register as sex offenders until early 2017 when they were declared innocent.

If you'll swap a promotion for another man's freedom, you don't care about justice.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This is precisely why in the last ten years I've grown to be an opponent of the death penalty. Not because I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, but because the idea of an innocent man being put to death by his government is so reprehensible to me that it completely negates anything of benefit to us as a society.

Frankly, I'd rather see 1000 guilty men go free than just one man wrongly executed.

I agree with the wrongly executed part, but some cases are so plain, so unambiguously straight forward that there is no doubt about who is guilty. My standard is something on the order of Jack Ruby, who I saw shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on live TV.

This is one reason the perps being killed in the act are so prized. No chance of getting the wrong guy, fewer innocents are harmed, or witnesses no showing, or disappearing, or bribed, no plea bargaining or recidivism, no official corruption, etc.

Maybe people don't really understand "beyond a reasonable doubt."

As I said, in a perfect world, I'm all for the death penalty (ignoring the idea that there would even be the need for something like the death penalty in a "perfect world," but I digress). With irrefutable proof like the example you gave, I could sleep easy at night.

But could that ever be the standard applied to just sentencing after a guilty verdict in our justice system? How could a man be found guilty of first degree capital murder by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," but then the court system turn around and say that since we can't be 100% sure of his actual guilt, the death penalty cannot apply in this case? Is it possible for the court to say that the standard for a sentence of death must go beyond a reasonable doubt? Or can the court only apply that guilty means guilty, period, and the sentencing must go forth with that only in mind?

I was the Defense Investigator for the retrial of Robert Springsteen (of Austin's Yogurt Shop Murders infamy), and had the opportunity to interview him numerous times. He was a simple man and I FIRMLY believe he only "confessed" in an early interrogation because he knew he was innocent and was just saying whatever he had to in order to get out of the room at the time.

Richard Ofshe has some very interesting thoughts on coerced confessions.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This is precisely why in the last ten years I've grown to be an opponent of the death penalty. Not because I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, but because the idea of an innocent man being put to death by his government is so reprehensible to me that it completely negates anything of benefit to us as a society.

Frankly, I'd rather see 1000 guilty men go free than just one man wrongly executed.

I agree with the wrongly executed part, but some cases are so plain, so unambiguously straight forward that there is no doubt about who is guilty. My standard is something on the order of Jack Ruby, who I saw shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on live TV.

This is one reason the perps being killed in the act are so prized. No chance of getting the wrong guy, fewer innocents are harmed, or witnesses no showing, or disappearing, or bribed, no plea bargaining or recidivism, no official corruption, etc.

Maybe people don't really understand "beyond a reasonable doubt."

As I said, in a perfect world, I'm all for the death penalty (ignoring the idea that there would even be the need for something like the death penalty in a "perfect world," but I digress). With irrefutable proof like the example you gave, I could sleep easy at night.

But could that ever be the standard applied to just sentencing after a guilty verdict in our justice system? How could a man be found guilty of first degree capital murder by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," but then the court system turn around and say that since we can't be 100% sure of his actual guilt, the death penalty cannot apply in this case? Is it possible for the court to say that the standard for a sentence of death must go beyond a reasonable doubt? Or can the court only apply that guilty means guilty, period, and the sentencing must go forth with that only in mind?

The court system is where someone is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury finds what the facts are. The judge, or later the appeals court, determines questions of law, admissibility of evidence, etc.

These are ideals. Words are used to convey the thought in one person's head to other person's heads, not always with perfect fidelity.

Here is a typical jury instruction on the question:

quote:

As I have just instructed you, the government must meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A "reasonable doubt" is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence received in this trial. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.

There are many variations of exact wording, but this is the essence of what they all come down to.

I've never been in a jury, so I can't speak to the dynamics of deliberations from my own experience, but the deliberation phase is where the folks on the jury hash this out.

What credence ought to be given to various evidence? DNA seems pretty solid although collection, authenticity and preservation can be troubling. Eye witnesses? Ahhh, pretty tough, depending. IMnotalwayssoHO. Means, motive, opportunity? Lots of room for confusion there.

quote:

Originally posted by rkentm:
I was the Defense Investigator for the retrial of Robert Springsteen (of Austin's Yogurt Shop Murders infamy), and had the opportunity to interview him numerous times. He was a simple man and I FIRMLY believe he only "confessed" in an early interrogation because he knew he was innocent and was just saying whatever he had to in order to get out of the room at the time.

Richard Ofshe has some very interesting thoughts on coerced confessions.

I know Dr. Ofshe (non professionally) and he is indeed quite fascinating. he is one of the leading psychology researchers on false confessions.

quote:

Originally posted by rkentm:
I was the Defense Investigator for the retrial of Robert Springsteen (of Austin's Yogurt Shop Murders infamy), and had the opportunity to interview him numerous times. He was a simple man and I FIRMLY believe he only "confessed" in an early interrogation because he knew he was innocent and was just saying whatever he had to in order to get out of the room at the time.

Richard Ofshe has some very interesting thoughts on coerced confessions.

I just finished the book Who Killed These Girls and that is the impression I got. I also found it distasteful how the Austin PD basically through the first two detectives (Jones and Huckabee) under the bus when they were just following the evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:

quote:

Originally posted by rkentm:
I was the Defense Investigator for the retrial of Robert Springsteen (of Austin's Yogurt Shop Murders infamy), and had the opportunity to interview him numerous times. He was a simple man and I FIRMLY believe he only "confessed" in an early interrogation because he knew he was innocent and was just saying whatever he had to in order to get out of the room at the time.

Richard Ofshe has some very interesting thoughts on coerced confessions.

I just finished the book Who Killed These Girls and that is the impression I got. I also found it distasteful how the Austin PD basically through the first two detectives (Jones and Huckabee) under the bus when they were just following the evidence.

Haven't read that one. Did it also go into the arson investigations and the changed conclusions after the fact?

quote:

Investigators that start with suspects (or a theory) then build the evidence to fit that theory instead of allowing the evidence to guide the investigation.

Several years ago I watched the entire trial of a local murder investigation (I was unemployed so I had time ) and I noticed this with the police investigation. The guy ended up being convicted, and I'm not saying he is innocent, but it was obvious he was the only suspect from the start. Even though there were multiple other viable leads in the beginning, the police never looked into them.

The amount of evidence that was destroyed, mishandled or not collected to begin with was just unreal.

If you are ever suspect in a crime, even if you are innocent, get a good lawyer right away. The police and prosecutors can and do sometimes get it wrong.