- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 187
What say you?
I personally believe that a significant amount of doubt was introduced for both suspects - more than enough to satisfy legal 'reasonable doubt'.
But I am much more concerned with the treatment of two people who have a documented IQ of 70. even though they are both on the higher end, it is still a significant factor IMO. Surely the US legal system has safeguards to protect the legal rights of people with intellectual disabilities? Why weren't these safeguards in place for this case? It is well known that legal procedures need to be adapted to ensure a fair trial for people with intellectual disabilities. The real life functioning of these two people (who clearly show signs of maladaptive behaviour) is an issue which is separate to their guilt or lack of guilt, but the fact that it doesn't seem to have been a factor in this case is troublesome from a legal perspective.
I personally believe that a significant amount of doubt was introduced for both suspects - more than enough to satisfy legal 'reasonable doubt'.
But I am much more concerned with the treatment of two people who have a documented IQ of 70. even though they are both on the higher end, it is still a significant factor IMO. Surely the US legal system has safeguards to protect the legal rights of people with intellectual disabilities? Why weren't these safeguards in place for this case? It is well known that legal procedures need to be adapted to ensure a fair trial for people with intellectual disabilities. The real life functioning of these two people (who clearly show signs of maladaptive behaviour) is an issue which is separate to their guilt or lack of guilt, but the fact that it doesn't seem to have been a factor in this case is troublesome from a legal perspective.
Also, I have only watched the first episode of the documentary. Everything else has come from court documents and msm.
I personally believe that a significant amount of doubt was introduced for both suspects - more than enough to satisfy legal 'reasonable doubt'.
But I am much more concerned with the treatment of two people who have a documented IQ of 70. even though they are both on the higher end, it is still a significant factor IMO. Surely the US legal system has safeguards to protect the legal rights of people with intellectual disabilities? Why weren't these safeguards in place for this case? It is well known that legal procedures need to be adapted to ensure a fair trial for people with intellectual disabilities. The real life functioning of these two people (who clearly show signs of maladaptive behaviour) is an issue which is separate to their guilt or lack of guilt, but the fact that it doesn't seem to have been a factor in this case is troublesome from a legal perspective.
Fruity: Once you see the video of his "confession" you will be outraged. He very clearly has NO idea what they want him to say. They have to feed him every bit that he gives him that is correct. Everything he comes up with on his own is wrong.
I strongly disagree. I believe Brendan's conscience got the best of him and he decided to talk. During the course of multiple iterations of questioning, he was being influenced by others (i.e. family) as to what to admit/not admit. While Kachinsky's investigator was absolutely out of line in the coercive questioning he inflicted upon Brendan, I believe the info Brendan shared was that which one who was uninvolved could never have known. Brendan just wasn't intellectually and emotionally able to maintain the "I dont know...I didn't do it" storyline his family was pressuring him to portray.
I dont believe, from what I have seen and read, that Brendan had effective counsel. But I don't doubt his involvement in Teresa's murder.
Have you read the transcripts of his interrogations?