I don't see it that way.
And the prosecutor just admitted, the plea is so they cannot sue for the millions that would normally be sued for.
And this is the reason I do not understand why the defense does not want to go all the way. Even the prosecuter's don't think they could get a conviction this time. So basically the 3 just want out, to me I still question why they don't want new trials if opinion is so overwhelming that they would be acquitted.
Same here hopeful one and I'm quite offended to think that just because we believe in their innocence means that we are their "fans."
Today in the press conference the WM3 attorneys are the ones who came to the state with that offer instead of going to trial (which cost the state money because they have to pay for both sides)
But what happened today was not an Alford plea was it? Or is it? That is what I am asking because I am not a USA citizen.
But what happened today was not an Alford plea was it? Or is it? That is what I am asking because I am not a USA citizen.
Forgive me if this has been covered; I'm over my head with work and don't have time to read the previous posts. What I''m wondering is if they invoked the Alford doctrine/plea......defendant asserts innocence but acknowledges sufficient evidence exists to convict.All three men said in court they are innocent but pleading guilty "after speaking with counsel who believes its in best interest."
It really doesn't matter. They could confess 20 times a day and it won't matter to "the ones who believe in their innocence".....there will always be an excuse as to why they admitted their guilt. And, before I get rotten fruit thrown at me, I am not talking about anyone on this board!! These 3 have a big following.
I wonder what hell the 3 little victims went through?