Last night on the radio I was discussing this article by Chris Roach on the Innocent Pendleton 8. Roach’s belief that the seven Marines and Navy Corpsman are guilty is based on “statistical probability” and his assertion that “there are likely very few false confessions in the American judicial system.”
There are quite a few problems with Roach’s research, however, and the conclusions that he makes are, by nature, also erroneous. The problem is that those who read Roach’s intellectual-sounding ramblings could very easily be swayed into believing that the Innocent Pendleton 8 are guilty, and nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take care of this “confession” argument once and for all.
Errors + Errors = Wrong Conclusions
Before we get started, let’s take a look at something that should tell you right away about how much Roach knows concerning the case.
“…the foundation of [the Pendleton 8’s] defense are the alleged conditions of their clients’ confessions.” - 9/13/06
This shows a misunderstanding of the basic facts of the case, and especially the defense. The “foundation of the defense” is that the men did not commit the acts they are charged with. It’s not a complicated thing here. They’re not saying “We’re hoping to get off on a technicality.” They’re saying, “We did not kidnap, tie up, steal from, or murder this man.”
Now that you’ve seen the above statement from Roach, you can better understand my point. If you don’t even understand the facts, everything after that will be a faulty conclusion.
Roach goes on in the same article to talk about the “confessions” that the men supposedly made.
These incriminating statements are the key to the case.
Not so, says Donald G. Rehkopf Jr., who is a former Air Force prosecutor and defense attorney with a robust 30 years of experience trying cases.
“Confessions should be the icing on the cake,” he said. “If all the prosecution has are incriminating statements, then their case is weak.”
Weak? You mean confessions aren’t the “queen of proofs,” as Roach claims?
The public generally considers confessions to be much more powerful than the legal profession does…
Prosecutors need supporting evidence because “of the very high percentage of confessions that are totally false or half false,” said Rehkopf, now a civilian attorney who practices law in Rochester, N.Y.
Article comments
1 - ken shedd
You are joking right, you use the same arguement to hold people indefinately that are labled terrorists and think its "just fine" to torture them. But grown men confessing is bogus. You need to wake up.