Who exactly?

Name them and present credible evidence and I will fight to get them out of prison. Otherwise, STFU.mud_shark: jst3p: mud_shark: Okay, good. Let's continue then. These same people who argue that innocents are sometimes found guilty and sentenced to death do not seem to give a flying fark if some innocent is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

This is where you shift into "tarded"

I have never heard anyone say "Abolish the death penalty because sometimes people who are wrongly convicted die. But the people who are wrongly convicted of lesser crimes... meh... no biggie."

Really? Do you not pay attention to the news or what? People don't actually say that, but they definitely mean that - oh, and to that other poster who told me to follow someone else's link that wasn't to a Wikipedia site - it was a Wikipedia site.

Sorry, but I demand facts, not opinions. You don't need to convince me that some people have been wrongly convicted - I want to stop that more than you do. I just think that justice should be served no matter if the crime is seemingly minor or something that I feel is worthy of the death penatly.

You asked for a credible death penalty case in which the defendant was likely innocent. I gave you the first one I could think of. Now you're changing your statement to something else, and also saying that you don't believe it because it's wikipedia. Fine. Look up the sources wikipedia uses for the article. Look up the case in the news. Look up the case in the innocence project, I'm sure it's there. But wait, you don't believe the innocence project either. I guess I just give up then.

mud_shark: jst3p: mud_shark: Okay, good. Let's continue then. These same people who argue that innocents are sometimes found guilty and sentenced to death do not seem to give a flying fark if some innocent is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

This is where you shift into "tarded"

I have never heard anyone say "Abolish the death penalty because sometimes people who are wrongly convicted die. But the people who are wrongly convicted of lesser crimes... meh... no biggie."

Really? Do you not pay attention to the news or what? People don't actually say that, but they definitely mean that - oh, and to that other poster who told me to follow someone else's link that wasn't to a Wikipedia site - it was a Wikipedia site.

Sorry, but I demand facts, not opinions. You don't need to convince me that some people have been wrongly convicted - I want to stop that more than you do. I just think that justice should be served no matter if the crime is seemingly minor or something that I feel is worthy of the death penatly.

Well, I didn't post any links to Wikipedia, so there was apparently some error. And you are aware that Wikipedia is actually vetted quite a bit and much more reliable than it is given credit for, right?

Anyway, so, yes, you are the type of person who will not accept any evidence unless you deem it worthy, regardless of it's truth. Now I know, and I don't need to engage with you anymore.

Fat and Nasty 86: What would YOU do for a Klondike bar?


Thread over in 2. Well done sir.

dmd8605: doyner: rotsky: I'd say he's had quite a rocky road.

My first sighting! Your actually real!

I see what you did there.

hahaha! I was in on the orginal rotsky thread. good times....

What's worse than a sexual predator? A vindicative biatch who frames an innocent man as a sexual predator. The mom can rot in hell.

Maliciously false accusations of sex crimes should be considered a sex crime.

If the city of Vancouver and or the State of Washington were truly interested in any sense of justice in this case, then detective Sharon Krause should be indicted by the prosecutors office immediately. She would have had to have been a complete idiot notto have known this man was innocent of the charges. Unfortuantely, we - once again - have a situation in which a person with an agenda for self promotion is given a tremendous amount of power. She lied to the prosecutors office, lied to the children, (coersing them to inturn lie) and lied in a court of law. At the very least, Spencer should retain an attorney to sue her, and the city into oblivion. That this can happen in a suppossedly "free" country is appalling!

Basiorana: onebadgungan: Oh, I'm not anti-death penalty as a concept. I'm just anti-death penalty for innocent people. I also don't consider it a deterrent - it's state-sanctioned revenge. If that's what you need to get over whatever the criminal did to you or your family, go to it. Unfortunately, it rarely gives peace of mind or closure. Victim Resources (new window)

While I agree it can be misused for such purposes, I believe the death penalty isn't revenge OR a deterrent. It's taking out the trash. I mean, if you really have evidence-- I mean evidence like we had against Saddam Hussein, not some cop saying you did it and circumstantial crap-- then it's better for everyone involved if you kill the guy. You save money, time, energy, and you take care of someone who cannot be put back onto the streets anyway. No revenge involved, just eliminating individuals whose life can only harm us.

I believe it's actually more expensive (new window) to the state to execute someone. And it takes more time and effort for the state. If that money and effort were put into rehabilitation programs, recidivism would go down and crime would drop sharply. But the privately owned prisons would make less and the private security firms who staff them would make less. While I don't think the only reason for executions is so businesses can profit, I think keeping executions so there is no money for those programs is at least a partial concern.

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Derek313: Some farkers must of done some time, I see a little prison argot in here.

/if you had to look that up, you suck

I know what "farkers" means, thank you very much.

I had to look up "must of." I still don't understand it.

CruiserTwelve: fnordfocus: Again, WTF? Wouldn't his union provide a decent lawyer? If not, a cop could sure as heck afford to pay for one.

No, unions don't provide lawyers for non-duty related matters.

That being said, I'm very suspicious about this. What cop would plead no contest to such serious charges knowing he was facing many years in jail for something he didn't do? His excuse of "My public defender didn't prepare a defense" is extremely weak and for his kids to wait this long to decide they were never molested is suspicious too.

Dude, did you forget how it was back in the 80's? Not only was a child molester guilty until proven innocent, sometimes they were guilty EVEN WHEN proven innocent. Also, faith was so strong in the "repressed memory" syndrome, there were cases where the DEFENDANTS were convinced they had done the crime, and were repressing the memory! (Paul Ingram, a police safety officer in Olympia, Washington, in 1988)

Also, as I said earlier, it was an article of faith with the cops, psychiatrists, and media, that if a child said he or she had been molested then IT WAS TRUE, even without any other evidence, and sometimes even with evidence to the contrary. I can see why this man would have thought he was better off taking the nolo, and hoping justice would prevail on his appeal. Which it didn't. And still hasn't, because according to the article, the DA's office may refile charges. Because IF A CHILD SAYS HE WAS MOLESTED IT MUST BE TRUE.

onebadgungan I agree the death penalty is no deterrent.

What it is, it's a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card.
Let's face it, everybody dies.

veive: farkin_Gary: mediaho: Police interrogations are an unholy mindfark I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Believe me, it's just as easy to mindfark 'em back, if you know how the game is played and you're lucky.

How many 5 year old kids know how the game is played though??

I meant that in the context of an adult interrogation.

Interviews of children, as a matter of criminal investigation, are a matter I would never wish to take responsibility for.

This makes me want to barf

/barfing
//maybe it's the drinking
///still disgusted by that and the hurricanes of course

mud_shark: jst3p: mud_shark: Okay, good. Let's continue then. These same people who argue that innocents are sometimes found guilty and sentenced to death do not seem to give a flying fark if some innocent is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

This is where you shift into "tarded"

I have never heard anyone say "Abolish the death penalty because sometimes people who are wrongly convicted die. But the people who are wrongly convicted of lesser crimes... meh... no biggie."

Really? Do you not pay attention to the news or what? People don't actually say that, but they definitely mean that -

So first you accuse me of not watching the news then you go on to concede that no one says that but you infer that this is what they mean based on... well nothing that I can see.

Stay in school kid.

In my opinion...

Since the age of 18 the children in this case have been committing a crime. They allowed a lie to keep going that cost an innocent man his freedom. They knew it was a lie.

After you are an adult then you should have to bear the burden of your crime fully. In situations like this the people who lied should have to serve the amount of time in prison that they caused an innocent man to serve.

det: get a new

Nice.

Derek313: Some farkers must of done some time, I see a little prison argot in here.

/if you had to look that up, you suck

what argot? what argot??

:)

/yes, I had to look it up

det: Maybe they just wanted to get a new daddy...

Meant to quote the whole thing.

/Nice
//Fail for me

angst178n: In my opinion...

Since the age of 18 the children in this case have been committing a crime. They allowed a lie to keep going that cost an innocent man his freedom. They knew it was a lie.

After you are an adult then you should have to bear the burden of your crime fully. In situations like this the people who lied should have to serve the amount of time in prison that they caused an innocent man to serve.

These kids had been convinced at a young age by a police officer and their own mother that they had been abused and just couldn't remember it. It may have just taken this long for the brainwashing to wash off. And that "repressed memory" theory has only been universally acknowledged as the BS that it is for the last 5 years or so.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Wow, this is the worst episode of "Frasier" ever.

funny

RenownedCurator: Did it never occur to the mother that in the process of farking over her poor ex-husband she was also using her children in a horrible way?

No. Anybody else's feelings wouldn't have occurred to her. She probably had none of her own, beyond unchecked fury whenever she was frustrated. She wanted to be rid of her husband and she was going to have him got rid of. Why, we'll probably never know. Probably his only real crime was being unable or unwilling to be a complete doormat who would do or say or buy her everything she thought she wanted him to.

Sociopaths are like that.

They're also very good at manipulation. Children are perhaps only now realizing what a lunatic their mother really is.

CruiserTwelve:Why not? What does a person on death row have to lose?

Because in most states (like california) when someone has their DNA checked as evidence in a crime, it is usually the very last appeal they will get, including death row cases. They can even be moved to death row from life or life without parole on DNA evidence. There can be a lot to lose. Plus, it's not just DNA that gets them free, it's all the investigative work done by the Project aside from the DNA.

There is no "suspicious", because it doesn't happen.

Yes, it does. I can't find a quote but Barry Scheck himself has admitted that in many cases their DNA tests have proven their clients guilty. The Innocence Project has refused to release numbers though.

So here's another question: Do you think more guilty people are found innocent by juries than innocent people are found guilty? I would guess that far more guilty people are acquited than the other way around.

I have been searching through google for anything like what you assume Sheck has said, and have found nothing of the sort. I call a [citation needed] on this one.

Do you have some sort of beef with the Innocence Project, with people who are exonerated through DNA evidence, of with a legal system that is so farked that the difference between guilty or not guilty has more to do with power and status than whether or not you actually did anything?

The saying "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed" is apropos, as long as we have prosecutors, judges and cops who seek power and control at any cost, and a system which leans heavily in favor of the rich and powerful.

I don't care what his lawyer told him, what the odds were, what anything was...

No father, does anything other then scream "innocent" when the judge asks how he pleads on the charges he molested his children, if the father really is innocent.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I read a police report at work last week. It went something like this:
"Suspect was pulled over for suspicious broken tail-light. I asked for license and registration. Suspect was acting suspiciously. Suspect was acting very nervous, hands were trembling nervously and suspiciously. Suspect answered my questions, but very suspiciously and nervously. Suspect looked from side to side at one point. Suspect smelled strongly of marijuana. Car smelled strongly of marijuana. Driver's license and registration papers smelled strongly of marijuana. I handcuffed suspect and conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle for contraband and officer safety. I found an unregistered pistol in the trunk, locked in a box, unloaded. No marijuana was found. I immediately arrested suspect."

As someone who was arrested during a speeding ticket stop for having a two year-old bottle rocket under the edge of the carpet of my trunk, I laugh. If they had stopped me during the 4th that I had actually purchased the fireworks, I could understand that I was a safety hazard. Two years on, that farking thing had been missed because I don't really Molly Maid my trunk.

At least my traffic judge had the good sense to dismiss the charges. Still cost me a lot of money. They impounded my car, I had to get processed and released, and then I had to cab to the lot to get my car. And I had to pay towing charges.

Don't get me wrong, I WAS speeding. But because of a lost rocket in my trunk, instead of a ticket I was booked and released. That was a day off work for court, and 500 dollars for the attorney. There was another 300 dollars for towing.

Oddly enough since the charges were dismissed there were no court costs. The state didn't make any money on the extra stop, and the judge dropped my speeding ticket as well. Unless the county had a deal with the towing company, no one involved in my arrest made any money at all, and they certainly didn't make anyone safer.

It's not like I was keeping a wet, barely recognizable paper bottle rocket for two years in some grand plan to "do something".

/And officer Reynolds - you're an asshole.
//And the judge told you as much.

JohnBigBootay: Sadly, this is only news because he may get out. I'd wager there's hundreds, if not thousands of people wrongfully imprisoned for this. It's the salem witch trials of the modern age. Not that there aren't real offenders, of course there are.

Probably more like tens of thousands of innocents. Child abuse has the highest rate of conviction of any crime (these are stats from 10 years ago or so, from the top of my head), yet it also has the highest false conviction rate of any crime.

Also, I'm too tired to reread the article, but I'm assuming he is already out? Said he was in prison nearly 20 years and was convicted in 1985, so I'm thinking he's been out for 4-5 years already.

jevman: No father, does anything other then scream "innocent" when the judge asks how he pleads on the charges he molested his children, if the father really is innocent.

You know what: THIS. I can't think of a single scenario that a father would think it would help his kids if he did, and that's the only reason I can come up with that a parent would actually plead to something like that.

jevman: I don't care what his lawyer told him, what the odds were, what anything was...

No father, does anything other then scream "innocent" when the judge asks how he pleads on the charges he molested his children, if the father really is innocent.

Good thing you are "No father". Putting your own self into a hypothetical situation and then extrapolating your own hypothetical behavior out to all fathers is terrible logic. Try again.

This dude got railroaded:

-his lawyer had no defense prepared whatsoever
-there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse
-the prosecution withheld the medical exams from the defense
-According to the American Psychological Association, it is not currently possible to distinguish a true repressed memory from a false one without corroborating evidence.

Any competent counsel could've had the conviction thrown out for any number of reasons:

-incompetent counsel
-prosecutorial misconduct
-police misconduct

This dude got farked and only 20 years later, after the statute of limitations expired on the mother's actions, did they admit to screwing over their dad.

Something similar happened here. Guy was 19 years old and his 7 yr old sister was being molested by moms boyfriend. Mom and boyfriend told her to say it was her brother or they would be homeless. No forensic evidence, just her testimony sent him to jail for 7 years. He served it and told people he was in for GTA. Now he's 44 years old and as of a few months ago he was totally exonerated of the crime. Just in case you were wonderng Yes molester boyfriend continued doing it until they threw him out a few months later and he disappeared.

hej: PfizerX: scottydoesntknow: That's farked up. He spent 20 years in a Federal PMITA prison for child abuse...and he's an ex-cop. Like others have said, he's lucky to be alive. If I were him, the first thing I would have done upon release is walk up to now-retired Detective Krause, and cockpunch him for every day I was in there.

7300 Cockpunches. That would be the most consecutive cockpunches since Keith Hackney Fought Joe Son's crotch at UFC 4.

Again, I'll point out that the detective who helped put this guy in jail was a female. So the point of your cockpunches may be lost on her.

You haven't seen many "female" police officers, have you?

I'm pretty sure they start to grow penises (Penii?) when they get their first mullet.

I'm going to post before I read the thread because time is always against me. By the time I read all the comments, it's to late to post one of my own.

My brother was accused by his daughter in 1989. No evidence, irrefutable testimony that the kids were 30 miles away visiting a relative when it supposedly happened, social workers reprimanded for coaching the girl, etc... 5 Life Sentences, served consecutively. Appeals dropped it to 2 terms, concurrent. He has been in jail for twenty years. As an adult, his daughter went through the courts to get him a new hearing after recanting. It took her a few years, but she finally got him back into court and told her story. The judge had to decide if she was lying then or lying now. He decided on now and sent my brother back to his cell. Yay justice

Were these kids retards? At some point wouldn't they say "gee dad went to jail because I lied, this is bullshiat, I can't see Daddy, I love Daddy?"

I have a friend who I strongly suspect this happened to. Her mom claimed she came home one day to find dad was high on coke whih he'd been trying to quit and making 2 year old baby girl give him a BJ, so she just grabbed babygirl and up and left and never looked back and thankfully dad never looked for them. Buddy has no memory of this, but figures she was two so it makes sense she can't remember, and thinks her mom is a hero. But this was in 1973 supposedly, so the coke use makes me raise an eyebrow (especially as this story was told to buddy in 1984) and wouldn't it make more sense to have called the cops on this assmunch than sneak off in the night? I'm not saying it's a total lie; I'm saying I suspect it was more involved.

Long story short, to this day she has no idea where her dad was/is and has no desire to find him. He has also apparently never looked for her. Her mom was known to be living under one fake identity and I have long suspected her mom up and took off with her one night for whatever reason and created identities for them both.

mrcaffeine: I'm going to post before I read the thread because time is always against me. By the time I read all the comments, it's to late to post one of my own.

My brother was accused by his daughter in 1989. No evidence, irrefutable testimony that the kids were 30 miles away visiting a relative when it supposedly happened, social workers reprimanded for coaching the girl, etc... 5 Life Sentences, served consecutively. Appeals dropped it to 2 terms, concurrent. He has been in jail for twenty years. As an adult, his daughter went through the courts to get him a new hearing after recanting. It took her a few years, but she finally got him back into court and told her story. The judge had to decide if she was lying then or lying now. He decided on now and sent my brother back to his cell. Yay justice

My god. This is the stuff of nightmares. I have no words.

Need_MindBleach: And that "repressed memory" theory has only been universally acknowledged as the BS that it is for the last 5 years or so.


disagrees

/I don't
//but James does

SquintyKat
Could be scarier. In a newspaper article last year, they included an interview with the police officer who went to interview the girl in a group home because she was saying that I had also raped her. This was the first any of us had ever heard of it and they mentioned me by name in the article (not "a relative", by my farking name) Luckily, the policeman decided that since her story was impossible from a linear time perspective, he decided that it was without merit. So, at 40 years old, I find out that a child sex investigation of me is in the files. I get sick thinking of what might have become of me. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Seeing that in the local paper means that people I used to know probably read it and decided I might be a sick individual. If I still lived there, thay might treat me like a child molester that got away.

Oh, my brother signed a contract last week to get out in 2012. If he were in jail for killing someone, he would have been out in 1996, 16 years earlier than he will for this charge.

I believe with one of the comments on thats site, the wife should be sent to jail for 20 years as well as the cops.

onebadgungan: CruiserTwelve: onebadgungan: These people would probably know more about it. (new window)

Do you find it suspicious that the Innocence Project refuses to release statistics on how many death row inmates guilt has been supported by DNA as a result of their investigations?

No. Why is that important? If their results are one innocent person not killed and 100 guilty people confirmed guilty, they still did a good job.

I don't disagree with that, but why would they refuse to release statistics? Could it be that a vast majority of their cases prove the guilt of their clients and they only want us to hear about the times they prove them innocent?

mrcaffeine: SquintyKat
Could be scarier. In a newspaper article last year, they included an interview with the police officer who went to interview the girl in a group home because she was saying that I had also raped her. This was the first any of us had ever heard of it and they mentioned me by name in the article (not "a relative", by my farking name) Luckily, the policeman decided that since her story was impossible from a linear time perspective, he decided that it was without merit. So, at 40 years old, I find out that a child sex investigation of me is in the files. I get sick thinking of what might have become of me. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Seeing that in the local paper means that people I used to know probably read it and decided I might be a sick individual. If I still lived there, thay might treat me like a child molester that got away.

Oh, my brother signed a contract last week to get out in 2012. If he were in jail for killing someone, he would have been out in 1996, 16 years earlier than he will for this charge.

We all know the "justice system" is fu*ked up. Sexual abuse is the hot topic now, while real abusers go free.

CruiserTwelve: onebadgungan: CruiserTwelve: onebadgungan: These people would probably know more about it. (new window)

Do you find it suspicious that the Innocence Project refuses to release statistics on how many death row inmates guilt has been supported by DNA as a result of their investigations?

No. Why is that important? If their results are one innocent person not killed and 100 guilty people confirmed guilty, they still did a good job.

I don't disagree with that, but why would they refuse to release statistics? Could it be that a vast majority of their cases prove the guilt of their clients and they only want us to hear about the times they prove them innocent?

Does it make a difference? Even heard of the saying "Better ten guilty men walk free than one innocent one be imprisoned?"

Gyrfalcon: I can see why this man would have thought he was better off taking the nolo, and hoping justice would prevail on his appeal. Which it didn't. And still hasn't, because according to the article, the DA's office may refile charges. Because IF A CHILD SAYS HE WAS MOLESTED IT MUST BE TRUE.

I understand your argument, but I'm still not convinced that there wasn't something to the charges. He chose to take the nolo, and he lost every appeal. I understand that innocent people can be convicted because the crime is so disgusting that the jury wants to convict just because of that, but this guy was a cop so he supposedly knew the law, and he chose to plead nolo contendre to some serious charges. His excuse that his PD was incompetent stinks. He could have asked for a new PD. He could have had a trial to the court instead of a jury. He just didn't seem to put up any fight at all and it doesn't sound like something a cop accused of molesting his own kids would do if the charges were a complete fabrication.

We're only hearing one side of the story here. I know that's usually enough for many Farkers, but I have a suspicious mind and I have a feeling there's much more to this than we're hearing about.

rewind2846: I have been searching through google for anything like what you assume Sheck has said, and have found nothing of the sort. I call a [citation needed] on this one.

Yeah, I couldn't find it either but I'm sure he has said that. I'll keep looking.

Do you have some sort of beef with the Innocence Project, with people who are exonerated through DNA evidence, of with a legal system that is so farked that the difference between guilty or not guilty has more to do with power and status than whether or not you actually did anything?

I applaud the inncocence project. I think it's a great thing. Bear in mind though, the vast majority of people that are convicted are guilty. The few that get convicted in error are an anomoly. That certainly doesn't make it right of course, but the prisons aren't full of innocent people. With 2.3 million people in prison, the number the innocence project has exonerated is in the hundreds. That's a tiny percentage. The system isn't perfect, but it works pretty damn well.

Also remember that before DNA cops and prosecutors had to rely on witnesses that sometimes were mistaken or for whatever reason lied about what they saw. There was no evil intent, it was just using the best evidence they had available at the time.

The saying "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed" is apropos, as long as we have prosecutors, judges and cops who seek power and control at any cost, and a system which leans heavily in favor of the rich and powerful.

I don't disagree with that.

Not that it will ever happen, but I'd be fascinated to see some kind of interview with the wife and/or prosecutors involved.

Would they admit they lied? Would they be remorseful for what they did? Would they see some kind of justification (i.e. "Okay he didnt do it but he deserved what he got because (insert insane reasoning here)".

I also wonder if there will be any ramifications for them and if not, why not?

austerity101: We really need to get over our obsession with child molestation, too.

I know, man. It's like they're ruining it for everybody.

CruiserTwelve: Gyrfalcon: I can see why this man would have thought he was better off taking the nolo, and hoping justice would prevail on his appeal. Which it didn't. And still hasn't, because according to the article, the DA's office may refile charges. Because IF A CHILD SAYS HE WAS MOLESTED IT MUST BE TRUE.

I understand your argument, but I'm still not convinced that there wasn't something to the charges. He chose to take the nolo, and he lost every appeal. I understand that innocent people can be convicted because the crime is so disgusting that the jury wants to convict just because of that, but this guy was a cop so he supposedly knew the law, and he chose to plead nolo contendre to some serious charges. His excuse that his PD was incompetent stinks. He could have asked for a new PD. He could have had a trial to the court instead of a jury. He just didn't seem to put up any fight at all and it doesn't sound like something a cop accused of molesting his own kids would do if the charges were a complete fabrication.

We're only hearing one side of the story here. I know that's usually enough for many Farkers, but I have a suspicious mind and I have a feeling there's much more to this than we're hearing about.

What side of the story is missing? The kids said it didn't happen. The dad said it didn't happen. He was let out of jail 4 years ago. The mom was sleeping with his boss. His PD didn't even fashion a defense. Now he's trying to get his name cleared from the sex offender charges, since he was let out of jail because there was no abuse. The medical records even prove there was no abuse. What is missing from this story that will help you?

Haha, it's funny because no matter what the outcome, cops are crooked.

CruiserTwelve: Gyrfalcon: I can see why this man would have thought he was better off taking the nolo, and hoping justice would prevail on his appeal. Which it didn't. And still hasn't, because according to the article, the DA's office may refile charges. Because IF A CHILD SAYS HE WAS MOLESTED IT MUST BE TRUE.

I understand your argument, but I'm still not convinced that there wasn't something to the charges. He chose to take the nolo, and he lost every appeal. I understand that innocent people can be convicted because the crime is so disgusting that the jury wants to convict just because of that, but this guy was a cop so he supposedly knew the law, and he chose to plead nolo contendre to some serious charges. His excuse that his PD was incompetent stinks. He could have asked for a new PD. He could have had a trial to the court instead of a jury. He just didn't seem to put up any fight at all and it doesn't sound like something a cop accused of molesting his own kids would do if the charges were a complete fabrication.

We're only hearing one side of the story here. I know that's usually enough for many Farkers, but I have a suspicious mind and I have a feeling there's much more to this than we're hearing about.

You just don't like to think that a cop could get railroaded by the justice system you swore to protect and defend, do you? I'm not being snarky, hon, I totally understand. But you want to believe this guy was guilty, because you'd rather not think that EVEN A GOOD COP could get nailed by a runaway justice system.

Being a cop doesn't mean he has any unusual insight into the way the law works, and I'm telling you, the way the courts were inclined towards child molesters, plus the mental agony he had to be in at being charged by his own kids and his own department with such a heinous offense, he may have just nodded dully when his lame-ass PD said take the plea, and spent the next 20 years trying to rectify the situation.

It's a biatch trying to get past that first plea.

onebadgungan: What side of the story is missing? The kids said it didn't happen. The dad said it didn't happen. He was let out of jail 4 years ago. The mom was sleeping with his boss. His PD didn't even fashion a defense. Now he's trying to get his name cleared from the sex offender charges, since he was let out of jail because there was no abuse. The medical records even prove there was no abuse. What is missing from this story that will help you?

I'd like to hear what evidence convinced him that pleading nolo to the charges was a good idea at the time. We're not hearing from the prosecution side of this case, nor are we hearing why a judge accepted his plea.

It sounds like it was the mom of one of the three victims, not all three, that was sleeping with the boss.

FTA: In 1985, Spencer entered the no-contest pleas, a type of guilty plea, after learning his court-appointed attorney had not prepared a defense. He felt pleading no contest was his only option, and that he would appeal his convictions.

His attorney hadn't prepared a defense? He was facing two life sentences and he felt that a nolo plea was his only option? I don't buy it. Something just isn't sitting right with me on this one.

Gyrfalcon: You just don't like to think that a cop could get railroaded by the justice system you swore to protect and defend, do you? I'm not being snarky, hon, I totally understand. But you want to believe this guy was guilty, because you'd rather not think that EVEN A GOOD COP could get nailed by a runaway justice system.

Nope, it's not that at all. He may have been totally innocent. But I'm just having a hard time believing a cop would plead nolo when he knew he'd done nothing wrong. Cops are some of the hardest headed people you'll ever know, and it's hard enough to get them to admit they're wrong when they really are wrong let alone getting them to admit they're wrong when they're not.

Being a cop doesn't mean he has any unusual insight into the way the law works

I'd argue that point with you. Cops, more than anyone else including lawyers, know how the criminal justice system works. Cops see it from every angle.

, and I'm telling you, the way the courts were inclined towards child molesters, plus the mental agony he had to be in at being charged by his own kids and his own department with such a heinous offense, he may have just nodded dully when his lame-ass PD said take the plea, and spent the next 20 years trying to rectify the situation.

I admit that's possible, but it still doesn't sit well with me. I still think there's something more to this than we're being told in this article.

It's a biatch trying to get past that first plea.

Which is why I find it particularly hard to believe he entered that plea. It's like spotting the other team 20 runs in the first inning in hopes you can score 21.

CruiserTwelve: It sounds like it was the mom of one of the three victims, not all three, that was sleeping with the boss.

Did you not read the article? I mean I too am slightly suspicious and suspect retardation on either the part of the kids or the cop involved, but there were TWO "victims" and they were both children of the same woman, the one who was sleeping with his boss.

BTW from the article while it's not directly stated it seems pretty implied that mom still contends it did happen and the kids are in denial. CYA and all.

Children will say anything you tell them to.

My cousin was put in jail because his aunt made her kids tell police he molested them. She dropped the charges later when her conscience kicked in. Nobody knows why she did it.

skinink: Scary tag? How about a sad one. The guy lost 20 years of his life to jail. Any compensation he gets won't even begin to make up for that.
I don't know how many Farkers have look at a typical police report. I had one written on me after an incident and requested it (after my lawyer saw no need to get a copy for my case). Cops do like to embellish and I can't remember the movie but the quote went something like if a cop thinks your guilty, he's gonna make you guilty.
The cop's report was so bad he couldn't even get my name correct on the report even after copying down my license info. for a second I thought about ignoring the summons because it clearly wasn't my name on the report.

I was convicted on "expert eye witness testimony" that said my girlfriend was white.

Yeah but Michael Jackson is guilty because prosecutors never lie. And OJ, he's guilty too.

thanks for playing sheeple