ilovefuzz.com

WTF?

About time though...

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpps/news/we ... o_14639397

That's the state's way of putting off the gigantic lawsuit they're going to get hit with when just the first one of them clears his name... Glad they're out, but total bullshit.

they entered an Alford plea, which allows you to maintain your innocence even though you're pleading guilty. basically, "I didn't do it, but you have a good enough case to beat me in court."

grindonomicon wrote:That's the state's way of putting off the gigantic lawsuit they're going to get hit with when just the first one of them clears his name... Glad they're out, but total bullshit.

blahquaker wrote:they entered an Alford plea, which allows you to maintain your innocence even though you're pleading guilty. basically, "I didn't do it, but you have a good enough case to beat me in court."

Got the whole thing covered right here.

I predict this thread is locked by Sunday after 15 pages of "spirited debate".

Just waiting on Dubkitty.

blahquaker wrote:they entered an Alford plea, which allows you to maintain your innocence even though you're pleading guilty. basically, "I didn't do it, but you have a good enough case to beat me in court."

That's the stupidest thing ever. So the court acknowledges they are innocent, but they could make them appear guilty even though they are innocent?

MiddleEarthCrisis wrote:I predict this thread is locked by Sunday after 15 pages of "spirited debate".

"Spirited debate." or "what teh effss is this about?"

and how has dubkitty overentaken me as the local grump? I know he's got age on his side, but my random, far flung, tangent-riding rants can be pretty heavy albeit sparse lately.

Fuzzy Fred wrote:

blahquaker wrote:they entered an Alford plea, which allows you to maintain your innocence even though you're pleading guilty. basically, "I didn't do it, but you have a good enough case to beat me in court."

That's the stupidest thing ever. So the court acknowledges they are innocent, but they could make them appear guilty even though they are innocent?

No, the government isn't acknowledging anything. An Alford please just means that the defendant is saying "I'm innocent, but I'm probably gonna lose in front of a jury", basically like pleading no contest.

bigchiefbc wrote:

Fuzzy Fred wrote:

blahquaker wrote:they entered an Alford plea, which allows you to maintain your innocence even though you're pleading guilty. basically, "I didn't do it, but you have a good enough case to beat me in court."

That's the stupidest thing ever. So the court acknowledges they are innocent, but they could make them appear guilty even though they are innocent?

No, the government isn't acknowledging anything. An Alford please just means that the defendant is saying "I'm innocent, but I'm probably gonna lose in front of a jury", basically like pleading no contest.

But they get off free right? Even though they admit guiltiness, they are let go?

Fuzzy Fred wrote:But they get off free right? Even though they admit guiltiness, they are let go?

Reading comprehension: officially a lost art.

Fuzzy Fred wrote:

bigchiefbc wrote:

Fuzzy Fred wrote:

blahquaker wrote:they entered an Alford plea, which allows you to maintain your innocence even though you're pleading guilty. basically, "I didn't do it, but you have a good enough case to beat me in court."

That's the stupidest thing ever. So the court acknowledges they are innocent, but they could make them appear guilty even though they are innocent?

No, the government isn't acknowledging anything. An Alford please just means that the defendant is saying "I'm innocent, but I'm probably gonna lose in front of a jury", basically like pleading no contest.

But they get off free right? Even though they admit guiltiness, they are let go?

No, they are not just let go. This is usually done in exchange for a reduced sentence. In the particular case that we are talking about, they were sentenced to time already served, which is more than a decade already.

Urrr... as a resident of the U.K... that wasn't able to understand news at the time, someone wanna explain what the original story that got them in prison was?

Scruffie wrote:Urrr... as a resident of the U.K... that wasn't able to understand news at the time, someone wanna explain what the original story that got them in prison was?

switch dat jawn with canada.

D.o.S. wrote:

Fuzzy Fred wrote:But they get off free right? Even though they admit guiltiness, they are let go?

Reading comprehension: officially a lost art.

It says released, and there was no explanation offered. So it seems from this thread they get a reduced sentence. Just making sure. Sorry

bigchiefbc wrote:

Fuzzy Fred wrote:

blahquaker wrote:they entered an Alford plea, which allows you to maintain your innocence even though you're pleading guilty. basically, "I didn't do it, but you have a good enough case to beat me in court."

That's the stupidest thing ever. So the court acknowledges they are innocent, but they could make them appear guilty even though they are innocent?

No, the government isn't acknowledging anything. An Alford please just means that the defendant is saying "I'm innocent, but I'm probably gonna lose in front of a jury", basically like pleading no contest.

being forced to enter a guilty plea to avoid being executed even though the dna evidence clearly shows that it was someone else
welcome to the american legal system