It's a very unusual set of circumstances but he was basically obsessed with the murder and had been out drinking the night it happened. Because he was blacked out or didn't remember, he became obsessed with the idea that he might have done it, and talked to people he knew about it. Those people reported him to the police and they supplied all of the details and got a confession from him without there being any physical evidence that tied him to the scene.

You didn't answer my questions. Why did he freely and knowingly plead guilty and not raise an issue at the time and why did his lawyer agree to the guilty plea?
Physical evidence isn't required for a criminal conviction so your point is irrelevant.

I explained it to you-- he plead guilty because he thought he did it.

The fact that physical evidence isn't required for a conviction doesn't invalidate any point I made. His lawyer went ahead with the plea because his lawyer likely thought he did it too.

The justice system isn't really equipped to handle false confessions very well.

Why would his lawyer think he did it? Why didn't the judge see anything amiss? You sound like you're simply making this up as you go along, sorry. I'm not saying your points are validated or invalidated, just don't bring up irrelevant issues such as physical evidence as you're simply raising the burden of proof bar for special little snowflakes it seems. Again I've no idea if they're innocent or not and from what little I read there were brady violations re Ferguson anyway so he definitely deserved his conviction being vacated. But this discussion with you and the fact that his co defendant pleaded guilty (and I'm currently taking your explanation as to why he did, with a grain of salt) tells me that this case evidently isn't as clear cut as you claim, and again that doesn't mean I suspect guilt but it obviously warrants study and if I ever get around to it, I'll let you know.

I've explained everything to you at this point.

The criminal justice system is not equipped to handle people who confess to crimes when they are innocent. You thinking that somehow his attorney or the judge should have caught onto the fact that he was actually innocent just proves my point about you believing in the sanctity of the system and process.

In the American legal system if you've got a prosecutor saying this is the person, and you've got a suspect saying that they did it, and a lawyer for the suspect (probably a public defender I'm not sure there) going along with it-- then no judge is going to be like "wait a minute this doesn't add up"-- that just doesn't happen and I'm not even sure if that is their job or responsibility to do so if they did have doubts-- Rococo I'm sure could chime in on that.

theres a lot of people he doesnt think are guilty. and they are the ones who murder more children than anyone else. its kinda ironical I guess.

Oh I get your explanation. But I don't believe his appeal was denied because "The criminal justice system is not equipped to handle people who confess to crimes when they are innocent", sorry. If your explanation is correct it beggars belief such an explanation wasn't considered upon appeal, even if no actual violation of due process was found. So again I'm taking your explanation with a grain of salt. Not sure why you're continuing this as I haven't opined one way or the other on whether I think they did it or not, as I've readily stated I'm not knowledgeable enough on the case. Your explanations and thoughts aren't going to convince me, nor would they if you thought both were guilty, as yet again I know essentially sfa about the case at present mate so I don't have an opinion on either former defendants.

For the nth and last effin time bruv HAT McCULLOGH IS INNOCENT AND KILLED THOSE BABIES IN SELF DEFENCE
That's the hill I'll die on and besides he's out now and there ain't nuthin you can do about it!

This is just complete nonsense. Typical Trolly.

Judges hear appeals and can vacate due to violation of due process which is precisely what happened with Ferguson. If Ericson's appeal was denied then he didn't suffer an unfair due process or brady violation or that his rights were violated and the confession wasn't deemed coerced. I'm surprised he was even able to appeal after pleading guilty.

Whatever legal jargon makes you feet better, fact is, the guy who actually did the crime freely confessed and his story was corroborated by DNA evidence. The CP5 were pretty blatantly railroaded and only the absolute weirdest ghouls on the internet are still clamoring for their execution.

Thanks for another zero-content contribution to the discussion!

Not just legal jargon. Exoneration and a vacated conviction are totally different things. One implies factual innocence, the other doesn't.

OK, cool. The CP5 still did not rape that woman.

So much irony!

It's not legal jargon, there's a huge diff between an actual exoneration and a vacated on a technicality conviction, and if you can't see this then you really should use google to clear up your apparent confusion in this regard.. There were multiple attackers, despite your insistence that Reise acted alone.
They weren't blatantly railroaded and in the last thread you provided zero credible evidence to back up your claim in this regard, particularly the blatant part. If you wish to regard those who agree with the verdicts of a trial court of law as weird ghouls then okay. I disagree but okay. I'm against the death penalty and have never called for the execution of anyone including the CP5.


You're projecting and stick me on ig, problem solved mate. And stop trying to resurrect a long dormant topic, you had your chance to make your case in the actual CP5 thread and blew it. Don't whinge about it now.
Eh I reckon they did (and "that woman" has a name btw, it's Trisha Meili) and I did a much better job of stating my case for guilt than you did for innocence so it's all good in the hood.

Anyone impartial interested in learning more about the case btw, should read the Armstrong report.
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/r...ong-report.pdf

You guys should just put your differences aside and all be the Central Perk six.

I'm not having sex with trolly. Oh wait I misread your post my bad.

Except we're talking about the actual guilt or innocence of people not what the legal system did with them.

An exoneration is a finding of factual innocence. Vacated conviction isn't. So trolly's wrong claiming exoneration.

Also, a vacated conviction is not an acquittal, and the defendant can be re-tried. It's essentially a mistrial. An exoneration is essentially the same as a not guilty verdict.

Yes, fascinating stuff indeed as d2 already explained to me, but it still remains that the kids didn't do the crime they were accused of.

I take it you're a DA? It's genuinely puzzling why anyone else would be this committed to such a hopelessly lost cause. Even Trump stopped caring about executing these kids.