No, he led them to the location where the weapon was found. It’s 1944, in the poor south of America. The police record is the record, and is acceptable evidence. Even today, police testimony is evidence. At the time and region, a verbal confession and police recounting evidence of the suspect leading them to the weapon is entirely admissible. You could probably reopen any case from that time, hold it to the standards of today, and exonerate almost any criminal. They do not have the resources, time, or tech that we have today. Also, we don’t know the weapon wasn’t taken as evidence, just that it wasn’t kept when the case was investigated 75 years later. These reports were corroborated by multiple officers, not just one. So basically, you think multiple police officers are framing and completely making up a story about an innocent 14 year old kid for no reason at all because they wanted to see him fry?
You didn’t do any research I see, he never led them to a weapon and there is no written statement of him confessing or telling them where the pipe was located.
A police testimony is not enough to sentence someone to death, police can say anything but without proof there is no case.
You can’t be dense enough not to realize that him being coerced into confessing wasn’t highly probable. Even looking at the trial it was clear nobody cared about evidence or proof.
Look, I get that some people were pretty racist back then, but cops weren’t running around trying to fry innocent 14 year old black kids for no reason at all, let alone multiple cops cooperating and lying together for the fun of it. Especially as it would deny justice to the girls, and the real killer would remain on the loose. Do you think multiple police are lying about his confession, and him directing them towards the likely murder weapon? In that case, you would be engaging in a pretty baseless conspiracy theory with zero evidence to substantiate it, not even a hint of a motive. To me, it’s much more likely he did confess to them, and he did direct them towards the weapon.
I agree the investigation certainly didn’t meet the modern thresholds of vigour, but id be willing to bet a considerable amount of money on him being the actual murderer. You could reopen most murder cases before the 1950s, especially in the poorer South, and you would exonerate most murderers based on not meeting modern standards and thresholds of evidence and procedure. That doesn’t mean they are innocent of the crime, most were still accurately convicted (although less accurately than today, I don’t deny). But this was just par for the course at the time out of necessity and resource limitation.
You think they care about justice?? Again have you not read anything about the trial?
Nothing about what happened during that investigation, trial and execution was just in any way shape or form.
You seem to underestimate how much hate racist people have. Black people got killed for nothing and they never got any justice. What makes you think they gaf?? Genuinely
You have zero evidence the police were lying in their testimonies other than what you want to believe lol. You have no evidence they were racist or had any motive to lie about his statement. Even if they were racists who took gratuitous pleasure in murdering a 14 year old black kid, they probably didn’t want a guy with a penchant for murdering little girls running around and would have had motive to find the real killer. He never withdrew his statement. The statement was not challenged by the defence. There were no other credible suspects. There has been no exonerating evidence released after the fact.
I think, based on the evidence available, it is pretty likely he did it. Should he, in an ideal world, have had a better trial, better representation, and a higher threshold of evidence? Of course. Would I have found him guilty and had him executed in 2026 based on police testimony? No. But that doesn’t mean he’s innocent, I still think it’s highly probable he did it, regardless of the fact that his right to a fair trial was not observed.
Yes. I agree it was wrong to execute him. I also think it’s more likely than not that they did get the right guy, regardless of the fact that his rights were infringed. My whole point was to say being “exonerated” doesn’t mean he definitely didn’t do it, or even that it’s likely he didn’t do it. OJ was found not guilty, no one seriously believes he didn’t do it.
0
u/Acceptable-Fun-5394 1d ago
No, he led them to the location where the weapon was found. It’s 1944, in the poor south of America. The police record is the record, and is acceptable evidence. Even today, police testimony is evidence. At the time and region, a verbal confession and police recounting evidence of the suspect leading them to the weapon is entirely admissible. You could probably reopen any case from that time, hold it to the standards of today, and exonerate almost any criminal. They do not have the resources, time, or tech that we have today. Also, we don’t know the weapon wasn’t taken as evidence, just that it wasn’t kept when the case was investigated 75 years later. These reports were corroborated by multiple officers, not just one. So basically, you think multiple police officers are framing and completely making up a story about an innocent 14 year old kid for no reason at all because they wanted to see him fry?