Very interesting thread that I started about the WM3 case

This whole talk about they're innocent or guilty is really a moot point.

The main idea is, given the amount of evidence the prosecution presented, there really is no way to determine they were guilty. I have no idea if they did it or didn't... but I do know that I'm not sure, so they shouldn't be in jail.

bgivens33 wrote:

This whole talk about they're innocent or guilty is really a moot point.

The main idea is, given the amount of evidence the prosecution presented, there really is no way to determine they were guilty. I have no idea if they did it or didn't... but I do know that I'm not sure, so they shouldn't be in jail.

+1
16 years and counting.. If they are innocent, could you imagine something like that?
I live in Italy, and I do think the justice here is painfully SLOW..
But this case reminds me that USA aren't in a better situation

Not trying to change the subject, but please keep in mind that an IQ of 72 is not in the mentally retarded range. 69 and below constitutes mental retardation. 70-79 is considered borderline. 72 is obviously close, but it doesn't cut it to be mentally retarded.

That doesn't change the fact that it was completely egregious for someone with a low IQ to be coerced into a confession, especially considering his parents weren't around.

I am not equating IQ with integrity. But if someone with a low IQ is being pressured by police, they may have less of an ability to understand their rights, the consequences of what they say, etc. They'll be less likely to assess the situation and its complexities than someone with a high IQ. Who knows what the police told Misskelley about what would happen to him if he didn't say what they were looking for? Taking advantage of someone is easier when the person has a lower IQ than if they have a higher one.

I'm not trying to "quibble"- I just figure when a case where facts are this important, it's important to be factual all around. Plus, if something's simply untrue, I think it's important to get the truth out there.

Ps - this (above) may be a bit of a rant - but I just wrote it in response to some of the ideas flying around 'out there' in relation to this case - triggered by this thread, but not directed at any of the individuals posting in it.

Beach Bum wrote:

yatahe wrote:

I just don't see how s persons IQ has anything to do with the persons integrity as far as being honest.

Mental retardation is a generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors with onset before the age of 18.

children with mental retardation may exhibit the following characteristics:

Delays in oral language development
Deficits in memory skills
Difficulty learning social rules
Difficulty with problem solving skills
Delays in the development of adaptive behaviors such as self-help or self-care skills
Lack of social inhibitors


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

I find this helpful

pj.uw.laura wrote:

I'm not trying to "quibble"- I just figure when a case where facts are this important, it's important to be factual all around. Plus, if something's simply untrue, I think it's important to get the truth out there.

I'm just saying, there's nothing "factual" about a person's IQ. It's not like their height or weight that you can just measure.

Beach Bum wrote:

tremors wrote:

I find this helpful

Hey only I'm allowed to have sarcasm on this board.

I know! One of my problems here is sometimes when I'm being sarcastic people think I'm being straight, and when I mean it they think I'm joking!! In this case I meant it. The insufficiencies of text-based communication!

On this whole 'cognitive ability' of Misskelly issue - (and it seems his very being is going to be under the microscope here, which is tough) - us getting bogged down in counting percentage points of his degree of 'retardation' is probably not going to do anyone any favours - and also risks in my view adding to the difficulties faced by a whole group of people who are often misunderstood and vulnerable. Obviously these 'sliding scales' are an attempt to provide some objective and quantifiable measures to a very unquantifiable set of phenomena - consciousness, intellect and personality. Would you be able to see your unique personality being accurately boiled down to a point on a numbered scale?

What we are actually talking about here is whether Misskelly wasin the correct frame of mind to make a reliable confession - or was his confession unreliable due to different versions of a kind of 'diminished responsibility' for the confession - stemming from factors such as intimidation, coercion, confusion, terror, a lack of insight into what was really going on, his vulnerability and fragility due to his age etc etc. The general question of whether a young man could ever be frightened or confused into giving a false confession has an obvious answer; and the answer is 'yes'. Many young people I have worked with, and sometimes given support to in court, who are undergoing trauma in their lives - could easily be imagined making wildly inaccurate statements to police etc, even statements incriminating themselves - given the right degree of fear, maltreatment or bullying etc. HOWEVER - in wishing to defend or understand how this may have come about - I would not be starting by looking at their IQ, intelligence, or level of learning difficulty, but rather 'what circumstances had they experienced which may have led to this outcome?' The issue of intelligence or degree of learning difficulty (and you will see the two are by no means the same if you were to read about them - in fact people on the autistic 'spectrum' for example can exhibit super-high 'intelligence' alongside super-low social functioning and awareness). The point is that ANY young person, and any person, but especially a more vulnerable person could be bullied into giving a false statement. So the issue of Misskelly's 'mentally disabled' status for me is more one of recognising that he may belong to a group which would be even more vulnerable and susceptible to bullying and coercion, if that has taken place.

The reason that the actual level of Misskelly's learning disability is still crucial, is that this group would be much more susceptible to reacting badly to bullying and coercion, and to making a confession which incriminates them - NOT necessarily due to their INTELLIGENCE level, but rather due to their emotional fragility and impaired level of 'resilience' or maybe presence of mind.

So, arguing over percentage points and the scales of intelligence or disability is both misleading and highly unhelpful I think. The fact is that if an emotionally vulnerable young man, with a history of special needs, has been bullied into making a false confession; and the rest of the case hinges strongly on that confession - then he deserves a retrial.

A difference of 20 I.Q points makes communication almost impossible. Meaning if I have an I.Q. of 120, I don't, and the person I am trying to communicate with has an I.Q. of 100, that it is literally impossible for me to explain things in simple enough terms for them to get it. Hence the phrase "To dumb to understand"...