Life sentence for Stanley Gerald Champ

[Signtist]

So either Champ is a liar on top of being a serial abuser, or else he is being framed.

I guess I assume the chances of him being guilty are pretty high. If a jury looked at the evidence and agreed, it's more likely he's guilty than that he is framed. I also assume that any man capable of molesting (at least) 2 little girls, will have zero compulsion about lying.

[temporal1]

So either Champ is a liar on top of being a serial abuser, or else he is being framed.

I guess I assume the chances of him being guilty are pretty high. If a jury looked at the evidence and agreed, it's more likely he's guilty than that he is framed. I also assume that any man capable of molesting (at least) 2 little girls, will have zero compulsion about lying.

About lying, in acts of serial carnal abuse, esp against children, i imagine it’s safe to believe SERIAL LIAR is part+parcel.
Satan is the Father of Lies. John 8:44

[mike]

So either Champ is a liar on top of being a serial abuser, or else he is being framed.

I guess I assume the chances of him being guilty are pretty high. If a jury looked at the evidence and agreed, it's more likely he's guilty than that he is framed. I also assume that any man capable of molesting (at least) 2 little girls, will have zero compulsion about lying.

Not knowing more than what's public, that's where I am as well.

[Ken]

So either Champ is a liar on top of being a serial abuser, or else he is being framed.

I guess I assume the chances of him being guilty are pretty high. If a jury looked at the evidence and agreed, it's more likely he's guilty than that he is framed. I also assume that any man capable of molesting (at least) 2 little girls, will have zero compulsion about lying.

Not knowing more than what's public, that's where I am as well.

Statistically speaking, the chances that he is truly innocent and was framed are probably 1,000 to 1 or lower. Yes, that does happen in rare instances, but they are indeed rare instances.

[mike]

I guess I assume the chances of him being guilty are pretty high. If a jury looked at the evidence and agreed, it's more likely he's guilty than that he is framed. I also assume that any man capable of molesting (at least) 2 little girls, will have zero compulsion about lying.

Not knowing more than what's public, that's where I am as well.

Statistically speaking, the chances that he is truly innocent and was framed are probably 1,000 to 1 or lower. Yes, that does happen in rare instances, but they are indeed rare instances.

I think that there are probably many more cases of people being convicted of crimes who are innocent of what they are accused of than the number of people who are actually exonerated. However, I think it is also true that many more crimes occur than the number of people who are convicted. For example, 50% of murders now go unsolved.

[Josh]

According to the progressive-liberal crowd like The Innocence Project, lots of people are wrongly convicted, and they particularly focus in on cases like Champ's that (to my knowledge) rely on the defendant's confession. They complain that the police are corrupt and force people to make confessions.

Now I'm not a liberal progressive, so I'm a bit more comfortable believing that convictions like that are just. But I'm just here to tell you what the liberals think and say.

[Ken]

According to the progressive-liberal crowd like The Innocence Project, lots of people are wrongly convicted, and they particularly focus in on cases like Champ's that (to my knowledge) rely on the defendant's confession. They complain that the police are corrupt and force people to make confessions.

Now I'm not a liberal progressive, so I'm a bit more comfortable believing that convictions like that are just. But I'm just here to tell you what the liberals think and say.

I read through the Innocence Project web site above. They make absolutely no claims about the rate of wrongful convictions. Only that there are indeed some who are wrongly convicted. We know this to be true because many have been exonerated through subsequent trials and discovery of exculpatory evidence. Do you dispute this?

The do list 6 different factors or issues commonly associated with wrongful convictions and getting them overturned: (1) jailhouse informants, (2) inadequate defense, (3) misused forensic science, (4) lack of access to post-conviction DNA evidence, (5) false confessions, and (6) eyewitness misidentification.

Do you think one of those was involved with Champ’s case?

[Josh]

According to the progressive-liberal crowd like The Innocence Project, lots of people are wrongly convicted, and they particularly focus in on cases like Champ's that (to my knowledge) rely on the defendant's confession. They complain that the police are corrupt and force people to make confessions.

Now I'm not a liberal progressive, so I'm a bit more comfortable believing that convictions like that are just. But I'm just here to tell you what the liberals think and say.

I read through the Innocence Project web site above. They make absolutely no claims about the rate of wrongful convictions. Only that there are indeed some who are wrongly convicted. We know this to be true because many have been exonerated through subsequent trials and discovery of exculpatory evidence. Do you dispute this?

The do list 6 different factors or issues commonly associated with wrongful convictions and getting them overturned: (1) jailhouse informants, (2) inadequate defense, (3) misused forensic science, (4) lack of access to post-conviction DNA evidence, (5) false confessions, and (6) eyewitness misidentification.

Do you think one of those was involved with Champ’s case?

I don’t have a problem with Champ’s conviction. As I said, I’m not a liberal progressive who thinks we need criminals let out of prison free to terrorise victims again.

I’m just pointing out that the liberal crowd tends to think people who get convicted are wrongly convicted and come up with all kinds of excuses, including claiming that a taped confession shouldn’t be used to find guilt.

[ken_sylvania]

According to the progressive-liberal crowd like The Innocence Project, lots of people are wrongly convicted, and they particularly focus in on cases like Champ's that (to my knowledge) rely on the defendant's confession. They complain that the police are corrupt and force people to make confessions.

Now I'm not a liberal progressive, so I'm a bit more comfortable believing that convictions like that are just. But I'm just here to tell you what the liberals think and say.

I read through the Innocence Project web site above. They make absolutely no claims about the rate of wrongful convictions. Only that there are indeed some who are wrongly convicted. We know this to be true because many have been exonerated through subsequent trials and discovery of exculpatory evidence. Do you dispute this?

The do list 6 different factors or issues commonly associated with wrongful convictions and getting them overturned: (1) jailhouse informants, (2) inadequate defense, (3) misused forensic science, (4) lack of access to post-conviction DNA evidence, (5) false confessions, and (6) eyewitness misidentification.

Do you think one of those was involved with Champ’s case?

I don’t have a problem with Champ’s conviction. As I said, I’m not a liberal progressive who thinks we need criminals let out of prison free to terrorise victims again.

I’m just pointing out that the liberal crowd tends to think people who get convicted are wrongly convicted and come up with all kinds of excuses, including claiming that a taped confession shouldn’t be used to find guilt.

Either you know that you are misrepresenting the "liberal crowd" or you are woefully ignorant. I'm inclined to believe it's the former.

[Josh]

Ken,

Could you explain the liberal position then, particularly on these topics?

- signature-release bail (aka “catch and release”)
- elimination of death penalty
- diversion