"He's guilty - he confessed!" A brief look at some false coerced confessions.

[REP]

Norfolk Four


Derek Tice, Danial Williams, Joseph J. Dick Jr. and Eric C. Wilson are four of the five men convicted in the brutal rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko in 1997 in Norfolk, Virginia. The convictions of the four were largely based on confessions, which they maintain were coerced. The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project considers this a miscarriage of justice. Moore-Bosko's parents, however, continue to believe that all those convicted were participants in the crime. Tice, Williams and Dick either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of the murder, and were sentenced to one or more life sentences in prison without the possibility of parole. Wilson was convicted of rape and sentenced to 8½ years in prison. Three other men, Geoffrey A. Farris, John E. Danser and Richard D. Pauley, Jr., were also initially charged with the crime, but their charges were later dropped. The supporters of the Norfolk Four have offered evidence that purports to prove they are innocent, with no known involvement or connections to the incident

The fifth man, Omar Ballard, was also convicted in the crime, and was sentenced to 100 years in prison, 59 of which were suspended. He is the only man whose DNA matches that found at the scene, and his confession states that he committed the crime by himself, with none of the other men involved. Forensic evidence is consistent with his story that there were no other participants.

Central Park jogger


In the Central Park jogger case, on April 19, 1989, five teens aged from 14 to 16 were arrested and each confessed on videotape to the crime of attacking and raping a jogger and implicated each other. They later repudiated these confessions and maintained their innocence. The five were: Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana and Kharey Wise. In 1989, the police were aware that an unidentified sixth person had left semen on the victim's body. In 2002, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and rapist, admitted that he was responsible for the rape and attack of the jogger. The DNA obtained from the crime scene matched Reyes. New York state justice Charles J. Tejada vacated the convictions of five defendants on December 19, 2002. Yusef Salaam served six and a half years in prison. Kharey Wise was imprisoned until summer 2002, which was when his sentence was completed.

Pizza Hut murder

In 1988 Nancy DePriest was raped and murdered at the Pizza Hut where she worked in Austin, Texas. A coworker, Chris Ochoa, pled guilty to the murder. His friend, Richard Danziger, was convicted of the rape. Ochoa confessed to the murder, as well as implicating Danziger in the rape. It was later discovered that the confession had been coerced. The only forensic evidence linking Danziger to the crime scene was a single pubic hair found in the restaurant said to be consistent with his pubic hair type. Although semen evidence had been collected, no DNA analysis was performed at this time. Both men received life sentences. Years later a man by the name of Achim Marino began writing letters from prison claiming he was the actual murderer. The DNA was now finally tested and it did indeed match with Marino. In 2001 Chris Ochoa and Richard Danziger were exonerated and released from prison after 12 years of incarceration.

Corethian Bell

Cook County, Illinois prosecutors were required to videotape murder confessions, but not interrogations, starting in August 1999. Corethian Bell, who has a diagnosis of mental retardation, said he confessed to the murder of his mother, Netta Bell, because police hit him so hard he was knocked off his chair and because he grew tired and hopeless after being in police custody for more than 50 hours. He said he thought that if he confessed, the interrogations would stop, then he could explain himself to a judge and be set free. With a confession on tape, he was then prosecuted and sent to jail. When the DNA at the crime scene was tested, it matched a serial rapist, who already was in prison for three other violent sexual assaults, all in the same neighborhood as the Netta Bell murder.


Simon Marshall

Simon Marshall was a Canadian rape suspect who was imprisoned for 5 years before genetic evidence found him innocent. Mental retardation was a factor in his confession.

Jeffrey Mark Deskovic

Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, was convicted in 1990 at age 16, of raping, beating and strangling a high school classmate, even though jurors were told the DNA evidence in the case did not point to him. He was incarcerated for 15 years. He confessed to the crime after hours of an interrogation without being given an opportunity to seek legal counsel.

Michael Crowe

Michael Crowe confessed to the murder of his younger sister Stephanie Crowe in 1998. Michael, 14 at the time, was targeted by police when he seemed "distant and preoccupied" after Stephanie's body was discovered and the rest of the family grieved. After two days of intense questioning, Michael admitted to killing Stephanie. The confession was videotaped by police, and appeared to be coerced; at times Michael saying things to the effect of, "I'm only saying this because it's what you want to hear."

Joshua Treadway, a friend of Michael's, was questioned and also confessed after many hours of interrogation, while Aaron Houser, a mutual friend of the boys, was questioned and did not actually confess but presented a "hypothetical" and incriminating account of the crime under prompting by police interrogators using the Reid Technique. All three boys subsequently recanted their statements claiming coercion.

Michael Crowe's confession and Aaron Houser's statements to police were later thrown out as coerced by a judge, while part of Josh Treadway's confession was as well. The parts upheld of Treadway's confession later became moot when all charges were dropped against all three boys. This did however present difficulties for prosecutors later charging an unrelated party with the crime whose defense team argued that the boys had been responsible.

The charges were dismissed without prejudice (allowing charges to be reinstated against the boys at a later date) after DNA testing linked a neighborhood transient, Richard Tuite, to her blood. Embarrassed by the revelation, the Escondido police and District Attorney let the case against Tuite languish for years until it was forcibly removed from their jurisdiction and taken over by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department and the California Department of Justice. Tuite was convicted of the murder in 2004, and the Crowe family reached a settlement of $7.25 million in 2011. In 2012, Superior Court Judge Kenneth So made the rare ruling that Michael Crowe, Treadway and Houser were factually innocent of the charges, permanently dismissing the City of Escondido case against them.

A TV movie was made out of the story called The Interrogation of Michael Crowe in 2002.

Gary Gauger

Gary Gauger was sentenced to death for the murders of his parents, Morris, 74, and Ruth, 70, at their McHenry County, Illinois farm in April 1993. He was interrogated for over 21 hours and gave the police a hypothetical statement, and they took it as a confession. His conviction was overturned in 1996 and Gauger was freed. He was pardoned in 2002. Two motorcycle gang members were later convicted of Morris and Ruth Gauger's murders.

Kevin Fox

Kevin Fox was interrogated for 14 hours by Will County, Illinois police before confessing to the 2004 murder of his 3-year old daughter, Riley, which later turned out to be coerced. The real killer turned out to be Scott Eby, a neighbor living a few miles from the Fox family who was serving a 14-year sentence for sex crimes, thanks to DNA results that had not been tested before.

West Memphis Three

The West Memphis Three (Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley) were convicted for the 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys. One month after the murders, police interrogated Misskelley, who has an IQ of 72, for 16 hours before he confessed to the murders, implicating Echols and Baldwin. Misskelley immediately recanted and said he was coerced to confess. Despite that the confession was different from the police reports, Misskelley and Baldwin were sentenced to life without parole and Echols was sentenced to death. For the next 17 years, they maintained their innocence. In August 2011, DNA evidence exonerated them, but prosecutors refused to throw out the convictions and offered them a deal that they plead guilty in exchange for time served. They accepted, but said that they will continue to clear their names and find the real murderer(s).

Wikipedia

[Rex]

1. Won't matter, the racists don't care about that at all.

No wonder they love Zimmerman so much.

[REP]

2. Just doesn't make sense to leave the witness who can talk alive

Just like it didn't make sense for Charles Stuart's "carjacker" to not take the cellphone (a very desireable item then, even moreso than today).

[Rex]

3. Well I thought it sounded like a forced confession too.

And history does like to repeat itself, but really how did both parents get gun powder residue on their hands when the father was no where near the killings? The gun humpers will be in here shortly to explain how the impossible happens on a daily basis.

[geek tragedy]

10. It's been explained to you.

Gunshot residue particles can be removed easily from the surfaces they land on. Regular activities, such as putting hands in pockets, rubbing hands together, or handling items, can wipe them away.4 The washing of hands can remove most, if not all, particles. Rates of loss vary widely with the activity of the subject. Depending on conditions and activity, particles may be removed from a shooter’s hands within 4 to 5 hours after a shooting event.5 They also can transfer from a surface or person to another individual; the amount depends on the number of GSR particles on the contaminated surface (e.g., a person’s clothing or hands) and likely will be a small percentage of the total number of particles present. Tests show that people standing within 3 feet to the side of a shooter may have GSR on their hands, whereas those standing 10 or more feet in the same direction typically will not

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/The%20Current%20Status%20of%20GSR%20Examinations

A. Mother gets shot at close range (not disputed by anyone)

B. Father comes into physical contact with mother (not disputed by anyone)

[Rex]

13. That means nothing but your assumptions.

Stop wasting my time with your no facts.

[geek tragedy]

15. You claimed it was impossible for gunpowder residue

to be on both parents' hands unless they fired the gun.

That's been shown to be completely false. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for both.

Much more plausible than the "every piece of inculpatory evidence is a racist conspiracy" theory you're advancing.

[yurbud]

72. they just want a good lynching par-tay.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Brenton Butler--subject of Oscar winning "Murder on a Sunday Morning."

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

In May 2000, two tourists from Georgia were accosted outside the Ramada Inn on University Boulevard.[1] The wife was shot in the head in front of her husband and the killer fled.[1] During the subsequent investigation, police picked up Butler, a 15-year-old student at Englewood High School who was on his way to submit a job application to a local Blockbuster Video.[1] Butler was brought to the victim's husband, who identified him as the killer.[1]

Police brought Butler in for questioning, and he confessed to the murder, both orally and in writing, in front of at least two detectives.[1] State Attorney Harry Shorstein decided to prosecute the case. During the trial, however, Butler testified that two detectives involved in the investigation, including Michael Glover, son of the then current Sheriff Nat Glover, had intimidated and physically abused him into confessing.

Butler was represented by Patrick McGuinness and Ann Finnell, two attorneys from the Public defenders office. They supplied a photograph of Butler with bruises on his face, which they claimed was the result of the interrogation.[1] The jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting Butler; one jurist later cited the testimony about the interrogation as one of the key factors in their decision.[1] State Attorney Shorstein and Jacksonville Sheriff Glover took the unusual steps of apologizing to Butler and re-opening the case of two unrelated suspects.[1] However, Michael Glover denied the allegations against him, and Shorstein said there was no evidence that Butler had been physically abused during the interrogation
____________________________________________________________________________

That Kevin Fox case you mention makes my blood boil, what the police and the prosecutors did to that poor man. As a father of two young children myself, I couldn't imagine being placed in that situation.

Someone needed to go to jail in the Fox case, and by that, I mean police and the prosecutor.

[REP]

5. Carl Dorr confessed to killing his daughter (Hadden Clark was the actual killer)

Dorr was mad with grief and guilt at the time (he had taken a nap while his daughter was in his yard playing, during which time she went to the Clark house). Not that hard to get a grief-stricken parent to say ... anything.

[smokey nj]

56. "Murder on a Sunday Morning" is a must see.

[kcr]

6. This is exactly why I don't put much stock in confessions.

That alone will almost never sway my opinion.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. The West Memphis Three

was such a huge miscarriage of justice, and to force the defendants to plead to something in order to get out of prison when it was shown beyond a doubt that they were guilty of nothing was unconscionable. Without HBO and the Paradise Lost documentaries, where would those young men be now?

[Hayabusa]

63. Echols probably would be dead by now.

Executed.

[anneboleyn]

75. Exactly --Eccols would have been executed. I believe the appeals process had been exhausted

when the new DNA evidence, which featured the most sophisticated testing methods available, indicated that they should receive a new trial (and very likely be acquitted by a new jury). The state caved because they knew they no longer had a case. The HBO documentaries on the case likely saved Eccols' life.

[arely staircase]

8. recommended nt

[geek tragedy]

9. Man, Juror B37 would love DU.

How about the pastor that one of these darling little angels shot?

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Pastor-says-he-was-shot-by-alleged-baby-killer/A7P-CIs2xUaphlEv9VByRA.cspx

And, of course, the lack of a gun at the crime scene.

And, of course, the fact that gunpowder residue on someone who's been shot at close range proves absolutely nothing.

This is exactly what the Zimmerman apologists did--blame the victim and ignore the weight of the evidence, which CLEARLY points towards the two teenage perps.

These kids aren't Trayvon, they're George Zimmerman on steroids.

[kcr]

11. Well, then, why not lets peg every other crime on the "little angel"

He's guilty of one crime, then surely he's guilty of the other!

Juror B37 indeed.

[geek tragedy]

12. Every piece of evidence in this case supports the mother's version

of events.

Every single one.

Both she and Dominique Lang have told police that she and Elkins were struggling with the gun when she was shot for the second time. Which would OBVIOUSLY result in gunpowder residue being on her. Trayvon had gunpowder residue on him. Which shows you how much that means.

Here's the bottom line: two victims, one dead, one with two bullet holes in her. Two accused, one of whom has said the mother is telling the truth, with the other one accused of shooting someone with the same gun two weeks earlier.

These guys are much more obviously guilty than Zimmerman was, and he was obviously guilty.

[kcr]

14. In your opinion

You're citing a confession. You choose to put stock in that. I don't give much weight to confessions, your snark about B37 jurors aside. It's true that there are multiple scenarios for how that residue could happen. But it doesn't point to definitive guilt now, does it? Bottom line is you're still basing your opinion on a confession.

[geek tragedy]

16. There's not a single piece of evidence that contradicts the mother.

None.

Sure, one can quibble about this piece of evidence or that one regarding guilt.

But, they found Elkins with .22 rounds in his pocket. His mom and sister told police where to find a .22 handgun they had thrown into a pond. Elkins had shot a pastor two weeks earlier with a .22 handgun.

And Lang said they shot the baby and West.

The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of pointing at the defendants. There's nothing indicating that the mother is guilty.

NOTHING.

The mother is the one with bullet holes in her.

[kcr]

18. There is nothing that would make me vote to convict either of them at this point.

Even though I think the mother is and was suspicious from the get go. I still wouldn't vote to convict given nothing but what has been presented so far, that is true.

[geek tragedy]

19. There will be a trial, so we'll get to see.

The mother appears to be a basket case and someone with an extremely checkered past.

But, not all crime victims are perfect.

[kcr]

22. No, they aren't.

But mothers do kill their children. Every day. Its' a fact that a lot of people don't like to confront. Children are far more likely to be harmed and killed by people they know, including their parents. I wasn't looking at the fact that she had a checkered past or seemed like a basket case. My bullshit detector dinged right away, before I even knew those things about her. And I wasn't the only one. It was like Susan Smith, de ja vu. I could be wrong, of course. But it isn't as if this scenario doesn't happen. it has in the past, many times, which makes it utterly ridiculous that those of us who were suspicious were blasted the way we were. I'm still skeptical. The fact that father had residue on his hands even though the mother insisted he wasn't' there? That makes me wonder.

[geek tragedy]

23. Well, your bullshit detector isn't evidence.

The statement of Dominique Lang is.

[kcr]

25. See, that's the difference.

I've never claimed it was. That's the point of the OP. Confessions are notoriously unreliable.

[KittyWampus]

27. and according to you all the other evidence is unreliable.

[kcr]

30. I don't know about unreliable. It just doesn't absolutely point to their guilt n/t

[geek tragedy]

29. Confessions are evidence.

And, in this case, the confession is corroborated by every other piece of evidence, including the testimony of relatives, finding ammunition on the other perp, the shooting by the other perp of a pastor using the same caliber handgun, the location of the gun based on the statements given by family members, etc.

That's all evidence that a jury would consider.

Elkins will likely plead out.

[kcr]

35. Unreliable evidence

People falsely confess all the time. THat is a fact. The fact he's committed another crime is irrelevant. i mean, why bother having trials? Just find criminals and pin the new crimes on them, get them to confess, done! Sorry, but no.

The gun has not been positively identified as the weapon as far as I can tell because every time I've asked, no one has presented me with that and I can find nothing on test results. So the family members were able to tell where his gun was? What does that prove? It certainly doesn't prove he shot the baby with that gun. So, as far as I can tell all you've got is the confession.

[geek tragedy]

36. Some confessions are reliable, others aren't,

This one is fully corroborated by the evidence, including the discovery of the gun, West's testimony, the fact that Elkins shot someone else, the fact that Elkins had .22 caliber ammunition in his pocket when he was arrested, etc etc etc.

Lang will likely testify against Elkins at trial.

[kcr]

38. What evidence corroborates his confession?

The discovery of the gun? What evidence is there that it is the murder weapon? West's testimony? Well, that doesn't do much for me as I think it's possible she did it. Until the matter of the residue came up, I didn't think defense would have gone there, but now they just may. He had ammunition is his pocket. Is it linked to the murder?

So, still, just the confession. It's true that a confession, when taken in context with actual evidence, can have some weight. I don't see it here. ETa if you think I'm arguing that they'll get off, no way. They'll very likely be convicted. I'm just basically going on how I'd vote if I were on that jury. But this is Georgia we're talking about.

[geek tragedy]

39. There were three witnesses there. Two of them--one the victim, one a defendant--

have given remarkably similar accounts of what happened. Elkins, the other perp, is the other potential witness.

Yet another witness (a pastor) has said that Elkins robbed and shot him using a .22 caliber pistol.

Elkins had .22 ammunition in his pocket.

Elkins's family told police where to find a .22 caliber pistol they just happened to have thrown into a lake.

Your suspicion that the mother did it is based on irrational bias and prejudging--there is no evidence to suggest that the mother is lying or that anything she said is untrue.

Indeed, its quite absurd to suggest that she shot her baby and shot herself in the freaking leg, and stayed at the crime scene, but somehow managed to dispose of the murder weapon.

And just got lucky that miraculously there were was a kid going around robbing people with exactly the same kind of gun she used to shoot herself, and happened to have that ammunition on him, and just happened to have his family dispose of that weapon for him.

And then it just so happens that one of the two completely random kids confesses.

[kcr]

40. Right. My bias is wrong, but yours is perfectly okay.

Of course. Your insistance on giving weight to the fact that the defendant has commited crimes, why of course that's okay. (But I'm just like juror B37) And of course your interpretation of the family knowing where the gun is is the correct one, factual. Whereas mine, stating it's possible they knew where he threw the gun in a panic, is naturally wrong wrong wrong! Your interpretation is hard core evidence, indisputable, right? But my view? Bias. Okay, then.

[geek tragedy]

42. Yes, my bias is towards evidence.

Police asked the family where the gun was, the family told them something, the police go out to a POND and find it using a metal detector. I guess it's possible that .22 caliber pistols grow organically in Georgia ponds . . .

Why do you suppose they got rid of that weapon?

But, you prejudged the mother guilty because you got a funny feeling about her--that's real rational.

[kcr]

44. Could be they were afraid of being pegged for something they didn't do

Gee. That never happens, right?

I never prejudged the mother guilty. See, I'm not absolutely convinced of her guilt, and pounding at the evidence of such guilt. I thought her version of events was suspicious. I still do. But I'm not absolutely certain.

[geek tragedy]

46. The reason you're not pounding at evidence of the mother's guilt

is that THERE IS NONE.

NONE.

ZERO.

[kcr]

51. Well

At least i'm not leaning heavily on a recanted confession and irrelevant information I'm pretty confident where I stand. I've been open all along about the fact that I'm merely suspicious about the mom and not shouting in all caps at people I don't agree with.

[geek tragedy]

55. Recanted and irrelevant?

Nope and nope. Now you're just making shit up.

You don't like the mom, and are looking for an excuse to blame her, the evidence be damned.

[kcr]

58. Your repeatedly brining up the fact one of the

that one of the suspects committed another crime as evidence, even though it's repeatedly pointed out that it's irrelevent. No, I indeed did not make that up.

[geek tragedy]

60. That shooting will be part of this trial, so duh not irrelevant.

Of course, in your world the testimony of his accomplice and the victim are irrelevant, but your 'bullshit detector' is relevant.

[kcr]

41. And confessions don't just so happen.

It's actually sad and frightening how they can just so happen.

[geek tragedy]

43. You realize Lang is cooperating with police, right, and that he's going

to be a witness against Elkins, right?

You still haven't provided a single fact or piece of evidence to suggest that Lang and West and Calix-Flores are lying, and that the other evidence is just a big coincidence.

Nor have you explained how Sherry West managed to dispose of a weapon without leaving the crime scene.

[kcr]

45. And you haven't provided a shred that points directly to their guilt. Simple as that.

I haven't explained how Sherry West managed it because I don't know. I'm also not trying to try her in a court. I merely expressed suspicion.

[geek tragedy]

47. I provided statements from two eyewitnesses who

said they saw Elkins shoot Antonio in the face.

That is direct evidence.


To recap: Four people were there.

1. Antonio: shot in the face and dead.
2. West: shot twice, said Elkins shot Antonio in the face
3. Lang: said Elkins shot Antonio in the face
4. Elkins: caught with .22 cal ammunition, shot someone else during an armed robbery with a .22 cal pistol two weeks earlier

[kcr]

49. You've given no independent witnesses to the crime.

You can't think of any reason Lang would lie? No? And again. Has the ammunition been linked to the crime? Still waiting on that one.

[geek tragedy]

50. By your reasoning, the testimony of rape victims

is not worth considering.

If the races were reversed, would you feel the same way?

[kcr]

52. That's some pretzel logic right there n/t

[geek tragedy]

53. In most rape cases, only the victim and the perp

are able to provide direct testimony.

Here, we have both the victim and a perp saying the same thing.

so, yeah your inclination to blame the victim without any factual basis is pretty Juror B37. Actually, worse, since the evidence against Zimmerman was weaker than this case. And Zimmerman was plainly guilty.

P.S. Trayvon had gunpowder residue on him. Didn't make him any less of a victim.

[kcr]

57. No, sorry.

I'm having a hard time seeing how my view that confessions are can easily be false and therefore unreliable makes me a B37, or inclined not to believe rape victims. I have no idea how one would draw that conclusion. But it does tell me stooping to making such accusations against me means you're out of steam and know it. See, we aren't talking about all cases. We're talking about one in particular. Whatever she'd been a victim of, if her story is suspicious, I'll be a suspicious. See how that works? I'm generally a give the benefit of the doubt kind of person, so that rarely happens. No, I do not believe that a person accused of a crime is always automatically guilty. I don't believe that makes me, nor people who believe as I do, B37s. Quite the opposite, I feel.

[geek tragedy]

59. Yes, we're talking about a victim against whom you're biased.

You suspect her of committing the crime despite the fact that the evidence supports her 100%.

Not a single piece of evidence even hints that she's lying. Not a single piec of evidence shows she was behind this killing.

Yet you suspect her because of your emotional reaction to her.

To the point you're looking for excuses to dismiss the facts of the case.

Because the facts support her, and disprove your irrational suspicions of her.

Just like Juror B37.

Elkins is guilty, and if he goes to trial instead of pleading, he will be convicted.

Guaranteed.

[kcr]

61. But you're in no way biased against the "little angels"

No, of course not.

I haven't even told you my reasons for suspecting her. You just assume they're emotional. But oh, that;s right, "little angels" you isn't capable of assuming things or of any bias, right? There's absolutely nothing in the story that could make anyone think twice about the mother, right? Nothing. No the daughter or the discussion they had, or her demeanor, or any of the actions she took. It's just "the little angels" themselves. Your take on this is the only valid one.

[geek tragedy]

62. Mine is based on the overwhelming proof they're guilty.

Including, you know, the fact that one told police they killed the baby, plus the testimony of their families, and the fact their families tried to destroy evidence, and the fact that one goes around shooting random people with a .22.

Lang is testifying against Elkins.

[kcr]

64. You know, it's perfectly fine you think they're guilty

It's a valid viewpiont. I don't think it's crazy at all. I just marvel at your ugly reaction to those who see otherwise. Particularly given what this OP is about. False confessions. They do exist.

[geek tragedy]

66. Funny thing: Lang will turn out to be a witness rather than a defendant.

So, his statement is not so much a confession as it is testimony against the actual killer, Elkins.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/dominique-lang-separate-trial-baby-killed-stroller_n_3048213.html

SAVANNAH, Ga. — A 15-year-old boy charged with felony murder in a baby's shooting is "more of a witness than a defendant" and should be tried in court separately from an older teenager accused of being the gunman, a defense attorney said Tuesday.

The two teenagers are awaiting trial in coastal Brunswick in the March 21 slaying of Antonio Santiago, a 13-month-old boy who was shot in the face while sitting in his stroller. Police say both suspects were trying to rob the baby's mother as she walked on the street a few blocks from her apartment.

The lawyer for Dominique Lang said in a phone interview Tuesday her client took no part in any shooting or robbery attempt. Attorney Kimberly L. Copeland said she's afraid Lang won't get a fair trial if the same jury hears both suspects' cases at once.

"My client's more of a witness than a defendant," Copeland said. "My client didn't participate in anything."

Copeland has filed a motion asking a Superior Court judge to scheduled separate trials for Lang and his co-defendant, 17-year-old De'Marquise Elkins.

Here's the testimony we can expect from Lang's aunt:

Debra Obley says she never imagined she'd have two ties to the investigation into the murder of the toddler.

"I feel sad I'm being threatened, yeah I'm being threatened by people saying they are going to kill me or have people to kill me, because I'm a snitch," said Obley.

Obley's nephew is the 14-year-old accused of being an accomplice to the murder.

She tells Channel 4 that she gave Elkins a ride from her mother's house, not knowing who he was.

"When he got in the car, he laid down in the backseat," said Obley. "He kept looking around, peeping up and I said, 'Boy, what you doing? You skipping school?' You know, he said 'No ma'am.'"

When she started asking for more questions, Obley said Elkins cut the ride short.

"When he got out of the car, he had something hid up in his pants. It was a gun," said Obley.

Obley says she felt something wasn't right, so she asked her nephew about it.

"I said...if you've got something to do with this little baby, you can't talk to me. I'm your auntie," said Obley. "He said 'Auntie, I don't even know the boy. I don't have anything to do with that.'"

Even though he wouldn't talk to her, Obley decided to talk to police. While it's hard to see her nephew behind bars, Obley said she feels she did the right thing.

"It's wrong. That was a baby. That baby can't come back," said Obley. "That mama will never get that baby back. Whoever did it deserves to be behind bars."

Obley said she doesn't believe her nephew would have fired at anyone. She hasn't talked with him since.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Brunswick-mother-certain-suspect-shot-toddler/-/475880/19439744/-/item/1/-/8t4s9y/-/index.html

[kcr]

67. That's the defense attorney stating he's a witness.

That's their job. They're both being charged at this time. And it's not uncommon for one defendant to be played against the other. It would be in her client's best interest. That still doesn't point to actual guilt. You still don't have an independent witness.

[geek tragedy]

68. Did you read what the aunt said?

Just a coincidence I'm sure.

[kcr]

69. Yes, I did.

I think it's unfortunate she turned them into the police like that. I think she possibly made a grave mistake leading her nephew being wrongly convicted.

[geek tragedy]

70. Ugh. Beyond delusional. Last word is yours. nt

[kcr]

71. I'll gladly take it, thank you

I know, it's so delusional to think a parent killed their child and the wrong people are being accused. Totally unfathomable. Couldn't happen in this country, I tell ya!

[anneboleyn]

76. They seem to work best post facto, as killers like Ted Bundy

rarely confess. If they are interrogated they will toy with police until they decide it is pointless to continue, and at that point they will describe details of the crime that the police may not have known (BTK was an example of this -- once imprisoned, he loved telling the police about the "genius" of his crimes). There is a very real phenomenon of false and/or coerced confessions as seen by the convictions overturned by DNA evidence -- sometimes, as in the infamous West Memphis Three case, there are multiple false confessions (a teenager who had left for California soon after the murders of the three young boys, and who had nothing to do with the three teenagers who were convicted, falsely confessed while being interrogated by police. He then recounted his confession. He had no connection to the crime either, no DNA, no other evidence).

[anneboleyn]

77. C'est le probleme.

[Rex]

17. Yep JUST in his opinion, which he thinks is more important then anyone elses.

Funny ain't it?

[geek tragedy]

20. As opposed to calling everyone who believes the victim

' racist Zimmerman apologists.'

P.S. Approximately 99% of the time, the one with bullet holes and no gun on her is the victim.

[REP]

31. Charles Stuart. Diane Downs.

[geek tragedy]

33. Are not on trial here. nt

[REP]

48. Just gave some examples of "victims" with GSW who were actually not victims

No one is on trial here. This is just a discussion.

[stranger81]

73. Interesting.

Don't remember you giving the same benefit of the doubt to Trayvon Martin in your probably hundreds of posts about what you presume he did to poor little Zimmy, based primarily on his own self-serving testimony.

Folks will draw their own conclusions as to why that is -- I know I have -- despite whatever facile nonsense you're spouting about how every thought that passes through your brain is supported by the unbiased, gods-honest, objective truth (and everyone else on the planet is just an emotionally driven moron).

But carry on. No doubt you will, for whatever complex of your own that causes you to draw the most sinister available conclusions about anyone African-American.

[KittyWampus]

24. the fact that residue on the mother means nothing isn't an opinion.

[Union Scribe]

21. It's a better informed "opinion" than the conspiracy theory bullshit

which is backed up by the OP by shouting "racist!" at everyone who disagrees with him. (He's locked out of the other thread for doing that, which is why he's in this one.)

[kcr]

26. I agree that that isn't fair.

Though it would help if some would stop referring to the suspects as "little angels" Crap like that is inflammatory. Hard for me to feel sorry at that point.

[REP]

28. I don't believe anyone in the cases I cited shot a minister

If you're referring to the shot-baby case where all the details are somewhat incredible, all I can say is its possible for a confession to be coerced.

[geek tragedy]

32. The gunman in the baby case also shot a pastor two weeks earlier.

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Pastor-says-he-was-shot-by-alleged-baby-killer/A7P-CIs2xUaphlEv9VByRA.cspx

Pastor Wilfredo Calix-Flores told Action News he has been afraid of returning to
work at his small church on Norwich Street in Brunswick ever since he was shot in his arm during a robbery attempt there on March 11th.

Police now say the gunman who demanded a cell phone and wallet from the pastor was the alleged Brunswick baby killer, De'marquis Elkins.

According to the indictment for murder filed Wednesday against Elkins, the 17-year-old shot the pastor in a
robbery attempt 10 days before killing baby Antonio Santiago while trying to rob the child's mother.

I guess EVERYONE but Demarquis Elkins could be lying in order to frame him, but that possibility is so remote as to not be reasonable.

[REP]

34. It's possible to coerce a false confession from a scumbag.

[geek tragedy]

37. Lang wasn't the shooter in either case, Elkins was.

Three different people have told police that Elkins committed armed robbery with a .22 caliber pistol in their presence. Two of those people have told police Elkins shot them.

Elkins had .22 caliber ammunition on him when arrested.

Elkins's mom and sister told police where to find a .22 caliber pistol that they had thrown into a pond.

Elkins has in his defense: nothing.

[matthews]

54. ? I know that this is about the baby who was shot in the face but what

I didn't know was there was a question (or is there) about who did it?

I really must have missed something.

[REP]

65. In part, yes it's about that but it's also about coerced false confessions

The story sounded hinky to me when it broke; the recent news about it hasn't convinced me one way or the other but it did remind me how many times false confessions are coerced by police.

The two teens suspected of the crime make such good suspects - they sound like real slimeballs. They're also young, poor, and I'm guessing not super bright - the kind of person likely to be coerced into a false confession. Cops know they're good for A crime - might not be this one, but if they can get them to confess to it, well, NHI.

NHI means "no humans involved" and is cop slang for those they deem unworthy.

[matthews]

74. Thank you. nt