I was just amazed at the ignorance surrounding the Norfolk Four and from the "evidence" presented in the article "Anything You Say" (Cover Story, April 9) -- the obvious reasons for discounting confessions (watch out for the legal term here) possibly under duress.
In the article Detective Jim Trainum stated, "People ask me, 'Why would a normal, sane individual confess to a crime they didn't do?'" And he does a good job of answering that question. However, I couldn't help but draw similarities to outcomes of drawn-out interrogations aimed at obtaining a confession and mind-bending tactics used to garner new recruits in cults!
As for why Joe Dick continues to claim guilt over the crime is easily explained using the same comparison. Those individuals indoctrinated into a belief system i.e., "I did it" once brainwashed, need another trip to the dry cleaner to get that spot out! He believes it that doesn't necessarily make it true. Little men in spaceships scheduled to pick up members of a certain cult and registering as a no-show come to mind.
What I do find difficult to understand is that with all the evidence lying around pointing to the supposed innocence of these four men, why does the prosecution continue to deny the probability of error? I would certainly welcome the opportunity to hear their full explanation of why this continues to be a dilemma in the eyes of the law. Without an explanation forthcoming, I would urge Gov. Tim Kaine to address the papers' long-overdue attention on his desk!Karen Gibson
RichmondClick here for more Forum