warpedskydiver 0 #1 October 21, 2009 Woman in W.Va. torture case now says she lied FILE - In a Monday, Oct. 22, 2007 file photo, Megan Williams, 20, of Charleston, W.Va., st... Wed Oct 21, 7:14 PM EDT An attorney for a black woman who claimed torture by a white group in West Virginia says his client fabricated the story to get back at a boyfriend who had beaten her up. Megan Williams' attorney, Byron Potts, said at a news conference Wednesday that Williams came forward because she no longer wants to live a lie. Potts encouraged West Virginia authorities to re-evaluate the case. Williams told authorities in 2007 that she had been beaten, raped, forced to eat animal feces and taunted with racial slurs for days. She now lives in Columbus. Seven white men and women were convicted in the case, and most are serving long prison terms. Prosecutors in West Virginia have dismissed Williams' new claim, and lawyers for the defendants aren't discussing their plans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #2 October 21, 2009 QuoteCopyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. lolwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 October 21, 2009 NP I went to another news site and the same story is there without the AP crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #4 October 21, 2009 I don't have an issue with it but I try not to copy and paste the entire article so people actually have to click the link to see it, making the original publisher happy.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #5 October 21, 2009 QuoteNP I went to another news site and the same story is there without the AP crap. That doesn't make the material any less copyrighted.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 October 22, 2009 Quote An attorney for a black woman who claimed torture by a white group in West Virginia says his client fabricated the story to get back at a boyfriend who had beaten her up. Seven white men and women were convicted in the case, and most are serving long prison terms. So how exactly was this getting back at her boyfriend? Was he one of the 7 or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 October 22, 2009 I think the last paragraph raises more questions than it answers. I hope the reporter follows up on them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 October 22, 2009 QuoteI think the last paragraph raises more questions than it answers. I hope the reporter follows up on them. I hope the reporter is sent to a more suitable career - maybe as a real estate agent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #9 October 22, 2009 Quote Woman in W.Va. torture case now says she lied FILE - In a Monday, Oct. 22, 2007 file photo, Megan Williams, 20, of Charleston, W.Va., st... Wed Oct 21, 7:14 PM EDT An attorney for a black woman who claimed torture by a white group in West Virginia says his client fabricated the story to get back at a boyfriend who had beaten her up. Megan Williams' attorney, Byron Potts, said at a news conference Wednesday that Williams came forward because she no longer wants to live a lie. Potts encouraged West Virginia authorities to re-evaluate the case. Williams told authorities in 2007 that she had been beaten, raped, forced to eat animal feces and taunted with racial slurs for days. She now lives in Columbus. Seven white men and women were convicted in the case, and most are serving long prison terms. Prosecutors in West Virginia have dismissed Williams' new claim, and lawyers for the defendants aren't discussing their plans. Happens all the time, arrogant prosecutors can't admit they are wrong. http://www.justicedenied.org/volume2issue8.htm Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley defended his prosecution of Ray Krone by saying there was "strong circumstantial evidence" of his guilt. In response to the conclusive proof that an innocent Ray Krone spent 10-1/2 years in prison, four of which was spent on Arizona's death row, Prosecutor Romley said, "we will try to do better." He neglected to mention that the prosecution's concealment of the odontologist's report that cast doubt on Ray's guilt prior to his first trial indicates they may have knowingly prosecuted an innocent man. And this was after DNA evid exonerated him and another man who matched the DNA admitted to it and he acted alone. WHY DO YOU THINK I OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY? DIRTY JUDICIAL SYSTEM - DIRTY COUNTRY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 October 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteI think the last paragraph raises more questions than it answers. I hope the reporter follows up on them. I hope the reporter is sent to a more suitable career - maybe as a real estate agent? Give the guy a break. Story just broke and may require a little digging to get to the meat.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 October 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think the last paragraph raises more questions than it answers. I hope the reporter follows up on them. I hope the reporter is sent to a more suitable career - maybe as a real estate agent? Give the guy a break. Story just broke and may require a little digging to get to the meat. Fact remains that with the decline of newspapers, the quality of writing has gone with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #12 October 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNP I went to another news site and the same story is there without the AP crap. That doesn't make the material any less copyrighted. Well then, maybe you should call in the FBI on yourself the next time you paraphrase a news article or even post it while attempting to cite the source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 October 22, 2009 there is a difference between Fair Use and cut n paste. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 October 22, 2009 Little bit more in-depth story at CNN now. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/21/assault.recanted/index.html Interesting quote from that; QuoteLast year, all six defendants pleaded guilty and were given terms of up to 40 years in prison. If she made up the story in the first place, you'd think these people would know for certain they didn't do it. I find it odd that they'd all confess to it. WTF is going on here? More; Quote Brian Abraham, the former Logan County prosecutor who handled the case, defended the convictions. "The case wasn't based on her statements," he said, noting that Williams never testified in the case. "The case was based on the evidence discovered by the police, including the confessions of the six defendants." He added, "All six of them have been in jail without filing appeals. If they file something afterwards, the evidence was pretty overwhelming for the charges on which they were convicted." Weird. This will be one to watch.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdshit 0 #15 October 22, 2009 Quote If she made up the story in the first place, you'd think these people would know for certain they didn't do it. I find it odd that they'd all confess to it. There is a difference between pleading guilty and confessing. In most cases, you get a reduced sentence for admitting guilt. An example of this is a murder case. If you plead guilty then you get life. If you plead not guilty and lose, you get death. Same for robbery, the sentence is much less if you plead guilty. More than likely, their public defender told them the govt had a solid case. In my experience, the feds have a 90% conviction rate regardless of the quality of their evidence, and pleading not guilty is almost always suicidal. So, they took a deal that gave them reduced sentences and in return pleaded guilty. Although, a reduced sentence still might be ten, twenty years... But, that is better than 40 years. Since this was (supposedly) a violent crime, it is probable that they were facing long, long stretches. I know of what I speak, unfortunately... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
