![]() ![]() Watching the video of Ledford’s tedious 1999 interrogation, something else occurs to me : The officers seem to understand that Ledford has an undiagnosed disorder. Pretending to be Ledford’s friend, his interrogator performs a constant theatrical handwringing about the overwhelming evidence (a lie), failed polygraphs (inconclusive), and a suspect who refuses to be helped. That’s fine and I, I can respect you for that.” You set the fire, you leave, maybe come in and be the hero. In Ledford’s case, the interrogator performed a kind-hearted desperation to help: “. If the suspect confesses to that explanation instead of the heinous motive everyone now believes, the interrogator can help him. Then, the interrogator offers an enticing alternative-a more conscionable, socially acceptable reason for the crime. “All I want to know today,” says the interrogator, “is why.” The interrogator then blocks every attempt to claim innocence. The technique works like this: as the interrogator, you go in, guns blazing, telling the suspect that their guilt is established, all evidence has been gathered, and there is nothing they can say to disprove them (this is often a lie). Half of those were under 21 years old 9% had mental health issues known at trial. According to the Innocence Project, of DNA exonerations since 1989, 29% included false confessions. But according to Innocence Project lawyers, it’s often used to extract confessions from the most vulnerable-the young, the unrepresented, and those with spectrum disorders. This common interrogation method, known as the Reid Technique and what we casually call “the third degree,” allows police great leeway for intimidation and deception because it was originally intended to be used against hardened criminals. But the police interrogated him for hours without a lawyer, using a brutal technique that left him powerless. He became their top suspect.Īt 23, Ledford had just lost his one-year-old son and his (then) wife was in critical condition. To the police, this husband and father wasn’t performing a convincing husbandly or fatherly grief. Sometimes he had a temper, sometimes a deep gloom. He was awkward, a mess in social situations. Ledford was never well-liked in the community, and he didn’t get along well with his wife’s family. He has been diagnosed by a University of Virginia Clinical and Forensic Psychologist as being “in the autistic spectrum or a severe nonverbal learning disorder.” When his house was burning down, witnesses reported he didn’t try hard enough to run in. Ledford confessed-and that is difficult to undo. ![]() On Tuesday, the Virginia Supreme Court refused to consider the case. ![]() And yet, the Virginia Court of Appeals, perhaps misunderstanding the finding, denied Ledford a writ of actual innocence. An evidentiary court accepted this, establishing it as legal truth-a huge victory for Ledford. Neither the burn patterns nor the timeline matched Ledford’s story. Years later, scientists proved that the scenario described in Ledford’s confession-a lighted candle thrown onto an upholstered living room chair-couldn’t have happened. ![]() About 20 minutes later, while he was at the station, 911 calls started coming in about a fire raging in, as it turned out, Ledford’s own home. That night, just after his wife and son had gone to sleep, Michael Ledford left for the fire station where he volunteered. Though he confessed under a lengthy interrogation, Michael Ledford did not set the fire that killed his son and horribly burned his (then) wife on October 10, 1999. On April 25th 2023, the Virginia Supreme Court ignored a life-shattering mistake. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |