Innocent man freed after 20 years on death row: Kenny Richey

I agree with your comments, but was he innocent.

I thought plea bargaining involved an admission of guilt. If so what did he plead guilty too.

Involuntary manslaughter by arson. In effect saying he set the fire which he accepts killed the child, but he didn't intend to harm the child. The time served he in jail is the equivalent of the sentence that would have been received for this crime, which is why he was released.

So NOT innocent then.

he did not plead guilty to these charges ,what it means he did not put any defence forward so he did not plead guilty or not guilty and as he served so long he was released. he originally wanted another trial which would have taken so long to happen instead of beeing free to return to the uk. also there was no evidence that he started the fire, you did not mention that the girl who died had a history of playing with matches , she had set her house in fire before , richey was supposed to have been too drunk to climb up the ouside of a 2 storey apartment block, also richey had a rookie lawyer who never represented him properly.
amnesty international claimed it was the worst miscarriage of justace they had investigated, normally i dont follow what thety have to say after supporting the ira members the uk army killed in gibralter but in this case i think they are right

quote:

the girl who died had a history of playing with matches

The girl was Two years old. Any Two year old will play with matches if they have access to them that is why children are not allowed matches. A two year old, amazingly has not the ability to understand the implications of what can happen if they set a fire, that is why children have parents (to in theory keep them safe). Hey why not blame the Two year old. She had a historyof playing with matches - did she keep them in her nappy from birth possibly without her mother's knowledge. Jeez.

So if Richey didn't do it who else is in the frame?

quote:

he did not plead guilty or not guilty

Inference i imagine would be taken as to why he did not give evidence, but hey i'm no expert on American law.

Very hard to understand but...

Coping a plea deal, even when not guilty is unfortunately quite a normal procedure. Happens all of the time. It is often looked upon as the best option. The state cranks on the pressure and quite often prime evidence is deemed inadmissible. You have an young, inexperienced, underpaid, overworked public defender... Quite often looked at as the only way out.

Sad but True

michael

He did not plead "guilty", he pleaded "no contest". As I understand it, he was found guilty and sentenced to the time he had already served.
That was the quickest way for him to escape from the system which had so unjustly imprisoned him. A new trial could have taken months, maybe years and held no absolute certainty of a "not guilty" verdict.
Ken

quote:

The girl was Two years old. Any Two year old will play with matches if they have access to them that is why children are not allowed matches. A two year old, amazingly has not the ability to understand the implications of what can happen if they set a fire, that is why children have parents (to in theory keep them safe). Hey why not blame the Two year old. She had a historyof playing with matches - did she keep them in her nappy from birth possibly without her mother's knowledge. Jeez.

So if Richey didn't do it who else is in the frame?

The thing is Diccus, Richey was looking after the little girl.How was he to know the child had access to matches?
After spending 20 tears behind bars I would imagine that taking a 'no contest' plea was pretty reasonable on Richey's part. He could have gone for a retrial and all that could bring. The state by accepting his no contest, is not liable for the reimbursment of cost in locking an innocent man up for 20 years (remember he was on death row), so it's a pretty huge climb down. One, I think that would not have been made without an expectation of doubt over the initial verdict.

He could have been out many years ago if he'd accepted a deal admitting some sort of liability but he was determined to prove his innocence. It's sad that so many so-called experts are willing to condemn him when all the people who know the full details are so certain of his innocence. Except of course the American judiciary system but obviously there's a vested interest there.

Frankly I fear for him. He's spent about half his life in an American jail, living in extremely stressful conditions for 20 odd years, and now has to adjust to life in what's, for him, now a foreign country. A friend of mine knew him at school and regarded him as a rascal but not a bad person. Who knows how he'll now handle things.

quote:

The thing is Diccus, Richey was looking after the little girl.How was he to know the child had access to matches?

If you are looking after a 2 year old you have a clear responsibility to supervise the child appropriately. How was he to know the child had matches? maybe he didn't, wasn't he pissed? Matches should be kept well out of the way of small children.

Regards

Diccus

he was not looking after the 2 year old , he was asked but refused as he had been drinking & was in no fit state to look after a neighbours child

So who was looking after the little one - it might help if I read more about the case