Pam Hicks just filed suit. ( http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/katv/...IA_Lawsuit.pdf ). The last civil suit in this case generated a mountain of new information. Maybe this one will, too. I'm willing to wait and see.
Sorry, but the confessions of a 17 yr old with a below averag IQ, the retracted testimonies of a credit card thief and an LSD addicted jailhouse snitch, backed up by dodgy forensics and a whole pile of character assassination, have never really done it for me.
"There's no soul in there." Said by a prosecutor in the latter half of the 20th century, in the same country which put a man on the moon.
My God, Arkansas should be ashamed.
My research convinces me they are guilty. They are free. They pled guilty. That plea should never have been allowed.
All Jessie ever wanted was to go home. He told the truth (initially) and said that he knew nothing about the crimes. Then, under intense pressure, he made up a story that he thought would let him go home. (Yes, he's that naive. Remember, he has an IQ in the low 70's.) It didn't.
Jason and Damien have always maintained their innocence. Jason put it well. I'll paraphrase. He said that they told the truth (that they were innocent) and they were locked up for life with Damien being under the threat of execution. They tell a lie (that they were guilty) and they're freed.
I agree that the plea shouldn't have been allowed because the three are innocent of the murders. However, Ellington didn't really want to go to trial. As he said in the December, 2011 GQ article, he would have had his a$$ handed to him. ( http://www.gq.com/news-politics/news...-december-2011 )
I've since heard Scott Ellington say that the original offer from the defense was to skip the evidentiary hearing and go straight to trial. He said that he was planning to use the hearing as a discovery tool. IMO, that's a little lazy. (I guess he was more interested in his Congressional campaign, although he denies it.) So, he turned down the initial offer but opened the door to the Alford Plea by telling the defense that, if all three would plead guilty, they could talk. So, technically the Alford Plea came from Ellingtion's suggestion.
( http://crittendencounty.wmctv.com/ne...3-negotiations )
There's a lot not known about this whole mess, but personally I know enough to be confident that the three are innocent, that the Alford Plea, as Ellington said in the second article I cited, was beneficial to both sides and that the supporter movement will not stop until the three have been fully exonerated and the State has investigated, tried and convicted the real killer. I know that everyone doesn't agree with me. For those who still believe the three are guilty, I simply say, "Stay tuned."
Last edited by Compassionate Reader; 06-25-2012 at 12:26 PM.
I am staying tuned. If evidence I consider compelling comes to light I may change my mind. Only a fool wouldn't. I meant the judge shouldn't have allowed it. There should have been a new trial.
That's why he could accept the Alford Plea, even though his comments led many to believe that he was convinced of the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie. An example was his comments praising supporters at the hearing on 08/19/2011. Remember, this deal was worked out by both sides. So, the judge had to take that into consideration.
IMO, the State benefited mightily from the Alford Plea because of the additional caveat that there would be no lawsuits for false imprisonment - regardless of what transpires in the future. So, even if the three are exonerated and the real killer is investigated, tried, convicted and imprisoned, the three cannot sue for false imprisonment. That's pretty big, IMO.
So, with Ellington's admission that the original defense proposal was to skip to the trial and eliminate the cost and time of the evidentiary hearing and that the State objected to that because of discovery issues, only time will tell what happens. With Pam's lawsuit against the wmpd and others, we can only wait and see if any of the new information that I'm convinced the defense has is made public in connection with the suit. I'm afraid it won't because Ellington is still playing the CYA game, or rather the "get the votes" game and won't want that information to be made public.
If Ellington loses in November and Pam's case hasn't been resolved by that time, I'm hoping that some of the information will then be made public. I just hope that the information is made public sometime - preferably sometime soon. Again, we have to play the waiting game.
The judge appears very unprofessional. I think he abused his position. Star struck.
The judge should have ordered a new trial or denied a new trial. Not accepted a plea from people already convicted and sentenced.
Often they are sentenced by the jury and if there is no jury (which is true if they have no trial and plead guilty), then the sentencing would be left to a judge to decide.
I want to know where the proof is that they were going to come up with to 'prove them innocent'. What happened to that meme? I guess they got a little star struck too and forgot about all that stuff. But, they continue to encourage donor money in their behalf.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
On the contrary, it is very rare indeed for a convicted murderer to be set free in return for an Alford plea. Its rarer still for someone convicted of capital murder to walk off death row in return for one. Alford pleas are almost always used before conviction, not after.
And for three people convicted of the same crime, (one sentenced to death), to walk free with time served and an Alford plea is unprecedented as far as I know. If you can find another example, please post it.
When a cop has a suspect in a room, eye to eye...they usually know whether the suspect is guilty or not...it takes a very, very cunning...very, very cold blooded criminal to deceive detectives eye to eye.
Of those freed to date by the Innocence Project, one in four had falsely confessed to the crime they did not convict. In each of those cases, detectives were certain they could "read" the accused.
Ever heard the old saying....don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining? Now if a detective wants to piss down his own back and have someone tell him it's raining that's a different matter.
I'm sure the Innocence Project has all manner of facts, figures and statistics...
Well how do you know they are innocent?
At best it's a noodle scratcher...
Very grey case
Well....there's a little more to it than that.
Quite the grey area
There is nothing but gossip and innuendo, and "expert witnesses" who lack even basic credentials.
If the State had even a shred of doubt that the WM3 are innocent, no Alford Plea would have been offered.
Nova, I get the impression you've never seen this website, or much of the information summarized there. I recommend reading everything under the "The Case Against the WM3" section, as it presents far more than gossip and innuendo to cast doubt on the notion that that the WM3 are innocent, including multiple direct confessions from Misskelley, as well as witness reports of confessions from Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. Between all that and the Hollingsworths' reports of seeing Echols covered in mud/dirt near the crime scene shortly after the likely time of the murders, Echols's psychological history, the criminal history of all three, and the fraudulent alibis of all three, I'm at a loss as how one could reasonably believe they were wrongly accused.
I've seen the claim that Misskelley's first confession was coerced before, but I've yet to find anything to substantiate that accusation, and it seems rather a dubious notion given Misskelley's many other confessions along with the rest of evidence. As for the lack of DNA and scant physical evidence otherwise, that's to be expected when the bank where the murders were apparently committed was slicked down and the bodies submerged in a creek.
Granted, I only started looking into the details of this case last week, but this point I've no doubt the representatives of the State involved believe Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley are all guilty of the crime they were convicted for. I agree with the State's decision to accept the Alfred Pleas though, as given the resources of the many celebrities and others who have devoted themselves to freeing the WM3, it's quite possible a jury could have been convinced they are innocent and set them free. Accepting the Alford Pleas at least insures the three are on parole for ten years, so authorities can keep a much closer eye on them than what not guilty verdicts would allow.
Last edited by kyleb; 03-07-2013 at 06:49 PM.