Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Crimes and Trials > West Memphis III

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 06-23-2012, 02:07 PM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
No news for quite a while. Is evidence of innocence still on the way?
Yes. Remember that there's no deadline for presenting new evidence. Exoneration has come many, many years later in several cases. Just because nothing new has been released doesn't mean that there is nothing new.

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #27  
Old 06-23-2012, 10:53 PM
Cappuccino Cappuccino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
No news for quite a while. Is evidence of innocence still on the way?
I'm still waiting for evidence of guilt. Lol.

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cappuccino For This Useful Post:
  #28  
Old 06-24-2012, 11:29 PM
AngelontheRiver's Avatar
AngelontheRiver AngelontheRiver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 123
My research convinces me they are guilty. They are free. They pled guilty. That plea should never have been allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-25-2012, 12:08 PM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
My research convinces me they are guilty. They are free. They pled guilty. That plea should never have been allowed.
Lots of innocent people plead guilty "in [their] best interest." If you have listened to some of Damien's press conferences, he has talked about the fact that, for about $50, he could have been murdered while in prison. I wouldn't want to take that chance. That's one reason why he was so eager to get out of prison.

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #30  
Old 06-25-2012, 04:44 PM
AngelontheRiver's Avatar
AngelontheRiver AngelontheRiver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 123
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AngelontheRiver For This Useful Post:
  #31  
Old 06-25-2012, 07:22 PM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
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.
An attorney explained it to me. I won't attempt to explain all the details, but the crux was that it was the judge's call to ascertain that the evidence - all evidence - was now more likely to lead to an acquittal. So, it wasn't unethical for him (Laser) to make a ruling that, to some, appeared to be contradictory.

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #32  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:43 PM
AngelontheRiver's Avatar
AngelontheRiver AngelontheRiver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 123
The judge appears very unprofessional. I think he abused his position. Star struck.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-28-2012, 07:18 PM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
The judge appears very unprofessional. I think he abused his position. Star struck.
Sorry, but that is simply not true! Unlike in the Tim Masters case in CO, the Arkansas law won't allow a judge to simply rule that the evidence doesn't support the original conviction. Had the evidentiary hearing taken place, Judge Laser could have ordered a new trial or he could have ruled that no new trial was warranted. There were no other options. The Alford Plea allowed the State to save face and the three innocent men to go free. IMO, the judge's actions were extremely professional. There was no abuse of position, unlike Burnett refusing to recuse himself - repeatedly.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #34  
Old 06-29-2012, 12:17 AM
AngelontheRiver's Avatar
AngelontheRiver AngelontheRiver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 123
The judge should have ordered a new trial or denied a new trial. Not accepted a plea from people already convicted and sentenced.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AngelontheRiver For This Useful Post:
  #35  
Old 06-29-2012, 12:57 PM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
The judge should have ordered a new trial or denied a new trial. Not accepted a plea from people already convicted and sentenced.
Had the judge ordered a new trial, the three would have been found not guilty. Ellington said as much in the December, 2011 GQ article. The State knew that and didn't want it to happen. Hence the Alford Pleas. It's unsatisfactory and satisfactory for both sides, but it's what happened.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #36  
Old 06-29-2012, 02:38 PM
BD1 BD1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
Yes. Remember that there's no deadline for presenting new evidence. Exoneration has come many, many years later in several cases. Just because nothing new has been released doesn't mean that there is nothing new.

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.
I read Pam's suit filing. Does anyone know the intention behind her wanting to examine the evidence? Or could guess?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BD1 For This Useful Post:
  #37  
Old 06-29-2012, 07:59 PM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by BD1 View Post
I read Pam's suit filing. Does anyone know the intention behind her wanting to examine the evidence? Or could guess?
I've heard that it's for closure. I can understand that, I guess. She just wants to look at everything that they have in evidence. I support her.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #38  
Old 07-03-2012, 12:25 PM
AngelontheRiver's Avatar
AngelontheRiver AngelontheRiver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
Had the judge ordered a new trial, the three would have been found not guilty. Ellington said as much in the December, 2011 GQ article. The State knew that and didn't want it to happen. Hence the Alford Pleas. It's unsatisfactory and satisfactory for both sides, but it's what happened.
The judge couldn't know that. No one could. Ellington is a coward.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:07 PM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
The judge couldn't know that. No one could. Ellington is a coward.
In an evidentiary hearing, the judge must decide if there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury would deliver a not guilty verdict. Maybe the judge can't be 100% sure, but he is supposed to believe a new trial would most likely result in an acquittal or the original verdict should be upheld. In the December, 2011 GQ article, Ellington admitted that the judge was going to order a new trial. Based on what Judge Laser said at the hearing on 8/19/2011, I feel that it is obvious that Ellington's suspicions were correct - that the judge would have ordered a new trial. In fact, I suspect that the judge had communicated his intentions to Ellington.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #40  
Old 07-25-2012, 02:15 AM
UdbCrzy2's Avatar
UdbCrzy2 UdbCrzy2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelontheRiver View Post
The judge should have ordered a new trial or denied a new trial. Not accepted a plea from people already convicted and sentenced.
Any defendant can plead guilty and not have a trial, which is what the convicted did. This is what most convicted do if they get an appeal and a new trial is granted, they just plea guilty and the time they have already served is given credit to them.

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
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-25-2012, 05:43 PM
Cappuccino Cappuccino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,833
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cappuccino For This Useful Post:
  #42  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:41 PM
hello people hello people is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 118
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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-05-2013, 08:06 AM
Nova Nova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 18,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello people View Post
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.
Alas, that simply is not true. Which is why so many innocent defendants are convicted and so many are pressured to falsely confess.

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:
  #44  
Old 03-05-2013, 02:10 PM
hello people hello people is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 118
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...
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-06-2013, 08:35 AM
Nova Nova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 18,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello people View Post
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...
If anyone wants to know why the innocent men of the WM3 took Alford pleas, he or she need only read your last two posts.

Since you apparently support the execution of innocent men, I'm not surprised Echols jumped at his first chance to get out.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:
  #46  
Old 03-06-2013, 08:38 PM
hello people hello people is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 118
Well how do you know they are innocent?

At best it's a noodle scratcher...

Very grey case

Very grey
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-06-2013, 09:49 PM
Nova Nova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 18,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello people View Post
Well how do you know they are innocent?

At best it's a noodle scratcher...

Very grey case

Very grey
It's not even close to a "noodle scratcher." There is simply no evidence against the WM3 except for a coerced (and obviously false) confession and a bit of playground hearsay.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:
  #48  
Old 03-06-2013, 11:04 PM
hello people hello people is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 118
Well....there's a little more to it than that.

Quite the grey area
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-07-2013, 08:05 AM
Nova Nova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 18,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello people View Post
Well....there's a little more to it than that.

Quite the grey area
Actually, no, there is not. Not a single hair, not even a partial print, not a spec of DNA.

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:
  #50  
Old 03-07-2013, 03:05 PM
kyleb's Avatar
kyleb kyleb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,048
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 05:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Abuser of pro hockey player Theoren Fleury is pardoned in Canada Mercyneal Crimes in the News 5 03-20-2012 03:32 PM
Sex Offender Pardoned By Governor Back In Prison Filly Crimes-Spotlight on Children 10 12-30-2010 06:34 AM
TV Journalist's Laura Ling and Euna Lee Pardoned! Thrs0806 Up to the Minute 35 08-05-2009 06:24 PM
Australian man pardoned 86 years after execution XcomSquaddie Crimes in the News 1 05-27-2008 08:10 AM
Moo, the wandering bovine, pardoned from slaughter. MrsG728 News that makes you smile! 1 07-12-2007 03:15 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!