I've Changed My Opinion

[firebird]

I’ve seen the documentaries, read tons and I’m still on the fence. That being said I have many issues with how the investigation was handled-especially the evidence as well as not following up with many of the leads.

Here’s what I’m wondering...did the state worry about the quality of the evidence and investigation so that rather that worry about that coming out, allowed the Alford pleas as an “everybody wins” scenario? The WM3 get out and the state’s poor investigation doesn’t get exposed—because that may open the state up to civil litigation?

Just thinking out loud...

It seems pretty clear to me that's exactly what happened. There was no other reason to give them an Alford opportunity. Especially one that they all three had to take.

 

[Keine Engel]

I’ve seen the documentaries, read tons and I’m still on the fence. That being said I have many issues with how the investigation was handled-especially the evidence as well as not following up with many of the leads.

Here’s what I’m wondering...did the state worry about the quality of the evidence and investigation so that rather that worry about that coming out, allowed the Alford pleas as an “everybody wins” scenario? The WM3 get out and the state’s poor investigation doesn’t get exposed—because that may open the state up to civil litigation?

Just thinking out loud...

They accepted the Alford plea deal coz they knew it was gonna be a Celeb-Fest-Free-Publicity-4-All-Fully-Funded media circus.

They'd already served what would be the average full sentence in much of the western world anyways, they admitted they we're ... Guilty!

Officially! On Record! For All Time!

Even so they had been found guilty already...twice

And even then they had another 10 years on probation before they would have finally served their full sentences

I'm not really seeing a win-win situation?

If I had been only wrongly accused of such horrific things I wouldn't see it as win-win situation

If I had been truly innocent of any involvement in the violent murders of 3 little boys of which I had then been found guilty & sentenced to death in a court of law I would damn well challenge every single piece of evidence used to put me there endlessly until I proved my innocence.

Even if that took longer than my completed sentence I would fight it - Endlessly

Not only for proving my innocence,

I Would Fight For Justice Endlessly For All Three of Those Boys

Which incidentally, also quite possibly the odditiest part about this, is they said they pdid have?

Where then is this so-called proof of innocence evidence? which would they promised knocking-on a decade-ish ago?

What happened?
Is it as the science behind the DNA evidence becoming more absorbed into our everyday knowledge it becomes more & more obvious that claim as 'evidence' is nonsense?

 

[Userid]

The Alford Pleas came from the defense, not from the state.

The state was ready and preparing to go to trial before the defense came to them with the Alford pleas, and the state (not the WM3) accepted. Not the other way around.

So in essence, it was the defense (DE, JB, JM) that didn't want to go to trial initially.

 

[Silverhawk]

The Alford pleas were agreed to by the State because the State's investigation was lacking; and they probably would not have won in another trial, plus been subject to lawsuits from the 3. This way, the 3 could not sue them, and they were free.
I've followed this case since the beginning; and gone back and forth. What I am certain of is that there was not enough evidence to make me convict any of the 3. Nor anyone else.

 

[Userid]

The Alford pleas were agreed to by the State because the State's investigation was lacking; and they probably would not have won in another trial, plus been subject to lawsuits from the 3. This way, the 3 could not sue them, and they were free.
I've followed this case since the beginning; and gone back and forth. What I am certain of is that there was not enough evidence to make me convict any of the 3. Nor anyone else.

Right, but again, it was the defense that introduced the pleas in the first place. The state was ready and willing to go to trial; the defense wasn't. Had the defense never introduced it, they would have gone to trial, even though the state would have been behind the 8-ball (it's not easy to re-prove a case 20 years afterward and with the death one of the original AR doctors, let alone the death of other witnesses such as LGH, etc.).

 

[Catmommy]

The Alford pleas were agreed to by the State because the State's investigation was lacking; and they probably would not have won in another trial, plus been subject to lawsuits from the 3. This way, the 3 could not sue them, and they were free.
I've followed this case since the beginning; and gone back and forth. What I am certain of is that there was not enough evidence to make me convict any of the 3. Nor anyone else.

Yet the three WERE convicted and not just once but TWICE. I doubt seriously that 24 people who heard more evidence than we'll see were wrong. Neither jury was even hung. The Alford Plea pretty much says that "I didn't do it but if you brought me to trial you'd probably have enough evidence to find I did". What about this leaves any doubt?

I started out believing those poor boys were railroaded for the crimes they were accused of. After many years and much more study I think the little bastards got exactly what they deserved.

 

[Silverhawk]

Yet the three WERE convicted and not just once but TWICE. I doubt seriously that 24 people who heard more evidence than we'll see were wrong. Neither jury was even hung. The Alford Plea pretty much says that "I didn't do it but if you brought me to trial you'd probably have enough evidence to find I did". What about this leaves any doubt?

I started out believing those poor boys were railroaded for the crimes they were accused of. After many years and much more study I think the little bastards got exactly what they deserved.

I will throw a couple things out there, but certainly don't expect anyone to change their minds. I can only speak to what I think. The first thing I would say is, living in similar areas, it is easy to see how people can assume the worst of anything they don't understand/agree with, whether that's Damien's clothes, hair, demeanor, or John Byers antics. I felt sure that Byers was the actual criminal for a long time; but now I don't. I don't see evidence that points beyond a doubt for any of them. The jury issues mean that I cannot trust their verdict. I believe this is a part of why the State agreed to the Alford plea.

 

[Cappuccino]

Yet the three WERE convicted and not just once but TWICE. I doubt seriously that 24 people who heard more evidence than we'll see were wrong. Neither jury was even hung. The Alford Plea pretty much says that "I didn't do it but if you brought me to trial you'd probably have enough evidence to find I did". What about this leaves any doubt?

I started out believing those poor boys were railroaded for the crimes they were accused of. After many years and much more study I think the little bastards got exactly what they deserved.

I can't follow your logic there, I'm afraid. I get believing in their guilt, even though I don't share the belief, but I don't get thinking that 18 years was what the perpetrators of that awful crime deserved. If I thought the WM3 were guilty I would be furious that they were ever freed.

 

[Catmommy]

I can't follow your logic there, I'm afraid. I get believing in their guilt, even though I don't share the belief, but I don't get thinking that 18 years was what the perpetrators of that awful crime deserved. If I thought the WM3 were guilty I would be furious that they were ever freed.

Okay, you're right. I'm busted but if I'd put what I thought they really should have gotten I'd probably be castigated by those who still believe in their innocence. I stifled myself. For once.