So the State initiated that Alford Plea?

[Nova]

this is what we do here,share opinions

it's not me who claimed I will get to the bottom of who killed them,the WM3 did + it's not me who received all that money for further DNA testing,they did

so what,this is a forum where I have only two extreme options?yeah they are guilty,nope they are not(and thats it)?seems that no matter what I say someone is getting very upset and rude or is taking it way too personal

Who is stopping you from expressing an opinion? Who is taking any of this personally?

What I questioned was your sneering at three young men who have spent most of their lives in prison for a crime they did not commit. So they took the best deal they could get, the one that guaranteed they would get out before Damian was dead and while they can still build some sort of lives for themselves. What right has any of us to demand more from them?

That isn't to say they aren't helping to look for the real killer. But I wouldn't blame them if they decided to turn their backs on the whole mess. The victims were not the children of the WM3 and the WM3 did not kill them.

 

[madeleine]

And why would that be such a bad thing? Working to free innocent men needs no other justification.

I understand that this is how defence works (doesn't matter if I like it or not),blame it on someone else.
But IMO there are 2 parts of the story....fine,fight for their freedom&innocence...BUT fight also till the end to have the real killer caught...don't only pretend to care about justice(cause real justice doesn't only mean free the wm3 but also catch the real bad guy IMO!) but let it go after the release....that's all....if the ones who wanted the wm3 out took so much time to go after TH (even if only online) did they let it go now,it's not over until he's behind bars if guilty,isn't it?he didn't stop being a killer (as they claim) only because the wm3 were released,right?

 

[Hez]

I understand that this is how defence works (doesn't matter if I like it or not),blame it on someone else.
But IMO there are 2 parts of the story....fine,fight for their freedom&innocence...BUT fight also till the end to have the real killer caught...don't only pretend to care about justice(cause real justice doesn't only mean free the wm3 but also catch the real bad guy IMO!) but let it go after the release....that's all....if the ones who wanted the wm3 out took so much time to go after TH (even if only online) did they let it go now,it's not over until he's behind bars if guilty,isn't it?he didn't stop being a killer (as they claim) only because the wm3 were released,right?

I don't know how to respond to this other than to point out that you have been provided links to show that what you posted above just isn't true. It's a rather unfair assumption to say that they only 'pretend' to care about justice and since I provided you links to prove otherwise, perhaps you could provide links to show that the WM3 are only 'pretending' to care about justice. The State of Arkansas is 'pretending' to care about justice in this case, IMO based on the stonewalling they have been doing since August 2011.

 

[madeleine]

I don't know how to respond to this other than to point out that you have been provided links to show that what you posted above just isn't true. It's a rather unfair assumption to say that they only 'pretend' to care about justice and since I provided you links to prove otherwise, perhaps you could provide links to show that the WM3 are only 'pretending' to care about justice. The State of Arkansas is 'pretending' to care about justice in this case, IMO based on the stonewalling they have been doing since August 2011.

I meant their supporters.
I responded to something that was about the closed forums.

 

[Cappuccino]

The only forums which closed after the wm3's release were all non forums. The supporters forums are all still up and running.

 

[Nova]

I understand that this is how defence works (doesn't matter if I like it or not),blame it on someone else.
But IMO there are 2 parts of the story....fine,fight for their freedom&innocence...BUT fight also till the end to have the real killer caught...don't only pretend to care about justice(cause real justice doesn't only mean free the wm3 but also catch the real bad guy IMO!) but let it go after the release....that's all....if the ones who wanted the wm3 out took so much time to go after TH (even if only online) did they let it go now,it's not over until he's behind bars if guilty,isn't it?he didn't stop being a killer (as they claim) only because the wm3 were released,right?

What is it you want them to do? What is it you imagine they CAN do?

Why do you assume they are doing nothing, because traffic has decreased at certain sites?

The State of Arkansas is using the Alford Plea as an excuse to claim the WM3 are guilty. How do those who know better get around that?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I have trouble believing it is ethical for an attorney general to accept a plea bargain just to save the State the potential cost of a wrongful conviction lawsuit.

Do all states have compensation statutes?

The federal government, the District of Columbia, and 29 states have compensation statutes of some form. The following 21 states do not: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Compensating_The_Wrongly_Convicted.php

 

[kyleb]

That just means the compensation isn't automatic, the acquitted have to sue for it.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

That just means the contamination isn't automatic, the acquitted have to sue for it.

Yes and that's their problem because they have never been acquitted and I have never seen any lawsuits that they are suing either

 

[Ausgirl]

Wasn't it the prosecuting attorney who actually put a price on what the state would save in potential lawsuits, by them accepting the Alford Plea?

 

[madamehdivision]

I believe that the point here is that the defense didn't come up with the Alford Plea out of the clear blue. The defense's original proposal, submitted to Dustin McDaniel by Patrick Benca over lunch, was that the evidentiary hearing be skipped and they proceed directly to a new trial. Ellington rejected that offer as he planned to use the evidentiary hearing as a discovery tool.

Then, he made the above-quoted statement about coming up with a way for the three to plead guilty. Braga came up with the Alford Plea after that. Back when the three were initially released, many people were implying that the defense presented the Alford Plea as their initial offering. It was only later that we learned of the initial offer, Ellington's counter and finally the Alford Plea.

Agreed. Ellington gave them an "invitation to treat" ie "I'm willing to negotiate. Throw some offers my way and we'll take it from there". Therefore, Ellington initiated it and Braga accepted by putting the Alford Plea on the table.

 

[madamehdivision]

were they offered the deal separately or as a group(sorry for the stupid way i am asking this,dunno how to put it)?
i mean,could one of them have said yes and two others no for ex?
Cause it's been said that Baldwin wanted to refuse and wait for new evidence (which IF true is very telling) but accepted for DE's sake.

No, it was all or nothing. All three must have accepted, otherwise the deal was off.

 

[Miranda!]

Yes and that's their problem because they have never been acquitted and I have never seen any lawsuits that they are suing either

They cannot sue for 'compensation' as they took the Alford Plea and have not been acquitted.

They are, I am sure, not able to bring a civil suit against the state for wrongful convictions as, technically, it is a matter of record that they pled guilty despite the quaification that they were innocent.

Meanwhile, despite some of the posts in this thread, the fight for a final and proper resolution of this case continues. Of the three, Jason Bladwin is the most vocal, albeit very softly, and consistent about wanting the real killer found.

It is true that the sites that seem to have ended were predominantly non sites. It is also true that many who were very vocal in their support have drifted away. However, they were the ones who were fighting for the release of the three, the three are out now so they feel that they have got what they were striving for. As such, they have every right to now walk away and get on with their own lives. Those who are left have a harder battle to fight as there are no figure heads wrongfully serving time, let alone an 'icon' on death row. Campaigning for an abstract legal concept is less 'glamorous' and thus far harder. It should be just as easy as the murder of three 8 year old boys is at the centre of tis case. Sadly it is now so long ago, that the emotional impact on those who are not involved in some way, is not as strong as it might be. But sadly, for the families involved, time is not a healer in this instance.