The West Memphis Less-Than-Three?

[Ausgirl]

Here, I'll post the original core question again, to help us get back on track:


What, exactly, puts the three firmly in each in other's company (might we please leave out third hand hearsay and flawed confessions here, for the sake of exploring this idea) in the time frame during which the boys went missing, and later into that night? Is it actually possible for only ONE of the three to actually be guilty?

 

[reedus23]

Here, I'll post the original core question again, to help us get back on track:


What, exactly, puts the three firmly in each in other's company (might we please leave out third hand hearsay and flawed confessions here, for the sake of exploring this idea) in the time frame during which the boys went missing, and later into that night? Is it actually possible for only ONE of the three to actually be guilty?

To answer your question, if certain evidence is disregarded and other evidence is regarded, it is possible. Seeing as how I haven't seen any credible evidence that any of the three actually committed the murders, I can't rightfully say I have seen any evidence that would support a theory that one did it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Again, part of the problem is that a firm (or even semi-firm) ToD simply cannot be determined. Therefore, in order to totally "clear" a suspect, the suspect would need a rock-solid alibi for the time period of 7 pm May 5, 1993 until 1:30 pm May 6, 1993. Jason went to school on May 6, 1993. On the afternoon and evening preceding, he cut his uncle's lawn and hung out at Walmart with Damien and Domini. Then, he went home to baby sit while his mother worked. When his mother came home, Jason went to Damien's briefly, but came home fairly early to go to bed because the next day was a school day and he needed his rest. (IMO, this means that Jason had an alibi. However, since his attorney didn't really present a defense, there is no on-the-record proof of these facts.)

Damien and his family visited the Saunders' and got home about 8 pm, IIRC. Then, he talked on the phone to some girls (with Jason present for some time). Then, he went to bed. His sister, Michelle, has stated that he couldn't have left during the night because of the sleeping arrangements. He would have awakened her if he left. (Again, IMO, this alibis Damien for the critical time period.)

Jessie went to a wrestling practice in Dyess. Several witnesses testified to this fact at his trial. However, as they were all teenagers, their credibility was questioned by the prosecutors and they didn't appear to be the stellar witnesses that they could have been. The testimony was that he didn't get home until about midnight. (Finally, again, IMO, this alibis Jessie for the critical time period.)

So, IMO, the three all have solid alibis duiring the crital time frame.

 

[kyleb]

The problem with such opinions is that there's piles of documentation which contradict them.

 

[Ausgirl]

I actually would not mind exploring this question I've put forward, and I don't wish it rendered pointless by one side posting 'they're ALL innocent" and the other side posting "they're ALL guilty" - and this spamming up the thread ad infinitum, presuming I can manage to keep the thread on topic at all.

The fact is, there's room to poke holes in all of the alibis. Another fact is that there are periods of time during the evening and night of the murders in which the three were not in each others' company at all.

And while there's plenty of room (and hey, the entire -rest of the forum- )for each 'side' to argue the absolutes of guilt or innocence for all three, that is not what I am looking to explore here (look, I said it twice, just to get it across nice and clear) - there's ALSO room for the idea that NOT ALL are guilty, and NOT ALL are innocent.

With that hypothesis in mind, who do you think might have had the greater means, motive, and opportunity?

Who of the three was the MOST likely to have accessed the crime scene, had the time to attack, bind, kill, hide the bodies, hide the clothes, hide the bikes, clean up the scene, clean themselves up and get to the next solid (or semi-solid, as you will) part of their alibis?

It might be a too-hard question that few really want to attempt due to favourite theoretical applecarts... but I maintain that it's not impossible for one of the three to be guilty, or two of the three, and not the remainder.

Does anyone who CONCURS with this idea wish to attempt an answer? That'd be awesome.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The problem with such opinions is that there's piles of documentation which contradict them.

You're right Kyleb, that is something that many tend to overlook is that those alibis were discredited. If you can believe what the defendants say then you are ignoring the truth of those alibis.

So many things against all three it really wasn't difficult for two juries to convict them.

 

[Ausgirl]

Do I REALLY have to post the purpose of this thread yet again?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Here, I'll post the original core question again, to help us get back on track:


What, exactly, puts the three firmly in each in other's company (might we please leave out third hand hearsay and flawed confessions here, for the sake of exploring this idea) in the time frame during which the boys went missing, and later into that night? Is it actually possible for only ONE of the three to actually be guilty?

Have you seen Misskelly's statement after he was convicted? Would believe that he gave it voluntarily?

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The State of Arkansas would NOT have agreed to release 3 child murderers onto society after already having obtained convictions and won every other appeal unless the State of Arkansas believed either 1. their evidence would not carry the day at the hearing and ultimate new trial or 2. the 3 convicted did not actually murder the 3 boys. Plain and simple. Every excuse for doing so, including the expense of a re-trial, can be made but absolutely none of them hold water.

I don't care who proposed what, the State would NEVER agree to release convicted murderers upon society unless they knew the evidence didn't support it. Period. End of story.

Or 3 they weighed up the costs, considered the fact that the three child killers had already served 18 years, and considered taking a plea deal at the time would have likely led to a similar sentence and decided that the most time / cost effective thing to do was to simply accept admissions of guilt and release them for time served.

Precious resources could then be put to good use trying current criminals.

 

[gheckso]

Or 3 they weighed up the costs, considered the fact that the three child killers had already served 18 years, and considered taking a plea deal at the time would have likely led to a similar sentence and decided that the most time / cost effective thing to do was to simply accept admissions of guilt and release them for time served.

Precious resources could then be put to good use trying current criminals.

I would like to know if this is the common consensus among those who consider DJ&J guilty?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

No, it's my opinion only.

 

[Miranda!]

Ahhh so maybe they could let a few others out early to reduce costs and leave more money for more efficient law eforcement? If you really believe your own post above then this idea should not cause any concern. It could even free up some money that could be spent on rehabilitation and doing the best the ADC can to reduce the numbers re-offending?

 

[gheckso]

Or 3 they weighed up the costs, considered the fact that the three child killers had already served 18 years, and considered taking a plea deal at the time would have likely led to a similar sentence

Damien; Death
Jessie; Life sentence plus forty years
Jason; life x3 without possibility of parole

By my count that's nowhere near time being served so the argument that they would have received a similar sentence is just... wrong. If they are as guilty as people proclaim then the majority of their sentences was yet to be served. (especially Damien)

Precious resources could then be put to good use trying current criminals.

So it's a waste of our resources keeping triple child killers in prison and the streets safe from them?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Damien; Death
Jessie; Life sentence plus forty years
Jason; life x3 without possibility of parole

By my count that's nowhere near time being served so the argument that they would have received a similar sentence is just... wrong. If they are as guilty as people proclaim then the majority of their sentences was yet to be served. (especially Damien)


So it's a waste of our resources keeping triple child killers in prison and the streets safe from them?

Here in the US we sometimes release our prisoners for time served.

Example:

If you are convicted and sentenced 25 years. At some point depending on your crime you can apply for what is called parole.

We also have what is called States Courts and each State has their own set of rules for charges and sentences and paroles.

We also have Federal courts and that is broken down also.

So it's more complex than other countries. That maybe what is puzzling to some.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The length of the sentencing was reflective of the fact that the three killers all plead not guilty at the time of their first trials, if at that time they had admitted guilt they may have then entered into a plea deal, and received a reduced sentence. This is the norm here anyway, if an accused admits guilt and enters into an agreement he can expect to get a reduction for doing so, which usually includes a non-parole period, but does grant him the possibility of release at some stage.

It is my opinion that an Alford plea allows for that, so once they admitted guilt they were then re-sentenced to time served, at just over 18 years, and released.

 

[Cappuccino]

They didn't admit guilt.

 

[Miranda!]

Here in the US we sometimes release our prisoners for time served.

Example:

If you are convicted and sentenced 25 years. At some point depending on your crime you can apply for what is called parole.

We also have what is called States Courts and each State has their own set of rules for charges and sentences and paroles.

We also have Federal courts and that is broken down also.

So it's more complex than other countries. That maybe what is puzzling to some.

The basic structure of your legal system is based on English Common Law. However, various 'tweaks' were made over time and en voyage to the Americas!

The big thing that was removed are the laws pertaining to sub judice. This means that your 'right' to know everything and then your 'right' to express your opinion means that, with a high number of cases, the 'right' verdict has already been decided by the 'public'. The fact that it can very obviously have dire effects on there being a 'fair trial' are so diminished as to be all but meaningless. Once a person has been charged then anyone speculating publically, where the laws of sub judice still apply, can be charged with contempt of court. This means that no TV pundits, aiming for ever higher viewing figures, can generate a feeding frenzy of hysteria.

There is the added advantage in that it protects the basic tenet of the legal system - the presumption of innocence. You have all but lost that. Which, sadly, makes everything which follows rather farcical.

Then there is the fact that each state has 'tweaked' the system in slightly different ways so there is no consistent 'American Legal System'.

Then there is the fact that a high number of Judges and prosectors are elected officials, thus making 'pleasing the electorate' top their agendas whilst also 'politicising' the process.

To make things even worse your prison system seems to have no statutory duty of care and there seems to be no real effort to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can have a fresh start on release and become valued citizens.

Furthermore, whilst I do not think those who are doing time for breaking the law should have a vote to decide who makes the laws, I do think that once they have done their time the right to vote should be autmatically restored - especially in a country that wishes to appear to be a 'great' example of democracy.

Then, of course, there is the fact that very often sentences are ridiculously long which means that on release, for those who make it, there is little point in trying to lead a life free of crime. They could not before and, whilst incarcerated, they have been mixing with 'master' villains and so learnt far more 'tricks of the trade'.

We cannot, either, overlook the death penalty. Some states have it and some do not. The very idea of trying to logically convince people that murder is wrong by saying 'so we are going to murder you' appears somewhat crazy to outsiders as well as those in the US who are anti the DP. Also it is not a shining example of 'Christianity in action'. It is far closer to some of the ideas expressed in the OT, out of which Shariah law evolved too!

In conclusion it is the inconsistencies that confuse rather than the basic principles of the legal system.

And, of course, money raises its ugly head. One just has to compare and contrast this case with that of the three members of the Duke Lacross team. Too many people have their own career paths and bank accounts at the top of their priorities, it seems, rather than a fair and just application of the law.

I am not saying that there is no foul pay or corruption in other countries, there is. However the leading first world countries do their utmost to keep their legal systems free of it!

Also the idea of a 'parole' system exists elsewhere too. However on a long sentence for a serious crime, the chance for parole comes later rather than sooner!

Also the idea of bail (what is called bond in the US) exists elsewhere but it is the private individual who either puts the money up or promises it and then gets it back when the accused attends the court hearing. There are no bial bondsmen who make an industry out of it all!

Sorry for the long post, but the one that triggered this demanded it!

 

[Miranda!]

I forgot the joke of sentencing someone to 2 consecutive life sentences. What happens when they die having only served one? Mind boggling! And also way too many deals are struck which means that a person charged can often get away with a much lighter sentence or no sentence at all!

Not forgetting those who are encourage to bear false witness in order to close a case!

It is more about 'winning' rather than seeing Justice served!

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I forgot the joke of sentencing someone to 2 consecutive life sentences. What happens when they die having only served one? Mind boggling! And also way too many deals are struck which means that a person charged can often get away with a much lighter sentence or no sentence at all!

Not forgetting those who are encourage to bear false witness in order to close a case!

It is more about 'winning' rather than seeing Justice served!

BBM

Just curious is there a case that you know of where 'justice is served'?

I know we have some here who only post on the WM3 board and may not be accustomed to seeing how the workings of US legal system works.



I can think of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony as one where I don't think justice was served.

I can think of Jodi Arias as justice was served in the guilty verdict.

 

[kyleb]

I forgot the joke of sentencing someone to 2 consecutive life sentences.

It's not a joke, it's a matter when the convicted becomes eligible for parole, with each consecutive life sentence adding a given number of years to the minimum time served.