One more for now

New Posts

Yep, I've read those pages. Very troubling.
 
laurensmom said:
http://wm3org.typepad.com/blog/2010/10/affidavit-of-lloyd-warford-.html#comments


anyone else read these documents?


I'm not just looking for stuff that shows innocence...it just so happens that just about everything i read lately goes against guilt! of course imo
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read them and even had a case chat discussion on them with numerous lawyers involved. What a lot of us found troubling is that Warford waited until after he spoke with Damien's attorney to come forward, some 14 years. Two assumptions have to be made to make this even have merit. One being that Warford is telling the truth, and second that Arnold told Warford the truth. That's two pretty big assumptions with no corroboration on either side. So it becomes a Warford versus Arnold statement, so who do you believe?

I for one choose not to believe either one. I'm not saying Warford is lying, I'm saying I think one of them is lying, more than likely Arnold was when he told Warford. Even with that being said, it proves nothing without corroboration, which is why when the ASSC ruled on it before.. it was denied.
 
can you talk about which lawyers you've spoken to? i would have a field day with that!! i'd be tripping over my words the questions would be spewing out so fast lol
 
or i just reread and you mean lawyers in general were involved in your chat......could be my mistake
 
With Warford and Hutchinson, you have to wonder what they may have had to gain once they did come forward many years later......
 
Yes lawyers involved in the chat. lol sorry I should have clarified that a little better.

I tend to wonder why they waited so long, especially Warford being an officer of the court, I would suspect he knew better that to wait.
 
Warford potentially loses by stepping forward:

1. As a former prosecutor and current attorney in Arkansas, he's risking friendships and professional relationships by involving himself.

2. Even if he made a good faith mistake, the fact is that his conversations with Arnold were not covered by attoreny-client privilege. Therefore, he should have spoken up during the trial and alerted the court to what he knew. His failure to do so may be an ethics violation.

Warford gains:

1. He can look himself in the mirror knowing that he didn't keep information to himself that would have sent an innocent man to his death.


Think about it...........
 
Discuss the case.

Don't discuss other members.

Don't discuss posters from other boards, blogs or forums.

Don't label members as 'nons' or otherwise.

Discuss the case.
 
I tend to believe Warford because he had more to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward. Granted, it was late, but better late than never. Even if this information can't be used at the State level, maybe if (or when) Damien's case goes to the Federal level, the allegations can be properly investigated and appropriate action taken. I think the affidavit is a good thing.
 
I agree Reader....and the way I feel is let's say Warford had a personal vendetta or something similar against Arnold....people usually don't let it eat at them for years and years and then do something about it. It seems to me that knowing this is what has ate at him and caused many sleepless nights until he couldn't stand not coming forward any longer. I wonder if there are any interviews anywhere with him after coming forward....something I need to look up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 233 more.
Total: 3,763 (members: 234, guests: 3,529)

Online statistics

Members online
234
Guests online
3,529
Total visitors
3,763
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,313
Messages
17,967,282
Members
228,743
Latest member
VT_Squire
Back
Top