Public appearances and other forms of cashing in ..

[kyleb]

please list the catalog of direct and circumstantial evidence against DE presented at his trial. with links provided please, thanks.

Please see this [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212828"]thread where[/ame] I've done as much previously.

Echols is more or less acquitted.

Rather, Echols is a convicted child murderer, and unlikely to ever be acquitted given the body of evidence which lead to that conviction, again evidence which even he admitted is sufficient for a finding of guilt in point 4 of his Alford plea deal.

 

[Miranda!]

They are? I hadn't heard that. Did I miss something in the linked article?

I just read an article about a love story that started on death row...with quotes from letters. I am short on sleep too!

 

[Miranda!]

You would think he'd think it isn't such a good idea...but then again.

Not sure about that. He does tend to still embrace the image he had 20yrs before.
I suppose as an admitted murderer he may need to cash in where he can. According to the report from when he moved to Salem he maintains the image of the dark.

First I have to establish that I am NO 'fan' of Echols. Were our paths to cross there would be very little to talk about.

However, just because I do not 'like' him did not and would not, stop me fighting for justice in this case.

Part of me agrees with EntreNous above. We seem to live in a celebrity culture these days. At times there seems no rhyme nor reason for some to achieve that status, for others it is for very dubious reasons! He has to try and make a living having had a severely stunted development enduring death row for all those years. In order to survive he had to be able to both like and admire himself and he chose a route that had started in his confused and deprived teen years. Those years inside merely reinforced all that.

The ability to really see himself how others might perceive him, the ability to interact socially and, most of all, the consequeces of choices made, never had a chance to develop. Hence his stunted development. On Death Row he never had many choices to make.

Do not blame him for making money this way - blame those people who have set up these events and who are then prepared to pay him appearance fees! Or blame those who want this type of 'entertainment'! The demand is obviously there. Surely the 'American dream' is to be able to recognise opportunities and then capitalise on them (in a legal way) to make money? For that is all he is doing, much as many here might not like his decisions.

As to the 'admitted murderer' and then kyleb's post about 'direct' evidence, I have amost given up trying to explain what an 'Alford Plea' means. In essence it is a plea deal that circum-navigates the need to allocute - something which would be hard for an innocent person to do!

After 18 years I would have agreed to almost anything, even that the moon is made of green cheese and that Darwin was a satanist, were that to get me off DR and out of jail!

By the way, Jason Baldwin started working on a construction site within a week of release. Damien, meanwhile, is just taking advantage of the way his 'fans' perceive him and cashing in on that. Sad, but true.

What is even more horrifying is that those who are still convinced of the guilt of the three are not starting a campaign against the Arkansas State Judiciary for releasing three child killers. Do they feel helpless? Do they just accept that the state acted appropriately? If so, why take it out on supporters who are highly unlikely to change their minds?

 

[kyleb]

Do not blame him for making money this way

Echols is ultimately the one who chooses to keep selling his lies and hence is the one who rightly deserves the blame for doing so, while those who buy into his deceptions are victims and blaming the victims is wrong.

As to the 'admitted murderer' and then kyleb's post about 'direct' evidence

Echols admitted that he committed the murders at the softball game, the testimony to the effect is direct evidence of his guilt, and arguing around such facts does nothing to change them.

What is even more horrifying is that those who are still convinced of the guilt of the three are not starting a campaign against the Arkansas State Judiciary for releasing three child killers.

Are you convinced that every convicted child killer whose ever been released is actually innocent, or what state judiciaries are you campaigning against?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

[modsnip] In a "regular" guilty plea, the defendant pleading guilty must explain how the crime occurred. In an Alford plea, the whole point is that the accused cannot explain the crime because they are innocent of it.

I'm certain that I, too, would be more than ready to get off of DR after over 18 years of unjust incarceration there, especially with the guards acting like the Nazi SS every time I was interviewed. Since the State of Arkansas had already convicted Damien on bogus evidence (like the aforementioned softball girls' testimony), it is reasonable to believe that Damien believed it could happen again. When given the chance to get out, he took it.

That an Alford plea was the vehicle used is not surprising. Ellington refused to proceed straight to trial (which was the defense's initial offer), claiming that he needed the evidentiary hearing as a discovery tool (after admitting that he hadn't read all of the evidence in the case). It boggles my mind just how Ellington can be convinced of the guilt of Damien, Jason and Jessie without having fully informed himself of the evidence in the case, but, hey, it's Arkansas!

As to Damien's activities since release, I'm not wild about some of his choices. However, nothing he has done has been illegal, so I don't see what the "beef" is. As long as he can draw a sufficient crowd to make it work, he will continue to make these appearances. I, for one, am glad that he is keeping the case alive in this way.

Let me add that I am much more impressed with Jason's post-release activities. Jason has proven himself to be a stalwart defender of the falsely accused, and IMO Jason, not Damien or any movie or media gambit, will be the one who eventually brings the truth to light. Jessie is simply out of his league, given his mental deficiency.

Finally, I am still of the opinion that all of the information obtained post-release has not been made public. Either the State of Arkansas is withholding it because it proves what idiots they are or some attorney is still holding onto part of it until "something" (I don't know what) happens. This attorney could easily be someone unfamiliar to us right now - someone who may have been in the background in the past but is about ready to blow the proverbial lid off of this case.

Again, as I have often said, patience is important. We may never know everything about this case, but I'm sure that we will eventually have sufficient information to exonerate Damien, Jason and Jessie. The only question in my mind is whether or not the State of Arkansas will have the cojones to admit their mistake and properly re-investigate this crime so that the real killer/s can be tried and convicted. I hope and pray that they do.

 

[kyleb]

In a "regular" guilty plea, the defendant pleading guilty must explain how the crime occurred. In an Alford plea, the whole point is that the accused cannot explain the crime because they are innocent of it.

What is your source for these claims, or did you come up with them on your own?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What is your source for these claims, or did you come up with them on your own?

That is what an alford plea means. That they are innocent but pleading guilty.

 

[kyleb]

What is your source for that claims, or did you come up with it on your own?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What is your source for that claims, or did you come up with it on your own?

To help you figure out what the Alford plea is..

"n an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty. The defendant may plead guilty yet not admit all the facts that comprise the crime. An Alford plea allows defendant to plead guilty even while unable or unwilling to admit guilt. One example is a situation where the defendant has no recollection of the pertinent events due to intoxication or amnesia. A defendant making an Alford plea maintains his innocence of the offense charged. One reason for making such a plea may be to avoid being convicted on a more serious charge. Acceptance of an Alford plea is in the court's discretion."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/alford-plea/

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This might be helpful, too

In a regular guilty plea, the defendant must provide a factual basis to support each element of the crime that the defendant is admitting. The factual basis is written by the defendant’s lawyer and it contains the bare bones necessary to support the charge.

The Alford plea is quite different because a defendant concedes that the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt without admitting that he committed the crime. The prosecution then provides the factual basis for the guilty plea by attaching police reports, witness statements, and forensic reports to the guilty plea. Defendant admits that he has reviewed those reports, their contents are true and correct, and the court may consider them in deciding whether he is guilty.

source

 

[Miranda!]

What does that mean? Internet abbreviation is getting out of control.

Give it another two or three generations and people will even be speaking in a combination of text speak and acronyms! Scary! And the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it!
SOT

BOT

The 'Echols' as he presented to the authorities in small Bible Belt Community, did indeed act as a catalyst for a lot of what followed. I get the feeling that being perceived as 'different' down there was not healthy back then and could even still be true to this day.

 

[primitivefuture]

Give it another two or three generations and people will even be speaking in a combination of text speak and acronyms! Scary! And the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it!

The end has already begun. I've been against text speak and Internet abbreviation since it began. Grammar is going down the tubes. Forget about spelling. I know this is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, but I find the thread a bit irrelevant, so...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The thing is, I've been aware of what an Alford plea is long before it was brought up in this thread, and regarding the person that's making the plea it doesn't mean "they are innocent" as both you and CR claimed, but rather only that they are "unable or unwilling to admit guilt" as the source you cited explains.

They can't get all the supported donations if they actually admit guilt even though they are. That's their cash cow. Too bad they never actually did what they said they were going to after being released and that was to 'prove we're innocent'. To me that's what I can't wrap my head around as far as supporters continuing support regardless that they never kept their word on that statement.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Oh, but don't you know revelations are just around the corner? They just can't say anything right now because it might damage the case LOL .. Meanwhile of course any donations towards the cause would be greatly appreciated, and you can see your idol in real life for a small fee. All this money goes of course towards finding the real killer, and finally getting justice for the real victims (barf). People are being conned, the money is income for mostly Damien and Lorri.

 

[Miranda!]

@kyleB The 'original' Alford plea was named after the defendant in Georgia. He swore he was innocent, however, along with his attorney, he recognised that, excluding a confession from the real perp, there was enough circumstantial evidence for the chances of the state gaining a conviction to be very high indeed.

Plea deals are far more common in in the US than here in UK. On the whole they only tend to happen when a minor player agrees to testify for the crown for a reduced sentence.

Anyway, both sides of the Atlantic, when the do happen they are prior to any trial in order to both save money and expedite matters.

However, when pleading guilty, the defendant has to show he knows exactly what he is pleading guilty to by allocuting so that all are assured he is not just taking the rap for another person. When it came to the original defendent Alford, he was unable to as he claimed he was innocent. He was allowed to assert as much as he pled 'guilty'; This resulted in a lesser sentence than had he gone to trial and not been acquitted.

What is so unusual in this case is that, as far as I can discover, it is the only known case of an 'Alford Plea' being granted post conviction, although, technically, to make it the court had to vacate the original verdicts and then make lesser charges in order that the three might be let go on time served and no probation period.

If you chose to think it is fine that a court can get away witha form of 'judicial fraud' because the case is gaining too much attention globally which they want to 'go away', then fine.

It is bad enough that they used this for a quick 'get out of jail' card without acknowledging that the original investigation and trials were flawed. It is even worse if they wittingly released three 'child killers' with no monitoring etcetera.

The Scottish legal system allows for a 'non proven' verdict which is neither an acquittal nor a guilty verdict! Ellington saying he did it to save the state money does not hold water as to date the state has never admitted a wrongful conviction and has no provision for compensation on the statute book! All he saved them was the cost of a new trial which they would have lost as there is plenty to introduce that element of 'reasonable doubt'. Face saving and self serving for the state!

 

[Miranda!]

That's their cash cow. Too bad they never actually did what they said they were going to after being released and that was to 'prove we're innocent'.

Now that it has come out that Sir Peter Jackson bank-rolled a great deal of the EDT they have not been appealing for monies as far as I am aware! Anyway, people are free to spend their own money anyway they choose!

Anyway DE would have earned a good bit of money from his book deal. I seem to recal hearing it was worth something like $1,000,000 and as the book then went on to make the best seller list, is still earning for him. He also has a percentage in the West of Memphis film. Factor in the option on the film rights for his book, and it all adds up! Plus given that he has an agent for booking his public appearances he has to be commanding a fee that justifies an agent percentage!

Baldwin is working and his law degree course is going to be covered by Eddie Vedder's philanthropy - or it may be a Pearl Jam thing!

The saddest thing is the way that Jessie M has been left high and dry. Although there was some help from Jackson when there was a crisis.

Mrs Norris, no-one is being conned here! Just some 'fans' are gullible and try to get noticed by sending monies. It is their choice.

I have been involved now for some years and have got to know a few of the people directly involved with this case. Whether you opt to believe it or not is imaterial. There is some evidence that has not been 'published' yet. Sadly, it may not see the light of day in a court room until those who were responsable for the travesty are either dead or in some other way unable to be a serious threat. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

If you and others opt to believe that a state would release 3 child killers upon the rest of the country with a pat on the head and saying 'they are really nice boys and will not do it again', then that is your right. Think about it!

As to the apparent lack of demanding a new investigation since release, despite saying it would be easier from the outside rather than still inside, I have to agree with you. BUT I am starting to think that the odds are pretty high that there was some secret deal between Echol's attornies and the state that has effectively 'gagged' Echols from fighting for exoneration. This is just my opinion plus based on all that we have seen on how the state is willing to 'do deals' as a way of avoiding due process it seems. I am sure that Jason Baldwin would never have agreed to the plea had he been aware of any such side deal.


sorry for all the typoes but typing in rush trying to catch up on points I missed!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't believe that I have ever claimed that taking an Alford plea proves their innocence as was claimed. I have stated that I believe they are innocent, and I have stated that the Alford plea allowed them to maintain their innocence while pleading guilty. Just wanted to clarify.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Baldwin is working and his law degree course is going to be covered by Eddie Vedder's philanthropy - or it may be a Pearl Jam thing!

The saddest thing is the way that Jessie M has been left high and dry. Although there was some help from Jackson when there was a crisis.


I have been involved now for some years and have got to know a few of the people directly involved with this case. Whether you opt to believe it or not is imaterial. There is some evidence that has not been 'published' yet. Sadly, it may not see the light of day in a court room until those who were responsable for the travesty are either dead or in some other way unable to be a serious threat. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

If you and others opt to believe that a state would release 3 child killers upon the rest of the country with a pat on the head and saying 'they are really nice boys and will not do it again', then that is your right. Think about it!

<<snipped for space>>

Baldwin is a convicted child murderer and will never be able to practice law in the US. He may not even be able to attend class because he is considered a felon. Some colleges don't allow convicted child murders to attend classes in person and I doubt that a law degree can be obtained online. I thought he just asked for money so that he can take off for a year to write a book?

Well the secret evidence is a fraud otherwise they would have submitted it. I know I've seen posts from another supporter claiming such nonsense, but if it were real, we'd know about it especially by now.

You may not be aware of this, but here in the US some of our convicts are released even the ones who have committed murder. I've followed other cases and I read the news. They were not released because they are innocent or they were exonerated or vacated. They plead guilty and were paroled for time served and if they screw that up they could actually go right back to prison.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I know that some won't like to hear it, but there is more evidence that hasn't been released. I'll try very hard not to say "I told you so" when it comes out.

 

[SweetT]

I know that some won't like to hear it, but there is more evidence that hasn't been released. I'll try very hard not to say "I told you so" when it comes out.

I wont hold my breath!