Random things about this case...

[Compassionate Reader]

I ahve been told, by people in Arkansas, that Foglleman is a very fair Judge and always gives the Defence a fair chance!

I hope that's true for the sake of defendants who come before him. It's also possible that a guilty conscience over the WM3 case is behind his compassion. I don't totally blame Fogleman, though. I used to, but I'm changing my mind. I'm pretty sure that Davis put a lot of pressure on him. So, maybe our ire should be directed toward Davis. After all, he was the lead prosecutor.

 

[Miranda!]

Others (JMB, PH, VH) who had far more reason to build it, are now doing their part in dismantling it.

Agreed - but then they were not involved in the case in a professional capacity. This makes it a 'whole different ball game', rather like trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I hope that's true for the sake of defendants who come before him. It's also possible that a guilty conscience over the WM3 case is behind his compassion. I don't totally blame Fogleman, though. I used to, but I'm changing my mind. I'm pretty sure that Davis put a lot of pressure on him. So, maybe our ire should be directed toward Davis. After all, he was the lead prosecutor.

Agreed - but then they were not involved in the case in a professional capacity. This makes it a 'whole different ball game', rather like trying to compare apples and oranges.

OK my regarded companions, this is where we part company, to hopefully meet up again at the next crossroads.

Excuse me, am I logically inept or aren't we all, both apples "and" oranges? Surely a bad apple is also a bad orange! I once knew a guy who had a wife and three children. He and his wife thought it was quite "normal" that he worked for a company, that assembled detonators for landmines.

J. Fogleman is not an investment banker, he works for judicial authorities. There were three lives directly at stake, and many more indirectly. Three innocent people were being framed by these authorities, while the real Perp. was allowed to roam free, and possibly endanger the lives of more children. (If the perp. was, who a lot of us think he was, he did kill someone at a later time). Being instrumentalised does not free you from responsibility.

I've seen a lot of bus drivers, train drivers, doctors, nurses go behind bars for mistakes they've made. J. Fogleman and his gang get paid a lot of money for shouldering responsibility, why should they be measured with a different ruler?

J. Fogleman was a helper, and I'm going to need a bit more convincing, before he get's a "get out of jail free" card off me.
I am willing to forgive someone who's made a mistake, but as long as they don't say "I made a mistake" I must presume they stand for what they did.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I understand what you're saying. I don't mean to totally let him off the hook. I just think that Davis is more responsible. Over the years, it's always been Fogleman who's taken the proverbial "heat" in this case - not unjustly, just solely - and Davis has been the one who's gotten "off the hook" so to speak. I just want more attention focused on Davis as the more responsible party.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

This underlines some of the points I made in post #281 in this thread "JMK.The key that opened the door." .

REPRESENTING THE COGNITIVELY DISABLED CLIENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE by Jeanice Dagher-Margosian

http://www.michbar.org/programs/EAI/pdfs/disabledclient0905.pdf


This is about the legal flaws in the "confessions". Revisiting a (Terribly) Wrongful Confession By Chelsea Silverstein

http://www.lasisblog.com/2012/02/24/revisiting-a-terribly-wrongful-confession/


Here are the "confessions" in a different light. Some people might find the explicit language offending. It's not always respectful, but it does show how blatantly outrageous this "evidence" was. It's so embarrassing for Police dept.and authorities. It's so hilarious and tragic at the same time.

PARADISE LOST: CONFESSIONS, WEST OF MEMPHIS 2013 by Mat Viola

http://notesofafilmfanatic.com/?p=1001

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd like to focus on a short snippet from the first link in the foregoing post:

"Prisoners with sub-normal intellectual functioning may refuse to work or go to school within the prison setting, for example, because they do not want to engage in
tasks which would reveal their disabilities."

I've stated many times before that my experience teaching those who are "cognitively disadvantaged" has proven this fact to me many times over. Those who are "slow" often make false statements in an attempt to hide their disability from others. Since JM's IQ is a mere two points above that which would make him "mentally retarded," IMO, he is certainly "cognitively disadvantaged!"

I would like to see laws placed on the books that would protect those who are "cognitively disadvantaged" from the kind of aggressive questioning JM endured - without benefit of either parent or legal representation. (Don't tell me that his father signed a waiver. The point is that no such waiver should be permitted for one of severely reduced cognitive abilities. The fact that police routinely use those with mental disabilities to "get their man" is, IMO, repugnant!) It should be criminal! Also, no one can ever convince me that the wmpd officers who questioned him were unaware of his mental challenges. In fact, as I've said before, I think that they not only knew of his lack of mental skills but used it to their advantage - and his (and others) disadvantage. They should have been fired, disbarred, and prosecuted!

 

[Graznik]

Word. ^

The WMPD were well aware of what they were doing. If you feel like you have to ask someone if they know what a penis is, then you know you're not dealing with someone functioning on an average intellectual level.

 

[reedus23]

Word. ^

The WMPD were well aware of what they were doing. If you feel like you have to ask someone if they know what a penis is, then you know you're not dealing with someone functioning on an average intellectual level.

Makes what went down in this case all the more disgusting.

 

[Graznik]

It does indeed.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Compassionate Reader:

I've stated many times before that my experience teaching those who are "cognitively disadvantaged" has proven this fact to me many times over. Those who are "slow" often make false statements in an attempt to hide their disability from others. Since JM's IQ is a mere two points above that which would make him "mentally retarded," IMO, he is certainly "cognitively disadvantaged!"

I would like to see laws placed on the books that would protect those who are "cognitively disadvantaged" from the kind of aggressive questioning JM endured - without benefit of either parent or legal representation. (Don't tell me that his father signed a waiver. The point is that no such waiver should be permitted for one of severely reduced cognitive abilities. The fact that police routinely use those with mental disabilities to "get their man" is, IMO, repugnant!) It should be criminal! Also, no one can ever convince me that the wmpd officers who questioned him were unaware of his mental challenges. In fact, as I've said before, I think that they not only knew of his lack of mental skills but used it to their advantage - and his (and others) disadvantage. They should have been fired, disbarred, and prosecuted!

I couldn't have said it any better!!

The same goes for children too! When I think of the way Aaron H. was traumatised by irresponsible members of LE, it makes me sick!

 

[Alchemist]

It seems strange to me that I haven't read anything about Echols or Baldwin confronting Miskelly about the lies that he is supposedly telling. And I find it strange that Miskelly wouldn't retract his confession if it were false, especially when Echols is going to be put to death because of it.

 

[Miranda!]

It seems strange to me that I haven't read anything about Echols or Baldwin confronting Miskelly about the lies that he is supposedly telling. And I find it strange that Miskelly wouldn't retract his confession if it were false, especially when Echols is going to be put to death because of it.

Firstly, the very fact that Misskelley pled 'not guilty' which, de facto, went to show he was not standing by the 'confession'.

Secondly, the strategy of the EDT, along with that of JM's own defence, has always been to emphasise how they believed that the 'confessions' were co-erced.

Echols did not really know Misskelley beyond seeing him around and knowing who he was. He did know, however, that he was mentally challenged and in special ed. Baldwin did know JM and had, when younger, hung out with JM when their mental ages were level pegging. The very obvious 'affection', as demonstrated by Jason Baldwin on August 19th 2011, was very evident. So too, Echols' bland attitude to him that day. He also made a comment at one point, at how hard he had found the interrogtion!

For all his faults, being nasty to Misskelley is not one that can be laid at Echols' door!

 

[Alchemist]

That is where I am getting confused. JM pled not guilty, but insisted the confession was true. I assume that his defense pled not guilty and JM maintained his guilt. And the fact that DE was not nasty to JM is out of character for some one who went through what he did because someone made up a story and included him in it. I would definitely have something to say about that. And I feel anyone else would also. I am not pulling for either side, I am just making observations.

 

[Miranda!]

I assume that his defense pled not guilty and JM maintained his guilt.

Not the case. At first his public defender was convinced that he was only needed to make the best plea deal he could. As things transpired Stidham realised that he was not guilty and, finally, Misskelley admitted this when his father was involved in the discussion. Initially he had considered Stidham as 'one of them', not realising that Stidham was on his 'team'. Do not forget how 'bidable' Misskelley was. Stidham only had to tell him not to fidget and stare around the court, effictively to keep his head down, avoiding staring at people.....and boy did Misskelley take him literally to the nth degree!

And the fact that DE was not nasty to JM is out of character for some one who went through what he did because someone made up a story and included him in it. I would definitely have something to say about that. And I feel anyone else would also. I am not pulling for either side, I am just making observations.

Echols was already aware of the 'West of Memphis' film and the chance of a book deal. He knew he was going to be in the public eye and was wise not to want to attract any negative publicity over something he could do nothing about! I do not know the guy so cannot state that something is either 'in' or 'out' of character. However, we do know he dumped his family on release and went off to explore the far horizons of his new life with his wife.

We do know that he was rather unpleasant about Baldwin taking so long to decide to fold his hand and agree to the sham of the Alford plea! Baldwin thought he was saving Echols' life. Echols was not terminally ill and it is highly unlikely that he would have been murdered by another inmate in those last few months before the Evidentiary Hearing! Too many high profile ppeople were watching and too many regular people around the world were too!

 

[Alchemist]

So after the bible confession with Stidham, he changed his story? As far as Baldwin goes, He would have been taking a big gamble. What would happen if they didn't get cleared at the next trial? Back to life in prison? I would have jumped at the chance to get out without hesitation.

 

[Graznik]

So after the bible confession with Stidham, he changed his story?

Well, "yes". Jessie has recanted more times than he confessed and refused to testify against Echols and Baldwin despite the efforts of the prosecution.

 

[Miranda!]

He would have been taking a big gamble. What would happen if they didn't get cleared at the next trial? Back to life in prison? I would have jumped at the chance to get out without hesitation.

I happen to disagree with this. Had the state chosen to go to trial again there would have been so much 'reasonable doubt' brought up by the defence that a conviction could not have been handed down! Well, at least, not in a reasonable court! So the probability of going back to prison did not really arise except for a short time between the hearing and the point when the state made their decision as to whether to re-try again! AND, that period would have been on remand, or even on bail, rather than in the hands of the ADC.

However, after all the years, Echols, since the revelations of the new evidence had had his hopes raised and, it seemed, reached the point where he was going to go stir crazy and could not hang on any more. Baldwin wanted justice but Echols just wanted out. He held the the stronger hand as it was his legal team who enabled the Alford Plea deal to proceed.

The most telling message of the Alford Plea is that there is no way that the state could really believe in their guilt whilst also setting them free! Despite all the protestations of the AG and Ellington!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd like to clear something up about the so-called "Bible confession." JM's attorney (DS) was interviewing JM because he (DS) had been told that JM was about to make a statement to LE. DS wanted to insure that JM wasn't going to commit perjury which could have led to a charge of suborning perjury against DS. If you read the statement, you will see that DS was constantly questioning JM and trying to lead him into a statement that made sense! By this time, of course, DS was convinced of JM's innocence.

DS was able to convince JM not to make a statement at the time of the so-called "Bible confession" and it wasn't until a few days later that JM actually made the statement to LE. I suspect (of course, LE denied it) that a certain amount of pressure was placed on JM in the intervening days. He told DS that pressure was put on him, but, of course, Burnett didn't act on that information.

IMO, the worst thing about that post-conviction statement was that LE kept DS in the dark about it until the last minute and only allowed him a brief time (about 5 minutes, IIRC) to talk to JM before the statement (the so-called "second confession") was made. They certainly didn't want to give DS the time to change JM's mind again! In the end, it was all for naught as JM never testified against DE and JB and never claimed to be guilty in a court of law - except at the Alford plea hearing in which he not only plead guilty but maintained his innocence. Go figure!

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Because I’m outside the USA I’m not too familiar with the in depth politics on a regional or state basis. A few posters on various boards have stated they see signs of corruption on different political levels, right up to the top. Due to my interest in this case, I became acquainted with the WMPD, the CCPD, Judge Burnett, Brent Davis, Jerry Driver and a lot of other „shady“ subjects, a lot of peculiar things were happening on the fringe of this story. The investigation into the CC-DTF, Judge Burnett acquiring a gun from confiscated firearms, the murder of Police officer Clark White, the later dismissal of Driver, Sudbury, Applegate, and many more ongoings. Here are some good pages for basic knowledge about the regional corruption:

CC-DTF Investigation, Clark White murder:
http://www.jivepuppi.com/west_memphis_confidential.html

Clark White murder case: Albert Huggins v. State of Arkansas:
http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/doc/167511/Page4.aspx

Sudbury and Applegate:
http://callahan.8k.com/misc/dtf_investigation_3.pdf

My main interest in the political surroundings, is to try and find out why the main suspect in this case, was not investigated, and even possibly „protected“. Of course there is no hope of ever finding out why, but I thought looking into Arkansas politics and particularly the Clinton's, was good general knowledge anyway.

Before and at the time of the murders Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas (1976), and Governer of Arkansas (1978 – 1980, 1982 – 1992). (1993 – 2001) President of the USA.
I didn’t know anything about Clinton besides the Monica Lewinsky affair. I found some nice interesting sites about the Clinton's and picked out one story in particular to look at in a bit more detail.

Here the the so called Clinton body count:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/clintonfriends.htm#.U9YpLaMkKK4

Here a compressed overview of the Clinton's career:
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm

Here a more detailed overview:
http://prorev.com/connex.htm

Here a well written, intriguing story concerning the Clinton's and the murder of Jerry Parks:
http://1984arkansasmotheroftheyear.blogspot.de/2012/02/jerry-parks-on-92693-is-one-clintons.html

It’s long, but well worth reading. May I point out that there is a „small coincidental“ link to TH in this story. After reading the name „Detective Travis Bunn“ that rang a bell, and I decided to scour callahans, and of course, the Mildred F. incident took place in Hot Springs, the arrest was made, and the documents signed, by detective T. Bunn:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/french_hobbs.html

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Of Alford Pleas, and coerced confessions.

Recommended Citation
Sydney Schneider, When Innocent Defendants Falsely Confess: Analyzing the Ramifications of Entering Alford Pleas in the Context of the Burgeoning Innocence Movement, 103 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 279 (2013). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol103/iss1/6

PDF:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=jclc

Quotes::

While I argue that defendants should not enter Alford pleas in cases featuring false confessions, it is important to examine why defendants might feel compelled to do so.

Therefore, if any new DNA evidence is found in the case of the West Memphis Three, for example, the defendants cannot use this newly discovered evidence to seek a new trial or a full exoneration by a judge. Rather, after the West Memphis Three entered their Alford pleas, prosecutors “declar[ed] the case closed.”168 This also has ramifications for the victims’ families. Assuming that the West Memphis Three are in fact innocent, as so many have to come to believe, the true perpetrator(s) of the crime will likely never be brought to justice. No more public investigations will be done and no new leads will be explored. Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley will remain the convicted killers of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, and Steven Branch unless the Governor of Arkansas grants them clemency.

168 Campbell Robertson, Rare Deal Frees 3 in ’93 Arkansas Child Killings, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 20, 2011, at A1.

Alford Pleas Undermine the Credibility of the Justice System

Accepting a plea of guilty from someone who maintains his innocence undermines the credibility of the justice system. 193 The criminal justice system is designed to punish only those who are morally blameworthy, and, therefore, the conviction of an innocent defendant threatens the very foundation of our system of justice. 194

193 See Shipley, supra note 30, at 1073–74.
194 Id. at 1074.