The West Memphis Less-Than-Three?

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by Ausgirl, Nov 27, 2013.

  1. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have thought it a possible error to always take for granted that because the three were accused, then the three must have committed the crime together.

    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?

    Is it possible Jessie wasn't there at all, but knew -something- bad happened?

    Or did Jessie kill the boys in a fit of rage and then use Echols and Baldwin to deflect the bulk of blame from himself?

    Were Jessie and Jason at home, while Echols and some other pals killed the boys for a 'laugh'?

    I can think of some pretty decent points of argument for all of the above. The only one of the three I have a hard time seeing as acting alone (or at all, tbh) is Baldwin.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. UdbCrzy2

    UdbCrzy2 New Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you think he could have been coerced into pleading guilty instead of waiting for a couple of months for the 'new trial'?
     
  4. gheckso

    gheckso New Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Non sequitur

    OT: What evidence is there to support that a new trial was a couple of months away?

    2nd post in...

    I do agree with this but I'd also add that I don't think Jessie would be capable of acting alone based (and not solely) on the lack of evidence found at the scene.
     
  5. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's the bodies of evidence that implicate each of the three in the murders individually which puts them firmly in each others' company at around sunset on 5/5/93, and deputy prosecutor Melanie Alsworth provided a good overview of that evidence at the Alford plea hearing:

    Of course anyone can dream up a litany of excuses to exclude any and all of that evidence, Misskelley's many confessions and otherwise, much has been done in the case of the other confessed and convicted child predators which HBO among many others have made themselves, unwittingly for the most part I suspect, apologists for. However, as explained in the judicial review of the Friedman case "artists and advocates use different methods, make different judgments, and apply different standards than those that public prosecutors must employ", and one can't ever rightly expect to understand what proves most criminals guilty beyond any reasonable doubt while deviating from the analytical standards by which our legal system operates.
     
  6. UdbCrzy2

    UdbCrzy2 New Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kyle, your linked document states that the alford plea was presented to the state by the defense. Many times it's been told that the state is the one who came to them, but this document proves that's not true.


    22 MR. COPELIN: One -- one thing, Judge, is
    23 the Court commonly, when you take a plea,
    24 advised that the defendants have accepted the
    25 plea offer, but in this case, actually the

    32
    1 defendants proposed the Alford plea offer and
    2 the State accepted it.

    3 If that's -- that's the facts and that's
    4 the -- the position that we take, so I don't
    5 know if that --
    6 THE COURT: I'll simply state the plea
    7 agreement has been reached.
     
  7. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The real proof of that is in the pleading for Baldwin and Echols which reads "On this the 19th day of August 2011, came the defendants and their counsel requesting this Court for the opportunity to enter a negotiated plea in these matters", and the one for Misskelley which reads the same in the singular sense, with signatures from the convicted, their council, the prosecution, and the judge together establishing that fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
     
  8. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the evidence for guilt - let alone that all three were in each others' company - was not so flimsy and easily refuted, I highly doubt they'd be out of prison now, or that so many people would be behind the idea of their innocence. No-one wants a child killer free.. And that many perfectly nice and reasonable folks DID see cause for doubt speaks volumes in itself. Cause for doubt is -visible- and therefore people doubt.

    IMO, and in MY case, it's not a matter of wishing to skew facts to prove a point, but of looking at the facts -as presented- and seeing some distinct problems with the conclusions reached via those - mainly by the prosecution.

    I do see the evidence linking the three on that day as not very solid at all.

    And I do think there's room for wondering whether one or another MIGHT have actually had a hand in the murders.

    My question was - which one/s?

    Thank you for making your opinion on this topic clear. I am hoping for some others, too.
     
  9. Miranda!

    Miranda! New Member

    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That does not necessarily confirm what went down one way or another. The wording is so neutral and was obviously agreed upon before things formally started.

    As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Alford Plea had never been used in Arkansas before. Also, it would seem that it had never been used in any sort of 'post conviction' maneuvering' any where before.

    There is no way of knowing for sure, as far as I know, who it was who came up with the idea of using this method to close all the bad press and exposure about the convictions! The state seemed to have reached a point where they were stuck between a rock and a hard place as it was extremely unlikely, after the Supreme Court handed down the ruling that an Evidentiary Hearing was to happen for all three. It was scheduled for December, 2011.

    It is, of course, possible that no no trial would have been granted, but the probability is very slight. It is highly likely that the State would have dragged the starting of a new trial for as long as they could before folding their hand.

    Had Baldwin had had a choice without any outside pressure, he would surely have wanted to stay until after the hearing and then either new trial or the charges being dropped. He has said as much since the release.

    He finally gave in and accepted the deal because of the concern he had for DE's health, which he was told was not good.

    Ellington defended his position by claiming to have saved the State a lot of money in compensation. Arkansas does not recognise 'wrongful convictions' and has no provision for compensation! Hence the current interest in the Tim Howard case!

    However anyone looks at it, it is very strange that the State were so willing to let 3 young men (and it had to be all or none) out into the world if they truly believed they were child killers. Which ever side of that old fence one is one, this whole sorry mess leaves a distinctly foul stench emanating from the AG's office and the Governor's, come to that!
     
  10. gheckso

    gheckso New Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Statement agreed to by all parties
    The Plea


    Snippet of the Court's statement.

     
  11. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rather, if the evidence for guilt were easily refuted, the evidentiary hearing would've been a cake walk and would've won the three the presumption of innocence and right to a speedy trial, resulting in an acquittal and not only their freedom but in turn also around $20 million each in restitution for wrongful imprisonment.
     
  12. gheckso

    gheckso New Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think I'll stick to the simplest hypothesis as to why the state accepted the defenses offer to the Alford.
     
  13. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The notion that the convicted, their council, the prosecution, and the judge were all lying when they agreed there is sufficient evidence for a jurry to find the three guilty is far from the simplest explanation.
     
  14. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Serious question as I've seen this discussed before as some indication of guilt but I just don't follow the logic, so bear with me. What difference exactly does it make who proposed what? I've never looked into to determine one way or the other because I don't see what difference it makes. Ultimately, both sides and the Court agreed to it. If either side opposed it they would not have proposed it or would not have accepted it. Just not following. TIA.
     
  15. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A much too simplistic approach bordering on misrepresentation on how things work.
     
  16. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So easy for people to armchair quarterback that decision. How much time have you spent in prison? How many of those days in prison were you facing being executed?
     
  17. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. UdbCrzy2

    UdbCrzy2 New Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For some reason many here are adamant about the State coming to the defendants instead of the other way around throughout the WM3 entire discussion thread. We even have a thread here on this subject here:


    So the State initiated that Alford Plea?
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167350"]So the State initiated that Alford Plea? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
     
  19. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...... so derailed.....
     
  20. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Vacant denial much?

    Well the question of what puts the three in each in others company on the night of the murders other than the evidence which implicates them in the murders was a dead in from the start.
     
  21. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope.

    And the thread IS seriously derailed.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice