Where is the exculpatory evidence we were promised?

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by dogmatica, Jul 27, 2016.

  1. WilliamHolder

    WilliamHolder New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Very few prosecutors would want to retry a case that is decades old. Witnesses are unavailable or memory failing. Evidence is gone, unavailable or misplaced. Without the nonsense documentaries and celebrity support and money, these vicious killers would still be in jail - they should have been hanged in the public square for the brutality of this crime. There is not a single credible alternative suspect or a single piece of credible evidence to suggest another was responsible. Period.
     
    gloomy, Courtneyjb, dogmatica and 3 others like this.
  2. AGettler

    AGettler Active Member

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The AP is one thing, the boys coming out and saying they would be found guilty if tried again is another. Savvy?
     
  3. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just want to clarify one thing. In August of 2011, the original verdicts were “set aside” in lieu of the Alford pleas. So, saying that the original verdicts were not overturned is a bit misleading. If the original verdicts weren’t set aside, a new plea could not have been entered. Ask a lawyer. I did.
     
    kimpage, jennibelle and Cappuccino like this.
  4. Keine Engel

    Keine Engel Grand Imperial Archduchess of Great Giggleswick

    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    6,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Judge Laser vacated the convictions on the condition that the defendants enter guilty pleas pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case known as North Carolina v. Alford. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.
    In accordance with the plea negotiations, Judge Laser sentences all three to time served, followed by a ten-year term of suspended imposition of sentence. If they re-offend they can be sent back to prison for 21 years..."
    Chronology
     
    Catmammy and Userid like this.
  5. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Again, you do not understand the Alford Plea, even a little bit. The Alford Plea is precisely the "boys" saying they would be found guilty if tried again. That is the very essence of the plea. Best to arm yourself with facts before claiming some sort of intellectual victory.
     
    gloomy, Catmammy and Keine Engel like this.
  6. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There is only one verdict in this case: Guilty. And that verdict was handed down twice. Your deflection is weak.
     
    gloomy and Catmammy like this.
  7. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ergo, they are convicted child killers.
     
    Catmammy and Suglo like this.
  8. Keine Engel

    Keine Engel Grand Imperial Archduchess of Great Giggleswick

    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    6,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But that's EXACTLY what they did ;)

    "Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them"

    As stated here:
     
    gloomy, dogmatica and Catmammy like this.
  9. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Savvy, indeed.
     
  10. Keine Engel

    Keine Engel Grand Imperial Archduchess of Great Giggleswick

    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    6,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :D
     
  11. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Plenty of innocent people have been judged guilty. A guilty verdict doesn’t prove anything. Evidence (or lack thereof) is proof. IMO, there is simply not enough evidence of guilt in this case, which is why we still discuss it. Again, I’m hoping that DS’s book will bring some much-needed clarity.
     
    kimpage likes this.
  12. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    63
    "A guilty verdict doesn’t prove anything."

    It is statements such as this that destroy any credibility you claim to have. The evidence is what proved they were guilty, and that was the verdict the jury rendered, based on said evidence. The WM3 also pleaded guilty, acknowledging that if they were retried, they'd be found guilty, again.
     
    Suglo and Catmammy like this.

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