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:
    13
    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:
    154
    Likes Received:
    151
    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:
    37
    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.
     
  4. Keine Engel

    Keine Engel Grand Imperial Archduchess of Great Giggleswick

    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    10,385
    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
     
    Catmommy and Userid like this.
  5. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    438
    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, Catmommy and Keine Engel like this.
  6. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    438
    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 Catmommy like this.
  7. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ergo, they are convicted child killers.
     
    Catmommy and Suglo like this.
  8. Keine Engel

    Keine Engel Grand Imperial Archduchess of Great Giggleswick

    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    10,385
    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 Catmommy like this.
  9. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Savvy, indeed.
     
  10. Keine Engel

    Keine Engel Grand Imperial Archduchess of Great Giggleswick

    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    10,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :D
     
  11. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    37
    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.
     
    Nova and kimpage like this.
  12. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    438
    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 Catmommy like this.
  13. Carrie Ann

    Carrie Ann Boo's Love

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    53
    The state is not going to allow any evidence to the public. They agreed to the alpha plea agreement. The state is not going to open anything because they don't want to be sued. I watched this whole case unfold. I didn't believe that the boys did the crime. Certain people knew how to get the older generation into a panic. The Bible Belt in those years where tight. So the mention of satanic killings had the wm3 convicted . It was just going through the process of a trial. I do have suspicions of the Terry Hobbs involvement.
     
  14. Catmommy

    Catmommy Because it's about my posts, not my name

    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    5,115
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Alford Plea entered by the three was granted 9 years ago. Counsel for the WM3 said they would continue to pursue full exoneration. Wonder when that's coming?
     
    Suglo likes this.
  15. thaddeusjames80

    thaddeusjames80 Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    13
    I know I'm way late to this conversation, but I believe some people have a hard time seeing through the ******** of the documentaries etc. and reading between the lines, which is how a circumstantial case is made. After my first watch of the docs I believed them innocent. After more research I realized that the case was super flawed and they probably shouldn't have been convicted due to it, but I'm glad they were because they're guilty. The boys were tied with 3 different knots, fitting there's 3 of them convicted
     
    Catmommy likes this.
  16. DHT1339

    DHT1339 Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    so three different knots is enough to say that the WM3 are guilty?
     
  17. Catmommy

    Catmommy Because it's about my posts, not my name

    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    5,115
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's enough to call into question that ONE person was responsible. An opportunistic crime, committed in a short expanse of time, with three young boys confined, speaks of more than ONE offender.
     
  18. Catmommy

    Catmommy Because it's about my posts, not my name

    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    5,115
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Continuing on that theme, I initially thought that Terry Hobbs HAD to be thought of as a possible suspect, especially considering he had his teeth pulled not that long after the crime. And I pondered on that. I also considered that Damien was an easy target because of his strange ways. But, DAMN, after trying to prove the three innocent, the only thing I could conclude was that not only was it possible, it was also plausible that they were, indeed, GUILTY.
     
  19. DHT1339

    DHT1339 Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    sure, i can agree with you on that. i've always thought there was more than one killer
    based on what we know, there is simply no way to say that you know for sure that they are guilty. all we have is circumstantial evidence and any of that evidence against the WM3 is incredibly weak at best. same goes for TH. there is simply no way for any of us to say that "we know" someone is guilty in this case

    do some research into jerry driver. he played a key role in echols becoming a suspect in the case because of his belief that echols was involved in satanic cult activity. driver really had it out for DE
     

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