|
Post by rayozz on Aug 20, 2011 7:46:13 GMT -6
The whole thing is a mess. I guess it will die, unless the convicted continue try to prove their innocence.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 20, 2011 9:38:58 GMT -6
The whole thing is a mess. I guess it will die, unless the convicted continue try to prove their innocence. Maybe, but I figure they will let it die. The farther they can stay away from the AR legal system, the better. I'd move to civilization and never look back.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Aug 20, 2011 10:04:13 GMT -6
The whole thing is a mess. I guess it will die, unless the convicted continue try to prove their innocence. I'd move to civilization and never look back. One has to wonder whether these scumbags will be able to complete parole. I assume not leaving AR will be a condition of supervision, but that could probably change under some interstate compact. Hopefully, where ever they go, their ability to be around children will be restricted. I wonder if any of them will pull a Kenny Richey and wind up back in on new charges?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Aug 20, 2011 11:20:13 GMT -6
They have been in prison for nearly 20 years. Why plead to lesser charges when a full hearing is due in 4 months. A plea implies guilt, and there would be know compensation for time spent. Don't know what I would do! I know they can't sue.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Aug 20, 2011 11:22:21 GMT -6
I'm guessing the panties are moistening over at PTO today? How can they be nearly as exciting if they're innocent?!
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Aug 20, 2011 12:08:05 GMT -6
Heck, who wouldn't take the deal? 20 years in jail would be more than enough to convience me to cop to anything to get out. Same here. I'm usually skeptical of these types of exonerations, but considering how many innocent people were shafted by "satanic ritual abuse" accusations I wouldn't be surprised if these guys are innocent.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 20, 2011 13:26:11 GMT -6
Heck, who wouldn't take the deal? 20 years in jail would be more than enough to convience me to cop to anything to get out. Same here. I'm usually skeptical of these types of exonerations, but considering how many innocent people were shafted by "satanic ritual abuse" accusations I wouldn't be surprised if these guys are innocent. Right. I wouldn't be surprised either. Since I didn't witness the crime and I wasn't with any of the accused during that time to provide an alibi, I would never claim that they are innocent since I couldn't possibly know. I do, however, have a BIG problem with the trial and circumstances utilized to convict them. The "satanic ritual abuse" angle made folks in AR look like idiots and turned their criminal justice system into a joke. I'm obviously not alone in this thinking. No state lets DR inmates walk just because Johnny Depp and Eddie Vetter ask them to. They won't even do it if the Pope himself asks.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Aug 20, 2011 13:39:26 GMT -6
I'm obviously not alone in this thinking. No state lets DR inmates walk because Johnny Depp and Eddie Vetter ask them to. They won't even do it if the Pope himself asks. Excellent point Elvis. I have to wonder what the state saw or knew that cause this unexpected turn of events. One day your on DR, the next your out. Something very fishy here.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Aug 20, 2011 14:22:38 GMT -6
I just pulled this off of the Fox News Memphis site. Below is a written transcript of the ruling, as announced by Scott Ellington, District Prosecuting Attorney: Some are happy, some are angry, and others are perplexed. Such is the case at the conclusion of every trial. This one is no different. Just moments ago Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr. pled guilty to the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. Echols and Baldwin stand convicted of three counts of Murder in the First Degree. Misskelley stands convicted of one count of First Degree Murder, and two counts of Murder in the Second Degree, thereby affirming the verdicts the two juries handed down seventeen years ago. A 2010 Arkansas Supreme Court ruling brought to light the very real scenario that each of the defendants could likely receive a new trial. I believe that allegations of misconduct on behalf of a juror in the Echols-Baldwin trial would likely result in a new trial being ordered either by the circuit court or federal court. I further believe it would be practically impossible to put on a proper case against the defendants in this particular case after eighteen years of extended litigation. Even if the State were to prevail in a new trial, sentences could be different and the appeals process would begin all over again. Since the original convictions, two of the victims' families have joined forces with the defense, publically proclaiming the innocence of the defendants. The mother of a witness who testified about Echols's confession has publicly questioned her daughter's truthfulness, and the State Crime Lab employee who collected fiber evidence at the Echols and Baldwin homes after their arrests has died. In light of these circumstances I decided to entertain plea offers that were being proposed by the defense. I NEVER considered ANY arrangement that would negate the verdicts of those two juries. Guilt or Innocence was NEVER ON THE TABLE. Today's proceeding allows the defendants the freedom of speech to SAY they are innocent, but the FACT is, they just plead GUILTY. I strongly believe that the interests of justice have been served today. On behalf of the State I have preserved the verdicts of those juries and averted more prolonged and costly trials and appeals in this case. The legal tangle that has become known as the West Memphis Three case is finished. I have spoken with members of the victims families and I can tell you they are still suffering the loss of their little boys. Neither this nor any other proceeding can bring those children back. As part of the plea and sentence negotiation the defendants were sentenced to a period of 18 years with credit for time served. Those sentences will be followed by 10 years SIS or Suspended Imposition of Sentence. These defendants have spent roughly half of their lives in prison. I pray that during this time they have been rehabilitated. The defendants are now at liberty and will remain at liberty so long as they do not violate the terms and conditions of the Suspended Imposition of Sentence agreement. ANY violation of these terms WILL RESULT in an additional 21 years of prison. www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/west-memphis-three-given-time-served-for-murders-mfo-20110819
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Aug 20, 2011 14:28:00 GMT -6
So, juror misconduct, old case-new trial, deceased withnesses and two of three of the victims families support the accused.
Seems like the District Attorney got out will the best deal possible and three guilty pleas. Plus, if they are not truly rehabilitated they go back in for 21 years.
Maybe Florida needed this guy on the Casey Anthony case.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 20, 2011 15:32:44 GMT -6
As I understand it, Pam Hobbs goes back and forth on whether or not she believes Terry committed the murders. She and Terry have had a contentious relationship since they separated and divorced. When I met them in 2004 (or 2005), Pam had no doubts about Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley, but was afraid that there were others involved who weren't caught.
As for the hair on the shoelace used to bind Michael, it could've belonged to Steve, which makes the presence of a hair belonging to his step-father (or any member of Terry's family descended from the same maternal line) easily attributable to transfer not related to the murders. Even if the lace belonged to one of the other boys, both had been in the Hobbs house and, therefore, could've picked up a hair belonging to Terry (or any member of his family descended from the same maternal line), making the hair easily attributable to transfer unrelated to the murders.
As for the criticism of the State of Arkansas, how about a little for the defense. They were allegedly going to be granted new trials. Why go to the state and take a deal that leaves the convictions standing? Why stand up in open court and plead guilty? Why give up the right to sue the state for wrongful conviction?
If I was truly innocent and had truly been wrongfully convicted, I would NOT have been looking for a deal and would've told the state to shove any deal that didn't involve absolute exoneration.
As for Mark Byers, once the DNA testing results came in and the defense shifted its focus from him to Terry, he had to find a way to stay in the forefront regarding this case. So, he began accusing Terry. He wants to cash in as much as possible and he wants to act a fool whenever anyone points a camera at him, as demonstrated by his appearances on TV yesterday and the unwise decision to give Terry's home address out on CNN.
kma367
Edited to correct a typo and to add:
Thanks for the Member of the Month. I was not aware of it and I think it's my first time.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Aug 21, 2011 5:58:22 GMT -6
I'd move to civilization and never look back. One has to wonder whether these scumbags will be able to complete parole. I assume not leaving AR will be a condition of supervision, but that could probably change under some interstate compact. Hopefully, where ever they go, their ability to be around children will be restricted. I wonder if any of them will pull a Kenny Richey and wind up back in on new charges? I believe they have no travel restrictions within USA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2011 6:18:06 GMT -6
As I understand it, Pam Hobbs goes back and forth on whether or not she believes Terry committed the murders. She and Terry have had a contentious relationship since they separated and divorced. When I met them in 2004 (or 2005), Pam had no doubts about Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley, but was afraid that there were others involved who weren't caught. As for the hair on the shoelace used to bind Michael, it could've belonged to Steve, which makes the presence of a hair belonging to his step-father (or any member of Terry's family descended from the same maternal line) easily attributable to transfer not related to the murders. Even if the lace belonged to one of the other boys, both had been in the Hobbs house and, therefore, could've picked up a hair belonging to Terry (or any member of his family descended from the same maternal line), making the hair easily attributable to transfer unrelated to the murders. As for the criticism of the State of Arkansas, how about a little for the defense. They were allegedly going to be granted new trials. Why go to the state and take a deal that leaves the convictions standing? Why stand up in open court and plead guilty? Why give up the right to sue the state for wrongful conviction? If I was truly innocent and had truly been wrongfully convicted, I would NOT have been looking for a deal and would've told the state to shove any deal that didn't involve absolute exoneration. As for Mark Byers, once the DNA testing results came in and the defense shifted its focus from him to Terry, he had to find a way to stay in the forefront regarding this case. So, he began accusing Terry. He wants to cash in as much as possible and he wants to act a fool whenever anyone points a camera at him, as demonstrated by his appearances on TV yesterday and the unwise decision to give Terry's home address out on CNN. kma367 Edited to correct a typo and to add: Thanks for the Member of the Month. I was not aware of it and I think it's my first time. I think the decision making is much different for someone who has sat in a high security prison for 20 years and is offered a way out rather then people talking theoretically on an internet message board.
|
|
|
Post by moonlight on Aug 21, 2011 9:24:42 GMT -6
The case sound somehow awkward for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2011 10:06:56 GMT -6
I'm not sure if I understand this right. Doesn't "no contest" mean that the defendants aknowledge that they have enought evidence to convict them but they aren't admitting guilt?
If that is the case then, it's kind of a nobrainer. Of course they have the evidence to convict, they were already convicted. To me this isn't admitting to anything.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Aug 21, 2011 10:23:10 GMT -6
I'm not sure if I understand this right. Doesn't "no contest" mean that the defendants aknowledge that they have enought evidence to convict them but they aren't admitting guilt? If that is the case then, it's kind of a nobrainer. Of course they have the evidence to convict, they were already convicted. To me this isn't admitting to anything. That's right. They took an Alford Plea: definitions.uslegal.com/a/alford-plea/In 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.
However, in many states, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" often results in the case being continued without a decision and later dismissed. A conviction under an Alford plea may be used as a conviction for later sentencing purposes. However, one state supreme court has held that an Alford plea, unlike a criminal trial, does not provide a full and fair hearing on the issues in the case, and therefore does not preclude later litigation of the issues.
In North Carolina v Alford, the Supreme Court noted that:
"An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime *** when *** a defendant intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt"
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 21, 2011 12:25:04 GMT -6
Queen Cyclone, the 3 killers were not offered this deal. They went to the state and asked for it. Additionally, they have not been exonerated.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 15:16:13 GMT -6
Queen Cyclone, the 3 killers were not offered this deal. They went to the state and asked for it. Additionally, they have not been exonerated. kma367 so you believe the motive that the state offered for the murder, one that includes a practice that has been thoroughly debunked by anyone other than the worst types of conspiracy theorists? regardless of whether they actually did it or not, the fact that they were convicted based on the testimony of a loon like dale griffis and the assumption that Little Jessie's conviction would be a factor. don't get me wrong, there was probably enough evidence to convict Jessie of murder, even if his confession has been thoroughly discredited by almost any scientific or forensic measure, but what was the evidence against Damien and Jason? oh yeah, it was some girl who says she heard Damien confess to the murder at a baseball game and a jailhouse snitch who said that Jason confessed to him. that's some really reliable stuff. when you add to the fact that there was a "murder weapon" that should have never been admitted into evidence, this case should have ended before it was even sent to a jury. when you add admitted juror misconduct, and a lack of physical evidence (except for the wal-mart fibers), plus the fact that the west memphis police department was such a clusterf*ck at the time, you have serious problems to the point that Jason and Damien should have never gone to trial without Jessie's testimony. i guess my question is to you is: what was the motive for the murders?
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Aug 22, 2011 19:19:25 GMT -6
Queen Cyclone, the 3 killers were not offered this deal. They went to the state and asked for it. Additionally, they have not been exonerated. kma367 Not true. The defense asked to skip the evidentiary hearing and go straight to a retrial. The state offered the deal. "They weren't interested in agreeing to a new trial but were interesting in discussing a global resolution to the case," Braga says. At first, prosecutors offered to free the men in exchange for a simple guilty plea, a proposal that Braga rejected. He and the rest of the defense team then considered accepting a no-contest plea before proposing the Alford plea. As part of the agreement, the three men cannot sue the state for prosecutorial misconduct." Complete article is here: amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/08/ropes-gray-lawyer-helped-free-the-west-memphis-three.html
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 23, 2011 12:59:37 GMT -6
Like most of the explanations that the killers and their advocates come up with, this one makes no sense. The state opposed the motions for new trial and had continued to oppose them. They're not going to agree to skip the hearing and withdraw their opposition. Additionally, the killers and their advocates claimed their aim all along was exoneration. The deal they brokered with the state did not do that. They remain convicted of 1st degree murder, they're serving 10 years on probation and will serve an additional 21 years if they violate the terms of their probation.
Someone recently posted an article that had some new advocate brokering the deal with Dustin McDaniel. Trouble with that is that the AG's office had returned jurisdiction to the 2nd Judicial District prosecutor's office.
The support movement obviously doesn't want the funds to dry up, so they have to make it appear that legal exoneration is just around the corner and they will need money to pursue that. They are also seeing a backlash in which a lot of people who supported innocence are angry at the guilty pleas taken in court last Friday.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 23, 2011 13:06:59 GMT -6
Rayozz, we've had this debate before. The 3 were convicted based on much more than the testimony of Dale Griffis. In fact, Griffis did not testify at Miskelley's trial and his testimony at Echols and Baldwin's trial was discounted by the jury. Additionally, Griffis' testimony was allowed solely as to the potential motive.
Many supporters of the 3 killers have inflated and read a lot into the perceived motive in this case. While it can't be proven that the 3 were members of an organized cult that followed prescribed rituals and practices, there's no denying that Echols dabbled in the occult and adopted rituals and practices that appealed to him. There have been other cases in the U.S. in which such dabblers have gone on to commit murder. Richard Ramirez is one example. He believed Satan was protecting him from being caught during his reign of terror in the Los Angeles area.
There are a lot of factors that were ritualistic, such as the manner in which the victims were tied, the mutilation, etc.
The 3 killers remain legally guilty and their deal did not involve exoneration. Perhaps some day, Echols will decide to shock his supporters and will admit his guilt and explain why he, Baldwin and Miskelley decided to butcher 3 8-year olds on May 5, 1993.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 23, 2011 20:18:00 GMT -6
Rayozz, we've had this debate before. The 3 were convicted based on much more than the testimony of Dale Griffis. In fact, Griffis did not testify at Miskelley's trial and his testimony at Echols and Baldwin's trial was discounted by the jury. Additionally, Griffis' testimony was allowed solely as to the potential motive. Many supporters of the 3 killers have inflated and read a lot into the perceived motive in this case. While it can't be proven that the 3 were members of an organized cult that followed prescribed rituals and practices, there's no denying that Echols dabbled in the occult and adopted rituals and practices that appealed to him. There have been other cases in the U.S. in which such dabblers have gone on to commit murder. Richard Ramirez is one example. He believed Satan was protecting him from being caught during his reign of terror in the Los Angeles area. There are a lot of factors that were ritualistic, such as the manner in which the victims were tied, the mutilation, etc. The 3 killers remain legally guilty and their deal did not involve exoneration. Perhaps some day, Echols will decide to shock his supporters and will admit his guilt and explain why he, Baldwin and Miskelley decided to butcher 3 8-year olds on May 5, 1993. kma367 I don't know Kma, this is what I read out of Wiki John E. Douglas, a former longtime FBI agent who has interviewed the country's most prolific serial killers during his years with the FBI and works as a profiler to help police in their searches for violent criminals, said the slayings of the three West Memphis boys weren't the work of three unsophisticated teenage killers, but that of a single person who set out to taunt and "punish" the victims.[59] Douglas was formerly FBI Unit Chief of the Investigative Support Unit of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime for 25 years. Douglas stated in his report for Echols' legal team that there was no evidence for Satanic ritual involvement in the killings and agreed with the post-mortem animal predation explanation for the alleged knife injuries. Douglas believed that the perpetrator had a violent history and was familiar with the victims and geography. He stated that the victims had died from a combination of blunt force trauma wounds and drowning in a personal cause driven crime.[4]
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Aug 24, 2011 7:05:36 GMT -6
Rayozz, we've had this debate before. The 3 were convicted based on much more than the testimony of Dale Griffis. In fact, Griffis did not testify at Miskelley's trial and his testimony at Echols and Baldwin's trial was discounted by the jury. Additionally, Griffis' testimony was allowed solely as to the potential motive. Many supporters of the 3 killers have inflated and read a lot into the perceived motive in this case. While it can't be proven that the 3 were members of an organized cult that followed prescribed rituals and practices, there's no denying that Echols dabbled in the occult and adopted rituals and practices that appealed to him. There have been other cases in the U.S. in which such dabblers have gone on to commit murder. Richard Ramirez is one example. He believed Satan was protecting him from being caught during his reign of terror in the Los Angeles area. There are a lot of factors that were ritualistic, such as the manner in which the victims were tied, the mutilation, etc. The 3 killers remain legally guilty and their deal did not involve exoneration. Perhaps some day, Echols will decide to shock his supporters and will admit his guilt and explain why he, Baldwin and Miskelley decided to butcher 3 8-year olds on May 5, 1993. kma367 Jason Baldwin must be one heck of a good liar then. Even you must concede how genuine his anger seemed at the press conference.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 24, 2011 7:54:07 GMT -6
White Diamonds, John Douglas isn't infallible. He made some major errors on the Green River case that allowed Gary Ridgeway to continue his killing spree. In fact, I think Douglas' work did nothing to assist authorities in Washington to identify and arrest Ridgeway. It also appears that Douglas' approach since he went into business as a "for hire profiler" has changed in that he no longer relies on ALL information, but only that provided to him by the defense. His "profile" also fails to provide any insight into how this one person controlled the three victims.
They're all good liars.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Aug 24, 2011 9:51:45 GMT -6
White Diamonds, John Douglas isn't infallible. He made some major errors on the Green River case that allowed Gary Ridgeway to continue his killing spree. In fact, I think Douglas' work did nothing to assist authorities in Washington to identify and arrest Ridgeway. It also appears that Douglas' approach since he went into business as a "for hire profiler" has changed in that he no longer relies on ALL information, but only that provided to him by the defense. His "profile" also fails to provide any insight into how this one person controlled the three victims. They're all good liars. kma367 It must be difficult being let down by the authorities in the way you have. There are, as you know, only two possiilities. 1) The WM3 are innocent. 2) The State is happy for triple child murderers to serve 18 years. so, the State of Arkansas is either corrupt or shambolic or both. In either scenario it must be galling to have had your unquestioning support betrayed in such a fashion.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 24, 2011 10:06:15 GMT -6
White Diamonds, John Douglas isn't infallible. He made some major errors on the Green River case that allowed Gary Ridgeway to continue his killing spree. In fact, I think Douglas' work did nothing to assist authorities in Washington to identify and arrest Ridgeway. It also appears that Douglas' approach since he went into business as a "for hire profiler" has changed in that he no longer relies on ALL information, but only that provided to him by the defense. His "profile" also fails to provide any insight into how this one person controlled the three victims. They're all good liars. kma367 I still don't know Kma, is there any factual site where he only uses defense information to verify that opinion?
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 24, 2011 18:24:31 GMT -6
so, the State of Arkansas is either corrupt or shambolic or both. It's both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2011 18:38:22 GMT -6
why west memphis? why not somewhere in marion?
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 24, 2011 18:42:30 GMT -6
why west memphis? why not somewhere in marion? Not sure what you mean. The murders happened in West Memphis.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 24, 2011 19:07:42 GMT -6
Brumsongs, I'm very unhappy that the state didn't tell the defense to stick their deal and go through with the hearing set in December. Had new trials been ordered, they could've worked out this deal then, since there were problems with a potential re-trial of the case.
However, it's more telling to me that the killers sought the deal and accepted a deal that didn't include exoneration. They remain legally guilty of the crimes and will serve 21 years in prison if they violate probation.
For me, aside from the fact that the killers were released, nothing has changed. Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley are convicted triple murderers, who claim to be innocent, but who have failed to prove their innocence.
kma367
|
|