|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 30, 2011 12:32:28 GMT -6
Dead Elvis, the killers approached the state first. That suggests that there was something that jeopardized them prevailing on the motions for new trial, which would've ended their attempts at exoneration. The state suggested the deal and the killers accepted, even though the deal did not include official exoneration and included an admission that the evidence against them was sufficient for a conviction at retrial. As for the state protecting itself from a suit for wrongful conviction, it's hilarious that supporters ignore the fact that the killers gave this up. To me, that suggests that their attorneys knew any such claim lacked merit. Brumsongs, I've said that the state should've turned the killers down and proceeded to the hearing on the motions for new trial. If a new trial was ordered, a deal would've been possible. The killers certainly would've been in a better position under that scenario. kma367 I read what you are writing here, KMA, but you still can't ignore the fact that the state let these three out of jail just by requiring a signature on a piece of paper. This doesn't seem like something given to convicted murderers whose claims "lacked merit." It's hard if not impossible to believe that the state would agree to this deal unless they had some significant reservations of their own about a potential retrial. The original trial was flawed and bungled. If there were no problems with the trial, as you suggest, these three would still be in jail to this day and for the foreseeable future. The very fact they all three are now walking free speaks volumes as to the state's confidence in the original trial that convicted them.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Aug 30, 2011 12:58:14 GMT -6
Dead Elvis, the killers approached the state first. That suggests that there was something that jeopardized them prevailing on the motions for new trial, which would've ended their attempts at exoneration. The state suggested the deal and the killers accepted, even though the deal did not include official exoneration and included an admission that the evidence against them was sufficient for a conviction at retrial. As for the state protecting itself from a suit for wrongful conviction, it's hilarious that supporters ignore the fact that the killers gave this up. To me, that suggests that their attorneys knew any such claim lacked merit. Brumsongs, I've said that the state should've turned the killers down and proceeded to the hearing on the motions for new trial. If a new trial was ordered, a deal would've been possible. The killers certainly would've been in a better position under that scenario. kma367 One of "the killers" was facing death. can you not see that, given your attitude and others in the state, he was wise to get out at the very earliest opportunity? Guilt doesn't come into that decision, it's just common sense.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 30, 2011 13:46:32 GMT -6
Brum, the motions for new trial were, essentially, civil motions which required reciprocal discovery. The terms of the original DNA order required disclosure of all results to the prosecution and defense within 60 (or 90) days of completion by the lab. However, it appears that reports were sent to the defense only by Bode and not the prosecutor. As I understand it, the first the State of Arkansas saw of them was when the defense filed the premature amendment to Echols' habeas corpus action in federal court in 2007.
A fact supporters continue to ignore is that the "new evidence" wasn't a smoking gun as to innocence, either. Eliminating the 3 killers from the available DNA (and there was a lot of material that yielded no DNA for a meaningful comparison to the 3 killers) wasn't sufficient to prove innocence. The majority of the hairs, for example, belonged to the victims. The two hairs that were identified additionally weren't sufficient to prove the guilt of other parties, especially in light of the fact that one hair was found on a binding that might have belonged to Steve and the second hair was found on a tree-stump at the crime scene and that hair wasn't collected until June 3, 1993, making it possible to infer that the hair was not there on May 6, 1993 when the bodies were discovered.
The rest of the defense's "new evidence" consisted of hearsay statements made by various parties implying that Terry Hobbs was somehow guilty or questionable declarations by individuals who failed to come forward in 1993, despite the fact that they knew or should have known that Terry was not a person of interest or suspect in the murders and was not arrested, charged, tried and convicted of them.
As for the jury misconduct "evidence," once again, the defense eventually rested their hopes on the affidavit of an attorney containing hearsay statements from the jury foreman that were allegedly made at the time of the Echols/Baldwin trial. The problem with this is that the attorney knew or should have known that the alleged statements were improper and yet did nothing to have the foreman removed from the jury, or to even determine whether he could ethically report the improper conduct to the court. He waited 16 years to come forward.
Actually, as I've pointed out to Dead Elvis, your statement and those of other "supporters" regarding the quality and sufficiency of the evidence and the quality and sufficiency of the investigation are opinions not supported by any court finding or decision during the long course of post-conviction litigation in this case. In fact, the Alford pleas entered by the killers include an acknowledgment that the evidence possessed by the state would be sufficient to convict on re-trial.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 30, 2011 14:16:01 GMT -6
I read what you are writing here, KMA, but you still can't ignore the fact that the state let these three out of jail just by requiring a signature on a piece of paper. This doesn't seem like something given to convicted murderers whose claims "lacked merit." It's hard if not impossible to believe that the state would agree to this deal unless they had some significant reservations of their own about a potential retrial. There were issues regarding a potential re-trial. I've said many times that Ellington should not have worked any deals until a re-trial had actually been ordered. In looking at all of the terms of the deal, the state got the better end of the bargain and the only benefit the 3 killers received was an immediate release. You're incorrect. The killers have, to date, failed to prove in numerous post-conviction challenges that there were, in fact, flaws in their trial. Your statement above is your opinion based on conclusory allegations made by the killers in 18 years of post-conviction litigation. Most importantly, you should recognize that in choosing to take a deal rather than winning a new trial at the December hearing, the killers have ultimately failed to prove not only their innocence, but also that their original trials were flawed. Had there really been such egregious flaws with the original trial, the convictions would have been reversed and retrials ordered after the first direct appeal to the Arkansas State Supreme Court. Echols filed two or three writs of error coram nobis alleging flaws in the trial or his representation at trial. He litigated a post-conviction challenge (Rule 37) through to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Miskelley and Baldwin didn't bother to even litigate their Rule 37 claims until 2007 or 2008 when the alleged "new evidence" of innocence was announced on behalf of Echols. Ellington chose to make a deal based on the potential problems with a re-trial. That has nothing to do with the State's 18 year defense of the convictions in post-conviction litigation. That's bolstered by the fact that the state didn't include exoneration in the deal and required 10 years of probation and an additional 21 year suspended sentence on the charges to which the killers pled guilty. Brums, if I were sitting on death row for a crime that I didn't commit, I would not want to plead guilty four months prior to a hearing on a motion for new trial that had been in litigation for 3 years. Additionally, if I had actual evidence of innocence, I would want to walk out of prison a free person, rather than a convicted triple murderer. The claims about Echols' death sentence are nothing but crap. Echols was not scheduled to be executed and he hadn't completed federal habeas litigation, which would've taken an additional 3-5 years. Arkansas is also not like Texas and has not executed anyone in a couple of years, so he was not in danger of having a death warrant signed in the next 4 months. As for the "conditions" on death row, that's also crap. Echols lied about being attacked by a fellow death row inmate and he only complained about conditions to gain sympathy and ensure that donations to the cause would continue. kma367
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 30, 2011 15:01:14 GMT -6
kma wrote
I don't know, kma. There is still that thing about the fact that AR let them go without having any further hearings regarding the trial. If AR felt good about their chances doing otherwise, that would never have happened.
Taking the incredible deal that lets one out of jail just by signing a paper is really a no-brainer. Very few folks would pass on that.
I wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 30, 2011 16:14:31 GMT -6
Had Brent Davis still be the prosecuting attorney, he would not have made the deal Elllington did. The fact remains that the allegations about the trials and actual innocence of the killers remain unproven.
I wholeheartedly oppose the deal that Ellington made and the timing in which he made it. I think I've made that clear. However, the terms of the deal are pretty self-explanatory and they do not include exoneration or complete freedom, given that the 3 killers will have to answer to probation and parole until 2021 and will serve 21 years if they violate the terms of their probation.
kma367
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Sept 7, 2011 14:11:39 GMT -6
Im glad justice was finally done for those 3 guys. And thanks be to god that they did not get the DP!
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 8, 2011 13:06:28 GMT -6
Nate, only Echols received a death sentence. Baldwin and Miskelley were both serving life sentences. Here is a link to the Alford Plea agreement for Echols and Baldwin: callahan.8k.com/pdf/de_jb_alford_plea.pdfkma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 13:48:33 GMT -6
One thing that DOES bother me about this is that it could set a dangerous precedent.
That being said, I have a hard time believing that they'd allow all three to do it with the serious issues involved. They could have just offered Echols a commutation , they didn't have to send him from death row all the way to the street.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Sept 16, 2011 23:25:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 17, 2011 19:30:43 GMT -6
He and Lori had better both sleep with one eye open.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 21:54:10 GMT -6
I'm guessing the panties are moistening over at PTO today? This case, I cannot even read about yet. I have read all the stuff they had on their "free me the poor victim site" but cannot even read any articles about their release yet. I read at PTO all the time and laugh. I am a member, but never post. They make me laugh. I was reading a post from a SO wife i guess asking what consitutes molestation, if touching a child on the outside of their clothes is molestation. Really? So if your SO touched a child on the outside, that's okay with you? Anywho, I thought the WMIII were guilty so their release upsets me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 21:55:52 GMT -6
And, I am waiting for one of the 3 to kill somebody, cause it is gonna happen. Maybe Damien will kill that lovely wife he has. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Sept 22, 2011 11:15:22 GMT -6
And, I am waiting for one of the 3 to kill somebody, cause it is gonna happen. Maybe Damien will kill that lovely wife he has. Only time will tell. What a lovely sentiment! Welcome to the board I'm sure you will find many friends here
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Sept 22, 2011 11:37:12 GMT -6
And, I am waiting for one of the 3 to kill somebody, cause it is gonna happen. Maybe Damien will kill that lovely wife he has. Only time will tell. What a lovely sentiment! Welcome to the board I'm sure you will find many friends here Yep, she can have the chair between johnnyrep and pixiegirl.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 23, 2011 9:36:39 GMT -6
There was an eye-witness/confession.... One of the murderers confessed. And by doing so, condemned himself to prison for life. Generally agreed, had he not confessed, none of the three satan-worshiping torturers of three innocent eight year old boys, Stevie Branch Michael Moore and Christopher Byers... would have been convicted. Thier release is nothing to rejoice over.... Anyone who doesn't understand that these monsters are incredably dangerous to children specifically.... well, I just don't understand them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 3:34:12 GMT -6
What a lovely sentiment! Welcome to the board I'm sure you will find many friends here Yep, she can have the chair between johnnyrep and pixiegirl. Not knowing who johnnyrep and pixigirl is, I will blindly assume this is a compliment and that sitting with them would be an honor. Thanks for the welcome. I was shocked they were released. Shocked is not even the word. My mouth was wide open. Between that and Casey Anthony being acquitted, I swear these are signs that the world is coming to an end. There is no other explanation.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Oct 2, 2011 6:19:00 GMT -6
That Byers guy seems really loopy. He has been on TV and mvies telling a buch of different versions of everything. In the Pardise Lost movies he was acting like a psycho. And it was proven he was a child abuser.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Oct 2, 2011 12:28:21 GMT -6
Get with the program, Nate. The suspect du jour is now Terry Hobbs. Mark Byers believes the 3 are innocent and has been leading a campaign of harrassment against Terry since 2007.
Hopefully in 5 or 10 years when no new evidence has been actually presented and there is no official finding of innocence, supporters will see the truth and stop sending money to convicted child killers.
Then again, probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Oct 15, 2011 12:46:50 GMT -6
The DA Ellingtonsaid: "Ellington has said it would have been "practically impossible" to try the men again almost 20 years after the killings." It suggests to me that Ellington thought that there may be a retrial and he might lose. If he won, it would have been pointless, since they would get out of jail then anyway.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Nov 21, 2011 20:05:47 GMT -6
I still dont understand how this case got so messed up in the first place. How could the cops be so incompetent?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Nov 22, 2011 14:52:27 GMT -6
The only thing that was messed up about the case was that the defense PR machine innundated the media and internet with misinformation that gave the appearance of innocence. If the three truly had sufficient evidence of innocence, they would've presented that at the hearings in December, not plead guilty on August 19, 2011. What is also messed up is that the members of the media, such as CBS/48 Hours, ABC News and others chose to parrot the defense PR handouts, rather than doing actual research on the case at callahan.8k.com, where tons of documents, trial transcripts and appellate opinions are available and easily prove that many of the PR claims were entirely false, such as the 12 hour interrogation, no evidence, etc. I came across this blog written soon after the release and the author makes a great point: trenchreynolds.me/2011/08/22/damien-echols-has-fooled-you-all/#disqus_threadkma367
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Nov 22, 2011 21:46:16 GMT -6
The only thing that was messed up about the case was that the defense PR machine innundated the media and internet with misinformation that gave the appearance of innocence. If the three truly had sufficient evidence of innocence, they would've presented that at the hearings in December, not plead guilty on August 19, 2011. If they didn't have evidence of innocence, why were they offered the plea? The state would not release a man convicted of 3 child murders off Death Row if they were sure they could uphold the convictions. I certainly believe it would have been better if the December hearings went ahead, but if I was one of the convicted, I would admit guilt, even if innocent, to get out of jail after 18 years. Who wouldn't?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Nov 22, 2011 21:55:44 GMT -6
even if innocent, to get out of jail after 18 years. Who wouldn't? Someone who did not want to be on parole for a decade knowing he could be sent back for almost anything. If I were his PO, I could pretty much guarantee you his a$$ would be going back.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Nov 22, 2011 22:32:39 GMT -6
even if innocent, to get out of jail after 18 years. Who wouldn't? Someone who did not want to be on parole for a decade knowing he could be sent back for almost anything. If I were his PO, I could pretty much guarantee you his a$$ would be going back. Good point. Would a violation outside of Arkansas be included under the parole conditions?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Nov 22, 2011 22:46:00 GMT -6
Someone who did not want to be on parole for a decade knowing he could be sent back for almost anything. If I were his PO, I could pretty much guarantee you his a$$ would be going back. Good point. Would a violation outside of Arkansas be included under the parole conditions? Yes, I'm sure. He might not even be allowed to leave Arkansas. But a violation is a violation no matter where it occurs.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Nov 23, 2011 22:18:41 GMT -6
What supporters misrepresent is that the defendants went to the state with the plea deal. Unfortunately, the prosecutor was new and had not bothered to review the case file and probably hadn't bothered to review the evidence the three killers were claiming was exculpatory. There was an allegation of juror misconduct regarding the Echols/Baldwin trial, but that didn't apply to Miskelley and Miskelley certainly could not have won a new trial with his multiple confessions, including 3 after his conviction.
They frankly did not have sufficient, conclusive evidence of innocence and knew that they wouldn't win new trials. There was a slim possibility that Echols and Baldwin might have won new trials, although Echols had presented two versions of juror misconduct allegations and lost both times because of lack of due diligence. The other problem with the juror misconduct allegations in this round was the fact that the "witness" was an attorney who alleged that he was repeatedly contacted during the trial by the jury foreman, who made improper statements about the evidence and was allegedly "gung-ho" to convict Echols and Baldwin by any means. The flaw with this witness is that he knew the conduct was improper at the time and failed to do anything to have the juror removed from the jury in 1994. Additionally, the claims about the juror getting the confession into deliberations was not supported by the affidavits of the jurors submitted in the 2005 misconduct claim.
The really sick part is that none of the three has to report to a parole officer, in spite of the conditions of the suspended sentence agreement. As part of that agreement, they did waive extradition, so if they reoffend elsewhere, they have to return to Arkansas to serve the 21 year sentence. They also are all three currently violation of the terms of the SIS agreement because none of them are employed or enrolled in school and they're not paying their own bills.
The prosecutor never should've made the deal. He is regretting it because he has realized that he is unlikely to be able to win re-election in his district. The Moore family will certainly be campaigning against him.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Nov 24, 2011 2:11:54 GMT -6
The really sick part is that none of the three has to report to a parole officer, in spite of the conditions of the suspended sentence agreement. As part of that agreement, they did waive extradition, so if they reoffend elsewhere, they have to return to Arkansas to serve the 21 year sentence. They also are all three currently violation of the terms of the SIS agreement because none of them are employed or enrolled in school and they're not paying their own bills. kma367 I realise you are on top of all of this. In terms of the SIS agreement, Baldwin and Echols are allowed to associate, why is Misskelley excluded; but an inclusion was made for the PL3 premiere? Second, does a criminal offense, for any of the three, mean an automatic 21 year sentence or is it it moderated, according to the offense? As to employment, depending on who you believe, I think Baldwin and Misskelley are earning. Echols is more tenuous. Jackson can claim he is an advisor or has pre payments on a book contract etc.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Nov 24, 2011 17:54:02 GMT -6
I think that it was planned from the beginning that Echols and Baldwin would make appearances together, so there was an exception made. Miskelley also had an exception for his father (and I think other relatives) who is a convicted felon. The exception was made so that they could appear together at the NY premier event.
Baldwin lost his construction job, so he is not employed as is required under the terms of his agreement. Miskelley also has not been able to find a job and, according to a solicitation on Facebook, he will be homeless as of Tuesday. Echols also isn't employed. I don't think a book contract counts as employment, since it doesn't create an employer/employee relationship with Penguin. I also don't think Jackson could realistically call Echols a consultant since it's a safe bet that he never read any of the Tolkein books.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Nov 24, 2011 18:50:56 GMT -6
I also don't think Jackson could realistically call Echols a consultant since it's a safe bet that he never read any of the Tolkein books. Actually, I would not be surprised if he did. He had a lot of time in prison to read, and Tolkein's books are quite popular. Also, he seems like the type who would read fantasy books.* *That is not meant as an insult. I've read most of Tolkein's work and enjoy it immensely.
|
|