|
Post by rayozz on Nov 24, 2011 22:49:18 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 Jessie homeless? What happened to the trust fund? "The WM3 Freedom Fund is a legal trust fund that was created to pay for Damien, Jason and Jessie's basic lifestyle needs (food, shelter, healthcare, education and the like) in order to provide them a financial bridge as they re-enter society as free men, with the expectation each will become self-sufficient and live on their own earnings in the near future as they attain their career goals."
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Jan 30, 2012 23:30:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 31, 2012 8:44:44 GMT -6
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 Innocent until proven guilty. I do not feel they had good evidence to prove guilty, yet they did and one even sent to DR.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 31, 2012 9:19:59 GMT -6
Just a scenario.
The WM3 are still guilty even though released, so if they had solid evidence and went to trial on another or others, and they are found guilty say. Would the state have to pay the WM3 compensation?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jan 31, 2012 16:00:34 GMT -6
Whitediamonds, the three killers were proven guilty with sufficient evidence. They have yet to present sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. Hearings were scheduled to begin in December on their motions for new trial, which alleged new evidence proving their innocence. Instead of going forward with those hearings, the three killers approached the state and took guilty pleas. It's a travesty that they were released, but that is a mistake that will ensure that Prosecutor Scott Ellington is a one-term prosecutor in the Second Judicial District, as none of the Hollywood celebrities who supported the three killers are registered voters in Arkansas.
The "new evidence" would be inadmissible in court and, if Ellington takes it seriously (which I doubt), I wouldn't be surprised to see a referendum to remove him from office before the expiration of his term.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 31, 2012 17:02:37 GMT -6
Whitediamonds, the three killers were proven guilty with sufficient evidence. They have yet to present sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. Hearings were scheduled to begin in December on their motions for new trial, which alleged new evidence proving their innocence. Instead of going forward with those hearings, the three killers approached the state and took guilty pleas. It's a travesty that they were released, but that is a mistake that will ensure that Prosecutor Scott Ellington is a one-term prosecutor in the Second Judicial District, as none of the Hollywood celebrities who supported the three killers are registered voters in Arkansas. The "new evidence" would be inadmissible in court and, if Ellington takes it seriously (which I doubt), I wouldn't be surprised to see a referendum to remove him from office before the expiration of his term. kma367 Well, I don't know Kma, With DNA "if real" as stated by defense today, why would Terry Hobbs hair be in the boys shoelaces, no reason they should be there. As well as Pam Hobbs saying she knows Terry killed those boys. The WM3 were only boys themselves, "poor trash drop outs" as the town thought of them, so if anyone can come forward or DNA is factual this certainly deserves to be reopened. For those poor dead boys (1st), for the public since they have now released the WM3 back out to boot. Not to mention what if some POS did do this with all the bs going on in that kookville town back 20 yrs ago?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jan 31, 2012 20:30:53 GMT -6
Whitediamonds, the hair was found in a shoelace that could've belonged to Steve, which would make it's presence the result of secondary transfer and unrelated to the murders. If the lace belonged to Chris, it could still have been the result of secondary transfer, since Pam Hobbs has stated that Chris was in the home on the afternoon of May 5, 1993.
DNA is circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence. Hobbs DNA on a shoelace that could've come from his own home is weak evidence, at best. The latest "evidence" presented by the PR machine has been the statements of three former friends of Hobbs' nephew, who was 1 at the time of the murders, who claim that the nephew told them his uncle killed the boys. One even claims that the information was obtained from Hobss' brother, Michael Hobbs, Sr. Both Michael Hobbs, Sr. and Jr. have denied that they implicated Terry Hobbs in the murders. The defense wouldn't be allowed to present these allegations in any court because they are hearsay, i.e. the witnesses did not hear a direct confession from Terry Hobbs, but claim to have been told by his nephew that he was involved in the murders.
As for Pam Hobbs' "knowledge," neither she, nor any of her family members, reported any of this information to the WMPD at the time of the original investigation. I find it odd that she claims to have suspected him in 1993, yet she didn't voice that suspicion to anyone until after they were divorced and had been involved in an acrimonious divorce to boot.
Part of the trouble is that "journalists" have stopped doing their own research and have become mouthpieces for the defenses' PR machine. They repeat the conclusory allegations and statements of the defense PR people, but don't even bother to look at the actual procedural history to correct their errors, such as the false claim that Judge Burnett was the sole source of review of the cases and that Miskelley was questioned for 12 hours (or more).
It's becoming more and more obvious that the defense doesn't possess any true evidence of actual innocence, which explains the Alford pleas and the continued PR campaign to obtain exoneration that they would have been denied had Ellington done his job and forced them to proceed to the new trial hearings in December.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by reapwysow on Feb 3, 2012 13:10:20 GMT -6
So what is it? are they half assed guilty , or half assed innocent?
Personally , I would rather die on the gurney as an innocent, than live the rest of my life branded a murderer.
How can anyone look at this and not think that it is the state covering thier ass when they know they were wrong.
I am pro DP , but this is just wrong.
guilty or innocent, what the hell is this half assed *bullcrap*.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 3, 2012 16:47:09 GMT -6
Personally I still think ths state looks guilty, of covering their behinds, I still do not see a strong case to have them sent to LWOP or for sure the DP.
Add to the mentality back 20 yrs ago.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 4, 2012 23:34:47 GMT -6
The trouble with that is that the three killers have claimed for 4 years to have exculpatory evidence that proves their innocence, yet they requested a deal from the state and pled guilty rather than present that evidence at the new evidence hearing set to being in December, 2011.
They are guilty and have never had sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. The DNA is inconclusive and all they have against Terry Hobbs is lies, rumors, myths and innuendo. The whole campaign for innocence has been a PR blitz in the media that gives the appearance of innocence (and sufficient evidence proving it), when, in fact, they are as guilty now as they were in 1994 when they were originally convicted.
The mistake on the part of the State of Arkansas and the new and inexperienced prosecutor was in accepting the deal and not making them put up and shut up when they lost the new trial hearings.
kma367
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Feb 5, 2012 7:43:59 GMT -6
They were just ignorant teenagers when they took the deal,the cops were coruppt and in a rush to solve it and I'm sure there is somthing more to that Mark Byers guy-what a psycho!
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 5, 2012 8:05:39 GMT -6
The trouble with that is that the three killers have claimed for 4 years to have exculpatory evidence that proves their innocence, yet they requested a deal from the state and pled guilty rather than present that evidence at the new evidence hearing set to being in December, 2011. They are guilty and have never had sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. The DNA is inconclusive and all they have against Terry Hobbs is lies, rumors, myths and innuendo. The whole campaign for innocence has been a PR blitz in the media that gives the appearance of innocence (and sufficient evidence proving it), when, in fact, they are as guilty now as they were in 1994 when they were originally convicted. The mistake on the part of the State of Arkansas and the new and inexperienced prosecutor was in accepting the deal and not making them put up and shut up when they lost the new trial hearings. kma367 Just because they pled guilty for a lesser result means nothing, and cvertainly does not imply guilt. To be honest, in the US with all of these pleas and crap, and at one point the Ohio prosecutor general saying innocense in the eyeys of the law counts for little compared with how the procedure pans out, it belies an attitude towards guilt or innocense on the part of the authorities that belies the importance of the legal game as it plays out rather than objective and impartial facts. To put it simply, in the US I would not sit back calm if innocent and assume things will go accordingly, history would suggest this is a wise stance to adapt.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 5, 2012 10:21:32 GMT -6
The trouble with that is that the three killers have claimed for 4 years to have exculpatory evidence that proves their innocence, yet they requested a deal from the state and pled guilty rather than present that evidence at the new evidence hearing set to being in December, 2011. They are guilty and have never had sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. The DNA is inconclusive and all they have against Terry Hobbs is lies, rumors, myths and innuendo. The whole campaign for innocence has been a PR blitz in the media that gives the appearance of innocence (and sufficient evidence proving it), when, in fact, they are as guilty now as they were in 1994 when they were originally convicted. The mistake on the part of the State of Arkansas and the new and inexperienced prosecutor was in accepting the deal and not making them put up and shut up when they lost the new trial hearings. Just because they pled guilty for a lesser result means nothing, and cvertainly does not imply guilt. To be honest, in the US with all of these pleas and crap, and at one point the Ohio prosecutor general saying innocense in the eyeys of the law counts for little compared with how the procedure pans out, it belies an attitude towards guilt or innocense on the part of the authorities that belies the importance of the legal game as it plays out rather than objective and impartial facts. To put it simply, in the US I would not sit back calm if innocent and assume things will go accordingly, history would suggest this is NOT a wise stance to adapt. Exactly..
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 5, 2012 16:14:37 GMT -6
They aren't teens now, which is when they took the deal. And the timing is relevant, since they had hearings scheduled to take place on their motions for new trial at which they would've presented all of their allegedly exculpatory evidence.
A guilty plea means you're legally and factually guilty. That they can continue to claim that they're innocent and continue their PR campaign of rumor, myth, lie and innuendo does not change that. Until they present their evidence to a court and are declared legally and factually innocent, they remain as guilty of triple murder as they were when they were originally convicted in 1994.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by reapwysow on Feb 5, 2012 19:02:08 GMT -6
The trouble with that is that the three killers have claimed for 4 years to have exculpatory evidence that proves their innocence, yet they requested a deal from the state and pled guilty rather than present that evidence at the new evidence hearing set to being in December, 2011. They are guilty and have never had sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. The DNA is inconclusive and all they have against Terry Hobbs is lies, rumors, myths and innuendo. The whole campaign for innocence has been a PR blitz in the media that gives the appearance of innocence (and sufficient evidence proving it), when, in fact, they are as guilty now as they were in 1994 when they were originally convicted. The mistake on the part of the State of Arkansas and the new and inexperienced prosecutor was in accepting the deal and not making them put up and shut up when they lost the new trial hearings. kma367 Just because they pled guilty for a lesser result means nothing, and cvertainly does not imply guilt. To be honest, in the US with all of these pleas and crap, and at one point the Ohio prosecutor general saying innocense in the eyeys of the law counts for little compared with how the procedure pans out, it belies an attitude towards guilt or innocense on the part of the authorities that belies the importance of the legal game as it plays out rather than objective and impartial facts. To put it simply, in the US I would not sit back calm if innocent and assume things will go accordingly, history would suggest this is a wise stance to adapt. We only have pleas, because we don't have *bullcrap* sentences like some other countries.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Feb 6, 2012 0:22:47 GMT -6
The trouble with that is that the three killers have claimed for 4 years to have exculpatory evidence that proves their innocence, yet they requested a deal from the state and pled guilty rather than present that evidence at the new evidence hearing set to being in December, 2011. They are guilty and have never had sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. The DNA is inconclusive and all they have against Terry Hobbs is lies, rumors, myths and innuendo. The whole campaign for innocence has been a PR blitz in the media that gives the appearance of innocence (and sufficient evidence proving it), when, in fact, they are as guilty now as they were in 1994 when they were originally convicted. The mistake on the part of the State of Arkansas and the new and inexperienced prosecutor was in accepting the deal and not making them put up and shut up when they lost the new trial hearings. kma367 I seriously don't see your point. If the state was confident in their convictions, then why would they have offered an Alford Plea? They would not even consider a plea deal. The ball was in the States hands, no one elses. Ellington has publicly stated that it would be difficult to win a retrial
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 6, 2012 12:53:43 GMT -6
Ellington was a newly elected prosecutor who knew nothing about the case and who also consequently had never tried a single case in his legal career. He bought all of the defense's BS without even bothering to review the case file, or apparently, any of the defense filings. He didn't consult the attorneys from the AG's office who handled the Rule 37 claims and appeals. He didn't consult with either Brent Davis, or John Fogleman. Ellington believed that the softball girls had recanted when, in fact, the affidavit/declaration filed by Donna Medford confirms that the girls heard what they said they heard at the ball field in 1993. Also, the Alford pleas were not the State's idea. They were the defense's idea.
If you're going to win at the new trial hearings, you don't go to the state and offer to plead guilty. Period. The claims in the media of exculpatory evidence have been nothing but a bluff, or a con. The DNA even according to Echols' own experts is inconclusive and weak. Even eliminating their DNA (which the testing actually doesn't do as to two partial profiles from one of Steve's laces and a swab from Michael Moore) is inconclusive. There is still the fiber evidence, as well as the sighing of Echols and the admissions by Miskelley, Echols and Baldwin to the murders. The majority of the "bad" information about Terry Hobbs is either not credible or is inadmissible and the defense knows that.
The defense bluffed and Ellington blinked when he should've turned them down and proceeded to the new trial hearings, which they would've lost. If new trials were ordered, accepting the deal would've been appropriate.
That is why the defense proposed the deal to the state rather than present it's inconclusive and weak evidence to Judge Lazer and lose the new trial hearings. It would've been GAME OVER for all three of the killers as far as exoneration is concerned.
This is further proven by the fact that the defense continues to use inadmissible information given to the media (and promoting the two biased movies about the case), rather than filing a petition in court in Arkansas to present their evidence in the proper forum and venue.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Feb 6, 2012 14:09:27 GMT -6
KMA, do you concede any doubt in this matter at all?
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Feb 6, 2012 17:24:30 GMT -6
Personally I still think ths state looks guilty, of covering their behinds, I still do not see a strong case to have them sent to LWOP or for sure the DP. Add to the mentality back 20 yrs ago. Bingo!
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 10, 2012 14:15:13 GMT -6
No, because rumors, myths, lies and innuendo about allegedly "better" suspects is not evidence of actual innocence. The DNA was inconclusive, the three killers didn't have alibis for the night and time of the murders and they were linked to the murders through the multiple confessions of Jessie Miskelley, Jr., which were corroborated by witnesses who came forward in 1993 and fiber evidence found on the victims' clothing.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Feb 10, 2012 16:24:40 GMT -6
No, because rumors, myths, lies and innuendo about allegedly "better" suspects is not evidence of actual innocence. The DNA was inconclusive, the three killers didn't have alibis for the night and time of the murders and they were linked to the murders through the multiple confessions of Jessie Miskelley, Jr., which were corroborated by witnesses who came forward in 1993 and fiber evidence found on the victims' clothing. kma367 So, Jessie's confessions and the Walmart fibres are the only actual positive indicators of guilt? I'm not 100% that they are innocent but I would exercise more caution than you in asserting guilt and executing Damien going on that. It's ok not to know, you know.
|
|
|
Post by reapwysow on Feb 10, 2012 16:40:49 GMT -6
No, because rumors, myths, lies and innuendo about allegedly "better" suspects is not evidence of actual innocence. The DNA was inconclusive, the three killers didn't have alibis for the night and time of the murders and they were linked to the murders through the multiple confessions of Jessie Miskelley, Jr., which were corroborated by witnesses who came forward in 1993 and fiber evidence found on the victims' clothing. kma367 So, Jessie's confessions and the Walmart fibres are the only actual positive indicators of guilt? I'm not 100% that they are innocent but I would exercise more caution than you in asserting guilt and executing Damien going on that. It's ok not to know, you know. I have to believe that the state wasn't secure enough in thier case to proceed, otherwise they would not have offered the deal. States do NOT generally allow a murderer that is sentenced to death out on a plea. If the state believed, without a doubt they were guilty, they should have offered them new trials and put all three on the row. If the state had "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence, then they are incompetant to allow them to walk. I just can't get there from here...thus I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 10, 2012 18:09:37 GMT -6
No, because rumors, myths, lies and innuendo about allegedly "better" suspects is not evidence of actual innocence. The DNA was inconclusive, the three killers didn't have alibis for the night and time of the murders and they were linked to the murders through the multiple confessions of Jessie Miskelley, Jr., which were corroborated by witnesses who came forward in 1993 and fiber evidence found on the victims' clothing. kma367 So, Jessie's confessions and the Walmart fibres are the only actual positive indicators of guilt? I'm not 100% that they are innocent but I would exercise more caution than you in asserting guilt and executing Damien going on that. It's ok not to know, you know. With all respect to Kma367, I have to agree with Brumsong.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Feb 10, 2012 19:17:09 GMT -6
No, because rumors, myths, lies and innuendo about allegedly "better" suspects is not evidence of actual innocence. The DNA was inconclusive, the three killers didn't have alibis for the night and time of the murders and they were linked to the murders through the multiple confessions of Jessie Miskelley, Jr., which were corroborated by witnesses who came forward in 1993 and fiber evidence found on the victims' clothing. kma367 So, Jessie's confessions and the Walmart fibres are the only actual positive indicators of guilt? I'm not 100% that they are innocent but I would exercise more caution than you in asserting guilt and executing Damien going on that. It's ok not to know, you know. Jessie's confessions were inadmissable at Jason and Damien's trial, so it is difficult to see how they were convicted.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Feb 11, 2012 9:34:58 GMT -6
That was just one messed-up case.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 11, 2012 10:33:21 GMT -6
That was just one messed-up case. It is always the murderers who establish the facts of the case and determine what evidence is available later. The murderers also create the conditions that establish the degree of difficulty of finding the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 11, 2012 16:18:03 GMT -6
You're so right, Donnie. That's why Casey Anthony is free, rather than rotting in prison for the murder of her daughter. Rayozz, perhaps you should read the direct appeal opinion in the case, which summarizes the evidence against Echols and Baldwin: courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/1996a/961223sc/cr94-928.htmlkma367
|
|
|
Post by reapwysow on Feb 11, 2012 21:01:55 GMT -6
You're so right, Donnie. That's why Casey Anthony is free, rather than rotting in prison for the murder of her daughter. Rayozz, perhaps you should read the direct appeal opinion in the case, which summarizes the evidence against Echols and Baldwin: courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/1996a/961223sc/cr94-928.htmlkma367 It was quite a read, but I read it. It just takes me back to my original question.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Feb 11, 2012 22:41:27 GMT -6
You're so right, Donnie. That's why Casey Anthony is free, rather than rotting in prison for the murder of her daughter. Rayozz, perhaps you should read the direct appeal opinion in the case, which summarizes the evidence against Echols and Baldwin: courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/1996a/961223sc/cr94-928.htmlkma367 I've read that before. Most of the "substantial evidence" can be discredited.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 12, 2012 14:55:37 GMT -6
It hasn't been refuted by evidence of actual innocence presented to a court or with a finding by that court that the killers had proven their actual innocence with clear and convincing evidence. The various webpages, etc. that "discredit" the evidence are opinion and that is legally insufficient proof to refute the evidence.
When the killers had the chance to present their alleged evidence to a new judge in December, 2011, they chose instead to request a deal and plead guilty on August 19, 2011. Based on the last "big news" from the defense, there will never be a judicial determination of actual innocence in this case. I say this because the defense's latest evidence is in no way, shape or form admissible in any court in the United States. Therefore, the three killers remain legally and factually guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted in 1994.
kma367
|
|