|
Post by DeadElvis on Feb 12, 2012 16:26:51 GMT -6
No matter who requested the plea, the state would have never agreed to it if they thought they could win otherwise. Folks don't get off death row just for asking. The state benefits in that they can still claim that these 3 are "technically" still guilty which you, kma, have posted here numerous times. Any person guilty or innocent on DR would be a fool not to accept.
The simple fact that the state agreed to such an arrangement speaks volumes as to the state's original case and prosecution. If the evidence of guilt was truly compelling, the state would have relied on it.
They chose not to.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 17, 2012 18:00:44 GMT -6
Had Brent Davis still been the prosecutor, he would've gone forward with the hearings on the motions for new trial. Unfortunately, he wasn't and the new prosecutor was inexperienced and admitted that he hadn't even reviewed the case file prior to accepting the plea.
The fact remains that had the defense been sure it would win new trials at the evidentiary hearing, they never would've approached the state and made this deal. It is the party in the weaker position who tries to broker a deal and since the defense made the first move, it was the defense in the weaker position.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Feb 18, 2012 8:47:32 GMT -6
Had Brent Davis still been the prosecutor, he would've gone forward with the hearings on the motions for new trial. Unfortunately, he wasn't and the new prosecutor was inexperienced and admitted that he hadn't even reviewed the case file prior to accepting the plea. The fact remains that had the defense been sure it would win new trials at the evidentiary hearing, they never would've approached the state and made this deal. It is the party in the weaker position who tries to broker a deal and since the defense made the first move, it was the defense in the weaker position. kma367 Inexperienced?? Didn't even read the brief??? I find that very hard to believe. Why would anyone have to make excuses for him? If that were true, it just validates my point that the Arkansas Criminal Justice system is filled with idiots and nincompoops which I've claimed throughout this whole circus. A position of weakness?? oh, come on! I shouldn't have to remind you that DR inmates typically don't just walk out of DR by signing a piece of paper. Delving into the realm of speculation here but if every single inmate on DR in the country, somewhere around 3200, were to ask for the exactly same plea these West Memphis guys did, how many would walk out of death row free as a bird? Would any? Let's consider this from the defense perspective: In one hand, pursue a hearing to request a new trial. Hope that a new trial is granted. Work to convince a new gaggle of idiots that there is no satanic cult in their neighborhood. Hope that new group of idiots considers only the evidence presented in trial and that their clients are found Not Guilty. In the other hand, let the guys sign a piece of paper and get released the next day. It's really a no-brainer here. Your argument that the defense asked for the deal so that makes then somehow weak falls a little flat. If the state of AR is willing to accept such a deal, no sane person serving life or on DR would refuse. This case was an embarrassment to Arkansas and the * current * professionals involved with the case knew it. The original trial was a circus as were all the appeals that were heard by the same judge. It made Arkansas look like a backwoods collection of inbred rubes who would be first in line to burn a witch at the stake if they could. I'm ashamed to claim that I grew up there. That you are convinced that a man should be executed based only on the evidence put forward by the morons in the first trial, I have no doubt. No matter how you spin it, however, many others, Arkansas prosecutors included, think differently. So differently, if fact, the state was willing to let them go free rather than even risk losing a new trial. This fact is the only one that really matters at this point. Don't you think? Nobody is reviewing the flimsy evidence that got them convicted by a jury-of-their-idiot-peers originally. The prosecutor, so you claim, didn't even read the brief. That is not exactly a position of strength. What is obvious is that AR wanted to put this case behind them and jumped on the chance to protect themselves from being sued.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 18, 2012 9:44:29 GMT -6
Had Brent Davis still been the prosecutor, he would've gone forward with the hearings on the motions for new trial. Unfortunately, he wasn't and the new prosecutor was inexperienced and admitted that he hadn't even reviewed the case file prior to accepting the plea. The fact remains that had the defense been sure it would win new trials at the evidentiary hearing, they never would've approached the state and made this deal. It is the party in the weaker position who tries to broker a deal and since the defense made the first move, it was the defense in the weaker position. kma367 Inexperienced?? Didn't even read the brief??? I find that very hard to believe. Why would anyone have to make excuses for him? If that were true, it just validates my point that the Arkansas Criminal Justice system is filled with idiots and nincompoops which I've claimed throughout this whole circus. A position of weakness?? oh, come on! I shouldn't have to remind you that DR inmates typically don't just walk out of DR by signing a piece of paper. Delving into the realm of speculation here but if every single inmate on DR in the country, somewhere around 3200, were to ask for the exactly same plea these West Memphis guys did, how many would walk out of death row free as a bird? Would any? Let's consider this from the defense perspective: In one hand, pursue a hearing to request a new trial. Hope that a new trial is granted. Work to convince a new gaggle of idiots that there is no satanic cult in their neighborhood. Hope that new group of idiots considers only the evidence presented in trial and that their clients are found Not Guilty. In the other hand, let the guys sign a piece of paper and get released the next day. It's really a no-brainer here. Your argument that the defense asked for the deal so that makes then somehow weak falls a little flat. If the state of AR is willing to accept such a deal, no sane person serving life or on DR would refuse. This case was an embarrassment to Arkansas and the * current * professionals involved with the case knew it. The original trial was a circus as were all the appeals that were heard by the same judge. It made Arkansas look like a backwoods collection of inbred rubes who would be first in line to burn a witch at the stake if they could. I'm ashamed to claim that I grew up there. That you are convinced that a man should be executed based only on the evidence put forward by the morons in the first trial, I have no doubt. No matter how you spin it, however, many others, Arkansas prosecutors included, think differently. So differently, if fact, the state was willing to let them go free rather than even risk losing a new trial. This fact is the only one that really matters at this point. Don't you think? Nobody is reviewing the flimsy evidence that got them convicted by a jury-of-their-idiot-peers originally. The prosecutor, so you claim, didn't even read the brief. That is not exactly a position of strength. What is obvious is that AR wanted to put this case behind them and jumped on the chance to protect themselves from being sued. Exactly !!!
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 18, 2012 10:18:28 GMT -6
Had Brent Davis still been the prosecutor, he would've gone forward with the hearings on the motions for new trial. Unfortunately, he wasn't and the new prosecutor was inexperienced and admitted that he hadn't even reviewed the case file prior to accepting the plea. The fact remains that had the defense been sure it would win new trials at the evidentiary hearing, they never would've approached the state and made this deal. It is the party in the weaker position who tries to broker a deal and since the defense made the first move, it was the defense in the weaker position. kma367 I agree with you 100%.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Feb 26, 2012 23:56:01 GMT -6
Watched PL3 Purgatory today. Can see why it didn't win the Oscar. I've seen the first 2 films, PL1 & PL2, plus most of the deposition and hearings footage. Be lucky if there was 30 minutes of new film in it. Some of that included even more gruesome footage of the 3 boys. Totally not necessary! If I was one of the parents, I would have been horrified and really upset.
I can accept some of the information provided about Terry Hobbs but I didn't think it should have been editorialised to the point of making him appear as the main suspect. There has been enough of that over 18 years.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Feb 28, 2012 14:41:35 GMT -6
DeadElvis, you're relying on a fallacy that the original evidence of guilt was insufficient. You're probably ignoring 75% of it, such as the fiber evidence.
The fact remains that the killers and their advocates, including you, are relying on the same type of tactics that were allegedly used to obtain convictions against Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley. Can you say "hypocrite"?
Ellington admitted that he hadn't reviewed the case file. He stated that the Softball Girls had recanted, which was obviously a representation made to him by the defense, when, in fact, they had not and the declaration of Donna Medford actually corroborates that the girls heard Echols admit to responisiblity for the murders at the ball field in 1993. Echols, likewise, has admitted to having made the statement in response to taunts, which contradicts his original position that he never said any such thing.
The three killers pled guilty and the case will remain closed until they present sufficient evidence to make a clear and convincing showing that they are actually innocent. Given that they requested a deal and took a deal that involved pleading guilty, rather than present their evidence at the hearings set for December leads me to the conclusion that they will never obtain judicial exoneration because they have never had any evidence sufficient to prove actual innocence.
The PR campaign needs to stop and they need to present their case to a court and obtain a judicial ruling. I suspect that they choose to keep the PR campaign going because it's easier to fool the uneducated and naive than it is to fool one judge.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Feb 28, 2012 15:08:41 GMT -6
kma wrote:
Given that AR prosecutors took this deal rather than have the case go through regular legal channels leads me to the conclusion that the the prosecution truly feels that they do not have any evidence sufficient to prove actual guilt.
Nevertheless, the actual evidence and/or lack of evidence is insignificant at this point as are further serious discussions on the matter save for idle discussions on forums like this one.
Nobody, especially the AR prosecution as you point out, is reviewing said "evidence" in this case any more.
These three walked out of jail and DR free as birds.
Are they actually guilty? Who knows? I wasn't with them that night. However, the idiocy involved with the prosecution securing their initial conviction troubled me. It apparently troubled the AR prosecution also since, have I mentioned this already? they let all three walk out of jail when faced with the potential risk of a retrial. That was 100% Arkansas' call.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 28, 2012 17:14:02 GMT -6
Pretty sure that weird bloke - the step-father - is guilty... He always looks like he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar... After watching this case on telly a few times (different productions) - I dont think these 3 are guilty excepting of naivete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2012 23:15:59 GMT -6
I'm pro DP, but these three kids were not guilty. By the way, the reason for the plea is that the State didn't want to be sued by the defendents---and to be quite frank, there was plenty to sue them over. If you want the details of this case feel free to contact me.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Mar 14, 2012 12:51:00 GMT -6
All I can say is that Mark Byers guy is a mental case. Did you guys see how he was acting in the Documentary 'Paradise Lost'? It was quite a show. I honestly think he was abusing his son and afraid that it would be discovered.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 14, 2012 22:10:01 GMT -6
Yes, Mark Byers, that's his name. Yet, I suppose there's no crime in being a mental case creepy weird looking dude, otherwise half the senate would be gone.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 15, 2012 2:47:28 GMT -6
Yes, Mark Byers, that's his name. Yet, I suppose there's no crime in being a mental case creepy weird looking dude, otherwise half the senate would be gone. Allegedly. Mark Byers had a substance abuse problem and the producers of Paradise Lost took advantage of it. He does not fit the prosecutors' time frame of the events.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 17, 2012 18:40:48 GMT -6
Neither does Terry Hobbs. It's amazing that people who believe the three killers are innocent hold the prosecution to a higher standard than they do the defense.
The DNA evidence is inconclusive and even the killers' attorneys conceded early on that eliminating the three killers from DNA at the crime scene was insufficient to exonerate them. There are no substantial amounts of DNA from anyone else at the crime scene. That is why the defense approached the state and worked out this deal, rather than presenting the inconclusive DNA and largely inadmissible evidence against Hobbs at the hearings that were set for December. The three have pled guilty and absent a judicial determination vacating their pleas, they remain legally and factually guilty.
That the state accepted the plea isn't definitive, since states have been known to release murderers before. Look at the history of any death row inmate and with the majority of them you will find a prior conviction for murder and a release from prison either with parole, time served, or early release.
kma367
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Mar 17, 2012 19:06:59 GMT -6
The claims that the state released them to avoid being sued are bogus, too.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 27, 2012 17:42:56 GMT -6
Thank you, Mike5! That they're actually innocent also remains to be seen, since they haven't presented their alleged evidence to a court and been officially exonerated. Unfortunately, many, many people have mistaken the conclusory allegations made by the defense in a PR campaign over the past 4 years for evidence of actual innocence. In reality, the defense had inconclusive DNA evidence, two partial profiles that didn't exclude the three killers and a lot of uncorroborated claims made by various witnesses that they spun to make it sound like someone else was guilty.
People can claim that the case was an embarrassment to the State of Arkansas, but the three still chose to plead guilty rather than go forward with the evidentiary hearings and win new trials.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 28, 2012 1:35:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Mar 29, 2012 4:14:27 GMT -6
Exactly! The defence wanted to go to trial immediately and the prosecution suggested Alford instead. So, discount much of what was written in this thread!
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Mar 29, 2012 6:48:03 GMT -6
Had Brent Davis still been the prosecutor, he would've gone forward with the hearings on the motions for new trial. Unfortunately, he wasn't and the new prosecutor was inexperienced and admitted that he hadn't even reviewed the case file prior to accepting the plea. The fact remains that had the defense been sure it would win new trials at the evidentiary hearing, they never would've approached the state and made this deal. It is the party in the weaker position who tries to broker a deal and since the defense made the first move, it was the defense in the weaker position. kma367 I agree with you 100%. Which makes you both 100% wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Apr 18, 2012 20:31:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on May 4, 2012 15:47:29 GMT -6
What actually happened, Rayozz, was that the defense wanted the prosecutor to bypass the hearings and agree to vacate the original verdicts and proceed to new trials. Ellington rejected that request and stated that he was open to a counteroffer:
"I said, hey, if they want to resolve this case and get their guys out of prison now, let them come forward with some other offer that they would plead guilty and then we can discuss that," said Ellington.
"Ellington said the defense's Alford plea was the best solution for all. The plea allows defendants to maintain innocence while knowingly pleading guilty to serve their best interest."
The defense's counter was the Alford plea. Had the defense really believed that its evidence was sufficient to win at the new trial hearings, they would've proceeded to the hearings when Ellington refused their request to skip the hearings and enter a consent order for new trials. The defense certainly should have rejected any deal in which the three plead guilty in any way, shape or form if the truly possessed evidence sufficient to prove actual innocence.
The bottom line is that the defense was not as confident in its evidence, as demonstrated by its attempt to first bypass the hearings and then its decision to allow their clients to plead guilty.
The hearings were scheduled to begin just 4 months after the pleas were entered. Why didn't the defense win new trials and then re-negotiate? They certainly would've been in a stronger position had new trials been ordered, at least for Echols and Baldwin, who had the alleged juror misconduct issue to raise.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on May 4, 2012 15:55:31 GMT -6
DeadElvis, their guilt is more than a "technicality." They remain legally and factually guilty and will do so until a court vacates their guilty pleas, which will not happen because they will never present their legally insufficient "evidence" to a court. Ten years from now, they will still be releasing "new evidence" that is interpreted as exculpatory by those with a preconceived belief in their innocence and complaining that they were railroaded, etc. That "evidence" will never meet the bar required to actually vacate their pleas. With any luck, one or all three of them will commit some other crime and be returned to ADC to serve the remainder of their 21 year sentences.
Arkansas is not the first state to let a convicted murderer off of Death Row. Florida released Sonia Jacobs in much the same way that the three killers in this case were released.
My complaint with Ellington has always been that he worried about the problems with a re-trial when one had not even been ordered. Yes, there would have been problems had the killers been granted new trials, but since that didn't happen and since the three pled guilty instead of presenting their allegedly exculpatory evidence, I'm especially disappointed because the defense's decision to approach the state and their willingness to allow their allegedly innocent clients to plead guilty demonstrates that they knew there would never have been new trials ordered.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2012 5:27:36 GMT -6
DeadElvis, their guilt is more than a "technicality." They remain legally and factually guilty and will do so until a court vacates their guilty pleas, which will not happen because they will never present their legally insufficient "evidence" to a court. Ten years from now, they will still be releasing "new evidence" that is interpreted as exculpatory by those with a preconceived belief in their innocence and complaining that they were railroaded, etc. That "evidence" will never meet the bar required to actually vacate their pleas. With any luck, one or all three of them will commit some other crime and be returned to ADC to serve the remainder of their 21 year sentences. Arkansas is not the first state to let a convicted murderer off of Death Row. Florida released Sonia Jacobs in much the same way that the three killers in this case were released. My complaint with Ellington has always been that he worried about the problems with a re-trial when one had not even been ordered. Yes, there would have been problems had the killers been granted new trials, but since that didn't happen and since the three pled guilty instead of presenting their allegedly exculpatory evidence, I'm especially disappointed because the defense's decision to approach the state and their willingness to allow their allegedly innocent clients to plead guilty demonstrates that they knew there would never have been new trials ordered. kma367 Sonja Jacobs was in Australia on a speaking tour. Are you saying that she is still a convicted murderer?
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on May 15, 2012 21:37:37 GMT -6
I agree, "technically" they are convicted murderers. Yet, they were "absolutely" let out of prison free as birds in a tree. If any evidence was there to keep them in jail, most obviously, it didn't take. The AR criminal justice system is staffed by a collection of idiots. If anything, this case proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. DeadElvis, you're relying on a fallacy that the original evidence of guilt was insufficient. You're probably ignoring 75% of it, such as the fiber evidence. The fact remains that the killers and their advocates, including you, are relying on the same type of tactics that were allegedly used to obtain convictions against Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley. Can you say "hypocrite"? Ellington admitted that he hadn't reviewed the case file. He stated that the Softball Girls had recanted, which was obviously a representation made to him by the defense, when, in fact, they had not and the declaration of Donna Medford actually corroborates that the girls heard Echols admit to responisiblity for the murders at the ball field in 1993. Echols, likewise, has admitted to having made the statement in response to taunts, which contradicts his original position that he never said any such thing. The three killers pled guilty and the case will remain closed until they present sufficient evidence to make a clear and convincing showing that they are actually innocent. Given that they requested a deal and took a deal that involved pleading guilty, rather than present their evidence at the hearings set for December leads me to the conclusion that they will never obtain judicial exoneration because they have never had any evidence sufficient to prove actual innocence. The PR campaign needs to stop and they need to present their case to a court and obtain a judicial ruling. I suspect that they choose to keep the PR campaign going because it's easier to fool the uneducated and naive than it is to fool one judge. kma367
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on May 16, 2012 0:05:32 GMT -6
DeadElvis, their guilt is more than a "technicality." They remain legally and factually guilty and will do so until a court vacates their guilty pleas, which will not happen because they will never present their legally insufficient "evidence" to a court. Ten years from now, they will still be releasing "new evidence" that is interpreted as exculpatory by those with a preconceived belief in their innocence and complaining that they were railroaded, etc. That "evidence" will never meet the bar required to actually vacate their pleas. With any luck, one or all three of them will commit some other crime and be returned to ADC to serve the remainder of their 21 year sentences. Arkansas is not the first state to let a convicted murderer off of Death Row. Florida released Sonia Jacobs in much the same way that the three killers in this case were released. My complaint with Ellington has always been that he worried about the problems with a re-trial when one had not even been ordered. Yes, there would have been problems had the killers been granted new trials, but since that didn't happen and since the three pled guilty instead of presenting their allegedly exculpatory evidence, I'm especially disappointed because the defense's decision to approach the state and their willingness to allow their allegedly innocent clients to plead guilty demonstrates that they knew there would never have been new trials ordered. kma367 Sonja Jacobs was in Australia on a speaking tour. Are you saying that she is still a convicted murderer? Yes she is. She was on death row for a while, but new information allowed her to plea down to 2nd degree murder. She was then paroled on time served.
|
|