• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

List of people who took an Alford plea

Wikipedia has a list of people who entered Alford pleas. At first glance it runs the gamut from obviously innocent (WM3) to obviously guilty (Pam Hupp) with some in-between.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Wikipedia has a list of people who entered Alford pleas. At first glance it runs the gamut from obviously innocent (WM3) to obviously guilty (Pam Hupp) with some in-between.
Click to expand...

I’m watching “The Thing About Pam”, a series about the Pam Hupp case. The story might end up being good, but I don’t think I will get too far. The characters are far too irritating.
 
lionking said:
I’m watching “The Thing About Pam”, a series about the Pam Hupp case. The story might end up being good, but I don’t think I will get too far. The characters are far too irritating.
Click to expand...
Pam Hupp murdered her friend, her mother, and a disabled man. She was active on social media through all.
Remarkable, her Alford plea is from a different universe to Echolls and the others.
 
Samson said:
Pam Hupp murdered her friend, her mother, and a disabled man. She was active on social media through all.
Remarkable, her Alford plea is from a different universe to Echolls and the others.
Click to expand...

Well don’t have a heart attack, but I agree with you.
 
WM3 case may be an outlier

Rolfe said:
So were the WM3 not the first obviously innocent people to be offered the plea then?
Click to expand...
Based on a quick perusal, I would say that they were likely to be the first. A fair number of people on this list are probably (Raven Abaroa) or certainly guilty (Raymond Clark).
 
I suppose the important thing is, was the Alford plea immediately followed by the imposition of a substantial term of imprisonment, or by release with time served? So far as I recall our earlier discussions, prior to the WM3 the former had always been the case.
 
Rolfe said:
So were the WM3 not the first obviously innocent people to be offered the plea then?
Click to expand...

I cannot give you a specific instance but I do believe that innocent people (after years in jail and being granted a new trial) entered an Alford plea to avoid further jail time in the past (prior to the WM3). (I will now search google).
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that. So it wasn't a new idea when it was offered to the WM3 as I thought at the time.
 
West Memphis Three denied the right to test DNA evidence

WEST MEMPHIS, Ark. — Damien Echols and his legal team's request of a new type of DNA testing for evidence has been denied.

https://www.thv11.com/article/news/...MGdQKTh2YQVpIwIejJXtLyOfg#l4si39zg9z3kvvhaszh

(This link probably works in the US, but not for me - I presume it is GDPR stuff)

In 2020, Damien Echols' legal team worked to get evidence from the murders of three West Memphis boys. That evidence, which was previously thought to have been destroyed was intact. So they pushed to have DNA analyzed while using a new technology that wasn't around during the time of the trial. The legal team thought that doing the DNA testing wouldn't be an issue, since it could potentially prove the innocence of the accused, but earlier this year, Crittenden County Prosecutor Keith Chrestman, refused to cooperate with the DNA testing.

https://twitter.com/damienechols/status/1539996758763356160
 
Matthew Best said:
West Memphis Three denied the right to test DNA evidence

WEST MEMPHIS, Ark. — Damien Echols and his legal team's request of a new type of DNA testing for evidence has been denied.

https://www.thv11.com/article/news/...MGdQKTh2YQVpIwIejJXtLyOfg#l4si39zg9z3kvvhaszh

(This link probably works in the US, but not for me - I presume it is GDPR stuff)

In 2020, Damien Echols' legal team worked to get evidence from the murders of three West Memphis boys. That evidence, which was previously thought to have been destroyed was intact. So they pushed to have DNA analyzed while using a new technology that wasn't around during the time of the trial. The legal team thought that doing the DNA testing wouldn't be an issue, since it could potentially prove the innocence of the accused, but earlier this year, Crittenden County Prosecutor Keith Chrestman, refused to cooperate with the DNA testing.

https://twitter.com/damienechols/status/1539996758763356160
Click to expand...

This is the problem with the Alford plea. He pled guilty so case closed. From the prosecution PoV the case against him was proven in court in the first trial and then he pled guilty in a second trial. Echols has no standing to request retesting of evidence. It would require the prosecution / police to have an interest in justice and consider re-opening the case, and them to pay for the re-testing of the evidence. But why should they do that given Echols pled guilty? Possibly the victims' families could petition the authorities or bring a case to court, and / or offer to pay for the testing.

In part this is a problem with US judges and the politisiation of the judiciary, almost certainly in a similar circumstance in the UK a judge would refuse to accept a plea of guilty and insist that the prosecution presents the evidence in court. (Also the penalties for pleading innocent and making the prosecution go to court are less in the UK, and plea deals are not allowed.)
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
This is the problem with the Alford plea. He pled guilty so case closed. From the prosecution PoV the case against him was proven in court in the first trial and then he pled guilty in a second trial. Echols has no standing to request retesting of evidence. It would require the prosecution / police to have an interest in justice and consider re-opening the case, and them to pay for the re-testing of the evidence. But why should they do that given Echols pled guilty? Possibly the victims' families could petition the authorities or bring a case to court, and / or offer to pay for the testing.

In part this is a problem with US judges and the politisiation of the judiciary, almost certainly in a similar circumstance in the UK a judge would refuse to accept a plea of guilty and insist that the prosecution presents the evidence in court. (Also the penalties for pleading innocent and making the prosecution go to court are less in the UK, and plea deals are not allowed.)
Click to expand...
Elected judges are as stupid as appointed judges.
I was talking today to someone who has lawyer offspring like me. Her view is they quickly despise the proletariat, my experience.
Prosecutors lawyers and judges are corrupted from the get go by a sense of societally appointed superiority, and the Alford plea is the most disgusting concoction but works for these self appointed "elites".
 
It got them out of jail so don't knock it. There's worse things than not being able to prove your innocence conclusively, when you're free as air and have been for the past ten years.
 
Rolfe said:
It got them out of jail so don't knock it. There's worse things than not being able to prove your innocence conclusively, when you're free as air and have been for the past ten years.
Click to expand...

It got them out of prison and Echols was on death row so it saved his life. The State however is never going to admit that they got it wrong.

It was a compromise that had to be made based on how the appeals were going with the State of Arkansas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom