• 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?

Prosecutor Scott Ellington ... believed there was a strong chance a new trial would have been ordered because of jury misconduct, a fact along with new DNA evidence that complicated the case for the state. At this point, it would have been "practically impossible to put on a proper case against defendants," he said.
Click to expand...

So the prosecution felt they were unlikely to win any retrial and the defendants felt they couldn't wait for one, which if it happened would probably not be for another year or so, at least. I can't really blame them for taking the deal, though I understand Baldwin was unhappy about it.

As they are free men today I am happy for them, but disappointed that nobody seems interested in pursuing the case to put the real killer behind bars.
 
Confessions and eyewitness identifications are the cause of more wrongful convictions than everything else put together as far as I can see.

Rolfe.
 
Then by all means Rolfe, read the documentation and see what did in fact convict them. The confessions were not used at trial.
 
I've been round that one with you before. You don't have a single point you can make other than "read the documentation". I tried going to the sites you recommended and I couldn't find anything remotely resembling a coherent case.

So no. You explain the evidence that makes you so damn sure. If you're so damn sure, you should be able to do that.

Rolfe.
 
I remember you now. Willful ignorance! The same crap that allowed these child killers to be released. If you do not understand the court documentation, I cannot help you. There is a coherent case. Enough so that a jury convicted the three and sentenced one to death. As far as holding your hand, I have no interest as I explained that to you on a prior thread. The lack of alibi, thread evidence, history of violence, (off the top of my head) is more then enough for me. There is considerably more evidence if you choose to educate yourself. The documentation will provide you with the unbiased facts of the case. Which will allow you to draw your own conclusion. If you choose to remain ignorant to the facts, that is your choice.
 
jharyn said:
I remember you now. Willful ignorance! The same crap that allowed these child killers to be released. If you do not understand the court documentation, I cannot help you. There is a coherent case. Enough so that a jury convicted the three and sentenced one to death. As far as holding your hand, I have no interest as I explained that to you on a prior thread. The lack of alibi, thread evidence, history of violence, (off the top of my head) is more then enough for me. There is considerably more evidence if you choose to educate yourself. The documentation will provide you with the unbiased facts of the case. Which will allow you to draw your own conclusion. If you choose to remain ignorant to the facts, that is your choice.
Click to expand...


I've been round that one before with you. Turned out you had nothing to say of any substance at all, and demonstrated a number of serious misconceptions.

Too bad.

Rolfe.
 
Checkmite said:
Guilty pleas go quite a ways in convincing me, I must admit.
Click to expand...


That would be the technical "guilty" plea that allows the state to avoid paying compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and avoid reopening the criminal inquiry, while still allowing the defendants to state clearly and categorically that they are factually innocent?

That doesn't convince me of anything except that the prosecution were pretty certain the appeals would succeed and were trying a bit of damage limitation.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
That would be the technical "guilty" plea that allows the state to avoid paying compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and avoid reopening the criminal inquiry, while still allowing the defendants to state clearly and categorically that they are factually innocent?

That doesn't convince me of anything except that the prosecution were pretty certain the appeals would succeed and were trying a bit of damage limitation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I get that you feel that way; but if we were to toss out the convictions of everyone pleading guilty whose supporters 'just know' isn't really guilty, I suspect very few people would remain in prison.

I can't imagine that anyone, 'truly' guilty or not, would hesitate to take advantage of a deal that releases them from prison in exchange for 'technically' pleading guilty while publicly declaring innocence. It means nothing.
 
Rolfe said:
That would be the technical "guilty" plea that allows the state to avoid paying compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and avoid reopening the criminal inquiry, while still allowing the defendants to state clearly and categorically that they are factually innocent?

That doesn't convince me of anything except that the prosecution were pretty certain the appeals would succeed and were trying a bit of damage limitation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Bingo. A guilty plea followed by a long prison sentence would convince me. Exchanging technical guilty pleas - with the included caveat that the defendants maintain their innocence! - for release from prison and death row? No, that stinks of prosecutors hoping to end discussion of a case that has been an embarrassment.

If the case was truly solid, there would be no deal and the prosecution would have simply gone through with the December hearing and on from there.
 
jharyn said:
Hey people check it out:

http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-jessie-misskelley-interview,0,4710966.story

The above is a link to Jesse recanting his confession about a week ago. I may end up having to eat my words on that one. I don't have enough time to look in to this (at work) but will check it out as soon as I can.

First useful anything from the defense or one of the convicted in 17 years. The plot may have actually thickened. Let me know if anyone finds out any additional info on this. I will do the same as soon as I can.
Click to expand...


Just sayin'....

Rolfe.
 
What I can't seem to find is "what" actually caused the release. 48 hours ago a guy was on death row, today he is a out. I am more then curious as to what was discussed behind closed doors in the first hearing today at 10:am. They plead guilty "Allford plea" and then were released. I was under the impression that only proof of absolute innocence or a constitutional error at trial could allow that. Does anyone have a link to anything from today other then opinions from the press?
 
Rolfe: I have not found any official statement from Jesse where he recanted his confession. Only hearsay from very unreliable sources.
 
From what I have seen about the case, which admittedly is from a couple of documentaries and the wiki entry, I don't think the prosecution could have held up a guilty verdict if there was a mistrial. The evidence presented was limited to a confession by a scared dim kid, some Metallica lyrics, a knife that couldn't possibly have been used in the murders and several coerced 'heard it through the grapevine' testimonies from minors who were also in trouble with the local cops and may have been angling for a deal.

Every bit of evidence boiled down to 'Well... Jest look at em!'. If I am correct, confessions are not even strong enough evidence on their own for capital crimes.

18 years... That's time.
 
jharyn said:
What I can't seem to find is "what" actually caused the release. 48 hours ago a guy was on death row, today he is a out. I am more then curious as to what was discussed behind closed doors in the first hearing today at 10:am. They plead guilty "Allford plea" and then were released. I was under the impression that only proof of absolute innocence or a constitutional error at trial could allow that. Does anyone have a link to anything from today other then opinions from the press?
Click to expand...


Jharyn, it doesn't take much effort to work it out. The prosecution knew they couldn't make the convictions stick in the appeal hearings because the evidence simply wasn't there and never had been there.

You were told a million times in that other thread that "proof of absolute innocence" was not required under any circumstances, but you simply stuck your fingers in your ears and hummed real loud.

They were going to win the appeals, because the evidence against them didn't stack up and never did stack up. The prosecutors were facing serious embarrassment, and possibly successful claims for wrongful imprisonment, and probably having to re-open three extremely cold unsolved murder cases.

Rather than go through with all that, they offered these men, who had been in prison for 18 years with one of them on death row, a deal that looked sweet. Immediate freedom, no need to stay in jail another year, and no need to risk the appeal going wrong (which is always an uncertainty no matter how confident you feel), in exchange for this "Alford plea" thing.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Apart from why anything like an "Alford plea" actually exists....

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom