Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

[ProBonoShill]

Probonoshil: I have repeatedly stated that I agree with the prosecutions case and the juries verdicts. I have repeatedly posted the link to all the documentation. The burden is on those who disagree with the verdict. The evidence I need to back up my opinion is in the court transcripts of which I have provided the link on too many occasions to bother posting again.

Thanks, your post just confirms my assertions.

 

[ProBonoShill]

That they pleaded guilty goes a long way in convincing me.

That they also claim to be innocent besides just makes them no different from most people who are guilty of what they went to jail for; it proves nothing.

Letting three convicted child murderers, one sentenced to death, walk out the door goes a long way in convincing me.

 

[Rolfe]

I think Matthew Best said it best!

All you people who think they're guilty are fools! I'll direct you to this website:

http://callahan.8k.com/

It's all in there, people! If you can't be bothered to read the entire case file there's no point in discussing it with you, but the website proves their innocence!

Don't ask me for a particular bit of it, you have to read the whole thing.

The amusing part is, he's almost certainly closer to the mark than jharyn in his tongue-in-cheek assessment of the contents of that web site.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Letting three convicted child murderers, one sentenced to death, walk out the door goes a long way in convincing me.

Yeah, you know they do that all the time, after someone has been on death row for 18 years and still protests their innocence, it's just normal procedure to release them with time served....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The lack of DNA was caused by the bodies being submerged in water for at least 18 hours.

You still don't get it, do you? There was DNA. Just not the DNA of the people the cops arrested....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Trying to hold on to a discredited conviction to save face is such a pernicious concept I wonder why this strange "Alford plea" is even allowed. We know that if the original defendant is accepted as innocent it is often still possible to re-open the case and find the real culprit. For example the Damilola Taylor murder, and in the case of the Lesley Moleseed murder the real murderer was convicted OVER THIRTY YEARS after the murder took place, with an innocent man having spent about 18 years in jail.

But of course it takes time and effort and resources to open these cases, and some people just don't want to do that. It's not just about saving face, it's about saving work. And in these cases the real murderers are laughing and the memory of the victims is defiled.

That was why I mentioned the Megrahi case, which has been in the news today. There is no "Alford plea" in this country, and I very much doubt it would have been invoked in that case even if it had existed. However, the situation was very similar to the West Memphis Three. An appeal was coming to court, and in spite of the prosecution's bluster that it stood ready and willing to fight the appeal, it as blindingly obvious that a verdict which was always perverse and political was going to be overturned.

In this case the authorities struck it lucky. The defendant developed cancer, making him eligible for compassionate release. They delayed the appeal and delayed it again, until it was scheduled to continue well beyond the defendant's estimated survival time. Then they offered him the compassionate release deal, and made it fairly clear that the way to expedite that was to drop the appeal.

Now the politicians are able to state blandly that the dropping of the appeal is an admission of guilt (even though it was nothing of the sort), and the 270 murder victims will just have to do without justice. The real murderers must be laughing real hard about now.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-secret-report-set-megrahi-free.html

A devastating secret report that casts doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's guilt led to his early release from a Scottish jail, it was claimed last night.

Mass murderer Abdelbaset ... Al Megrahi was granted compassionate release to avoid the humiliation of a court overturning his conviction, according to critics.

These claims are today fuelled by leaked documents seen by the Scottish Daily Mail, which conclude 'no reasonable court' could have accepted some of the evidence that helped convict Megrahi. (...)

But by the use of a ruse, the appeal was terminated, so nobody has to look bad, and nobody has to bother going after the real culprits.

Nobody is going to go after the real murderer(s) of the children in this case either, because of this Alford thing. What's that all about anyway? Why is it even on the statute book?

Rolfe.

 

[Checkmite]

Most of the people executed for witchcraft pled guilty, too. Does that go a long way to convince you they really did sup with the devil, fly through the air, cast murrains on cattle, create storms at sea, and transform into animals? They admitted doing so, after all. Convincing?

Don't be silly; it isn't remotely analogous. There are three kids who really were abused and murdered, you know. Somebody sure as hell did it. AFIAK, the prosecution never presented a theory of murder that posed the existence of supernatural beings or a suspension of the laws of physics.

 

[Rolfe]

I've been reading up on this Alford plea thing, and I realise this is an extraordinarily bizarre example of it. It seems normally to be used by defendants who wish to plead guilty in order to take advantage of reduced penalties imposed on those who enter a guilty plea, but to reserve their position that they are factually innocent.

That's a bit angels-dancing-on-pinheads, but it does make a weird sort of sense. This instance is nothing like that. The prosecutor's statement makes it perfectly clear that the prosecution no longer believes in the guilt of the accused. Indeed, it explicitly contradicts part of the usual Alford stipulation (that the defendant accepts the prosecution have a good case) by saying they don't reckon they had a hope in hell of getting a guilty verdict in a retrial.

It's a pity it all seems so unresolved, but I can well understand Echols' comment that he would have agreed to just about anything not to have to remain on death row for one more night.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Don't be silly; it isn't remotely analogous. There are three kids who really were abused and murdered, you know. Somebody sure as hell did it. AFIAK, the prosecution never presented a theory of murder that posed the existence of supernatural beings or a suspension of the laws of physics.

You totally don't get it, do you? The fact that many people have admitted to crimes we know were absolutely impossible shows clearly that false confessions do happen. And indeed we hardly need the witchcraft confessions to tell us that. Stefan Kiszko confessed too, and he was innocent. There are many examples.

Of course somebody murdered these children. However, there is no evidence any of these somebodies was the West Memphis Three. The prosecution now acknowledge that.

There is evidence pointing to others, of course. However, this tricksy little plea bargain gets the authorities off the hook for having to follow any of that up.

Or if you know of any evidence actually linking any of the boys to the crime, you could tell us about it I suppose. Apart from the collection of black t-shirts....

Rolfe.

 

[Checkmite]

How do you interpret the fact that the prosecution was happy to go with the Alford plea? You think they offer that to everyone who claims to be innocent? Or might it possibly suggest there's a little more to this?

I have no idea; I was never even aware there was such a thing as an "Alford" plea. And I'm certainly not going to make up a motivation on the prosecution's part because I have no basis.

But if I were in a similar situation to the defendants, and the prosecution seemed so 'afraid' that they would want to try this tack, I would refuse to play along and proceed with the new trial. I could never 'pretend to be guilty for the sake of the paperwork' and then walk around with my head held high claiming to be 'really innocent'.

IMO, the biggest joke about this whole business, even aside from the lack of integrity that this "Alford plea" suggests about anyone who makes it, is their claim that they would 'continue to try to clear their names'. Good luck, now that they just signed the entire case into an archive.

 

[lionking]

IMO, the biggest joke about this whole business, even aside from the lack of integrity that this "Alford plea" suggests about anyone who makes it, is their claim that they would 'continue to try to clear their names'. Good luck, now that they just signed the entire case into an archive.

Sure, but sometimes it's more important to win in the court of public opinion.

 

[Babbylonian]

But if I were in a similar situation to the defendants, and the prosecution seemed so 'afraid' that they would want to try this tack, I would refuse to play along and proceed with the new trial. I could never 'pretend to be guilty for the sake of the paperwork' and then walk around with my head held high claiming to be 'really innocent'.

That's a noble stance to take, but I'd suggest holding off on being too sure about it until you've spent half your life in prison/on death row.

Also, they neither pretended to be guilty nor entered the pleas for the sake of the paperwork. They've said they're innocent and they entered the pleas to get out of prison, something I'm sure any number of innocent convicts have done in order to satisfy parole boards.

Maybe they're not as honorable as you would be in the same situation, though I'd suggest that it's hard to develop a strong ethical code when, again, you've spent half your life in prison.

 

[Rolfe]

But if I were in a similar situation to the defendants, and the prosecution seemed so 'afraid' that they would want to try this tack, I would refuse to play along and proceed with the new trial.

We all might feel we'd do that, and reading the detailed articles about the case it's clear that the defendants were very conflicted about taking the deal. However, one of them was on death row. Maybe if you were ever in that position, your high ideological position would slip a bit.

Rolfe.

 

[Checkmite]

That's a noble stance to take, but I'd suggest holding off on being too sure about it until you've spent half your life in prison/on death row.

I get what you're saying - I know it's easy for me, having never been in that position, to say right now "this is what I would do". Nevertheless, I submit that it's the best I've got at the moment - and sadly, it is now impossible for me to spend half my life in prison to verify it.

 

[Checkmite]

Maybe if you were ever in that position, your high ideological position would slip a bit.

Maybe, maybe not.

Considering that a new trial in which he was found not guilty wouldve gotten him out of "death row" in a fashion that wouldn't have left him still needing to clear his name.

 

[Babbylonian]

Maybe, maybe not.

Considering that a new trial in which he was found not guilty wouldve gotten him out of "death row" in a fashion that wouldn't have left him still needing to clear his name.

First, you're assuming that fewer people would think he was guilty if he was acquitted at a new trial; I don't think that's a valid assumption. The people intent on believing in their guilt will continue to do so, claiming legal trickery or some such.

Second, just how much trust should an innocent person have in a justice system that not only railroaded him to prison/death row in the first place but also left him to rot while evidence continued to mount that called into question the original conviction? Answering my own question, I'd estimate "zero."

 

[Rolfe]

They hadn't even got as far as being granted the new trial. The hearing to decide that wasn't until November.

They had to go through another three months even to get to that hearing. Then, if they were granted the retrial, they would have had to wait God only knows how long for that to come to court, and go through all the preparations and legal consultations and so on.

They've been screwed over by the system already, being convicted on the grounds of having too many black t-shirts and liking the wrong sort of books and music. Are you really saying they should have been supremely confident that couldn't happen again?

So they were offered an open door, today, or else two sets of hearings and we all know what can go wrong and how innocent people can still be convicted even when nobody believes it's likely. And Echols was on death row.

I find it very easy to see how they eventually came to the conclusion they should take the deal, even though there was a lot of heart-searching before the decision was made.

Rolfe.

 

[Bikewer]

Unfortunately, there is a long history of state actors being extremely reluctant to reverse convictions even though the case has been proved wrong in detail.
The "project innocence" folks have freed numbers of individuals who were wrongly convicted, and in many cases the the prosecutors fought tooth and nail to avoid this.

It may be a case that it's simply embarrassing to be proven wrong, or it may be a case that the jurisdiction fears lawsuits from the individual, or that it casts doubt on the policies and procedures of the police and the prosecutors.
At any rate, it seems to happen a lot. The usual sort of statement made is something to the effect, "well, yes, the DNA proves that Jones was not involved. Still, he was properly convicted with the evidence we had at the time, so he should serve out his sentence."
This sort of attitude is....Reprehensible.

 

[OMGturt1es]

But if I were in a similar situation to the defendants, and the prosecution seemed so 'afraid' that they would want to try this tack, I would refuse to play along and proceed with the new trial. I could never 'pretend to be guilty for the sake of the paperwork' and then walk around with my head held high claiming to be 'really innocent'.

Pretty easy to make that claim when you're not on death row, huh?

Moreover, it would be absolutely stupid to not take the plea. The system already failed. It failed for 18 years. 18 years of failure doesn't bolster confidence. It demonstrates the opposite. Relying on the system after 18 years of failure would be terribly stupid.

 

[OMGturt1es]

I'll redirect you all again: http://callahan.8k.com/ case documentation. Google the big words.

From the thread to which Rolfe linked:

As I explained in a previous post and here for the LAST TIME:

The confessions
The fiber evidence
The witness testimony placing them in the area
a lack of an alibi
Damiens mental health history
the knife found 30 feet behind Jasons home in the lake that matches the wound patterns
The witnesses who overheard Damien bragging about his involvement in the crime

1. The confessions are a joke. Misskelly was a slow boy who the prosecution bullied. They claimed he failed the polygraph (he didn't). They clearly asked leading questions. Most importantly, Misskelly's confession contradicts basic evidence multiple times.

2. The fiber evidence is a joke. Firstly, fiber evidence in general has been criticized by the National Academy of Science. In most cases, fibers can only be determined to be consist with general groups of fibers. Fibers consistent with one shirt are likely consistent with countless other fiber-bearing items. Secondly, the most "damning" fibers in this case came from a mother's bath robe.

3. As I recall, there were seven passengers in a car. Two testified for the prosecution. The other 5 could not identify the suspects.

4. Lack of alibi is insulting to introverted nerds. If it weren't for my wife, I would almost never have an alibi outside of work.

5. Most people who have mental health histories don't murder children.

6. My understanding is that not only was the knife not consistent with the wounds, but that forensic scientists have concluded that the wounds were likely caused by wildlife after the bodies were dumped-- yes, evidence suggests the crime scene was just the dump site. That all aside, how many knives would be consistent with authentic knife wounds?

7. Hearsay of a young teen trying to be a badass. Nice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't see reasonable doubt here, you don't belong in a forum centered around critical thinking.