Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

[BStrong]

I've been around a bit, and that whole case sounded to me like somebody wanted the evidence to fit their preconceived conclusion - the debil did it!

If somebody wants to quote bible nonsense as support for a 20th century criminal prosecution, they're in deep **** from the get-go.

 

[Lerxst]

I've been around a bit, and that whole case sounded to me like somebody wanted the evidence to fit their preconceived conclusion - the debil did it!

If somebody wants to quote bible nonsense as support for a 20th century criminal prosecution, they're in deep **** from the get-go.

It worked for the prosecution in this case as the jury bought it hook line and sinker.

 

[BStrong]

It worked for the prosecution in this case as the jury bought it hook line and sinker.

Satanic Panic - even a former F.B.I. SA went off his rocker and bought into it - Ted Gunderson made a whole retirement career out of it, moving into various CT nonsense when the SP meme lost steam.

 

[lane99]

Damien Echols is the kind of person who might have committed these child murders and I wouldn't have put it past him. But the evidence presented in court probably shouldn't have been enough to convict. So he's out.

While he apparently hasn't reoffended as quickly as other supposedly innocent "model prisoners" such as William Macumber have, it won't be a surprise if he does.
.
.

 

[John Jones]

It worked for the prosecution in this case as the jury bought it hook line and sinker.

Which jury was most certainly involved in jury misconduct. This certainty is what caused the Arkansas legal system to cave-in and accept the Alford Pleas.

The jury debated the coached, coerced confession of the guy with an IQ of 74, which had already been ruled inadmissible.

Months before the trial, someone at the West Memphis PD leaked the coerced confession to a reporter at the Commercial Appeal in Memphis, so everybody in the mid-south who could read saw it.

There was also improper communication between Judge David Burnett and this jury.

While driving home today, I tried to recollect the most flagrant miscarriages of justice in this case, but there were too many to pick just one.

 

[John Jones]

Damien Echols is the kind of person who might have committed these child murders and I wouldn't have put it past him. But the evidence presented in court probably shouldn't have been enough to convict. So he's out.

While he apparently hasn't reoffended as quickly as other supposedly innocent "model prisoners" such as William Macumber have, it won't be a surprise if he does.
.
.

Echols was a real smart-ass, and didn't do himself any favors with his conduct. He later said that be believed it would be impossible to convict him of these murders because he didn't do it, so he acted like it was all a big joke.

He didn't come across as a sympathetic defendent, but there was not enough evidence to send him to prison, much less death row.

 

[Lerxst]

Echols was a real smart-ass, and didn't do himself any favors with his conduct. He later said that be believed it would be impossible to convict him of these murders because he didn't do it, so he acted like it was all a big joke.

He didn't come across as a sympathetic defendent, but there was not enough evidence to send him to prison, much less death row.

Then there's Jason Baldwin, who because they were tried together and he was Damien's friend was given life in prison. All they had on Baldwin was a jailhouse snitch, who I don't believe for a second.

And yeah I'm aware of all the other stuff...the most glaring problem is the confession itself right there on the Echols/Baldwin trial notes by the jury foreman. They were told it was not admissible but clearly discussed it during deliberations.

Ultimately though I think it was the persistence of the defense and the mtDNA of Hobbs and Jacoby that got them released. Not that I think Hobbs or Jacoby did it, but it was never investigated and should cast reasonable doubt, which is all that is needed.

 

[Rolfe]

Damien Echols is the kind of person who might have committed these child murders and I wouldn't have put it past him. But the evidence presented in court probably shouldn't have been enough to convict. So he's out.

Exactly so. The planet is crawling with "the kind of person who might have committed these child murders". They didn't all do it. It requires some specific evidence of the involvement of this particular person in this crime. That is what seems to be lacking.

While he apparently hasn't reoffended as quickly as other supposedly innocent "model prisoners" such as William Macumber have, it won't be a surprise if he does.

Wrong. You seem to have leaped from declaring that Echols was the sort of person who might have done it, to assuming he did do it. Releasing someone because the evidence against them doesn't stack up isn't a technicality you know.

I also question your original assumption. I assume you don't know the man. I don't either. I hear he was a sulky rebellious teenager with a penchant for black t-shirts, heavy metal music and Stephen King novels. I hear he had some mental health issues.

None of these things make him "the sort of person" who might murder three children. Did he have any history of violence to children, or to pets? Any record of fantasising about it? That might be the sort of background you're looking for, but so far as I know, nothing of that sort was ever presented.

On the basis of Echols being a bit of a disturbed teen, you seem prepared to assume he was indeed guilty of these three murders, despite having agreed the evidence against him didn't stack up.

I'm not impressed by your reasoning I have to say.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I was just wondering, since the subject has been raised again, if anyone has heard how the three men are getting on? It's getting on for three years since they were released, and it must be a difficult adjustment for them. I'd like to think they were getting some support and maybe even had found some way to make money from this disaster.

Rolfe.

 

[Monza]

I was just wondering, since the subject has been raised again, if anyone has heard how the three men are getting on? It's getting on for three years since they were released, and it must be a difficult adjustment for them. I'd like to think they were getting some support and maybe even had found some way to make money from this disaster.

Rolfe.

I think Damien Echols wrote a book about his experience. I remember seeing it in the bookstore shortly after I saw the third installment of the documentary. I haven't read it, but I believe he married a woman who wrote to him while in prison?

 

[Ladewig]

and it looks like only about 400 people have made it through the entire thing in the last 4 months.

I thought YouTube view counts were based on the number of starts and not the number of finishes.

I hereby call into question the sanity of each and every one of those people.

Well, commenter SuperWilliam2424 seems to have a bit of trouble perceiving reality:

I wonder in order to stay on top in the box office in Holy Would if someone has to keep doing more and more Satanic Sacrifices in Holy Would to stay in that position? Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt,Tom Hanks, Madonna? etc. Did Mickey Rourke and Bruce Jenner's contract expire and now the payment is Due?​

 

[Tony]

I was just wondering, since the subject has been raised again, if anyone has heard how the three men are getting on? It's getting on for three years since they were released, and it must be a difficult adjustment for them. I'd like to think they were getting some support and maybe even had found some way to make money from this disaster.

Rolfe.

This was written yesterday.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/on...n-west-memphis-three-case/Content?oid=3364262

 

[John Jones]

I was just wondering, since the subject has been raised again, if anyone has heard how the three men are getting on? It's getting on for three years since they were released, and it must be a difficult adjustment for them. I'd like to think they were getting some support and maybe even had found some way to make money from this disaster.

Rolfe.

Damien echols married the woman who led the charge to get him released. He wrote a couple of books and is living somewhere up in the NE USA.

Jason Baldwin married a woman who he corresonded with while in prison I think he lives in the Pacific NW. ISTR he was studying to be a legal aide.

Jesse Miskelly still lives in Arkansas, and is studying auto mechanics.

ETA: Gary Gitchel, the lead detective in the West Memphis PD at the time of the murders, retired and took a job as head of security of the Shelby County School system. That was across the river in Tennessee where my daughters went to school. I told them to stay away from him and off his radar until they graduated 5 months later.

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks, that's an interesting update.

This was written yesterday.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/on...n-west-memphis-three-case/Content?oid=3364262

Interesting article. He writes clearly and well.

I'm intrigued by the call to open the forensic files. I wonder if this is something we'll see more of in the internet age? You can deride "armchair detectives" all you like, but the possibility of sharing the primary data with anyone who is interested has potential.

I can see why investigators wouldn't want to - who would want their conclusions to be constantly second-guessed by a bunch of amateurs? But among these amateurs will be some experts, and some insights. Look at what's going on with the Knox/Sollecito case, where people who know what they're talking about are examining the raw data from PCR tests on the evidence. Look at what happened in the Lockerbie case, where looking at what was in the public domain led me to request sight of more statements and photographs, which culminated in a book and a report of mine being currently in front of the SCCRC as part of a formal application for a new appeal.

If a similar group of interested "amateur experts" could examine the raw data in this case, I wonder if something equally game-changing would emerge?

Rolfe.

 

[stilicho]

....

Wrong. You seem to have leaped from declaring that Echols was the sort of person who might have done it, to assuming he did do it. Releasing someone because the evidence against them doesn't stack up isn't a technicality you know.

I also question your original assumption. I assume you don't know the man. I don't either. I hear he was a sulky rebellious teenager with a penchant for black t-shirts, heavy metal music and Stephen King novels. I hear he had some mental health issues.

None of these things make him "the sort of person" who might murder three children. Did he have any history of violence to children, or to pets? Any record of fantasising about it? That might be the sort of background you're looking for, but so far as I know, nothing of that sort was ever presented.

On the basis of Echols being a bit of a disturbed teen, you seem prepared to assume he was indeed guilty of these three murders, despite having agreed the evidence against him didn't stack up.

I'm not impressed by your reasoning I have to say.

Rolfe.

Echols wasn't "a bit of a disturbed teen" when he fabricated provably false claims in his books including allegations of sexual assault against an inmate since executed and claims of repeated stints in isolation when it's documented he was only so punished once for a total of sixteen days. An Alford plea doesn't mean what you think it means. It hardly exonerates Echols and his accomplices.

There seems to be a bit of a cottage industry going on in lionising frankly stupid criminals. It almost makes you want to "go get sushi and not pay."

 

[Matthew Best]

An Alford plea doesn't mean what you think it means.

To demonstrate that you'd have to let us know what it actually means and what Rolfe thinks it means. I won't hold my breath.

There seems to be a bit of a cottage industry going on in lionising frankly stupid criminals. It almost makes you want to "go get sushi and not pay."

Has this got anything to do with this thread? It seems not.

 

[Rolfe]

I do know what an Alford Plea is. The whole thing is discussed in detail in the earlier part of this thread, including the reason why this absolutely unique example of the Alford Plea does indeed carry the implication of innocence, or at the very least the prosecution's recognition of the fact that they didn't have a case that would stand up to a retrial.

Anyone who doesn't remember the discussion from 2011 can just go back and read the earlier pages right here.

Rolfe.

 

[Babbylonian]

I do know what an Alford Plea is. The whole thing is discussed in detail in the earlier part of this thread, including the reason why this absolutely unique example of the Alford Plea does indeed carry the implication of innocence, or at the very least the prosecution's recognition of the fact that they didn't have a case that would stand up to a retrial.

Anyone who doesn't remember the discussion from 2011 can just go back and read the earlier pages right here.

Rolfe.

Indeed. It's not hard to sum up though (I'm open to correction since I'm going by my recollection as opposed to thread review ):

1. Wrongly convicted man is on death row, 2 others are in prison.
2. Prosecution knows it's going to be forced to attempt [wrongful] conviction again.
3. Prosecution believes it can't win another [wrongful] conviction.
4. Prosecution offers to release if all 3 wrongly convicted men will enter the guilty "Alford Plea."
5. Wrongly convicted men choose to accept the offer rather than continue languishing in prison/on death row, risking another [wrongful] conviction.
6. Prosecution gets to claim victory.

 

[Rolfe]

The Alford Plea was devised for use in cases where defendants who were claiming innocence were being forced to plead guilty to avoid a death sentence. The deal being that if they chose to go to trial by pleading not guilty, they could/would be sentenced to death if convicted, whereas a guilty plea would put the death penalty off the table.

The idea being that the defendant allowed a guilty plea to be entered on their behalf and acknowledged that the prosecution had a solid case against them, but they were still allowed to assert their factual innocence.

I understand that more or less everyone who has entered an Alford Plea in the usual way has copped a very lengthy prison sentence. It's also something that happens at the start of a trial, not after the defendants have been in prison for 18 years. I believe this is the first and only case where an Alford Plea has been followed by the immediate release of the defendants.

It was a sordid stitch-up to get the prosecution out of having to prosecute the case again at a re-trial. They obviously had no confidence they could do that successfully and if they lost the authorities could be open to all sorts of misconduct charges and claims for compensation. So they dreamed this one up.

Take an Alford Plea and get out of jail NOW, or else stay in jail while your application for a review of the case goes ahead, and then if that's successful a complete new trial. By the same authorities who railroaded you 18 years ago. How lucky do you feel?

Jason Baldwin was absolutely prepared to sit it out, but reconsidered when he was told that Damian Echols who was on death row was living an unendurable existence and might even be executed. He gave up his chance to clear his name to allow Damian, who was absolutely desperate, to get out.

And that is one seriously screwed-up legal system by the way.

Rolfe.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm sure Stilicho will be along shortly to correct you.