Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

[Rolfe]

What exactly is "Lord Denning's principle"? I googled it, but all I found was how "principle" is (or is not) applicable here and there, not the definition of what it means.

From Wikipedia.

In 1980, during an appeal by the Birmingham Six (who were later acquitted) Lord Denning judged that the men should be stopped from challenging legal decisions. He listed several reasons for not allowing their appeal:

Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."
​

Rolfe.

 

[Checkmite]

A pardon does not vacate the previous court's decision, it merely nullifies the previous court's sentence.

Checkmite, can I ask how familiar you actually are with the WM3 case?

I only know what I know about it from the links posted in this thread.

 

[Checkmite]

Checkmite - I'm just curious. If you are convinced that all the 'guilty flying about' implies that these three men are indeed guilty - then are you bothered by the miscarriage of justice?

By miscarriage of justice, are you referring to them being released from prison when they're (hypothetically) guilty? If so, then yes, it bothers me a bit.

The manner of the settlement of this case is troublesome. If their guilty plea was true - well then they're guilty. If it was false, then they're lying to keep themselves out of jail, which (to me) impacts their credibility when they then claim to be innocent. Does that sound logical?

 

[Matthew Best]

If it was false, then they're lying to keep themselves out of jail, which (to me) impacts their credibility when they then claim to be innocent. Does that sound logical?

Normally it would, but that's what makes an Alford plea different from a normal guilty plea. They're not pleading guilty, but admitting that the prosecution has evidence against them that might lead to them being found guilty - it's not quite the same thing.

 

[Checkmite]

Normally it would, but that's what makes an Alford plea different from a normal guilty plea. They're not pleading guilty, but admitting that the prosecution has evidence against them that might lead to them being found guilty - it's not quite the same thing.

From the description earlier in the thread, I was under the impression it was an "I'm saying guilty even though I don't really mean it" thing. What you're describing sounds more like a common "no contest" plea. Or are these the same thing all along?

I'm going to have to look these up.

ETA: Wikipedia almost supports your description but says it is factually a guilty plea. In any case, certainly if they've made this plea, then they're acknowledging there's enough evidence to support a guilty verdict. Yet you all are saying that isn't true. It's a lie either way, and thus still impacts credibility.

 

[Babbylonian]

The manner of the settlement of this case is troublesome. If their guilty plea was true - well then they're guilty. If it was false, then they're lying to keep themselves out of jail, which (to me) impacts their credibility when they then claim to be innocent. Does that sound logical? [emphasis added]

Come on. The difference between going to jail and getting out of jail after half one's life in prison ought to be acknowledged, if not emphasized. You've also managed to leave out the fact that one of these three people was on death row.

There's no end to the number of lies I'd tell to save someone else's life, especially lies that can only hurt me.

 

[Rasmus]

By miscarriage of justice, are you referring to them being released from prison when they're (hypothetically) guilty? If so, then yes, it bothers me a bit.

The manner of the settlement of this case is troublesome. If their guilty plea was true - well then they're guilty. If it was false, then they're lying to keep themselves out of jail, which (to me) impacts their credibility when they then claim to be innocent. Does that sound logical?

No.

Neither does it seem to correspond with the facts as I understood them:

AFAIK they did not as such plead guilty.
Let us assume, for a moment, that they have:

If they are guilty people should be outraged that they're let go for no apparent reason.

If they are not guilty, however, I don't think you can reasonably hold it against them and judge their credibility on the situation.

It's a Catch 22, isn't it? They have no option to be free and innocent and credible right now. You would only trust them if they risked many more years in jail and in one case their very lifes, too.

Yes, I agree that they would take the bargain either way, being guilty or innocent. But that doesn't address the reason why the bargain ins being offered in the first place, does it?

If we trusted pleas of innocence, then, yes, we would have to let a lot of people walk free. But then, we don't usually just trust these people, do we? So something here must be different, right?

 

[Rolfe]

This doesn't sem to be the way the Alford Plea is usually used. It seems normally to be used where someone doesn't want to risk the death penalty by pleading not guilty, if by entering a guilty plea the death penalty is automatically off the table. What they are saying is, I protest my innocence, but I enter a guilty plea and agree to accept the penalty, because if I pled not guilty then I would risk being sentenced to death. People entering Alford Pleas usually seem to end up with long jail sentences.

In this case, we have an Alford Plea immediately followed by the release of all the defendants. It seems pretty clear that the technical plea was used as a convenient get-out for the prosecution, in that the defendants were persuaded to make technical guilty pleas and abandon their case for a complete retrial, in return for immediate freedom and the lifting of the death penalty.

The defendants have decided they would prefer that to being stuck in jail for another year or two, with multiple further legal processes, and maybe a 95% chance of acquittal at the end of it. When people have been screwed over by the system already, saying you have a 95% chance of acquittal isn't necessarily very reassuring. Even so, one of them only agreed to the deal out of compassion for the one who was on death row - if it hadn't been for that, he'd have gone for the long route.

The prosecution have decided they haven't a ghost of a chance, and are running away from the prospect of having to pay compensation for keeping three innocent men in jail for half their lives, and from re-opening the inquiry into the murders of the children at this late stage.

How anyone can possibly spin this into "they're obviously guilty" is beyond me.

Rolfe.

 

[Rasmus]

Would they still have a chance to seek compensation now?
Granted, they might have to take the very long route now, but the situation just seems to be too obvious...

 

[Rolfe]

In any case, certainly if they've made this plea, then they're acknowledging there's enough evidence to support a guilty verdict. Yet you all are saying that isn't true. It's a lie either way, and thus still impacts credibility.

Normally speaking, and technically, that appears to be correct. However, this is obviously not a normal use of the Alford plea.

If there actually was enough evidence to support a guilty verdict, why on earth would the prosecution have agreed to this deal? There is literally nothing in it for the prosecution, if they actually had a tenable case. This "acknowledging there's enough evidence to support a guilty verdict" is pure legal fiction in this context.

If there was any realistic chance of these convictions being upheld on appeal or retrial, these men would still be in jail and still preparing their defence.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Would they still have a chance to seek compensation now?
Granted, they might have to take the very long route now, but the situation just seems to be too obvious...

I think one of the main reasons for this deal being offered is that they agree technically to accept guilt, so they cannot sue for compensation. They say they are going to continue to try to clear their names, but I don't realistically see how they could do that now to the level that would be required to claim compensation. Especially as it's obvious the authorities just don't want to know, as regards re-opening the cae to find out who really did it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I only know what I know about it from the links posted in this thread.

In that case, I don't think you should be so free with the assertions that they're obviously guilty. Evidence is quite important. As is absence of evidence of course.

If their guilty plea was true - well then they're guilty. If it was false, then they're lying to keep themselves out of jail, which (to me) impacts their credibility when they then claim to be innocent. Does that sound logical?

No, actually. It doesn't sound logical at all.

The guilty plea was just that. A plea of guilty was entered into the court. It didn't involve them saying "yes we did it." It involved quite the opposite. It involved them saying, "we agree that a plea of guilty should be entered into the court, but we assert in the strongest possible terms that we didn't do it."

How is that lying? And how does it impact on their credibility? Given that they did it in order to taste freedom for the first time in 18 years?

Rolfe.

 

[Antiquehunter]

By miscarriage of justice, are you referring to them being released from prison when they're (hypothetically) guilty? If so, then yes, it bothers me a bit.

Well - that was precisely my point. So fine, you see there has been a miscarriage of justice in that murderers have been set free. Thanks for clarifying.

The manner of the settlement of this case is troublesome. If their guilty plea was true - well then they're guilty. If it was false, then they're lying to keep themselves out of jail, which (to me) impacts their credibility when they then claim to be innocent. Does that sound logical?

They never made a guilty plea. One of the three made a highly suspicious confession - having a marginal IQ, under clearly coercive circumstances, without a complete recording of the interview, containing NO facts that actually link the 3 men to the crime. A confession that has been analyzed in great detail and essentially thrown out by both the defence & the prosecution. The other two have maintained their innocence throughout, and the original confessor has recanted & maintains innocence now.

The only guilty 'plea' is this weird 'Alford guilty' plea - coming after the fact, and is part of the arrangement that has led to the three's freedom.

So - to apply your logic under this connotation....

- They claimed they were not guilty, but were convicted by a jury. For 18 years a legal battle has ensued and their innocence has been protested by many.

- They have now entered a plea that states 'We're innocent, but the prosecution had enough evidence to convict us' (whatever that means).

Now they have gained their freedom, but have a bit of a millstone around their necks - which is unfortunate.

 

[Rasmus]

I think one of the main reasons for this deal being offered is that they agree technically to accept guilt, so they cannot sue for compensation. They say they are going to continue to try to clear their names, but I don't realistically see how they could do that now to the level that would be required to claim compensation. Especially as it's obvious the authorities just don't want to know, as regards re-opening the cae to find out who really did it.

Rolfe.

Yes - but then it seems to be a rather unique situation and I had been hoping the prosecution got that one wrong as well.

I think a case can be made that the guilty pleas in this case were not made entirely voluntarily, after all.

Yes, it would be more difficult, since they are now free and thus can no longer simply appeal the decision - but that alone wouldn't rule out any other possibilities.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

By miscarriage of justice, are you referring to them being released from prison when they're (hypothetically) guilty? If so, then yes, it bothers me a bit.

The manner of the settlement of this case is troublesome. If their guilty plea was true - well then they're guilty. If it was false, then they're lying to keep themselves out of jail, which (to me) impacts their credibility when they then claim to be innocent. Does that sound logical?

No, it does not. Your post simply completely discounts human nature. Your idea that if you lie ever, no matter what the context, than a person has no credibility for the rest of their lives, is just not realistic. I simply do not believe that there is any living person with the ability to talk who has never lied.

Are you honestly claiming you yourself have never lied? Because I don't believe it. And if I had to guess, I would guess you have lied for a lot less noble reasons than saving your or your friend's life.

You make it seem as if "lying to get out of jail and not die/not let your friend die" is some sort of especially bad reason to lie. I can think of few better reasons to lie than to save your life and especially save the life of someone else. As has already been stated, Baldwin initially refused the plea because it would be a lie, but could not live with knowing that if he did this, Echols could potentially still be executed.


As I have already stated, the action of these three men is completely understandable and reasonable even if they are innocent. However, the action of the prosecution (releasing three horrific child murderers in less than 20 years after life and death sentences has been obtained) makes no sense at all if they are guilty.

 

[Rasmus]

- They have now entered a plea that states 'We're innocent, but the prosecution had enough evidence to convict us' (whatever that means).

Personally, I would translate it as "The fact that we didn't do it didn't stop them from presenting evidence that was good enough to get us locked up for 18 years. So, yes, I do believe that I could be found guilty in a trial despite my being innocent








....












AGAIN!"

 

[Checkmite]

Normally speaking, and technically, that appears to be correct. However, this is obviously not a normal use of the Alford plea.

If there actually was enough evidence to support a guilty verdict, why on earth would the prosecution have agreed to this deal? There is literally nothing in it for the prosecution, if they actually had a tenable case. This "acknowledging there's enough evidence to support a guilty verdict" is pure legal fiction in this context.

If there was any realistic chance of these convictions being upheld on appeal or retrial, these men would still be in jail and still preparing their defence.

Rolfe.

Well Jesus Christ, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial?

 

[Matthew Best]

By accepting a plea that basically says "the prosecution has enough evidence to convict us", the prosecution has compromised its credibility because they've already said they don't think they have enough evidence. Does that make the prosecution liars?

 

[Matthew Best]

Well Jesus Christ, which is it? Did the prosecution offer the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, or did the defendants accept the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial?

As I understand it, the prosecution offered the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, and the defendants accepted the plea because they wanted to get out of prison now, rather than at some unspecified time in the future.

 

[Checkmite]

No, it does not. Your post simply completely discounts human nature. Your idea that if you lie ever, no matter what the context, than a person has no credibility for the rest of their lives, is just not realistic. I simply do not believe that there is any living person with the ability to talk who has never lied.

Are you honestly claiming you yourself have never lied? Because I don't believe it. And if I had to guess, I would guess you have lied for a lot less noble reasons than saving your or your friend's life.

Incorrect! I didn't press the mere fact of lying; I most certainly did consider context: they lied to stay out of jail. That is important context!

And of course I lied like a rug when I was a kid...in order to get out of trouble for something I did wrong.