• 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?

Checkmite said:
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?
Click to expand...


The former. The rest is just technicalities and legalese to keep the prosecution's buns out of the fire.

If the defendants had had little chance of winning a retrial, they'd still be in jail. It's that simple.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
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!
Click to expand...


What did they say that you consider a lie? What they actually said was, "we agree to certain technicalities being entered into the record, including a plea of guilty, but we in fact assert strongly that we are completely innocent."

Where is the lie?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
The former. The rest is just technicalities and legalese to keep the prosecution's buns out of the fire.

If the defendants had had little chance of winning a retrial, they'd still be in jail. It's that simple.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Then if they were innocent they should have pressed for the new trial and let the prosecution lose or abdicate.
 
Checkmite said:
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?
Click to expand...

The prosecution offered the plea because they had too little chance of winning a retrial, and the defendents accepted it because it was a sure get out of jail card rather than the assumption that they would in fact have their case thrown out at the new hearing. The kind of plea they were offered required them to say there is enough evidence to convict them, so they said it. There was no option 3: Get out of jail but say that there is no evidence against them.


To be honest, I'm having a little trouble understanding why you are having such a hard time understanding the logic behind this. It's really not that hard a concept to have to have had this explained to you the number of times it has been.

Checkmite said:
Then if they were innocent they should have pressed for the new trial and let the prosecution lose or abdicate.
Click to expand...

Why you would expect them to have any faith in the justice system is beyond me. Considering how much they have been screwed over, betting their lives on the assumption that they would not be screwed over after decades of being screwed over is not logical.

It is only your opinion that they should have done this. I feel that your advice is bad advice that I would not take if I were in their position. Maybe your advice is the more "noble path," but nobility is not something I can feel or touch or experience. Nobility doesn't get me my freedom or a warm bed or my family or fresh air or not under constant threat of prison beatings and rapes. Maybe you would be happy to risk being executed or see your friend executed in exchange for feeling noble, and I can understand that choice completely. But I would rather live.

Pretty much right now your single argument for why we should think they are guilty is that some random guy on the internet (you) says he wouldn't have acted the same way in their position. You have offered not one single piece of evidence for why you think they are guilty other than "I wouldn't do that in their shoes." Yeah, well I would, thus cancelling out your argument, because it shows that what you would do is not the only possible option for an innocent person.

Edit: the above is incorrect, as you also had listed as an argument that they have been convicted before. So you did have more than one single argument. It's just that neither of your arguments are actually evidence.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Then if they were innocent they should have pressed for the new trial and let the prosecution lose or abdicate.
Click to expand...

When you've spend 18 years on death row for murders you didn't commit and choose to spend ~1-2 years more waiting for a trail in a legal system that has already failed you instead of being set free immediately, I'll believe you really believe what you're saying. Until then, you're just someone being unreasonable on the internet.
 
Rolfe said:
What did they say that you consider a lie? What they actually said was, "we agree to certain technicalities being entered into the record, including a plea of guilty, but we in fact assert strongly that we are completely innocent."

Where is the lie?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I really wish you guys would stop rewording "what they said" by making the plea and settle on one statement already.

Response to the newest "version": if they willingly agreed to let the legal record of their guilt stand uncontested in the face of a prosecution whose case was so poor that they were practically handed a get-out-of-jail-free card, then I don't feel particularly compelled to act against their decision. If they don't think it's worth the effort, I'll respect that choice.
 
Checkmite said:
Then if they were innocent they should have pressed for the new trial and let the prosecution lose or abdicate.
Click to expand...


Easy for you to say, from a position that isn't sitting on death row, with the best years of your life already wasted. And you disregard the fact that they were proviously found guilty on evidence that shouldn't have been enough to support the issuing of a parking ticket. That doesn't necessarily instill perfect confidence that justice will inevitably be done, even now.

I honestly can't comprehend why you declare that these poor young men should have nobly stayed behind bars for an indeterminate period on a point of principle. You might have decided to do that yourself - would you still have held to that if your co-accused friend on death row was begging you to accept the deal? But how can you fail to understand why someone else would do it?

Even less can I understand why you feel the acceptance of the deal leads in any way to the inference that they are guilty. Quite the opposite. The offering of the deal leads inexorably to the inference that the prosecution has thrown in the towel.

Rolfe.
 
Tony said:
When you've spend 18 years on death row for murders you didn't commit and choose to spend ~1-2 years more waiting for a trail in a legal system that has already failed you instead of being set free immediately, I'll believe you really believe what you're saying. Until then, you're just someone being unreasonable on the internet.
Click to expand...

"If you want me to take your opinion seriously, you must first complete this rhetorical task that is factually impossible for you to willingly choose to complete." Yeah, I've heard that one before; it's called the "Mormon Challenge". What's that about unreasonable?
 
One more point: I see how getting out of jail would be a good incentive to lie - but they didn't lie regardless of how their pleas were worded, did they?

They made a deal! Everybody involved knows who is thinking what and why they say the things they say. In those circumstances, there mere uttering of a technical untruth is not, as such, a lie.

There is a difference between lying and telling you that I am about to say something that is not so and then proceeding to say the thing that's not so. (Much less if I am offered something in return by the side i am saying these things to!)
 
Checkmite said:
"If you want me to take your opinion seriously, you must first complete this rhetorical task that is factually impossible for you to willingly choose to complete." Yeah, I've heard that one before; it's called the "Mormon Challenge". What's that about unreasonable?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the Mormon Challenge is, but being thrown in jail for murders you didn't commit is not factually impossible.
 
Checkmite said:
No; but "...let them live with the consequences they chose to face" sounds good to me.
Click to expand...

What consequences? What are you talking about? Is it not your contention that these guys are truly guilty of committing these murders and that they merely lied only to get out of jail and away with their crime??
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Easy for you to say, from a position that isn't sitting on death row, with the best years of your life already wasted.
Click to expand...

Again, I already conceded that...and you know I did. So why are you still kicking around this rhetorical distraction? You didn't have to "spend 18 years on death row with the best years of your life wasted" in order to come to what you believe is the correct viewpoint on this situation, so obviously it's not necessary.

Rolfe said:
And you disregard the fact that they were proviously found guilty on evidence that shouldn't have been enough to support the issuing of a parking ticket. That doesn't necessarily instill perfect confidence that justice will inevitably be done, even now.
Click to expand...

Says you, based on websites that only present the prosecution's case from the defense's point of view. It would have been preferable to have seen a retrial, where both sides could make their case the best way they could and let a jury decide. Of course that's not going to happen now; the defendants made the choice to capitulate and gave up the possibility.

Rolfe said:
I honestly can't comprehend why you declare that these poor young men should have nobly stayed behind bars for an indeterminate period on a point of principle. You might have decided to do that yourself - would you still have held to that if your co-accused friend on death row was begging you to accept the deal? But how can you fail to understand why someone else would do it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would have. I would've objected effervescently to the state putting the responsibility on me for saving the life of someone they put on death row, and through my lawyer I would've made sure the world knew precisely why I was telling the prosecution where to stick their Faustian BS.

Rolfe said:
Even less can I understand why you feel the acceptance of the deal leads in any way to the inference that they are guilty. Quite the opposite. The offering of the deal leads inexorably to the inference that the prosecution has thrown in the towel.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

If I'm playing chess and I see mate in two, and the guy I'm playing suddenly offers a draw, I don't take it.
 
Checkmite said:
It would have been preferable to have seen a retrial, where both sides could make their case the best way they could and let a jury decide. Of course that's not going to happen now; the defendants made the choice to capitulate and gave up the possibility.
Click to expand...

So did the prosecution. Why do you think that is?
 
Checkmite said:
It's impossible for me to willingly choose to do.
Click to expand...

It actually is. Surf the news for unsolved murders, then confess to one. But this misses the point. Unless we have been in that situation, there is no way any of us can know what we would do face with those circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom