The West Memphis Three Are Free!!!

Users who are viewing this thread

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.12z
Finally! Very good reason right here why the USA legal system isn't good enough to handle the death penalty.

West Memphis Three’ freed after 18 years

West-Memphis-Three.jpgDamien Echols, left, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., center, and Jason Baldwin at a news conference in Jonesboro, Ark., …

Three Arkansas men, who served 18 years in prison for the brutal murder of three boys, are going home.
"I'm just tired," Jesse Misskelley Jr. told reporters. "This has been going on for 18 years. It's been an absolute living hell."
The release of the "West Memphis Three" came after a complex and confusing plea deal, in which the men--Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Misskelley--pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the 18 years they've already served. They're allowed to maintain their innocence, while officially acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.
The deal suggests prosecutors doubted their ability to win a retrial. "No jury would convict them at a new trial," one of the men's defense lawyers said.
"It is not perfect by any means," said Echols, who was on death row. "We can still try to clear our names, the only difference is now we can do it from the outside."
The stepfather of one of the victims says he believes the men are innocent, and shouldn't have to plead guilty to go free.
In 1993, three 8-year-old boys from West Memphis, Ark.--Christopher Byers, Steven Branch and James Michael Moore--were found naked, beaten, and hogtied in a drainage ditch. The victims had been sexually abused, and one had been partially castrated.
Prosecutors argued the murders were part of a satanic ritual. Echols, 19 at the time, was cast as the ringleader, and given the death penalty. Baldwin and Misskelley, then 16 and 17 respectively, were given life in prison plus 40 years. A confession to police by Misskelley, who is mentally challenged, was retracted within days and not admitted at trial.
The men had almost no money to pay for a legal defense at the time, one of their lawyers said today.
But the men have always maintained their innocence. And a defense motion at today's hearing concerned DNA testing results that allegedly excluded all three men from the crime.
Defense lawyers have named another potential new suspect, Randy Hobbs, a stepfather of one of the victims. Hobbs's DNA matched a hair found on the shoelaces used to tie the boys together. He has denied involvement and has not been named as a suspect.
The West Memphis Three have become something of a cause celebre. In August, a rally in Little Rock, featuring Natalie Maines, Eddie Vedder and Johnny Depp, raised money for the defense effort. An HBO documentary, "Paradise Lost," also focuses on the case. It began as an effort to understand how three teenagers could have committed such grisly and senseless murders. When doubts about the men's involvement surfaced, its focus shifted.
Echols's lawyer, Donald Horgan, said the story of the West Memphis Three is all too common. "For every group of defendants like these that ultimately get some attention paid to them, there are 100 who are innocent, who have no legal or financial support," he said.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/west-memphis-three-freed-18-years-190729722.html
 
  • 67
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Natasha

La entrepierna de fuego
Valued Contributor
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
257
Tokenz
2,964.31z
I saw that. I personally thought they were guilty when I initially saw the story but I haven't kept up w/ it in recent years.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.12z
I saw that. I personally thought they were guilty when I initially saw the story but I haven't kept up w/ it in recent years.


Really??? The whole trial was pathetic and there was no physical evidence, just circumstantial. It was pretty much a witch trial. The prosecution was basically saying that because Damien Echolls listens to heavy metal, it means he's a satanist and must have killed the kids.
 

Natasha

La entrepierna de fuego
Valued Contributor
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
257
Tokenz
2,964.31z
Really??? The whole trial was pathetic and there was no physical evidence, just circumstantial. It was pretty much a witch trial. The prosecution was basically saying that because Damien Echolls listens to heavy metal, it means he's a satanist and must have killed the kids.
It's been a long time since I watched the story, but I thought there was more than that. I also tend to lean towards "if the cops found enough to charge them, they're probably guilty" so don't go by me, LOL
 

Dana

In Memoriam - RIP
Messages
42,904
Reaction score
10
Tokenz
0.69z
First time ever hearing about it. Everyone knows metal heads worship Satan and they should burn in eternal Hell fire!
 

Guyzerr

Banned
Messages
12,928
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
" pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the 18 years they've already served. They're allowed to maintain their innocence, while officially acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.
The deal suggests prosecutors doubted their ability to win a retrial. "No jury would convict them at a new trial," one of the men's defense lawyers said. "

I understand freedom means more than almost anything else in this world and because of that I understand why they took the deal. But..... I ask myself if I could confess to something I didn't do even after 18 years in the slammer like they did in order to get out . I would like to be able to say I couldn't but I'm not sure that would be the case.
 

Natasha

La entrepierna de fuego
Valued Contributor
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
257
Tokenz
2,964.31z
" pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the 18 years they've already served. They're allowed to maintain their innocence, while officially acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.
The deal suggests prosecutors doubted their ability to win a retrial. "No jury would convict them at a new trial," one of the men's defense lawyers said. "

I understand freedom means more than almost anything else in this world and because of that I understand why they took the deal. But..... I ask myself if I could confess to something I didn't do even after 18 years in the slammer like they did in order to get out . I would like to be able to say I couldn't but I'm not sure that would be the case.

Technically, though, they're maintaining their innocence. One of them was quoted as saying, though, that there was no justice b/c whoever REALLY is responsible is still out there.
 

Maulds

Accidental Bastard
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
Technically, though, they're maintaining their innocence. One of them was quoted as saying, though, that there was no justice b/c whoever REALLY is responsible is still out there.

Completely true. Just fucked up all the way around.
 

Guyzerr

Banned
Messages
12,928
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Technically, though, they're maintaining their innocence. One of them was quoted as saying, though, that there was no justice b/c whoever REALLY is responsible is still out there.


This is the one thing that would stop me.....

" while officially acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them. "

I understand that to mean they are forced to say it as part of the plea arrangement. If that's the case I have less respect for the " persecutors " now than I did while they were locked up.
 

Natasha

La entrepierna de fuego
Valued Contributor
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
257
Tokenz
2,964.31z
This is the one thing that would stop me.....

" while officially acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them. "

I understand that to mean they are forced to say it as part of the plea arrangement. If that's the case I have less respect for the " persecutors " now than I did while they were locked up.
But the prosecutors DID have enough evidence to convict them...and they did 18 years ago. Just my 2 cents.
 

Guyzerr

Banned
Messages
12,928
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
But the prosecutors DID have enough evidence to convict them...and they did 18 years ago. Just my 2 cents.

1) 3 teens without enough money between them to muster a decent defense team

2) Jury trial

2) Southern USA ( always hungry for a conviction at any cost )



Taken from.... http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/20/arkansas.child.killings/index.html?hpt=ju_c1


" Critics of the case against the men argued that no direct evidence tied the three to the murders and that a knife recovered from a lake near the home of one of the men could not have caused the boys' wounds. More recent DNA testing also demonstrated no links, according to the men's supporters. "
 

cam elle toe

Banned BY User's Request
Messages
17,794
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Guessing they officially have to "acknowledge" that so they cant bring any wrongful imprisonment lawsuits against the state down the track?

Can you imagine the shitload of money the 3 of them could get if they did the "American thing" and sued?

but perhaps Im cynical:cool
 

retro

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,886
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
But the prosecutors DID have enough evidence to convict them...and they did 18 years ago. Just my 2 cents.

The evidence was sketchy at best... they were railroaded.

I'm glad they're free, it's just too bad that it came nearly two decades too late. Hell, the parents of one of the kids doesn't even think that these guys killed his son.
 

Natasha

La entrepierna de fuego
Valued Contributor
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
257
Tokenz
2,964.31z
Guessing they officially have to "acknowledge" that so they cant bring any wrongful imprisonment lawsuits against the state down the track?

Can you imagine the shitload of money the 3 of them could get if they did the "American thing" and sued?

but perhaps Im cynical:cool

Actually, that's a VERY good point.

Hell, the parents of one of the kids doesn't even think that these guys killed his son.

Yeah, I was just reading that earlier. I had COMPLETELY forgotten that in recent years they had DNA evidence that may indicate a parent (or was it a step-parent???) of one of the victims. Looking back NOW vs. the "facts" as presented in the documentary I watched years ago, I definitely would not be comfortable w/ the outcome of the jury trial.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.12z
It's been a long time since I watched the story, but I thought there was more than that. I also tend to lean towards "if the cops found enough to charge them, they're probably guilty" so don't go by me, LOL


You're honestly telling me you don't think there's EVER been a case of police corruption or a miscarriage of justice???
 

Natasha

La entrepierna de fuego
Valued Contributor
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
257
Tokenz
2,964.31z
You're honestly telling me you don't think there's EVER been a case of police corruption or a miscarriage of justice???
Absolutely not. That's why I said "I tend to lean" instead of "I always lean" or "the cops are ALWAYS right." Having said that, the way our justice system is I do believe that in a world where the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" if your lawyer can't find something at some point to create doubt in 1 juror's mind, yeah you're probably guilty. Do I think jurors are perfect and don't bring their personal opinions into it??? Absolutely not!!!

Look, my uncle was shot in the back and the guy that killed him WALKED when they ruled it self-defense. If a lawyer can get that past a jury, there shouldn't be any limit to what else can fly. LOL
 
80,555Threads
2,194,876Messages
5,015Members
Back
Top