After serving 17 years behind bars for the brutal murder of three children in eastern Arkansas, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin — dubbed the “West Memphis Three” — have been released from prison. “They will be free men … on suspended sentence,” prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington told reporters during a Friday press conference.
“Only time will tell as to whether this was the right decision.” All three men had been imprisoned since 1994, when they were convicted of killing three 8-year-old boys: Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers. Prosecutors alleged the trio killed the children in Robin Hood Hills on the morning of May 6, 1993, as part of a satanic ritual. According to police, the boys’ bodies were mutilated and left in a ditch. Each had been hogtied with his own shoelaces.
At the time of their arrests, Baldwin was 16. Misskelley was 17, and Echols was 18. Echols was sentenced to death, Misskelley was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 40 years, and Baldwin was sentenced to life. DNA testing was not available at the time of the defendants’ trials. In 2007, it was found that DNA collected at the crime scene did not match that belonging to any of the three men. In November 2010, the state Supreme Court ruled that all three could present new evidence in court. Experts believe both sides have entered into a complex legal agreement, in which the three men have entered into so-called Alford pleas.
“The plea means that you maintain your innocence but you believe there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will find you guilty so you are pleading guilty per State v. Alford,” Anne Bremner, a Seattle attorney and legal analyst, told The Huffington Post. “The effect of the corresponding finding of guilt by the court is the same as with a straight guilty plea.”
If you are familiar with this case, you might agree that this was long overdue.
I haven’t heard of this case before the last two days. ONe of the defendants is retarded and confessed to the crime after some hours of interrogation.
One of the weak spots in our criminal/process system: NO circumstantial or direct evidence involved these defendants in the crime “but” a confession did. All it took after that for a conviction “to clear the books” was lack of money/expertise in the defense legal team–I assume the were public defenders.
The notion of having to plead guilty in order to be set free is a whole nother ball of wax all about being able to sue the system after years of unjust conviction and incarceration.
You don’t have to cry for the injustice of it all: just be reminded that while these innocents languished away, the ACTUAL GUILTY PARTIES were free and encouraged to keep on going.
Justice–it really is a two way street. America: home of more jailed citizens than any other country==outside of what’s that other shithole?
The plea means that you maintain your innocence but you believe there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will find you guilty so you are pleading guilty per State v. Alford,”
Hah! What a crock!
Virtually every criminal in prison today claims they are innocent.
And some of them can fool the jury – OJ Simpon, Casey Anthony are two cases that come to mind.
If interested you should see the HBO documentary on this. Paradise Lost: The Childhood Murders at Robin Hood Hills.
I read in a different article that the only reason this hasn’t happened sooner is because the judge who oversaw this was elected and the new judge, being appointed, didn’t have that albatross.
YMMV.
jbensons says Science is Stupid!
His imagination knows the minors were guilty!!!!
OJ Simpson–I’m a white person, so I may be biased, but even I don’t think that black jury thought OJ was innocent. They were just sticking it to the system. Not the right thing to do…..or maybe they knew OJ would get his ass in jail anyway? Such a sad case of a hero gone wrong. Jim Brown. Still a Hero.
Casey Anthony–I wouldn’t be surprised at all if her kiddie drowned innocently but her personal dynamics are so screwed up she made herself look guilty. Habitual LIARS are like that. Its why we think Congress is guilty of any charge we wish to make.
but the LEGAL STANDARD of conviction is EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There are a whole lot of convictions that don’t even pass the reasonable smell test.
Life in America. Due Process replaced with some process.
Ha, ha.
>> bobbo,
>> OJ Simpson–I’m a white person, so I may be biased, but even I don’t think that black jury thought OJ was innocent. They were just sticking it to the system.
I think they were obeying the instruction to the jury.
I’m a white person, too, and I would have voted for acquittal, even though my guess is that’s he’s guilty.
When the main detective is a perjurer, it creates reasonable doubt.
Can one of the lawyers around here explain this Alford thing? Sounds like pleading “no contest” and “The effect… is the same as with a straight guilty plea.” So, why does this let them get out of prison?
sign me
Confused
But who tortured and murdered the three children?
Greg Allen==really an excellent point. —-and sadly as is so often the case, you are simply just demostrably wrong. What did Mark Furman lie about? Calling a spade a bad word. What cop, white or black, hasn’t done that? And all cops try to guild the lily when in the court room. Doesn’t everyon know that? So==let’s assume Mark Furman is a lying coniving race baiting/hating KKK in a blue uniform with a badge: bloody socks all over the place, motive, propinquity, dna evidence, a MOUNTAIN of evidence, a defense team that could only make up simple rhymes.
My GOD Greg Allan===she was a hot Blond girl===obvious OJ did it. Obviously all cops are liars. You separate the hard evidence from the lying testimony and what do you have?
OJ did it. You are about as smart as a dumb nigger on a jury with a black man as a defendant. Ha, ha. I amuse myself at your injury. Sorry—but it is funny and just that objectively true. You should rethink your orientation to reality, but what would THAT mean?
BBBWWWHAAAAhahahahahah===I did just merrily crack myself up.
Greg Allen–I love you like the retarded baby I never had as a father. Love you Man. You are a good person, and just that simple minded.
Animby–I’m not a lawyer, but just reading the words, doesn’t a no contest mean that the conviction cannot be used against you in subsequent proceedings. I’m not interested enough to look it up. There is too much donkey shit on the ass the law rides.
You only hurt yourself.
#2, benson
And some of them can fool the jury – OJ Simpon, Casey Anthony are two cases that come to mind.
Simpson had enough evidence problems the jury had a duty to find him not guilty. For example, there was a large quantity of Simpson’s blood sample missing. At the same time there was a sock with blood on both sides, BUT no blood on the carpet where it was photographed. Blood would not have soaked through the ankle. Those inconsistencies could not be explained and appears as police fudging the evidence. If this evidence was fabricated, what other evidence was too?
In the Anthony case the prosecution had no evidence. Apparently someone else not only found the skeleton, but picked up the head with a stick. The coroner claimed there was masking tape adhered to the skull. The person fining the skeleton said there wasn’t any.
Then the Anthony prosecutor claimed the family computer had spent some time on computer searches. When they didn’t do was explain why the searches, done two months earlier, were relevant.
Sorry Benson, you lose. The juries in both cases were sequestered and thus not abused by the likes of Nancy Disgrace and the other talking heads.
I guess I’m ignorant. Since when is a guilty plea a ticket out of jail? I do not understand the logic of the Alford plea.
They are free men, but they plead guilty, does
that mean they will be tried again? Hmmmmm…..
#10 Bobbo – To the best of my limited knowledge, a plea of no contest means only that you do not admit guilt but choose not to contest the charges. The effect is a guilty plea with no admission of guilt. So, I suppose your plea could not be used against you in a future appeal. But – how could you appeal a nolo plea? Everything I’ve read says this a very seldom used legal trick. Maybe no one understands it.
The problem is that with any system of mass production, you end up getting something far less perfect from handcrafted perfection. So with the legal system, after authorities deal with thousands of cases of violence each year. They process cases like this one, just to get rid of it. And push out a “product” acceptable to the public. It’s not like anyone really cared if they got the right perps. Just make a strong enough case against whom ever they’ve got already. And hope no one notices the flaws.
DNA, like a lot of other evidence, works best to prove persons innocent. Often used badly, and stretched to its limits, it’s used to prove someone’s guilt. Fingerprints or DNA, on a murder weapon, doesn’t prove you used it. Only that you came in contact with it. Accidentally or otherwise. How many kids, running around, are gonna pick up a gun or a knife, they see lying on the ground? If a murder was just committed with it, they’re fingered for it by criminal science? It takes the authorities to find or manufacture a motive, to back the evidence. Like that “satanic ritual” crap. Conflicting DNA results, must really be pissing off a lot of lazy State prosecutors. The “Alford” guilt plea, is more about the State saving face. And money.
Does this mean they are not going to look for the real culprits? Because if they do then they are admitting that someone else did it. Where does their Alford plea stand then?
If they did it keep them in jail for christsake, they murdered 3 children! If not then let them free without all this legal bullshit and go get the real murder or murders. They are most likely still killing.
And people wonder why, despite my belief in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that I have to be opposed to the death penalty.
Note that if this were Texas or Florida, they would have fried already.
OJ Simpson? Being rather anti-football, and having the trial and its media coverage intrude on my life, I tried to avoid the story. But I got enough out of it to realize that the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented (or crucial but absent) in the courtroom and the rules they were sworn to follow.
Casey Anthony? Again, I never really followed the story. From what I can gather, the death might well have been an accident. The cover up was certainly worthy of criminal charges, but the prosecution didn’t go there.
Ron Goldman’s last words:
“Hey, you’re OJ Simpson!”
How would the jury know that Mark Furman committed perjury?
Animby–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
From these simply readings, I take it that a nolo plea avoids automatic civil penalties of some kinds while an Alford plea allows one to plead guilty without facing the death penalty.
Or something like that.
Lyin Mike: Lyin Furman first testified he never used the “N” word and then later there was “proof” of some kind that he did. Forget if it was a video interview from years ago or whatever. Hazy also but I think the then later in the trial admitted he had perjured himself on that point but not to anything else.
Gee–two posters above say there was some inconsistent evidence that negated the mountain of proof against OJ. I didn’t follow the case that closely. I do recall the saying that what was wrong with the OJ case is that the cops tried to frame a guilty man, but contra: the cops were all on OJ’s side. Looks like anyone can think what they want to and to be entirely serious if you haven’t carefully cosidered all—as in ALL- the relevant evidence then its only casual opinion like mine that you come up with.
I would caution however that Furman lying about saying the N word is hardly relevant to the other hard evidence claims and similarly some inconsistent piece of subsidiary evidence should not overcome a mountain of evidence on the other side. Its proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt==not proof to an absolute certainty without conflict at all.
Course, who could get anything reasonable past this crowd?
ipso dipsit
If anyone read the O.J. Simpson story in the December 15, 1994 and December 29, 1994 (long story) issues of Rolling Stone Magazine, they would be aware that O.J. confessed to the murders in a room full of cops, but the confession was inadmissible in court because he wasn’t talking to the cops, he was talking to his buddy Rosie Grier, who was a minister and therefore could not be forced to repeat the confession in a court. To the cops, it was hearsay. Everybody involved knew he was guilty.
B Dog–thats fascinating. I hadn’t heard that before. Shows the news blackout was pretty good. I rechecked and yup–I aid all the relevant EVIDENCE meaning as submitted during the trial. Lots of outcomes would be different if all the relevant FACTS were admitted.
Most “privileges” are a pile of crap. The justifications for them are doubtful to begin with and then they get liberalized to include crap like Rosie Grier being an minister.
No reason for any guilty person to receive comfort from religion, spouse, or lawyer so they can feel better about killing someone else.
But its the law. What ya gonna do?
I’ll tell you what John, Adam and I did: We became ministers.
#22,
As usual, just more myth and FUD. That never happened and the Rolling Stone never reported it. Yet, as those in the Tea Bagger Party love to tell it, “Tell a lie often enough and it becomes true.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-10/news/mn-7302_1_simpson-case
With NEW DNA EVIDENCE
With NEW DNA EVIDENCE and NO INVESTIGATION, it is clear that the POLICE AND PROSECUTION ARE CONTINUING A ***COVER UP*** !!! These alleged “Perps” may have been framed by the police and railroaded by the prosecution in a rush to close the case, without finding the real guilty parties !!!
#25–Fusion==that link doesn’t say what you say it does. Its neutral. Seems to me the Rolling Stone article would stand on its own merits whatever it says.