Tricia,
Would the prosecutor of this case really allow 3 violent child killers out of prison to roam the streets freely?
Let me ask you this, knowing what you know about the DA in the JBR case, can you be so sure? What do you think this newly elected DA's thoughts were when he first laid eyes on the stacks of case files in a then, already 17 year old case? What amount of time, funds, and hours of case research and researchers would his prosecution team need not only to make the case, but gain a conviction in a new trial, all the while knowing LE had done an inadequate amount of, evidence gathering, interrogation. At least one witness had lied in the Misskelley trial, a juror had prejudiced other jurors in the trial of DE and JB, and one of that prosecution's professional witnesses was anything but professional. Plus trying to track down old witnesses and have the state pay their expenses to get them to testify? Perhaps the State of Arkansas wasn't willing to spend the funds if they had them.
This prosecutor would fight tooth and nail to keep them behind bars but he did not. He let them out.
Do you think future political aspirations hadn't crossed the DA's mind? I think he saw this case as an albatross, and quickly wanted to be rid of it.
Isn't the state now responsible of one of these three violent killers kills again?
Yes, but how likely is it? I agree with poster, Mrs.G.Norris's assessment that these murders started out as bullying that went too far.
Why would the state allow them to walk free?
Again this case may have gotten in the way of political aspirations. State thought time served was adequate.Prior to this 2 of the WM3 committed petty crimes. The third, JM, definitely had an assaultive nature. but I don't know if he served any time in Juvie for it or if the other two served time in Juvie for theirs. chances are the WM3 could have met these kids any other day, and this likely wouldn't have happened, but mix in alcohol probably drunk to excess...
Why would the state make this deal with them and have part of the deal be that they can't sue the state?
To cover their butts. The state was tired of dealing with endless appeals, and Arkansas is not noted for its wealth. Strong community opinion on both sides . Then Depp and Vedder brought national attention to the case. This prosecutor was new, and he saw the hand-writing on the wall. The Alford Plea was not only a way out for the WM3, it was also a way out for the newly elected DA. Convictions went on the state books, and though it wasn't ideal, it wouldn't cause damage to any future political aspirations he might have had. I don't know what if any political aspirations the guy had. This is simple just my opinion as to what would account for the state doing what they did.