Michael Carson

[Compassionate Reader]

Thats completely incorrect, they were never given the chance because when the Defense asked to skip the evidentiary hearing and go straight to trial, Scott Ellington, the prosecutor, refused. The question to be asked is not why the WM3 took the Alford plea, but why the prosecution accepted it. They were under no obligation to take it, and had all the time in the world to prepare for a retrial of what was/is the most infamous murder in Arkansas history. The truth is that Scott Ellington knew the original convictions were a joke, and that he would get slaughtered in a new trial.Not to mention how Arkansas would be sued back to the stone age. He opted for the Alford plea, which he described as a "lucky break for me" after they were released.

Ellington, IMO, doesn't know enough about the case to form a valid opinion! He's said two telling things, IMO:

1. He admitted that he hadn't "had time" to read all of the case documents.

2. He stated that he wanted to use the evidentiary hearing as a "discovery tool" and claimed that as a reason for not granting the defense's request to skip the hearing and go straight to trial.

Do either of these things sound like they came from a man who is "convinced" of the guilt of the WM3? To me they don't!