My Theory

[I Must Break You]

I believe they are guilty and their pleas confirm that. Not only that but Echols attorney withdrew any further DNA testing. So, we should not hold our breath on anything coming out of that.

Besides, they were never convicted on DNA evidence.

If given a new trial I have no doubt that DNA evidence would come into play, but it would not be only the DNA the defense has so carefully selected, but what the prosecutor would bring forth, PLUS the fiber evidence.

I'm actually kind of getting sick of nons stating that the threes Alford pleas prove their guilt... That's a falsehood and you all know it and you know your lying by saying it. They maintained their innocence and took a deal to get out of prison and for one off death row after 18 freakin years. You can say if you were innocent and in their shoes that you wouldn't take the deal.... But for 99.9% of people that would say that it would be complete and utter BS. People that say that have probably never been somewhere bad in their entire lives... I cannot say I've ever been to prison, but was a Deputy Sheriff and worked in the local jail for a period of time and that itself was no picnic as well as being a former soldier and deployed to Iraq where if I had to spend 18 years, I'd confess to just about anything if I got to go home afterwards.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I'm actually kind of getting sick of nons stating that the threes Alford pleas prove their guilt... That's a falsehood and you all know it and you know your lying by saying it. They maintained their innocence and took a deal to get out of prison and for one off death row after 18 freakin years. You can say if you were innocent and in their shoes that you wouldn't take the deal.... But for 99.9% of people that would say that it would be complete and utter BS. People that say that have probably never been somewhere bad in their entire lives... I cannot say I've ever been to prison, but was a Deputy Sheriff and worked in the local jail for a period of time and that itself was no picnic as well as being a former soldier and deployed to Iraq where if I had to spend 18 years, I'd confess to just about anything if I got to go home afterwards.

In August 2011 they claimed they would have evidence to prove their innocence. Remember that lil' ol' hearing they were going to have in the Fall of 2011? If they had any proof of innocence besides verbally blaming others then they would have came through with it by now.

You should be 'sick' of hearing the claim of innocence and the request for more money. Where is this evidence that proves them to be innocent?

The WMGuilty were in prison where they belonged and released for time served. If they break their probation/parole agreement, they could actually serve an additional 21 years.

That makes me wonder if that's why Baldwin and Echols left the country, so that they could not be prosecuted here. Many times convicts commit crimes again once they are released.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

In August 2011 they claimed they would have evidence to prove their innocence. Remember that lil' ol' hearing they were going to have in the Fall of 2011? If they had any proof of innocence besides verbally blaming others then they would have came through with it by now.

That "lil' ol' hearing" was deemed irrelevant by the August 19, 2011 release of the WMFree. You make it sound like the hearing didn't happen because the defense was unprepared for it. The hearing didn't happen because there was no need for a hearing to see if a new trial was needed when, in fact, on August 19, 2011, a new trial took place. The new trial and subsequent release happened because, according to Ellington, he would have had his *advertiser censored* handed to him at the hearing and the subsequent trial (which would have been ordered by Judge Laser). The proof will come. AFAIK, Ellington didn't put a time limit on when they could provide him with information.

You should be 'sick' of hearing the claim of innocence and the request for more money. Where is this evidence that proves them to be innocent?

Patience is a virtue. I suggest that you practice some. All will be revealed when the time is right.

The WMGuilty were in prison where they belonged and released for time served. If they break their probation/parole agreement, they could actually serve an additional 21 years.

However, once they're exonerated, the verdicts (and the SIS - not parole - agreements) will all be set aside.

That makes me wonder if that's why Baldwin and Echols left the country, so that they could not be prosecuted here. Many times convicts commit crimes again once they are released.

Echols and Baldwin got out of Arkansas because they didn't trust the State that had falsely imprisoned them for over 18 years. I believe that they are back in the country now. Jason has a job in Seattle and Damien is living in New York and working on his book for Penguin. I wish Jessie would leave Arkansas. They're already persecuting him and Susie. I know all about re-offenders. However, since the WMFree are not guilty of the crimes for which they were falsely convicted, that doesn't apply here. You can't re-offend if you never offended in the first place.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

They were offenders before the murders.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

They were offenders before the murders.

You're right, they all have criminal records. I wonder if Echols' has to register as a sex offender since he was having sex with a minor and got her pregnant?

No disputing that because there is proof of a child.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You're right, they all have criminal records.

They are juvenile records for minor offenses. Do you believe that everyone who has a juvenile record becomes a murderer? Again, a juvenile record does not a murderer make.

I wonder if Echols' has to register as a sex offender since he was having sex with a minor and got her pregnant?

No disputing that because there is proof of a child.

I don't think so. Does every teenaged boy who gets his girlfriend pregnant have to register as a sex offender? If so, there must be hundreds of thousands of these guys registered!

 

[AngelontheRiver]

I don't think so. Does every teenaged boy who gets his girlfriend pregnant have to register as a sex offender? If so, there must be hundreds of thousands of these guys registered!

There are a lot. You can look it up.

 

[Cappuccino]

Well, there shouldn't be. An 18 year old boy who has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend should not be on the same register as rapists and 40 year old men who molest 7 year olds.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

What about 18 year olds that molest 8 year olds?

 

[Cappuccino]

There was no conviction for - and no evidence of - sexual molestation of Stevie, Christopher and Michael.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

What about 18 year olds that molest 8 year olds?

Exactly!

In my home state anyone who is 18-years-old is considered an adult. I think Echols was considered an adult in Arkansas at the time he murdered. His girlfriend was pregnant then.

So, wouldn't that make him a sex offender since he got a child pregnant? Domini would be considered a child since she is under age.

There were some documents in Echols 500-mental health files that state that his sister Michelle stated that the step-father molested her, but that the mother thought she was lying about it. If Damien was abused it could have been his step-father as well or he could have been lying too. Who knows and it didn't make Michelle brutally murder 3 cub scouts.

 

[Cappuccino]

So, wouldn't that make him a sex offender since he got a child pregnant?

No, it wouldn't. A person has to be convicted of a sexual offense before they can be required to register as a sex offender. Thankfully, some people are still too sane to want an 18 year old who has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend to be criminalised for it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

When teenagers have consensual sex, as long as the age difference isn't too great, it is not considered molestation. This is something that has been decided fairly recently. It stemmed from a case where some guy (sorry, can't remember names) who was a promising athlete had his career cut short because he was 18 at the time he had sex (consensual) with his 15 or 16 year old girlfriend. The conviction was eventually overturned, but it cost him his shot at a professional career. I saw the story first on Real Sports, but I can't remember names. However, it changed the laws. The main point here is that Damien has never been convicted of a sexual crime.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here's something "legal" to show that Damien doesn't have to register as a sex offender. It's from his SIS documentation:

"Defendant has been adjudicated guilty of an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and is ordered to complete the Sex Offender Registration Form: NO

Defendant adjudicated guilty of an offense requiring registration as a sex offender has been adjudicated guilty of a prior sex offense under a separate case number: NO

Defendant is alleged to be a Sexually Violent Predator, and is ordered to undergo an evaluation at a facility designated by the Department of Correction pursuant to A.C.A, 12-12-903: NO

Defendant has committed an aggravated sex offense, as defined in A.C.A. 12-12-903: NO

Defendant was adjudicated guilty of a felony offense, a misdemeanor sexual offense, or a repeat offense (as Defined in A.C.A. 12-12-1103), and is ordered to have a DNA sample drawn at: NO"

I'm sorry, but the only link I can find is through the blackboard:

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=5847.0

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Here's something "legal" to show that Damien doesn't have to register as a sex offender. It's from his SIS documentation:

"Defendant has been adjudicated guilty of an offense requiring registration as a sex offender, and is ordered to complete the Sex Offender Registration Form: NO

Defendant adjudicated guilty of an offense requiring registration as a sex offender has been adjudicated guilty of a prior sex offense under a separate case number: NO

Defendant is alleged to be a Sexually Violent Predator, and is ordered to undergo an evaluation at a facility designated by the Department of Correction pursuant to A.C.A, 12-12-903: NO

Defendant has committed an aggravated sex offense, as defined in A.C.A. 12-12-903: NO

Defendant was adjudicated guilty of a felony offense, a misdemeanor sexual offense, or a repeat offense (as Defined in A.C.A. 12-12-1103), and is ordered to have a DNA sample drawn at: NO"

I'm sorry, but the only link I can find is through the blackboard:

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=5847.0

Like you said before, he was never prosecuted for rape. Now the statute of limitation has expired for that crime. But we all know that he had sex with a child and she produced his son.

 

[Cappuccino]

He had sex with a 16 year old girl. She was matured to the stage where she had developed both primary and secondary sexual characteristics, and given that he was only 18, its a fair bet that their mental and emotional maturity levels were around the same. Girls, after all, do tend to mature a bit faster than boys that way.

This was a pregnancy caused by a fully consenting relationship between two peers. The age gap gives you a legal technicality to claim that he "had sex with a child", but legal technicalities don't always equate to reality. In reality your claim is a fiction. Damien and Domini lived together with the consent and knowledge of her parents, and also with the full knowledge and consent of Domini herself.

I'm wondering why on earth you would try and take such a flight into fiction in the first place? My suggested answer - if you can cast Damien and Domini's entirely normal adolescent bf/gf relationship as an adult Damien "having sex with a child", that might trap a few unwary readers into believing that he would go out preying on 8 year old boys.

Maybe I'm being unfair on you, but you have already levelled a false accusation at me, and I also have a hard time believing that anyone who can't just refer to one of the defendants by name, and instead feels the need to insert the word "Icky", is anything other than biased beyond all credibility.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

He had sex with a 16 year old girl. She was matured to the stage where she had developed both primary and secondary sexual characteristics, and given that he was only 18, its a fair bet that their mental and emotional maturity levels were around the same. Girls, after all, do tend to mature a bit faster than boys that way.

This was a pregnancy caused by a fully consenting relationship between two peers. The age gap gives you a legal technicality to claim that he "had sex with a child", but legal technicalities don't always equate to reality. In reality your claim is a fiction. Damien and Domini lived together with the consent and knowledge of her parents, and also with the full knowledge and consent of Domini herself.

I'm wondering why on earth you would try and take such a flight into fiction in the first place? My suggested answer - if you can cast Damien and Domini's entirely normal adolescent bf/gf relationship as an adult Damien "having sex with a child", that might trap a few unwary readers into believing that he would go out preying on 8 year old boys.

Maybe I'm being unfair on you, but you have already levelled a false accusation at me, and I also have a hard time believing that anyone who can't just refer to one of the defendants by name, and instead feels the need to insert the word "Icky", is anything other than biased beyond all credibility.

It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a child/minor. Enough said...

:banghead::banghead:

 

[Cappuccino]

Exactly. Like I said, you are dependent on a legal technicality.

You are desparately trying to cast consensual sex within the context of a living together, b/f, g/f arrangement between two people who were less than two years apart in age, and both sexually mature at the time, as if it were evidence of paedophilia. Its not. If anything, its evidence that Damien was interested in females his own age, which contra-indicates him from being interested in pre-adolescent boys.

And btw, I'm still waiting for evidence of when I passed off my opinions as facts, as per your still foundless accusation?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Exactly. Like I said, you are dependent on a legal technicality.

You are desparately trying to cast consensual sex within the context of a living together, b/f, g/f arrangement between two people who were less than two years apart in age, and both sexually mature at the time, as if it were evidence of paedophilia. Its not. If anything, its evidence that Damien was interested in females his own age, which contra-indicates him from being interested in pre-adolescent boys.

And btw, I'm still waiting for evidence of when I passed off my opinions as facts, as per your still foundless accusation?

Sorry C, that's the law in the US even if it's consensual between an adult and a child, it's still illegal. Why would you think otherwise? Do you have a link to prove otherwise or is this just your opinion???

 

[Cappuccino]

Yes, its the law in some states of the US, I never said otherwise in any of my previous posts.

Now, let's get back to how a legal technicality doesn't always equate to reality. Damien was 18, and Domini was 16, and they were living together with her parents permission, and her consent. That's what I've said all along. You, apparently, want Damien on the sex offenders register because of it.

Can you justify your stance?