Nancy Grace's View of the WM3? Past and Present?

[joe jones]

Let's see - you have a choice: Spend some more time in prison (maybe years) or get out now, while maintaining your innocence, and continue working to prove your innocence as a free man while getting the medical and dental help that you have needed for years. I don't know too many people who would trust the system that has already unjustly imprisoned them for over eighteen years to do the right thing this time. Of course, maybe you would be willing to trust the State of Arkansas. I don't think I would.

I have taken time to ponder the plea deals and I think they were wrong to take them, they will never be able to prove there innocent no matter what they say, the state has continued to say they are guilty but they didn't want to go through whole rigmarole of new trials,

they would not have spent years and years waiting for new trials, they were in the eye of the most positive media storm since they were convicted, the clamour for new trials had too much impetus for it to have been delayed for much longer,

the eyes of the world would have been watching a new trial, it would have been a fair trial this time round with all the evidence old and new on the table

for me I now have more doubts about there innocence, as to me they had screamed for years they were innocent yet pled Guilty at the first opportunity, and no matter how they and there supporters spin the plea they pled guilty, and no add on protestations of innocence tacked on afterwards changes that

I understand jail was not easy for any of them, but they had lived it for years and they were on the home straight,

for me they are less innocent today then pre the plea

 

[joe jones]

I also think Baldwin will come to regret being pressured to agree to the plea against his own best interests, it seems that he has chosen not to re-connect with Miskelley and Echolls and has gone his own way

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Damien simply had to get off of Death Row for health reasons. His teeth were literally rotting out of his head because the only relief from dental problems on Death Row was extraction. He was also suffering from severe vitamin deficiencies as a result of the lack of sunshine. It was simply a matter of life and death for Damien. The other two might have been able to continue to survive in prison, but Damien was in dire straits.

I would have preferred that they seek a new trial, but don't doubt that the State of Arkansas could have dragged out the procedures for years. Hopefully, next month when the new documentary (Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory) premieres on HBO, the additional information that will be made public will force the State's hand and the case will be reopened. Then, Damien, Jason and Jessie can prove their innocence and get on with their lives.

 

[joe jones]

Damien simply had to get off of Death Row for health reasons. His teeth were literally rotting out of his head because the only relief from dental problems on Death Row was extraction. He was also suffering from severe vitamin deficiencies as a result of the lack of sunshine. It was simply a matter of life and death for Damien. The other two might have been able to continue to survive in prison, but Damien was in dire straits.

I would have preferred that they seek a new trial, but don't doubt that the State of Arkansas could have dragged out the procedures for years. Hopefully, next month when the new documentary (Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory) premieres on HBO, the additional information that will be made public will force the State's hand and the case will be reopened. Then, Damien, Jason and Jessie can prove their innocence and get on with their lives.

I do not think that any investigation ever will be carried out, it has been wrapped up in a nice neat bow by the WM3 for the state and the state has no need to ever go stirring it up again, why should it, they have the original 3 defendants convicted of the murders pleading guilty,

not one further penny will be spent on it, nobody in that whole state will be wanting it revisited and no TV documentary will change it

the Alford plea was the best thing that happened to the state in respect of this case, as they are vindicated, vindicated by the WM3, the WM3 stood in a court of law and pled guilty, it matters not a jot (except as a legal concept) that they continue to proclaim there innocence, the thing the state has is guilty pleas

Damien may have not got the best health care, he may have been suffering but I do not agree that with the wind they had behind them pre the pleas the state could have delayed a new trial for long, the pressure was on, and if they were given a new trial then there convictions would have been over turned so it is highly unlikely they would have held Damien on death row once he was not convicted of capital offences only charged with them, , so he would have had the chance to get into a different part of prison system

I have seen men walk out of prison who have spent 25 years on death row and been offered the chance to get out much earlier if they pled guilty and they said they would die in prison an innocent man than walk free as a guilty one

 

[AngelontheRiver]

The state probably doesn't worry about preserving the teeth of someone that's going to be put to death. Nothing that happened to Echols in prison even approaches the horror of what happened to those three little boys. Legally, he is responsible. I also think a good portion of his tale of woe is fabricated. His wife launched that massive campaign for sympathy and he has milked it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

"The state probably doesn't worry about preserving the teeth of someone that's going to be put to death. Nothing that happened to Echols in prison even approaches the horror of what happened to those three little boys. Legally, he is responsible. I also think a good portion of his tale of woe is fabricated. His wife launched that massive campaign for sympathy and he has milked it. "

Yes, that is why I believe the State of Arkansas has that policy about dental work for Death Row inmates. As to comparing the horror of what happened to the little boys to Damien's experiences in prison, I disagree. I believe that neither the little boys nor the WMFree should have had to suffer as they did. I think the horror of being in prison, especially on Death Row, for something one didn't do is equally horrible, and their horror went on for over eighteen years. As to the statements about Lorri, obviously, I believe otherwise. I believe that the WMFree were railroaded by a corrupt system, and I'm very happy that they're free. I hope that they're exonerated soon.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I do not think that any investigation ever will be carried out, it has been wrapped up in a nice neat bow by the WM3 for the state and the state has no need to ever go stirring it up again, why should it, they have the original 3 defendants convicted of the murders pleading guilty,

You're right as far as the State is concerned. However, I am confident that the three freed men will continue to fight to prove their innocence. In fact, Peter Jackson has also vowed to continue the fight for exoneration, and he has pretty deep pockets!

not one further penny will be spent on it, nobody in that whole state will be wanting it revisited and no TV documentary will change it

I hope that you're wrong about that. I hope that the latest installment of the Paradise Lost franchise forces the State of Arkansas to re-investigate. It's happened before, and I hope it will happen again.

the Alford plea was the best thing that happened to the state in respect of this case, as they are vindicated, vindicated by the WM3, the WM3 stood in a court of law and pled guilty, it matters not a jot (except as a legal concept) that they continue to proclaim there innocence, the thing the state has is guilty pleas

Again, I agree that the Alford plea benefited the State at least as much as it benefited the WMFree. However, I think that it does matter that they are maintaining their innocence and continuing to fight for their exoneration, and I very much hope that they succeed - soon!

Damien may have not got the best health care, he may have been suffering but I do not agree that with the wind they had behind them pre the pleas the state could have delayed a new trial for long, the pressure was on, and if they were given a new trial then there convictions would have been over turned so it is highly unlikely they would have held Damien on death row once he was not convicted of capital offences only charged with them, , so he would have had the chance to get into a different part of prison system

Then the new documentary should put sufficient pressure on the State that they will reopen the case. Yes, there was an enormous groundswell behind them, and there were several deep-pocketed individuals in their corner as well. However, after what happened to them at the hands of the Arkansas criminal justice system, I totally understand them not wanting to trust that same system to get it right. You're probably right about Damien being transferred off Death Row once the new trial was ordered, but I think that process would not have been as immediate as you seem to think. However, that is my opinion.

I have seen men walk out of prison who have spent 25 years on death row and been offered the chance to get out much earlier if they pled guilty and they said they would die in prison an innocent man than walk free as a guilty one

Everyone is different. I'm not going to second-guess their decision to accept the Alford plea simply because I have never been in their situation. I understand someone who wouldn't want to plead guilty. It's just that IMO every person and every case is different.

 

[cami]

You're probably right. It seems that the Alford Plea doesn't change people's minds about guilt or innocence, only about the stupidity of the Arkansas criminal justice system (or at least some members of it).

you could have told me I spelled it incorrectly. I can take it.

 

[cami]

Well, they were set free. I would have preferred a trial in which they were exonerated, but they're free, and I'm very glad about that! As to why Arkansas allowed the plea, consider this: plea deals are generally entered into prior to a trial. This plea deal was made over eighteen years after trials which found all three men (then teens) guilty.

I know what a plea deal is. Yes, it's usually used before the trial. I did a quick chuckle about this plea as I thought only mobsters took an alford plea.

Why would the State of Arkansas enter into a plea deal that ultimately released three men who were found guilty of heinous crimes? IMO, the State (or at least some of the representatives of the State) realized that a mistake had been made and that three innocent men were in prison. However, in order to save face and money, the State accepted an Alford plea which saves the State from ever having to worry about the Three suing them for false imprisonment. There's just no other way to explain the release of three convicted murders unless there was something wrong with the convictions. Nothing else makes sense.

So, the Alford plea was a face-saving and money-saving cop out. I'm sure that the Three will continue to pursue proof of their innocence, and I'm also sure that one day the Three will prove their innocence. I just hope that it's sooner rather than later.

But the Three still had to take a plea, that means they are not 100% innocent and they are not exonerated. Both sides got they want IMO, the three get out and the state saves a few million bucks.

Yes I do hope they find the killers of these three boys too, then and only then will the Three be exonerated.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

But the Three still had to take a plea, that means they are not 100% innocent and they are not exonerated. Both sides got they want IMO, the three get out and the state saves a few million bucks.

Taking an Alford plea doesn't mean that they aren't 100% innocent. In fact, it means that they can maintain their innocence. The actual wording, IIRC, says that they concede that the State has enough evidence that they could (not would) be convicted.


Yes I do hope they find the killers of these three boys too, then and only then will the Three be exonerated.

I just hope that the investigation, trial and conviction of the real killer doesn't take another eighteen years. IMO, the families of the little boys have waited way too long for justice. Plus, as you said, convicting the real killer will bring justice for all six families victimized by this crime.

 

[jaded cat]

the Alford plea was the best thing that happened to the state in respect of this case, as they are vindicated, vindicated by the WM3, the WM3 stood in a court of law and pled guilty, it matters not a jot (except as a legal concept) that they continue to proclaim there innocence, the thing the state has is guilty pleas

Obviously you don't understand the Alford Plea. Check it out, it will help you to understand why they did what they did.

 

[joe jones]

Obviously you don't understand the Alford Plea. Check it out, it will help you to understand why they did what they did.

which part of the Alford plea do you think I don't understand, they pled guilty to murdering three children but still proclaim there innocence,

that is all I need to understand,

 

[Compassionate Reader]

which part of the Alford plea do you think I don't understand, they pled guilty to murdering three children but still proclaim there innocence,

that is all I need to understand,

It seems that you believe that they are guilty simply because they plead guilty under the Alford plea. Pleading guilty under the Alford plea is simply not the same as a "normal" guilty plea because they maintain their innocence. In other words, they are saying, "OK, I'll say what you want me to say so I can get (fill in the blank)." In the case of the WMFree, they got their freedom. However, they maintain their innocence which means that they are continuing to say that they didn't do it! So, an Alford guilty plea is not really an admittance of guilt. It is different things in different cases. In all cases, it is a way for the State to save face.

Let me paraphrase a classic American novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. First, a little setting-of-the-scene would be in order. In this novel, Atticus Finch is an attorney who is appointed to defend a black man accused of raping a poor white trash girl. The black man is innocent, but the action takes place in Alabama in the 1930's. Atticus knows that he cannot possibly get a "not guilty" verdict because of the prejudice (preconceived ideas) of the town and therefore the jury. He simply wants to try to make them think, believing that he can win the case on appeal - when the trial is moved out of the small town in which the crime occurred. While cross examining the father of the victim, he makes the jury realize that he (the father) is the person who caused the injuries to the victim, not his client, the black man. After the guilty verdict, this father attacks Atticus by spitting on him in public. Atticus explains this to his twelve-year-old son, Jem, by telling him that the father was humiliated on the stand, and attacking him (Atticus) is the father's way of trying to save face. He says something like the jury said alright, we'll find this [N-word] guilty. You just get back to your dump. In other words, everyone knows that the guilty verdict isn't right; it's just a way for them to give the father his fifteen minutes of fame, without facing their own prejudices, and the only person who was hurt (ostensibly) was a black man. Does any of this sound familiar yet?

The Alford plea is a way for the State to save face. The original trial was a travesty of justice because three poor white trailer trash kids took the fall for the real killer, who, for some reason, is Teflon coated. By allowing the Alford plea, the State is letting innocent men free, but yet they have a "guilty" verdict (but one that everyone knows is meaningless) on the books. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the Alford plea.

 

[NCSleuth]

The Alford plea has nothing to do with the state saving face. It is the exact opposite, defendent gets to save face. An Alford plea says I know the state has enough evidence to convict, but I am not going to admit guilt. The only thing it saves the state is the cost of a trial. I will plead guilty because you have enough evidence to prove me guilty anyway, in exchange I maintain my innocence and get a lighter sentence.

In the case the plea is named for (NC v. Henry Alford), Henry Alfrod plead guilty to 2nd degree murder to keep from getting the gas chamber (1st degree murder).

State saves the time and money of a trial. Defendent gets to say he didn't admit guilt. Defendent gets to avoid the embarassment of being proven guilty. Defendent saves face.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

In this case, however, there is a big difference. The State had already proven them guilty. The actual wording, IIRC, says that the State has enough evidence that the defendant could (not would) be proven guilty. It's not a certainty.

Obviously, the WMFree were not willing to take a chance on the State of Arkansas giving them a fair trial. They had been railroaded once before, and they didn't want to give them a second chance when they had a way to get out of prison. Also, usually an Alford plea is entered before the trial. In this case, the plea was entered over 18 years later.

The first trial featured the cult murder motive, but, with the whole "Satanic panic" craze that swept the country in the late eighties and early nineties long gone, the State had no motive. With some witnesses from the original trial changing their stories, new witnesses coming forward with additional information and witnesses that were either "unavailable" or not called at the original trials., the State's case was even weaker than back in 1994. In short, even Ellington realized that there was no way on God's green earth that he would get a conviction.

Since the State has steadily maintained that they had the right people in prison, the Alford plea was definitely a way for the State to save face. In "normal" situations (like the original case), I agree that the plea is not really about anyone saving face, but is a way for a defendant to get a reduced sentence without having to risk a trial. Here, however, IMO it was definitely in the best interest of the State more than the defendants to take the Alford plea.

 

[justthinkin]

Obviously you don't understand the Alford Plea. Check it out, it will help you to understand why they did what they did.

The term "Alford Plea" has come to apply to any case in which the defendant tenders a guilty plea but denies that he or she has in fact committed the crime. The Alford plea is expressly prohibited in some states and limitedly allowed in others. In federal courts, the plea is conservatively permitted for certain defenses and under certain circumstances only. http://www.enotes.com/criminal-law-reference/plea-bargaining

The Alford guilty plea is "a plea of guilty containing a protestation of innocence".[8] The defendant pleads guilty, but does not have to specifically admit to the guilt itself.[23] The defendant maintains a claim of innocence, but agrees to the entry of a conviction in the charged crime.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea#Definition

Some states do not require the defendant to plead guilty under their version of the Alford Plea. The state of Arkansas requires that the defendant plead guilty to the charges, and a guilty verdict is what is entered in the records. Compare state requirements here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Alford_plea_usage

This really isn't so hard. The WMGuilty can go around proclaiming their innocence day in and day out, but the fact remains, Echols and Baldwin pleaded guilty to 6 counts of first degree murder. and Misskelley at least 1 count of first degree murder and possibly 2 counts of 2nd. degree murder, in a new trial held on August 19, 2011 in Craighead County, Judge David Laser presiding, and that is what is recorded in the record book. Nothing about them proclaiming innocence is recorded in court records in the state of Arkansas. The original verdicts were vacated.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

However, once these bogus verdicts are overturned (when proof of innocence is revealed), none of the WMFree will have guilty verdicts against them in this case. I'm just wondering how all of those who believe them to be guilty in fact (not just according to these BS verdicts) will feel about the courts then. I stand by the innocence of these unjustly convicted men who lost over 18 years of their lives because the WMPD was inept, the jury was tainted and the town wanted the case solved quickly. This was a typical small-town trial with predictable results, especially given the tenor of the times. I have faith that these miscarriages of justice will soon be set right.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

However, once these bogus verdicts are overturned (when proof of innocence is revealed), none of the WMFree will have guilty verdicts against them in this case. I'm just wondering how all of those who believe them to be guilty in fact (not just according to these BS verdicts) will feel about the courts then. I stand by the innocence of these unjustly convicted men who lost over 18 years of their lives because the WMPD was inept, the jury was tainted and the town wanted the case solved quickly. This was a typical small-town trial with predictable results, especially given the tenor of the times. I have faith that these miscarriages of justice will soon be set right.

I think that most of the people who believe the WMGuilty are in fact guilty and that there will never be anymore testing/hearings done about this case because it's a closed case.

There may be some supporters who will be in denial and continue to support them regardless of their guilt. I know it's sad to say, but it's actually the truth from what I have witnessed.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think that most of the people who believe the WMGuilty are in fact guilty and that there will never be anymore testing/hearings done about this case because it's a closed case.

IMO, Ellington left the door open by agreeing to review any additional information presented to him by the defense. Of course, he closed the case because of the bogus guilty verdict. Again, IMO, if one reads the GQ article, it seems obvious that he believes the WMFree to be in fact innocent (although he has to spout the party line to keep his job). So, he provided the defense an escape pod which I'm quite sure that they will use in due time.

There may be some supporters who will be in denial and continue to support them regardless of their guilt. I know it's sad to say, but it's actually the truth from what I have witnessed.

I support them because of their innocence. The supporter movement continues to grow as more and more people hear of this miscarriage of justice and continue to work to get these three falsely convicted men exonerated. I am confident that the truth will come out and the WMFree will be exonerated in the end. However, as I've said before, there may be some nons who will continue to be in denial and insist that the original verdicts were correct. That's very sad.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I support them because of their innocence. The supporter movement continues to grow as more and more people hear of this miscarriage of justice and continue to work to get these three falsely convicted men exonerated.

I think the supporter involvement is dwindling down since they NEVER went through with their hearings and NEVER kept their promises with the evidence that would 'prove their innocence'. But, keep sending us money anyway, while we go traveling about our merry ways...

I think people are beginning to realize that they've been had. That's sad...