New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[reedus23]

Apparently you have never seen the "witnesses" that testified against the WM3 in the mockery of a trial. Speaking of HEARSAY, the prosecution sent them to prison on really bad HEARSAY. At least Baldwin and Echols are actively and legally pursuing evidence that that was initially left out. I agree the hearsay won't be enough. They need more. But guilty people just don't do that. There would be a chance of them finding something on them. Clearly there is and never has been anything on these men.

I haven't seen the testimony but I read all the testimony and what I did read was weak. At best, the evidence was ambiguous.

 

[kyleb]

6:30-7:00 Clearly states the same.

That's Echols' defense lawyer speaking there, so of course he's going to say they would have been granted a new trial and won. Besides, the defense are the ones who proposed the Alford plea deal to avoid the hearings which may have lead to a new trial.

Apparently you have never seen the "witnesses" that testified against the WM3 in the mockery of a trial. Speaking of HEARSAY, the prosecution sent them to prison on really bad HEARSAY.

I'm familiar with the witnesses testimonies, but I've not found any hearsay in them. If you have, please quote it here.

And it was straight from the DA's mouth, so hard to argue that.

You've not provided anything straight from anyone else's mouth, but rather simply your impressions of what someone you refer to as the DA apparently said. Here's an actual quote from prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington, as can be seen starting around 2:15:30 in West of Memphis: "I believe these guys are guilty".

 

[reedus23]

That's Echols' defense lawyer speaking there, so of course he's going to say they would have been granted a new trial and won. Besides, the defense are the ones who proposed the Alford plea deal to avoid the hearings which may have lead to a new trial.


I'm familiar with the witnesses testimonies, but I've not found any hearsay in them. If you have, please quote it here.


You've not provided anything straight from anyone else's mouth, but rather simply your impressions of what someone you refer to as the DA apparently said. Here's an actual quote from prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington, as can be seen starting around 2:15:30 in West of Memphis: "I believe these guys are guilty".

There was hearsay testimony. But that's not the state's fault. Defense counsel could have and should have objected to it. Additionally, sometimes a statement that is hearsay falls within an exception to the rule on exclusion of hearsay evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not hearsay, it's just an exception to the rule and allowed. Hearsay testimony sneaks in all the time in trials and no, I'm not going to go back through 1000's of pages of testimony just to give you an example.

I did pull the language though from the DA. Starting at 1:52 of Paradise Lost - Purgatory, the DA "This Judge was most likely going to grant a new trial and if this Judge granted a new trial the defendants most likely, I mean we would do the best we could to put on the evidence, but most likely these defendants ahh, the state believes ahhh could very easily have been acquitted."

Sounds to me like he's saying the evidence would not support a conviction, regardless of his personal beliefs. Furthermore, at least in those clips, the only reference to financial concerns was over a lawsuit by the defendants against the State of Arkansas.

"We've also, as part of a, I mean with their entry of a plea of guilty, wehave removed the question of, um, of, of of them filing a civil lawsuit against the state that could result in many millions of dollars. I can't say that wasn't part of my thinking..."

To suggest that the State of Arkansas cannot afford to prosecute criminals or would free anyone that they truly believe were guilty is disingenuous.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not going to go back through 1000's of pages of testimony just to give you an example.

So you're just going to assert hearsay even though you apparently can't recall even one actual example of such? That leaves your claim no better than hearsay, arguably worse.

I did pull the language though from the DA. Starting at 1:52 of Paradise Lost - Purgatory, the DA

Ellington is not a DA, and his "could very easily have been acquitted" is not is as definitive as your "would be acquitted". Furthermore, right after what you quoted Ellington says "I have no reason to believe that there was anyone else involved in the homicide of these three children but the three defendants who plead guilty today."

I disagree with Ellington's "very easily" characterization, but I've put considerable effort into reviewing the evidence, whereas in West of Memphis he can be seen saying "I've not reviewed reams and reams and boxes and boxes", just prior to saying "but the evidence I've seen, I believe these guys are guilty". So, imagining I was notably less familiar with the evidence, and considering the complications typical to prosecuting a nearly two decade old case along with those of going up against a high-dollar defense team, Ellington's "very easily" characterization is understandable.

To suggest that the State of Arkansas cannot afford to prosecute criminals or would free anyone that they truly believe were guilty is disingenuous.

Who has said such a thing besides you though?

 

[ceecee30]

Apparently you have never seen the "witnesses" that testified against the WM3 in the mockery of a trial. Speaking of HEARSAY, the prosecution sent them to prison on really bad HEARSAY. At least Baldwin and Echols are actively and legally pursuing evidence that that was initially left out. I agree the hearsay won't be enough. They need more. But guilty people just don't do that. There would be a chance of them finding something on them. Clearly there is and never has been anything on these men.

Agree 100% I don't know any guilty person that would want to be so public in clearing their name if they were guilty.. In my personal opinion the guilty person would just be happy they were freed after 18 years and leave it at that..

 

[kyleb]

Well they did plead guilty to get out of prison rather than try to win a new trial. It's a lot easier to create the perception of clearing one's name in the eyes of the public than under the confines of a trail, particularly when the media gives them and their supporters so much more public exposure than their detractors. If only people like Larry King and the women of the View would invite Todd and Diana Moore, Terry Hobbs, John Fogleman, and Gary Gitchel on their shows, I suspect that would go far in changing the popular perception from innocence to guilt. Of course that would also undermine perceptions of their own creditability, so I don't expect it to ever happen.

Besides, Echols obviously craves attention, as evidenced by many of his statements over the years, his "West Memphis Boogeyman" comment near the end of the first Paradise Lost arguably being the most notable example. Come to think of it, in many ways Echols reminds me of O.J. Simpson.

Also Ceecee, when you say you agree 100%, does that mean you agree with the claims of hearsay in what you quoted too? And if so, can you provide an example of hearsay presented at trial?

 

[gheckso]

Yes they did plead guilty to get out of jail, being on death row for 18 years might do that to a person. And from what I recall they never pled guilty to the crime. I belive it would be a lot easier to clearing ones name outside of the confines of prison.

uslegal.com
In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge.


I think Lauriehavens raises a very valid point in that IF they were guilty their efforts could uncover evidence that points to them.

 

[kyleb]

What exactly have they done since they've gotten out of prison that "IF they were guilty their efforts could uncover evidence that points to them", or to more than create a perception of clearing their name at all?

 

[gheckso]

Well IMO I think time will tell, it may seem quiet from the Echols side but I believe there is much going on behind the scenes that the public just isn't privy to, maybe to keep their information from getting into the wrong hands. Just on that subject, I have read that JMB and Pams team have much, much more to reveal if ellington does not act, so again I say, time will tell.

 

[reedus23]

So you're just going to assert hearsay even though you apparently can't recall even one actual example of such? That leaves your claim no better than hearsay, arguably worse.

You like to debate the most meaningless points but yes, I am confident in saying that every single case has some hearsay that is admitted, some hearsay would be objectionable if the attorney was on top of it, other hearsay would be admissible even over an objection because it fits within an exception to the hearsay rule. As far as I'm concerned, you can leave it then if you don't believe some hearsay gets into every trial. Having said that, I don't know that any hearsay was improperly admitted into evidence that had affected the outcome of the trials. Heck, any discussion of statements in medical records is hearsay. In some jurisditions, confessions are hearsay, but fall within an exception. You can continue to believe what you want though.

Ellington is not a DA, and his "could very easily have been acquitted" is not is as definitive as your "would be acquitted". Furthermore, right after what you quoted Ellington says "I have no reason to believe that there was anyone else involved in the homicide of these three children but the three defendants who plead guilty today."

Ellington was not a district prosecuting attorney? Please advise what his involvement was then? Semantics. Bottom line is he thought he'd lose on both the new trial and at the new trial or he wouldn't have done the deal. And of course he has no reason to believe anyone else is involved, because they didn't seriously investigate anyone else.

I disagree with Ellington's "very easily" characterization, but I've put considerable effort into reviewing the evidence, whereas in West of Memphis he can be seen saying "I've not reviewed reams and reams and boxes and boxes", just prior to saying "but the evidence I've seen, I believe these guys are guilty". So, imagining I was notably less familiar with the evidence, and considering the complications typical to prosecuting a nearly two decade old case along with those of going up against a high-dollar defense team, Ellington's "very easily" characterization is understandable.

You have the right to disagree if you like. I also believe you have put tons of time into the issues. If he didn't review boxes and boxes, does that mean you don't believe him when he says he believes these guys are guilty? I mean how can you make that statement if you haven't reviewed everything? Personally, I don't think there is a district prosecuting attorney that would set 3 convicted murderers free if they didn't first look at every single shred of evidence. Can you imagine the lawsuit they'd have if one of those 3 turned around and killed someone else after the State decided to set them free on an uninformed decision?

Who has said such a thing besides you though?

I thought you had claimed the financial concerns were a reason leading to their release. If you don't believe the finanacial concerns were an issue, I'd love to hear your thoughts as to why a district prosecuting attorney would allow 3 people who were convicted of murder and slated to spend the rest of their lives in prison to go free.

 

[reedus23]

Well they did plead guilty to get out of prison rather than try to win a new trial. It's a lot easier to create the perception of clearing one's name in the eyes of the public than under the confines of a trail, particularly when the media gives them and their supporters so much more public exposure than their detractors. If only people like Larry King and the women of the View would invite Todd and Diana Moore, Terry Hobbs, John Fogleman, and Gary Gitchel on their shows, I suspect that would go far in changing the popular perception from innocence to guilt. Of course that would also undermine perceptions of their own creditability, so I don't expect it to ever happen.

Were you equally as critical of the media coverage pointing towards guilt at the time the events were occurring?

 

[gheckso]

Justice? The Attorney General knew what was important.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKJ-94pwR0k"]Prosecutor Scott Ellington on his decision to agree to an Alford plea in the West Memphis 3 case. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[kyleb]

If he didn't review boxes and boxes, does that mean you don't believe him when he says he believes these guys are guilty?

I figure he's probably seen enough evidence to be reasonably convinced of guilt.

I mean how can you make that statement if you haven't reviewed everything?

On hardly has to review everything to find evidence of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

I thought you had claimed the financial concerns were a reason leading to their release.

Rather, the potential costs of rejecting the the Alford plea deal leaves me to respect the state's decision to accept it, but that's a long way from your "the State of Arkansas cannot afford to prosecute criminals" generalization.

Were you equally as critical of the media coverage pointing towards guilt at the time the events were occurring

I wasn't aware of the murders until a few months ago, and have only seen a few bits and pieces of media coverage from around the times of the muders and trials since then. That said, regardless of how bias the media coverage might have been back then: two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[reedus23]

I figure he's probably seen enough evidence to be reasonably convinced of guilt.

And so he set them free?

Rather, the potential costs of rejecting the the Alford plea deal leaves me to respect the state's decision to accept it, but that's a long way from your "the State of Arkansas cannot afford to prosecute criminals" generalization.

Not a chance. No one lets convicted murderers walk because of potential costs. Besides, if there was even the slightest belief that these 3 committed the crime and the State released them onto the public because of potential cost considerations and they subsequently went on to murder someone else, I would suggest that a civil suit for doing so would be in the millions if not hundreds of millions given the notoriety of the case. Those potential costs are significantly higher than simply the costs of having a hearing regarding a new trial and re-trying the cases if a new trial was granted.

 

[SweetT]

I just want to say and it may be against what any of you believe but I actually spoke with a woman who lives in the area where this occurred and went to school with the WM3 and she has no doubt that they were/are guilty. She was afraid for them to walk free as she has children. She may be reacting on gut instinct but I'll accept that.

 

[reedus23]

I just want to say and it may be against what any of you believe but I actually spoke with a woman who lives in the area where this occurred and went to school with the WM3 and she has no doubt that they were/are guilty. She was afraid for them to walk free as she has children. She may be reacting on gut instinct but I'll accept that.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't let any of them babysit my kids. Just wouldn't take that chance. At the same time I can differentiate between those concerns and my personal take on what the evidence shows. I'm curious to know if she gave any indication on what led her to believe that. Did she expound on that any more?

 

[kyleb]

And so he set them free?

Ellington insured the three are under 10 years SIS, which is preferable to what would've been had they been granted and won a new trial.

No one lets convicted murderers walk because of potential costs.

I would've in this situation, given the difficulties inherent to prosecuting a 20 year old case along with those of going up against a multimillion dollar defense team. After all, the state has a limited budget, and there's plenty of murders and such which that money is more likely to insure will be sent to and remain in prison.

Besides, if there was even the slightest belief that these 3 committed the crime and the State released them onto the public because of potential cost considerations and they subsequently went on to murder someone else, I would suggest that a civil suit for doing so would be in the millions if not hundreds of millions given the notoriety of the case.

I doubt such a suit would get very far. On the other hand, with innocent verdicts a wrongful imprisonment suit would be a walk in the park, and around 20 years for three people would end up costing the state around 60 million dollars.

 

[reedus23]

Ellington insured the three are under 10 years SIS, which is preferable to what would've been had they been granted and won a new trial.

Coming from the perspective that they committed the crimes, this is a true statement. Do I take it that you do not believe they would have been convicted if they had to be tried again in a new trial under the current state of the evidence?

I would've in this situation, given the difficulties inherent to prosecuting a 20 year old case along with those of going up against a multimillion dollar defense team. After all, the state has a limited budget, and there's plenty of murders and such which that money is more likely to insure will be sent to and remain in prison.

I truly don't follow that logic. First, I don't think the costs of re-trying the case are that exorbitant. Second, if costs are a problem, they should cut back on the number of more victim less crimes that are prosecuted and devote those assets to prosecuting the crimes with victims. Third, these murders were pretty heinous and should have been tried before other difficult murder cases. Bottom line, no way a State shies away from prosecuting because of potential costs, because of how much money a defendant has nor because there are other crimes that can be prosecuted.

I doubt such a suit would get very far. On the other hand, with innocent verdicts a wrongful imprisonment suit would be a walk in the park, and around 20 years for three people would end up costing the state around 60 million dollars.

Beg to differ. It would get far and given the notoriety of this case, it would likely would be worth an astronomical amount. While I don't believe there are innocent verdicts (unless Arkansas law is different), yes, not guilty verdicts would also be extremely costly to the State. Of course, they fear that if they don't believe there is evidence to convict however.

 

[ceecee30]

I just want to say and it may be against what any of you believe but I actually spoke with a woman who lives in the area where this occurred and went to school with the WM3 and she has no doubt that they were/are guilty. She was afraid for them to walk free as she has children. She may be reacting on gut instinct but I'll accept that.

Not being snarky or trying to cause an argument, but in my opinion gut instinct / her having no doubt they are guilty, isn't exactly evidence that proves their guilt.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't let any of them babysit my kids. Just wouldn't take that chance. At the same time I can differentiate between those concerns and my personal take on what the evidence shows. I'm curious to know if she gave any indication on what led her to believe that. Did she expound on that any more?

Couldn't agree more, whilst I wouldn't let these three look after my kids, the evidence used to convict the wm3 just doesn't show me their guilt and that is my personal take on the evidence I have seen.

Obviously there is far more evidence I need to look through but I doubt my views will change on the evidence provided / available for viewing.

 

[kyleb]

Do I take it that you do not believe they would have been convicted if they had to be tried again in a new trial under the current state of the evidence?

Perhaps you want to take what I've said that way, but it's far from the truth.