New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[reedus23]

The west Memphis 3 were released and have not been exonarated of their crime which is what happened to the case I was referring to, the release of a prisoner regardless of guilt or not. That's the context I'm a referring to when I mention the case here.

That is the only common factor I'm referring to, not the crime itself as the crimes are not at all similar.

We haven't had a crime like WM3 here, that I'm aware of

The release of the WM3 actually was a two step process. The final release was similar in that they were placed on probation. However, they weren't even eligible for that type of release so before that could even be done, their convictions had to be undone and that does involve the fact that the prosecution either 1. Didn't believe they were guilty or 2. Didn't believe they could prove them guilty.

 

[ceecee30]

The release of the WM3 actually was a two step process. The final release was similar in that they were placed on probation. However, they weren't even eligible for that type of release so before that could even be done, their convictions had to be undone and that does involve the fact that the prosecution either 1. Didn't believe they were guilty or 2. Didn't believe they could prove them guilty.

Forgive me for my ignorance, aren't their convictions still valid?

I think I remember reading somewhere that one of the wm3 was studying law but can't practice due to still being convicted? I'll see if I can find that story again.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...mfort-salem/K7qr8uVtzLU4UPxOjV3JiL/story.html

 

[kyleb]

If I'm trying to draw my own personal conclusions as to whether or not a conviction was warranted or supported, I try to place myself in the shoes of the victims/families, detectives, accused, witnesses, judges, witnesses etc...and try to imagine things as they would have been occurring at the time.

Drawing conclusions based in suppositions is likely to put one at odds with reality.

the judge didn't really want a new trial granted

Rather, the defense didn't really want a new trial granted, or else they would've gone through with the evidentiary hearing rather than proposing the Alford Plea deal. That's doesn't prove they thought they would lose the evidentiary hearing though, or a new trial which would've come had they won the hearing for that matter. It only proves only the defense preferred not to go through all that trouble, and the state found the defense's offer to be the preferable course as well.

The final release was similar in that they were placed on probation.

Rather, they were placed on parole.

the fact that the prosecution either 1. Didn't believe they were guilty or 2. Didn't believe they could prove them guilty.

As, I explained in detail previously, there's at least one other possibility which you're omitting here, carelessly so as you've yet to familiarize yourself with the body of evidence available to the prosecution at that time. Again, drawing conclusions based in suppositions is likely to put one at odds with reality.

 

[reedus23]

Forgive me for my ignorance, aren't their convictions still valid?

I think I remember reading somewhere that one of the wm3 was studying law but can't practice due to still being convicted? I'll see if I can find that story again.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...mfort-salem/K7qr8uVtzLU4UPxOjV3JiL/story.html

Take this with a grain of salt because I'm not familiar with Arkansas law but he no longer has a conviction. What the Alford Plea does entail, however, is a guilty plea while claiming innocence. That being a form of a guilty plea may work to prevent him from practicing law much like a conviction. Also, I'm not sure if someone ran a criminal background check if the conviction would show up. My gut says no because as soon as the Judge granted the new trial, that effectively said that the conviction was wrongfully entered and if it was wrongfully entered it shouldn't show up on one's history. My guess is that it is the fact he has a form of a guilty plea that is preventing him.

 

[reedus23]

Drawing conclusions based in suppositions is likely to put one at odds with reality.

Is that what we are doing?

Rather, the defense didn't really want a new trial granted, or else they would've gone through with the evidentiary hearing rather than proposing the Alford Plea deal. That's doesn't prove they thought they would lose the evidentiary hearing though, or a new trial which would've come had they won the hearing for that matter. It only proves only the defense preferred not to go through all that trouble, and the state found the defense's offer to be the preferable course as well.

You're taking a small portion of my statement and quoting it out of context. What the defense wanted or didn't want was immaterial to the point being made...namely that the Judge, at that very moment in time, wasn't willing or desirous of actually giving the defendants a new trial and thus the reason for the condition attached to it. Would the Judge have actually granted a new trial on the merits? We'll never know. But he granted it at that time only because there was a plea deal in place, not because he wanted to grant a new trial based on the merits.

Secondly, why wouldn't the defendant's not have wanted a new trial? Are you suggesting they would have preferred to stay in jail? Of course they would have wanted a new trial if a plea deal couldn't be reached. However, when faced with the option of guaranteed freedom versus likely losing a motion for new trial, I think I'd take the guaranteed freedom every time. My guess is they knew they would likely lose at the evidentiary hearing. Obtaining new trials are extremely difficult and without looking up the actual numbers, I would suggest that a vast majority of the times, they are denied. Now, they may have had a better chance than many, but it is a complete uphill battle when trying to get a new trial and the odds were likely less than 50/50.

Rather, they were placed on parole.

Make it parole then.

As, I explained in detail previously, there's at least one other possibility which you're omitting here, carelessly so as you've yet to familiarize yourself with the body of evidence available to the prosecution at that time. Again, drawing conclusions based in suppositions is likely to put one at odds with reality.

There's that rude part again. And we were doing so good discussing various points. I certainly think your explanation would fall into the second option. I didn't specify why they might think they can't get a conviction. There could be numerous reasons, including your belief that they didn't think they could get a conviction because they didn't have the money to do so, or the State of Arkansas didn't have the financial resources that some supporters had. My apologies if I didn't get the wording exact, but whatever the financial concerns.

 

[ceecee30]

Take this with a grain of salt because I'm not familiar with Arkansas law but he no longer has a conviction. What the Alford Plea does entail, however, is a guilty plea while claiming innocence. That being a form of a guilty plea may work to prevent him from practicing law much like a conviction. Also, I'm not sure if someone ran a criminal background check if the conviction would show up. My gut says no because as soon as the Judge granted the new trial, that effectively said that the conviction was wrongfully entered and if it was wrongfully entered it shouldn't show up on one's history. My guess is that it is the fact he has a form of a guilty plea that is preventing him.

I will now take it with a grain of salt.. Thankyou for all your insight into the legal side of things

 

[kyleb]

That being a form of a guilty plea may work to prevent him from practicing law much like a conviction.

The Alford Plea deal is not "like a conviction", it is a conviction.

the Judge, at that very moment in time, wasn't willing or desirous of actually giving the defendants a new trial

That's not a matter of desire or will. The judge was in no potion to actually give the convicted a new trial, as the evidentiary hearing never actually took place. Rather, the hearing process was preempted by the convicted's offer of the Alford Plea deal.

Secondly, why wouldn't the defendant's not have wanted a new trial?

I'd have to draw a conclusion based in supposition to answer that question, and I've no interest in doing anything of the sort.

Are you suggesting they would have preferred to stay in jail?

No, I'm noting the fact that they obviously preferred to get out of prison, as evidenced by the fact that they proposed the Alford Plea deal.

your belief that they didn't think they could get a conviction because they didn't have the money to do so

That's a flagrant misinterpretation of my stated position here.

 

[reedus23]

The Alford Plea deal is not "like a conviction", it is a conviction.

My turn to be rude. You like to nitpick the tiniest things. Again, I am not familiar with Arkansas law so a conviction may very well include guilty pleas and alford pleas. Where I am at, attorneys differentiate between the two and a conviction results following a verdict of guilty entered by a judge or jury. Guilty pleas are pleas entered into voluntarily by the defendant. Both would show up on criminal background check and both would likely prevent you from practicing law in any state in the union.

That's not a matter of desire or will. The judge was in no potion to actually give the convicted a new trial, as the evidentiary hearing never actually took place. Rather, the hearing process was preempted by the defense's offer of the Alford Plea deal.

Again, taking statements out of context solely to make a point that I can't figure out. Besides, apparently there is a potion because he did it.


I'd have to draw a conclusion based in supposition to answer that question, and have no interest in doing anything of the sort.

But I thought that's what we do.


No, I'm noting the fact that they obviously preferred to get out of jail, as evidenced by the fact that they proposed the Alford Plea deal.

Agreed, they preferred to get out of jail. But that might have been a conclusion based on a supposition.

That's a flagrant misinterpretation of my stated position here.

I already apologized if my wording wasn't to your liking. I'll leave it as the theory you posted above instead of trying to restate it because I'm sure something would be taken issue with that attempt as well. Warning though...you theory there may involve a conclusion based on a supposition as well.

 

[kyleb]

What I presented isn't a theory.

 

[reedus23]

What I presented isn't a theory.

So it is fact that the prosecution wanted to wave the white flag because of financial concerns?

 

[kyleb]

No, that's not even close to what I've said.

By the way, have you made it through the closing arguments in the Misskelley trial yet?

 

[reedus23]

No I got side tracked building a deck this weekend and talking about them getting released. I'm probably halfway through the defense witnesses.

I apologize again then if I didn't get the wording right.

 

[kyleb]

No worries, but it's not really a matter of the wording, it's that you've wildly misinterpreted what I've said. Perhaps you might go back and reread [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9218550&postcount=85"]the post[/ame] when you have the time to spare, and try to take it for what I actually said rather than reducing it down into a simplified narrative. I assure you I put considerable effort into simplifying my comments down as much as possible before submitting them, so reducing them much further is only going to mangle them into gross mischaracterizations.

Also, I've proofread the post I linked once more and am reasonably sure the grammar is correct, but being dyslexic I can never really be certain on such things. So please don't hesitate ask if you find some unintelligible wording in any of my comments, as I'd be happy to decipher it for you.

Anyway, if you haven't bothered listening to the recording of Misskelley's 6/3/93 confession while reading along, I recommend doing so before the closing arguments. Listening to the closing arguments is well worth while too, though unfortunately a few minutes in Davis's is filled with some sort of recording or conversion issue which has left it garbled to the point that I recommend just skipping to the second file when it comes up. That said, good luck with the deck.

 

[reedus23]

No worries, but it's not really a matter of the wording, it's that you've wildly misinterpreted what I've said. Perhaps you might go back and reread the post when you have the time to spare, and try to take it for what I actually said rather than reducing it down into a simplified narrative. I assure you I put considerable effort into simplifying my comments down as much as possible before submitting them, so reducing them much further is only going to mangle them into gross mischaracterizations.

Also, I've proofread the post I linked once more and am reasonably sure the grammar is correct, but being dyslexic I can never really be certain on such things. So please don't hesitate ask if you find some unintelligible wording in any of my comments, as I'd be happy to decipher it for you.

Anyway, if you haven't bothered listening to the recording of Misskelley's 6/3/93 confession while reading along, I recommend doing so before the closing arguments. Listening to the closing arguments is well worth while too, though unfortunately a few minutes in Davis's is filled with some sort of recording or conversion issue which has left it garbled to the point that I recommend just skipping to the second file when it comes up. That said, good luck with the deck.

I will try to listen as I read. Great idea. As to the rest, I will just refer to your posts instead of trying to restate it. I certainly wasn't going to go back and re-type the whole thing when I was just trying to list reasons the state may have entered into the plea deal.

 

[reedus23]

Ok did re-read your post and don't see how saying financial considerations associated with possibly having to re-try the case grossly misstates what you said but matters not.

 

[kyleb]

By the way on the rude thing. Again I really don't intend to be rude. The thing is that I appreciate when people point out my misconceptions, and prefer other don't waste my time by embellishing their statements in niceties. I do understand that this comes off rude to people who feel differently than me regarding such maters, but out of respect for the ethic of reciprocity I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me.

 

[reedus23]

13 followed on one count only by a 120-month period
14 of suspended imposition of sentence, subject to
15 your compliance with certain terms and
16 conditions, all of which are set forth on
17 paperwork that you've been over with your
18 counsel and signed off on. Is that correct?

BBM - Meant to ask this the other day for any of those familiar with Arkansas law or any Arkansas lawyers out there. The above language is the Judge speaking during the hearing when the Alford pleas were entered. They were given 10 year SIS. Where I am from, if a person completes their term free of further incident, then the original guilty plea is held for naught, as if the guilty plea had never been entered and the individuals can honestly answer no if asked "Have you ever been convicted of or plead guilty to a felony?" As opposed to a suspended EXECUTION of sentence, wherein, if they complete their term free of further incident they no longer face the risk of imprisonment on those charges, but they still have a guilty plea on their record. Do these plea agreements work the same way? In other words, if they complete their 10 years without incident, will the guilty pleas be stricken from their record?

ETA - Are the actual plea documents available for viewing anywhere?

Edited again - Think I found them on callahan. Thanks.

 

[reedus23]

Ok, got through the testimony in the defenses case of Jessie's trial. Outside of the experts, what I saw were 2 groups of witnesses.

1. Witnesses claiming to have seen Jessie at the Stephanie/Connie incident when the cops were called; and

2. Witnesses claiming Jessie had gone wrestling with them that day.

My impression of reading their testimony is that they may have done more to get the conviction than the evidence the prosecution put on(my opinion not a fact). The witnesses had made countless inconsistent statements over time and frankly, I'm not sure I would have used them. It would have been risky to not put on alibi witnesses but the prosecution's case, outside of the "confession" had very little that tied Jessie to the crimes. I certainly think I would have picked and chosen the witnesses I would call.

The defense's experts didn't help either. Wilkins had his obvious issues and his testimony was limited to the point I'm not sure what the defense stood to gain from it versus the harm it might have done. Holmes was thoroughly unprepared and that lies with the attorneys for not making sure he had everything at his fingertips to review. I actually think he served more as an expert for the prosecution as opposed to the defense by the time he was done testifying. The most effective expert in my humble opinion was Ofshe. Ironically, I got the impression that the prosecution recognized this as well as there were more interruptions by the prosecution during his testimony than any other witness. My experience has been that this is due to the fact that they recognized that his testimony, if allowed in full, would be the strongest offered by the defense.

My only other observation in reading through the prosecution's case in chief and the defense's case is that the defense should have asked for a change of Judge if Arkansas law permitted it. Likely would have had to have been done earlier on if at all possible. Rulings certainly seemed to be lopsided in the the prosecution's favor (no I'm not going back and counting the rulings and citing them, it's a general observation).

Bottom line, in my humble opinion, is that the defense could have done more by doing less.

 

[kyleb]

Which alibi witnesses would you have excluded specifically? As for the defense experts, it seems to me that the issue with all of them was that Stidham was attempt trying was trying to invent an argument rather than address the facts. Anyway, since you were impressed by Ofshe, I'm curious to see what you make of his claims after getting through the closing arguments.

 

[reedus23]

Which alibi witnesses would you have excluded specifically? As for the defense experts, it seems to me that the issue with all of them was that Stidham was attempt trying was trying to invent an argument rather than address the facts. Anyway, since you were impressed by Ofshe, I'm curious to see what you make of his claims after getting through the closing arguments.

To be honest, all the alibi witnesses were pretty lousy. Unfortunately, I started late in noting the ones with drastic inconsistencies from what they had previously stated. Without naming the names, I would never have called witnesses who gave completely contradictory statements about whether they saw Jessie at the Stephanie/Connie incident. Minor inconsistencies, to me, are to be expected and if there aren't minor inconsistencies I'd start to worry about the story being rehearsed. However, if one says no, he wasn't there to the police and then in court says yes, he was there, that does more harm than good from the defense point of view. I'm going to read the rebuttal witnesses now, but if I have time down the road, I'll figure out the names of those I would have definitely left off.

Also, regarding the defense witnesses, after the first one with a yellow ribbon, word should have gotten around that no one else would be called as a witness who was wearing one. Regardless of whether they were innocent or guilty, that was pretty disrespectful to the victims' families and certainly painted the defense in a bad light.

Regarding Ofshe, while I said I thought he was their most effective witness, yes, I was impressed with him as well. My opinion matters none, but I thought the Judge improperly limited his testimony, but not so improperly that it would give rise to reversal on appeal. I will see if my thoughts of him change after reading/listening to the closings.