You are right, I have not formed any personal opinion as to whether they committed the crimes they were accused of or not. My observations about how a prosecuting attorney would not agree to the release of a convicted murderer unless they truly believed they did not commit the crime is more of an observation of the prosecuting attorney's actions as opposed to what whether there is sufficient facts known to point towards guilt.
I would be curious kyle, why do you think the prosecuting attorney agreed to their release? I don't think public pressure would be enough. They're not going to put someone they believe is a murderer, much less someone that killed young kids and not only killed them but mutilated them, on the streets just because some actors and singers are putting public pressure on them. If the prosecution truly believes they did the crimes, what are your thoughts on why they would agree to such a deal? Look forward to your input. Thanks.
In reference to your last part on the release of WM3 (I know our legal systems are extremely different) we have actually had a case like this in australia, offender was jailed and released AGAINST the views of every physc that interviewed him, as he said openly he would rape, murder and kill again.
Long story short he was released and within 3 years he'd killed again. So sometimes even if both sides are aware of his guilt, capability of committing crimes, desire to reoffend etc. the perp is still released.
Again not sure how this scenario would play out in the US legal system
Ceecee,
I first heard about the West Memphis Three case about 5 years ago. My nephew's high school teacher was discussing it in his class. He was learning about the justice system and they were discussing how many people have been wrongly accused, arrested, convicted, imprisoned and put to death. The numbers are staggering and I too find that frightening. The investigation may have many flaws and they just might have imprisoned the wrong young men. I can't dispute that, because I really don't know. Hopefully the truth will finally be discovered and revealed. But what concerns me is that young men who score high on Dr. Hare's psychopath checklist have a tendency to grow up to be sadistic and dangerous men. Now, I am sure many of those men may have had horribly abusive childhoods that molded their personality to become the men who can commit sadistic behaivor on animals and then later human beings. But my priorty is protecting the innocent from these men, before rationalizing why these men act the way they do.
Professionals who study antisocial pd explain that it is very difficult to treat. We all know from reading here at websleuths that there are many victims of these psychopaths. And many of their killers are still walking free in the streets waiting for their next victim. I just hope they didn't just release 3 more, whether they brutalized those three young boys or not.
You have some very excellent points, and I agree with most of them, I know myself how hard it is to treat a personality disorder as I live with one and have done for many years, although it has only just been diagnosed. I have exhibited alot of signs from an extremely young age. You can't just throw a personality disorder sufferer some pills and think its all going to be fine, we need physcotherapy to help us, personality disorders can also be learned behaviour, so the way you were bought up can factor into things
I say personally I can't call them guilty until I see evidence that can clearly prove this, yet I cannot understand how a psych aware of Damien's mental state, would not pursue his issues more thoroughly after some of the statements made in his physc reports. In saying that I have said some pretty evil things to my physc, with no intention of doing it, yet put me in a crisis and I could be capable of pretty much anything.
LE is well aware of me, in the last year they've been to my home more times than I can think of and I'm always detained under the mental health act, regardless of what's happened. I've even been arrested because I was in crisis and punched LE and they have understood that its not an action I would have taken if I had not been in crisis, so I was never charged.
In the same sentence I am a stay at home mum to two beautiful kids. I write all this to show you that even tho most days I'm lovely, I can be the most evil person you'll meet if you trigger me when in crisis.
I believe APD is extremely similar although APD sufferers hurt others and BPD will generally only hurt themselves.
CeeCee,
I admire you for having the courage to not only face the truth and acknowledging to yourself you have this PD, but also for being honest with yourself and others and sharing it here with us.
When you are in crisis do you feel a sense of rage? Do you know what your triggers are? Is there medication that helps to control these impulses or at least minimize them.
I am so sorry that you deal with this. Life is challenging enough for those who haven't had to deal with mental health challenges. This might explain why you are so supportive of a man who too faced these challenges, and because they were obvious to others, may have been an easy target to solve a case even if they had the wrong guy. I get that. Thanks for being so open CeeCee. You must be a very strong woman.
Rather, a new evidentiary hearing was granted, which could've led to a new trial depending on the outcome if that hearing. However, the defense chose to offer Alford Pleas instead, the prosecution accepted, and the court sentenced the convicted to time served plus 10 years suspended imposition of sentence. In layman's terms: they're on parole.
Anyway, of course public pressure is unlikely to set murderers free, but financial pressure is a very different beast. The state was between a rock and a hard place. The hard place was the hearing and potential jury trial for which the state would have to devote considerable resources to, against a defense team with a virtually unlimited budget, and in such situations there's a strong possibility that the guilty will be found innocent. Furthermore, expending such resources from the limited budget of the state would've diminished the resources available to prosecute other criminals, potentially resulting in more murders and such walking free. Then there's the possibility the convictions could've actually been overturned, which would've left the state open to costly litigation. So, the state avoided that hard place and chose the rock: time served plus 10 years suspended imposition of sentence. While letting people who murdered three young boys out on parole is a very hard rock to swallow, it's a reasonable decision in light of where the hard place could've led.
As for the burden of proof, of course a defense is not obligated to explain away a confession or establish an alibi. However, a confession meets that burden of proof in it's own right absent any reasonable justification for disregarding it, and a fraudulent alibi is more damning that no alibi at all. Regarding that last bit, a small spoiler from the Baldwin/Echols trial:
Baldwin's lawyer knew better than to present a fraudulent alibi.
I respect and honor that same standard. It's wrong to personally call someone guilty until you've seen the evidence to prove as much beyond any reasonable doubt. What bothers me is that so many people argue from the presumption of innocence even though the thee were found guilty by a a jury of their peers. Furthermore, such people insist on arguing such while considering only the evidence presented at trial, or don't even bother to familiarize themselves with as much, and weight that against arguments which have been made outside the confines of trial since then, effectively stacking the deck in favor of innocence. Beyond that, there's many flagrant deceptions parroted widely by people who don't bother to check the facts, the myth that Misskelley was interrogated for 12 hours before confessing being one well documented example.
In reference to your last part on the release of WM3 (I know our legal systems are extremely different) we have actually had a case like this in australia, offender was jailed and released AGAINST the views of every physc that interviewed him, as he said openly he would rape, murder and kill again.
Long story short he was released and within 3 years he'd killed again. So sometimes even if both sides are aware of his guilt, capability of committing crimes, desire to reoffend etc. the perp is still released.
Again not sure how this scenario would play out in the US legal system
What you seem to be describing is a case where the parole board released someone against the advice of psychiatrists. That has nothing in common with this case, where none of the defendants were eligible for parole in the first place and the decision to agree to the release was taken by the prosecutor, and accepted by a judge.
In reference to your last part on the release of WM3 (I know our legal systems are extremely different) we have actually had a case like this in australia, offender was jailed and released AGAINST the views of every physc that interviewed him, as he said openly he would rape, murder and kill again.
Long story short he was released and within 3 years he'd killed again. So sometimes even if both sides are aware of his guilt, capability of committing crimes, desire to reoffend etc. the perp is still released.
Again not sure how this scenario would play out in the US legal system
I am obviously just as uninformed about your legal system as you are ours and I'm not familiar with the facts of that case. In this instance, there was no need to release them if anyone thought they were responsible. They weren't up for parole. They're sentence hadn't been completed in anyway. If the judge didn't feel strongly that they were innocent, he would not have gone along with it. If the prosecution felt strongly enough about it, they would not have gone along with it. This is not a situation where a person served their terms and were being released even though some felt they would re-offend. This is a situation where both the court and the prosecution went out of there way to release three people who would not otherwise have been released.
Rather, a new evidentiary hearing was granted, which could've led to a new trial depending on the outcome if that hearing. However, the defense chose to offer Alford Pleas instead, the prosecution accepted, and the court sentenced the convicted to time served plus 10 years suspended imposition of sentence. In layman's terms: they're on parole.
Anyway, of course public pressure is unlikely to set murderers free, but financial pressure is a very different beast. The state was between a rock and a hard place. The hard place was the hearing and potential jury trial for which the state would have to devote considerable resources to, against a defense team with a virtually unlimited budget, and in such situations there's a strong possibility that the guilty will be found innocent. Furthermore, expending such resources from the limited budget of the state would've diminished the resources available to prosecute other criminals, potentially resulting in more murders and such walking free. Then there's the possibility the convictions could've actually been overturned, which would've left the state open to costly litigation. So, the state avoided that hard place and chose the rock: time served plus 10 years suspended imposition of sentence. While letting people who murdered three young boys out on parole is a very hard rock to swallow, it's a reasonable decision in light of where the hard place could've led.
As for the burden of proof, of course a defense is not obligated to explain away a confession or establish an alibi. However, a confession meets that burden of proof in it's own right absent any reasonable justification for disregarding it, and a fraudulent alibi is more damning that no alibi at all. Regarding that last bit, small spoiler from the Baldwin/Echols trial:
Baldwin's lawyer knew better than to present a fraudulent alibi.
Thanks kyle. I'll have to go back and re-read that hearing because I could have sworn that the judge had to first grant a new trial and he made the granting of that new trial conditional on the defendants entering alford pleas. I'm not familiar with Arkansas law, but I just don't know how, after a finding of guilty is entered, a different plea can be entered without the first conviction being removed in some manner, whether it's by being overturned or a new trial being granted.
I'm not sure I'm following the financial pressures argument. There were already convictions obtained. Countless appeals and post-conviction motions. I'm not sure how they could fear the costs of a new trial when there couldn't even be a new trial at that point. Are you saying there was a motion for a new trial that did have enough merit that it concerned the prosecution enough that they'd lose it that they offered the deal? They had faced so many other attempts to have the convictions overturned or new trials granted, why all of a sudden did they fear a new trial being granted as opposed to any of the other times.
I do find the discussions of the financial capabilities of each side interesting. I'm not sure if I agree yet that the state didn't have as many resources or more if the case was re-tried but assuming that is true, I find it ironic that it was just the opposite that may have played some role in the initial convictions. Namely that the state had everything at its disposal while the defendants couldn't afford experts.
Overall, I don't know if I can buy into the financial pressures being a reason the more I think about it. If those were concerns, they would never prosecute anyone with money or anyone willing to fight back. Convictions being overturned and re-trials are a risk with every case and that's why prosecuting attorneys have such high conviction rates. They're not going to file unless they're confident of prevailing.
I think I'm satisfied that regarding what evidence was presented directly linking Jessie to the murders. Thanks.
I respect and honor that same standard. It's wrong to personally call someone guilty until you've seen the evidence to prove as much beyond any reasonable doubt. What bothers me is that so many people argue from the presumption of innocence even though the thee were found guilty by a a jury of their peers. Furthermore, such people insist on arguing such while considering only the evidence presented at trial, or don't even bother to familiarize themselves with as much, and weight that against arguments which have been made outside the confines of trial since then, effectively stacking the deck in favor of innocence. Beyond that, there's many flagrant deceptions parroted widely by people who don't bother to check the facts, the myth that Misskelley was interrogated for 12 hours before confessing being one well documented example.
I think there are at least 2different questions that could be addressed and which question you are trying to answer determines what is fair to consider.
One question is should they have been convicted in the first place, in which case I do feel it's right to start from the presumption of their innocence and review only the facts as they were known at the time and the facts ultimately presented to the jury. With this approach, however, it would be wrong to consider anything that had been learned post-conviction to determine if they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place. As I see it, it's a whole different.
A second question to me is, did the three actually commit the crimes charged. When looking at it in this light, I don't think it would be wrong for someone to do away with the presumption of innocence given their convictions. At the same time, it would be fair to consider everything that was learned, whether it was used at trial or not, whether it was learned before or after the convictions.
Thanks kyle. I'll have to go back and re-read that hearing because I could have sworn that the judge had to first grant a new trial and he made the granting of that new trial conditional on the defendants entering alford pleas. I'm not familiar with Arkansas law, but I just don't know how, after a finding of guilty is entered, a different plea can be entered without the first conviction being removed in some manner, whether it's by being overturned or a new trial being granted.
I'm quoting myself because I did go back and started re-reading that hearing and got this far and thought I'd post it.
THE COURT: Thank you. The Court having
13 received evidence since we had our initial
14 scheduling in this case and hearing the proposal
15 of the parties, believes that there is a basis
16 in this case for its ordering a new trial,
17 conditional on the fulfillment of certain other
18 requirements of this proposed Alford plea. And
19 the Court will enter a conditional order for a
20 new trial at this time on behalf of both Mr.
21 Echols, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Misskelley.
It looks to me that the Court did in fact grant a new trial, which is what would have eliminated the convictions that were of record and that had to be done before and in order to accept the Alford Pleas. At the same time, I did see discussion of a new trial down the road if this stuff wasn't done. Had there been an appellate ruling of some sort that indicated that new trials were inevitable?
Please do, and note how the Alford Plea discussion starts right at the the beginning of the hearing, and also note the absence of any granting of a new trial in the records proceeding that.
Are you saying there was a motion for a new trial that did have enough merit that it concerned the prosecution enough that they'd lose it that they offered the deal?
No, what I said is "a new evidentiary hearing was granted, which could've led to a new trial depending on the outcome", and as I went on to explain, the situation could've gotten far more costly and uncertain from there.
They had faced so many other attempts to have the convictions overturned or new trials granted, why all of a sudden did they fear a new trial being granted as opposed to any of the other times.
The possibility was always there, but the financial support behind the convicted was constantly growing, and the all of the sudden in the situation was the defense proposing the Alford Plea deal.
Rather, the state had the financial advantage, but they had limited resources back then too, and many cases to spread those resources across. Furthermore, the defendants did have expert witnesses.
Rather, the state is far more careful when deciding whether or not to arrest wealthy people, let alone prosecute them. It's not a simple binary matter like you suggest. It's also far from ideal, but if you set the bar at perfection then reality will often fall far short.
I do feel it's right to start from the presumption of their innocence and review only the facts as they were known at the time and the facts ultimately presented to the jury.
At the same time, it would be fair to consider everything that was learned, whether it was used at trial or not, whether it was learned before or after the convictions.
Yes, considering all the available evidence is the only way to truly assess the question of guilt. And in that regard: I've yet to find one person proclaiming innocence who has proven capable of coming anywhere close to respecting that standard.
CeeCee,
I admire you for having the courage to not only face the truth and acknowledging to yourself you have this PD, but also for being honest with yourself and others and sharing it here with us.
When you are in crisis do you feel a sense of rage? Do you know what your triggers are? Is there medication that helps to control these impulses or at least minimize them.
I am so sorry that you deal with this. Life is challenging enough for those who haven't had to deal with mental health challenges. This might explain why you are so supportive of a man who too faced these challenges, and because they were obvious to others, may have been an easy target to solve a case even if they had the wrong guy. I get that. Thanks for being so open CeeCee. You must be a very strong woman.
Unfortunately although I portray myself as strong, I'm not... The slightest thing can make me crumble.. Borderlines feel emotions (anger,happy,sadness) at 10 times stronger than a normal (non mental illness) person.
Yes when I'm in crisis rage wouldn't even explain the anger I feel, i liken it to a pot of boiling water that cant be turned off, i just keep boiling and boiling until i snap, I try not to get into crisis now I'm aware I have BPD (I've only been diagnosed for 9 months). Depending on what emotion sets the crisis off (for me it's always anger) is how the crisis is handled. Yes I'm aware of my triggers now and try to avoid things that will set those off, I'm lucky enough also to have an understanding partner that even if I'm a complete ***** for no reason he can see past it and not snap back, although its taken alot of detainments and an arrest to get there!
There are medications to help the co morbid conditions (depression, anxiety, paranoia etc.) that walk hand in hand with BPD but unfortunately the ONLY effective way to treat a personality disorder is physcotherapy, and trying to undo years of learned behavioural issues. I currently do a course called DBT (dialectical behavioural therapy) and this is working for me. It teaches us in crisis to use many different techniques and activities to enable us to get back to normal as such.
Some of the medications currently used (in AUS) are anti anxiety medications, mood stabilizers, and anti depressants. Sorry anti physcotic drugs are also used.
I think you hit the nail on the head on my compassion towards Damien, I see so many similar traits in our reports and maybe that scares me... Maybe it's actually hit that light switch in my head to accept that my behaviour sometimes is not ok, I however am lucky enough to live in an age that supports mental illness and I have a great partner who is there every step of the way.
Please don't be sorry I suffer this, I'm not... I'm actually thankful I have something so horrid because through challenges comes strength. Not only that I have two wonderful kids who will grow up being tolerant of mentally ill people..
I am obviously just as uninformed about your legal system as you are ours and I'm not familiar with the facts of that case. In this instance, there was no need to release them if anyone thought they were responsible. They weren't up for parole. They're sentence hadn't been completed in anyway. If the judge didn't feel strongly that they were innocent, he would not have gone along with it. If the prosecution felt strongly enough about it, they would not have gone along with it. This is not a situation where a person served their terms and were being released even though some felt they would re-offend. This is a situation where both the court and the prosecution went out of there way to release three people who would not otherwise have been released.
The gentleman I refer to in the australian case, hadn't completed his sentence either but yes he was up for good behaviour on which the judge released him. So in essence because he was good in jail, regardless of physc warnings he was still released before his entire sentence.
We can be sentenced to 15 years here but only serve 3 years, partially taking in good behaviour and actions of the prisoner whilst in jail. I referred to it very loosely as I know the legal systems are different as our the cases.
What you seem to be describing is a case where the parole board released someone against the advice of psychiatrists. That has nothing in common with this case, where none of the defendants were eligible for parole in the first place and the decision to agree to the release was taken by the prosecutor, and accepted by a judge.
The gentleman in question wasn't eligible for parole. He still had 10 years left on his sentence. He was released under a legality relating to his behaviour in prison (a silly law IMO).
Unfortunately in australia our prisoners have better care than the elderly. They get given everything under the sun and for good behaviour can be given tvs, xboxes, extra privileges. They have access to free health care and can often skip wait lists for surgery. Yet this doesn't happen to normal people in our society.. I had to wait 6 months to get into my DBT course and I was lucky that I had the head of perinatal physciatric care behind me as otherwise I could have been waiting years. Yet had I been in prison I would have been out in a course 10 minutes after being diagnosed.
The gentleman in question wasn't eligible for parole. He still had 10 years left on his sentence. He was released under a legality relating to his behaviour in prison (a silly law IMO).
It looks to me that the Court did in fact grant a new trial, which is what would have eliminated the convictions that were of record and that had to be done before and in order to accept the Alford Pleas.
More precisely, the court entered "a conditional order for a new trial", which was "conditional on the fulfillment of certain other requirements of this proposed Alford plea", meaning the defendants had to agree to plead guilty to bypass the evidentiary hearing process which could've lead to them regaining the presumption of innocence in an actual new trial. So yeah, I did arguably overstate myself in a semantic sense, but my point remains the same.
Please do, and note how the Alford Plea discussion starts right at the the beginning of the hearing, and also note the absence of any granting of a new trial in the records proceeding that.
I'll probably see that you have answered this question for me if I would have just read all the posts before hitting reply, but in the language that I previously posted from the hearing, didn't the court, in fact, grant a new trial? Thanks.
No, what I said is "a new evidentiary hearing was granted, which could've led to a new trial depending on the outcome", and as I went on to explain, the situation could've gotten far more costly and uncertain from there.
Ok, I think I understand that procedurally then. I had misread some of your statements then as implying that a new trial was inevitable and would be costly.
Rather, the state had the financial advantage, but they had limited resources back then too, and many cases to spread those resources across. Furthermore, the defendants did have expert witnesses.
I didn't mean to imply they didn't have any.
Surely you don't presume innocence on all convicts that proclaim innocence until you've thoroughly reviewed the details of their trials?
It depends on if I'm trying to answer the first or the second question. 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. So for those purposes, yes, I would. If I'm trying to answer the second question, no I would consider the fact that they have been found guilty.
The gentleman I refer to in the australian case, hadn't completed his sentence either but yes he was up for good behaviour on which the judge released him. So in essence because he was good in jail, regardless of physc warnings he was still released before his entire sentence.
We can be sentenced to 15 years here but only serve 3 years, partially taking in good behaviour and actions of the prisoner whilst in jail. I referred to it very loosely as I know the legal systems are different as our the cases.
I understand. We have similar situations for certain convicts but those were not involved in this case. Their release had nothing to do with being up for parole or being released for good behavior. They would have spent the rest of their lives in jail had the prosecution and the judge not seen fit to essentially redo the outcome to their cases.
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
More precisely, the court entered "a conditional order for a new trial", which was "conditional on the fulfillment of certain other requirements of this proposed Alford plea", meaning the defendants had to agree to plead guilty to bypass the evidentiary hearing process which could've lead to them regaining the presumption of innocence in an actual new trial. So yeah, I did arguably overstate myself in a semantic sense, but my point remains the same.
I think I get it. The judge first had to grant a new trial in order to vacate the convictions so that the alford pleas could be entered. At the same time, the judge didn't want to simply enter an order for a new trial and then turn around and not have the alford pleas entered and permit the defendants to in fact try the case again. In other words, at that point at least, the judge didn't really want a new trial granted, but it was the only mechanism available to permit him to vacate the convictions and enter the alford pleas so he granted the new trial conditional to the defendants entering the alford pleas.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
