Relationships with family after being released

[justthinkin]

There will never be another trial because incontrovertible proof will never be presented that refutes the participation of Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin.

Just as water washed away evidence, it washed away any hope the WMguilty have of escaping the verdicts against them. They remain, in the eyes of the courts, the laws, and Nons, guilty as charged.

Sure, they can claim innocence. They can also claim to be purple people eaters for that matter. It makes not one iota of difference.

 

[justthinkin]

I am confident that, when all the information the defense team has is prepared and presented to Scott Ellington, the case will be reopened. That will begin by vacating the verdicts of Damien, Jason and Jessie. Then, the case will be reopened and (hopefully) properly investigated and the real killer convicted and incarcerated.

Maybe you didn't get it, CR, Scott Ellington wanted to wash his hands of this case for whatever his reasons. He is unlikely to want to reopen the can of worms (in his eyes) he just closed.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

There will never be another trial because incontrovertible proof will never be presented that refutes the participation of Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin.

I disagree. I have every confidence that such evidence exists and will be presented in due time. We'll just have to wait a while - a short while, I hope.

Just as water washed away evidence, it washed away any hope the WMguilty have of escaping the verdicts against them. They remain, in the eyes of the courts, the laws, and Nons, guilty as charged.

Water doesn't wash away all evidence. After all, some DNA was found despite the immersion in water of the bodies. There is also other evidence that is unaffected by water like witness statements. I believe, in due time, all will be explained. The State of Arkansas will, once again, be shown to be foolish in prosecuting (or should I say persecuting?) these innocent men.

Sure, they can claim innocence. They can also claim to be purple people eaters for that matter. It makes not one iota of difference.

And the State can continue to claim they are guilty. That won't change the truth. I don't care how many trial juries said they were guilty. The juries were wrong. As for the fiasco in August, it was a monumental effort on the part of the State of Arkansas to do damage control to the reputation of the State. Ellington and McDaniels knew that a new trial would result in an acquittal, and they knew that an acquittal would make the State look worse than it already did. So, the Alford plea was accepted. Yes, they have convictions on their record right now, but Peter Jackson has deep pockets, and I have every confidence that those convictions will eventually be overturned and the real killer will be properly investigated, arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated. Then, and only then, will this sad mess (created by the sloppy actions of the WMPD and the Satanic panic prevalent at the time of the crimes) be fixed.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Maybe you didn't get it, CR, Scott Ellington wanted to wash his hands of this case for whatever his reasons. He is unlikely to want to reopen the can of worms (in his eyes) he just closed.

Then he will be shown to be a liar because, in the Q & A a few days after the release, he said that he would look at any new information the defense presented to him. Yes, he said that he considered the case closed. However, if you read what he said in the recent GQ article, I believe you will see what he really thinks. I know that he ate the "maggot sandwich" at the time, but I also believe that, once the defense presents their information to him, he will find a way to save face (at least personally) and still reopen the case. Otherwise, as I said, he will be shown to be a liar, and that won't help his political aspirations at all.

 

[iluvmua]

I though this case was closed because all 3 of them pled guilty and even if someone else was to confess, it would not matter because they pled guilty??? . or am I missing something?

 

[AngelontheRiver]

Well. I guess it is up to the defense to present new evidence to him. I won't be holding my breath for that.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Well. I guess it is up to the defense to present new evidence to him. I won't be holding my breath for that.

There will be no more testing of evidence according to the motion Echol's attorney filed to dismiss that testing.

Here is where he is telling them to dismiss the request for any additional testing. This was after the Alford plea.

September 8, 2011
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Echols) [District Court]http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/de_motion_dismiss_habeas.pdf


Here is where he requested testing back in 2007
October 29, 2007
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Echols) [District Court]
http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/2nd_Amended_Habeas_Petition_10-29-2007.pdf

To me this speaks volumes especially after they have said in the media that they were going to have testing done and will continue and to keep sending them donations.

I'm surprised the supporters have not caught on yet to that, but I guess some are blind to the facts.

 

[Cappuccino]

Nonsense. All the DNA tests applied for in the 2007 filing were completed by July 26 of this year. The dismissal of the Habeus Corpus writ has nothing to do with any testing, its a procedural issue necessitated by the obvious fact that the wm3 have been released.

For you, and anyone else, who missed the final status report on the dna tests, here it is...

http://www.arktimes.com/images/blogimages/2011/07/26/1311695361-dnafiling.pdf

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I though this case was closed because all 3 of them pled guilty and even if someone else was to confess, it would not matter because they pled guilty??? . or am I missing something?

Theoretically, I guess the State of Arkansas could take that position. However, I believe that the citizens of the State would protest loud and long were that to happen. I know that Mark and Pam would.

Yes, they pleaded guilty under an Alford plea, which allows them to maintain their innocence. That's what is so unique about the Alford plea. The defendants agree that there is enough evidence that they could be convicted (note: could not would). However, the same defendants continue to insist that they are innocent.

The plea is usually used to avoid a long and costly trial, and the deal offered is usually considerably less prison time than would be given if the trial were to have taken place and resulted in a guilty verdict. My brother-in-law, who is an attorney, told me that this plea is a way for a state to avoid a long and costly trial. He also told me that it is generally used when the State fears that their evidence is legally insufficient - that a good attorney could poke tremendous holes in it.

He said that it was a way to get a guilty verdict without having a strong case - usually because the defendant can be persuaded that a guilty verdict is possible. It's all about how afraid of prison the defendant is. In our case, obviously, the defendants had served considerable time for murders of which they were innocent and had no desire to take chances with the Arkansas justice system which had already falsely incarcerated them for so many years.

So, although the State of Arkansas could possibly stand pat on the existing verdicts, I seriously doubt that they would do so. The State has already suffered immeasurably bad PR through this case. I don't think that they would want to subject themselves to more bad PR by refusing to overthrow obviously incorrect verdicts when additional evidence exonerating the three falsely convicted men is made known.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Nonsense. All the DNA tests applied for in the 2007 filing were completed by July 26 of this year. The dismissal of the Habeus Corpus writ has nothing to do with any testing, its a procedural issue necessitated by the obvious fact that the wm3 have been released.

For you, and anyone else, who missed the final status report on the dna tests, here it is...

http://www.arktimes.com/images/blogimages/2011/07/26/1311695361-dnafiling.pdf

Ah, but that does not include all of the items he wanted to have tested in July 2011 according to this document. He only gave the results of what was favorable to the defense. What I want to know about is everything else that was tested and they are not bringing forth? Now, that's nonsense!
http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/de_statusreport_7_18_11.pdf

 

[Cappuccino]

According to the document you just linked to, everything on Echols' wish list was DNA tested apart from the paper that the clothes were placed on which had been lost by the WMPD. The results for all those tests were returned to the court by July 26th of this year.

The only tests outstanding are the shoe lace tests, and the fibre and animal hair tests requested by Baldwin and Misskelley's defense teams, and none of those tests are affected by the dismissal of Echols' Habeas Corpus writ. You are chasing a red herring.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

You are chasing a red herring.

And DITTO to you as well.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It is a fact that fiber testing and animal hair testing was conducted after the release of the WMFree. Whether or not it is finished is something I don't know. What I do know is that the results have not been made public - yet. This is no red herring.

Damien's attorney withdrew his Federal level appeal (Writ of Habaes Corpus) because he has been released - the body has been produced. Therefore, continuing to imply that the withdrawal of this petition was some nefarious way to stop the testing is patently ridiculous. Testing continued, in fact may still be ongoing. Therefore, IMO your assumptions as to the purpose of the withdrawal of the Federal habaes corpus petition does seem to be chasing a red herring.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The problem with all this "information" is that it is becoming hurtful to certain people. Please respect the privacy of these people. Simply put, some of these "relationships" that people want to know about are none of our business. "Personal relationships" should remain personal - and private.

When people give public press interviews, they are fair game. Some of those folks are even paid for their interviews and have all of the questions pre-arranged beforehand so as there won't be any foul-ups in their stories.

So, privacy goes out the window at that point. Just as any person who is in the press whether it be real news or just entertainment news.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sometimes people who did not give press interviews are dragged into the fray, so to speak. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to this case. This is true of reporting in general. It all begins with the voyeurs in America that believe that it is their right to know (and see) everything. This attitude has endangered troops in the past and certainly endangers innocent people frequently.

My point is that even public figure should be entitled to a certain amount of privacy, and the personal relationships among family members should be off limits unless those relationships are made public by the public figures. Americans just seem to want to know things that frankly, IMO, are none of their business. Until one has walked a mile in a public figure's shoes (so to speak), I don't think one can comment on how the intense public scrutiny affects them and/or their families, and I don't think one should want to know personal information if one is informed that obtaining that knowledge is hurtful to some of the people involved - unless, of course, one is a sadist.

 

[Cappuccino]

Sometimes people who did not give press interviews are dragged into the fray, so to speak. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to this case. This is true of reporting in general. It all begins with the voyeurs in America that believe that it is their right to know (and see) everything. This attitude has endangered troops in the past and certainly endangers innocent people frequently.

I fully agree, and its not just an American problem either. Look at the way the paparazzi hounded Princess Diana. IMO, anyone - famous or not - has the right to choose whether to talk about their private lives or just tell people to mind their own business.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

IIRC, the American media divulged Prince Harry's location when he was with the military, endangering his life and the lives of his fellows. If the media doesn't police itself, we Americans could be looking at the possibility of losing some of our precious freedoms.

After 9/11, some of our freedoms were compromised with the Patriot Act (which I understand), but, if the media continues to feel it necessary to report everything that they know, it could get nasty. JMO, but media coverage was at least partially why Casey Anthony got off. Juries are being compromised and lives are being put at risk - all in the name of our precious "right to know." It needs to stop!

Sorry for the rant, but I feel pretty strongly about this!

 

[Cappuccino]

I think the jury was sequestered during the Anthony trial, so the media can't really be blamed for that one.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think the jury was sequestered during the Anthony trial, so the media can't really be blamed for that one.

However, there was a lot of media attention to the case before the trial began. This is what I fear - that pre-trial media coverage of a case like this produces biased juries, even if they won't admit it. My guess is that at least some of those jurors had already formed an opinion about the case before they were selected. And, just like Kent Arnold, they felt strongly about the case so they didn't admit to their bias on voir dire. Our system is imperfect because it relies on imperfect people. However, if the media would simply report the facts instead of trying to interpret them for us (a la Nancy Grace or Geraldo), I think justice would be much better served. Shows and comments like theirs should only be aired after a case has been adjudicated. But that's JMO. I could be wrong.

 

[Saddoll]

Damien has made one phone call to his family, and then he changed his number. Though I believe they are guilty I felt sorry for Pam Sitting in a wheel chair waiting for her son to give her a hug. Which she did not get, she did not even get invited to the party.

About a year ago Pam and Michele started a blog, someone asked Michele when was the last time you seen Damien, Michele replied that the last time she went to the prison someone else's name was on the register as sister and she was not allowed to see Damien.

I have no respect for Damien Echols, Family should come first.