SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August

[Tricksy]

Are the familys onboard with the defence due to the plea or because they think the guys are truely innocent ?

I dont know what to think , except it makes no sence that they would accept this plea much less bring it to the table themselves. Trust or no trust who would accept being a child murder after making so much headway in the case if they were truely innocent when a court date in dec had a very real chance of justice to an innocent man. 18 years in jail for a crime you claim you didnt comment and claim LE forced you to say this and etc just to enter a plea instead of even trying to clear your name. This isnt just a speeding ticket ,or a simple A&B

I personaly know how I felt when I was wrongly convicted ,I appealed and won my appeal and WOULD NOT take a plea.

Thanks for coming back to me, I appreciate that. Off the top of my head I think one of the families were doubting their guilt about 10 years ago and then laterly there were questions raised by another family as to their guilt. I'd have to check all of the details on this though, I used to be very well read on this case until about 3 years ago (I have a debilitating illness which prevents me from reading/doing as much as I would like) so I am not fully up to date with the recent developments.

I agree it sort of makes no sense if maintaining innocent, but I would say, it is not me who has to live in their shoes, facing life in prison or the death penalty. I'd like to think that I'd hold firm till I got exonerated, but *if* those guys are innocent I wouldn't have much trust in the justice system after all they have been through. Heck, I haven't got much trust in my legal system as it is at the moment.

I can, to a certain extent see why they would plea out, in terms of DE facing the death penalty. But I would fight like mad to prove my innocence. It would be a bittersweet day and I would never stop trying to prove my innocence.

I am really sorry to hear that you we wrongly accused and I am glad that you were exonerated. I don't want to pry, (as I don't know your case) I am just thinking how best to word this to you...

The stakes are very high for them in terms of punishment, if you were in their position would you still fight for exoneration while incarcerated, or would you do as they have done, plea and then attempt to fight the guilt from the outside?

Personally, I would be conflicted in that whilst I would want to fight my innocence, I would be aware of having been inside 18 years, having missed 18 years of my life, having watched my parents age...would I want to live a normal life, have time with my relatives, BUT I would not be happy to accept guilt. I would want to fight that tooth and nail, whilst I was on the outside. I would want to prove my innocence once and for all.

 

[gitana1]

An Alford Plea is not a guilty plea!! In a nutshell, it is a statement that you are not guilty, but admit that they have evidence that would be hard to overcome. This is an exceptional case, especially for an Alford Plea, since I believe that there is no way in this world that they have evidence that would prove these boys were involved in any way. I see this as the WM3 making a deal with the state and courts to spare the reputation of the state in exchange for the freedom that the state didn't really have a right to take from them in the first place. I can understand taking a stand in the beginning, but after being left in a cage for all those years, there comes a time when you do what needs to be done and then continue to work for your innocence to be proven from the outside. I can tell you, from experience, wrongful conviction is not something that you get out someone out of easily. After DNA testing proved that Earl Washington Jr was not the true killer in his case, it took the IP and a team of lawyers and supports an additional 9 years to win his freedom. 9 years after DNA!!!! And even after all of that, the state has never apologized or formally admitted wrongdoing and has even gone so far as to have original member of LE and the prosecution go on TV and state he is in fact guilty, regardless of what the DNA says and that the VICTIM must have been cheating on her husband (with a man who is now in prison on unrelated rape and murder charges). That is how far some states will go to avoid admission of wrongdoing, folks! So far that they would accuse the victim of wrongdoing and loose morals before admitting that they imply made a mistake.

Agreed. I reviewed all the evidence in this case. So glad these boys are out and so sad that Christopher, Michael and Stevie have never received justice.

 

[ohiogirl]

I could see that ,if a court date wasnt in Dec alreay on the dockett.

I guess if it was me ,I would wait out the four months in jail.

I have not spent 18 years though so who knows . I do feel I wouldnt want to have that plea on my record and if there was a possible chance of the conviction being overturned. I feel it is quite crazy to think I would plead to that, unless I knew a new trial would also convict me as well being concerned with new forensic tools that might not have been useful in 1993 and in my old trial. I feel they WM3 just won at a game of chess.
I dont know if they are quilty or not,but they just plead it so I am inclined to believe they commited the actual crime due to not waiting out the 4 months in jail for the next hearing.

http://www.arktimes.com/
I have now spent half my life on death row. It is a torturous environment that no human being should have to endure, and it needed to end. I am innocent, as are Jason and Jessie, but I made this decision because I did not want to spend another day of my life behind those bars. I want to live and to continue to fight for our innocence. Sometimes justice is neither pretty nor is it perfect, but it was important to take this opportunity to be free.


I think this explains it. Not a whole lot more to be said, imo.

 

[SyraKelly]

Which of the fathers yelled at them in the courtroom?

 

[Disgusted]

A trial for the real killer of these three little boys. In 18 years time, there has never been one shred of evidence produced against the WM3. But there has been witness/s and evidence acquired to suggest a 'family member' of one of the children is far more likely than these three to be involved in these murders IMO.

multiple confessions to multiple people by multiple defendants including one who's attorney was present and begging him not to confess is not evidence now?

 

[believe09]

I am sure this case has come up many times here:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Austin_Yogurt_Shop_Murders"]1991 Austin Yogurt Shop Murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

"On Wednesday, October 6, 1999, police in
Texas and West Virginia arrested four suspects in connection with the murders. Robert Burns Springsteen Jr., 24, was arrested in Charleston, WV. Michael James Scott, 25, of Buda TXwas arrested in the Austin area. Maurice Pierce, 24, was arrested in Lewisville, north of Dallas, and Forrest Wellborn, 23, was picked up in Lockhart, TX, southeast of Austin. The prosecution stated at one hearing that DNA evidence in the case had been tested against more than seventy people (including Robert Springsteen, Michael Scott, Maurice Pierce, and Forrest Wellborn) and failed to match. Charges against Forrest Wellborn were dropped when an Austin Grand Jury failed to indict him. Charges were later dropped against Maurice Pierce. Only the cases against Scott and Springsteen went to trial.

The investigation was complicated by matters internal to the Austin police department. Detective Hector Polanco was fired from the department for allegedly coercing confessions. A relationship between Springsteen's father and Austin police data processing employee Karen Huntley prompted her transfer."

and

Seven jurors from the trials have stated they would not have convicted the men had this evidence been available at the time.

 

[believe09]

IIRC, the men were released on bond and the DA decided not to pursue prosecuting them after the SJC overturned the conviction of one.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

multiple confessions to multiple people by multiple defendants including one who's attorney was present and begging him not to confess is not evidence now?

BBM

Huh? I have to admit that other than watching whatever came on TV, I have not followed this case closely in about 5 years, but I have never, EVER heard that any of the defendants confessed besides Jessie. Not being snarky. Just asking to be pointed in a direction of when Damien or Jason ever confessed to this crime. TIA

 

[Soulmagent]

BBM

But it is more than just 'waiting out' the next four months. Who knows what comes from the next hearing? Meanwhile, if you had been on DEATH ROW for 18 years for a crime you did not commit, and your lawyer said you get be free immediately, if you took an ALford Plea, and you could still pursue proving innocence later, wouldn't you try that route?

Nope ,because I would be admitting they had evidence to convict me (based on definitions posted here) Which I am under the impression there is no evidence SO why would I plea saying there is?

 

[CountryGirl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the December hearing was to rule on IF they were entitled to get new trials ... not the date for new trials. The actual retrials wouldn't start in December.

 

[Melanie]

Can you really say you wouldn't after being innocent and in prison for 18 years, sentenced to life or death? I highly doubt it.

Politics is a funny thing - no way these 3 would have been released had the judge not deemed there wasn't a good enough reason to do so. I make no bones that I've always wavered on this case, leaning towards innocence on so many ocassions.

I've been poking around various news thread comment sections and see SO many people agree that the release is the right thing to do -- and not the backlash like CFCMA received upon her not-guilty release. Society provides little relief to those they deem guilty of murder.

I hope they can continue the fight after release to clear their names and find the real killer(s) of the 3 precious little boys.

My opinion only - thanks.

Mel

 

[Compassionate Reader]

To answer a couple of questions, it was Steve Branch, Sr. (Stevie's biological father who, years ago, relinquished his parental rights so he wouldn't have to pay child support) who threatened Damien on TV and yelled and was removed from the courtroom. Anyone think this <modsnip> is credible?

Many of us at the Blackboard ( www.wm3blackboard.com ) believe that Terry Hobbs is the guilty party. He was Stevie's stepfather at the time of the murders. We plan to continue to work to prove his guilt and thereby prove the innocence of the WM3.

Although I'm very happy that the three are free, I'm sorry that they had to enter a bogus guilty plea to get it done. Even that Ellison admitted in his post hearing press conference that a new trial would have been granted in December and that it would probably have ended with verdicts of not guilty for all three. Politics and money drove this plea deal.

 

[Tricksy]

Sorry...the 3 convicted killers just admitted their guilt. But, doesn't matter what I think. Just hoping and praying one of these killers doesn't move anywhere near my family. Let their celebrity cheerleaders and those who believe they are innocent (even though they just took a plea saying they are guilty :waitasec deal with them.

Have any of the media or the 3 convicted killers or their attorneys mentioned the names of the 3 victims today? By victims, I mean the 3 little boys....

Thanks very much for coming back to me, I appreciate that.

I understand that the 3 victims are Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers. I have never forgotten them in the whole time I have read about this case.

I don't know if the Defense lawyers mentioned the boys or not, because, as I was watching the conference I was also talking to my DH so I didn't hear it in full. If they didn't mention them then that is a great shame. Whilst I appreciate that a Defense lawyers primary concern is the best outcome for their client, I think that they should always acknowledge and show respect the victims of crime and their families.

I have tried to explain in my post above to Soulmagnet how I would honestly feel, if I was in the West Memphis 3's shoes and why they plead guilty.

I also wonder, why if the SA's is so sure of their guilt, they are now turning round and letting 3 convicted killers walk free?

There are so many different angles to this.

I am interested in hearing your views in regard to some of the families supporting Baldwin, Echols and Misskelley's innocence. Even if its a difference of opinion to mine, I still like to take in to consideration others views on the subject.

 

[pdxmama]

Nope ,because I would be admitting they had evidence to convict me (based on definitions posted here) Which I am under the impression there is no evidence SO why would I plea saying there is?

I don't think that any of us can say what we would or wouldn't do unless we are in this situation. I would like to think that I wouldn't compromise if I were truly innocent but, after spending 18 years on death row? I may reconsider.

 

[21merc7]

I am hoping that right now the State is working on whomever the evidence connects to. We know all those attorneys that have been working for these young men over the years will continue. I can think that right now maybe the State does not know the exact person, or more particularly, are not willing to divulge it due to heated publicity for themselves and perhaps the WM3.

I am thinking that the attorneys advised this deal to get the innocent out of jail asap, and to calm a few in the State down. Let the flames die down a bit, then get on with the clearing of the names/records once it is time to proceed.

Works for everyone, just takes time. I am trying to accept this deal, but I still don't like it, that is the way it is though.

I feel for the WM3 in that they do not have educations, work experience, and have spent their formative years in the most harsh of environments. It will be very, very difficult for them out here, along with the flames that will follow, even once they are fully cleared. I have hope for them that enough people that knew and could were there this long, they can try to help them along a bit further.

 

[katydid23]

Nope ,because I would be admitting they had evidence to convict me (based on definitions posted here) Which I am under the impression there is no evidence SO why would I plea saying there is?

Because there was some 'evidence'--like the confession and the fibers and the flimsy witness testimony. There WAS some evidence, but much of it has been called into question.

 

[SilkySifaka]

An Alford Plea is not a guilty plea!! In a nutshell, it is a statement that you are not guilty, but admit that they have evidence that would be hard to overcome. This is an exceptional case, especially for an Alford Plea, since I believe that there is no way in this world that they have evidence that would prove these boys were involved in any way. I see this as the WM3 making a deal with the state and courts to spare the reputation of the state in exchange for the freedom that the state didn't really have a right to take from them in the first place. I can understand taking a stand in the beginning, but after being left in a cage for all those years, there comes a time when you do what needs to be done and then continue to work for your innocence to be proven from the outside. I can tell you, from experience, wrongful conviction is not something that you get out someone out of easily. After DNA testing proved that Earl Washington Jr was not the true killer in his case, it took the IP and a team of lawyers and supports an additional 9 years to win his freedom. 9 years after DNA!!!! And even after all of that, the state has never apologized or formally admitted wrongdoing and has even gone so far as to have original member of LE and the prosecution go on TV and state he is in fact guilty, regardless of what the DNA says and that the VICTIM must have been cheating on her husband (with a man who is now in prison on unrelated rape and murder charges). That is how far some states will go to avoid admission of wrongdoing, folks! So far that they would accuse the victim of wrongdoing and loose morals before admitting that they simply made a mistake.

I remember a case from the IP book, new evidence (dna) came up after the legally allowed time in one state. Another man had recently been exonerated in the next state.

The judge asked the DA who was fighting the DNA evidence being allowed in to a hearing what they would have done in the case that exonerated the man. She said "we wouldn't have had that problem, you can't bring new evidence after *advertiser censored* months" paraphrase but close to exact.

My jaw dropped.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Nope ,because I would be admitting they had evidence to convict me (based on definitions posted here) Which I am under the impression there is no evidence SO why would I plea saying there is?

I work off and on for a case where a man confessed, repeatedly, while on drugs given to him by the jail staff, where the man was convicted in a 4 hour non jury trial (still on drugs) and sentenced to death. His sentence was later commuted to life with parole and recommendation for a new trial by the governor due to rehabilitation, salvation and evidence of innocence. Thing is, a governor cannot order a new trial. When my friend signed the papers he was told there would be freedom eventually. He, like the WM3 had supporters from around the world and at one time, was labeled "The most famous death row prisoner in America" It has been 32+ years since he was convicted and still he sits there, sometimes wishing he hadn't signed the papers and would have just let them execute him.

Granted there was going to be another hearing in December, but speaking as someone who has been there, hearings are not new trials. Hearings are hearings and they rarely lead to monumental things like a death row prisoner's release. I stopped following the cases closely about 5 years ago, because it made me sick and there was always some hearing that held promise coming up and I would always get excited for them for nothing. It's a lot easier (and I am sure, more fun) to work for your innocence from the outside than it is from the inside. I never believed they would execute Damien, because there was so much support, it would have been political suicide for the powers that be, but I was beginning to think that they would be like my friend Joe and never be released.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If you listened to the press conference with the three after the hearing, all three said that they had just been released from eighteen years of imprisonment for a crime that they didn't commit. I'm sure that the eighteen years behind bars had a lot to do with their decision. Jason, especially, said that it was hard for him. Basically, he said he was doing it to save Damien's life. I'm not going to second-guess their decisions. Damien also said that he would work from the outside to prove their innocence. I'm all for that!

 

[gitana1]

More questions than answers:

1.) If DNA exonerated them, why are they admitting their guilt?

2.) It sounds like a time served plea bargain deal, but the circumstances don't make sense. DNA either exonerates or it does not.

3.) The HBO documentary Paradise Lost was really good. It raised some doubt as to their guilt for me, but at the time I sort of believed that I needed some DNA evidence because there were puzzle pieces missing on BOTH prosecution and defense sides.

4.) The controversy is now we have the DNA puzzle piece, but still confusion. Does this show they are innocent? Or does it just show that the DNA shows there is not enough evidence for a conviction? If they could still be guilty, why? If they are innocent, why?

5.) Does the DNA link to another suspect? THAT would once and for all clear the West Memphis Three.

We haven't gotten to #5 yet, if at all. If we don't get to #5, what does that mean?

Satch

DNA did not match the WMIII. It matched the step-father of Stevie and the step-father's friend.
There was zero forensic evidence pointing to these guys as the murderers.

DNA has exonerated dozens of people due to the efforts of the Innocence Project. However, those who think different or un-matching DNA results in immediate release likely need to read up a bit more on the justice system and wrongly convicted persons. It simply does not work that way, even with concrete evidence that the wrong person has been convicted. It could take decades, if ever, even with irrefutable DNA evidence, to get someone out. That's just a fact.

I have a few quick questions (I think), since I didn't follow the case avidly. Why was Damien on death row and the other two were not? I know he was convicted of capital murder and the others weren't, but what was the evidence and reasoning? Did they all confess, or just Damien? I heard something on the feed about a confession where it's alleged that someone(s) was told by LE what to say. I'm hoping someone can give quick answers. TIA...

More on topic, I thought it was quite interesting that Jason was resistant to the plea deal, but decided to accept it because "they were trying kill Damien" (meaning the State, death row). It's also interesting that Damien apparently met his now-wife while on death row.

If they're innocent, it is a shame that they were forced to plead quilty and give up any chance to pursue subsequent legal action against the State for compensation. I know they weren't actually forced, but in order to be free now, they had to agree to the terms.

I have no opinion on whether they are innocent or not, but they did seem to conduct themselves as well as can be expected in the press conference. It will be interesting to see how they pursue clearing their names as time goes on.

This case seems to be very polarizing...

Misskelly stated that Damien was the orchestrator of the killings. That's why he was on death row. That and the fact that he was a young, cocky Goth kid in a very narrow-minded town.

There was only one confession in this case that I am aware of. Misskelley's. Misskelley is mentally challenged. He confessed after hours of interrogation but IIRC, his confession did not match the crime scene at all, or the timeframe.