SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August

[gitana1]

Ugh! My computer is running so slow today, so I was late with my post above. Thank you for this gitana1! That makes perfect sense now!

Your welcome. The article I cited is one of the best I have read on this case. It gives a lot of info. Apparently, the terms of probation, although not released, allow for unsupervised probation, meaning they do not have to check in with probation officers, and they are allowed unlimited travel.

However, should the violate any law, they could be given a 21 year sentence, so they really need to toe the line. No DUIs, no thefts, no domestic violence incidents, fights with others, hit and run accidents, resiting arrest charges, etc., etc.

I listed those things because those are crimes I have seen many released, former prisoners committing. Without a lot of hardcore emotional support from family, friends and professionals, as well as financial support - jobs, etc., they could easily get into trouble and fast.

This is a brand new world they have to adjust to after 18 years of no professional assistance in adjusting to release. Scares me.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I don't think the state was affraid of some powerful celebs. I absolutley think it was an ego, save face move. When trying to decide my personal opinion about guilt I take the celeb involvment and throw it out. Trying to figure out how I feel personally is the only reason I'm here. As far as legally, I believe the state blew it in the beginning of this case.

I think it is very wise when looking into any innocence case you are trying to decide your position on to throw out whatever weight celeb involvement carries. IMO, it should carry no weight when looking over the evidence. Nothing that celebs have to say is able to change any of the facts at hand. However, I completely understand the use of celebrities. Whenever there is a case where a mistake has been made there is always a TON of ego involved and no one in these positions every want to admit that a mistake was made. The only thing that gets them to admit these mistakes is public pressure. Especially from voters in their state. The use of celebrities is what helps to bring that public pressure so that justice can be served. But people should be very cautious if they are basing their opinions on who is supporting the case. Mumia and all of his supporters could write to me and ask personally for my support and I would want to see all of the evidence and the trial transcripts before I would let them use my name for anything. Not saying that he is guilty or not guilty. Just that I have no clue and wouldn't be comfortable saying one way or another without having checked out the facts myself.

 

[Pensfan]

Are you saying that because he is black and shot a police officer, his legions of powerful celebrity supporters cannot get him off, while here, the highly publicized and horrifically gruesome murders of three little boys, whose dead, little bodies can be seen on the internet, is easier for celebs to affect?

Mumia Abu Jamal, who was a member of the Black Panthers that fought against police brutality, supposedly shot a member of law enforcement (a member of "the club"). Under these circumstances, Elijah in his fiery chariot would have difficulty freeing Mumia Abu Jamal; celebrities don't stand a chance.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

[snipped for brevity...]


http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/3/381.jpg
First thing i pulled up! Lmao... RUMOR.

"... there was a rumor that suggested that Damien and his 15 year old girlfriend were arrested while in the act of copulation. The purpose of this coitus was so that the couple could conceive and had plans to sacrifice the infant in a satanic ritual"

ETA: Oh yeah it goes on to say that he adamantly DENIED these rumors and there's more but I'm not a good typist, so u can read it for yourself...

It seems like he has a history of denying many things, then later admitting them, just like that little ol' Alford plea.

He admits gas huffing and paint sniffing here:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/2/234.jpg

Later he denies it here:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/105.jpg


Denies what his family reported of him wanting to harm other people and self:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/104.jpg

Parents have admitted because he threatens to harm them
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/102.jpg

He writes in his own handwriting that he is a sociopath:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/111.jpg

All of these reports are located here:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html

 

[my2sense]

I just watched the youtube clip of the public hearing. Those last 10 minutes were fascinating...that Judge seems to be intimating that he believes the defense was serving true justice. That was my impression, anyway. Does anyone know if a transcript of the private hearing (prior to the public pleas) will become available for us to see? TIA

 

[UdbCrzy2]

This is important for people not understanding that the state had proof of guilt. Here is the plea video that Twall posted earlier. It's a 30 minute video, but you can bump it up to 9:20 and listen to the State's statement. The Prosecutor said that they have evidence that would convict all three.

Here is Twall's post
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7053779&postcount=1043"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August[/ame]


In my opinion I think the State is running low on money. All three got new trials and were awaiting DNA evidence (yet to be announced). If the State had to do all three trials again (of course you know they are paying for both sides X3). One is a death penalty case to boot. Once they are convicted then all the appeals begin all over again and they have to pay for that too.

I believe that when the defense came to the Prosecutor with a plea offer they took it because of the money/time involved and with them already serving 18+ years (Arkansas has time off for good behavior) that they just let it go.

 

[SheBoss]

Does anyone know if the conditions of the SIS are or will become public?

 

[animlzrule]

I understand that, but having many sons who were thinking of joining up at the time Maines said what she did is how I know about it. I just have no respect for what she said or how she handled herself and it pushes a button in me when she is called a "hero". It's just one more reason I'm not a fan of celebrity bandwaggons.
Thank you for your kind words and even more so thank you for your posts, I respect the way you present the facts.

ETA: I worded this weird, sorry.

I, on the other hand, am so grateful that she stood up and offered herself up as a voice of reason and truth against a national fervor of false patriotism and revenge motivated aggression against a country under false pretenses. We may not respect "celebrities" (Ted Nugent, Glen Beck anyone???) and they have an advantage over many of us in the country as they have the ability to express their views and disseminate their opinions on publicly on the national stage, but they are also citizens of this country and have a right to their opinions. If Natalie Maines was potentially able to sway even one young person out there from sacrificing themselves to slaughter, yes, in my eyes she is a hero. Personally, I still have not come firmly down off of the fence on one side or the other regarding the guilt of the WM3, however, I do feel strongly that they should have gotten another trial. The celebrities who spoke out on their behalf deserve their thanks and I would hope if someone I cared about and believed in was caught up in a corrupt justice machination, you better believe I'd use every and any bit of celebrity power that may wander my way.

 

[tambo]

This is important for people not understanding that the state had proof of guilt. Here is the plea video that Twall posted earlier. It's a 30 minute video, but you can bump it up to 9:20 and listen to the State's statement. The Prosecutor said that they have evidence that would convict all three.

Here is Twall's post
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August


In my opinion I think the State is running low on money. All three got new trials and were awaiting DNA evidence (yet to be announced). If the State had to do all three trials again (of course you know they are paying for both sides X3). One is a death penalty case to boot. Once they are convicted then all the appeals begin all over again and they have to pay for that too.

I believe that when the defense came to the Prosecutor with a plea offer they took it because of the money/time involved and with them already serving 18+ years (Arkansas has time off for good behavior) that they just let it go.

I don't think i will ever believe that they just up and and let 3 convicted murderers, convicted of killing three little boy's in the most horrific way. that they just let them go because they didn't feel like spending more time and money on them...really,, that makes no sense, none at all....especially someone on death row, they are just going to let him walk like that...ok,, see ya...time off for good behavior...no way...no way would they do that...

If that were truly the case, then why wouldn't they do that for every person on death row, or in for life,, why wouldn't they just say ohhhhhhhhh okay...we don't feel like wasting anymore money on this case, you can just go...

IMO, something happened, something changed, and i hope some day we find out what they found..and why they let them go....it seems to me,, that the state knows they didn't do it...i can see no other explanation for them letting them go..

jmo

 

[CCmakes3]

snipped
Questions you'd like to ask about the unexpected and dramatic developments last week in the West Memphis Three case?

You're in luck.


The Arkansas Times, in partnership with the Clinton School for Public Service, is sponsoring a discussion on the case at 6 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 25, at the Clinton School.

Confirmed participants:

* Prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington of Jonesboro, who agreed to the plea bargain that resulted in release of the three defendants in the case after almost 18 years in prison.

* Arkansas Times contributing editor Mara Leveritt, who's made a vocational life's work of writing about the case and who's book, "Devil's Knot," is soon to be adapted for a movie.

* Capi Peck, the Little Rock restaurateur who led Arkansas Take Action, a group that mobilized support for the Three's release and is working now on a pardon campaign.

* Pat Benca, the Little Rock lawyer for Damien Echols.

* Jeff Rosenzweig, the Little Rock lawyer for Jessie Misskelley Jr.

* Blake Hendrix, Little Rock lawyer for Jason Baldwin.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/08/22/west-memphis-3-qanda-set-thursday

Regardless of which side you're on, I think you really have to appreciate Ellington's participation in this forum, given how heavily criticized he has been and the fact that he will be seriously outnumbered up there!

 

[HRCODEPINK]

This is important for people not understanding that the state had proof of guilt. Here is the plea video that Twall posted earlier. It's a 30 minute video, but you can bump it up to 9:20 and listen to the State's statement. The Prosecutor said that they have evidence that would convict all three.

Here is Twall's post
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August


In my opinion I think the State is running low on money. All three got new trials and were awaiting DNA evidence (yet to be announced). If the State had to do all three trials again (of course you know they are paying for both sides X3). One is a death penalty case to boot. Once they are convicted then all the appeals begin all over again and they have to pay for that too.

I believe that when the defense came to the Prosecutor with a plea offer they took it because of the money/time involved and with them already serving 18+ years (Arkansas has time off for good behavior) that they just let it go.

Exactly what proof of guilt is it that the state had? They did not have new trials and they were no longer waiting on DNA. The defense team has the results of the DNA and they presented that to the AR Supreme Court that unanimously decided that they deserved to present this previously unseen evidence to the court. Never in my life have I ever seen any state "just let it go" when it comes to a capital case and if I did see a state "just let it go" I would question not only the evidence they had, but the competence of those who would just "let it go."

 

[Nova]

Here is a short list of women that are true national treasures and political heros:
Rosa Parks
Molly Pitcher
Clara Barton
Harriet Tubman
Abigail Adams
Susan B Anthony
Lucy Stone
Elizabeth Cady Stanton

You can read their inspiring biographies online.

I have no argument with that list, except for the implication that heroic women are a thing of the past. The same people who hate Natalie Maines today would have found those women strident, obnoxious and even "unwomanly" in their own eras.

 

[tambo]

I just watched the youtube clip of the public hearing. Those last 10 minutes were fascinating...that Judge seems to be intimating that he believes the defense was serving true justice. That was my impression, anyway. Does anyone know if a transcript of the private hearing (prior to the public pleas) will become available for us to see? TIA

I just listened too..wow, he was thanking all of the people that helped the defense, and he said this will never take away the pain of the families of the victims or the families of the defendents and that it was a tragedy for everyone...it sounds to me like he was (as best he could) saying that they should not have ever been convicted...jmo....

 

[maxicut]

respectfully snipped

AMEN!

Can I second your AMEN?

 

[Nova]

Your welcome. The article I cited is one of the best I have read on this case. It gives a lot of info. Apparently, the terms of probation, although not released, allow for unsupervised probation, meaning they do not have to check in with probation officers, and they are allowed unlimited travel.

However, should the violate any law, they could be given a 21 year sentence, so they really need to toe the line. No DUIs, no thefts, no domestic violence incidents, fights with others, hit and run accidents, resiting arrest charges, etc., etc.

I listed those things because those are crimes I have seen many released, former prisoners committing. Without a lot of hardcore emotional support from family, friends and professionals, as well as financial support - jobs, etc., they could easily get into trouble and fast.

This is a brand new world they have to adjust to after 18 years of no professional assistance in adjusting to release. Scares me.

Scares me, too. Given their backgrounds, I will be very surprised if all three manage to avoid this pitfall. Does anyone really believe Jessie Misskelley is intellectually equipped to understand all the possible violations that could put him back in prison?

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Anyway, the reason that I came back right now anyway is because I am studying for my criminal law final and I just read the following from the text:

“The right against self-incrimination goes to the very heart of our criminal justice system. It is founded in the belief that the burden must rest on the state to prove that a person is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof of guilt must be sound, reliable evidence and must rely on extrinsic sources such as witness and scientific analysis as much as, or more than, it does on confessions of the accused. Our accusatory system of justice depends on the government’s gathering, presenting, and testing a broad range of evidence against an aggressive defense.

The importance of this accusatory approach becomes clear when contrasted to a system that relies solely, or nearly so, on the confession, especially a confession that goes without challenge.

[A] system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the “confession” will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence, independently secured through skillful investigation.”
~Justice Goldberg
Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964

Emphasis on an unchallenged confession to prove guilt places tremendous power and temptation in the hands of government officials. Why spend all the extra time getting outside corroborating evidence when all police need is the simple admission of guilt? Allowing the police to use strong measures would also avoid unnecessary time and expense. So why is this not allowed? This approach was at one time the basis of the European inquisitional system of justice. The brutal Spanish Inquisition and English Star Chamber, political show trials like Stalin’s Moscow trials and Hitler’s Reichstag trial, and even a few of the trials in this country have relied on confessions that have been beaten or otherwise tortured out of people, innocent people. Torture is still a legal means to extract confessions in some countries.

Therefore, the right against self-incrimination is designed to keep the burden of proof on the state, to force the government to find reliable evidence, and substantially to reduce the temptation to use excessive means to coerce confessions. Each of these safeguards, of course, stems from the belief that protection against such abuses is consistent with finding the truth and preserving dignity and liberty.

In practice, however, constitutional rights are only as strong as the teeth in the law that enforces their protection. Today, that protection is afforded by the exclusionary rule, which means that any confession or evidence that is obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights can be excluded from use by the prosecution at trial.”

--McCord, James W.H. et al., Criminal Law and Procedure for the Paralegal, 4th edition.

Patrick Henry once said "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government" And I am one who believes that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (~Ben Franklin)

When Natalie Maines said that she was embarrassed that Bush was from TX, I went over and sat down with my neighbor Charlie ( a man who served in Vietnam and always said that he gave his life there because he was reconnaissance and they just dumped Agent Orange all over them telling then that it was safe, but he later got cancer that he died from shortly after Maines' statements. They believe the Agent Orange was the cause of the cancer.) and I asked him, and a gungho former member of our military what he thought of it and he said to me "I didn't give my life in Vietnam for that little girl to have to hold her tongue." That put a whole new light on the Constitution and our rights for me. It made me realize that to deny anyone, even someone that I believe to be guilty any of their Constitutional rights is an insult to the brave men and women who fight to protect and preserve them for me.

 

[gitana1]

It seems like he has a history of denying many things, then later admitting them, just like that little ol' Alford plea.

He admits gas huffing and paint sniffing here:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/2/234.jpg

Later he denies it here:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/105.jpg


Denies what his family reported of him wanting to harm other people and self:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/104.jpg

Parents have admitted because he threatens to harm them
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/102.jpg

He writes in his own handwriting that he is a sociopath:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/111.jpg

All of these reports are located here:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html

Most of those admissions were made when he was a teenager. I claimed a lot about myself when I was a kid that was not accurate.

However, I have no doubt he huffed paint or gas and threatened to harm himself or his parents. I can see that. He had a very rough background and acted as many kids in such a situation would act. And that is why he was convicted, IMO - his background - his problems with the law, anti-social behaviors, sarcasm, dark clothing, goth style and music interests, etc.

But while kids with those behaviors need to be taken seriously and given help whether they want it or not, if they threaten harm, (think Columbine), there are millions of kids who fit such descriptions in the U.S.

So, while such characteristics could explain part of what compels a kid to murder or otherwise harm someone or himself, it doesn't prove he did it, as many have said.

The bottom line is this was a very small town with some very small-minded people in it who could not understand non-conformity and who would quickly suspect the "troubled" kid in town before ever looking elsewhere.

One of the investigators in this case essentially admitted that. Without a shred of evidence propelling him forward, he speculated that Echols was "capable" of committing the murders, stating "it looks like Damien Echols finally killed someone."

Once that gets out, all of Damien's problems become magnified and exaggerated by those who knew him and those who didn't. Many reports about his behavior were obtained long after the crimes were committed.

This is important for people not understanding that the state had proof of guilt. Here is the plea video that Twall posted earlier. It's a 30 minute video, but you can bump it up to 9:20 and listen to the State's statement. The Prosecutor said that they have evidence that would convict all three.

Here is Twall's post
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - SURPRISE HEARING Friday 18th August


In my opinion I think the State is running low on money. All three got new trials and were awaiting DNA evidence (yet to be announced). If the State had to do all three trials again (of course you know they are paying for both sides X3). One is a death penalty case to boot. Once they are convicted then all the appeals begin all over again and they have to pay for that too.

I believe that when the defense came to the Prosecutor with a plea offer they took it because of the money/time involved and with them already serving 18+ years (Arkansas has time off for good behavior) that they just let it go.

I agree with tambo. This was one hell of a horrific killing of three, innocent little boys. Florida is suffering in this economy as well yet the highly costly trial of casey anthony was allowed to proceed.

I simply cannot see prosecutors agreeing to let three vicious, insane, baby killers walk right out of prison, one on death row, due to money. It simply makes zero sense, with all due respect.

 

[maxicut]

This really has nothing to do with anything, but this morning (I was away all weekend) on the Today show coverage of the release and the three at a news conference of some sort it appeared to me that DE was doing his best Johnny Depp impersonation.

:doh:

 

[maxicut]

I may be wrong but in the misconception that each of the victims were tied up as matched with their own personal shoelaces is not true nor IMO very reasonable.. I'll explain ATLEAST my view of how I find it to unreasonable to believe it to be that each child's very own shoe laces were matched with each of them when tying them up..

IMO throughout the course of the attacks on these little boys it was only toward the end that they were tied up bound wrist to opposite ankle with their shoelaces.. I believe that there having their shoes taken off, ripped off, knocked off, or however you personally believe it to have happened did not happen in a uniform and orderly fashion.. Does that make sense??

I am not being snarky here but rather just asking in using common sense would one truly believe that over the course of the abuses inflicted on these boys, however and whatever one may believe those abuses entailed obviously they resulted without their shoes and clothing and IMO I find it difficult to believe that the "killers"( and thats no matter who you believe them to be ) that after this period of attacking the little boys, which again IMO was not in a uniform, step by logical step manner.. That when the killers got to the point of using the shoelaces from their tennis shoes does it seem likely that they would A) remember or care whose shoes and therefor shoelaces belonged to who
B) take the time to find out by asking or some other way of figuring out which shoes and therefor shoelaces matched with each individual victim

MOO that's not reasonable or likely.. So while yes, it was the laces that were binding Michael Moore's wrist to his opposite ankle tht the "supposed hair that could be associated to TH" was found on.. It very easily could have been the shoe lace or laces that were from Stevie Branch's tennis shoes..

MOO

What killer does so in a uniform manner? Do all killers have OCD? (I know some likely do.)
This crime m0o was a crime of passion. Reference:
crime of passion n. a defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of "premeditation." This usually arises in murder or attempted murder cases, when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her "beloved" having sexual intercourse with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair. To make this claim the defendant must have acted immediately upon the rise of passion, without the time for contemplation or allowing for "a cooling of the blood." It is sometimes called the "Law of Texas" since juries in that state are supposedly lenient to cuckolded lovers who wreak their own vengeance. The benefit of eliminating premeditation is to lessen the provable homicide to manslaughter with no death penalty and limited prison terms. An emotionally charged jury may even acquit the impassioned defendant. (See: murder, manslaughter)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion

 

[indicat]

I did not mean to drive the topic to things Natalie Maine's said in the past I just made a flip comment about not liking her and then had a knee jerk reaction to her being called a national treasure. So because I feel like I've given off the wrong idea of all I believe, I do believe she has the right to say whatever she wants and however she feels and support whomever she wants. I have no doubt Nova meant no offense nor do I and I apologize. (as one last side note I actually think Natalie is a talented singer, my opinions just differ with her and she rubs me the wrong way personally, that's my own problem)