West of Memphis

[Miranda!]

The State have no reason to do anything now. This film was designed to try and force the State to wake up to their resonsibility and have another close look at this case. The 'burdon of proof' now rests firmly on the backs of the wrongfully convicted and their legal representatives.

Whatever anyone's position, there is still a killer/killers out there.

All the reasonable avenues had been tried and exhausted by the Echols Defence Team as the Statte declined to 'save' time and money and go straight to a new trial rather than the Evidentiary Hearing, as granted by the Supreme Justices, which would have led to a new trial.

So having hit a brick wall on the legal route, they switched to the medium they know best and present a potential supect, with way more evidence to back it, than the state ever had for the three!

I will conceed that they, the film-makers, did fall into the same trap which the wmpd did back when. That is the fact that they both hunted for evidence to support their theories, that is a suspect driven investigation rather than an evidence led one.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Part of the problem, IMO, is what some people define as a "documentary" film. Some people believe that a "documentary" doesn't take sides. That's really impossible, IMO, because even camera angles, etc. are a form of putting forth the director's slant on a situation. One famous documentary, The Thin Blue Line, obviously, IMO, "took sides," but I believe it is acknowledged as a "documentary" nonetheless. What will be really interesting is when the film Devil's Knot comes out. It is a truly "Hollywood-ized" version of the story and will probably anger some of both sides of the issue!

 

[inthedark14]

I never post on these threads, though I frequently read them. Although there are a million questions and answers to be sifted through here. My big question is this. If, when DE won his right to a new trial and after all the delays, WHY if the State of Arkansas could PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that these men committed this heinous crime did they not choose to retry the case? Why did they allow them to take the Alford Plea? If they could prove that these men committed these crimes when they were boys, why in the world wouldn't they do every single thing they could to ensure that they remained incarcerated? Seriously, even after nearly twenty years in prison, the state would want to keep these dangerous people locked up. I don't care what kind of notoriety or "celebrity" pull ensues how could a State Attorney ever ok something like this if not for the fact that they couldn't prove their case?

ALWAYS MOO

 

[Mrs G Norris]

One can only speculate, because it seems like a bad decision to me too. Equally if the WM3 and their defense team were so sure they had enough evidence to exonerate them why didn't they go forward to the next stage if that is what they wanted to do instead of admit guilt in order to be freed when they were.

Perhaps the new evidence wasn't so strong after all. What was it, have they released the evidence they were planning to use at the upcoming trial at all, what happened there?

 

[LordYAM]

The main reason that people suspect Hobbs is because the evidence does seem to indicate him. The hair was most likely NOT secondary transfer despite what Nons might like to believe (to quote an earlier post of minethough the circumstances "it would have had to be pulled through the eyelet of the shoe and been retied several times for at least a day, since these are active kids playing, and hobbs claimed he never saw them that day"). Theres also the fact that Hobbs has a history of violence (beating the **** out of a previous wife, shooting his brother in law) no real alibi (after Jacoby retracted his statement.) Byers was cleared because the fact that the wounds on Chris Byers were animal marks kind of made it clear chris wasn't the prime victim, which undermined byers as the doer.

Also, there's no guarantee they'd get a trial, or that the state would accept the evidence regardless (there is an incentive to cover up failures or wrongdoings so they may have tried to ignore it anyway. There are reasons why they'd take a plea deal and be innocent. Why are nons so desperate to defend an abusive father with no alibi

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Not all murder trials go to trial. If you check the news you'll see many times that the defendants want to plead guilty instead of going to trial. With this case the defendants were already incarcerated and were released. You'd be surprised at the time an inmate actually serves in prison.

I wish they would have gone to trial. I would have liked to known what the evidence proved. I'm thinking that it was not very favorable to the defendants since they are the ones who wanted the plea deal.

 

[LordYAM]

They could have just been tired of waiting and would have seized anything, or were worried they'd be found guilty, since there have been many cases when the jury has ignored evidence and sentenced someone anyway. With that in mind, they could have done it and not been guilty

 

[Ausgirl]

Echols sure is not my favourite person on this earth, for many reasons. He came across as an a-hole back then, and is just a bit more subtle about doing so now.

But I do get why he and his supporters would want to look at the men whose DNA --was-- at the murder scene. Who wouldn't? Especially when it's your own *advertiser censored* on death row.

As for Mark Byers, if he lived next door to me and there was a violent murder in my neighbourhood? I'd be eyeballing him in a minute. Same with Terry Hobbs. Being the parent of a murdered child is not a free pass to sainthood when you've got a rap sheet like those two have, especially when it comes to domestic violence and acts involving children. Your OWN children.

 

[gheckso]

I am not surprised they took the opportunity to be released from prison after already experiencing the possible effects of the judicial system. What i am surprised about Is the fact that the prosecution accepted it. If the case against them was as strong as some suggest then they could have proceeded to trial, the three would have plead not guilty and you'd have them still behind bars for the remainder if their sentence.

 

[inthedark14]

I guess a next question would be that it's not really like pleaing out is it? It's not like the state offered them no jail time or less jail time. DE was on death row. How often do you see someone on death row let out of jail on a PLEA? This is what throws me for a loop. I realize that the State's Attorney's Office has a plethora of pleas available to lower court time, court costs and let's face it, the acussed's actual jail time or not. I have a very hard time believing that the State's Attorney's Office of Arkansas just gave a death row inmate a plea that released them into society. As Mrs. G said, I would to like see the evidence that would have been presented as well. I wonder if they are holding their case close to get a pardon. I imagine that would be the goal at this point. Not for or a single second do I imagine that any state would let out a death row inmate out, on any plea if they thought they could prove their case.

ALWAYS MOO

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I guess a next question would be that it's not really like pleaing out is it? It's not like the state offered them no jail time or less jail time. DE was on death row. How often do you see someone on death row let out of jail on a PLEA? This is what throws me for a loop. I realize that the State's Attorney's Office has a plethora of pleas available to lower court time, court costs and let's face it, the acussed's actual jail time or not. I have a very hard time believing that the State's Attorney's Office of Arkansas just gave a death row inmate a plea that released them into society. As Mrs. G said, I would to like see the evidence that would have been presented as well. I wonder if they are holding their case close to get a pardon. I imagine that would be the goal at this point. Not for or a single second do I imagine that any state would let out a death row inmate out, on any plea if they thought they could prove their case.

ALWAYS MOO

If the evidence was so strong, why hasn't it been released by the defense team for the public to view?

Seems they are they ones saying they had evidence good enough to go to trial with, so where is it?

 

[Ausgirl]

One can only speculate, because it seems like a bad decision to me too. Equally if the WM3 and their defense team were so sure they had enough evidence to exonerate them why didn't they go forward to the next stage if that is what they wanted to do instead of admit guilt in order to be freed when they were.

Perhaps the new evidence wasn't so strong after all. What was it, have they released the evidence they were planning to use at the upcoming trial at all, what happened there?

Baldwin wanted a trial. He wanted the chance to prove to one and all he is innocent, and caved to pressure - and there was a LOT of pressure from many sides. But that he considered potentially spending years more time in prison rather than take a guilty walk said a lot to me.

If they hadn't already spent 18 years in prison, with death row in the mix, I'd think taking the plea a lot more stupid of an idea than I do.

I also think the timing of it was a factor - there was a wave of support there, and it was in their interest to catch it.

I am thinking -- as far as the evidence goes -- maybe they're holding out some evidence that points to someone else, in case that person isever brought to trial? It would only help the WM3 to hand that evidence over.

Not saying I think it's so, just a theory.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Baldwin wanted a trial. He wanted the chance to prove to one and all he is innocent, and caved to pressure - and there was a LOT of pressure from many sides. But that he considered potentially spending years more time in prison rather than take a guilty walk said a lot to me.

If they hadn't already spent 18 years in prison, with death row in the mix, I'd think taking the plea a lot more stupid of an idea than I do.

I also think the timing of it was a factor - there was a wave of support there, and it was in their interest to catch it.

And yet he was convinced to just sign the papers and leave it. I'd still like to see what evidence they had planned to present, perhaps even a full argument of sorts would be interesting, since they'd been floating the TH theory around for years I'm assuming they had more than that, since nearly none of what they used to throw suspicion on TH would ever have made it into a court of law.

I'm not surprised they took the chance to get out of prison when they could either since I think they are guilty of the crime, I think the arguments they present are somewhat contradictory to their claim that they want to be exonerated and claim to know who the real killer is however.

 

[gheckso]

If the evidence was so strong, why hasn't it been released by the defense team for the public to view?

Seems they are they ones saying they had evidence good enough to go to trial with, so where is it?

I think it would be wiser to keep the evidence from the public and use it in the proper manner, obviously the real perp will see this evidence and benefit from it. Either way, one lawyer has stated that there is much, much more evidence and will release If Ellington does not act on it.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I think it would be wiser to keep the evidence from the public and use it in the proper manner, obviously the real prep will see this evidence and benefit from it. Either way, one lawyer has stated that there is much, much more evidence and will release If Ellongton does not act on it.

Case is closed however, if they think they could use it to pardon themselves it's interesting to me that they have not. I guess we'll have to wait and see to find out. So are they saying that Ellington has it?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Echols sure is not my favourite person on this earth, for many reasons. He came across as an a-hole back then, and is just a bit more subtle about doing so now.

But I do get why he and his supporters would want to look at the men whose DNA --was-- at the murder scene. Who wouldn't? Especially when it's your own *advertiser censored* on death row.

As for Mark Byers, if he lived next door to me and there was a violent murder in my neighbourhood? I'd be eyeballing him in a minute. Same with Terry Hobbs. Being the parent of a murdered child is not a free pass to sainthood when you've got a rap sheet like those two have, especially when it comes to domestic violence and acts involving children. Your OWN children.

Is there any charges on those accusations or is it just hearsay?

 

[gheckso]

Case is closed however

The case is not closed, do you not remember the ruling given in regards to Pam and mark seeing the evidence? That is just wrong.

 

[Ausgirl]

Case is closed, for now. I think if enough evidence was put in front of the police, they'd have no choice but to investigate, or end up looking slack and corrupt.

One way or another, I hope like heck that -somebody- is proved, 100%, guilty in this case. Which (as I know what's coming..) I am personally satisfied there has not been, yet.

WM3 or somebody else, I don't care. I just want to see justice done, and properly.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The case is not closed, do you not remember the ruling given in regards to Pam and mark seeing the evidence? That is just wrong.

Wasn't that case a civil case not a criminal case.


See that's another thing about our laws here in the US, we have civil and criminal law too.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The case is not closed, do you not remember the ruling given in regards to Pam and mark seeing the evidence? That is just wrong.

Yes the case is officially closed, however ..

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/03/27/west-memphis-3-case-back-in-court

Ken Swindle, attorney in the FOI case for Pam Hicks, mother of one of the victims, is arguing that material in Prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington's file supports a new investigation in the 1993 deaths of three children, a case otherwise closed by the convictions of Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley.

.......

If Ellington is ignoring information that others were responsible for the deaths and mounting no investigation, then the case is closed, Swindle argues, and his client should have full access to anything in the files about the case.

Basically the argument is if the case is closed then they can see the documents, since they aren't showing the documents then they are saying in effect that the case remains open ..