What have we learned in the case of the WM3?

[Compassionate Reader]

That is just your opinion and we disagree. An article in a newspaper doesn't mean it's true.

True. However it's more proof than you have for your opinion that it is opportunism.

I'm not here to pry into anyone's personal life. However, I believe we are allowed to discuss the perpetrators personal life if it relates to the case.

I don't see how personal relationship questions relate to the case. IMO, it's simply voyeurism.

I suppose I don't really care how she feels about him. Yet it does relate to the fact that the media circus has made a mockery of the judicial system IMO.

The media often makes a mockery of the judicial system. Just look at what happened with OJ and Casey Anthony. Occasionally, however, the media calls attention to gross miscarriages of justice, as is the case with the WMFree.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

We will never agree. I await the promised evidence of innocence. If the defense provides it, I will be the first to change my mind and support them.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

We will never agree. I await the promised evidence of innocence. If the defense provides it, I will be the first to change my mind and support them.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me - yet! However, when the defense provides incontrovertible evidence of innocence, hopefully all intelligent people will see the truth. I am confident that such information will be provided. When it is, I will be happy to welcome you to the ranks of supporters.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

And I will be happy to join. I hope you are right.

 

[tezi]

Well, we are twenty days into December, and still no evidence from the defense....I think if it were so important to prove their innocence, the evidence would be available. I'm not saying the WMFree are guilty, I am just saying the defense needs to either put up or shut up. And this is coming from a long time supporter of the WMFree. Of course, I could have missed where the defense showed the evidence, but I think someone HERE would have let me know.

Anyway, I'm going to be gone for a few days dealing with surgery and all that happy horseradish that goes with that. And since I'll be in Little Rock, maybe I'll see the defense unveil their evidence.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The animal hairs are still being tested and the fibers are being retested. The defense team is probably waiting for this testing to be completed. There may be other testing or other considerations holding up the release of additional material (possibly the defense is waiting until after the release of Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, for instance, not wanting to steal their thunder, so to speak). I'm anxious for the release of the additional information, too, but I'm also confident that it will be released in due time.

 

[Dysthymia]

I would love to see the results of all the evidence tested, too. But,after all these years, there can't really be anything left to test or to discover. This case will be one of those that will always have a question mark attached to it.

The only ones who know are the guilty parties and they'll never admit it.

 

[justthinkin]

I've learned that what the defense says and what supporter minions say (not to be confused with supporters on the whole) can be two different things. My best guess is that no matter what stories supporter minions put out about Echols's ill health, the real reason the defense sought an Alford Plea was because all their guns were used up, and they didn't want that to be the clincher from the evidentiary hearing, and thus the reason why the WMGuilty would not be getting a new trial.

No attorney is going to sully his own reputation in a high profile case if he can avoid it, esp. big name attorneys. The Alford Plea gave defense attorneys a way out, but also wound up being very advantageous to Scott Ellington.

My guess is Ellington would have botched the state's case during the evidentiary hearing. There had been a lot of legal territory covered in the prior 18 years, and Ellington had only been on the case, one year or maybe a couple of months shy of a year. I'm unsure of his exact tenure.

Ellington's eagerness to be rid of a case that could endanger his future political aspirations was apparent in that he gave the convicted trio the right to travel anywhere without reservation. My understanding is that is uncommon.

My guess is Ellington fell all over himself to get this Alford Plea deal done so he could be rid of the case altogether, and once and for all.

If on the other hand the evidentiary hearing had taken place, and Judge Laser deemed that a new trial be ordered, I think I would rather have accepted that than for Ellington to cop out before the evidentiary hearing even took place.

The thing is, the time originally scheduled for the evidentiary hearing has come and gone. If the defense truly had anything they expected to produce at the evidentiary hearing, they would have it now. So where the heck is it?

Must not be there at all, and all the claims the defense has made about testing that will prove the WM3 didn't commit this crime must have just been one big huge bluff on their part.

Time's up.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

My guess is that it is possible that all the testing wasn't going to be back in time for the evidentiary hearing. The defense saw a way to get the unjustly convicted men out of prison. The defense considered the fact that, as the fight to get the men exonerated continues, the men could be of more help out of prison than in prison. So, they proffered the Alford plea, and the State readily accepted it. Remember, the only person with misgivings about accepting the Alford plea was Jason.

If you read the GQ article (I know it's long), you saw that Ellington admitted that he was sure to have his "*advertiser censored* handed" to him at a new trial, which he agreed would have been ordered by Judge Laser as a result of the information disclosed at the evidentiary hearing. If my supposition above is true, then that means that Judge Laser would have ordered a new trial even though all testing was incomplete. By the time of the trial, the additional testing would have been completed, and the defense's case would be even stronger.

IMO, that's what prompted Ellington to take the deal. It was not a "way out" for the defense but for the State - except it was a way for the innocent men to get out of prison without a trial. In fact, Ellington said as much in the GQ article. Ellington would like to consider the case closed, IMO (formed by reading between the lines in the GQ article), because he knows that the WMFree are innocent (although he has to spout the party line) and he didn't want to have to try innocent men.

 

[justthinkin]

My guess is that it is possible that all the testing wasn't going to be back in time for the evidentiary hearing. The defense saw a way to get the unjustly convicted men out of prison. The defense considered the fact that, as the fight to get the men exonerated continues, the men could be of more help out of prison than in prison. So, they proffered the Alford plea, and the State readily accepted it. Remember, the only person with misgivings about accepting the Alford plea was Jason.

If you read the GQ article (I know it's long), you saw that Ellington admitted that he was sure to have his "*advertiser censored* handed" to him at a new trial, which he agreed would have been ordered by Judge Laser as a result of the information disclosed at the evidentiary hearing. If my supposition above is true, then that means that Judge Laser would have ordered a new trial even though all testing was incomplete. By the time of the trial, the additional testing would have been completed, and the defense's case would be even stronger.

IMO, that's what prompted Ellington to take the deal. It was not a "way out" for the defense but for the State - except it was a way for the innocent men to get out of prison without a trial. In fact, Ellington said as much in the GQ article. Ellington would like to consider the case closed, IMO (formed by reading between the lines in the GQ article), because he knows that the WMFree are innocent (although he has to spout the party line) and he didn't want to have to try innocent men.

The defense took the only way possible for them to get those men out of prison, and it saved their a##es from embarrassment. You'll never convince me otherwise.

You must be dreaming if you think Laser would have granted a new trial without the defense presenting anything new. On what basis then would Judge Laser have ordered a new trial if not on the evidence presented? Just because he wanted to???? Laughable.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The defense took the only way possible for them to get those men out of prison, and it saved their a##es from embarrassment. You'll never convince me otherwise.

The defense provided a way for the State to save face with the Alford plea and also got the innocent men out of prison without having to go to trial. You'll never convince me otherwise.

You must be dreaming if you think Laser would have granted a new trial without the defense presenting anything new. On what basis then would Judge Laser have ordered a new trial if not on the evidence presented? Just because he wanted to???? Laughable.

Ellington said in the GQ article that it was his belief that a new trial would have been ordered. I didn't say that the defense would not present anything new. I said that all testing might not have been completed. The material on Chris' shoelace had been tested. DNA was found that did not match Damien, Jason or Jessie. That is something "new" that the defense would have presented. There was more, I'm sure.

Judge Laser would have ordered a new trial because the DNA results established reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the verdicts in the original trials. Personally, based on what he said at the August 19th hearing, I believe that Judge Laser thought that the men were possibly innocent. That might have entered into his decision, too. There's also the matter of the jury misconduct. That issue alone should have guaranteed a new trial for Damien and Jason. Jury misconduct is not a laughing matter.

 

[justthinkin]

You're wrong, and here's why.

The evidentiary hearing would have ground to a halt, and been abruptly ended because Riordan erred in stating to the ASSC that Echols had been excluded as a donor of biological evidence used to convict him at trial. The problem with that is no biological evidence was ever introduced into the original trial.

Since Ellington hadn't been a part of the original trial, he didn't know it wasn't true, and Riordan easily slipped it by him. The ASSC also accepted the misinformation as truth, and in bypassing Judge Burnet's ruling, ordered that the results of the testing not only merited a new hearing, but the consideration of new evidence as well. In other words, they granted the evidentiary hearing based on false information given to the court.

DA, Ellington didn't challenge their ruling, because he hadn't been around long enough to know any better.

Davis and Fogelman could have easily informed the ASSC that no biological evidence had ever been presented during the first trial, but they were no longer involved as prosecutors. Had the ASSC known that what Riordan had presented was absolutely false, there would have been no basis for an evidentiary hearing, and that would have been that.

It is my understanding that somehow Judge Laser was apprised of the ASSC's mistake in granting the hearing.

Too bad we didn't get to the evidentiary hearing. It would have been amusing to see Judge Laser ask Riordan to provide a transcript of when the so called evidence was presented to the jurors, and watch Riordan, sweat, shuffling around for something that didn't exist.

And when he couldn't find it, that's when Laser would have called a halt to the proceeding.

 

[Cappuccino]

Here is a link to the transcript of Riordan's arguments to the Supreme Court. Can you point me to the part where Riordan claims that biological evidence was presented at the first trial, please?

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/assc_oralarg_echols.html

TIA.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

DNA was in its infancy at the time. They did test some blood; they even did some DQ-Alpha 1 testing, but one reason that the evidentiary hearing was granted was because biological samples had been tested with newer methods. That testing revealed that none of the three defendants could have been the donors for the biological samples submitted.

Under the Arkansas statute, this was reason enough for the ASSC to order the evidentiary hearing. Burnett should have ordered it, and the ASSC came down pretty hard on him about that. So, the ASSC ordered the hearing (which never happened) at least in part because samples tested using newer methods showed that none of the three defendants could have been the donors of the samples.

Riordan's argument was not that previously tested material that was incriminating to Echols had been retested. Riordan argued that, along with jury misconduct, the newer methods of testing proved that the biological samples were not from the defendants. IIRC, any DNA testing back in 1993 was inconclusive.

 

[justthinkin]

Here is a link to the transcript of Riordan's arguments to the Supreme Court. Can you point me to the part where Riordan claims that biological evidence was presented at the first trial, please?

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/assc_oralarg_echols.html

TIA.

Cappuccino, you are right, and I stand corrected. You might think I would find that objectionable, but that is not the case, and I don't mind in the least that anything in error of mine be pointed out.

I appreciate the link. My information was absolutely wrong. Idid sincerely believe the information I had was correct or I would not have posted it here. I would never attempt to mislead anyone deliberately.

My humble apologies to all.

 

[justthinkin]

DNA was in its infancy at the time. They did test some blood; they even did some DQ-Alpha 1 testing, but one reason that the evidentiary hearing was granted was because biological samples had been tested with newer methods. That testing revealed that none of the three defendants could have been the donors for the biological samples submitted.

Under the Arkansas statute, this was reason enough for the ASSC to order the evidentiary hearing. Burnett should have ordered it, and the ASSC came down pretty hard on him about that. So, the ASSC ordered the hearing (which never happened) at least in part because samples tested using newer methods showed that none of the three defendants could have been the donors of the samples.

Riordan's argument was not that previously tested material that was incriminating to Echols had been retested. Riordan argued that, along with jury misconduct, the newer methods of testing proved that the biological samples were not from the defendants. IIRC, any DNA testing back in 1993 was inconclusive.

CR, I hope you will also accept my apology. I was wrong, and you were right. As the young folks say, my bad!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No problem, jt! Now if I could just convince you of the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie. Oh, well, can't have everything!

 

[joe jones]

I don't expect everyone to agree with me - yet! However, when the defense provides incontrovertible evidence of innocence, hopefully all intelligent people will see the truth. I am confident that such information will be provided. When it is, I will be happy to welcome you to the ranks of supporters.

a defence team can never assert or state innocence in a legal sense, they can only opine, only a jury or a judge can state a person is not guilty of any offence, or they can be legally pardoned

so whatever the defence asserts is there evidence that the WM3 are innocent will be just there opinion, the only way the defence can assert the WM3 are innocent is if they are legally pardoned, as they all have pled guilty a pardon is the only thing that will remove the legal status of all 3 being triple convicted child murderers,

and I doubt they will ever be pardoned as there will always be disputes over what any new evidence actually proves,

 

[Compassionate Reader]

a defence team can never assert or state innocence in a legal sense, they can only opine, only a jury or a judge can state a person is not guilty of any offence, or they can be legally pardoned

Let's check out Websters' definition of "assert":

( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assert )

The first definition says, "to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively" which is what I believe the defense team has done and will do regarding the innocence of the WMFree. (BTW, if you look at the synonyms listed, you will see that "postulate" is one of them. Postulate is a synonym for opine, also. An assertion is something that the speaker believes to be true.) Legally, however, you are correct. No amount of assertion on the part of the defense team or the WMFree themselves can prove innocence. However, the evidence that they offer to defend their assertion will do that.

so whatever the defence asserts is there evidence that the WM3 are innocent will be just there opinion, the only way the defence can assert the WM3 are innocent is if they are legally pardoned, as they all have pled guilty a pardon is the only thing that will remove the legal status of all 3 being triple convicted child murderers,

Another possibility is if the State acknowledges that innocence has been proven, by the preponderance of evidence most likely, and joins with the defense in a joint motion to overturn the guilty verdict. By stating that their decision was based on new evidence (or information), they could save face, and the conditions of the Alford plea has precluded the possibility of a lawsuit against the State by any of the WMFree. The judge would then vacate the verdicts, and legally it would be as if the convictions never happened. Ellington, while mouthing the words required of him, left the door for this possibility open by saying that he would look at additional information offered by the defense. If you read the GQ article, IMO, he seems to be implying that he believes them to be innocent. So, I see his offer as a way of eventually overturning the verdicts and finally exonerating these innocent men.

and I doubt they will ever be pardoned as there will always be disputes over what any new evidence actually proves,

It really depends on exactly what the new evidence is. I will agree, however, that some people will never accept the innocence of the WMFree. Even if they were shown a video tape of the crime being committed, date stamped, they would say that Peter Jackson paid for it! However, I believe that the defense will eventually present evidence that, in the eyes of the law, exonerates the WMFree. I look forward to that day.

 

[justthinkin]

No problem, jt! Now if I could just convince you of the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie. Oh, well, can't have everything!

Sorry, CR. That will never happen because my approach to this case came from looking at it as I imagine most LE would. Plus I had read a number of books on profiling, do know something about how the criminal mind works, and I absolutely believe the three are guilty through a process of elimination of potential other suspects. I started with the crime scene, and went from there.

Far too many people came forward to LE with stories about Echols to discount them all. Where were the voices of fellow students and teachers who might have vouched for Jason Baldwin? They remained silent. Why? Was there something about him that didn't seem just quite right to them? Was he too good to be true? That's how I view him. I couldn't ignore his hesitations in answering the questions his attorney asked of him in "Paradise Lost." It struck me that he was weighing in his mind what he wanted to say, and what he thought he should hold back on before speaking.

It strikes me that Echols is a loose cannon in all this, but so is Jessie, but for different reasons. I think Echols, in his twisted mind, was proud of this horrendous crime, while Jessie felt remorse or perhaps it wasn't so much remorse as it was to be certain he wasn't the only one going down for this crime. Somewhere I have seen a report on Jessie that describes him as someone with antisocial personality disorder. I believe him to be a psychopathic liar as well with more street smarts than book smarts, but not enough to keep himself out of trouble. I absolutely agree he has a low IQ, but he's not retarded. I also believe he has explosive anger disorder, but I don't see it as playing a role in this crime. Neither do I view Echols as the "brains" behind this crime, and I wouldn't call it brains for this was a very stupid crime in many respects, so stupid in fact, it's far more easy to imagine it was done by young people, bored and frustrated, and off-centered, than by any full grown adult. Hobbs didn't do this. Hobbs is too street smart, and far too wary to have left those boys in that ditch, and it just doesn't fit that either JMB or Hobbs would have committed this crime. If I had to pick one of them though, I would have to go with JMB, not Hobbs. JMB is not as smart as Hobbs. Gut instinct tells me, if any adult had done this, those bodies would be far away, and this would have been a cleaner kill. There's a law of averages at play, concerning certain types of crime, and in order to come up with Hobbs or JMB as the perp, a person has to step way outside that law of averages. I just can't buy that on the basis of what I know about crime. Certain crimes are committed by certain types of usual suspects. LE will always go with those known odds, and so will I.

Every person who commits a criminal act does so with a logic in his or her mind. Now it stands that their logic is off, way off, and this particular type crime is never ever one that could be attributed to a reasonable, rational, and empathic person which is not to say that either JMB or Hobbs fits that bill nor any of the three convicted, the way I see them.

What you expect me to believe is that Mr. Goody Two Shoes, Baldwin, could run around with and call someone like Damien Echols his best friend. It doesn't fit, and it never did. People are who they associate with, there's no getting around that. Of course, you want to see Echols in the same light as you see Baldwin, and that doesn't fit either, not with his mental history, not with his known lies. Oh I'm sure you can point to people whose friends are at odds with their seeming personality, but something unseen or unknown to others draws them together, and that something is usually not something that would ever see them charged with a crime of this nature.