Where is the exculpatory evidence we were promised?

[WilliamHolder]

Very few prosecutors would want to retry a case that is decades old. Witnesses are unavailable or memory failing. Evidence is gone, unavailable or misplaced. Without the nonsense documentaries and celebrity support and money, these vicious killers would still be in jail - they should have been hanged in the public square for the brutality of this crime. There is not a single credible alternative suspect or a single piece of credible evidence to suggest another was responsible. Period.

 

[AGettler]

Learn what an Alford Plea is before you scoff at facts.

The AP is one thing, the boys coming out and saying they would be found guilty if tried again is another. Savvy?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Just want to clarify one thing. In August of 2011, the original verdicts were “set aside” in lieu of the Alford pleas. So, saying that the original verdicts were not overturned is a bit misleading. If the original verdicts weren’t set aside, a new plea could not have been entered. Ask a lawyer. I did.

 

[Keine Engel]

"Judge Laser vacated the convictions on the condition that the defendants enter guilty pleas pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case known as North Carolina v. Alford. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.
In accordance with the plea negotiations, Judge Laser sentences all three to time served, followed by a ten-year term of suspended imposition of sentence. If they re-offend they can be sent back to prison for 21 years..."
Chronology

 

[dogmatica]

The AP is one thing, the boys coming out and saying they would be found guilty if tried again is another. Savvy?

Again, you do not understand the Alford Plea, even a little bit. The Alford Plea is precisely the "boys" saying they would be found guilty if tried again. That is the very essence of the plea. Best to arm yourself with facts before claiming some sort of intellectual victory.

 

[dogmatica]

Just want to clarify one thing. In August of 2011, the original verdicts were “set aside” in lieu of the Alford pleas. So, saying that the original verdicts were not overturned is a bit misleading. If the original verdicts weren’t set aside, a new plea could not have been entered. Ask a lawyer. I did.

There is only one verdict in this case: Guilty. And that verdict was handed down twice. Your deflection is weak.

 

[dogmatica]

"Judge Laser vacated the convictions on the condition that the defendants enter guilty pleas pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case known as North Carolina v. Alford. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.
In accordance with the plea negotiations, Judge Laser sentences all three to time served, followed by a ten-year term of suspended imposition of sentence. If they re-offend they can be sent back to prison for 21 years..."
Chronology

Ergo, they are convicted child killers.

 

[Keine Engel]

The AP is one thing, the boys coming out and saying they would be found guilty if tried again is another. Savvy?

But that's EXACTLY what they did

"Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them"

As stated here:

"Judge Laser vacated the convictions on the condition that the defendants enter guilty pleas pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case known as North Carolina v. Alford. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them.
In accordance with the plea negotiations, Judge Laser sentences all three to time served, followed by a ten-year term of suspended imposition of sentence. If they re-offend they can be sent back to prison for 21 years..."
Chronology

 

[dogmatica]

But that's EXACTLY what they did

"Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them"

As stated here:

Savvy, indeed.

 

[Keine Engel]

Savvy, indeed.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Plenty of innocent people have been judged guilty. A guilty verdict doesn’t prove anything. Evidence (or lack thereof) is proof. IMO, there is simply not enough evidence of guilt in this case, which is why we still discuss it. Again, I’m hoping that DS’s book will bring some much-needed clarity.

 

[dogmatica]

Plenty of innocent people have been judged guilty. A guilty verdict doesn’t prove anything. Evidence (or lack thereof) is proof. IMO, there is simply not enough evidence of guilt in this case, which is why we still discuss it. Again, I’m hoping that DS’s book will bring some much-needed clarity.

"A guilty verdict doesn’t prove anything."

It is statements such as this that destroy any credibility you claim to have. The evidence is what proved they were guilty, and that was the verdict the jury rendered, based on said evidence. The WM3 also pleaded guilty, acknowledging that if they were retried, they'd be found guilty, again.

 

[Carrie Ann]

The state is not going to allow any evidence to the public. They agreed to the alpha plea agreement. The state is not going to open anything because they don't want to be sued. I watched this whole case unfold. I didn't believe that the boys did the crime. Certain people knew how to get the older generation into a panic. The Bible Belt in those years where tight. So the mention of satanic killings had the wm3 convicted . It was just going through the process of a trial. I do have suspicions of the Terry Hobbs involvement.

 

[Catmommy]

The Alford Plea entered by the three was granted 9 years ago. Counsel for the WM3 said they would continue to pursue full exoneration. Wonder when that's coming?

 

[thaddeusjames80]

This is a trick question, considering there is no physical evidence that connects anyone to the crime with 100% certainty -- and yes, that includes TH and DJ. The hair attributed to TH could also be attributed to something like 800-900 people; it wasn't an identical match. You had a thumb print at the scene that was also never attributed to anyone, due (if memory serves) to it not being in good quality.

Circumstantial evidence (since you're evidently too lazy to simply read through these threads): the blue drop of candle-wax found on one of the shirts of the victims, and the blue candle found to belong to DE and DT. The fact that JB not only traded away weapons (a pick-ax and a knife) just after the murders, but also changed the black laces in his combat boots to new ones -- MM was tied with a black combat-style-length shoe lace that was never traced back to a source shoe, unlike the other two victims, who were tied with their own shoe laces. Also, JM's own, multiple confession fall in this category. In addition to the fact that, none of them had alibis (contrary to what PL and Bob Ruff will tell you) that could hold up in court.

Also, there's fiber evidence. Fibers recovered from the victims matched certain fibers found in JB's trailer (the source was a robe from his mom) and other fibers matching ones on MM matched the fibers of a green shirt that belonged to DE.

You also have BL's police interview, corroborating JM's involvement; in addition to JM's step-mother's account of JM having night terrors after the murders.

JB's entire alibi was that he was mowing his uncle's lawn, but his own uncle says this didn't take place the day of the murders. His alibi also consists of DE and DT being with him and going to the laundromat to call for a ride home (which was blocks away), even though JB's Uncle had a telephone and let DE inside his home on multiple locations. This is why JB's own lawyers wouldn't even let him testify; because they knew his alibi was garbage and would get shredded during cross examination.

There is probably more; this is just off the top of my head.

I know I'm way late to this conversation, but I believe some people have a hard time seeing through the of the documentaries etc. and reading between the lines, which is how a circumstantial case is made. After my first watch of the docs I believed them innocent. After more research I realized that the case was super flawed and they probably shouldn't have been convicted due to it, but I'm glad they were because they're guilty. The boys were tied with 3 different knots, fitting there's 3 of them convicted

 

[DHT1339]

I know I'm way late to this conversation, but I believe some people have a hard time seeing through the ******** of the documentaries etc. and reading between the lines, which is how a circumstantial case is made. After my first watch of the docs I believed them innocent. After more research I realized that the case was super flawed and they probably shouldn't have been convicted due to it, but I'm glad they were because they're guilty. The boys were tied with 3 different knots, fitting there's 3 of them convicted

so three different knots is enough to say that the WM3 are guilty?

 

[Catmommy]

so three different knots is enough to say that the WM3 are guilty?

It's enough to call into question that ONE person was responsible. An opportunistic crime, committed in a short expanse of time, with three young boys confined, speaks of more than ONE offender.

 

[Catmommy]

Continuing on that theme, I initially thought that Terry Hobbs HAD to be thought of as a possible suspect, especially considering he had his teeth pulled not that long after the crime. And I pondered on that. I also considered that Damien was an easy target because of his strange ways. But, DAMN, after trying to prove the three innocent, the only thing I could conclude was that not only was it possible, it was also plausible that they were, indeed, GUILTY.

 

[DHT1339]

It's enough to call into question that ONE person was responsible. An opportunistic crime, committed in a short expanse of time, with three young boys confined, speaks of more than ONE offender.

sure, i can agree with you on that. i've always thought there was more than one killer

Continuing on that theme, I initially thought that Terry Hobbs HAD to be thought of as a possible suspect, especially considering he had his teeth pulled not that long after the crime. And I pondered on that. I also considered that Damien was an easy target because of his strange ways. But, DAMN, after trying to prove the three innocent, the only thing I could conclude was that not only was it possible, it was also plausible that they were, indeed, GUILTY.

based on what we know, there is simply no way to say that you know for sure that they are guilty. all we have is circumstantial evidence and any of that evidence against the WM3 is incredibly weak at best. same goes for TH. there is simply no way for any of us to say that "we know" someone is guilty in this case

do some research into jerry driver. he played a key role in echols becoming a suspect in the case because of his belief that echols was involved in satanic cult activity. driver really had it out for DE

 

[amandab]

Has anyone heard the news about evidence being found IN THE EVIDENCE ROOM? Lots of hubbub on The Arkansas Justice FB page....