WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[Userid]

DE's lawyers brought up the idea of the Alford plea. Obviously as a last ditch effort before he was executed. The state made the offer. Now why would they make that offer? Why would they open up the gates of the jail cells (one on death row) of 3 child murderers?

Um, no. Read the post directly above this one. DE's lawyers made the offer, and then the state negotiated for the other two; and the WM3 all but jumped at the opportunity (other than JB, who was reluctant at first but then accepted). Nobody twisted any of the WM3 to take this deal; and no one twisted the arm of DE's lawyers to present the state the Alford Plea in the first place (eyeroll).

 

[dogmatica]

Um, no. Read the post directly above this one. DE's lawyers made the offer, and then the state negotiated for the other two; and the WM3 all but jumped at the opportunity (other than JB, who was reluctant at first but then accepted). Nobody twisted any of the WM3 to take this deal; and no one twisted the arm of DE's lawyers to present the state the Alford Plea in the first place (eyeroll).

But Baldwin only accepted because "they were trying to kill Damien". Eye roll indeed.

 

[CoolJ]

Um, no. Read the post directly above this one. DE's lawyers made the offer, and then the state negotiated for the other two; and the WM3 all but jumped at the opportunity (other than JB, who was reluctant at first but then accepted). Nobody twisted any of the WM3 to take this deal; and no one twisted the arm of DE's lawyers to present the state the Alford Plea in the first place (eyeroll).

wrong. The offer came from the state. DE's team presented the idea to them. But the state are the only ones with power to "offer" any kind of plea, let alone an Alford plea.

 

[CoolJ]

So to buy into your conspiracy theory - these evil "corruptors" got to Jessie in prison - and forced him into calling his own lawyer to arrange yet ANOTHER confession. And their threat to him was..."you better keep confessing to your own lawyer, police, and whoever else will listen, and do it with your hand on the bible, and when your own lawyer begs you not to confess anymore - you better just ignore him and do it anyway, or else we'll....throw you in prison!!" And Jessie went along with this, because he's so retarded that he didn't realize he had already been convicted, and was already in prison.

Yes, that's plausible.

How about you answer the question...

If these "confessions" are so valid, why are they so inconsistent?

Which of Misskelley's stories do you see as the truth?

And yes, it absolutely is a "conspiracy". By the true definition of the word.

 

[dogmatica]

wrong. The offer came from the state. DE's team presented the idea to them. But the state are the only ones with power to "offer" any kind of plea, let alone an Alford plea.

You've lost the argument (both of them), and now you're trying to deflect by arguing semantics. Perhaps that kind of tactic works with your fellow child murderer supporters, but not in this case. Sorry.

Here's the point: Echols' team wanted the Alford Plea, and initiated it. If they had the exculpatory evidence they claimed to have had, they would not have offered up the plea. They would have presented this exculpatory evidence, proved who the "real killer" was and exonerated their client and the other 2 killers. But that evidence doesn't exist, and they conceded that a new trial would've resulted in ANOTHER conviction, had it gone forward.

Why is, do you suppose, that we were never given this exculpatory evidence we were promised all those years ago?

 

[dogmatica]

How about you answer the question...

If these "confessions" are so valid, why are they so inconsistent?

Which of Misskelley's stories do you see as the truth?

And yes, it absolutely is a "conspiracy". By the true definition of the word.

More deflection. You can't answer my question, because you know it's a load of crap that he was "coerced" from behind bars, post conviction.

His confessions had many consistencies - including things only the killer(s) would know. Inconsistencies - he admitted he threw some in to "mess with" the police. He was also rip roaring drunk when it happened. Also, child murderers aren't always what you'd call "forthright". They tend to lie and deceive, as well as murder.

And if you truly believe that JM was "coerced' multiple times, post conviction, while he was in prison, to arrange more confessions, against the pleas of his own attorneys, then we have nothing further to discuss, as that is utterly irrational and just not possible - and no amount of logic or rationale can help you. Good luck with that.

And no, there is no conspiracy, as much as you'd like there to be.

 

[dogmatica]

Here's another way supporters twist and abuse logic to fit their narrative:

He was so retarded that he was coerced several times, post conviction, while already IN PRISON - but you can't wrap your head around the fact that someone so retarded, would have inconsistencies in their confession to the drunken slaying of 3 little boys? You can't have it both ways. Just like you can't say that he was so slow and stupid and prone to suggestion that he confessed multiple times to murders he didn't commit - but was NOT able to be convinced to STOP confessing by his own attorney.

You see how you pick and choose what "facts" to use as ammunition, and what facts you choose to utterly ignore, in order to fit your narrative? Intelligent, logical people see right through that, every time. Hell, even Jessie Misskelley could see through that.

So by your logic - JM suddenly became immune to suggestion and coercion when it would absolutely be in his best interest. Only when it was extremely detrimental to his life and well being, is he susceptible to such manipulation. But when it comes to being told what to do for his own good - he suddenly gets wise. That's funny.

 

[CoolJ]

Here's another way supporters twist and abuse logic to fit their narrative:

He was so retarded that he was coerced several times, post conviction, while already IN PRISON - but you can't wrap your head around the fact that someone so retarded, would have inconsistencies in their confession to the drunken slaying of 3 little boys? You can't have it both ways. Just like you can't say that he was so slow and stupid and prone to suggestion that he confessed multiple times to murders he didn't commit - but was NOT able to be convinced to STOP confessing by his own attorney.

You see how you pick and choose what "facts" to use as ammunition, and what facts you choose to utterly ignore, in order to fit your narrative? Intelligent, logical people see right through that, every time. Hell, even Jessie Misskelley could see through that.

So by your logic - JM suddenly became immune to suggestion and coercion when it would absolutely be in his best interest. Only when it was extremely detrimental to his life and well being, is he susceptible to such manipulation. But when it comes to being told what to do for his own good - he suddenly gets wise. That's funny.

Lol, ok I am not going to argue over semantics.

You accuse me of deflection all the while you continue to deflect the important questions.

Did Misskelley not recant every confession? Why is it you believe him when he confesses yet not when he recants?

I know much more about this case than you think I do. Much more. I am well aware of the "disinfo agents" that prowl the Internet to control the public perception. Quite similar to the Steven Avery case.

If you could make your points without being rude and ignorant, I would stick around and listen to your script. But you seem angry about this... Almost like you have some skin in the game?

Continue on with your charade. I am now more convinced than ever that this case was a massive cover up and there are a lot of people in high places whose careers and lives would get turned upside down if the real truth ever came out.

 

[dogmatica]

Lol, ok I am not going to argue over semantics.

You accuse me of deflection all the while you continue to deflect the important questions.

Did Misskelley not recant every confession? Why is it you believe him when he confesses yet not when he recants?

I know much more about this case than you think I do. Much more. I am well aware of the "disinfo agents" that prowl the Internet to control the public perception. Quite similar to the Steven Avery case.

If you could make your points without being rude and ignorant, I would stick around and listen to your script. But you seem angry about this... Almost like you have some skin in the game?

Continue on with your charade. I am now more convinced than ever that this case was a massive cover up and there are a lot of people in high places whose careers and lives would get turned upside down if the real truth ever came out.

I'm sure after being in the max lockup after a while he decided he didn't like it too much and recanted. Like I said, child murderers aren't the most forthright individuals. There was zero reason for him to keep confessing after he was convicted - unless he did it. I think JM was the only one of the 3 that actually had a shred of a conscience. I think he actually felt some guilt over it (recall the crying fits). I believe he recanted because he was miserable in prison and probably had a huge target on his back. Even other criminals don't like child killers.

My charade? Presenting facts don't constitute a "charade". Yup - people who fight tooth and nail to defend child murderers tend to make me a little angry.

"If the real truth came out"...there's no conspiracy. Echols and has celebrity dream team have millions and millions of dollars behind them, and a large fan base (people such as yourself) just salivating for the "real killer" to be nailed. There's ZERO chance that a handful of LE in Arkansas would be able to somehow keep such a gigantic conspiracy going and keep the "truth" concealed from the entire world. How on earth anyone thinks a small group of "Hillbillies" from the deep south could control such a massive conspiracy, and silence such powerful people...it's just silly.

If the "truth" is out there, and 3 "innocent" guys were 'railroaded", it would be front page news. Again, why hasn't Echols and his dream team revealed the truth? Are the same people that forced JM to keep confessing from behind bars controlling Echols, his lawyers, the media, Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder, Natalie Maines et al as well? Who ARE these people? Do they have some kind of superpowers? And more importantly, WHY?

 

[sloane7777]

I'm sure after being in the max lockup after a while he decided he didn't like it too much and recanted. Like I said, child murderers aren't the most forthright individuals. There was zero reason for him to keep confessing after he was convicted - unless he did it. I think JM was the only one of the 3 that actually had a shred of a conscience. I think he actually felt some guilt over it (recall the crying fits). I believe he recanted because he was miserable in prison and probably had a huge target on his back. Even other criminals don't like child killers.

My charade? Presenting facts don't constitute a "charade". Yup - people who fight tooth and nail to defend child murderers tend to make me a little angry.

"If the real truth came out"...there's no conspiracy. Echols and has celebrity dream team have millions and millions of dollars behind them, and a large fan base (people such as yourself) just salivating for the "real killer" to be nailed. There's ZERO chance that a handful of LE in Arkansas would be able to somehow keep such a gigantic conspiracy going and keep the "truth" concealed from the entire world. How on earth anyone thinks a small group of "Hillbillies" from the deep south could control such a massive conspiracy, and silence such powerful people...it's just silly.

If the "truth" is out there, and 3 "innocent" guys were 'railroaded", it would be front page news. Again, why hasn't Echols and his dream team revealed the truth? Are the same people that forced JM to keep confessing from behind bars controlling Echols, his lawyers, the media, Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder, Natalie Maines et al as well? Who ARE these people? Do they have some kind of superpowers? And more importantly, WHY?

BBM have to say " PHU LEASE"! how many people have been wrongly convicted and rarely does it make the news , the Innocence Project exists because there are a hell of a lot people who have been railroaded by Lawyers , LE, etc. !!!!!!! and the WHY small town LE does not want to admit they had a flawed investigation AKA witch hunt .

 

[dogmatica]

BBM have to say " PHU LEASE"! how many people have been wrongly convicted and rarely does it make the news , the Innocence Project exists because there are a hell of a lot people who have been railroaded by Lawyers , LE, etc. !!!!!!! and the WHY small town LE does not want to admit they had a flawed investigation AKA witch hunt .

This is a HUGE case that gained international attention and has been in the spotlight for years. The 3 convicted child killers have MILLIONS of dollars, a gigantic media machine and massive celebrity power behind them, as well as access to the best lawyers. They claimed to have exculpatory evidence and proof of who the "real killer" is. Where is this exculpatory evidence? If it actually existed, you don't think the gigantic media/money machine behind Echols wouldn't bring it to light? This is hardly like your run of the mill "wrongly convicted" case. If that evidence existed - evidence that would clear the WM3, you don't think Depp, Maines, Vedder, Echols and all the other whack job celeb supporters wouldn't be all over the media with that info? PHU LEASE! indeed.

 

[Userid]

wrong. The offer came from the state. DE's team presented the idea to them. But the state are the only ones with power to "offer" any kind of plea, let alone an Alford plea.

This is comical. "The Defense 'presented' it to them, but the State 'offered' it." Brilliant.

Either way, the Defense asked for the Alford Plea (without being prompted), and the Prosecution obliged after it was agreed that all three would plead guilty. That isn't blackmail, and no one forced DE's lawyers hands.

 

[CoolJ]

This is comical. "The Defense 'presented' it to them, but the State 'offered' it." Brilliant.

Either way, the Defense asked for the Alford Plea (without being prompted), and the Prosecution obliged after it was agreed that all three would plead guilty. That isn't blackmail, and no one forced DE's lawyers hands.

Again, semantics. Not going to argue about wording. I said nothing of blackmail. And we all know the Alford plea had nothing to do with guilt or innocence anyway so it is a moot point.

 

[dogmatica]

Again, semantics. Not going to argue about wording. I said nothing of blackmail. And we all know the Alford plea had nothing to do with guilt or innocence anyway so it is a moot point.

It totally had to do with guilt or innocence. They PLEAD GUILTY. And if they were innocent, and had the exculpatory evidence they claimed to have, they would have gone to trial and been exonerated, and sued the state for millions for wrongful conviction. Instead, they went to the DA and asked to plead guilty. No innocent person would do that - especially if, as they claimed, they had proof of their innocence and proof of who the "real killer" is.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I know much more about this case than you think I do. Much more. I am well aware of the "disinfo agents" that prowl the Internet to control the public perception.

CoolJ, Thanks for your ability to think outside the box. I was beginning to think I was getting a bit paranoid. Excellent posts!

 

[Userid]

Again, semantics. Not going to argue about wording. I said nothing of blackmail. And we all know the Alford plea had nothing to do with guilt or innocence anyway so it is a moot point.

You introduced the semantics argument....just like the defense introduced the Alford plea.

Cher said it was blackmail.

True, it had to do with getting out of prison, no matter the cost of still being technically guilty. But the fact is, neither wanted to risk another trial -- not just the prosecution, but neither side. That's why the defense (I'll say it again, the defense) brought the Alford Plea to the table.

 

[Userid]

It totally had to do with guilt or innocence. They PLEAD GUILTY. And if they were innocent, and had the exculpatory evidence they claimed to have, they would have gone to trial and been exonerated, and sued the state for millions for wrongful conviction. Instead, they went to the DA and asked to plead guilty. No innocent person would do that - especially if, as they claimed, they had proof of their innocence and proof of who the "real killer" is.

Exactly to the bolded - but they obviously didn't and they didn't want to take their chances in a trial (can't necessarily blame them). Neither side wanted to go to trial, but the prosecution most likely would have gone, considering it was the defense that introduced the Alford plea to them. The Alford plea is good if you think the three are innocent, but the fact of the matter is, it squashed any chance of this case ever truly being solved. The fact you haven't heard a peep about this "exculpatory evidence" speaks volumes.

 

[CoolJ]

You introduced the semantics argument....just like the defense introduced the Alford plea.

Cher said it was blackmail.

True, it had to do with getting out of prison, no matter the cost of still being technically guilty. But the fact is, neither wanted to risk another trial -- not just the prosecution, but neither side. That's why the defense (I'll say it again, the defense) brought the Alford Plea to the table.

And i will say it again one more time as well. The defence introduced the idea of an Alford Plea and the State in return, made the offer as only the State has the power to OFFER such a plea. They both wanted it. Obviously.

 

[dogmatica]

And i will say it again one more time as well. The defence introduced the idea of an Alford Plea and the State in return, made the offer as only the State has the power to OFFER such a plea. They both wanted it. Obviously.

Where is the exculpatory evidence Echols said they have? Why have they not presented it and been exonerated? They fought so hard to get a shot at a second trial - convinced everyone they had this evidence that would clear them - yet instead, they plead guilty and didn't want a shot at showing the world they're innocent, and becoming millionaires from suing the State for wrongful conviction. Even if they took the plea because "they were killing Damien" (uh-huh)...why haven't they presented this evidence?

 

[CoolJ]

Where is the exculpatory evidence Echols said they have? Why have they not presented it and been exonerated? They fought so hard to get a shot at a second trial - convinced everyone they had this evidence that would clear them - yet instead, they plead guilty and didn't want a shot at showing the world they're innocent, and becoming millionaires from suing the State for wrongful conviction. Even if they took the plea because "they were killing Damien" (uh-huh)...why haven't they presented this evidence?

Is there some sort of time limit on presenting evidence?

I think it is quite clear now that the only way they will be exonerated is when the real killers are brought to justice. Since the WMPD and other local agencies aren't interested in finding the real child killers it will have to happen though other investigatory methods.

Is there a statute of limitations on Murder in Arkansas?