Summary of Damien's Mental Health History

[gitana1]

If true, then it's even more reason to get the convictions overturned. That should erase this terrible injustice! The convictions will be necessarily overturned when the real killer is properly investigated, tried and convicted for these murders. Then, and only then, will this case be solved and Ellington will have his wish - we will go away!

Yeah, for the third and last time, their convictions will not be overturned. I know of no mechanism by which they can do that. They can no longer appeal and writs are unavailable to them. A pardon does not overturn their conviction. I know you are upset but those are the facts.

 

[gitana1]

I'm actually more concerned with the issue of real justice for the victims.

That's why I think it's important to keep any and all discussion going. Allowing this case to fizzle out now the circus has died down is a slap to the memory of those dead kids. I mean, who are really the important people in this case?

Sure, some of it's rehash and annoying quibbles. But it's perhaps better than no interest at all.

(and there's still some decent - and for the most part polite, too! - conversation to be had, I must add)

How does arguing in circles help the kids get justice? The state of Arkansas will not prosecute anyone else for this crime.

 

[gheckso]

gitana1
So if the real killer was to come forward and subsequently charged the three cannot overturn their conviction? these seems illogical no?
And if it's simply because there is no mechanism to do so, then why hasn't that mechanism been created for the "off chance" a wrongly conviction has occurred? (not necessarily this one)

 

[gitana1]

gitana1
So if the real killer was to come forward and subsequently charged the three cannot overturn their conviction? these seems illogical no?
And if it's simply because there is no mechanism to do so, then why hasn't that mechanism been created for the "off chance" a wrongly conviction has occurred? (not necessarily this one)

No. It's not illogical. First of all, no one else will be charged for this crime, even if they confessed and evidence could link them, unless there was a video tape of them committing the crime, which would force the state's hand. That's because the state, the only entity with the power to decide who to charge, has no motivation to charge anyone else as that would prove them wrong. I cannot think of one case in which that's happened, ( new charges with different suspect) in the US, even if the prior conviction was overturned.

Second, there WAS a mechanism by which these guys could have had their convictions overturned, but after much soul searching and advice from their attorneys, they made the joint decision to give up those mechanisms. So that's it. That was their choice and it's now over.

Third, the lack of a mechanism at this point will be highly unlikely to be remedied in this case or cases like it, via the creation of a new remedy by which they could overturn their convictions because: a) There is not a pressing need for a change in the law in regard to this issue. There are very few cases where a person is wrongfully convicted, then uses a mechanism to overturn the conviction but halfway through decides to settle on an Alford plea, thereby giving up the mechanism that exists, but subsequently the real perp is determined through clear evidence. There are many other areas in our legal system that are inherently unjust and cause daily trauma for defendants. Like mandatory minimums for usage or sale of certain drugs known to be used more by certain groups, as opposed to lighter sentences for usage and sale of the same drug, but in a different form, known to be used more oftrn by a differebt group if peopke b) There already exists another remedy, which is a different path to exoneration- pardons.

All of this is also why a new mechanism hasn't been created.

 

[Ausgirl]

How does arguing in circles help the kids get justice? The state of Arkansas will not prosecute anyone else for this crime.

I don't believe I said that arguing in circles would help.

And yeah, I agree they likely won't. Which is a shame. But what else is there do, if not simply let the case fade into obscurity altogether? There's still a killer going free, still three dead children. Those facts haven't changed. Is that not worthy of discussion?

It does get a bit tedious, I agree. But at least there's still an outlet for people to express their concerns and opinions, no matter what those are. Better than silence, IMO. And we're all free to hit that ignore button, or choose not to click on a link if it gets too annoying.

 

[kyleb]

I cannot think of one case in which that's happened, ( new charges with different suspect) in the US, even if the prior conviction was overturned.

I've never really looked into the matter, but here's one example:

In December of 2005, prosecutors stated that Elkins had proven his innocence of this crime and filed a motion with the court to vacate his sentence. He walked out of prison on December 15, 2005, after serving 6 ½ years in prison.

In August 2008, Earl Mann pled guilty to aggravated murder, attempted murder, aggravated burglary and rape in connection with this crime. Prosecutors said the male profile that led to Elkins' exoneration matches Mann's profile. Mann is also currently serving a seven-year sentence for three unrelated rapes.

Anyway, don't prosecutors and judges have ethical obligations to convict the guilty and free the innocent? Granted, I believe the three who were convicted for these murders are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but if there were evidence to the contrary I would consider the judge and prosecutors scumbags for accepting the Alford pleas rather insuring the convictions were overturned.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If I believed the three were innocent I would say they had the chance to go for a new trial. Based on where the case was at the judge's hands were tied in regards to anything else. If they had gone forward with a new trial different story and they would have had the chance to exonerate themselves. Keeps all the questions still open though doesn't it?

 

[sloane7777]

Ok, I'm convinced. Damien Echols dealt with mental issues that probably a majority of the population does not deal with. I'm not saying anyone is suggesting it, but obviously, it's not evidence of guilt. Plenty of people suffer from the same or similar symptoms and don't murder three 8 year old boys. So now that we've established that Damien suffered from some fashion of mental illness, what evidence is there that he actually committed these crimes?

I deal with the same diag every day, I have had about 10 Drs come up with the same diag. not happy all the time I have never murdered anyone!Thank GOD, I have not been at the wrong place at the wrong time LOL!

 

[gitana1]

I've never really looked into the matter, but here's one example:

Anyway, don't prosecutors and judges have ethical obligations to convict the guilty and free the innocent? Granted, I believe the three who were convicted for these murders are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but if there were evidence to the contrary I would consider the judge and prosecutors scumbags for accepting the Alford pleas rather insuring the convictions were overturned.

Thank you for the example! Quite rare.

Judges don't have the power to charge anyone. And yes, prosecutors have an ethical obligation to seek the truth. And then there's the real world. I think the convictions were very likely to have been overturned in this case. But settlement takes out the element of chance. You control outcomes with settlement. I would not have been opposed to an innocent client taking this deal, under these circumstances. Try one day on death row as an innocent person and tell me how it feels. There was evidence to the contrary, it was the subject of their appeals. But the judge is no for accepting the Alford plea under these circumstances. I do think the prosecution are scumbags, though. They know the truth, but like almost all prosecutors, they are unwilling to admit they were wrong. That's bad politically and as Innocent Project cases show nationwide, they rarely admit it, even when they know an innocent person is languishing.

I don't believe I said that arguing in circles would help.

And yeah, I agree they likely won't. Which is a shame. But what else is there do, if not simply let the case fade into obscurity altogether? There's still a killer going free, still three dead children. Those facts haven't changed. Is that not worthy of discussion?

It does get a bit tedious, I agree. But at least there's still an outlet for people to express their concerns and opinions, no matter what those are. Better than silence, IMO. And we're all free to hit that ignore button, or choose not to click on a link if it gets too annoying.

There is a lot more to do for justice in this case than argue on a Websleuths thread. Of course once in a while something new comes up. But I left these threads because I just saw a ton of ALL CAPS or whatever, and the same arguments, over and over again, with the very same people, who have polarized views. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same process over and over again, expecting a different result. To me it's not productive. But, like I said, that's just me. To each his own. And to be fair, I haven't been around so maybe there are more interesting conversations going on here.

I just came by to clear up some misconceptions.

 

[reedus23]

Let me clarify:

These guys were convicted of murder and those convictions will never be erased. I'm not sure where these misconceptions come from. In the United States, convictions are never "erased". Even an expungement doesn't erase a conviction and there exists no mechanism in the United States to automatically erase a conviction at all, let alone after a period of time. These three will always be convicted felons, unable to vote or own firearms.

Expungements are a different bird. In this case, the "convictions" were set aside and held for naught by the trial judge. So it is as if it never happened. Subsequent to that, the WM3 entered the Alford Pleas, which include a plea of guilty. The question becomes what role or what effect the "suspended imposition of sentence" has on the guilty pleas. As I've said, where I'm at, if successfully completed, it means that yes, they could vote and could own firearms.

What if the trial court granted the new trial, thereby setting aside the "convictions" and holding them for naught but there was no Alford Plea and the State chose not to pursue a 2nd trial? Do you contend that they would still be convicted felons, unable to vote or own firearms? What if the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned the "convictions"? Same answer? Bottom line is there are situations where a conviction that was entered at one time is subsequently held for naught and is treated as if it never occurred.

ETA - Gitana, if you come back, you can ignore these questions. I think you answered them as I read on.

 

[reedus23]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please see my response, above. Their convictions will never be overturned. And you are misunderstanding the suspended sentences in this case. They were sentenced to time served plus a suspended sentence. If they had only been sentenced to a suspended sentence, then they may have been able to expunge the conviction and not lawfully disclose their conviction, if it was a different kind of conviction. Expungement in Arkansas does not cover murder or crimes in which the victim was under 18. Both of which apply here. But even if it did, they have a sentence of time served AND a suspended sentence. Finally, expungement does NOT destroy their case file in Arkansas and they would absolutely have to disclose their conviction if they wanted any kind of government job or job working with children or the disabled or the elderly.

Gitana, you sound like you versed in Arkansas law. Couple of questions if you don't mind. First, when I used the word "conviction" in " ", I was referencing the "convictions" entered following the jury trials, not the guilty pleas. In the eyes of the law, once the trial court granted the new trial, it had to set aside THOSE "convictions", so THOSE "convictions" do not exist.

Secondly, regarding the guilty pleas and attendant SIS (not expungement, which is different). It sounds to me like you are saying an SIS works differently in Arkansas than where I am at. Where I am, after successfully completing an SIS, you do NOT have to disclose it as a conviction/guilty plea for employment purposes and it would not show up on a criminal background check run by a potential employer. If asked, under oath, "Have you ever been convicted of or plead guilty to a felony or misdemeanor?" the witness could honestly and under oath answer "No.". That is NOT to say that their case file is destroyed or disappears. That is not to say, if later arrested, that LE would not see it or consider it. I've asked it before and I guess what I'm wondering, is are you saying that Arkansas specifically handles it differently? And again, I'm not talking about expungement but rather the simple effect that successful completion of an SIS has. TIA

 

[kyleb]

Judges don't have the power to charge anyone.

Nor did I suggest as much. I've seen judges overturn convictions and refuses guilty pleas before though, and were I a judge I'd feel morally obligated to do so when the body of evidence proves innocence, wouldn't you?

And yes, prosecutors have an ethical obligation to seek the truth. And then there's the real world.

I'm aware of the fact that people violate their ethical obligations, both prosecutors and otherwise. I've seen no evidence to suggest such depravity is inherent to prosecutors though, or even typical, and vague allusions to the few cases the Innocent Project have dealt with don't come anywhere close to proving such corruption is anything close to as ubiquitous as you proclaim.

There was evidence to the contrary, it was the subject of their appeals.

Rather, misrepresentations of evidence was the subject of their appeals both to the courts and to the public over the past two decades, but the body of evidence in this case remains conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence all the people typing in caps and arguing in circles around even such simple matters of fact as where Echols lived at the time of the murders and making wildly exaggerated claims about the timeline and circumstances of Misskelley's initial confession.

 

[gitana1]

Expungements are a different bird. In this case, the "convictions" were set aside and held for naught by the trial judge. So it is as if it never happened. Subsequent to that, the WM3 entered the Alford Pleas, which include a plea of guilty. The question becomes what role or what effect the "suspended imposition of sentence" has on the guilty pleas. As I've said, where I'm at, if successfully completed, it means that yes, they could vote and could own firearms.

What if the trial court granted the new trial, thereby setting aside the "convictions" and holding them for naught but there was no Alford Plea and the State chose not to pursue a 2nd trial? Do you contend that they would still be convicted felons, unable to vote or own firearms? What if the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned the "convictions"? Same answer? Bottom line is there are situations where a conviction that was entered at one time is subsequently held for naught and is treated as if it never occurred.

ETA - Gitana, if you come back, you can ignore these questions. I think you answered them as I read on.

Okay! Thank you.

 

[kyleb]

It sounds to me like you are saying an SIS works differently in Arkansas than where I am at.

Can you provide an example of laws from a state that operates as you suggest? I don't care if it's your state or not, I'd just like to see examples of whatever laws you are alluding to.

 

[gitana1]

Gitana, you sound like you versed in Arkansas law. Couple of questions if you don't mind. First, when I used the word "conviction" in " ", I was referencing the "convictions" entered following the jury trials, not the guilty pleas. In the eyes of the law, once the trial court granted the new trial, it had to set aside THOSE "convictions", so THOSE "convictions" do not exist.

Secondly, regarding the guilty pleas and attendant SIS (not expungement, which is different). It sounds to me like you are saying an SIS works differently in Arkansas than where I am at. Where I am, after successfully completing an SIS, you do NOT have to disclose it as a conviction/guilty plea for employment purposes and it would not show up on a criminal background check run by a potential employer. If asked, under oath, "Have you ever been convicted of or plead guilty to a felony or misdemeanor?" the witness could honestly and under oath answer "No.". That is NOT to say that their case file is destroyed or disappears. That is not to say, if later arrested, that LE would not see it or consider it. I've asked it before and I guess what I'm wondering, is are you saying that Arkansas specifically handles it differently? And again, I'm not talking about expungement but rather the simple effect that successful completion of an SIS has. TIA

I get ya'. Yes, those convictions were totally vacated. That's very true.

Nor did I suggest as much. I've seen judges overturn convictions and refuses guilty pleas before though, and were I a judge I'd feel morally obligated to do so when the body of evidence proves innocence, wouldn't you?

I'm aware of the fact that people violate their ethical obligations, both prosecutors and otherwise. I've seen no evidence to suggest such depravity is inherent to prosecutors though, or even typical, and vague allusions to the few cases the Innocent Project have dealt with don't come anywhere close to proving such corruption is anything close to as ubiquitous as you proclaim.

Rather, misrepresentations of evidence was the subject of their appeals both to the courts and to the public over the past two decades, but the body of evidence in this case remains conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence all the people typing in caps and arguing in circles around even such simple matters of fact as where Echols lived at the time of the murders and making wildly exaggerated claims about the timeline and circumstances of Misskelley's initial confession.

The body of evidence does not "prove innocence". It does not appear enough to prove guilt anymore, however. This is not a black and white case no matter how many people on either side think it is. The WM3 had enough in their appeals to create a deal which was a compromise for both sides. That happens a lot in the legal system. If the prosecution felt their evidence was strong enough of really believed in their case, they would not have let three baby killers go free. They would have demanded the appellate process go on. That's my experience.

And while the WM3 waited for a new trial, they would still be in prison, Echols still on death row. So, the judge was not morally obligated to refuse to accept the plea, not by a long shot. But let me turn the question on it's head again: Wouldn't the judge be morally obligated to uphold the convictions of three baby killers if the body of evidence proved they were guilty?

No, depravity certainly isn't inherent to prosecutors. But there are not a few cases dealt with by the Innocence Project. There are hundreds. I never said corruption was ubiquitous (ever present). With utmost respect, please do not misquote me or twist my words.

However, it is sadly not completely rare when it comes to the state hiding evidence, influencing witnesses and it is quite common for prosecutors to refuse to play ball when it comes to overturning convictions of clearly innocent convicts, even when DNA evidence proves otherwise or witness evidence proves fallible, etc. We just had two such cases in the news recently:

Judge Katherine Mader's ruling eviscerated the case against Register, 53, who was convicted mainly on eyewitness testimony that his attorneys say was false. They also said police and prosecutors suppressed evidence that would have helped Register's defense, accusations that Mader found credible.

Vanderkam worked at the same LAPD station as the detectives investigating the shooting. She said she tried to tell one of them that Brenda Anderson had lied.
"The detective placed his finger over his mouth (like a shush sound) and just stared at me," she said in her declaration. "He made it very clear to me, without actually saying anything, that I was to stay out of it."


Sharon Anderson also told police that they had they wrong man, she said in court papers. After the shooting, police showed her six photographs, including one of Register.
"Your sister, Brenda Anderson, said it's him — this one, right here," Sharon Anderson recalled them saying, according to court papers.
She said she replied: "Well, it's not the same guy I seen."
Police threatened to lock her up for the stolen Avon package, she said. She didn't waver.
Police and prosecutors never disclosed what Sharon Anderson said to the defense, Register's attorneys said. She did not testify during his trial.


Register's attorneys expect him to be released soon. Los Angeles County prosecutors said they would decide by next month whether to appeal her decision or retry him.http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-innocence-hearing-20131108,0,5797031.story#axzz2kYVPuQaB

A Missouri man freed Tuesday after his murder conviction was overturned thanked what he described as "an army" of supporters who backed his claims of innocence through nearly a decade behind bars for the death of a newspaper sports editor.

Ryan Ferguson was released after the Missouri attorney general decided Tuesday not to retry him for the 2001 slaying of Columbia Daily Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt. His release came one week after a state appeals court panel overturned Ferguson's conviction, saying the prosecutor's office withheld evidence from Ferguson's attorneys and he didn't get a fair trial.
Last week's appeals court ruling said an investigator in the Boone County prosecutor's office should have shared details about an interview he had with Trump's wife that would have raised questions about Trump's account. The appeals panel cited that as part of a pattern in which prosecutors failed to disclose evidence to Ferguson's attorneys. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/1...-after-conviction-in-2001-killing-overturned/

The body of evidence simply does not prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or they would never be free. The DA is a political office and their decisions are political. Letting three killer sof children go free is a ighly charged decision that reflects badly on the prosecutions office, politically. So it was not done lightly. No one has convictions vacated (as their original convictions were) based on "misrepresentations of the evidence". It just doesn't work that way. Because there is a team of prosecutors and investigators and the legal system as a whole that would fight hard to show that there were misrepresentations made in the appeal, rather than throw in the towel via an Alford plea deal that frees three baby killers.

See, you appear to insist that no judge or prosecutor would accept such a plea deal if they knew the defendant was innocent, but have no problem believing a judge and prosecutors would accept such a deal, freeing the defendants, if they knew they were guilty. That is illogical, IMO.

But you see, this is the kind of circular argument I'm talking about. It's not a logical debate, IMO, much of the time. Too much anger and too many unfounded statements on both sides, sort of screaming (it seems to me) about "misrepresentations of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt" or how "the convictions will be overturned when the real killers are investigated, tried and convicted."

But look at this! Now I'm going down the rabbit hole myself and that's not what I want to do. I respect all of you posters on here and totally understand both sides. I just wanted to clear something up, not get sucked in!!! I guess I can see how easy that is to do!!!

But I am always interested in new evidence on either side, and what the three are up to. I found a long article recently about Echols in Salem, MA. I wonder if it was posted to the finally free thread?

 

[kyleb]

This is not a black and white case no matter how many people on either side think it is.

I'd never suggest such a thing, but back when you said "I believe they are stone-cold innocent" I took that to be your evaluation of the of the body evidence and was asking about moral and ethical obligations of the judge and prosecutors in that regard. As for my position on them accepting the plea deal, it seems they simply hadn't familiarized themselves with the body of evidence enough to dispel the illusion of reasonable doubt, let alone enough to be confident that jurors could be properly informed to do the same against the rhetoric of a multimillion dollar defense team. However, I figure tell they simply fell for a bluff as so many have before and since, while any competent prosecutor would've likely won the evidentiary hearing, and otherwise almost surely won the trial. Granted, I only started looking into this case back in March, but I've had a lot of free time to do so and have yet to find anyone even come close to actually laying out a case for reasonable doubt without flagrantly distorting if not outright omitting vast swaths of the body of evidence, have you?

 

[gitana1]

I'd never suggest such a thing, but back when you said "I believe they are stone-cold innocent" I took that to be your evaluation of the of the body evidence and was asking about moral and ethical obligations of the judge and prosecutors in that regard. As for my position on them accepting the plea deal, it seems they simply hadn't familiarized themselves with the body of evidence enough to dispel the illusion of reasonable doubt, let alone enough to be confident that jurors could be properly informed to do the same against the rhetoric of a multimillion dollar defense team. However, I figure tell they simply fell for a bluff as so many have before and since, while any competent prosecutor would've likely won the evidentiary hearing, and otherwise almost surely won the trial. Granted, I only started looking into this case back in March, but I've had a lot of free time to do so and have yet to find anyone even come close to actually laying out a case for reasonable doubt without flagrantly distorting if not outright omitting vast swaths of the body of evidence, have you?

Sorry, friend. I'm done getting sucked in. I will not debate the case further except to state that yes, my legal analysis of the case, the facts, the evidence, the pleadings has led me to believe they are innocent of this crime. No prosecution team is going to approach a case in the manner you suggest, not familiarizing themselves enough with the case. That's insanity. That would be gross malpractice. But like I said, it is not a black and white case. There are valid reasons on both sides, logical reasons, to believe in their guilt or in their innocence. I think everyone should be more accepting of the validity of each other's opinions. But mostly what I see here is emotion and rhetoric, and it tires me after a while.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry, friend. I'm done getting sucked in. I will not debate the case further except to state that yes, my legal analysis of the case, the facts, the evidence, the pleadings has led me to believe they are innocent of this crime. No prosecution team is going to approach a case in the manner you suggest, not familiarizing themselves enough with the case. That's insanity. That would be gross malpractice. But like I said, it is not a black and white case. There are valid reasons on both sides, logical reasons, to believe in their guilt or in their innocence. I think everyone should be more accepting of the validity of each other's opinions. But mostly what I see here is emotion and rhetoric, and it tires me after a while.

I agree. And this case is over. The only thing we will see from this point further is a complete overturning of the conviction at some point.

Damien did not commit this crime so, I don't care if he stood on his head and ate chicken hearts.. It means nothing as to THIS case and in the end that is all that matters.

What should be the focus now is Justice for the little boys who were murdered.

 

[gitana1]

I agree. And this case is over. The only thing we will see from this point further is a complete overturning of the conviction at some point.

Damien did not commit this crime so, I don't care if he stood on his head and ate chicken hearts.. It means nothing as to THIS case and in the end that is all that matters.

What should be the focus now is Justice for the little boys who were murdered.

No, please review my prior posts. Their convictions will never be overturned. That part is over.

 

[gitana1]

Gitana, you sound like you versed in Arkansas law. Couple of questions if you don't mind. First, when I used the word "conviction" in " ", I was referencing the "convictions" entered following the jury trials, not the guilty pleas. In the eyes of the law, once the trial court granted the new trial, it had to set aside THOSE "convictions", so THOSE "convictions" do not exist.

Secondly, regarding the guilty pleas and attendant SIS (not expungement, which is different). It sounds to me like you are saying an SIS works differently in Arkansas than where I am at. Where I am, after successfully completing an SIS, you do NOT have to disclose it as a conviction/guilty plea for employment purposes and it would not show up on a criminal background check run by a potential employer. If asked, under oath, "Have you ever been convicted of or plead guilty to a felony or misdemeanor?" the witness could honestly and under oath answer "No.". That is NOT to say that their case file is destroyed or disappears. That is not to say, if later arrested, that LE would not see it or consider it. I've asked it before and I guess what I'm wondering, is are you saying that Arkansas specifically handles it differently? And again, I'm not talking about expungement but rather the simple effect that successful completion of an SIS has. TIA

Let me address this. A suspended sentence is always a conviction for law enforcement purposes and will always show when an employer searches their criminal records. If the defendant is eligible for an expungement, then many private employers may have trouble locating the suspended sentence and "conviction" but government employers will not and most establishments like hospitals, schools, require that you notify them of even expunged crimes.

But again, the guys in this case did not have just a suspended sentence. That was only PART of their sentence. They were convicted and were also sentenced to "time served". So they were setneced to a certain time period which included time served and the rest was suspended. This is not like the SIS you are describing and would not have the effect you think it does in Arkansas, or ANY state in the U.S. I know it;s confusing. I really hope I have made that clear.

These guys were convicted and will always have to divulge that.