(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:04 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:52 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:40 PM)tigertommy Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:36 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Option one: Get out of jail today
Option two: Wait a year in jail, while avoiding prison rapists and gangs to maybe just maybe go home in a year.

Seems cut and dry to me.

I'd never take a chance on what kind of jury was brought up either. One numbnut like the last one could take control and steer them to convict again on little to no evidence just because it was the righteous thing to do.
Those kids had 18+ years of their lives taken away because they liked Metallica and wore black.

And stuck out their tongues at the justice system.

Just a tip: If you are accused of triple murder; take it seriously.

Since that proves they did it and all.

Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

If they did do it and the state says they have enough evidence to convict them in a retrail, why are they being released by the state?

(08-19-2011 02:19 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:04 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:52 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:40 PM)tigertommy Wrote:  I'd never take a chance on what kind of jury was brought up either. One numbnut like the last one could take control and steer them to convict again on little to no evidence just because it was the righteous thing to do.
Those kids had 18+ years of their lives taken away because they liked Metallica and wore black.

And stuck out their tongues at the justice system.

Just a tip: If you are accused of triple murder; take it seriously.

Since that proves they did it and all.

Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

That apparently wasn't communicated to the Three or their attorneys in the press conference. There was no such acknowledgement. Just the opposite actually.

By agreeing to the deal they acknowledged it. At least according to the AP.

Also:

In upholding Echols' conviction in 1996, the state Supreme Court noted that two people testified Echols bragged about the killings, an eyewitness put Echols at the scene, fibers similar to the boys' clothing were found in Echols' home, a knife was found in a pond behind Baldwin's home, Echols' interest in the occult and his telling police that he understood the boys had been mutilated before officers had released such details.

(08-19-2011 02:34 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:04 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:52 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:40 PM)tigertommy Wrote:  I'd never take a chance on what kind of jury was brought up either. One numbnut like the last one could take control and steer them to convict again on little to no evidence just because it was the righteous thing to do.
Those kids had 18+ years of their lives taken away because they liked Metallica and wore black.

And stuck out their tongues at the justice system.

Just a tip: If you are accused of triple murder; take it seriously.

Since that proves they did it and all.

Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

If they did do it and the state says they have enough evidence to convict them in a retrail, why are they being released by the state?

Actually the state said they didn't have enough evidence to convict in a retrial. I watched the presser live.

One of the Three didn't want to accept the deal but did because Echols would've remained on death row apparently.

(08-19-2011 02:45 PM)Tanyaskees Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:34 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:04 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:52 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  And stuck out their tongues at the justice system.

Just a tip: If you are accused of triple murder; take it seriously.

Since that proves they did it and all.

Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

If they did do it and the state says they have enough evidence to convict them in a retrail, why are they being released by the state?

Actually the state said they didn't have enough evidence to convict in a retrial. I watched the presser live.

Oh, I was just going off of Hernando's post.

(08-19-2011 02:45 PM)Tanyaskees Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:34 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:04 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:52 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  And stuck out their tongues at the justice system.

Just a tip: If you are accused of triple murder; take it seriously.

Since that proves they did it and all.

Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

If they did do it and the state says they have enough evidence to convict them in a retrail, why are they being released by the state?

Actually the state said they didn't have enough evidence to convict in a retrial. I watched the presser live.

I'm sorry. I was just going off what a legal expert said about the Alford plea deal they agreed to not what was said at a press conference.

"The plea means that you maintain your innocence but you believe there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will find you guilty so you are pleading guilty per State v. Alford," Anne Bremner, a Seattle attorney and legal analyst, told The Huffington Post. "The effect of the corresponding finding of guilt by the court is the same as with a straight guilty plea."

(08-19-2011 03:01 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  I'm sorry. I was just going off what a legal expert said about the Alford plea deal they agreed to not what was said at a press conference.

"The plea means that you maintain your innocence but you believe there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will find you guilty so you are pleading guilty per State v. Alford," Anne Bremner, a Seattle attorney and legal analyst, told The Huffington Post. "The effect of the corresponding finding of guilt by the court is the same as with a straight guilty plea."

True, but in this case, it's being used in a somewhat different manner to basically get the WM3 out of the State's hair without having to risk the prosecution from the original case being drug through the mud.

They're basically saying "no contest" contingent on getting time served and walking out today. With two life sentences and a death penalty looming, "walk out today" was probably music to their ears. They are effectively giving up two things...the opportunity to clear their name and the right to profit from their stories. The State is effectively conceding they wouldn't win a retrial and are trying to save whatever face they can.

So, what exactly are the limitations of book deals. Does it include memoirs from prison? I'm just trying to think about what they hell they do now...

I heard they are going on tour with Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks.

I think some of you are more upset that outsiders in Hollywood got involved. I don't know if they did it or not, but I believe the State would not have let them go if they truly believed they were guilty. The State is saving face and money by letting them free now rather than going through a trial in which they won't be able to pull the same tricks they did last time.

Most people believe the jury got it wrong when they let OJ go and when they let that chick in Florida go. Yet, they are saying that these guys must be guilty because a jury said they were. If that's true, then OJ must be innocent too.

On a different note, think about the adjustment these guys will have to make. Since 1993, there is internet, cell phones, mp3 players...

(08-19-2011 03:43 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  On a different note, think about the adjustment these guys will have to make. Since 1993, there is internet, cell phones, mp3 players...

Now, come on...those were around.

(08-19-2011 03:43 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  I think some of you are more upset that outsiders in Hollywood got involved. I don't know if they did it or not, but I believe the State would not have let them go if they truly believed they were guilty. The State is saving face and money by letting them free now rather than going through a trial in which they won't be able to pull the same tricks they did last time.

Most people believe the jury got it wrong when they let OJ go and when they let that chick in Florida go. Yet, they are saying that these guys must be guilty because a jury said they were. If that's true, then OJ must be innocent too.

On a different note, think about the adjustment these guys will have to make. Since 1993, there is internet, cell phones, mp3 players...

Interview I saw with Damien recently he addressed that...said he has done nothing but read ever since he's been in prison (probably one of the reasons he sounds so intelligent now) and was kinda glad he hasn't had access to all the technology because he probably wouldn't have read non-stop. I still wonder whether his wife will be able to write a book....hope she does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19...unty_Court

(08-19-2011 01:09 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 01:03 PM)ballen Wrote:  I wonder what's next for the 3 guys. Books? Movie deals?

I think I saw where they aren't allowed to do that...but wonder if the wives could ?

Based on a CNN article, an Alfred plea protects the defendants from criminal and civil prosecution based on the plea. Therefore I would think they can pursue selling their respective stories.

(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

Aight, it's like this...

There is not enough evidence... That's why the prosecutor agreed to the Alfred Plea.

If the WM3 waited, they would have had the hearing in December on the DNA evidence which I think everyone expected one of two outcomes: Either the judge would require a new trial (there is NO DNA evidence of any of the WM3 in the evidence from the murders) or overturn the convictions completely. If that happened, the state of Arkansas would have to retry the WM3 in a trial they could not win with the WM3 being found not guilty (and opening up the state for civil suits from the WM3) possibly requiring the state and city of West Memphis to open up the case again and find the real killers based on the pressure from the public. So Jason Baldwin said, he didn't want to do the Alfred Plea because he was innocent....

So the state has the WM3 on the books as guilty and the case stays closed. The WM3 took the deal because eighteen years were gone and why wait longer just to clear their names when they could move on with their lives?

HHT this is my question to you... You think it's incredible that these guys could be innocent because why would the WMPD pursue them and why would Jessie Misskelley say he was guilty when he wasn't...

In a high profile case in a small town, is it hard to believe that police wouldn't solve the case as quickly and cleanly as possible even if it isn't the right result?

As far as the confessions, JM was 16 and supposedly mentally deficient. Is it hard to believe he could be pressured into confessing?

I invited you to check out The Confessions, the story of four men confessing to a crime they didn't commit where the actually perpetrator was discovered.

Ask yourself, if the WM3 did the crime, why would the prosecution do the deal with the WM3? There was no pressure on the state; they had the convictions. You don't make a deal unless you know that you are going to lose in the future.

I believe it is against the law to profit off a crime you plead guilty to.

(08-19-2011 04:20 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

Aight, it's like this...

There is not enough evidence... That's why the prosecutor agreed to the Alfred Plea.

If the WM3 waited, they would have had the hearing in December on the DNA evidence which I think everyone expected one of two outcomes: Either the judge would require a new trial (there is NO DNA evidence of any of the WM3 in the evidence from the murders) or overturn the convictions completely. If that happened, the state of Arkansas would have to retry the WM3 in a trial they could not win with the WM3 being found not guilty (and opening up the state for civil suits from the WM3) possibly requiring the state and city of West Memphis to open up the case again and find the real killers based on the pressure from the public. So Jason Baldwin said, he didn't want to do the Alfred Plea because he was innocent....

So the state has the WM3 on the books as guilty and the case stays closed. The WM3 took the deal because eighteen years were gone and why wait longer just to clear their names when they could move on with their lives?

HHT this is my question to you... You think it's incredible that these guys could be innocent because why would the WMPD pursue them and why would Jessie Misskelley say he was guilty when he wasn't...

In a high profile case in a small town, is it hard to believe that police wouldn't solve the case as quickly and cleaning as possible even if it isn't the right result?

As far as the confessions, JM was 16 and supposedly mentally deficient. Is it hard to believe he could be pressured into confessing?

I invited you to check out The Confessions, the story of four men confession to a crime they didn't commit where the actually perpetrator was discovered.

Ask yourself, if the WM3 did the crime, why would the prosecution do the deal with the WM3? There was no pressure on the state; they had the convictions. You don't make a deal unless you know that you are going to lose in the future.

Why would they plead guilty when they were getting a new trial? A trial they could be "win" with the supposed new evidence, sue for wrongful imprisonment, etc?

Obviously I don't know if they did it or not but I would be determined to right that wrong if I was innocent.

(08-19-2011 04:23 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  I believe it is against the law to profit off a crime you plead guilty to.

I think you're right.

(08-19-2011 04:23 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  I believe it is against the law to profit off a crime you plead guilty to.

Whose law?

If the state of Arkansas doesn't pursue stopping the WM3 from telling their story and the Alfred plea protects WM3 from civil suits, who keeps them from profiting?

(08-19-2011 04:28 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 04:20 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 02:11 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  Part of their plea deal is that they acknowledge there is enough evidence to convict them in a retrial. If they didn't do it where did this evidence come from?

Aight, it's like this...

There is not enough evidence... That's why the prosecutor agreed to the Alfred Plea.

If the WM3 waited, they would have had the hearing in December on the DNA evidence which I think everyone expected one of two outcomes: Either the judge would require a new trial (there is NO DNA evidence of any of the WM3 in the evidence from the murders) or overturn the convictions completely. If that happened, the state of Arkansas would have to retry the WM3 in a trial they could not win with the WM3 being found not guilty (and opening up the state for civil suits from the WM3) possibly requiring the state and city of West Memphis to open up the case again and find the real killers based on the pressure from the public. So Jason Baldwin said, he didn't want to do the Alfred Plea because he was innocent....

So the state has the WM3 on the books as guilty and the case stays closed. The WM3 took the deal because eighteen years were gone and why wait longer just to clear their names when they could move on with their lives?

HHT this is my question to you... You think it's incredible that these guys could be innocent because why would the WMPD pursue them and why would Jessie Misskelley say he was guilty when he wasn't...

In a high profile case in a small town, is it hard to believe that police wouldn't solve the case as quickly and cleaning as possible even if it isn't the right result?

As far as the confessions, JM was 16 and supposedly mentally deficient. Is it hard to believe he could be pressured into confessing?

I invited you to check out The Confessions, the story of four men confession to a crime they didn't commit where the actually perpetrator was discovered.

Ask yourself, if the WM3 did the crime, why would the prosecution do the deal with the WM3? There was no pressure on the state; they had the convictions. You don't make a deal unless you know that you are going to lose in the future.

Why would they plead guilty when they were getting a new trial? A trial they could be "win" with the supposed new evidence, sue for wrongful imprisonment, etc?

Obviously I don't know if they did it or not but I would be determined to right that wrong if I was innocent.

If you were gambling and given a 50/50 chance with a bigger payout or a 100% chance with half of the payout which would you take?


I know we/I say "I'd fight for the principle of the matter...I am innocent and I want the world to know" but faced with the rest of my life I may take the 100% chance as well.

(08-19-2011 04:28 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  Why would they plead guilty when they were getting a new trial? A trial they could be "win" with the supposed new evidence, sue for wrongful imprisonment, etc?

Obviously I don't know if they did it or not but I would be determined to right that wrong if I was innocent.

I am with you... You been in prison for 18 years, what's four-twelve months to clear your name?

So would you take a plea that says that you are innocent but are pleading guilty because of it being best legal course for you?

Ultimately, what difference does it make to them? If they want to be free, why do they care the way?

The thing I think you have to remember; Jason Baldwin did not want to do the deal because he did not want to accept a plea where he said he was guilty. Obviously those expensive, skilled attorneys got in his ear and convinced him it was in his best interest to go ahead and leave prison.