Move it later if you wish. Breaking news is that two of the three pieces of trash that killed 3 innocent boy in WM will be release by admitting to the crime.

Actually, all 3 innocent and wrongfully accused men will be released.

(08-18-2011 06:16 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Move it later if you wish. Breaking news is that two of the three pieces of trash that killed 3 innocent boy in WM will be release by admitting to the crime.

How we know the price of mass murder in America. Had they been granted a new trial and been acquitted, that would have been one thing. But admitting it and getting off with plenty of life yet to live is disgusting. This should be in P/R Forum, though.

Funny that the parents of the murdered children believe the WM3 are innocent, but others with a stick up their ass can't seem to accept reason and logic.

(08-18-2011 06:59 PM)ashellab Wrote:  Funny that the parents of the murdered children believe the WM3 are innocent, but others with a stick up their ass can't seem to accept reason and logic.

Funny how somebody admits to the crime, but others don't believe them and allow them loose on society again. As I said, if they are acquitted, fine, that's our system. But what part of 'I did it' don't you get?

(08-18-2011 07:01 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 06:59 PM)ashellab Wrote:  Funny that the parents of the murdered children believe the WM3 are innocent, but others with a stick up their ass can't seem to accept reason and logic.

Funny how somebody admits to the crime, but others don't believe them and allow them loose on society again. As I said, if they are acquitted, fine, that's our system. But what part of 'I did it' don't you get?

The part where the kid was interrogated and berated for hours before being told that if he confessed to killing the children he could go home. Only one confessed, by force.

Shouldn't you be more pissed that the real killer is still loose?

I think they deserve another day in court, not a plea bargain. There is compelling arguments for both sides.
The system isn't perfect but this is just another example of the downside if it. (Casey Anthony is another)

(08-18-2011 07:17 PM)ashellab Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 07:01 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 06:59 PM)ashellab Wrote:  Funny that the parents of the murdered children believe the WM3 are innocent, but others with a stick up their ass can't seem to accept reason and logic.

Funny how somebody admits to the crime, but others don't believe them and allow them loose on society again. As I said, if they are acquitted, fine, that's our system. But what part of 'I did it' don't you get?

The part where the kid was interrogated and berated for hours before being told that if he confessed to killing the children he could go home. Only one confessed, by force.

Shouldn't you be more pissed that the real killer is still loose?

Here's my problem: I really wanted a new trial, because I have begun to doubt the results of the first. If new DNA evidence really does exist, then a new trial would give that a chance to be presented. Fair enough?

The confession I'm talking about is not the one back in the day. It's the confession two of them are reportedly going to give in court tomorrow, in exchange for time served. They will admit to the killings and be set free. That, I have a big problem with. Either they didn't do it and will be committing perjury, in which case their plea is invalid and the court cannot accept it, nor will it have the force of law, or they did do it, in which case I have a major problem with them ever getting out of jail.

Now, if tomorrow is all about a new trial, then I'm all for it.

Too many IF'S in this case. It needs to be opened back up and let modern science help determine their guilt or innocence.

This sounds crazy to me. They admit that they committed murder and they get their sentence reduced?

If it's an Alford Plea, it isn't an admission of guilt.

(08-18-2011 07:01 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 06:59 PM)ashellab Wrote:  Funny that the parents of the murdered children believe the WM3 are innocent, but others with a stick up their ass can't seem to accept reason and logic.

Funny how somebody admits to the crime, but others don't believe them and allow them loose on society again. As I said, if they are acquitted, fine, that's our system. But what part of 'I did it' don't you get?

The kid that was interogated 24 hours straight or whatever and admitted to the crimes has an iq that equates to slightly knowing you are about to pee or poop. Shtt, ain't cool man, ever how you slice it. The one dude's evil stepdad did it and three kids were wrongly convicted.

#threekidsplusthreekidsequalssix

(08-18-2011 10:27 PM)jamammy Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 07:01 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 06:59 PM)ashellab Wrote:  Funny that the parents of the murdered children believe the WM3 are innocent, but others with a stick up their ass can't seem to accept reason and logic.

Funny how somebody admits to the crime, but others don't believe them and allow them loose on society again. As I said, if they are acquitted, fine, that's our system. But what part of 'I did it' don't you get?

The kid that was interogated 24 hours straight or whatever and admitted to the crimes has an iq that equates to slightly knowing you are about to pee or poop. Shtt, ain't cool man, ever how you slice it. The one dude's evil stepdad did it and three kids were wrongly convicted.

#threekidsplusthreekidsequalssix

Again, that's not the confession to which I referred. It is said they will cop to it tomorrow. But also like I said, I've questioned the evidence here for a while, however, if somebody stands up in court and says 'I did it', that doesn't leave much wiggle room.

But what the heck, let's just see how it plays out. I've got my own worries.

(08-18-2011 09:10 PM)memphississy Wrote:  If it's an Alford Plea, it isn't an admission of guilt.

I had to go look this up. According to Wikipedia:

Quote:The Alford guilty plea is "a plea of guilty containing a protestation of innocence". The defendant pleads guilty, but does not have to specifically admit to the guilt itself. The defendant maintains a claim of innocence, but agrees to the entry of a conviction in the charged crime.

Upon receiving an Alford guilty plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime. The Alford guilty plea is a form of nolo contendere; where the defendant in the case states "no contest" to the factual matter of the case as given in the charges outlined by the prosecution.

An Alford guilty plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, and, as with other guilty pleas, the judge must see there is some factual basis for the plea.

Defendants can take advantage of the ability to use the Alford guilty plea, by admitting there is enough evidence to convict them of a higher crime, while at the same time pleading guilty to a lesser charge.

Defendants usually enter an Alford guilty plea if they want to avoid a possible worse sentence were they to lose the case against them at trial. It affords defendants the ability to accept a plea bargain, while maintaining innocence.

So theoretically, if they use the Alford Plea tactic, they are basically pleading guilty while maintaining innocence, and will be sentenced for a lesser crime, for which they have already served sufficient time. Is that about it?

Seems a neat package. The state doesn't have to finance a new trial, and potentially yet another new trial against new defendants should new evidence warrant it. Plus it avoids the sensationalism and liability if a new trial should determine innocence. Someone is found guilty, admits it (however dodgy), serves time, and life goes on.

Very neat indeed.

(08-19-2011 06:42 AM)Hoopla Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 09:10 PM)memphississy Wrote:  If it's an Alford Plea, it isn't an admission of guilt.

I had to go look this up. According to Wikipedia:

Quote:The Alford guilty plea is "a plea of guilty containing a protestation of innocence". The defendant pleads guilty, but does not have to specifically admit to the guilt itself. The defendant maintains a claim of innocence, but agrees to the entry of a conviction in the charged crime.

Upon receiving an Alford guilty plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime. The Alford guilty plea is a form of nolo contendere; where the defendant in the case states "no contest" to the factual matter of the case as given in the charges outlined by the prosecution.

An Alford guilty plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, and, as with other guilty pleas, the judge must see there is some factual basis for the plea.

Defendants can take advantage of the ability to use the Alford guilty plea, by admitting there is enough evidence to convict them of a higher crime, while at the same time pleading guilty to a lesser charge.

Defendants usually enter an Alford guilty plea if they want to avoid a possible worse sentence were they to lose the case against them at trial. It affords defendants the ability to accept a plea bargain, while maintaining innocence.

So theoretically, if they use the Alford Plea tactic, they are basically pleading guilty while maintaining innocence, and will be sentenced for a lesser crime, for which they have already served sufficient time. Is that about it?

Seems a neat package. The state doesn't have to finance a new trial, and potentially yet another new trial against new defendants should new evidence warrant it. Plus it avoids the sensationalism and liability if a new trial should determine innocence. Someone is found guilty, admits it (however dodgy), serves time, and life goes on.

Very neat indeed.

It sounds to me like a way to allow West Memphis to save face instead of having their investigative techniques drug through the mud in another sensational trial.

If you were on death row, didn't do it, and were given a chance to get out on a lesser deal or stay in longer and possibly not get out at all would you not just accept the confession (knowing you didn't do it) or would you be a person of principle and say "I didn't do it and am willing to stay in here until you believe it?"

This is all about Arkansas saving face by letting them out (knowing they didn't do it) and the kids getting out (knowing this is their best chance).

(08-19-2011 08:11 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  If you were on death row, didn't do it, and were given a chance to get out on a lesser deal or stay in longer and possibly not get out at all would you not just accept the confession (knowing you didn't do it) or would you be a person of principle and say "I didn't do it and am willing to stay in here until you believe it?"

This is all about Arkansas saving face by letting them out (knowing they didn't do it) and the kids getting out (knowing this is their best chance).

^this

(08-18-2011 07:57 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  Here's my problem: I really wanted a new trial, because I have begun to doubt the results of the first. If new DNA evidence really does exist, then a new trial would give that a chance to be presented. Fair enough?

The confession I'm talking about is not the one back in the day. It's the confession two of them are reportedly going to give in court tomorrow,

So... they should've been in jail all this time.... because they'll admit to it tomorrow?????????


Camaro said it best.

The judge and the police who worked the case built their careers off of it, they can't let them out scot-free.

(08-19-2011 08:11 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  This is all about Arkansas saving face by letting them out (knowing they didn't do it) and the kids getting out (knowing this is their best chance).

I missed the part about knowing they didn't do it.

Wasn't there a jury trial? What were the results of that trial?

an agreement has been reached that would produce the release of two of the three defendants, but hasn't yet provided other details. Our sources continue to indicate the deal covers all three defendants and that one discussion included the state agreeing to the motion for a new trial in return for an agreement from defendeants to plead to charges that would qualify them for release for time served. By still having a conviction — a prospect the staunchest WM3 defenders can't stomach — the defendants would be unable to seek damages for false imprisonment or to participate in profits from books or movies about the case.'

That's some BS right there.