After serving 17 years behind bars for the brutal murder of three children in eastern Arkansas, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin — dubbed the “West Memphis Three” — have been released from prison. “They will be free men … on suspended sentence,” prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington told reporters during a Friday press conference.
“Only time will tell as to whether this was the right decision.” All three men had been imprisoned since 1994, when they were convicted of killing three 8-year-old boys: Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers. Prosecutors alleged the trio killed the children in Robin Hood Hills on the morning of May 6, 1993, as part of a satanic ritual. According to police, the boys’ bodies were mutilated and left in a ditch. Each had been hogtied with his own shoelaces.
At the time of their arrests, Baldwin was 16. Misskelley was 17, and Echols was 18. Echols was sentenced to death, Misskelley was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 40 years, and Baldwin was sentenced to life. DNA testing was not available at the time of the defendants’ trials. In 2007, it was found that DNA collected at the crime scene did not match that belonging to any of the three men. In November 2010, the state Supreme Court ruled that all three could present new evidence in court. Experts believe both sides have entered into a complex legal agreement, in which the three men have entered into so-called Alford pleas.
“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.”
If you are familiar with this case, you might agree that this was long overdue.
Animby–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
From these simply readings, I take it that a nolo plea avoids automatic civil penalties of some kinds while an Alford plea allows one to plead guilty without facing the death penalty.
Or something like that.
Lyin Mike: Lyin Furman first testified he never used the “N” word and then later there was “proof” of some kind that he did. Forget if it was a video interview from years ago or whatever. Hazy also but I think the then later in the trial admitted he had perjured himself on that point but not to anything else.
Gee–two posters above say there was some inconsistent evidence that negated the mountain of proof against OJ. I didn’t follow the case that closely. I do recall the saying that what was wrong with the OJ case is that the cops tried to frame a guilty man, but contra: the cops were all on OJ’s side. Looks like anyone can think what they want to and to be entirely serious if you haven’t carefully cosidered all—as in ALL- the relevant evidence then its only casual opinion like mine that you come up with.
I would caution however that Furman lying about saying the N word is hardly relevant to the other hard evidence claims and similarly some inconsistent piece of subsidiary evidence should not overcome a mountain of evidence on the other side. Its proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt==not proof to an absolute certainty without conflict at all.
Course, who could get anything reasonable past this crowd?
ipso dipsit
If anyone read the O.J. Simpson story in the December 15, 1994 and December 29, 1994 (long story) issues of Rolling Stone Magazine, they would be aware that O.J. confessed to the murders in a room full of cops, but the confession was inadmissible in court because he wasn’t talking to the cops, he was talking to his buddy Rosie Grier, who was a minister and therefore could not be forced to repeat the confession in a court. To the cops, it was hearsay. Everybody involved knew he was guilty.
B Dog–thats fascinating. I hadn’t heard that before. Shows the news blackout was pretty good. I rechecked and yup–I aid all the relevant EVIDENCE meaning as submitted during the trial. Lots of outcomes would be different if all the relevant FACTS were admitted.
Most “privileges” are a pile of crap. The justifications for them are doubtful to begin with and then they get liberalized to include crap like Rosie Grier being an minister.
No reason for any guilty person to receive comfort from religion, spouse, or lawyer so they can feel better about killing someone else.
But its the law. What ya gonna do?
I’ll tell you what John, Adam and I did: We became ministers.
#22,
As usual, just more myth and FUD. That never happened and the Rolling Stone never reported it. Yet, as those in the Tea Bagger Party love to tell it, “Tell a lie often enough and it becomes true.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-10/news/mn-7302_1_simpson-case
With NEW DNA EVIDENCE
With NEW DNA EVIDENCE and NO INVESTIGATION, it is clear that the POLICE AND PROSECUTION ARE CONTINUING A ***COVER UP*** !!! These alleged “Perps” may have been framed by the police and railroaded by the prosecution in a rush to close the case, without finding the real guilty parties !!!
#25–Fusion==that link doesn’t say what you say it does. Its neutral. Seems to me the Rolling Stone article would stand on its own merits whatever it says.