Just saw on the news that two of three will be released tomorrow. They are pleading guilty to a lesser charge and being released for time served. New DNA evidence supports that they are not guilty of anything, but if given a choice of getting out now vs taking my chances against a corrupt system that screwed me once before, I'd plead as well.
Just saw on the news that two of three will be released tomorrow. They are pleading guilty to a lesser charge and being released for time served. New DNA evidence supports that they are not guilty of anything, but if given a choice of getting out now vs taking my chances against a corrupt system that screwed me once before, I'd plead as well.
Yah, this was pretty much my thoughts on it. Neither the state nor the WM3 seem truly confident they will be victorious if a new trial takes place. Based on the recent DNA evidence from the crime scene submitted (which was not available when they were tried), that appeared highly likely since none of it matched any of the three.
From the state's point of view, they can save face and still have a conviction 'on the books' against the WM3. From what I've read, Damien Echols will plead guilty tomorrow which in the state's eyes is an admission of guilt. So, they can still say "we got our man the first time".
However, the state also knows that with the high profile nature of the case and recent DNA evidence, getting a conviction this time around would be much more difficult.
Echols presents a strong case for re-trial however as OP mentioned, this was the same system that convicted him the first time. I guess if I were Echols and were truly innocent, I might still agree to this even if I had a video of the real killer admitting guilt and signing an affidavit. To Echols - why on Earth would he trust anything related to the Arkansas justice system now, regardless of the strength of his case?
So, it's a compromise because neither side seems confident they'd win if it went to a full re-trial. If Echols was retried and walked, the state has a HUGE black eye because they've now convicted an 'innocent' man. Whether or not you believe the WM3's innocence is irrelevant; the fact is him walking and having his record scot free would be an even bigger PR nightmare.
This way, the WM3 gets what they have fought for (out of prison) and the state saves face by forcing them to admit guilt in court. Since there's no way to tell how a re-trial would go, especially one this volatile, it seems like a reasonable compromise across the board. It's the safe play across the board and guarantees freedom to the WM3 which is what they've wanted for 18 years.
Of course, it still doesn't fully answer the question of who killed those boys? TBH, I've never been 100% convinced the WM3 are innocent but have also never been fully convinced of their guilt either. Frustrating case because you don't know what to believe. The DNA evidence only muddies the waters further.
This deal feels sort of like the debt ceiling deal. Everyone knows it's bull, but they're letting it happen anyway.
I realize prison is tough and all, but if you're sitting there all this time and the state comes at you essentially with "Look, we know you didn't do this, but you have to plead guilty to get out," as long as I wasn't getting ass-raped, I'd tell them to take a flying leap. Imagine fighting this long only to say "Yes, you're right. I did it. Please let me out."
I realize prison is tough and all, but if you're sitting there all this time and the state comes at you essentially with "Look, we know you didn't do this, but you have to plead guilty to get out," as long as I wasn't getting ass-raped, I'd tell them to take a flying leap. Imagine fighting this long only to say "Yes, you're right. I did it. Please let me out."
For Miskelley and Baldwin probably this yeah. However, with Echols he was convicted of capital murder so if he went to re-trial and the conviction stood, there's a likely chance he'd die someday for it.
To me, it makes more sense for Echols to make this deal than the other two but yeah, all are probably chomping at the bit to get out of prison.
that link says "All three will admit guilt to the crime"
i never believed they were guilty from what i saw of the evidence. however i felt echols was somewhat culpable for the wrongful convictions for the way he acted at trial.
A little clearer now...they're saying they're "not guilty," but they have to acknowledge that the state has evidence against them.
That alone sounds like a travesty designed to avoid a lawsuit, and sounds like it ought not to be legal, honestly.
"We have decided you haven't done it, but rather than apologize and set you free, we want you to absolve us of our own shady activity and THEN we'll let you free."
This deal feels sort of like the debt ceiling deal. Everyone knows it's bull, but they're letting it happen anyway.
I realize prison is tough and all, but if you're sitting there all this time and the state comes at you essentially with "Look, we know you didn't do this, but you have to plead guilty to get out," as long as I wasn't getting ass-raped, I'd tell them to take a flying leap. Imagine fighting this long only to say "Yes, you're right. I did it. Please let me out."
Easy for me to say, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolnout
that link says "All three will admit guilt to the crime"
i never believed they were guilty from what i saw of the evidence. however i felt echols was somewhat culpable for the wrongful convictions for the way he acted at trial.
The link is wrong. They're taking an Alford plea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea), which means they maintain their innocence. Makes sense to me; you got ****ed the first time, why wouldn't you get ****ed again?
I had no idea there was such a thing as this Alford Plea.
To me, it goes against everything they tell you the criminal justice system is supposed to be intended for. What if the parents still thought these guys had done this? There's no finding, no justice in such a plea.
Seems pretty hypocritical to me. I say if they got a retrial granted and the state doesn't want to pursue it, just say so and find them not guilty and let them go. Don't say "well, we have plenty to convict you on, but we're not going to as long as you say you're guilty."
It's almost good for them. At least Echols is married or something.
Just amazing that they have completely destroyed these guys' lives. I mean, when they were convicted, cell phones could only be carried in a suitcase. Now they have no compensation, no skills, and essentially no future.
What the hell is wrong with this country? I hope that all those people who supported their release will toss in a few bones. Otherwise, we'll see the WM3 standing in a soup line in five years.
I had no idea there was such a thing as this Alford Plea.
To me, it goes against everything they tell you the criminal justice system is supposed to be intended for. What if the parents still thought these guys had done this? There's no finding, no justice in such a plea.
Seems pretty hypocritical to me. I say if they got a retrial granted and the state doesn't want to pursue it, just say so and find them not guilty and let them go. Don't say "well, we have plenty to convict you on, but we're not going to as long as you say you're guilty."
That's insane to me.
Eh, it's a little more complicated then that. The prosecutor was quoted as saying that he thinks they would have been acquitted. It's pretty much both sides not wanting to roll the dice with a potentially bat-**** crazy jury.
I don't get that...if the prosecution admits they now have no case, why not just release them? If I was a prosecutor I'd want to right a miscarriage of justice, and not worry about whether or not I can get a conviction at a new trial.
I've done extensive research on this case for several years. Anyone who takes the time and it will take a lot, trust me, and has the patience to wade through all the case history and evidence will undoubtedly come to a conclusion of guilt. Whether this guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt is to each his own.
Anyone wanting an unbiased source of information here is a link to the evidence, trial transcripts and relevant facts and information about the case. http://callahan.8k.com/. No opinion is presented other than case files.
ANY other source you will find has inaccurate, slanted and nonobjective information or opinions. This goes for both side of whats called the "non" side and the "supporter" side. "nons" represent the belief in guilt and "supporters" believe in the innocence.
With that said the first few pages of a internet search results in a proven inaccurate and clearly biased site called WM3.org. This site is ran by the family of Damien Echols and its main purpose was to raise capital for his defense.
Some interesting things that get overlooked when "supporters" argue their case.
These are facts:
Misskelly confessed no less than six times.
His initial two confessions were on the same day.
He maintained his guilt to his lawyers for a four month period before his trial.
He confessed again after his trial in a private meeting with his lawyer, commonly called the "bible confession"
He later confessed again to transport officers while being transported back to jail after his guilty verdict.
He later confessed to prosecutors of which a deal was made that this confession could not be used against him. During this confession he admitted to lying to police during his initial confession in order to mislead them.
Misskellys confession are filled with inaccurate information, which is not uncommon for confessed murders.
Damien Echols bragged about the killing as reported by two witness at a soft ball field.
Jason Baldwin confessed to a jail house snitch.
While very little physical evidence directly links them to the crime scene no matter what you've heard or read. DNA evidence has neither conclusively linked them to the site, nor excluded them from it.
This is a very complicated case made even muddier by 18 years and enormous legal wrangling over that time. These are only a few of the details of the case.
For those that assume Echols was not capable or did not seem like the type.
I strongly urge you to read whats called the Echols 500:
Its 500 pages of his medical history. And he has a significant mental health history.
This has all been extracted form the 500 pages (its disturbing):
Spoiler:
5/7/92. E. Arkansas Mental Health Center: Client admits to having been suspended seven times this past semester for initiating fights at school and starting fires. States in one fight he almost gouged out the victim’s eyes.
Clinical report based on psychological tests: The behavior of this youngster is characterized by impulsive hostility...the desire to gain power and demean others springs from animosity and a wish to vindicate past grievances. This teenager believes that past degradations may be undone by provoking fear and intimidation in others. Cool and distant, this youth demonstrates little or no compassion for others.
5/19/92. Damien arrested for breaking into a trailer with his 15 year old girlfriend, Deanna Holcomb. Suicide pact if they couldn’t be together. Damien threatening to kill police officers and Deanna’s father when picked up. Convicted of second-degree burglary and sexual misconduct.
5/19/92 to 6/1/92. Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center.
Damien voiced suicide plan to folks at the center. Staff reported that Damien and Deanna planned to have a baby and sacrifice it. Damien knocked a peer to the ground, sucked the blood from the boy’s wounded arm and rubbed the blood on his face. No remorse. Deanna is hospitalized at Mid-South Hospital in Memphis.
Joyce Cureton, Juvenile Director, reported that “it is our opinion that Damien needs mental health treatment.”
6/1/92 to 6/25/92. Charter Hospital of Little Rock. Immediate hospitalization due to suicidal intent.
Admits to a history of violence and attempting to scratch out the eyes of a classmate. There were major concerns that Damien was exhibiting disturbed thinking. He has a history of extreme physical aggression toward others. It was felt that he needed to be temporarily removed from his environment to provide protection for him and protection for others.
Damien states, “I burn myself with lighters. I have huffed gas and paint, used speed, marijuana, glue, and alcohol.”
Progress Notes:
Damien stated that he got ahold of a police officer’s gun, and that if Deanna’s father had acted aggressively, “I would have blown him away and the next time I will eliminate that person.”
Denies having a conscience or feelings of regret.
Stares into space and shows no emotional response to any kind of stimuli.
Verbalized concern that there are surveillance cameras behind his mirror and under the desk in his room. Quite paranoid; he definitely bears watching.
Still drawing witchcraft symbols & continues to speak of bizarre and unusual practices.
Makes an unusual sound with his mouth that sounds like a cat purr.
States that visit with parents didn’t go well, but would not elaborate.
Damien’s mother concerned about her son “not learning to deal with anger and rages.” Thinks Damien is responding to outside stimulation. Voiced fear that “son may be crazy.”
6/25/92. Damien discharged to mother with instructions for continuing care. Family moving to Oregon.
8/13/92 Home Visit Evaluation by Calvin Downey, Oregon Juvenile Counselor:
Damien indicates he did spend approximately 30 days in a psychiatric hospital via court order, because he was suicidal. He feel his prior depression has improved greatly. Denies use of nonprescribed, controlled substances or alcohol.
Mrs. Echols indicates there are no family conflicts with Damien, that he gets along well with the family, that she does not believe he has a behavioral problem & that she does not need any services from this state.
9/1/92. Officer Ortez is called to the Echols’ apartment in Oregon. Damien transported to St. Vincent’s Hospital.
Emergency Room Report: The patient denies suicidal or homicidal ideation. However, in talking with family members, they state that he made it quite clear that he had thoughts of harming other people, i.e. was going to cut mother’s throat, and also made verbal threats to his father here at St. Vincent’s.
Parents state that he has sniffed propane, glue, gasoline and almost any other drug that is possible. Parental concerns regarding satanism, devil worship.
Admission diagnosis: Suicidal/homicidal ideation.
9/4/92. Discharged from St. Vincent’s. Because of Damien’s threats, both parents do not feel that they wish to have him return to their home. They are frightened of him and what he can do, not only to them but to the other children who reside in the home (2 others). Damien is to return to Arkansas by bus.
9/14/92 to 9/28/92. Readmitted to Charter Hospital from Juvenile Detention Center. He admitted to sucking the blood out of a peer’s neck while in the Center. The other peers were afraid of him. Threats to kill both parents (slash throats, eat alive).
Presenting problem: Homicidal and psychosis. Alteration in thought processes evidenced by delusional thinking and inappropriate social behavior.
Progress notes: Belief in devil worship, has agreed to threatening to “kill” others. Bizarre behaviors. Stated he had attempted suicide before and “wasn’t worried about trying again, because I know I can come back.”
Says he’s going to eat father and that he needs to be locked up or he will hurt someone.
Peers complaining of Damien making growling sounds at them.
Continues talk of satanism. Possible deprogramming needed. Could be a danger to others.
Continues laughing strangely and getting peers to feed into his satanism. Tries to keep staff from seeing him do anything other than what’s appropriate according to unit guidelines. Depressed mood, bizarre behavior.
Said he was “happy to be here because otherwise he’d be in jail and this has to be better.”
Spoke with Jerry Driver re: Damien’s discharge to stepfather Jack Echols. Said this was “ok”.
Diagnosis: Psychotic Disorder NOS and Dysthymia. Prognosis: Poor.
1/5/93. Mental Health Center reopens case: Reports self-mutilation, cutting self with knives. Will “trance out” since 5th grade - doesn’t have to deal with what’s going on. Says he thinks a lot about life after death--”I want to go where the monsters go.” He admits being caught with satanic items, but denies cult involvement.
Is interested in witchcraft for the past 8 years. He has tried to steal energy from someone else and influence others’ minds with witchcraft. Describes self as “pretty much hates the human race.” Relates that he feels people are in two classes--sheep and wolves (wolves eat the sheep).
1/13/93: Damien reports that he’s very angry with family members and with other people who have “let him down”. He discussed issues of power & control. He states that he could make things happen. Affect and mood was flat.
1/19/93: Reveals history of abuse as he talked of how he was treated as a child. States, “I just put it all inside.” Describes this as more than just anger - like rage. Sometimes he does “blow up.” Relates that when this happens, the only solution is to “hurt someone.” When questioned on his feelings he states, “I know I’m going to influence the world. People will remember me.”
1/20/93: Damien is an 18 year old, recently discharged from Charter Hospital. He’s had three psychiatric hospitalizations. Each has been associated with anger, thoughts of killing others, and thoughts of killing himself.
1/25/93: Speaks of rituals, drinking blood, more involved in demonology. Damien explained that he obtains his power by drinking blood of others. He typically drinks the blood of a sexual partner or of a ruling partner. This is achieved by biting or cutting. He states, “It makes me feel like a god.”
Damien describes drinking blood as giving him more power and strength. He remembers doing this as far back as age 10. He wants very much to be all powerful. He wants very much to be in total control.
Damien relates that a spirit is now living with him. The spirit was put inside him last year. He indicates that a month ago, the spirit decided to become part of him and he to become part of the spirit. This is reportedly a spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband. In addition, he also reports conversations with demons and other spirits. This is achieved through rituals.
He denies that he’s satanic, seeing himself more as being involved in demonology.
Affect and mood today continued to be bland, although there was more emotion when talking about drinking blood.
2/5/93: Damien is noted to have cuts on his right arm and hand. Related that he cut himself as a way of permanently marking his skin. Related feeling very angry yesterday when running into previous girlfriend. “I controlled it - I can do anything.”
5/5/93: At times he is impulsive and does things that may be harmful to him. He has impulses to do strange and harmful things.
5/5/93: Christopher Byers, Steve Branch, and Michael Moore are murdered. (adding: Echols was seen walking away from the crime scene area 5/5/93)
Almost every single media expose done about this case has been slanted. I strongly urge anyone who wants to learn about this case do not lean on forums or the media to paint an accurate picture. Both sides of this case distort facts.
If you are interested in asking me something specific about a "fact" you heard, I can attempt to answer it. But as I've said I would urge you, if your that interested study the case outside of potential non objective sources.
Last edited by FleeingFish; 08-20-2011 at 05:41 AM.
This deal feels sort of like the debt ceiling deal. Everyone knows it's bull, but they're letting it happen anyway.
I realize prison is tough and all, but if you're sitting there all this time and the state comes at you essentially with "Look, we know you didn't do this, but you have to plead guilty to get out," as long as I wasn't getting ass-raped, I'd tell them to take a flying leap. Imagine fighting this long only to say "Yes, you're right. I did it. Please let me out."
Easy for me to say, though.
No you wouldn't. You'd cry 1 month in pleading to guilty to a crime you didn't commit if it set you free.
99% of this forum could not survive 1 month in solitary confinement, let alone 18 years, so please GTFO with this.
I'd much rather be a guilty man with freedom than an innocent man locked up.
I had no idea there was such a thing as this Alford Plea.
To me, it goes against everything they tell you the criminal justice system is supposed to be intended for. What if the parents still thought these guys had done this? There's no finding, no justice in such a plea.
Seems pretty hypocritical to me. I say if they got a retrial granted and the state doesn't want to pursue it, just say so and find them not guilty and let them go. Don't say "well, we have plenty to convict you on, but we're not going to as long as you say you're guilty."
That's insane to me.
I'd never heard of an Alford Plea until I moved to Virginia 21 years ago (previously lived in MN, IA, ND, NJ). Now I read of it being used at least twice a month.
This Alford Plea, how will this affect the possibility of having a new trial if new evidence is found?
Also: Just to clarify, this plea means that the scheduled trial was cancelled and can not be opened?
A little back ground. Before this deal was reached no new trial was scheduled nor guaranteed. Only an evidentry hearing. Last year the convicted successfully got a new evdentry hearing after the ASSC said that not all thing were considered during the lower courts decision on previous decision. During this time waiting for the evidentry hearing the DA for the country of conviction was approached about a deal. He entertained and ultimately accepted a deal where they would plead guilty to a charge of 1st degree murder on the condition they admit there was sufficient evidence to gain an conviction if another trial was ordered.
Its a bit more complicated that that, but its the gist. The impetus was the evidentry hearing to occur in December.
The lawyers I've spoken to have indicated to me that the defense burden for that hearing was likely too high and no new trial would of been granted. This in contrast with what the DA thought.
Bottom line is this. The DA thought as opposed to the SAG and others involved in the appellate process that a new trial was likely to be ordered. Its been 18 years and evidence has been destroyed and or lost, witness died this led to the DA's opinion that it was in the states best interest to secure the convictions and sentences of 18 years in prison rather than risk a loss at both the evidentry hearing and or any supposed retrial where the convicted will walk free with no punitive actions.
Currently the only way a trial will be held in connection with the murder of the the little boys s if its a retrial occurs for the WM3.
This can occur if the SAG appeal the ASSC decion to remand the case back to the lower court for the evidentry hearing. Which would put the three back in prison and only if they are successful on their ongoing appeals will a new trail will result.
A bit confusing I know and I hope i did it justice and you understand and have your question answered.
I really have to say, that although I believe they are innocent, I cannot shake certain things.
Misskelley is NOT ******ed, regardless of what his lawyers say. His MANY confessions just don't make sense to me. It's bizarre.
Echols had such a massive history of psychological issues and violent red flag behavior, I don't know.
I think the Paradise Lost docs are woefully slanted. If you watch those films and then read the actual facts of the case, it's tempting to dismiss everything in the docs.
I really have to say, that although I believe they are innocent, I cannot shake certain things.
Misskelley is NOT ******ed, regardless of what his lawyers say. His MANY confessions just don't make sense to me. It's bizarre.
Echols had such a massive history of psychological issues and violent red flag behavior, I don't know.
I think the Paradise Lost docs are woefully slanted. If you watch those films and then read the actual facts of the case, it's tempting to dismiss everything in the docs.
Really confusing, seriously.
Only thing that has made it confusing is the constant misrepresentation of evidence by the PR machine of Echols.
May I ask why you think they are innocent? I would like the opportunity to dispel any manipulative facts or evidence that leads you to this.
FleeingFish, I am wondering what your thoughts are on the recent DNA evidence that was tested from the crime scene that doesn't match any of the WM3. My personal position is very torn - I have trouble believing they are innocent however am not convinced they are guilty either.
As I said earlier ITT, this case is frustrating because you don't know what to believe. The WM3 site is obv horribly biased as are several other sources including the three's Wikipedia page. It's pretty clear who authored that.
