Surprise hearing for the West Memphis 3 tomorrow!

Twiddlenutz


She didn't say "my experience is that cops are dirty."  She didn't even generalize.
It was pretty clear she was stating something specifically about the place where she lives.  You seem to be making the jump to stereotyping a little too easily.

The specualtion people show here about what people's motivations are and why they have them are pointless and really a reflection of the beliefs held by the posters more than anything else.  To devalue what has happened because you feel the wrong people are involved for the wrong reasons is absurd. 

The quote was "I already didn't like cops".  I gave her the benefit of the doubt that it was her experience.  I can gladly broaden it, but in no case do any of her words even imply (let alone being "pretty clear") that she was talking about any locality or any specific place.  "I already didn't like cops".   Not "bad" cops, not "Arkansas" cops, not "my town" cops.  Cops.
 
You can speculate  about my speculation or my motivation all you want (you don't have to; I'll tell you if you want to know) but it doesn't change the underlying point:  while I am not saying that the wrong people are involved for the wrong reasons (those are your, inaccurate, words) I am saying that cases like these are magnets for people to hold their prejudices up against, often in the name of so-called justice.  I happen to think it important to point that out, since often people aren't even aware of their own prejudices. 
 
More generally, I think what bothers me most about this case is not that they may be innocent; there are on average 10,000 convictions per year for murder across the US, so there have been something like 200,000 murder convictions since these guys went to jail.  That a court somewhere got ONE CASE wrong, isn't the end of the world.  It just isn't.  The whole system is intended to minimize the number of wrongful convictions, erring on the side of letting guilty people go free over having innocent people in jail.  Look at OJ and Casey Anthony. 
 
But now you've got all these people wanting to upset the whole apple cart, with almost no consideration of what all this might mean for future cases. This outcome stinks from a pure jurisprudence perspective.  In essence, you've got a situation now where the Arkansas courts have agreed, due in some part to public pressure, to plea out a death row inmate for time served.  If I was the attorney for any one of the 3,250 current death row inmates in the US, I would have a motion filed IMMEDIATELY to have the exact same thing happen to my client.  And given that there is no new evidence (as presented to a court in a trial) and no new adjudication on the case, each and every one of those inmates would have a fair shot at release.  Is that what you really want? 
Finally, I don't know about Arkansas; if any of these people in the court system violated the law or the integrity rules of their jurisdiction, they should be held accountable.  No question.  But remember:  "bad decision" does NOT necessarily mean "corrupt decision".

And that would be the big assumption, wouldn't it?  I think that is what some are forgetting; everyone is all happy they are free, but all the same problems still apply:  they never did have a hearing that exonerated them.  So we are no closer to knowing whether they are innocent or not, yet they are free.

 
I think the fact that they are free is a big indicator myself.  It's pretty clear the state expected that the judge would order a re-trial at the December hearing which would imply that there is either enough evidence of misconduct or enough potential exonerating evidence.  Something, I remind you, the previous judge (a state senator now as of this past January) refused to acknowledge. 
 
Actually, come to think of it, it was I think the state supreme court that ordered the hearing.  So, it took the state supreme court ordering the trial judge for this to move along.
 
And it seems pretty clear to me that the state was probably expecting to lose.    Seems to me the consensus of the people here is that the state is covering its ass. 
 
Hell, even most of the murdered boys families think that these guys are innocent.
 
Me personally, I think this deal stinks solely because they did not get to a re-trial.  If there was, in fact, prosecution misconduct or any legal coverups, that needs to be dealt with.   Harshly.  That's really my deal.  These are the people charged with protecting and serving me.  That is my bigger picture.  I'm not really looking out for the WM3.  I'm looking out for myself.
 

Is it perfect?  No, can't say that, but given all the water under the bridge and given that there would be no guarantees even if a hearing was granted, I think a little perspective is in order.

 
That depends.  The questions about the conduct of the WM police, the judge, the prosecutor, etc. need to be answered.  And this deal does none of that.  Sorry, but that is inexcusable.   And I hope come November 2012 that my fellow Arkansans remember that.
 

Finally, I don't know about Arkansas; if any of these people in the court system violated the law or the integrity rules of their jurisdiction, they should be held accountable.  No question.  But remember:  "bad decision" does NOT necessarily mean "corrupt decision".

 
I do live here.  It's a good old boy state for a reason.   I've seen enough to believe that where there is smoke, there is a friggin' 4 alarm fire.

I have to agree with Spunky here.  Courts don't free murderers because of some public pressure to do so, they release them because the case is either junk (mistakes, etc) or corrupted (intentionally tilted in favor of prosecution by police or prosecutorial misconduct)
 
 

But my problem here is that the WM3 is pleading guilty to the crime. If they didn't commit the crime why plead guilty at all? This whole deal just baffles my mind.

Monk


But my problem here is that the WM3 is pleading guilty to the crime. If they didn't commit the crime why plead guilty at all? This whole deal just baffles my mind.

Did you watch the press conference earlier in this thread? They did it to save Damien's life and to get out of prison.

The idea that so someone would stay in prison out of "principle" baffles my mind. If I knew I didn't do something and had to spend 18 years separated from my family and friends and I was given an opportunity to get out, I would in a heartbeat. What is the point of living if you can't live it with the ones you love and love you?

Regarding the questions about how someone can plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit; there's a Frontline episode about a bunch of sailors who plead guilty and served time for a gang rape. Find it and watch it. There's also an older Frontline episode about the CIA and some of its interviewing techniques. When you add up the data, you begin to understand how someone can admit to something they didn't do. I swear, if you watch the one about the sailors, you'd never let the police talk to you without a lawyer present. That one was just mind boggling.
 
- Brian

I guess that probably explains it because yes, I would plea not guilty to a crime if I never committed based on the idea that it is the moral thing to do. But that digresses the thread and I do NOT want to get into an argument with people over what makes an act moral nor do I want to continue under the umbrella that people think I'm a cold person who doesn't love their family and friends. Quite the opposite but again, I'll just settle with that.

Monk.  They plead not guilty.  And they spent 18 years in jail for it.
 
They'd already had requests for new trials denied.  There was no guarantee that they would be granted a new trial in December.  And there is no guarantee they would have won at a new trial.
 
So, either get out of jail today, or take a chance with your life.  Considering that if they were, in fact, not guilty, I expect they would have little faith in the legal system.

Monk


I guess that probably explains it because yes, I would plea not guilty to a crime if I never committed based on the idea that it is the moral thing to do. But that digresses the thread and I do NOT want to get into an argument with people over what makes an act moral nor do I want to continue under the umbrella that people think I'm a cold person who doesn't love their family and friends. Quite the opposite but again, I'll just settle with that.

What about the "moral" obligation to Damien? Would you not feel morally obligated to admit guilt for a crime that you KNOW you did not commit if by doing so it would save the life of another individual that you KNOW is innocent? By admitting guilt, they saved another man's life. In my mind, that was the moral thing to do. Staying in prison for "principle" in this situation would be the immoral (or selfish) thing to do.

This is a fascinating situation to ponder and I can't even begin to imagine what these individuals are going through.

Deleted

Monk


I guess that probably explains it because yes, I would plea not guilty to a crime if I never committed based on the idea that it is the moral thing to do. But that digresses the thread and I do NOT want to get into an argument with people over what makes an act moral nor do I want to continue under the umbrella that people think I'm a cold person who doesn't love their family and friends. Quite the opposite but again, I'll just settle with that.

 
Please do not think I was calling you "cold". I was merely expressing my own thoughts and motivation.

Beavis


Regarding the questions about how someone can plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit; there's a Frontline episode about a bunch of sailors who plead guilty and served time for a gang rape. Find it and watch it. There's also an older Frontline episode about the CIA and some of its interviewing techniques. When you add up the data, you begin to understand how someone can admit to something they didn't do. I swear, if you watch the one about the sailors, you'd never let the police talk to you without a lawyer present. That one was just mind boggling.

- Brian

The problem here is of a a "legal psychology" and fundamental kind. (Without getting into the whole accusatorial vs inquisitorial deal here), interrogations in the U.S. are mostly done to make charges stick or to make someone confess. Whereas the goal of everyone should be finding the TRUTH. That is why things like "good cop, bad cop" and other manipulative techniques are so readily employed. It's all pretty horrific, if you ask me.

OUmd

Monk


I guess that probably explains it because yes, I would plea not guilty to a crime if I never committed based on the idea that it is the moral thing to do. But that digresses the thread and I do NOT want to get into an argument with people over what makes an act moral nor do I want to continue under the umbrella that people think I'm a cold person who doesn't love their family and friends. Quite the opposite but again, I'll just settle with that.

What about the "moral" obligation to Damien? Would you not feel morally obligated to admit guilt for a crime that you KNOW you did not commit if by doing so it would save the life of another individual that you KNOW is innocent? By admitting guilt, they saved another man's life. In my mind, that was the moral thing to do. Staying in prison for "principle" in this situation would be the immoral (or selfish) thing to do.

This is a fascinating situation to ponder and I can't even begin to imagine what these individuals are going through.

 
I agree that to lay down your life for another is noble but here's an interesting question to ponder. If Damien in on death row and they were trying to pass the death penalty on him, what is going to change now (other than their freedom) that didn't exist before? They are still guilty. They plead guilty. unless the deal they made says the state of Arkansas cannot sentence Damien to the death penalty, then what has changed? Damien said it best, the only reason to get out is for "them" to find the real killers. But you are working on an 18 year old case. The trail is cold. The odds are no one is ever going to know the truth about this and they will live the rest of their lives under a cloud of guilt they agreed to. In the end, inside or outside, unless the plea means the state of Arkansas cannot pass the death penalty regardless of whatever evidence is brought forward, then in the end, discussing Damien's escape from the death penalty is irrelevant. And if this plea DOES give Damien amnesty from the death penalty why now? Do you understand why this whole idea of the death penalty seems shady and not the point? If the state is sentencing Damien to death because they convicted him of the crime and if Damien DID admit guilt, they would have sentenced him to death, period. But now here we are 18 years later, they are admiting guilty which normally would have sentence Damien to death but for some strange reason that is no longer the case. You are arguing a point where in this case it is the reverse of what normally would happen. Of course I will not call these guys immoral for that nor did I ever do that, but in a normal case, what they did would have put Damien to death. Morality comes from a case by case basis but all three parts of the decision must point to a good but in this case it's wholly upside down. My example is based on the idea that things are not upside down which is usually the norm. But this whole ordeal here doesn't seem like the norm. Thus I am not using this case as an example.

KirksNoseHair

Courts don't free murderers because of some public pressure to do so, they release them because the case is either junk (mistakes, etc) or corrupted (intentionally tilted in favor of prosecution by police or prosecutorial misconduct)

 
I don't know if I'd agree with that.  There's a lot of interpretation in a court room, and this is an extremely high-profile case.

And if this plea DOES give Damien amnesty from the death penalty why now?

 
Damien was sentenced to time served.   The death penalty is off the table.  Also, Damien - from what he said at the news conference - was kept in solitary for the majority of his time.   I can't even imagine what that would be like.  Confinement?  Yeah, I can guess.  Solitary?  Nope. 
 
The 'why now' is the big question, isn't it?
 
Keep in mind the state had a guilty CONVICTION.   They have fought tooth and nail against all public backlash to keep these guys in jail.  So, why now?  Why play ball now?  That is an excellent question.
 
From the state's point of view, the end result defies logic, doesn't it?
 
Except, the reason really does seem obvious to me - the December hearing and beyond. 
 
Maybe you don't agree.  That's fine.  But then why?  The publicity hasn't affected anything before now. 

It baffles my mind that a plea like this even exists! I'd bet that the majority of people would do anything just to get out of prison, including the Alford plea. Totally F'd up plea for what I can gather...
 
"Guilty? Alright, we will let you go."
 
"Innocent? Back to the cell with you and good luck getting a re-trial."
 
Freedom? Yeah, right.

You do realize that a plea agreement means that the prosecution and defense have both agreed to it, right?  It's not as if any person found guilty of a crime can yell out "Alford Plea!!" and walk free.  The prosecuting attorneys made this deal with them because they knew they didn't have a strong enough case to keep these guys in prison when it went back to trial in December.  It's not typical for someone to be allowed to change their plea after incarceration.  They were specifically offered the chance to plead guilty to lesser charges so the prosecution could still say "see?!  They really ARE guilty!" and not look like assholes this coming election year.

bump.
 
new documentary at this year's Sundance Film Festival: West of Memphis
http://www.sundancechanne...eo=1418270674001 

Yah.. about time attention focused on the truly disturbing stepfather of Stevie Branch.. major icko creepo ... red flag behavior, alleged motive & opportunity

Cassie5563


Yah.. about time attention focused on the truly disturbing stepfather of Stevie Branch.. major icko creepo ... red flag behavior, alleged motive & opportunity

Uhm...yeah!!!
It's the first time I've started reading about the whole WM3 thing. Man - I'm disgusted!
 
"Welcome to amateur hour" - Albert Rosenfield