|
Post by sadie on Aug 19, 2011 8:16:57 GMT -5
This is a truly interesting case............ LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Three men imprisoned for nearly two decades for the brutal murders of three 8-year-old boys in eastern Arkansas could be released from custody as early as Friday if a deal with prosecutors goes as planned, victims' relatives and a person familiar with the case told The Associated Press. A tentative deal would include a legal maneuver allowing the men to maintain their innocence claim while admitting that prosecutors likely have enough evidence to win a conviction, the person familiar with the case said. That person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of a gag order barring parties in the case from speaking publicly about it. "It's a highly technical way to put an end to judicial proceedings in the case," the person told the AP. Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin were convicted in 1994 of killing Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore a year earlier and leaving their naked bodies in a ditch in West Memphis, Ark. Echols was sentenced to death. Misskelley and Baldwin were ordered to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Defense attorneys, along with celebrities and legal experts, have long said the men were wrongly convicted. The three men, known to supporters as the West Memphis Three, won new hearings from the Arkansas Supreme Court in November, more than 15 years after they went to prison despite little physical evidence linking them to the crime scene. Their attorneys point to new DNA evidence that they say should help exonerate the three men. The support for the West Memphis Three reaches some of the victims' relatives who have questioned whether the right people were behind bars. Byers' adoptive father, John Mark Byers, said he believes Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley are innocent. He said prosecutors told him that they planned to reach a no-contest plea on Thursday. "There's certainly no justice for the three men that's been in prison or my son and his two friends," Byers said. "To me, this is just a cop-out from the state for not wanting to admit that they made a mistake." Prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington declined to comment, as did defense attorneys and a spokesman for the state's attorney general. They all cited a gag order issued by the judge overseeing the case. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were slated to appear in court for an evidentiary hearing in December. But on Thursday, Craighead County Circuit Judge David Laser announced that the men would be in court on Friday. He declined to release any further details about the hearing. But the person familiar with the case said that the earlier verdicts would likely be set aside in order to go ahead with the tentative agreement. In what's called an Alford plea, they would agree that prosecutors have a solid amount of evidence against them -- likely enough to win a conviction. Normally, when defendants plead guilty in criminal cases, they admit that they've done the crime in question. But in an Alford plea, defendants are allowed to insist they're innocent, says Kay Levine, a former prosecutor who now teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at Emory University in Atlanta. She is not involved with the Arkansas case. "It's not an insane strategy decision," Levine said. But, she added: "It's incredibly troubling to us as a free society that people would plead guilty to something that they actually did not do." Some judges find the legal maneuver offense, Levine says, because they see no reason someone would not contest to a crime that they didn't commit. But most prosecutors would take the agreement, she said. "The prosecutors still get the deal that they have already struck," she said. Department of Correction spokeswoman Dina Tyler said the men were transferred from Arkansas prisons, along with their possessions, on Thursday, ahead of Friday's hearing in Jonesboro. They're being held in a county jail there until their court appearance. Read more: www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/18/deal-for-west-memphis-3-may-allow-innocence-claim/#ixzz1VTptDbr8
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 19, 2011 9:10:12 GMT -5
In what's called an Alford plea, they would agree that prosecutors have a solid amount of evidence against them -- likely enough to win a conviction.
Normally, when defendants plead guilty in criminal cases, they admit that they've done the crime in question. But in an Alford plea, defendants are allowed to insist they're innocent, says Kay Levine, a former prosecutor who now teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at Emory University in Atlanta.
I saw this last night. Very confusing. I'm sure those guys must be fairly desperate to obtain their freedom, but, and especially considering the extreme nature of the crime .. I think they're making a terrible mistake.
I'm sure there are people here and there who will not read all the content of these articles and ignore the bit about the Alford Plea. The result may be that release from prison will put them at risk for worse things than hard time.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 19, 2011 12:45:12 GMT -5
it's probably the wrong thing to do. the clowns are in all likelihood guilty. however, this is the one in a million case where there is at least a possiblity that they are innocent, and that it was the stepfather and his pal who murdered the kids. the problem with this alford plea is that if that is the case, the guilty chaps will never pay for the crime. even were it to be attempted, the defense would simply point to the admission of guilt that the alford plea essentially is, which is more than enough to get reasonable doubt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 13:03:07 GMT -5
The sad thing about criminal trials is that the onus of guilt stays with the accused for life. Even if the defense sweeps the field and disproves every accusation, resulting in acquital - the public will still believe that "a smart lawyer got him off".
Trials are supposed to determine fact, but they do not; the result is nothing, more or less, than the OPINION of those sitting in judgement.
The day after the execution of the first woman (Chipita Rodriguez) hanged by the new State of Texas, events proved that she was innocent and that no crime had in fact been committed.
However - there is no court in any jurisdiction (city, county, state, or federal) that will address the question of guilt vs innocence once the fatal deed is done.
150 years later, by a special act by the joint houses of the Texas legislature (and a proclamation by the then governor) Chipita was declared innocent. Yet death penalty advocates insist that she was guilty all the same ....
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 19, 2011 14:31:18 GMT -5
The sad thing about criminal trials is that the onus of guilt stays with the accused for life. Even if the defense sweeps the field and disproves every accusation, resulting in acquital - the public will still believe that "a smart lawyer got him off". Trials are supposed to determine fact, but they do not; the result is nothing, more or less, than the OPINION of those sitting in judgement. The day after the execution of the first woman (Chipita Rodriguez) hanged by the new State of Texas, events proved that she was innocent and that no crime had in fact been committed. However - there is no court in any jurisdiction (city, county, state, or federal) that will address the question of guilt vs innocence once the fatal deed is done. 150 years later, by a special act by the joint houses of the Texas legislature (and a proclamation by the then governor) Chipita was declared innocent. Yet death penalty advocates insist that she was guilty all the same .... chipita was innocent because there was no crime. NO ONE claims that she is guilty now. that is what caused it to take texas another hundred and fifty years to execute the next woman. you have very little knowledge of how the court system works my man. the FACT is that the state appeals court and supreme court ARE the venues for addressing the question of guilt and innocence. that is what they are for, and they do it every day.
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Aug 20, 2011 10:54:57 GMT -5
Background of the story.........
***************************************
A Most Heinous Crime
On the afternoon of 6 May 1993, West Memphis was rocked by the news of the discovery of the mutilated bodies of three eight-year-old boys. Rumors regarding the nature of the murders spread like wildfire through the town. It was soon well known that the boys had been cut with a knife, raped and at least one of the boy’s genitals had been cut, many of these rumors were based on inaccurate police assumptions. By 12.00 p.m. the next day, police were questioning their first suspect, Damien Echols. Several weeks later Jessie Misskelley, an associate of Echols, confessed to the murders, implicating Damien Echols and another friend, Jason Baldwin. Soon after, following a confession by Misskelley, the three teenagers were arrested and charged with the murders of James M. Moore, Steven E. Branch and Christopher M. Byers.
The citizens of West Memphis were relieved that the monsters that had committed these heinous crimes had been apprehended and justice would be served. There was a great deal of anger in the community directed towards these three adolescents, supposedly involved in Satanic cults, who were accused of killing three innocent boys as part of a Satanic ritual. Rumors of Satanic groups had abounded in this dominantly Baptist community for decades. Details of their exploits were well known although there was never any proof of any murders actually having been performed in the past. From the time the arrests were made until they were tried, local papers fed the community’s blood-lust, with stories of Satanic abominations appearing on a regular basis.
On Wednesday 19 January 1994, Jessie Misskelley was sent to trial after an attempt to have his confession suppressed was denied. Two weeks later, he was found guilty on one count of first degree capital murder and two counts of second degree capital murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole. He was seventeen years old.
The trial of Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols began on Tuesday 4 February 1994. On Monday 18 April 1994, they were both found guilty on three counts of capital murder. The next day Jason, just sixteen, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of forty years. Eighteen-year-old Damien Echols was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
More than five years after these sentences were handed down the three young men continue to proclaim their innocence and are persevering in their attempts to have new trials granted. This in itself is not unusual. There are many guilty men who have succeeded in tying up the legal system in the process of appeals for as many as fifteen years. What is unusual in this case is that they are not alone in proclaiming their innocence. Thousands of American citizens are convinced that Jessie, Jason and Damien were wrongly tried and convicted and are now lending their support to the fight for justice. Everyday this support is growing and now includes many criminal and legal experts who are throwing the weight of their knowledge and experience behind the three boys.
Damien Echols claims that he was found guilty long before the trial began because he was considered weird by many in the community, having practiced the Wicca religion and listened to the music of supposedly Satanic groups such as "Metallica." Jason believes he was found guilty by association. Jessie claims that his confession was coerced, claiming he had told police whatever they had wanted him to so that they would let him go.
Under question in this case is not merely whether Jessie, Jason and Damien are guilty or innocent, but whether the correct legal processes were upheld to secure their convictions. Was the basic tenet of the American legal system, the presumption of innocence, discarded in order to satisfy a community’s call for the revenge of the dreadful murders of three innocent children?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2011 13:29:08 GMT -5
The sad thing about criminal trials is that the onus of guilt stays with the accused for life. Even if the defense sweeps the field and disproves every accusation, resulting in acquital - the public will still believe that "a smart lawyer got him off". Trials are supposed to determine fact, but they do not; the result is nothing, more or less, than the OPINION of those sitting in judgement. The day after the execution of the first woman (Chipita Rodriguez) hanged by the new State of Texas, events proved that she was innocent and that no crime had in fact been committed. However - there is no court in any jurisdiction (city, county, state, or federal) that will address the question of guilt vs innocence once the fatal deed is done. 150 years later, by a special act by the joint houses of the Texas legislature (and a proclamation by the then governor) Chipita was declared innocent. Yet death penalty advocates insist that she was guilty all the same .... chipita was innocent because there was no crime. NO ONE claims that she is guilty now. that is what caused it to take texas another hundred and fifty years to execute the next woman. you have very little knowledge of how the court system works my man. the FACT is that the state appeals court and supreme court ARE the venues for addressing the question of guilt and innocence. that is what they are for, and they do it every day. Well, actually - About Chipita: yes, they DO continue to claim guilt - on another forum on which I used to argue. I think you'd be surprised how much I know of our court system. And, no, please re-read my statement. My statement was that there was no way to address the question of guild or innocence once the condemned is dead - and that makes all the difference in the world to the families of those wrongfully convicted. You might want to read up on Collins vs Herrera (TX, 1983) - a landmark case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that mere proof of innocence is not, in itself, grounds for a habeas appeal. Consequently, ANY appeal of fact must hang on some technical violation of rights or procedure; otherwise, the appeal (and evidence of innocence) will not be heard.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 20, 2011 13:48:40 GMT -5
chipita was innocent because there was no crime. NO ONE claims that she is guilty now. that is what caused it to take texas another hundred and fifty years to execute the next woman. you have very little knowledge of how the court system works my man. the FACT is that the state appeals court and supreme court ARE the venues for addressing the question of guilt and innocence. that is what they are for, and they do it every day. Well, actually - About Chipita: yes, they DO continue to claim guilt - on another forum on which I used to argue. I think you'd be surprised how much I know of our court system. And, no, please re-read my statement. My statement was that there was no way to address the question of guild or innocence once the condemned is dead - and that makes all the difference in the world to the families of those wrongfully convicted. You might want to read up on Collins vs Herrera (TX, 1983) - a landmark case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that mere proof of innocence is not, in itself, grounds for a habeas appeal. Consequently, ANY appeal of fact must hang on some technical violation of rights or procedure; otherwise, the appeal (and evidence of innocence) will not be heard. on another thread, i explained your error. that is NOT what the supreme court said. they simply reiterated the fact that federal courts are NOT for guilt or innocence issues. that is strictly the province of the state courts. obviously, you have no right bringing up any facts of a case in federal court. the ONLY thing that the federal courts are for is to decide constitutional questions. if you have actual proof of innocence, that has to be taken to state court. it is unconstitutional for a federal court to make any determination of any kind on guilt or innocence. that is procedure, and procedure trumps EVERYTHING else. in state court, you have every opportunity to appeal based on the facts of the case, and, any new evidence, provided that there was no way that you could have found that evidence at trial. obviously, if you have absolute proof of innocence, but wait five years to bring it up, the court will rightly reject it. everyone knows the rules, and if you snooze, you lose, which is as it should be as to your other concern, there is NO need to address guilt or innocence of a criminal after he has been executed. the simple, yet irrefutable REALITY is that there has not been a factually innocent individual executed in the u.s. since 1976, and the fact that there have been 18 exonerations from death row conclusively proves that no innocent could ever be executed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2011 13:55:09 GMT -5
A bit further . . .
Assume that your son, or daughter, or wife, or parent had been wrongfully convicted and subsequently convicted - and, like Chipita, you had proof that the conviction WAS wrongful. What can you do?
Not a damned thing; the case is forever closed. No court in any jurisdiction will hear it - neither can you (as popular opinion has it) sue in civil court for wrongful death.
You cannot sue a court (any court) because courts are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Further, if you COULD get your case into court, you could do so only if you'd first PROVED wrongful conviction (return to square #1).
Oh - you could sue an individual member of a court, if you could prove criminal misconduct at trial; but you can't sue just because a human court made a human error in judgment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2011 14:06:31 GMT -5
Sorry, but you're quite wrong. Neither of us precisely quoted the Supreme Court - but mine came closer. And in its minority opinion, the Supreme Court itself said that there was now no legal bar to the execution of the innocent.
The exoneration of so many people by (relatively new) DNA testing proves instead that, prior to DNA testing, people WERE wrongfully executed. That's with the "new" science. What technology, undiscovered as of yet, will prove even more wrongful convictions?
Here locally, we had a case involving multiple gunshot victims - but one of the victims lived and finally recovered. He has since testified that the man (Ruben Cantu) convicted and executed for the shooting wasn't even present at the time.
It's being "thoroughly investigated", of course - by the same DA who sent the man to death row to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 20, 2011 15:02:28 GMT -5
Sorry, but you're quite wrong. Neither of us precisely quoted the Supreme Court - but mine came closer. And in its minority opinion, the Supreme Court itself said that there was now no legal bar to the execution of the innocent. The exoneration of so many people by (relatively new) DNA testing proves instead that, prior to DNA testing, people WERE wrongfully executed. That's with the "new" science. What technology, undiscovered as of yet, will prove even more wrongful convictions? Here locally, we had a case involving multiple gunshot victims - but one of the victims lived and finally recovered. He has since testified that the man (Ruben Cantu) convicted and executed for the shooting wasn't even present at the time. It's being "thoroughly investigated", of course - by the same DA who sent the man to death row to begin with. sorry lad, using cantu to try and make that case is just as big a loser an trying it with willingham. before furman gregg, and wainwright, there were undoubtedly several executed who were innocent. obviously, that has no relevance now. the simple FACT is that there has not been a single factually innocent person executed in the u.s. since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. no, yours did not come closer. i told you exactly what the court said, and that is the way that it should be. you have never had, and never should, had a right to question any facts of a case in the federal court. as i said, it is unconstitutional for a federal court to entertain anything of the sort. you have plenty of avenue for appealing guilt or innocence in the state court, which is the ONLY place that it is relevant. as i said, everyone knows the rules. if you don't choose to follow them, too bad, so sad, tough shyt. you have no bitch coming.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 20, 2011 15:05:07 GMT -5
A bit further . . . Assume that your son, or daughter, or wife, or parent had been wrongfully convicted and subsequently convicted - and, like Chipita, you had proof that the conviction WAS wrongful. What can you do? Not a damned thing; the case is forever closed. No court in any jurisdiction will hear it - neither can you (as popular opinion has it) sue in civil court for wrongful death. You cannot sue a court (any court) because courts are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Further, if you COULD get your case into court, you could do so only if you'd first PROVED wrongful conviction (return to square #1). Oh - you could sue an individual member of a court, if you could prove criminal misconduct at trial; but you can't sue just because a human court made a human error in judgment. obviously, a dead person has no standing to file a suit to begin with. his estate may, but that is a different story. since there is NO possibility of your scenario ever occurring, it's a non issue anyway
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2011 20:32:48 GMT -5
Time for ground rules.
How do you PROVE execution of the innocent? By preponderance of evidence that shows far more than reasonable doubt? Sorry - the filing cabinets are full of such cases, but the condemned were executed anyway. Once sentence is passed, "reasonable doubt" no longer applies.
By a court acknowledging the mistake? Actually, that's the only proof that a die-hard, pro death advocate MIGHT accept.
So name the court (any court) and jurisdiction (any jurisdiction) that will hear such a case, once the execution has been performed.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Aug 21, 2011 15:06:56 GMT -5
Time for ground rules. How do you PROVE execution of the innocent? By preponderance of evidence that shows far more than reasonable doubt? Sorry - the filing cabinets are full of such cases, but the condemned were executed anyway. Once sentence is passed, "reasonable doubt" no longer applies. By a court acknowledging the mistake? Actually, that's the only proof that a die-hard, pro death advocate MIGHT accept. So name the court (any court) and jurisdiction (any jurisdiction) that will hear such a case, once the execution has been performed. reasonably good try, but not even close. first of all, the chap was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. the simple FACT is that, if you want to claim him innocent, you have to prove it beyond ALL doubt of any kind. the evidence necessary to do that would not go through court anyway. that is why there have been the eighteen exonerations. it was CONCLUSIVELY proven, beyond all doubt, by dna, that the specific individual did not commit the murder. absolute and irrefutable proof, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is what is required. there is no "might have", "could have" to it. it has to be absolute. unless you have that, you have NO case whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Aug 21, 2011 18:54:17 GMT -5
More info on the case.......
Brent Turvey has a Master of Science degree and is a highly qualified and experienced Forensic Scientist and Criminal Profiler. At the time he was first approached by Stidham, Turvey was based in California and had not heard about the case.
Turvey’s Criminal Profile revealed many areas of physical evidence which were missed or misinterpreted by the Medical Examiner and Coroner on this case and overrules many of the assumptions made by police as to the nature of these murders. If all of this information had been available when the police initiated their investigation its outcome may have been very different. The conclusions which Turvey draws from the evidence available were that:
The site where the bodies were found was a dump-site only and not the primary crime scene, it is more likely that there were actually four scenes involved in this crime: the abduction site, the attack site, a vehicle used to transport the boys and their bikes, then finally the dump-site in the woods.
The extent of the injuries to the victims, especially the emasculation of Christopher Byers, would have meant a great deal of blood would have been at the scene. In this situation there was virtually no blood.
There were search parties moving through the area which would not have given the assailant(s) the time needed to carry out the attack without being disturbed.
The nature of the injuries to Christopher Byers would have caused him to scream. No screaming was heard by searchers or local residents near the site.
There were no mosquito bites on any of the bodies which would be expected if they had been in the woods for the period of time that would have been required to carry out the attack.
James Moore had an unexplained directional pattern abrasion just below the right anterior shoulder area. This abrasion was created by forceful directional contact with something that was not found at the scene.
The nature of the attack required light, time and uninterrupted privacy. It was dark in the woods. The crime scene would more likely be a secluded structure or residence away from the immediate area of attention.
The assailant was someone known and trusted by the victims. The physical evidence, crime scene and victimology in this case are most consistent with the classification of a Battered Child or Child-Custodial Homicide.
The fact that there were three children together suggests that it would have been difficult for the offender to take all three children unless he was able to gain their trust.
The children would have been taken to another location before the attack began which implies a level of trust, also that intimidation and fear would have been factors in gaining control, suggesting that the assailant was much larger and stronger than the victims.
The violence and level of force in this attack was punitive in nature, indicating that the offender was punishing the boys for some real or perceived wrong.
The difference in the nature of injuries in the three boys indicates that the assailant had a different relationship with each of the boys. James Moore is described by Turvey as a "collateral victim" who was probably only attacked because he was with the other two. The severity of the blows to his head and the lack of damage from the ligatures on his ankles and wrists suggest that he was unconscious throughout the attack. The anger of the assailant , manifested in victim damage and sexual mutilation, is directed primarily at Steven and Christopher, indicating a strong personal association with them.
That all of the related physical evidence was disposed of at the dump site suggests that the assailant believed he may be investigated because of his relationship to the victims and so had to dispose of any evidence.
The dump site being so close to the point of abduction suggests that the assailant knew the area well and lived close by, to enable a quick return to an area of safety. He would also have to have been to the site recently to know that there would be water there at the time.
The type of bite marks are most often seen in Battered Child Homicide.
The presence of healed injuries on Christopher Byers’s body, Melissa Byers’s concern that Christopher was being sexually abused which she expressed to a school counselor before his death, medical records, reported behavioral problems and Chris’s diagnosis with ADD and other behavioral disorders, are all strong indicators that Christopher Byers had been physically, if not sexually, abused prior to this attack.
Steven Branch had lacerations on his penis which were probably self-inflicted indicating a sexualized child, usually associated with sexual abuse.
|
|