0
   

West Memphis 3 Are Going To Be Freed!

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 07:56 am
I think it says a lot about true motives, don't you? These men are going to continue funding the investigation into finding out the true killer/killers of those little boys.

Quote:
Peter Jackson still seeking justice for West Memphis Three -- EXCLUSIVE
by Chris Nashawaty

Entertainment Weekly has learned that director Peter Jackson and his partner Fran Walsh will continue to fund the West Memphis Three investigation, even now that the men have been released from prison — free, but technically still considered guilty in the eyes of the law. “The ongoing work will focus on proving the convicted men’s innocence, as it always has,” says Jackson’s manager, Ken Kamins. He adds that the investigation will include “evidence testing and further investigation which will hopefully lead to the unmasking of the actual killer.”

The Lord of the Rings director has spent the past several years quietly funding private investigations and forensic experts to help clear the West Memphis Three. Jackson has been a longtime advocate of Jason Baldwin, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Damien Echols — the trio of men many believe were wrongly convicted in 1994 of murdering three 8-year-old boys in West Memphis, Ark., and whose nightmare odyssey in the legal system became the subject of the award-winning 1996 HBO documentary Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills. Eddie Vedder, Johnny Depp, Natalie Maines, and Henry Rollins were among the others who rallied to support the West Memphis Three.

“When Peter and Fran got involved, they had to decide how to best serve the case,” Kamins says. “Damien, Jason, and Jessie had great public advocates in Eddie, Johnny, Natalie, Henry, Paradise Lost, and everyone else who was raising money and bringing public attention to the case. Peter and Fran, therefore, decided to put their attention into funding and spearheading DNA work, hiring forensic and other experts, plus extensive private investigations into all aspects of the case.”

Kamins continued: “Because Peter and Fran’s role required a very close relationship with the defense lawyers, in particular Damien’s team, they have always respected and understood that their role had to be of a confidential nature. They have worked very closely with a number of Damien’s attorneys and over the years they have become close friends with Damien and [his wife] Lorri. They have always believed that if they could get Damien free, Jason and Jessie would benefit too.”

Even though the West Memphis Three are now free, Kamins says that Jackson and Walsh’s crusade is far from over. “This work is ongoing,” says Kamins. “Peter and Fran are heavily involved in ongoing investigations, and the release of the guys is far from the end of the story.”
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 08:51 am
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
“When you say you killed someone, that’s pretty damning,” Ellington said.


That's been proven to be wrong numerous times by people with a firmer grasp of reality and morality.

Quote:
Since the deal, Ellington said he’s received many e-mails and messages, mostly negative, about the decision, but he doesn’t care.

“We were able to protect the decisions made by two juries,” Ellington said. “We feel good about that.”


You feel good about this, do you? Are you running for election or are you reluctant to speak the truth because it could illustrate what a scumbag you are?

Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 09:05 am
@JTT,
I guess he is just too proud to admit they made a mistake, well, lots of mistakes when it comes to this case. If he admitted all the mistakes that would have opened them up for monstrous lawsuits. So, instead, he prefers to go on record (maybe not with everyone but certainly with me) as a man who doesn't care about justice, just one that wants to cover his own butt.

Now, what is he going to do IF AND WHEN the true killer/killers are found and he won't be able to deny he was wrong?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 04:44 pm
@Arella Mae,
monstrous lawsuits......solvereign immunity

Facts or logic or commonsense does not matter it is emotions that matter to some of the posters on this thread.

Such emotional driven posters are harmless if annoying on this website but when they reach out into the real world and help turned loose three convicted children murderer back by people selling videos it get a little over done,

Yes monstrous lawsuits and OJ ex-wife killer and the Memphis 3 killer will turn out to be the same person.


izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 04:51 pm
@BillRM,
Stop sitting on the fence Bill. Tell us what you really mean.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 05:39 pm
@izzythepush,
Don't you find it rather odd that IF the WM3 could not sue the state the DA would MAKE IT AN EXPRESS condition of the plea deal? I mean, if they couldn't sue like misinformed Bill seems to think, then he didn't have to say that.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 05:47 pm
@Arella Mae,
I don't really know enough about your legal system, but I think it's really strange to free someone who is still technically guilty, unless it's part of the parole system.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 05:54 pm
@izzythepush,
I think that is the exact reason they really did not want to take this Alford plea. What they actually pleaded to was that the DA had evidence to go back to trial and it was possible they could be convicted if they went to trial. They did NOT plead guilty to the murders. Unfortunately, some people are going to see it as an agreement to being guilty of the crime, when, in fact, the only reason they took the Alford deal was so Damien would be off of death row.

This probably explains it better than I can explain it:


Quote:
In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty. The defendant may plead guilty yet not admit all the facts that comprise the crime. An Alford plea allows defendant to plead guilty even while unable or unwilling to admit guilt. One example is a situation where the defendant has no recollection of the pertinent events due to intoxication or amnesia. A defendant making an Alford plea maintains his innocence of the offense charged. One reason for making such a plea may be to avoid being convicted on a more serious charge. Acceptance of an Alford plea is in the court's discretion.

However, in many states, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" often results in the case being continued without a decision and later dismissed. A conviction under an Alford plea may be used as a conviction for later sentencing purposes. However, one state supreme court has held that an Alford plea, unlike a criminal trial, does not provide a full and fair hearing on the issues in the case, and therefore does not preclude later litigation of the issues.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 06:33 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:

I don't really know enough about your legal system, but I think it's really strange to free someone who is still technically guilty, unless it's part of the parole system.

The Alford plea in this case, I think, involved vacating the original guilty convictions and sentences imposed from their trials 18 years ago. The new pleas under the Alford deal were then applied to new charges of murder for each of the WM3, and they were accepted as guilty verdicts on those charges, and the three men were immediately sentenced to time served on those charges. Being sentenced to time served is what allowed them to go free--the state accepted the 18 years they had already been in prison as sufficient time for the charges. They are not on parole. They are considered to have served their full sentences under the Alford plea deal.

Even for our legal system, the use of this type of Alford plea is not that common. It is a tool that allows both sides to come to an agreement in order to end a problematic legal case.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 06:37 pm
@firefly,
If I remember correctly, this is the first time anyone walked off of death row to freedom in Arkansas. I'm going to look up some stats on how often that happens.

There are some stats at the link below. These are people that were exonerated. Arkansas is NOT on the list.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 08:04 am
Justice is slow sometimes but hearing things like this really give me hope for finding the killer/killers in the WM3 case.
Quote:
Ninderjit Singh, Man Wanted For Murder, Arrested

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A long-haul truck driver sought for 12 years in the shooting death in Canada of his teenage ex-girlfriend has been arrested in Southern California.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that 33-year-old Ninderjit Singh was taken into custody Friday after a traffic stop near his home in San Jacinto.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigation said Singh, an Indian national, is awaiting extradition to Canada where he is a legal resident.

He is suspected in the 1999 shooting death of 18-year-old Poonam Randhawa in Vancouver. Authorities said her body was found on a street near her school, where she was last seen in a vehicle with Singh.

The case was featured on "America's Most Wanted" in 2000 and generated some leads, but Singh eluded capture until last week.


http://www.aol.com/2011/08/24/ninderjit-singh-man-wante_n_935067.html?test=latestnews
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 08:49 pm
@Arella Mae,
But, in that case, Arella Mae, they knew who they were looking for, it was just a matter of finding him. The problem in the WM3 case is that they don't have enough leads.

They still have bite mark evidence from one of the bodies don't they? And continued DNA testing might turn up something.

The good thing is that they still have money in the defense fund to keep on testing DNA and to keep searching.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 07:41 am
@firefly,
Yes, they did know who they were looking for. My only point is it took them 12 years to find him. It took 19 years to find Whitely Bulger. So, I'm grasping onto the hope that if they can find those guys there has to be some hope of finding the real killer/killers of those three little boys.

Millions have been spent in investigating and getting the WM3 released. To me, that says a lot. People truly want the truth and are still funding the investigation. I think there is hope!
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 03:50 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
Millions have been spent in investigating and getting the WM3 released. To me, that says a lot. People truly want the truth and are still funding the investigation. I think there is hope!


More had been earned or will be earn then had been spend on selling the idea that those three are so innocent that no question can remain no matter how small.

You AM would not wish the truth if the truth had anything to do with those men being the killers of those children.

For myself I would be happy if it was proven that the society did not let three cold blooded killers of children walk free.

Of hands I would say the odds are better then 50/50 that they are the killers and the two juries was correct.

The very fact that they had not taken polygraph tests add to those odds.

Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 04:12 pm
@BillRM,
That's where you are wrong. If it was ever proven they did do it I'd say throw them right back in jail.

Damien and Jessie took polygraphs. DUH!
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 08:09 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Of hands I would say the odds are better then 50/50 that they are the killers and the two juries was correct.

Considering you really have no knowledge of this case, or the circumstances of the trial, or the credibility of the evidence, that opinion is worthless.

Juries sometimes do not get it right. The criminal jury didn't get it right with O.J..

You don't execute a man because the odds are better then 50/50 that the jury got it right!

All your alleged concern about men being wrongly accused and convicted of rape is obviously phony--it's just an excuse to vent your hostility toward women. You obviously have no real concern about justice, or a search for the truth, otherwise you'd be troubled by the fact that three innocent men might have spent 18 years in jail, and one came close to being executed.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 08:13 pm
@firefly,
You obviously have no real concern about justice, or a search for the truth, otherwise you'd be troubled by the fact that ... .
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2011 02:04 am
@firefly,
Quote:
You don't execute a man because the odds are better then 50/50 that the jury got it right!


You do not overturn the verdicts of 24 men and women without solid proof repeat proof that they had gotten it wrong.


Second, as far as an execution I would have no problem with decreasing the punishment to life in prison for the one "gentleman" to be on the completely safe side however I do have a damn problem with making them heroes repeat heroes while there remained very high probabilities that they are killers.

I had a problem with allowing them to not only walk free but to likely become millionaires over movies/books etc rights when there is still a strong likelihood that they are killers of children.

As far as DSK he did not confessed to raping the woman nor did he had a polygraph confirmed his confession just to start with.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Aug, 2011 08:34 pm
@BillRM,
I guess you'll just have to learn to live with what the state of Arkansas did in this case. This was their call. They had the option of giving the three men new trials and they chose not to do that. Instead, they worked out the Alford pleas, gave them time served, and released them.

Live with it. The case is closed. They are free men.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2023 at 07:02:48