The West Memphis Three.... Will Be Freed

[Imp]

Quote:
Do you know the definition of pretentious? I'm sure you'll say you do in 10 paragraphs, but you clearly don't understand it.

Heeeeey there buddy. No need to be so rude to our friend Spook there... You can disagree and be respectful also.

Spook puts a lot of thought and insight into his posts. Wisdom is a rare commodity these days.
I always listen to what Spook says with an open mind.

Imp

 

[mississippifarmboy]

Quote:
Heeeeey there buddy. No need to be so rude to our friend Spook there... You can disagree and be respectful also.

Spook puts a lot of thought and insight into his posts. Wisdom is a rare commodity these days.
I always listen to what Spook says with an open mind.

Imp

X 2

Spook thinks things through better than most. On this, I'm not at all sure these boys are innocent, and I'm one of those that thinks if a person gets sent to death row it should be a short stay. I'm not saying they are guilty either. I wasn't on the jury, I wasn't an investigator, I didn't witness the crime. I just don't know.

At the same time, I wouldn't want to send an innocent person to their death.

The original trial was mishandled. Not by the jury, they did an admirable job in my opinoin. It was the State, the HBO crew, the untrained law inforcement investigators, the lack of calling in experts at the time of the original investigation. It was a real mess.

I think there should have been a new trial, moved to a new location with none of the original lawyers, judges, etc... involved. I also think this should have been done years ago, not at this time.

Our system of law is far from perfect, but take it from a person who has traveled all over the world, it beats all other systems flat out! It's simple in my eyes. Either follow the law as it is writen and stick by it... or change the laws.

Like Spook said... the law has to stand for something.

jmho

 

[Spookwriter]

As I understand it, DNA in the american court system was first
allowed in 1987, other sources give 1989 as the first time. In the
early 90's, DNA evidence was still in it's infancy. Many law enforcement
agency's were untrained at that time.

Far from the science we perceive it as today. Just as I do not doubt
that science will advance in the next twenty years.

While it is not everybody's opinion, it is my opinion that the court should
not retry a twenty year old case based on modern laws of what is and is
not acceptable. Something along the lines of the crime was committed in
1993, and this was the acceptable law in 1993.

The burden of proof is not upon the accused to prove their innocence, but
upon the prosecution to prove their guilt. It is the court's job to see that
both sides act within the law as to what is and what is not allowable under
the law as it is written.

This original thread dealt with the West Memphis Three being freed, and why.

What is this Alford Plea, and how does it work?

The Alford Plea dates from the a Surpreme Court decision in 1970, stemming
from a criminal case in 1963, and basically gives the accused the right to deny
guilt, while yet accepting the fact that there exists enough evidence to be found
guilty. The benefit to the Alford Plea is that the accused will face a much easier
sentence from the courts. No jury trial. A bit more the decision than that, but that's
the basics of it.

In this case, it appears the sentence was accepted as time served in exchange
for a guilty plea, in place of a the new jury trial.

I do not mean to sound pretentious, and for that I apologize. But I do try to bring
a certain amount of information to a discussion.

Spook

 

[sourland]

Spook, the word pretentious and your name don't belong in the same sentence. You need not apologize.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Quote:
http://truthinjustice.org/silent-injustice.htm

The FBI had a test called comparative bullet-lead analysis which said that you could tell which box bullet came from because the lead from each batch had a unique make up this was proved to be wrong yet it was still used for a year before they stopped it. There are many cases that have that as the only evidence of the crime and if you want to live in a just society then if you get it wrong you say yes we got it wrong. Look at the Alan Gell case they managed to convince a jury he was guilty of shooting a man, the thing they didn't say was that on the day of the murder he was out of state and in jail for stealing a car. If you are in prison you can not go to a man's house and shoot him.

 

[Spookwriter]

Okay.

Let's look at Alan Gell, who was arrested, tried for and convicted
of first degree murder in North Carolina. He was granted a new trial
on a few pretty important facts.

1. The prosecution had withheld significant evidence from Gell's lawyers
which WOULD HAVE proven his innocence. Pretty much against the law and
two prosecution attorneys received a written reprimand.

2. The prosecution ALSO manufactured false evidence against Gell, instructing
witness to lie under oath.

The law did not fail here, but the LAWYERS failed to do their job ACCORDING
TO THE LAW.

In the new trial ,2002, Gell was found innocent.

However, Gell is presently in prison since 2006 for the crime of statutory rape
and cocaine.


As to F.B.I. comparative bullet-lead analysis, this was in use for many years
as an accetable form of evidence. The fact that it is in time proven to be wrong
and now disallowed in court backs my earlier statement that science changes.

Whether it be DNA or a bullet test, the science of how the evidence is viewed
is ever changing. But if the evidence presented is within the law as the law is
written at the time of the crime, then let that be the way the evidence is viewed.

But it is never the job of the law to create false evidence, as in the Alan Gell case.
They should have been disabarred for that stunt.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Quote:
But his is not the only case of prosecutal misconduct and as long as prosecuters manufacture evidence and with hold evidence you are going to get inocent men and women on death row. Are you saying that if a person on death row is found inocent they should still stay on death row and be executed because the original trial decided they where guilty

 

[SarahFair]

If my memory serves me correct didnt they make a lot of assumptions based on their religions and how they dressed?
Coming from a small town where this wasnt accepted back in the early 90s I can imagin the stereotyping going on in the jurors heads.

From my understanding they did not recieve a fair trial in the first place.

 

[welsummerchicks]

The Alford plea is generally used by people who are guilty - it got its name from its first use - a murderer named Alford. He was indeed guilty. It is sometimes used by people who feel that the weight of evidence will convict them.

I haven't read this case so can't comment on it in detail, but I would caution against such a simplistic interpretation of DNA evidence overall. What's happening now a great deal, is 'No DNA evidence? Then they're not guilty'. I do not feel that is always a valid conclusion for all cases, just like automatically.

I would urge everyone to not automatically assume someone is not guilty because they are 'let go', either. It's not a good assumption. Various projects like the Innocence Project are not just freeing innocent people.

I'll read this case in a lot more detail before assuming the 3 were freed due to innosence. I don't feel a few news artciles - or even a lot of news articles, provide enough information.

 

[mom'sfolly]

I do know that here in Texas, especially in small towns, law enforcement, judges and prosecutors are all hand-in-glove. I suspect other small towns are the same. Trouble makers are labeled, and are the first sought out in any crime, even if there is no reason to believe they were involved. It is often on appeal that the misdeeds of these groups are caught, when someone from the outside looks at the issues, but this isn't always the case.

I didn't follow this case, so I can't comment. I do know that people get railroaded in this country, especially the poor and disenfranchised. It doesn't always get caught because it happens to the people most vulnerable to abuse, the least likely to know their rights and the most likely to get bad counsel.

Again, I bring up Tulia, Texas. Where an itinerant rogue cop was trusted over long term residents, on completely fabricated evidence, many people were convicted, and many were convinced by their lawyers that pleading guilty to something they didn't do was better than going to trial. Many received 30-50 sentences for simple drug offenses. Some were actually not in town when the supposed drug deals happened, but were still convicted. All it takes is biased law enforcement in a biased community.

I also want to mention the Houston Crime Lab, which also handled evidence for smaller communities. Unlike CSI, the Houston Crime Lab (HCL) tailored evidence to fit law enforcements theories of what happened, and in many cases did not fully test the evidence. The DNA lab was shut down due to the shoddy work they were doing. Why is this important? Harris County, where Houston is, sends more people to death row than any other place in the country.