Finally!-West Memphis 3 Freed! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Finally!-West Memphis 3 Freed!


ULVER
08-19-2011, 22:57
I knew they were innocent from day-one! Scarey, when wearing a Metallica shirt, and speaking some "devil worship" teenage nonsense, gets you on death row.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-west-memphis-3-20110820,0,5874148.story

Det. Gary Gitchell makes me ill. :steamed: He wanted a quick wrap, more than the truth. The jury were simpletons, and the judge just wanted back on the golf course ASAP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2sVKssjsI&feature=player_embedded

Waited a long time to see these young folk FREE! :crying:

frank_drebin
08-19-2011, 23:00
The other thread about this ended so well....http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1363810

good luck with that

Cochese
08-19-2011, 23:47
There was no reason to even close the other thread.

EMTCOP
08-20-2011, 01:41
There was no reason to even close the other thread.


This. It was on the verge of getting nasty, but had not really crossed the line, at least to my point of view.

I lived in the area where this happened when it happened. I thought they were guilty as hell. I became a police officer a few years later, moved into investigative positions a few years later, and looked at everything about the case with an open mind...because I was curious about all the controversy surrounding the convictions. All the court transcripts, interviews / interrogations, etc. are available on WM3.org. It is not biased by the supporters of the defendants.

I no longer believe they killed those boys. I can't blame them for taking an Alfred plea. After spending 18 years in prison ( or death row for Echols ), I can't say that I wouldn't take the deal that was offered to me. The state did say that they wouldn't likely get another conviction if the case were retried, but I don't know if I would roll the dice or not.

I think that what's been lost in this circus over the past two days is that three boys are dead, and there are still three families that miss them very much.

MeefZah
08-20-2011, 03:20
Interesting.

I read the national news article before I came to CT tonight, and while reading it I wondered what you guys would have to say about it.

I don't have an opinion as to guilt or innocence, I'm too far removed from the event by time and distance.

If they are innocent, it's a damn shame they spent two decades in prison. If they are not innocent, it's a damn shame they spent two decades in prison.

Dexters
08-20-2011, 05:38
I no longer believe they killed those boys. I can't blame them for taking an Alfred plea. After spending 18 years in prison ( or death row for Echols ), I can't say that I wouldn't take the deal that was offered to me. The state did say that they wouldn't likely get another conviction if the case were retried, but I don't know if I would roll the dice or not.



The Alfred plea means they can not sue the state - correct? So, no money to re-start their lives. I don't think it will go well for these guys. The world has changed a great deal since 1993 they will probably find it difficult to adjust or even find a job. Maybe someone in the state gov't will pass a bill giving them some money.

Dukeboy01
08-20-2011, 06:36
In my experience Alford pleas have been used by prosecutors to secure convictions only in cases where the only concern about whether or not the suspect would have been found guilty by a jury was that one or more individuals on the jury might engage in jury nullification. The evidence has always been there to support a conviction. It's the fear of the sideshow brought on by celebutard activists or by the suspect's standing in the community that pushes the prosecutors to let the suspect spare his dignity with the moral machinations of an Alford plea. The people who are really innocent don't want them and if the prosecutors suspect that there may be factual problems with the case that might prove the suspect's actual innocence, they'll spike the case instead and get it dismissed.

Perhaps this case is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps not. The much heralded DNA "evidence" that all the advocates want to hang their hat on, a hair consistant with the DNA of one of the victim's stepfathers found on the rope used to bind the victims, really doesn't mean much if you think about it critically for half a second and have even a passing knowledge of the concept of evidence transference.

How many times a day do you pick a stray hair belonging to your wife, mistress, or golden retriever off of your clothes? Do those hairs go directly into the garbage or do you just waft them off in the breeze... to settle on your kids' clothes. Your kids then transfer the hairs again to their backpacks, furniture, pieces of rope that their abductors tie them up with, etc.

LAWDOGKMS
08-20-2011, 07:49
WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY HERE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF (IN PARTS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2sVKssjsI

msu_grad_121
08-20-2011, 08:06
How many times a day do you pick a stray hair belonging to your wife, mistress, or golden retriever off of your clothes? Do those hairs go directly into the garbage or do you just waft them off in the breeze... to settle on your kids' clothes. Your kids then transfer the hairs again to their backpacks, furniture, pieces of rope that their abductors tie them up with, etc.

I'll be honest, this pops into my mind every time someone brings up DNA evidence. Between the CSI Effect and the possibility of evidence transferrence, I've got to imagine it almost does as much harm as it does good.

For the record, I watched both documentaries (a label I feel can only loosely be applied to those programs), and while they certainly left me with the impression that these 3 were innocent, I remain unconvinced either way. I honestly just don't know. But if the state is happy with this outcome, so be it.

Dukeboy01
08-20-2011, 18:23
I'll be honest, this pops into my mind every time someone brings up DNA evidence. Between the CSI Effect and the possibility of evidence transferrence, I've got to imagine it almost does as much harm as it does good.



Yep. All DNA evidence is not the same, yet the media and the activists will claim that it is. DNA in the form of semen in a victim's rectum, for example, is highly significant. DNA in the form of trace evidence, such as hairs found in proximity to, but not actually on or in the victim may not be significant at all. The activists will claim that the presence of any type of DNA that differs from that of the suspect that they are trying to exonerate is sufficient for reasonable doubt. It just ain't so.