- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:15 am to jdd48
quote:
It actually is according to the letter of the law. You do plead guilty when taking an Alford plea, are still convicted of a crime in the eyes of the law, and are treated as guilty just as if you were found guilty by a jury.
Yes, it counts as a guilty plea (and I'm not lawyer, maybe you are), but it has always been my understanding is that you are still not admitting guilt, just that the evidence is so overwhelming that a judge and jury would find you guilty.
For the record, I've never completely bought their innocence claim. Just because a bunch of celebrities and Hollywood got behind their cause, doesn't equate to innocence.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:16 am to MadDogs
quote:
For the record, I've never completely bought their innocence claim. Just because a bunch of celebrities and Hollywood got behind their cause, doesn't equate to innocence.
despite all of the hollywood people getting involved to bring their case to light, the DNA evidence at the crime scene says they were never there.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:16 am to monsterballads
quote:I'm not sure you understand the crime scene.
i'm not sure you understand how DNA works.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:18 am to monsterballads
quote:The 'crime scene' was a ditch with about 4 feet of water in it.
the DNA evidence at the crime scene says they were never there.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:19 am to monsterballads
quote:
the DNA evidence at the crime scene says they were never there.
It just says the DNA they tested didnt match, not that they werent there
Posted on 5/24/23 at 10:53 am to danilo
quote:
Why did the state of Arkansas let those child killers out?
Because the Lord of the Ring movies were THAT good.
This post was edited on 5/24/23 at 10:53 am
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:09 am to MyRockstarComplex
Didn't they confess like 40 times to multiple people?
This post was edited on 5/24/23 at 11:09 am
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:13 am to JimNat
quote:
Talked to West Memphis police officer about 5 years ago and he told me Echols and Misskelly were involved. I don’t think that Baldwin had anything to do with it.
I wouldn't take anything anyone involved with that PD then or now has to say too seriously. At best they were all grossly incompetent. At worst, they were grossly incompetent and allowed that incompetence to grow into what it did.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:20 am to JimNat
We'll never know unfortunately. The evidence on the scene was not terribly convincing in connecting anyone to the murders, and after that the police and prosecutors made an absolute idiotic muck out of it.
I did watch the documentary and saw that girl testify she was walking by Echols and heard him 'confess.' Honestly I didn't believe her, it sounded like dumb schoolgirl gossip she had just repeated and then gotten cornered into having to testify that she heard it herself after she probably embellished the story (that is, most likely she did see him at a game; she had heard and repeated the rumors; she probably added on to it, by claiming she had heard him say it. Probably felt cool to say that when gossiping with friends. But then, she got a subpoena- oops, she now had to go tell the story to a jury because she couldn't admit she had made it up). But, I wasn't on the jury, what do I know. I guess they believed her.
The documentary I watched definitely had a point of view. But, I have learned not to believe these documentaries about cases, especially when they make the evidence seem so clear. Basically all of them are leaving out lots of evidence that goes against their preferred theory.
So I just go back to- this was a disastrously handled case and we will never know what happened.
I did watch the documentary and saw that girl testify she was walking by Echols and heard him 'confess.' Honestly I didn't believe her, it sounded like dumb schoolgirl gossip she had just repeated and then gotten cornered into having to testify that she heard it herself after she probably embellished the story (that is, most likely she did see him at a game; she had heard and repeated the rumors; she probably added on to it, by claiming she had heard him say it. Probably felt cool to say that when gossiping with friends. But then, she got a subpoena- oops, she now had to go tell the story to a jury because she couldn't admit she had made it up). But, I wasn't on the jury, what do I know. I guess they believed her.
The documentary I watched definitely had a point of view. But, I have learned not to believe these documentaries about cases, especially when they make the evidence seem so clear. Basically all of them are leaving out lots of evidence that goes against their preferred theory.
So I just go back to- this was a disastrously handled case and we will never know what happened.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:22 am to blueboy
That’s a good point
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:25 am to The Ramp
quote:Jessie Misskelley’s stepmother told police he had spontaneous fits of crying, after the murders took place and before they were ever implicated. Misskelley later confessed to police, on more than one occasion. The documentary claims this was under duress by the police and manipulated, but the details he gives are way too intricate to be manipulated. He told them where he was standing and when, references to roads and natural features, where on their bodies the kids were being cut, which kids were cut and hurt and in what way, and his description of having to run one of the kids down when he tried to escape. Jessie even visually identified the specific kid who had his genitals cut. None of that info was known by the public or anyone other than the police.
Didn't they confess like 40 times to multiple people?
Jessie also told police that he and the others were involved in a cult that involved going into the woods, killing animals and having orgies. However that sounds, it’s in the confession tapes and he just offered it up. The info is corroborated by a statement given to police by Echols' cousin who witnessed Echols do the same ritual shite to a dog he killed.
The documentary mentions none of this, btw.
ETA: Baldwin’s girlfriend said she saw Echols killing animals and mutilating the corpses. The police found that the hwy overpass under which the mutilations allegedly occurred has DAMIEN spray painted all over it, and animal remains were found there as well.
This post was edited on 5/24/23 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:33 am to The Ramp
quote:
Didn't they confess like 40 times to multiple people?
i dont know about 40 times or multiple people, but false confessions happen a lot more than you probably suspect.
i really dont have a dog in this hunt, other than to say that i think that it's more likely than not that they were involved in some way and/or guilty of the killings, but that evidence was pretty sorely lacking and i'd rather guilty people be free than innocent people be in jail.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:35 am to The Ramp
They were straight kids though. They got let out early.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:38 am to Sam Quint
quote:
i dont know about 40 times or multiple people, but false confessions happen a lot more than you probably suspect.
I believe they even told cell mates. I don't have a dog either and the police messed up the case with the satanic cult mess but there was overwhelming evidence (knife in lake) they never submitted. Also when Hollywood gets involved, I usually take the other side.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:39 am to The Ramp
same. like i said, i lean towards guilty. i just dont think the confessions are the rock solid smoking gun.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:42 am to Sam Quint
quote:
same. like i said, i lean towards guilty. i just dont think the confessions are the rock solid smoking gun.
agreed
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:43 am to Sam Quint
Facts the WM3 documentaries left out
None of them had an alibi. The documentaries were produced to lead you to a certain conclusion while omitting everything that points to guilty
None of them had an alibi. The documentaries were produced to lead you to a certain conclusion while omitting everything that points to guilty
Posted on 5/24/23 at 11:53 am to The Ramp
quote:
I believe they even told cell mates.
I'm not telling you that your view of the case is wrong. But "cellmate testifies that defendant confessed to him" is not very convincing. Fellow prisoners have a lot to gain by lying.
Posted on 5/24/23 at 12:06 pm to ExtraGravy
quote:
I'm not telling you that your view of the case is wrong. But "cellmate testifies that defendant confessed to him" is not very convincing. Fellow prisoners have a lot to gain by lying.
I agree its inadmissible but they told a LOT of people being police and cell mates the same detailed story. But I also need to realize that kid was special needs.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News