Deal could lead to release of West Memphis Three

Deal could lead to release of West Memphis Three

www.commercialappeal.com

Prosecutors and defense attorneys are working out a deal that could result in the release of the West Memphis Three murder defendants as early as Friday, according to legal sources and relatives of victims.

"It's a high probability," said Jackie Byers, 44, wife of John Mark Byers, whose son was one of three 8-year-old boys found nude and hog-tied in 1993 in a watery ditch in West Memphis. "We've been asked not to say anything until after tomorrow."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org
wm3org.typepad.com
www.trutv.com

After many years the WM3 could finally be released from prison.

But, on this proviso:

A source close to the case said the pending deal involves the immediate release of defendants Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley in return for pleas to lesser charges

Lesser charges? So, the true perpetrator/s of this horrendous crime will never be brought to justice? So this will make everyone happy? The wrongly accused will go free, but still be held accountable for the crimes? The case will not be re-opened? The authorities will not have to concern themselves with investigating the crimes again and finding the true culprits. The WM3 may very well go free, but, unless the case is re-opened they will forever be tainted with these crimes.

www.commercialappeal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm hoping the news about the plea deal is misinformation. Will have have to wait until tomorrow morning to see. Full exoneration would be the closest thing to justice that the WM3 will ever see, but they will never be given back the 17+ years of their lives that were taken from them in corruption. The case alone is sad enough, but when these boys were convicted 3 victims turned into 6 and they were all only children.

...its been a while since i checked into this case but, yeah, this is a very disappointing turn, although i'm glad these young men are getting out prison - never shouldve been in there in the first place... always thought the real killer was the step-father of one of the dead kids... cant remember his name... doesnt matter now cuz they're not looking for the real killer - never were...

YAAAY!
here is an awesome song about them
www.youtube.com...

enjoy

Free the three!

followed this awhile back / good 4 them

now if they could just solve who killed those poor kids

reply to post by therealcatman


It was mr bojangles
It had to be.

mr bojangles was the so called black man bleeding in the diner right?

3 kids r murdered / they blame 3 gothic teens / mr bojangles

twisted justice in hickville

reply to post by therealcatman


According to the article the DNA evidence matched the Stepfather and his friend (who were together on the day of the murder)

Steve Branch who is the father of victim Stevie Branch has said he won't abide by the gag order and that 2 of the 3, one of them being Damien Echols will be released tomorrow. Let's just hope we will see all three released tomorrow as another news source had said that all three left prison with all of their belongings.

reply to post by Beelzebubba


The article states new evidence discovered in 2007, DNA, linked a 4th person to the crime. The article also states that a false confession was given in 1994 during the trials.

This is what I am seeing -
Its possible the 3 people who are serving time are innocent of killing the kids. Its possible that those 3 people were still involved in some manner, which would justify the change to the lesser charges. Since lesser charges would result in a shorter prison term, the 18 years they have already served would count towards the punishment of those new charges.

There is a gag order in place, so we are only seeing bits and pieces right now. I am curious whats going to come out after the gag order is lifted.

As far as charging the 4th person - that is going to be contingent on what laws were in force at the time of the crime. Statute of limitations may prevent the 4th person from being charged.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I forgot to mention that by giving a false confession, they perjured themselves.

I am going to guess thats what the lesser charges are.

the DNA found at the crime scene (being hair found knotted up on the shoestrings used to bind two of the kids), matched one of the kid's step father and his friend - but not the creepy father that most people thought it was, it wasn't Christopher Byers dad that acted such a fool in both the Paradise Lost documentaries. It was Terry Hobbs, the step father of Steven Branch (not to be confused with his real father, who has been very active in the fight for the WM3, as he has always insisted that he did not believe the WM3 killed his son, and he has always wanted the real killer to be caught) and one of his friends. Steven Branch's mother has said several times in the past couple of years that she believes that her ex-husband did it.

I would imagine that Damien and Jason would be the two that would be released, and it will take a little more for Jesse, since Jesse is the one who made the "confession" (despite his IQ level, the fact that his parents weren't present during his interrogation, and the god-awful interrogation tactics they used, plus the fact that only 45 minutes of this something like 12 hour interrogation was taped.

this whole trial was a modern day witch hunt. and the judge in this case, Burnett, has got to be the single worst judge in the country, next to Judge Ito from the OJ trial. :-/

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I forgot to mention that by giving a false confession, they perjured themselves.

Not necessarily perjury, if it was forced.

I too, have not looked into this case for a few years, but I think it was only 1 of them (not Damien), who confessed. There are many different tactics that detectives and/or officers will use, when their only objective is to get a confession. It often seems that some of them, are more concerned with getting a confession, than actually finding the true criminal. When that confession they are looking for, is from a young teenage boy, fear becomes their most useful tactic.

Young boy

cops threatening him with a life or a death sentence

telling him that he WILL be found guilty

and he WILL spend the rest of his life behind bars

Unless he

confesses to the crime

testifies against the other 2

 

 

 

 

An example of how cops try to manipulate a confession,
with this Personal story:

I was 17. A guy I knew (who was a couple years older than me) called me up, and sounded very suicidal. He said his uncle had let him borrow a car. I told him to come pick me up. He drove to his grandparents house, a couple miles outside of town, near the river.

Once we get out there, we saw the 2 cops at the house. They stopped us, of course. One of the county sheriffs slammed me against the car, while attempting to gain a confession out of me. He said that he knew for a fact that I was involved in the break-in, and robbery of this house, because my fingerprints were found on the ledge of the broken window. I had never in my life, even been near that house.

After about 20-30 minutes of my denial, and his relentless screaming of accusations with his face about 6 inches in front of mine, he was actually starting to make me feel guilty, and convince me that maybe I had been involved.

Eventually, he gave up on the scare tactic, because he finally realized that if I was lying, then I most likely would have cracked by then.

The car, was also stolen, and was not his uncles, but I did not know that. Luckily for me, someone had witnessed him stealing the car, and saw that he was alone. That was in a different city, than where I was.

In the end, I am glad that those cops were at the house before we got there. If they had not been, then I most likely would have gone inside the house. The only reason I was with this guy, at that time, was to possibly stop him from killing himself. Apparently, from his point of view, the only reason he called me, and came to pick me up, was an attempt to make me an accomplice in his crime, or even to put all of the blame on me. He went to jail, and I have not seen him since. If I ever do see him, it will not be a friendly meeting.

edit on 8/19/11 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)

I truly hope that this deal, if that is what is happening, does not require any admission of guilt or involvement in this crime in any way no matter how minor it may be. Having followed this case for many years I strongly doubt that this would now be considered an acceptible outcome by any of these guys given the history.

They are so close to getting their day in a real court that does not include judge burnett and where they have been granted the right to present all the evidence both old and new. Surely this would see this disgraceful conviction being overturned and new charges being laid against the real culprit. It should also ensure that a few high profile locals and members of the WMPD will have to answer to some very serious charges themselves.

They are doing theAlford Plea and I think it totally sucks. I do understand why they would do that to get freedom. Damien Echols has been raped in prison and I'm sure all three have been exposed to nightmarish things that would break stronger people. I'm sure that they are doing whatever they can to get out of there. What is terrifying is the West Memphis 3 cannot sue the state of Arkansas for the theft of their life.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Not necessarily perjury, if it was forced.

The statements he made were voluntary according to the article. The kids father did give Police permission to take custody of him and transport him to the police station. The confusion on interrogating a minor without parents present comes into play here. A Parent can give verbal consent for police to interrogate a minor. The police were under the impression that when the father gave consent for the police to take custody of him, that it was implied they could interrogate him.

Obviously the Father says he never gave any specific consent for an interrogation to occur.

Enter Court Challenge -

There was a legal challenge regarding his confession and interrogation. The presiding judge ruled that his mental status was not enough for a challenege, referring to comments he made that he was scared of the police along with some other comments.

Also, the lawyer advised the kid to say nothing, which was ignored.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
I too, have not looked into this case for a few years, but I think it was only 1 of them (not Damien), who confessed. There are many different tactics that detectives and/or officers will use, when their only objective is to get a confession. It often seems that some of them, are more concerned with getting a confession, than actually finding the true criminal. When that confession they are looking for, is from a young teenage boy, fear becomes their most useful tactic.

...snip

The tactics used are valid and legal. Interrogation techniques used here in the states revolve around not crossing the line from interogative questions to coercian / intimidation etc.

I do see a red flag here though that has not been explained. If someone else knows the answer shoot me a link.

The father who stated he never gave the police consent to interrogate his son. How is it possible the father never made it to the police station? Being the kids father / legal guardian he could have gained access to his child as well as invoking his rights on behlaf of the kid.

There is no law that prevents an officer from deceiving people during investigations or interrogations (some obvious exceptions exist from SCOTUS rulings).

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
An example of how cops try to manipulate a confession,
with this Personal story:

I was 17. A guy I knew (who was a couple years older than me) called me up, and sounded very suicidal. He said his uncle had let him borrow a car. I told him to come pick me up. He drove to his grandparents house, a couple miles outside of town, near the river.....

snip so there is not a massive wall of text.

I am assuming your encounter occured in the United States for my response. A few things... The oficer yelling at you is not illegal at all. Based on your description though his actions it could be called into question if it was found it influenced a persons response.

Secondly, your description leaves me with the impression that the officer "questioned" you for about 30 minutes give or take.

Question for you -
Were you placed in handcuffs?
Were you told you were being detained?
Where you told you could not leave?
Did the officer ask you guilt seeking questions or did he just pretty much yell at you the entire time?


Also, with due respect, please dont stereotype all law enforcement. I am saying this based off your response to your experience you gave us. If you did not intend to stereotyp[e then my bad..

Food for thought -
The age of who is a minor and who is not is established by the state you reside in, and can range from 14 years old up to 18 years old.

A minor who commits a capital offense can be certified and tried as an adult, even at the age of 14 in that state.

The supreme Court upheld a legal challenge for a minor who was on death row. During that case, SCOTUS reviewed and cited the UN guidelines dealing with minors and the death penalty. Mental status is also another factor that comes into play.

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt the interrogation of these people occur days after the finding of the bodies?

Im still trying to wrap my brain around the alford plea, release from jail, and how that works. Ive seen comments that the state is doing it in this manner to prevent any type of lawsuit. The alford plea invokes the legal argument that while they maintain their Innocence, they concede that the prosecutor has enough evidence that thwy would most likely be found guilty.

I still think there are some details that are missing from this mess.

It makes me sick that they has to take the "Alford Plea" in order to escape imprisonment and execution. To take the plea in order to get your friend off Death Row is an act that I truly admire. Does this plea mean that the investigation will not be re-opened? I sure hope it does because I think Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby have some questions to answer.

reply to post by Beelzebubba


The more info I see on this mess, the more I see a massive issue with the Police investigation as well as the manner the case was prosecuted. The step father who made the comment about the condition of the bodies never should of had that information unless he was present, since its information the Police never released.

Its explained away by saying an officer did give him the info about the bodies.
An active murder investigation.... Still in its infancy where they have absolutely no idea about what occured, other than 3 dead kids, no suspects, no in depth interviews done on family.

..... and law enforcement gives a family member critical information about the crime scene...

I am absolutely amazed / stupdified as to how this case progressed. I am even more amazed that it has not made case law from appeals or SCOTUS reviews.

This mess is like an onion... each time a layer is peeled back we find yet another astonishing layer to add to the big picture.