Eighteen years later: “West Memphis 3″ finally free
“I’m just tired,” Jesse Misskelley Jr. said at a news conference after the hearing at which a a judge accepted a plea deal to set them free. “This has been going on for 18 years. “It’s been an absolute living hell.”
One of their lawyers said the men’s release is “evidence of the state’s recognition that they are innocent” and that “no jury would convict them at a new trial.”
The judge sentenced them to the 18 years they’ve already served so they can go home today. They will be on suspended sentences for 10 years — not probation — which could be revoked if they get into trouble.
The three men — Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Misskelley — were allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them, according to the Associated Press.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The guy’s a douchebag with a black, sardonic sense of humor.
Doesn’t make him a satanic child molester/murderer.
Kensington on August 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Try this from the tests in 2007.
From everything I’ve and seen by the new defense team posted at YouTube that DNA was supposedly identified.
Please note the “negroid hair” that was also found at the scene.
At or around the same time of the murders, a black man entered a diner within walking distance of the woods where the boys were found, full of blood and incoherent. He made a mess in the bathroom with all the blood. The police were called, but no other follow-up was ever done, nor blood samples taken from the bathroom in the diner.
That’s sloppy police work.
Knucklehead on August 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM
I wasn’t commenting on behalf of the defendants. I was just addressing the ‘if … why’ question with what I thought might be a hypothetically plausible reason.
DarkCurrent on August 19, 2011 at 6:15 PM
I was on a jury earlier this year for a rape case. The evidence was a little weak, but I felt confident that the defendent committed the crime he was accused of. FWIW, it was NOT “rape-rape” – it was kind of borderline.
But when it came to deciding whether I had a “reasonable doubt”, it was a very tough decision. There were a few factors in the case that made me re-think it, and decide that I had to vote “not guilty”. I was one of the last hold-outs – ten of the others had already decided “not guilty”. When I and the 12th juror flipped, we returned a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
I still think he did it. Whether it was “rape” or not is not the issue – that’s a legal definition matter, not for the jury to decide.
The thing that makes me OK with myself after this is that I believe it is better to let a guilty person go free than to put an innocent person in jail. And that idea has got to TRUMP all appeals to emotion and the feeling that someone has to be punished. When it comes right down to it, sometimes the right result is that no one gets punished.
connertown on August 19, 2011 at 6:16 PM
Even using the tiny url, HA still won’t let me post the link.
Taken from the DNA report of 2007
If you google that statement it should take you to the 2007 report, which according to the new defense team at a press conference posted at Youtube saying the DNA has been identified.
Knucklehead on August 19, 2011 at 6:17 PM
I don’t know the law in Arkansas. But I’m sure the media is throwing cash at them for an interview. Can they profit from their crimes? Their convictions have not been reversed.
Where’s Allahpundit, Esq. when we need him?
Blake on August 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Damien Echol’s has been interviewed from prison a couple of times, in fact all three of them have.
Link.
Knucklehead on August 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM
Thank you. I did not find the actual report but a “summary” of the report which appears to have been prepared by the defense. It does include the quote you reference. However, I don’t think it means what you think it means, in that it concludes that it was a “mixed result” which could be due to contamination or from a perpetrator. There is also the issue as whether this was ever subject to cross-examination.
Blake on August 19, 2011 at 6:35 PM
Also, there is no indication it ever matched a known party.
Blake on August 19, 2011 at 6:36 PM
And? Was he paid for the interviews? A quick google does show that Arkansas does have a son of sam law on the books. However, I don’t know how current it is. If it hasn’t changed since 2000 they can’t get paid for interviews.
Blake on August 19, 2011 at 6:42 PM
It couldn’t have been subject to cross examination as that report was done in 2007, right? The entire crime scene was contaminated, the victims were stripped naked and the clothes dragged out of the creak after they found the bodies, the cops never even bothered to determine who’s clothes were who’s.
Also in that report is the “negroid hair”. There was an incident at a diner within walking distance of the crime scene at about the same time the murders were committed. A “black man” entered the diner, bloodied, used the bathroom, left a bloody mess, cops called, but no one ever followed up or investigated.
I’ve read the “The Devils Knot” twice, it’s excellent and will make your blood boil when you hear of all the crap the cops didn’t do. The 2 HBO documentaries are well worth the watch with a 3rd one opening next month in Canada.
Knucklehead on August 19, 2011 at 6:44 PM
Yeah, I’m always being redirected into spam link hell, too. I hate it.
Blake on August 19, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Boy HA is eating up my posts today. Can you get paid for doing interviews in prison????? I have no idea. I do know that Damien has written a book that has some good reviews over at Amazon. He also married some activist while he was in prison.
I’ve read the “Devils Knot” twice. It’s excellent and will have you wondering how this could happen in the U.S. I posted the link on page 1.
Knucklehead on August 19, 2011 at 6:51 PM
Not to my knowledge. And since they still have convictions, they can’t get paid for any interviews now under the son of sam laws. As to the book, I don’t know how he got around it. Maybe, the son of sam law for Arkansas got reversed? Anyway, that is why I did a shout out to Allahpundit, Esq. I’m too lazy to research it myself.
Eh. I’m a court opinion and briefs kind of guy. I looked at a lot of this stuff but it was a few years ago. I’m sure the 2007 dna results came up inn one of them and when I have time I will go reread it and see if and how it is addressed by the courts/prosecutor. It’s too hot to think.
Anyway, I read that he is married to an architect from NYC. How long do you think the marriage will last now that they are out???? LOL
Blake on August 19, 2011 at 7:06 PM
I don’t like the plea deal. They plead guilty but “don’t” and then get set free. IF the DNA doesn’t match any of the 3, why didn’t they wait 4 more months for the already scheduled December evidentuary hearing that could have released them without their admitting guilt? By going this route, it clouds their statements of innocence…
Gohawgs on August 19, 2011 at 7:11 PM
I have no idea how long that marriage will last, but she’s the one who got the ball rolling and all the big guns (Robert Shapiro, Barry Schrek etc) to sign on.
I’m sitting here reading a report about 3 new witnesses coming forward in 2009 claiming that Terry Hobb’s was with all 3 boys right before the murder, his wife being one of them. And I’m still seeing mentioned that the sperm DNA was that of Terry Hobb’s but can’t find a direct link.
You do know Huckabee wouldn’t even give these guys a new trial and believed all the “satonic” crap because Echol’s liked to read Steven King novels.
Knucklehead on August 19, 2011 at 7:24 PM
I agree. I think they just wanted out and didn’t trust the Arkansas judicial system to do the right thing. Can you blame them? And I read in one of the articles that the prosecutor said “this case is closed”, so you know darn well they’ll do nothing with the new evidence. This was all about saving their behinds.
I don’t think this is over by a long shot.
Knucklehead on August 19, 2011 at 7:29 PM
I saw that and was ticked off. IF there is evidence suggesting someone else did the crime then the prosecutor better damn well persue that. Because it’s the correct thing to do AND to exonerate, once and for all, the WM3…
As for the “system”, it’s working. SLOWLY but it’s working. Otherwise the State Supreme Ct. wouldn’t have ordered that the evidentuary hearing take place.
Gohawgs on August 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM
Me either…Remember a few wks back when I said that the State better save some our “surplus” money to pay these guys if they got out…I gotta go pick some lottery #’s…
Gohawgs on August 19, 2011 at 7:46 PM
In order for there to be a new trial, a conviction must be reversed. Governors do not have the power to reverse convictions.
Blake on August 20, 2011 at 10:37 AM
THIS!!
AH_C on August 22, 2011 at 8:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2