West Memphis Three leave jail with all belongings...

[Jon]

WM3 leave prison with all belongings; source says they are not expected back - Free the West Memphis Three Official Blog

It's about damn time these men got a fair trial.

 

[Luissa]

Yes it is...

And it is good to see you around Jon.

 

[Luissa]

They are free men.

 

[Lovebears65]

They are free but still were found guilty. This was so wrong they should have thrown out this case these boys did not kill those other boys

 

[Luissa]

Hopefully, they will clear them one day. I guess they can still fight to prove they are innocent. I believe one day they will be completely cleared.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why the US system is up the wazoo....

The prosecutors are scum and deserve every piece of shit that comes their way....

 

[High_Gravity]

Hopefully, they will clear them one day. I guess they can still fight to prove they are innocent. I believe one day they will be completely cleared.

So they are innocent?

 

[High_Gravity]

I was just going to post this you beat me to it.

'West Memphis Three' -- Convicted Of Killing Boy Scouts -- Free After Serving 17 Years In Prison

After serving 17 years behind bars for the brutal murder of three children in eastern Arkansas, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin -- dubbed the "West Memphis Three" -- have been released from prison.

"They will be free men ... on suspended sentence,” prosecuting Attorney Scott Ellington told reporters during a Friday press conference.

"Only time will tell as to whether this was the right decision."

All three men had been imprisoned since 1994, when they were convicted of killing three 8-year-old boys: Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers.

Prosecutors alleged the trio killed the children in Robin Hood Hills on the morning of May 6, 1993, as part of a satanic ritual. According to police, the boys' bodies were mutilated and left in a ditch. Each had been hogtied with his own shoelaces.

At the time of their arrests, Baldwin was 16. Misskelley was 17, and Echols was 18.

Echols was sentenced to death, Misskelley was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 40 years, and Baldwin was sentenced to life.

DNA testing was not available at the time of the defendants' trials. In 2007, it was found that DNA collected at the crime scene did not match that belonging to any of the three men. In November 2010, the state Supreme Court ruled that all three could present new evidence in court.

A new court date had been set for December, but on Thursday Judge David Laser ordered all three men transported to Jonesboro for today's surprise hearing. In a brief statement released to the press, Laser only said that the hearing was to "take up certain matters pertaining to the cases" of the three defendants.

Experts believe both sides have entered into a complex legal agreement, in which the three men have entered into so-called Alford pleas.

"The plea means that you maintain your innocence but you believe there is a substantial likelihood that a jury will find you guilty so you are pleading guilty per State v. Alford," Anne Bremner, a Seattle attorney and legal analyst, told The Huffington Post. "The effect of the corresponding finding of guilt by the court is the same as with a straight guilty plea."

Such pleas could make it more difficult for the men to sue the state over their imprisonment.

"It's not perfect," Echols said in a press conference following the hearing. "It's not perfect by any means but at least it brings closure to some areas and some aspects."

Echols added that he was "still very much in shock [and] still overwhelmed."

"We can still bring up new evidence; we can still continue the investigations we [have] been doing," said Echols. "We can still try to clear our names. The only difference is now we can do it from the outside instead of having to sit in prison and do it."

'West Memphis Three' -- Convicted Of Killing Boy Scouts -- Free After Serving 17 Years In Prison

 

[High_Gravity]

West Memphis Three Movie In Development: Atom Egoyan To Direct Feature Film

The documentary "Paradise Lost 3" will not be the only on-screen word about the case of the West Memphis Three.

The case, which in 1994 saw three teenagers convicted in eastern Arkansas of murdering three young boys, was the focus of criticism from advocates, filmmakers and celebrities. A 2007 DNA test failed to match the three men to the crime, and on Friday, a judge released Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin after 18 years of imprisonment, with a legal battle over their guilt still pending.

In a bit of serendipitous timing, given the dramatic court decision, a new feature film based on the case of the case is in pre-production, ready for a spring 2012 shoot. Deadline reports that the film has been in the works since 2006, and is now undergoing rewrites -- especially, it would figure, to the last act.

Based on the 2003 book, "Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three," by Mara Leveritt, it will be a small budget flick directed by Atom Egoyan.

The documentary, "Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory," by docu-filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, is the third in an Emmy Award-winning series of films that became advocacy works on behalf of the three men. Already cut, it will debut as-is at the Toronto International Film Festival before getting re-edited for the new twist in the case. According to The Hollywood Reporter, it will receive a short theatrical run, to qualify it for the Academy Awards, before airing on HBO.

West Memphis Three Movie In Development: Atom Egoyan To Direct Feature Film

 

[Luissa]

Hopefully, they will clear them one day. I guess they can still fight to prove they are innocent. I believe one day they will be completely cleared.

So they are innocent?

I think they are..
They had to plead guilty to get out, and one didn't want to, one wanted to keep fighting for their innocence but they decided to take it because the one was sitting on death row.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hopefully, they will clear them one day. I guess they can still fight to prove they are innocent. I believe one day they will be completely cleared.

So they are innocent?

I think they are..
They had to plead guilty to get out, and one didn't want to, one wanted to keep fighting for their innocence but they decided to take it because the one was sitting on death row.

Hmmm I need to read more into this, do you know why the authorities thought these 3 people killed those boys? and the scary thing is, if they didn't, who did?

 

[George Costanza]

So they are innocent?

I think they are..
They had to plead guilty to get out, and one didn't want to, one wanted to keep fighting for their innocence but they decided to take it because the one was sitting on death row.

Hmmm I need to read more into this, do you know why the authorities thought these 3 people killed those boys? and the scary thing is, if they didn't, who did?

Something can happen during the initial phases of the investigation that can cause the police to form the opinion that the suspect is guilty. Quite often, this will be catching the suspect in a lie or a contradiction that, in and of itself, means nothing - but police do not like to be lied to and, once they are, they often get a hardon for the suspect.

Or something else may appear that causes the police to feel that this one particular suspect is the suspect - something that, all by itself, means very little or nothing.

Once something like that happens and police begin to "focus" on a particular suspect, it isn't very long at all before they drop investigation of all other suspects and set about making sure that their suspicion of guilt as to that particular suspect, is confirmed.

I once had a murder case where precisely that happened. A guy had been thrown over a cliff because of a drug deal gone bad. My client drove everyone up to the mountains that night, thinking they were going there to party. He had no idea what the other two guys in the car intended to do, who the third guy (the victim) was, or what role the girl played in the whole thing. He watched as the murder unfolded before his very eyes, helpless to prevent it. Although threatened with death himself, he called police the next morning and directed them to the body when asked to do so.

But my client told the police that he had been parked up at the location with a woman and, suddenly and without warning, these three guys wandered into view and two guys ended up throwing the third one over the cliff. The police had physical evidence that put my client on the ground (out of the car) right next to where the two guys tossed the victim over, so they figured my client was lying (which he was - because he didn't want to endanger himself at the hands of the actual murderers, by giving the cops anything that would help ID them).

When he finally told police the true story, it was too late. My client went to trial all alone for the murder. And guess whose testimony put him away? You guessed it - that of the two murderers themselves.

So that's how that kind of stuff can happen . . .

 

[High_Gravity]

I think they are..
They had to plead guilty to get out, and one didn't want to, one wanted to keep fighting for their innocence but they decided to take it because the one was sitting on death row.

Hmmm I need to read more into this, do you know why the authorities thought these 3 people killed those boys? and the scary thing is, if they didn't, who did?

Something can happen during the initial phases of the investigation that can cause the police to form the opinion that the suspect is guilty. Quite often, this will be catching the suspect in a lie or a contradiction that, in and of itself, means nothing - but police do not like to be lied to and, once they are, they often get a hardon for the suspect.

Or something else may appear that causes the police to feel that this one particular suspect is the suspect - something that, all by itself, means very little or nothing.

Once something like that happens and police begin to "focus" on a particular suspect, it isn't very long at all before they drop investigation of all other suspects and set about making sure that their suspicion of guilt as to that particular suspect, is confirmed.

I once had a murder case where precisely that happened. A guy had been thrown over a cliff because of a drug deal gone bad. My client drove everyone up to the mountains that night, thinking they were going there to party. He had no idea what the other two guys in the car intended to do, who the third guy (the victim) was, or what role the girl played in the whole thing. He watched as the murder unfolded before his very eyes, helpless to prevent it. Although threatened with death himself, he called police the next morning and directed them to the body when asked to do so.

But my client told the police that he had been parked up at the location with a woman and, suddenly and without warning, these three guys wandered into view and two guys ended up throwing the third one over the cliff. The police had physical evidence that put my client on the ground (oudt of the car) right next to where the two guys tossed the victim over, so they figured my client was lying (which he was - because he didn't want to endanger himself at the hands of the actual murderers, by giving the cops anything that would help ID them).

When he finally told police the true story, it was too late. My client went to trial all alone for the murder. And guess whose testimony put him away? You guessed it - that of the two murderers themselves.

So that's how that kind of stuff can happen . . .

Jesus Christ thats terrible, makes you wonder how many actual innocent folks there are behind bars.

 

[George Costanza]

Hmmm I need to read more into this, do you know why the authorities thought these 3 people killed those boys? and the scary thing is, if they didn't, who did?

Something can happen during the initial phases of the investigation that can cause the police to form the opinion that the suspect is guilty. Quite often, this will be catching the suspect in a lie or a contradiction that, in and of itself, means nothing - but police do not like to be lied to and, once they are, they often get a hardon for the suspect.

Or something else may appear that causes the police to feel that this one particular suspect is the suspect - something that, all by itself, means very little or nothing.

Once something like that happens and police begin to "focus" on a particular suspect, it isn't very long at all before they drop investigation of all other suspects and set about making sure that their suspicion of guilt as to that particular suspect, is confirmed.

I once had a murder case where precisely that happened. A guy had been thrown over a cliff because of a drug deal gone bad. My client drove everyone up to the mountains that night, thinking they were going there to party. He had no idea what the other two guys in the car intended to do, who the third guy (the victim) was, or what role the girl played in the whole thing. He watched as the murder unfolded before his very eyes, helpless to prevent it. Although threatened with death himself, he called police the next morning and directed them to the body when asked to do so.

But my client told the police that he had been parked up at the location with a woman and, suddenly and without warning, these three guys wandered into view and two guys ended up throwing the third one over the cliff. The police had physical evidence that put my client on the ground (oudt of the car) right next to where the two guys tossed the victim over, so they figured my client was lying (which he was - because he didn't want to endanger himself at the hands of the actual murderers, by giving the cops anything that would help ID them).

When he finally told police the true story, it was too late. My client went to trial all alone for the murder. And guess whose testimony put him away? You guessed it - that of the two murderers themselves.

So that's how that kind of stuff can happen . . .

Jesus Christ thats terrible, makes you wonder how many actual innocent folks there are behind bars.

Well, in fairness, I think my client may have been a tad more involved in the whole thing than he let on - but I do not think he participated to an extent that would have gotten him the 15 to life that he is now serving.

A footnote - two years after his conviction, I learned that there had been jury misconduct at his trial. On the basis of that, I was able to get him a new trial. He had been convicted of murder one the first time around (25 to life). At the second trial, he was convicted of murder two (15 to life). I am hopeful that, someday, he will see the light of day again. He was not all that old when he first began serving his time (in 2000).

 

[High_Gravity]

Something can happen during the initial phases of the investigation that can cause the police to form the opinion that the suspect is guilty. Quite often, this will be catching the suspect in a lie or a contradiction that, in and of itself, means nothing - but police do not like to be lied to and, once they are, they often get a hardon for the suspect.

Or something else may appear that causes the police to feel that this one particular suspect is the suspect - something that, all by itself, means very little or nothing.

Once something like that happens and police begin to "focus" on a particular suspect, it isn't very long at all before they drop investigation of all other suspects and set about making sure that their suspicion of guilt as to that particular suspect, is confirmed.

I once had a murder case where precisely that happened. A guy had been thrown over a cliff because of a drug deal gone bad. My client drove everyone up to the mountains that night, thinking they were going there to party. He had no idea what the other two guys in the car intended to do, who the third guy (the victim) was, or what role the girl played in the whole thing. He watched as the murder unfolded before his very eyes, helpless to prevent it. Although threatened with death himself, he called police the next morning and directed them to the body when asked to do so.

But my client told the police that he had been parked up at the location with a woman and, suddenly and without warning, these three guys wandered into view and two guys ended up throwing the third one over the cliff. The police had physical evidence that put my client on the ground (oudt of the car) right next to where the two guys tossed the victim over, so they figured my client was lying (which he was - because he didn't want to endanger himself at the hands of the actual murderers, by giving the cops anything that would help ID them).

When he finally told police the true story, it was too late. My client went to trial all alone for the murder. And guess whose testimony put him away? You guessed it - that of the two murderers themselves.

So that's how that kind of stuff can happen . . .

Jesus Christ thats terrible, makes you wonder how many actual innocent folks there are behind bars.

Well, in fairness, I think my client may have been a tad more involved in the whole thing than he let on - but I do not think he participated to an extent that would have gotten him the 15 to life that he is now serving.

A footnote - two years after his conviction, I learned that there had been jury misconduct at his trial. On the basis of that, I was able to get him a new trial. He had been convicted of murder one the first time around (25 to life). At the second trial, he was convicted of murder two (15 to life). I am hopeful that, someday, he will see the light of day again. He was not all that old when he first began serving his time (in 2000).

I don't know George I am sure you are doing what you can but when I start hearing things like 15 to life and 25 to life it depresses the hell out of me, I can only imagine how your client feels.