Attorney General's brief on appeal

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[78334]

78334 Posts in 6920 Topics by 699 Members
Latest Member: ric2pd

[Rudder]

http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/download/AGbriefonappeal.pdf?28e5bbf660cb545fc854f5c048c7be7c=f235ca83f16a7142862d633309e63193

Says basically what all of us know, the DNA does not and cannot prove actual innocence, and that Echols is trying to "retry" his case through his DNA appeal, which he's been warned not to do.

A question I have pertains to this quote here:

"After all, the State secured his conviction on, inter alia, proof of his admission, and now in these proceedings also can use against him proof of the admissions of his codefendants."

So now Misskelley's confessions and Carson's testimony can be considered when weighing Echols' guilt? From how I'm interpreting this, the AG is saying that the absence of Echols' DNA from the little bit of biological material tested weighed against the fact that all three murderers confessed would not compel a jury to acquit today.

"Undoubtedly the circuit court was correct that a jury would not consider his unremarkable DNAtesting results as compelling evidence for an acquittal in the face of his own admission and those of his codefendants’."

Hypothetically, if there was a retrial, would the Misskelley and Baldwin confessions be available to prosecute Echols?

[DogIsYourName]

Hypothetically, if there was a retrial, would the Misskelley and Baldwin confessions be available to prosecute Echols?

No - unless Jessie or Jason decided to testify against Damien.  And I bet Jessie might.

[Storm]

I can almost bet jessie would testify too. I think now he is kicking himself in the ass for not taking a deal. I think he sees the supporters arent really doing anything to get them out, and it seems they are more fighting for Damien anyway, but I definitly think he would testify if there was another trial.

[flexj]

I agree, I think he will testify, after all IMO, the whole thing seems more of an anti-death penalty movement than they "didn't do it" movement.  I wonder how much attention would have been brought had the Death Penalty was not given, only life sentences.  Guess we will never know

[DogIsYourName]

Deep down, Stidham probably knows that he screwed Jessie royally.  Stidham advised Jessie to fight the charges, against Jessie's better interests, just so Stidham could have a major role in Paradise Lost and make a name for himself.  And that underlying guilt is probably why Stidham will champion this case for the rest of his life.

[BlackAngel]

Dog


I think Jessie will start talking if he knows he can get out of there.

 

[Rudder]

I think we all know that if it came down to a retrial and Misskelley decided to testify, supporters would still believe that he was just lying to save his own ass. After seeing firsthand how gullible supporters are, I'm CONVINCED that Echols himself could confess to everything and it wouldn't mean a damn thing in the eyes of the idiot supporters. They'd find a way to write it off. Their stupidity is fascinating.

[auburnesq]

So now Misskelley's confessions and Carson's testimony can be considered when weighing Echols' guilt?

I believe that he is speaking of the appellate level and not at trial or a possible retrial. What dog posted earlier is correct. I can't even think of a far fetched hypothetical that would allow the confessions of the co-defendants to be admitted into evidence against Echols without them actually testifying.

From how I'm interpreting this, the AG is saying that the absence of Echols' DNA from the little bit of biological material tested weighed against the fact that all three murderers confessed would not compel a jury to acquit today

I thought he was saying that the defense team is pretty much clueless as to what the statute means. It appears that the defense is making a de facto attempt to retry the case, not to prove actual innocence under the llimited scope of the statute. I think this quote sums it up for the state:

He is mistaken. First, as the circuit court correctly observed, his effort to introduce new forensic and other additional evidence to undermine the State’s proof of his guilt at trial reflects his misunderstanding—with which he remains afflicted and maintains at length on appeal—of the scope of the statute under which he is seeking relief.

[Mary7875]

Deep down, Stidham probably knows that he screwed Jessie royally.  Stidham advised Jessie to fight the charges, against Jessie's better interests, just so Stidham could have a major role in Paradise Lost and make a name for himself.  And that underlying guilt is probably why Stidham will champion this case for the rest of his life.

Bingo.

Stidham sold Jessie out to further his own career.