So I just read that the "West Memphis Three" have been released. If you're not familiar with the story, in 1993 three boys were gruesomely murdered and left in a drainage ditch. When no better suspects could be found, suspicions fell on three teenage boys, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley who were subsequently convicted of the murders despite shaky evidence and alleged jury tampering. For more information on the crime and trials see the recent article on their release, the WM3 wikipedia entry or check out the movie Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills.
I first heard of the story through the 1996 movie which does a great job of capturing all sides of the story including the fear, outrage and prejudice felt in the small town and the mounting realization that the suspects were being steamrolled. Paradise Lost was followed by a sequel Paradise Lost 2: Revelations which I have not seen but will soon.
Spurring the release of the WM3 were their mutual guilty pleas to the three murders. It seems odd that a guilty plea to first degree murder would lead to freedom. You might think that this would lead to closure for all of the involved parties as well... except the pleas, of the little known "Alford plea" variety, allow the WM3 to maintain their innocence but admit that their was sufficient evidence to convict. Which is where I get confused; weren't they already convicted of the crimes back in 1993? The only explanation I have is that the prosecutors perhaps saw a chance to stop fighting the appeals, ease their collective mind of a potential miscarriage of justice, log a conviction and save face by not admitting any wrong-doing. The WM3 and the victims' families meanwhile are respectively no closer to exonerating themselves or feeling safer that the true perpetrator(s) has been identified and taken off the streets.
No comments:
Post a Comment