MovieChat Forums > West of Memphis (2012) Discussion > 'I came out of this the victor by not ge...

'I came out of this the victor by not getting my ass handed to me.'


That quote is from the prosecutor Scott Ellington talking about how a retrial would've gone. He also calls the Alford Plea " A gift to me". I love how all the Nons go on and on about how this film, and others distort the truth. And how all the new evidence /theories about DNA/ Terry Hobbs/Animal Predation/ snapping turtles is all just smoke and mirrors concocted by Johnny Depp , HBO, sock puppets, Hollywood etc,etc.. But yet the man who would know best, who would've done the retrial for the state, knew he would get slaughtered in court. This was, and still is, the most famous murder committed in Arkansas's history, and one of the most well known crimes overall. There is no way in hell they would've released three child killers if they really felt they had done it.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Exactly! Heh, I believe most of the lot wear "WWJDD" (What Would Johnny Depp Do) bracelets (A spin on the popular WWJD - What Would Jesus Do bracelets from the 90's)... You'd swear they just parrot what the celebrity douchers say, or the docudrama produced by Echols himself (I gotta give credit to Berg - she was a clever little *beep* when it came to editing... Indeed - she did a masterful editing job....

I think it's funny how they try to claim "we're not trying to do the same thing to Terry Hobbs as they did to us," and "we're just presenting all the facts, and evidence for people to draw their own conclusions." All the facts left out, or misconstrued is a different thread... But can anybody really say that they didn't come away from watching the WoM docudrama and not get the feeling it wasn't accusing Hobbs?

And yeah, I've heard so much about all this new evidence they discovered from all their research (heh, I guess Peter Jackson can afford to piss away millions of dollars) that will exonerate them... And still crickets...

I wouldn't even be surprised if a lot of the celebs who jumped to their side in the beginning, without knowing all of the actual facts, having only seen the docudramas, have now fully researched the case and believe they're guilty... But after putting their careers on the line to support them, they're going to use all their resources to convince everybody they're innocent. No way they're going to have them believed to be guilty, and ruin their careers by being known child-murderers (thrice) supporters.

reply

^^^ Apologies - above posts were deleted because I meant to edit, but actually kept making a new post with my edits.. This is the final post, completely edited (basically the same as the one Jenkins reponsed to, with the addition of the corrected myth of the softball girls recanting).


The three remain convicted child murderers (thrice)... Inhibiting (thank god) Jason from ever practicing law...

Three convicted child killers... 4-life...

The victims family of course lost the most - knowing the killers of their children served only close to two decades (at least they got the best part of their lives taken from them).

This is one thing most supporters and nons and fencies all agree on - the outcome sucks... I even kind of supported them getting a new trial... Even though I don't believe there was any "new damning evidence" to prove their innocence... Really there was no "new evidence" at all that would contradict evidence the jury heard... Except for the recantation of the one witness, who was useless IMO anyway... Another myth that needs to be cleared up - Michael Carson never recanted... Not even close... He never said anything close to "I lied and made that up," "Jason never told me any of that." He just said he was really *beep* up at the time, and things were kinda hazy, and he was at a really bad place in his life then. Nor did the softball girls recant... Hah, actually Damien admitted he "might have said" something about committing the murders because "it'd be like... you know, a joke"? Yeah, what a knee-slapper - I killed three 8-year old boys.... So Damien perjured himself by admitting that, because on the stand he said that he absolutely never said that.

reply

Unfortunately for you, Scott Ellington, who is in a far better position to make that call than you are, felt otherwise. Would they have released the Manson Family in 1988 (18 years after being convicted) if they somehow managed to get close to a retrial? Would they have released (if he hadn't been executed in 94) John Wayne Gacy in 1996, if he had somehow gotten close to having a retrial? There was no reason at all, I mean NONE for him to accept the Alford plea. The defense wanted to go to trial right away, and Ellington said no. Time was on his side, he could've had the retrial, but realized he would be destroyed, so he grabbed on to the alford plea, which he described as a "lucky break" for him.

reply

How am I being a jerk? Just from what I've observed on this board, and the PL boards, anyone that brings up something from the movie is ridiculed and insulted. Someone brings up animal predation, or Terry Hobbs, its a barrage of insults about Johnny Depp this, and HBO that. I guess the purpose of that is to make people not want to come on here? Scott Ellington is not familiar with the case??? *beep* I can guarantee you he knows the case inside and out better than anyone else. He was already practicing law when the first trial happened, and it remains the most infamous murder in Arkansas history, not for one micro second do I believe that claim from him, For one thing, how can he say they are guilty, and then say he is not familiar with the case? He is obviously trying to save face by saying that. But lets say that it somehow was true, Why didn't he then just familiarize himself with it, and then go to trial, like the defense wanted? Time was on the prosecutions side, not the Defense's side. He had all the time in the world to learn the whole case, so why didn't he? You are telling me that rather than do that, he chose to release 3 child killers from jail? So they could kill again someday? Come on, even you can't believe that. Here is another quote from Scott Ellington, from early this year

"I had five jury trials in a six month period of time," Ellington said. "My willingness to go to trial, even on the hard cases, is what led to me being appointed as a full time deputy prosecuting attorney in September 2007. My approach as prosecutor has been the same: we evaluate our docket on a case by case basis; when a case needs to go to trial, we take it to trial; I would rather try a close case and lose rather than to walk away from it."

For a man with that kind of mindset, to back down on retrying the WM3, tells you that he knew the original convictions were BS, and that he had no chance of winning a retrial.

reply

There is no way in hell they would've released three child killers if they really felt they had done it.
^^^This^^^ No state would take that sort of risk unless they were confident in the evidence they had.

if you're bitter still, ask Him to help you carry on ~ Blue October

reply

Honestly, I think you're placing too much faith in the justice system to assume they'd never release child killers. I know a few lawyers and unfortunately a few judges as well and most of these people are not doing their jobs out of a sense of civic duty and justice. When you're facing immense pressure from people like Johnny Depp, Peter Jackson, famous musicians, and other powerful people with more hands in the government pot than you might imagine, the decision to release them becomes more than a decision based on evidence. You're deluded if you think these millionaire celebrities don't have a hand in what goes down in our government since campaigns are run on money and elections are won by who you know and who's backing you. Some of you seem a little naive about this.

reply

Thats completely ridiculous, so why hasn't Mumia abu Jamal been released?? He has way more celebrities backing him than these guys. How did Mike Tyson get convicted for rape? How did Phil Spector get convicted? Sure if you have money it will help you get a better defense, but its no guarantee that you will win either.And its true that criminals sometimes get out when they shouldn't, but this case is very different, this is the most famous murder in Arkansas, and one of the most well known, and controversial cases in american history, you are seriously naive if you think they would let these guys go because of some famous people. Maybe you think it would be better if no one had an interest in this case, and they had executed an innocent man, and killed two others with a life sentence?? One of these famous people, recently put up almost $200,000 as a reward for information as to who killed those little boys. Maybe that will help find the real killers.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Bump!

reply