West Memphis 3 freed

I've seen both of those documentaries on this case, and there is some compelling evidence for their innocence.


But this is the "loophole" that caught my eye:

The defendants, known by their supporters as the West Memphis 3, agreed to a legal maneuver that lets them maintain their innocence while acknowledging prosecutors have enough evidence against them.

"I am innocent of these charges but I am entering an Alford guilty plea," Echols told the judge. Baldwin and Miskelley also reasserted their innocence.

I get what loophole does, but I don't understand it at all.

Link

---

A "no contest" plea means that you neither plead guilty nor innocent. This seems to be a different kind of plea all together.

---

The first Paradise Lost documentary was incredible. Paradise Lost 2 seemed more like service paid to debunk some of the possible people of interest in the case. Like one of the victims' fathers came off as a real weirdo in the first documentary and in the PL2 they went out of their way to show he was just simply an odd guy who was not a suspect. In fact, I think that guy had been vocal about the West Memphis Three's innocence. But I also remember PL2 contained some compelling evidence about a father/stepfather of another victim that included shoelaces, hair, etc. near the crime scene.

I doubt there is ever resolve for the case of the kids having their real murderer getting tried and convicted. This plea deal is almost an avoidance of the state getting sued once the West Memphis Three got out.