Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[John Jones]

Here is a link to the site that contains all known official documents that are available outside of the evidence room that I know of:

http://callahan.8k.com/

The WM3 were not railroaded, they were not convicted because of the color of clothing or the music they preferred.

The three convicted are guilty. The hearing in my opinion will go no where because the defense has never produced any evidence that shows their innocence by any stretch of the imagination. They only have outright lies and far fetched theories that have never been backed up with anything resembling evidence.

This hearing will go nowhere and is a waste of time and money.

ETA: fixed a typo

Any opinion on the recent allegations of jury misconduct (deliberation of Miskelly's confession that was ruled inadmissable) in the Echols/Baldwin trial?

I agree that the DNA evidence pointing to one of the step-fathers is not conclusive proof of his guilt. It's just that there is a total lack of physical evidence tying the WM3 to the murders.

 

[Rolfe]

That was what struck me. It's not "guilty unless proven innocent". It's the other way round. Which is why I queried that last post. If the prosecution can't prove their case, then the defence don't need to prove a thing.

So where's this compelling prosecution case? Same place as the one against Sion Jenkins, maybe?

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

I thought it was up to the prosecution to produce evidence of guilt.

Rolfe.

They already have. Remember, "We the people find the defendant" part of the equation.

The guilt/innocence phase was over the moment the jury's verdict was read. It is then the responsibility of the defense to show actual innocence. 100%, without a doubt, innocence. There is no burden of proof on the prosecution at this point.

At the coming hearing, the defense will throw everything they have, which is nothing (I have been asking the supporter movement for one piece of evidence that shows the innocence of any of the three convicted and have never been shown anything but smoke, mirrors and outright lies for over ten years) at the wall and see if anything sticks.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I have been asking the supporter movement for one piece of evidence that shows the innocence of any of the three convicted and have never been shown anything but smoke, mirrors and outright lies for over ten years

Interesting. What sort of evidence are you looking for?
In fact, let me ask you this, what solid piece of evidence shows your innocence of the murders?
The problem here is that the whole investigation and trial were so poorly done that I wouldn't convict anyone of these murders; there's not a shred of evidence anywhere, period.
Which means they should walk.

 

[John Jones]

That was what struck me. It's not "guilty unless proven innocent". It's the other way round. Which is why I queried that last post. If the prosecution can't prove their case, then the defence don't need to prove a thing.

So where's this compelling prosecution case? Same place as the one against Sion Jenkins, maybe?

Rolfe.

Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. The prosecution's circumstantial evidence wasn't even very good.

How can it be just when the appeals judge is the same person as the trial judge?

 

[jharyn]

Any opinion on the recent allegations of jury misconduct (deliberation of Miskelly's confession that was ruled inadmissable) in the Echols/Baldwin trial?

I agree that the DNA evidence pointing to one of the step-fathers is not conclusive proof of his guilt. It's just that there is a total lack of physical evidence tying the WM3 to the murders.

There is physical evidence. Have you read any of the official documents for this case? I'm just curious to know.

You are aware that this is not an episode of CSI right? The overwhelming majority of cases in the USA are with circumstantial evidence. There is rarely a "silver bullet" piece of evidence.

 

[John Jones]

They already have. Remember, "We the people find the defendant" part of the equation.

The guilt/innocence phase was over the moment the jury's verdict was read. It is then the responsibility of the defense to show actual innocence. 100%, without a doubt, innocence. There is no burden of proof on the prosecution at this point.

At the coming hearing, the defense will throw everything they have, which is nothing (I have been asking the supporter movement for one piece of evidence that shows the innocence of any of the three convicted and have never been shown anything but smoke, mirrors and outright lies for over ten years) at the wall and see if anything sticks.

But the WM3's attorneys are claiming that the 1st trials were flawed in the first place - which opinion I have agreed with from the beginning without having an opinion on their actual guilt.

 

[jharyn]

Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. The prosecution's circumstantial evidence wasn't even very good.

How can it be just when the appeals judge is the same person as the trial judge?

It was good enough to have twelve ordinary citizens find them guilty when they looked at the entire picture. Remember, unlike the supporter movement, the jury HAD to consider ALL evidence.

The jury misconduct was dealt with on appeal years ago.

The trial was by jury, not by a judge. No conflict of interest.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It was good enough to have twelve ordinary citizens find them guilty when they looked at the entire picture.

And by "entire picture" you mean "a lot of propoganda that should have never made it into the courtroom, and evidence that was specifically excluded from the courtroom".
That a room of twelve ignorant hicks could find a boy who listens to Metallica guilty of killing kids in a Satanic ritual that never happened, is neither surprising nor a testament to the virtues of the corrupt police and crooked judge that let it happen.

 

[John Jones]

There is physical evidence. Have you read any of the official documents for this case? I'm just curious to know.

You are aware that this is not an episode of CSI right? The overwhelming majority of cases in the USA are with circumstantial evidence. There is rarely a "silver bullet" piece of evidence.

Yes, and yes. The circumstantial evidence doesn't stand-up well to scrutiny.

The question stands: Do you have an opinion about the allegations of jury misconduct regarding deliberations over a confession that was ruled inadmissable?

It is not me nor is it any of the WM3's attorneys making that allegation. It is in an affadavit from the family attorney of the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial.

 

[jharyn]

But the WM3's attorneys are claiming that the 1st trials were flawed in the first place - which opinion I have agreed with from the beginning without having an opinion on their actual guilt.

By the posts you have made, I believe that you in fact have an opinion on their guilt. But whatever.

The child killer's attorneys have said a lot of things over the years. They haven't provided any evidence. Do you expect them to say their clients are guilty?

You say that you believe the trials were flawed. Give me examples and show me the testimony in the court transcripts that you are referring to so that we can discuss if you like.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I thought it was up to the prosecution to produce evidence of guilt.

Rolfe.

They did that. Which is why the WM3 are in prison.

 

[jharyn]

Yes, and yes. The circumstantial evidence doesn't stand-up well to scrutiny.

The question stands: Do you have an opinion about the allegations of jury misconduct regarding deliberations over a confession that was ruled inadmissable?

It is not me nor is it any of the WM3's attorneys making that allegation. It is in an affadavit from the family attorney of the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial.

The circumstantial evidence stood up high enough for twelve people to find all three guilty. The circumstantial evidence has held on numerous appeals. What evidence are you referring to specifically?

I believe that it is a lie for publicity. The jury misconduct issue was already addressed on appeal. My opinion is that there was no misconduct. The confession was NOT used by the jury in determining the convicted's guilt.

 

[John Jones]

It was good enough to have twelve ordinary citizens find them guilty when they looked at the entire picture. Remember, unlike the supporter movement, the jury HAD to consider ALL evidence.

The jury misconduct was dealt with on appeal years ago.

The trial was by jury, not by a judge. No conflict of interest.

Actually, the allegation of jury misconduct by the jury foreman was not dealt with.

The jury not only didn't have to consider the coerced confession, they were legally proscribed from doing so, and deliberated over it anyway.

I have considered all the evidence I have seen, and there's not much I haven't seen. The coerced confession was leaked to the Memphis Commercial Appeal, and the radio chatter about genital mutilations between the various law enforcement agencies was too.

This was supposed to be information that only the perp would know, but it was common knowledge around the TN-AR-MS area.

 

[lionking]

By the posts you have made, I believe that you in fact have an opinion on their guilt.

Well you clearly have. Will you change your mind if the WM3 appeal is successful?

 

[jharyn]

And by "entire picture" you mean "a lot of propoganda that should have never made it into the courtroom, and evidence that was specifically excluded from the courtroom".
That a room of twelve ignorant hicks could find a boy who listens to Metallica guilty of killing kids in a Satanic ritual that never happened, is neither surprising nor a testament to the virtues of the corrupt police and crooked judge that let it happen.

Bigotry? That's all you got? Not this tired crap again. Have you read Damien's 500? His mental health history. Not even the procecution thought this was a satanic ritual killing. There's no such thing.

Fogleman's closing statement to the jury:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closefogleman.html



What evidence was excluded specifically?

 

[John Jones]

The circumstantial evidence stood up high enough for twelve people to find all three guilty. The circumstantial evidence has held on numerous appeals. What evidence are you referring to specifically?

I believe that it is a lie for publicity. The jury misconduct issue was already addressed on appeal. My opinion is that there was no misconduct. The confession was NOT used by the jury in determining the convicted's guilt.

The appellate judge was the same person as the original trial judge. That alone gives it the appearance of misconduct.

According to an officer of the court - the attorney for the jury forman's family - there WAS jury misconduct. The jury forman directed the jury to consider Miskelly's coerced confession (which was published in the Memphis Commercial Appeal) despite instructions from the judge not to do so, and talked repeatedly to his attorney about having done so. Jurors' notes from the trial appear to support this allegation.

 

[John Jones]

Bigotry? That's all you got? Not this tired crap again. Have you read Damien's 500? His mental health history. Not even the procecution thought this was a satanic ritual killing. There's no such thing.

Fogleman's closing statement to the jury:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closefogleman.html



What evidence was excluded specifically?

Specifically, evidence of the WM3's guilt.

That's all that counts.

 

[jharyn]

Well you clearly have. Will you change your mind if the WM3 appeal is successful?

No. and here's why:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

The above confession is right after he was CONVICTED. You can see for yourself, how many times his own lawyer advises him to NOT DO THIS.

There are quite a few confessions from him. None were coerced as the supporter movement would like you to believe. Remember that the person who started that crap has been barred from testifying in any courtroom in the United States.

Even without that confession, I have read the court transcripts and found that he prosecution did an excellent job on a very difficult and highly emotional case. The only thing that I have a problem with is that I believe Jason Baldwin should have gotten a death sentence as well.

 

[Rolfe]

The guilt/innocence phase was over the moment the jury's verdict was read. It is then the responsibility of the defense to show actual innocence. 100%, without a doubt, innocence. There is no burden of proof on the prosecution at this point.

Well now, I'm not Merikan, so I'll defer to your knowledge of the US justice system. However if this is true, then it is extraordinarily unjust. I'm no fan of the record of British justice, but this is certainly not the law on this side of the pond.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. An absolutely valid ground of appeal is that the prosecution did not in fact prove its case, and that the jury's verdict was unsound. Take Sion Jenkins again as an example. A trial, two appeals and two re-trials. It was never proved 100% that he was innocent, it just took that long to get the system to acknowledge that the evidence against him had never been sufficient to support the conviction in the first place.

There are all sorts of reasons for a mistaken or unsound verdict in an original trial. This should not, and does not in any legislation I'm aware of, turn the burden of proof instantly on the defence. And I'll be blunt and say I don't believe you, and I don't believe that is the legal position in the USA either. Maybe TrainWreck or Loss Leader or another legal eagle will come to this thread and enlighten us for sure.

I mention this in particular because in another active thread another poster is making the bold claim that the degree of protection of the accused from a wrongful conviction is stronger in the USA than anywhere else. Whether or not this is factually true, it's inconceivable that anyone could make such a claim for a legislature where a conviction automatically turns the burden of proof on the defence.

So no, I flat-out don't believe you. And I spent some time yesterday listening to a senior lawyer arguing a legal case that a conviction was unsound (in Scots Law), not because he had found some magic incontrovertible proof of innocence, but because the evidence presented had been erroneously interpreted by the original trial court.

I do not believe you that it is different in the USA.

Rolfe.