Be specific or don't waste my time. What evidence are you aware of that show's that any of the three convicted are innocent? They have had over 17 years to come up with something. So that you know, the hearing that was granted, is the last chance to "put up or shut up". Give me something, anything at all.
Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?
- Thread starter John Jones
- Start date
Be specific or don't waste my time. What evidence are you aware of that show's that any of the three convicted are innocent? They have had over 17 years to come up with something. So that you know, the hearing that was granted, is the last chance to "put up or shut up". Give me something, anything at all.
My innocence of this crime? Use your brain please
If it was so poorly handled, why were they convicted and those convictions help up in so many appeals?
You have nothing at all and you know it. It's ok. You saw a very poorly made documentary. You have never read any of the transcripts from the trial. It's obvious. Please read the documentation and then we can talk.
So you put your opinion above that of a superior court. Good to know who's wearing blinkers here.
Do you have proof they used the confession? You need to start backing up your accusations if you want me to continue this with you and actually take you serious.
Prove to me the confession was coerced. It was not common knowledge, which boy was sexually mutilated or which boy was cut on the face for starters.
The coerced confession is an old argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. So show me, using the confession. (This is old.) I really hope that you can do better than any other supporter has ever done, including defense attorneys and their so called experts, in this argument.
ROTFL
The ASSC have only interpreted a statute differently then the judge did. That is all. What is it you THINK the ASSC has done?
ETA: fixed typo
Last edited:
The degree of protection provided to the accused in the United States is more than anywhere else as far as I am aware. Even with that in mind, the convicted have never done anything to show that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Never. Nothing.
Rolfe
Adult human female
If, after a guilty verdict, the accused then have the burden of proof settle on them to prove a negative (that they didn't do it) to a standard of 100% certainty, then I have to respectfully say you are deluded in that belief.
Rolfe.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Which person is that?
Jesse Misskelly's confession was ruled inadmissable in the Echols/Baldwin trial, and this was pointed-out to you repeatedly.
In case anyone interested doesn't already know: Jesse Misskelly had an IQ of about 75.
He was interrogated for many hours (8-12, depending on your source). Only about 45 minutes of this interrogation were recorded. He had no lawyer nor parent present. He had not acknowledged his understanding of his Miranda rights.
This is the cleaned-up confession of Jesse Misskelly, He got critical details of the murders wrong until he was coached.
The details of his 'confession' changed every time he was asked. Each time he was asked about the time the murders took place, the answers got closer to what the police had since learned.
Misskelly originally admitted to witnessing sodomy, because that's what the WMPD believed had happened. Guess what? There was no sodomy, so Jesse changed his story later in his own trial.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
I am not deluded in this belief. However for clarity:
In the evidentiary hearing that was just granted, the defense has to show that any reasonable jury, with the new evidence (of which there is none), would have resulted in an acquittal. For this hearing, (hearing, not retrial) because of the interpretation of the statute by the ASSC, ALL new evidence can be presented. 100% innocence is not a requirement in THIS circumstance. It will be an interpretation of what a jury MAY decide with the new evidence AND the evidence used in the previous trial.
I am not an attorney and may be off a little on the meaning of the writ, but I do not believe that I am. This hearing can either justify a retrial or do nothing for the convicted and end the state appeals.
Are you familiar with the Schlupp/House gateway that was used for the DNA ruling by Burnett? Are you familiar with the fact that the DNA that was tested by the defense also has alleles that were consistent with the convicted? However, not to the exclusion of others. In other words, the DNA tested so far does not prove or disprove anything.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Is that a declaration of superiority for the USA justice system, or an admission to ignorance of justice systems in other nations?
The WM3 and their advocates have been trying to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice for 15-16 years, but the original trial judge blocked their every attempt for much of that time.
Are you by any chance among the incompetent law enforcement officials in Arkansas responsible for this judical horror?
Gary Gitchell, the former Chief Of Police in West Memphis, Arkansas during the WM3 case has moved across the Mississippi river into Shelby County, Tennessee. He is in charge of security in the Shelby County School system.
I'm trying to get out of Shelby County as fast as I can.
Gary Gitchell, I hope you are listening.
Rolfe
Adult human female
These two statements are 100% mutually exclusive. The second says that the defence have to show that no reasonable jury, properly directed, would have convicted on the evidence. That is completely proper, and in no way amounts to the defence having the burden of proving innocence to 100% certainty. It merely amounts to showing that the prosecution did not prove its case in the first place, irrespective of what the original jury said.
No, I'm not familiar with the details you quote. I'm waiting for you to explain in plain English what the evidence is that convinces you the defendants committed the murders. Or provide a link to such an explanation. I can explain in plain English why I hold the beliefs I do in the cases I am familiar with, so I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect you to do the same.
Hint. Parroting "the jury returned a guilty verdict and that's all the counts" is a fail.
Rolfe.
I just joined the discussion, nothing has been pointed out repeatedly. And I am well aware of that.
Supporters would have us believe Jessie is near retarded however this is not true. Jessie did score low on his IQ test scoring in the 80’s on performance however the IQ test presented in court was false and he was found to be malingering on his IQ test administered by a doctor on probation for breaking medical rules/laws, the Judge ordered that the doctor could only testify on his opinion not on expertise. Jessie is not retarded and not even close to it. Perhaps he was not good at academics but that doesn’t make him a retarded child with no knowledge of right and wrong or easily persuaded into confessing. In fact Jessie had more street smarts then your average American 17 year old teen. Street smarts are far more important then the square root when being questioned by police.
This is completely false. There was no 8-12 hour interrigation. The miranda form was signed by Misskelley's father.
Another false statement. The details he got right, who was cut and where, to name a few, would only be known if he had been there.
He was trying to distance himself from the most heiness parts of the crime. A well known issue with people giving a confession.
Remember? He kept giving a detail and then would say, "and then I left". Then was asked what happened next, he would tell the police what happened next and immediately say, "and then I left". He kept doing this over and over.
The autopsy was inconclusive as to sexual activity because the bodies had been in water for so long. We do not know if sodomy was performed on any of the victims.
Confession in question:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html
Jesse had only been at the WMPD for a few hours when he confessed.
That was so easy it was a joke. Every point you made was proven to be false at least ten years ago.
ETA: for clarity
No, read it again. The only reason that they do not have to show 100% innocence is because this is an evidentiary hearing. They are not granted very often. In this particular case, it was ONLY an alternate interpretation by the ASSC of the statute that caused the hearing to be granted in the first place. If the statute was interpreted in the judges favor, (there are a lot of people who agree with the judges ruling and not the ASSC, which is irrelevant at this point) the defense would've had to show actual innocence through newly discovered evidence, to get a new trial. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
I am only referring to the legal system in the US as favoring the defense more so then other countries. Not putting any others down. Just stating an observation.
And they have not demonstrated a miscarriage of justice in 17 years of trying.
Prove the incompetence, with evidence, not just more of you talking out your ass. I am not law inforcement.
Why would I care? This statement makes no sense in this discussion.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. This has been explained to you at least twice, but you don't seem to recognize it.
The whole point of contention is that the WM3 didn't get a fair trial. I agree with this contention
This is not the last chance to "put up or shut up". This is another step in the legal appeal process.
Rolfe:
The fiber evidence. (what are the chances of that many fibers being attributed to the same people.)
The confessions. Multiple!
Damiens mental history. (This is a big one, the 500 really opened my eyes.)
Damiens demeanor on the stand.
Not one of the three had an alibi
The witnesses who testified as to hearing Damien admit to the crime.
Mostly though:
Misskelley's confession with his attorney repeatedly telling him not to do this and then corroborated by his own attorney AFTER he was just convicted.
Not one of you have given me any evidence of innocence. Just the same old supporter nonsense that has been refuted numerous time, over and over and over. Do you have anything new to add? Anything at all? Or am I just wasting my time with people who obviously are NOT familiar with this case or anything that has happened during the appeals process?
The fiber evidence. (what are the chances of that many fibers being attributed to the same people.)
The confessions. Multiple!
Damiens mental history. (This is a big one, the 500 really opened my eyes.)
Damiens demeanor on the stand.
Not one of the three had an alibi
The witnesses who testified as to hearing Damien admit to the crime.
Mostly though:
Misskelley's confession with his attorney repeatedly telling him not to do this and then corroborated by his own attorney AFTER he was just convicted.
Not one of you have given me any evidence of innocence. Just the same old supporter nonsense that has been refuted numerous time, over and over and over. Do you have anything new to add? Anything at all? Or am I just wasting my time with people who obviously are NOT familiar with this case or anything that has happened during the appeals process?
I do not believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that the court will find anything in favor of these child killers and Damien will be put to death.
If they are, it will be on a technicality that will not show me there innocence or change my mind about them in any way. But, if it was to be on a technicality. it would've been exploited by now and has not.
As I have told you repeatedly and this is the last time.
The prosecution HAS ALREADY PROVEN GUILT. What part of this do you not understand. They are not obligated to reprove anything to every person who disagrees with the verdict. Basically, the prosecution doesn't care what you or I think. They don't have to. They already proved their case.
And I am saying that I believe that they received a fair trial.
This is the last step that the defendant has in the state appeals. This is the last and only chance that the defendant has to show any new evidence that hey have. Hence, put up or shut up.
The federal appeals are not a retrial any more then the hearing that was just granted.