Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[John Jones]

Exactly. They are unaware of what evidence was used at the trial, cannot point to testimony to back up their claims, nor have any idea of what has happened in anything during the appeals process.

All they have is smoke and mirrors. Lies and conspiracy theories. They saw a ridiculous documentary and have never looked at anything else.

Are you ladies enjoying yourselves yet?

 

[jharyn]

Reminds me of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. People get on these "innocence" kicks and won't let them go. We all remember how "innocent" Jack Abbott was.

There was a similar case in St Louis about a year or two ago. The supporters of this poor murderer who was really innocent got a lot of press attention and demands for a retrial or even better, complete exoneration. What about A and B and C they cried! If only they would look at that evidence, it would be obvious he was guilty. The Circuit Attorney (aka Prosecutor) said they would take another look. Months passed. Why hasn't the Circuit Attorney agreed to retry the case? What is she hiding, they cried! Circuit Attorney - No comment. A few more months passed - an innocent man is in jail! What about A and B and C? Circuit Attorney calls a press conference - "What about D and E and F and G and H and I and J and....". Defenders - "Oh". And everyone went home.


Rinse and repeat.

Mumia. I remember that. That clown got all kinds of Hollywood morons on his case. The court changed the sentence from death to life, The SCOTUS sent it back to the state and said "no, you need to look at this again". Where are all the supporters for him now? That guy killed a cop. He deserves the sentence.

Cases like the St. Louis case you are reffering to happen from time to time and I believe they are a waste of time and money. The DA's office has enough to do and do not have to listen to every whiner who sees a conspiracy. It's ridiculous and arrogant to expect them to jump through hoops because someone who is not really familiar with the law or the case, doesn't like the verdict.

 

[John Jones]

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.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and you know that.

 

[John Jones]

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.

That's exactly what one point of the the new evidenciary hearing is all about. The Echols/Baldwin jury considered the Misskelly confession even though they were instructed to ignore it.

I have explained to you at least twice that the family attorney of the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial has given a depostion stating that said jury foreman deliberated Misskelly's inadmissable confession with the rest of the jury when the jury was proscribed from doing so by Judge David Burnette.

That's part of what this latest appeal is all about.

Do you at long last understand now?

 

[brenn]

I've just read my way through the details of that case.



How do criminal justice systems get themselves into screw-ups like that?

Rolfe.

It usually happens when the only people posting extensive "versions" of the details are supporting the defendants. Then the system looks like a terrible mess.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and you know that.

And the prosecution met that burden, didn't they Wendy?

 

[John Jones]

We all remember how "innocent" Jack Abbott was.

Got a mouse in your pocket?

 

[John Jones]

It usually happens when the only people posting extensive "versions" of the details are supporting the defendants. Then the system looks like a terrible mess.

Maybe you have extensive "versions" of the details that don't support the defendants? It's not clear what you are saying.

 

[jharyn]

It usually happens when the only people posting extensive "versions" of the details are supporting the defendants. Then the system looks like a terrible mess.

That is a very true statement and the reason I post at all.

 

[John Jones]

That is a very true statement and the reason I post at all.

Maybe you have extensive "versions" of the details that don't support the defendants? It's not clear what you are saying.

 

[Checkmite]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and you know that.

Considering that these individuals were convicted and put in jail, obviously the prosecution met their burden of proof. Now you're saying the conviction is wrong. That's a new claim; burden of proof is on you.

The trial is over. The prosecution doesn't have to keep showing you proof just because you aren't satisfied. The only people whose opinions counted were the jury.

 

[lionking]

Considering that these individuals were convicted and put in jail, obviously the prosecution met their burden of proof. Now you're saying the conviction is wrong. That's a new claim; burden of proof is on you.

The trial is over. The prosecution doesn't have to keep showing you proof just because you aren't satisfied. The only people whose opinions counted were the jury.

So you oppose appeals?

 

[kookbreaker]

Mumia. I remember that. That clown got all kinds of Hollywood morons on his case. The court changed the sentence from death to life, The SCOTUS sent it back to the state and said "no, you need to look at this again". Where are all the supporters for him now? That guy killed a cop. He deserves the sentence.

Actually, they have not changed his sentence yet. He had one sentencing appeal and it was rejected, another one was made just this week. Sadly, he still has the crowds outside the trial with the usual 'demand a new trial' signs (because everyone knows that we give extra trials to defendants with loud fan clubs).

 

[Checkmite]

So you oppose appeals?

Absolutely not. I'm perfectly fine with appeals. If another trial is held and they're found not guilty, then I'll agree they're not guilty.

But a jury has convicted them. Right now, they're guilty; that's all there is to it. And by the way - allegations of misconduct? The defendants getting "railroaded"? Those are, in fact, claims that the people making them have to prove.

 

[jharyn]

Actually, they have not changed his sentence yet. He had one sentencing appeal and it was rejected, another one was made just this week. Sadly, he still has the crowds outside the trial with the usual 'demand a new trial' signs (because everyone knows that we give extra trials to defendants with loud fan clubs).

Thanks for the update. I was going to look in to it this weekend. You saved me from it.

 

[lionking]

If another trial is held and they're found not guilty, then I'll agree they're not guilty.

I'm pleased to hear that because jharyn (and a heap of people on the Amanda Knox thread, FWIW) has declared that they are guilty regardless of the result of any appeals.

 

[Checkmite]

Well that's their prerogative. As far as I'm concerned, peoples' arguments for a retrial haven't been all that compelling; most of it is fairly standard and indistinct from the usual rhetoric people put forward about any verdict they disagree with for whatever reason. The judge always disallows for procedural reasons the "smoking gun" that would've changed the verdict; the DA always intimidates witnesses and suppresses exculpatory evidence; there's always some below-board things going on with the jury, and etc.

 

[jharyn]

I'm pleased to hear that because jharyn (and a heap of people on the Amanda Knox thread, FWIW) has declared that they are guilty regardless of the result of any appeals.

Don't put words in my mouth. IF and it's a big if if because it won't happen, a piece of evidence is introduced that show's without a doubt that the three convicted are innocent, I will believe they are innocent. If it is on a technicality, I will not believe they are innocent. It isn't rocket science.

In 17 years they have never shown any new evidence that points at innocence.

 

[jharyn]

Checkmite:

I have been saying that for years. There has been no new compelling evidence in any way. In fact, the only new supposed pieces are the hair and the jury misconduct, neither of which is new.

The hair has already been ruled as inconclusive. It did not indicate whether the defendants were at the crime scene or not. It also did not match anyone exclusively and can be attributed to two of the defendants as well as two of the victims if I remember correctly. So it offers nothing.

As far as the jury misconduct the jury foreman and his lawyer have been warned that their claim is very weak. There has already been a jury misconduct claim as part of the appeal and it went no where in the courts. They found no evidence of misconduct. It isn't anything new.

If there is something else as far as NEW evidence, somebody tell me what it is. I would like to know. But I've been asking for that for years and have never been told of anything that hasn't already been introduced, discussed in the appeals process and ruled on.

 

[jharyn]

Checkmite:

I have been saying that for years. There has been no new compelling evidence in any way. In fact, the only new supposed pieces are the hair and the jury misconduct, neither of which is new.

The DNA has already been ruled as inconclusive. It did not indicate whether the defendants were at the crime scene or not. It also did not match anyone exclusively and can be attributed to two of the defendants as well as two of the victims if I remember correctly. So it offers nothing.

As far as the jury misconduct the jury foreman and his lawyer have been warned that their claim is very weak. There has already been a jury misconduct claim as part of the appeal and it went no where in the courts. They found no evidence of misconduct. It isn't anything new.

If there is something else as far as NEW evidence, somebody tell me what it is. I would like to know. But I've been asking for that for years and have never been told of anything that hasn't already been introduced, discussed in the appeals process and ruled on.

ETA: The hair proves nothing at all. Secondary transfer from the victims parent.

I also editted above for stating that the hair was attributed to multiple people when I meant the DNA. Sorry is you saw that and were confused.