• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

lionking said:
Huh? In post #79 you said that you would not change your mind about their guilt regardless of the result of any appeal. Had your fingers crossed did you?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that but I wasn't clear on what in fact I was saying. But yes, because of the confession, the only thing I see them getting out on would be a technicality. And that does not show innocence.

The confusion was my fault. Sorry about that.
 
Rolfe said:
One thing which intrigues me about this is the blackening of the characters of the accused in order to support the accusation. In all the miscarriage of justice cases I've looked at, this has been a constant theme. The accused is said to have been a bad person in this or that way, thus his or her guilt is certain. Sometimes these tangential accusations are true, sometimes not, or much exaggerated.
Click to expand...

A lot of that is keeping the media entertained. A bit like the apeals in the missing children cases. No real use but they get the press off your back for 24 hours.
 
jharyn said:
I didn't say that but I wasn't clear on what in fact I was saying. But yes, because of the confession, the only thing I see them getting out on would be a technicality. And that does not show innocence.

The confusion was my fault. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

So you admit your own confession was ah wrong?
 
jharyn said:
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.
Click to expand...


So, you're still saying that in the USA, once someone is found guilty, the burden of proof is then on the defence to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty before the verdict will be overturned?

(Frankly I don't believe you.)

jharyn said:
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.
Click to expand...


It matters are indeed as you say (though as I remarked I don't believe you, I think you are wrong), then the USA uniquely disadvantages defendants more than any first-world country I am aware of.

jharyn said:
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.
Click to expand...


And if the defence is granted an appeal, they have to do it again. Unless the USA is the most unjust system I ever heard of, and I didn't even hear about it till now.

jharyn said:
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 [t]hey have. Hence, put up or shut up.

The federal appeals are not a retrial any more then the hearing that was just granted.
Click to expand...


I repeat, if you are correct about this, it would make the USA the most heinously biassed judicial system I have ever heard of.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
So? Because one person was found not guilty on appeal, the WM3 are not guilty?
Click to expand...


No. Try reading for comprehension.

Sion Jenkins was found guilty at trial, and this guilty verdict survived two appeals and one retrial. On the second retrial the jury was unable to reach an agreement on whether the evidence (the original evidence) had ever amounted to sufficient proof that he committed the murder. So the conviction fell and Jenkins was released.

This was in England, but as I understand it the legal system in the USA has a lot in common with England. I posted the example to show how a defendant is under no obligation to prove innocence to a 100% certainty standard (or indeed to any standard at all) even after more than one guilty verdict. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and remains there whenever the case is re-examined.

This is the level of safeguard that exists for defendants in England. I flat don't believe jharyn that it's substantially different in the USA, but if he were to be right, it would make that system the most biassed against the defence that I have ever heard of, in the First World.

To then make the claim that this system so much favours the defence that it's OK to kill defendants because it virtually never gets it wrong is ludicrous.

Rolfe.
 
I'm perfectly well aware that I'm unfamiliar with the details of this case, and that the original link cited was to a supporters' site. Thus, I'm entirely open to the consideration that matters are not as dubious as they may appear from that take on the situation.

I see the same thing with the Amanda Knox discussion. Slayhamlet posted a link to a site supporting Amanda Knox, which laid out what seemed to be a good case that she was railroaded. However, reading parts of the thread (OK, Dan O.'s follow-up thread because it's shorter!) makes it quite easy to see that there is another view on that, which is being rationally explained by a different group of posters. I don't know which group is right, because both put their arguments cogently.

In this case, all I'm getting from jharyn is sneers and dismissal. This may be because he's tired of explaining himself, and if so that's his prerogative. However, unless he can come up with a rationally-presented and coherently-explained case showing why these three boys were justly convicted, I'm likely to remain sceptical.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm perfectly well aware that I'm unfamiliar with the details of this case, and that the original link cited was to a supporters' site. Thus, I'm entirely open to the consideration that matters are not as dubious as they may appear from that take on the situation.

I see the same thing with the Amanda Knox discussion. Slayhamlet posted a link to a site supporting Amanda Knox, which laid out what seemed to be a good case that she was railroaded. However, reading parts of the thread (OK, Dan O.'s follow-up thread because it's shorter!) makes it quite easy to see that there is another view on that, which is being rationally explained by a different group of posters. I don't know which group is right, because both put their arguments cogently.

In this case, all I'm getting from jharyn is sneers and dismissal. This may be because he's tired of explaining himself, and if so that's his prerogative. However, unless he can come up with a rationally-presented and coherently-explained case showing why these three boys were justly convicted, I'm likely to remain sceptical.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I've given no smears and dismissal and you yourself admit to not being familiar with this case or the legal system in the USA.

I have provided the documentation that pertains to this case in a previous post. The official court transcripts being just a part of the information at that site. You, have CHOSEN to neither familiarize yourself with this case or the legal system in the USA. This is a choice that you have made. You have chosen to offer an opinion on something you, by your own admission, know nothing about.

Why then should I take your opinion seriously? You, by your own admission, are ignorant of the facts in this case. Go read the documentation and I will be willing to discuss this with you. Until then I recommend that you read more and post less. You just might learn something.

Here is the link again:
http://callahan.8k.com/
 
jharyn said:
They've already been convicted. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, they are guilty.
Click to expand...


That is a completely different issue. It does not alter the fact that the burden of proof at any subsequent re-hearing still lies with the prosecution.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Not going to read primary court documents without a reasonable explanation of the points those arguing for guilt are relying on. If you can't articulate your case to an uncommitted observer, then you're not doing too well.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

So you are lazy and prefer to be misinformed. It is not my responsibility to teach you. I am more then willing to discuss this case. But until you familiarize yourself with the case, how can I discuss it with you?
 
But the burden of proving that a 're-hearing' is at all warranted lies with the defense. It's not up to the prosecution to prove a 're-hearing' isn't necessary. They did that at the first trial.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
That is a completely different issue. It does not alter the fact that the burden of proof at any subsequent re-hearing still lies with the prosecution.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

What is coming up is NOT A RETRIAL. It is an evidentiary hearing of the appeals process. There is a difference.
 
jharyn said:
So you are lazy and prefer to be misinformed. It is not my responsibility to teach you. I am more then willing to discuss this case. But until you familiarize yourself with the case, how can I discuss it with you?
Click to expand...


You don't want to provide an intelligible explanation, suit yourself.

Rolfe.
 
Checkmite said:
But the burden of proving that a 're-hearing' is at all warranted lies with the defense. It's not up to the prosecution to prove a 're-hearing' isn't necessary.
Click to expand...


That's quite true. However, to get a re-hearing, the defence do not have to prove innocence, mearly reasonable cause to suspect reasonable doubt.

Rolfe.
 
It's pretty clear that those who believe the WM3 are guilty do so on the basis, not of understanding the evidence, but of accepting the ridiculously dishonest process by which they were convicted.
If you want a laugh, read the transcript of the "expert" who testified that the boys were killed during Satanic worship. Then tell me that a trial with such "expert testimony" can be called anything resembling just.
 
jharyn said:
What is coming up is NOT A RETRIAL. It is an evidentiary hearing of the appeals process. There is a difference.
Click to expand...


You need to try to get your story straight. It doesn't matter what form of re-hearing you're talking about, at no point will the defence be required to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty in order to have the conviction overturned.

This was the assertion of yours I was challenging.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom