Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[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.

Well, I've read the basis of the arguments of those who believe the boys didn't do it. They were able to explain their position without resorting to exhortations to read the primary documents in the case.

I did the same for the Amanda Knox case, but then I was also able to read reasonable explanations of the opposing point of view by those believing Miss Knox did indeed kill Meredith Kercher. This produces some balance of understanding, and an appreciation that there are arguments on both sides.

Not seeing any articulated arguments from jharyn as yet, but I live in hope.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd be happy to explain. What specifically do you want explained?

Your reasons for believing the boys carried out the murders, based on your interpretation of the evidence in the case. Bonus points for being able to explain why the people who believe them innocent are mistaken.

Same way as I could explain why I believe Harold Shipman or Peter Tobin to be guilty, or Barry George or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to be innocent, without in the first instance linking to a pile of primary documents.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

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.

I've been saying that. Numerous times. But, your confusion is that the defendant is considered guilty right now because they HAVE BEEN CONVICTED. This is what I believe you are unable to understand. The guilt/innocence phase was over a long time ago.

In an evidentiary hearing the defense has a chance to present NEW evidence to be considered and used either for or against the conviction. However, I believe that the prosecution can do the same if they have new evidence, but of that I am unsure. I emailed a friend who is an attorney but it usually takes a bit before they can respond.

Yes, you are correct and as I've been saying, at the evidentiary hearing, the judge will determine if there is a possibility that a reasonable jury would acquit the convicted. But, it will only start the process for a retrial. If the new evidence is compelling enough, the prosecution may choose to not retry the case.

 

[jharyn]

Your reasons for believing the boys carried out the murders, based on your interpretation of the evidence in the case. Bonus points for being able to explain why the people who believe them innocent are mistaken.

Same way as I could explain why I believe Harold Shipman or Peter Tobin to be guilty, or Barry George or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to be innocent, without in the first instance linking to a pile of primary documents.

Rolfe.

As I explained in a previous post and here for the LAST TIME:

The confessions
The fiber evidence
The witness testimony placing them in the area
a lack of an alibi
Damiens mental health history
the knife found 30 feet behind Jasons home in the lake that matches the wound patterns
The witnesses who overheard Damien bragging about his involvement in the crime


The people who believe they are innocent believe they are innocent because like you, they have no idea what the facts are in this case. They are unwilling to educate themselves, (you can understand that statement huh?) about the case and are only familiar with the opinions of other people who are also unwilling to educate themselves about the facts of this case.

 

[Rolfe]

I've been saying that. Numerous times. But, your confusion is that the defendant is considered guilty right now because they HAVE BEEN CONVICTED. This is what I believe you are unable to understand. The guilt/innocence phase was over a long time ago.

Hint. Parroting "the jury returned a guilty verdict and that's all the counts" is a fail.

When the point at issue is whether the original conviction may have been in error, there is no point in posting that the defendants are "guilty in the eyes of the law". That pretty much defines "begging the question".

I'm neither confused, nor am I unable to understand. I am very well able to understand that just because someone has had a guilty verdict entered against them, that does not necessarily mean they actually committed the crime. In that context, mindlessly parroting that they are "guilty in the eyes of the law" is meaningless.

It seems to me that you are thrashing around from one barely-understood position to another. The claim of yours that I'm challenging is that in order to have a conviction overturned on appeal, it is necessary for the defence to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty. In post after post, you give this one a body-swerve.

In an evidentiary hearing the defense has a chance to present NEW evidence to be considered and used either for or against the conviction. However, I believe that the prosecution can do the same if they have new evidence, but of that I am unsure. I emailed a friend who is an attorney but it usually takes a bit before they can respond.

Indeed, there's quite a lot you seem to be unsure of. I understand the concept of an "evidentiary hearing" quite adequately, thank you.

Yes, you are correct and as I've been saying, at the evidentiary hearing, the judge will determine if there is a possibility that a reasonable jury would acquit the convicted. But, it will only start the process for a retrial. If the new evidence is compelling enough, the prosecution may choose to not retry the case.

So far so good. The terminology is different, but that's not dissimilar to how it works around here.

What you still haven't quite grasped, however, is that when the case is re-heard, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. They still have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no requirement on the defence to prove innocence.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The people who believe they are innocent believe they are innocent because like you, they have no idea what the facts are in this case. They are unwilling to educate themselves, (you can understand that statement huh?) about the case and are only familiar with the opinions of other people who are also unwilling to educate themselves about the facts of this case.

You're pretty arrogant for someone who joined five minutes ago and doesn't know much about other posters.

If the only people who actually explain their opinions and can articulate the rationale for their point of view are those on the side of innocence, then naturally, these will be the opinions which gain credence.

Hint. "Explain" involves sentences, which convey meaning. These sentences should build on one another so that the meaning becomes clearer and more comprehensive. They may be arranged in paragraphs, to aid the comprehension of the reader.

Lists of disjointed words with no indication what they refer to or, more importantly, how these words have any bearing on your thesis, do not an explanation make.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

When the point at issue is whether the original conviction may have been in error, there is no point in posting that the defendants are "guilty in the eyes of the law". That pretty much defines "begging the question".

They are guilty in the eyes of the law. The fact that you don't like it means nothing.

I'm neither confused, nor am I unable to understand. I am very well able to understand that just because someone has had a guilty verdict entered against them, that does not necessarily mean they actually committed the crime. In that context, mindlessly parroting that they are "guilty in the eyes of the law" is meaningless.

I have not parroted anything. I have stated my opinion and backed it up with the evidence that was used to prove my opinion. You have offered nothing. Again, just because you do not like the verdict, doesn't mean there was an error. What makes you think it was an error for the "how many times have I asked you that"?

It seems to me that you are thrashing around from one barely-understood position to another. The claim of yours that I'm challenging is that in order to have a conviction overturned on appeal, it is necessary for the defence to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty. In post after post, you give this one a body-swerve.

I am not thrashing around. That would be you. What makes you think it was an error for the "how many times have I asked you that"?

The burden is on the defense. The fact that you do not like and clearly do not understand that means nothing. Show me that I am wrong.

Indeed, there's quite a lot you seem to be unsure of. I understand the concept of an "evidentiary hearing" quite adequately, thank you.

What is it that I am unsure of exactly?

So far so good. The terminology is different, but that's not dissimilar to how it works around here.

What are you talking about? How things work where? In the courts? Because that is all that counts.

What you still haven't quite grasped, however, is that when the case is re-heard, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. They still have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no requirement on the defence to prove innocence.

Rolfe.

The case is NOT being reheard. This is not a retrial. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Again, this is not a retrial. Say it with me, "This is not a retrial". There will be no jury. No jury. Do you understand that? Say it with me one more time, "this is not a retrial". There will be no new verdict at the end of this hearing. Do you know why? Say it to yourself this time because even my 6 year old niece understands it.

Why is the burden on the defense at an evidentiary hearing at this stage of the issue? Because they have already been convicted. Look at the writ. Would you like me to post it or will you not believe the official documents. They do not refer to that piece of slime as the accused. Do you know why? Because he is past being accused, he has been convicted. He has been found guilty. That has not changed and will not change at the end of this evidentiary hearing, no matter it's outcome. Why you ask? Because it's only an evidentiary hearing.

They are considered guilty not because I say so. But because a jury listened to the testimony and found them guilty. Do you understand that at least?

 

[AvalonXQ]

piece of slime

There were plenty of pieces of slime involved in that farce; the wrongly convicted were not among them.

 

[Rolfe]

They are guilty in the eyes of the law. The fact that you don't like it means nothing.

I neither like it nor dislike it. I'm interested to discover if it is just or not.

I have not parroted anything. I have stated my opinion and backed it up with the evidence that was used to prove my opinion. You have offered nothing. Again, just because you do not like the verdict, doesn't mean there was an error. What makes you think it was an error for the "how many times have I asked you that"?

And just because there was a verdict, does not mean it was in accordance with the reality of the situation. I've heard the explanations of those who believe the verdict was in error, I'm still waiting to hear from the other side. It's of no consequence to me, but if you're so aerated about it, why not explain how you know they did it?

The burden is on the defense. The fact that you do not like and clearly do not understand that means nothing. Show me that I am wrong.

What is it that I am unsure of exactly?

You appear to be entirely unaware of where the burden of proof lies.

Indeed, as you stated earlier, at what you call an "evidentiary hearing", it is up to the defence to show that there is reasonable cause to suspect that there may be reasonable doubt over the original verdict.

NOT to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty.

However, if the defence are successful at that stage, and the case is re-heard at either an appeal or a re-trial, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. If they cannot sustain their case "beyond reasonable doubt", then the conviction will fall.

The case is NOT being reheard. This is not a retrial. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Again, this is not a retrial. Say it with me, "This is not a retrial". There will be no jury. No jury. Do you understand that? Say it with me one more time, "this is not a retrial". There will be no new verdict at the end of this hearing. Do you know why? Say it to yourself this time because even my 6 year old niece understands it.

Why is the burden on the defense at an evidentiary hearing at this stage of the issue? Because they have already been convicted. Look at the writ. Would you like me to post it or will you not believe the official documents. They do not refer to that piece of slime as the accused. Do you know why? Because he is past being accused, he has been convicted. He has been found guilty. That has not changed and will not change at the end of this evidentiary hearing, no matter it's outcome. Why you ask? Because it's only an evidentiary hearing.

They are considered guilty not because I say so. But because a jury listened to the testimony and found them guilty. Do you understand that at least?

You seem completely confused. At the evidentiary hearing, it is only necessary to show reasonable cause to believe there may be reasonable doubt as to the safety of the conviction. NOT to prove innocence to a standard of 100% proof.

If the defence are successful at that stage, then the case will progress - either to an appeal or a re-trial, you can enlighten me as to which. However, once again the burden of proof will be on the prosecution to shoe that guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. And if they can't do that, the conviction falls.

There is no stage of the proceedings at which the defence have to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty, which was your claim that you now seem to be sidestepping.

And continually repeating that they are "guilty" in the legal sense of the term because the jury so found, is of course true, but completely beside the point.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

You're pretty arrogant for someone who joined five minutes ago and doesn't know much about other posters.

If the only people who actually explain their opinions and can articulate the rationale for their point of view are those on the side of innocence, then naturally, these will be the opinions which gain credence.

Hint. "Explain" involves sentences, which convey meaning. These sentences should build on one another so that the meaning becomes clearer and more comprehensive. They may be arranged in paragraphs, to aid the comprehension of the reader.

Lists of disjointed words with no indication what they refer to or, more importantly, how these words have any bearing on your thesis, do not an explanation make.

Rolfe.

I have posted my "opinion" based on the evidence presented at trial, the testimony of the witnesses for both sides, in a nut shell, the facts of this case.
What have you offered? You have done nothing but ask the same question over and over because you do not like the answer. You yourself admitted that you are not familiar with this case nor with the legal system the case was presented under.

Give me your opinion and back it up. Then we can proceed with a discussion. You are not a part of the discussion because you have offered not except an uneducated opinion. Back up your opinion. I would enjoy talking to someone who is familiar with this case. Even at a basic understanding. But, I am not here to post a blog, which is what you keep asking me to do.

Now. I am done with your childish attempts at deflecting the topic of the thread. The topic is, has anyone been following the wm3 case. You obviously and by your own admission, have not been following it. So then why do you keep posting? Allow the people who have been following the case to discuss the case and you will learn a lot about it. There are a lot of lies about this case in the media. A lot of them! I am not asking you to stop posting completely. I would not ask someone to do that. But you need to ask specific questions regarding the case. Not questions like, "why were they found guilty?". That answer would take too long. That answer is really not that simple. Cases like that are very rare. This case has no silver bullet evidence. Most cases don't. Most cases are taken to trial on circumstantial evidence. But it's when there are numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence that the truth can be found. I believe that this case does just that and I have explained why I feel that way.

You on the other hand have nothing to offer this thread at this time because of your lack of knowledge regarding the facts of this case. Your above post is proof of that. So please, stop with the english lessons. It offers nothing to anyone.

 

[jharyn]

There is no stage of the proceedings at which the defence have to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty, which was your claim that you now seem to be sidestepping.

/QUOTE]

I have not sidestepped anything. Go back and read my posts. Get someone to help you because you need the assistance.

After the guilt/innocence phase of the trial the burden of proof lies with the defense. Go look it up and stop wasting my time.

 

[AvalonXQ]

After the guilt/innocence phase of the trial the burden of proof lies with the defense.

But isn't that burden of proof a preponderance of the evidence, or perhaps clear and convincing, neither which is anywhere near 100% certainty (the first is usually represented as 51%, the second 70%)?

 

[Rolfe]

I have posted my "opinion" based on the evidence presented at trial, the testimony of the witnesses for both sides, in a nut shell, the facts of this case.
What have you offered? You have done nothing but ask the same question over and over because you do not like the answer. You yourself admitted that you are not familiar with this case nor with the legal system the case was presented under.

Give me your opinion and back it up. Then we can proceed with a discussion. You are not a part of the discussion because you have offered not except an uneducated opinion. Back up your opinion. I would enjoy talking to someone who is familiar with this case. Even at a basic understanding. But, I am not here to post a blog, which is what you keep asking me to do.

Now. I am done with your childish attempts at deflecting the topic of the thread. The topic is, has anyone been following the wm3 case. You obviously and by your own admission, have not been following it. So then why do you keep posting? Allow the people who have been following the case to discuss the case and you will learn a lot about it. There are a lot of lies about this case in the media. A lot of them! I am not asking you to stop posting completely. I would not ask someone to do that. But you need to ask specific questions regarding the case. Not questions like, "why were they found guilty?". That answer would take too long. That answer is really not that simple. Cases like that are very rare. This case has no silver bullet evidence. Most cases don't. Most cases are taken to trial on circumstantial evidence. But it's when there are numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence that the truth can be found. I believe that this case does just that and I have explained why I feel that way.

You on the other hand have nothing to offer this thread at this time because of your lack of knowledge regarding the facts of this case. Your above post is proof of that. So please, stop with the english lessons. It offers nothing to anyone.

You have informed us which side of the case you support. You have however offered nothing of substance to support your position, or enlighten the interested onlooker. If you persist in responding to reasonable, interested questions with rudeness and insults, you won't advance your position.

And you know what? If I feel like posting in the thread, I will.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

But isn't that burden of proof a preponderance of the evidence, or perhaps clear and convincing, neither which is anywhere near 100% certainty (the first is usually represented as 51%, the second 70%)?

During the trial, yes that is correct. The trial in this case is over.

 

[jharyn]

Rolfe:

Try reading post #164 again. Get someone to help you if you need.

 

[AvalonXQ]

During the trial, yes that is correct. The trial in this case is over.

No. During the trial the prosecution has to meet beyond a reasonable doubt (usually represented as 95%). On appeal, the defense usually has to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard (51%) or a clear and convincing standard (70%) depending on the issue. Which is it for the hearing under discussion?

 

[jharyn]

No. During the trial the prosecution has to meet beyond a reasonable doubt (usually represented as 95%). On appeal, the defense usually has to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard (51%) or a clear and convincing standard (70%) depending on the issue. Which is it for the hearing under discussion?

I am waiting, as I stated above, for confirmation about the issue of the prosecution being able to introduce new evidence at the evidentiary hearing.

However.

As I have stated above, the evidentiary hearing allows the defense to introduce new evidence that has been gathered after the trial has ended. Example: DNA evidence is relatively new and therefore could not have been introduced at the time of the trial.

As far as the percentages as a standard. I am unaware of that being an accurate question. The judge at the evidentiary hearing will make a decision as to whether the new evidence, when weighed along with the evidence that was presented at trial and if allowed ( I am waiting for confirmation) any new evidence that the prosecution has, would a reasonable jury possibly end in an acquittal for the convicted.

I am unaware how anyone could possibly put different percentages on particular pieces of evidence. The evidence is looked at as a whole, meaning all of it is considered.

 

[Rolfe]

After the guilt/innocence phase of the trial the burden of proof lies with the defense. Go look it up and stop wasting my time.

I think there are quite a few nuances to this that are going right over your head.

Nobody forced you to join up three days ago, if you think it's a waste of time, don't post.

Rolfe.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I think there are quite a few nuances to this that are going right over your head.

There very clearly are. Not knowing about different evidentiary standards is a bit of a red flag.
I certainly wouldn't lean on this poster's understanding of criminal procedure.

 

[jharyn]

I think there are quite a few nuances to this that are going right over your head.

Nobody forced you to join up three days ago, if you think it's a waste of time, don't post.

Rolfe.

Predictable supporter redirect.

discuss the case. The thread is not about me. I joined three days ago and know a lot more about this case then you so your post is moot.