Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[jharyn]

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.

I have a laymen's understanding and stated that I am not a lawyer. I have also stated that on the issue I feel I do not know, have asked and am waiting for confirmation from an attorney. Are you an attorney? Not being a smartass. I have a few questions I'd like to ask an attorney about this case.

Do you guys want to discuss this case or are we just playing the typical supporter game of redirect discussion because I don't know what I'm talking about.

What piece of evidence do you feel shows innocence? (whether it was used at the trial or not)

What piece(s) of testimony do you feel shows that there is a miscarriage of justice in this case?

Why do you feel that the convicted are innocent?

What did you find out that was compelling enough to justify either a retrial or an acquittal? (whether it was used in the trial or not)

 

[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.

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.

Jharyn seems to be suffering from selective amnesia.

This is the post in dispute, jharyn. You are WRONG. It's that simple. You've been sidestepping this since the first time you were called on it.

As far as saying you were taking advice on a point you admitted you were unsure of, that was simply regarding whether or not the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence at this stage of the legal process. Which is something nobody else has challenged, either way,

Maybe you better ask your legal friend to explain about the burden of proof while you're at it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Do you guys want to discuss this case or are we just playing the typical supporter game of redirect discussion because I don't know what I'm talking about.

What piece of evidence do you feel shows innocence? (whether it was used at the trial or not)

What piece(s) of testimony do you feel shows that there is a miscarriage of justice in this case?

Why do you feel that the convicted are innocent?

What did you find out that was compelling enough to justify either a retrial or an acquittal? (whether it was used in the trial or not)

The OP referred to the wiki article about the case. The supporters' web site has also been referenced. This seems to be the starting point for those who believe the conviction is unsafe.

How would you counter the points made on these pages? You know, with sentences and all that.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

The OP referred to the wiki article about the case. The supporters' web site has also been referenced. This seems to be the starting point for those who believe the conviction is unsafe.

How would you counter the points made on these pages? You know, with sentences and all that.

Rolfe.

Post the points and I will address them as best I can.

Do you even know what the points contained on those pages are?

 

[lionking]

You seem to have a big emotional investment in this case jharyn. If the case goes the WM3's way, you will no doubt be devastated. The rest of us will move on. C'est la vie.

 

[Rolfe]

Post the points and I will address them as best I can.

Do you even know what the points contained on those pages are?

Of course I know. And if you're such an expert on this case, you should be able to refute these standard presentations of the case that the verdict was unsound without recourse to notes.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

I will not be devastated. Don't be childish.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[jharyn]

Of course I know. And if you're such an expert on this case, you should be able to refute these standard presentations of the case that the verdict was unsound without recourse to notes.

Rolfe.

Try googling for a blog. I am not interested in writing one. What part of this do you not understand.

 

[Rolfe]

Not so fast, jharyn.

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.

Jharyn seems to be suffering from selective amnesia.

This is the post in dispute, jharyn. You are WRONG. It's that simple. You've been sidestepping this since the first time you were called on it.

As far as saying you were taking advice on a point you admitted you were unsure of, that was simply regarding whether or not the prosecution is allowed to introduce new evidence at this stage of the legal process. Which is something nobody else has challenged, either way,

Maybe you better ask your legal friend to explain about the burden of proof while you're at it.

I note you ignored that post of mine completely.

This is the point I have been trying to get an answer to in most of my posts. At what point in the US legal process is the defence required to produce proof of innocence to a standard of 100% certainty in order for an unsafe verdict to be overturned?

The fact is, at no point. Your understanding of this aspect is sadly lacking. I gave you ample opportunity to realise this for yourself, but you ignored it. Instead, you expressed the opinion that the US justice system offered better safeguards against wrongful conviction than any other. Coming from someone who made the above post, there aren't enough laughing dogs on the internet to match this.

So how about it. Acknowledge that you were mistaken, find out about where the burden of proof really lies, and we can move on.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

In short, I don't know if they are guilty or innocent, but they were railroaded.

YMMV.

Note the OP. John Jones is not making the claim that he is certain these boys did not commit the murders. He is making the claim that they were railroaded. This is actually what the thread is about. Not, are we sure to a standard of 100% certainty that they didn't do it, but, were they railroaded. In other words, was the conviction unsafe.

You know, because it's not actually necessary to prove innocence in order for an unsafe conviction to be overturned, just that the verdict was unsafe and the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

I clicked your link. It was to a collection of primary court papers and evidence. Invaluable as those can be when discussing a case in depth, they are not the place to start.

If you are as familiar with the case as you claim to be, you should have no difficulty at all in explaining where the articles expressing the doubts about the verdict have got it wrong.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

Not so fast, jharyn.




I note you ignored that post of mine completely.

This is the point I have been trying to get an answer to in most of my posts. At what point in the US legal process is the defence required to produce proof of innocence to a standard of 100% certainty in order for an unsafe verdict to be overturned?

The fact is, at no point. Your understanding of this aspect is sadly lacking. I gave you ample opportunity to realise this for yourself, but you ignored it. Instead, you expressed the opinion that the US justice system offered better safeguards against wrongful conviction than any other. Coming from someone who made the above post, there aren't enough laughing dogs on the internet to match this.

So how about it. Acknowledge that you were mistaken, find out about where the burden of proof really lies, and we can move on.

Rolfe.

I have never seen any document that shows I am wrong. The attorneys that I have spoken to explained to me that the burden is on the defense because the prosecution does not have to retry the case at any step of the appeal process unless somewhere in the appeals process it is ordered for a retrial. If an attorney explains to me that the other attorneys were in error with their explanation to me I will admit my error. But that has not been done and I do not give your opinion any weight. The burden is on the defense as far as my understanding. I am not an attorney anymore then you are, and have stated that on numerous occasions.

 

[Rolfe]

I have never seen any document that shows I am wrong. The attorneys that I have spoken to explained to me that the burden is on the defense because the prosecution does not have to retry the case at any step of the appeal process unless somewhere in the appeals process it is ordered for a retrial. If an attorney explains to me that the other attorneys were in error with their explanation to me I will admit my error. But that has not been done and I do not give your opinion any weight. The burden is on the defense as far as my understanding. I am not an attorney anymore then you are, and have stated that on numerous occasions.

Your understanding of the entire issue appears to be simplistic, superficial and seriously flawed. Rather than your attorneys being wrong, think rather that you have misunderstood them.

Indeed, what you now relate that you were told is very substantially different from what you posted, which was that

It is then the responsibility of the defense to show actual innocence. 100%, without a doubt, innocence.

So are you going to substantiate that astonishing claim, or retract it?

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

I clicked your link. It was to a collection of primary court papers and evidence. Invaluable as those can be when discussing a case in depth, they are not the place to start.

If you are as familiar with the case as you claim to be, you should have no difficulty at all in explaining where the articles expressing the doubts about the verdict have got it wrong.

Rolfe.

Then ask a question and we can start.

It would take weeks to address every point on numerous web pages,while pointing to the necessary testimony, evidence, or research involved. You actually think that I am willing to address every point the supporter movement has and back it up in one post. You are an idiot if you believe that can be done. There is no way that you feel that performing that task is something anyone will be able or willing to do. You can't be that stupid and I do not believe that you are.

There are too many points to address them all at once. That is why cases are in courts for weeks even months at a time. Asking me to do this shows that you really are not familiar with this case and that is ok. Most people are not. I do not know or understand everything. I am not a lawyer.

With that in mind, I am willing to discuss one point at a time to the best of my ability as I hope everyone else will as well. From both sides of the debate.

So where do you want to start?

The hair
the animal predation theory
the satanic theories

There are more but these are the most popular and the most widely used by the supporter movement.

 

[jharyn]

Your understanding of the entire issue appears to be simplistic, superficial and seriously flawed. Rather than your attorneys being wrong, think rather that you have misunderstood them.

Indeed, what you now relate that you were told is very substantially different from what you posted, which was that




So are you going to substantiate that astonishing claim, or retract it?

Rolfe.

It stays where it is. This issue is dead to me and has nothing to do with the thread. Last chance, wanna discuss the case or not. Makes no difference to me either way now.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Just a summary in a few paragraphs would be fine.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, I'd like to start with your acknowledgement that you were mistaken about

It is then the responsibility of the defense to show actual innocence. 100%, without a doubt, innocence.

and to show that you have a reasonable understanding of where the burden of proof lies at each stage of the judicial proceedings.

It appears from your earliest posts in this thread that you believe this conviction will stand unless there is 100% positive proof of innocence. It was not suggested in the OP that there was 100% proof of innocence. It was suggested that the boys had been railroaded.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

There are too many points to address them all at once. That is why cases are in courts for weeks even months at a time. Asking me to do this shows that you really are not familiar with this case and that is ok. Most people are not. I do not know or understand everything. I am not a lawyer.
So where do you want to start?

The hair
the animal predation theory
the satanic theories

There are more but these are the most popular and the most widely used by the supporter movement.

As Professor Yaffle said, a summary of your position for a start would be fine.

I've read the wiki page and most of the wm3.org explanatory pages. I would expect someone as familiar with the case as you are to have the rebuttals to the main points there at your fingertips.

You seem to be more or less the only person posting here who is willing to support the position that the conviction was sound. So what do you have to say to counter these two references? You that's such the expert and all that?

I've heard one side, now I'm waiting to hear the other.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It stays where it is. This issue is dead to me and has nothing to do with the thread. Last chance, wanna discuss the case or not. Makes no difference to me either way now as I am starting to believe that you are incapable.

But no, that won't do. Your initial approach to this issue was to state that the defence had to prove innocence to 100% certainty. You are wrong. Flat wrong, Mr. Wrong R. Wrong of Wrong Street, Wrongsville.

If your reaction to being shown to be wrong in such a fundamental part of your initial approach is to refuse to acknowledge error and demand that others simply overlook your wrongness, then we do not have any basis for discussion.

Rolfe.

 

[jharyn]

As Professor Yaffle said, a summary of your position for a start would be fine.

I've read the wiki page and most of the wm3.org explanatory pages. I would expect someone as familiar with the case as you are to have the rebuttals to the main points there at your fingertips.

You seem to be more or less the only person posting here who is willing to support the position that the conviction was sound. So what do you have to say to counter these two references? You that's such the expert and all that?

I've heard one side, now I'm waiting to hear the other.

Rolfe.

Those pages have numerous points. What point(s) are you referring to? I cannot word it any other way.