Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You're right; I will. They were railroaded, they were not given a fair trial, and this will continue to be the case whether they win or lose on appeal.

In other words, I'm convinced they are innocent, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that opinion.

Welcome to a skeptics forum! How did you find us?

 

[lionking]

Of course.

The difference is, if the appeal fails, the WM3 innocent crowd will still claim they were "railroaded".

I won't. I'm not that zealous about the case.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I'm waiting for you to go first.

<crickets>

If I could find any evidence for their guilt, I wouldn't be asking you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In other words, I'm convinced they are innocent, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that opinion.

No. In other words, I'm convinced that the trial was unfair. Evidence to the contrary will change that opinion, but even evidence of their actual guilt will not change whether or not the trial was unfair.
Certainly a ruling by the same deficient court system that conducted the unfair, railroaded trial, stating that the trial was not railroaded or unfair, will not be persuasive evidence of that fact (although evidence brought up in support of that ruling may be).

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If I could find any evidence for their guilt, I wouldn't be asking you.

If I could find any evidence for their innocence, I wouldn't be asking you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No. In other words, I'm convinced that the trial was unfair. Evidence to the contrary will change that opinion, but even evidence of their actual guilt will not change whether or not the trial was unfair.
Certainly a ruling by the same deficient court system that conducted the unfair, railroaded trial, stating that the trial was not railroaded or unfair, will not be persuasive evidence of that fact (although evidence brought up in support of that ruling may be).

In other words, yes.

 

[pipelineaudio]

If I could find any evidence for their innocence, I wouldn't be asking you.

This is a case in the USA, it doesn't work like that. Otherwise: Can you give me some evidence for YOUR innocence in this case?

 

[kookbreaker]

You're right; I will. They were railroaded, they were not given a fair trial, and this will continue to be the case whether they win or lose on appeal.

Earlier people were asking why I mentioned the Mumia case. The answer is that there are many people who have the same attitude as the above with regards to his case. No matter what rulings, or what evidence is presented they 'know' he didn't get a fair trial.

It is an unhealthy attitude. I admit I find it hard that in the many, many years since this case was tried that a railroading charge could not be made to stick if it was so obvious and the trial transcripts were available.

 

[John Jones]

Earlier people were asking why I mentioned the Mumia case. The answer is that there are many people who have the same attitude as the above with regards to his case. No matter what rulings, or what evidence is presented they 'know' he didn't get a fair trial.

It is an unhealthy attitude. I admit I find it hard that in the many, many years since this case was tried that a railroading charge could not be made to stick if it was so obvious and the trial transcripts were available.

Because the judge who denied the appeals for a number of years was also the same judge who ajudicated the trial in the first place. He would have had to overturn himself to give them a new trial.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In other words, yes.

In other words, you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is a case in the USA, it doesn't work like that. Otherwise: Can you give me some evidence for YOUR innocence in this case?

Yes. I was home at the time.

But if you were familiar with the US justice system, you would know I don't have to prove my innocence. I haven't been charged.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In other words, you have a reading comprehension problem.

Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to get your boyfriends out of jail?

 

[Rolfe]

But if you were familiar with the US justice system, you would know I don't have to prove my innocence. I haven't been charged.

Even in the USA, nobody has to prove innocence. The prosecution have to prove guilt. And even after the jury has agreed they have done that, it can be challenged.

It's legitimate to challenge a conviction from the standpoint that on the evidence presented, guilt was not in fact proven beyond reasonable doubt. No need for positive proof of innocence at any stage.

Rolfe.

 

[kookbreaker]

Because the judge who denied the appeals for a number of years was also the same judge who ajudicated the trial in the first place. He would have had to overturn himself to give them a new trial.

Same thing was the case with the Mumia trial.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Even in the USA, nobody has to prove innocence. The prosecution have to prove guilt. And even after the jury has agreed they have done that, it can be challenged.

It's legitimate to challenge a conviction from the standpoint that on the evidence presented, guilt was not in fact proven beyond reasonable doubt. No need for positive proof of innocence at any stage.

Rolfe.

Of course. You're finally getting it. At what point will you concede they might actually be guilty?

 

[John Jones]

Same thing was the case with the Mumia trial.

Without knowing anything about the mumia case but what you said, it sounds like he should have recused himself.

 

[kookbreaker]

Without knowing anything about the mumia case but what you said, it sounds like he should have recused himself.

Be that as it may, and I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment, the fact remains that when the appeals case was brought before other judges they ruled against a new trial. When the case made it to the supreme court they unanimously ruled that the judge did nothing improper. Yet people without any real legal skills cry and cry that the trial was somehow 'unfair' to Mumia.

So you can see why I can say 'This sounds familiar'.

There is apparently a cynical comment among defense attorneys: if you can't attack the evidence, attack the judge.

 

[pipelineaudio]

OK, for the extra slow:

We've established that the wm3 were found guilty.

No need to say it again and again.

What I'm asking for is any evidence that they were. Being found guilty by a jury means no more than OJ being found innocent by a jury

 

[John Jones]

OK, for the extra slow:

We've established that the wm3 were found guilty.

No need to say it again and again.

What I'm asking for is any evidence that they were. Being found guilty by a jury means no more than OJ being found innocent by a jury

Jason Baldwin had 15 black T-shirts seized!!!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

OK, for the extra slow:

We've established that the wm3 were found guilty.

No need to say it again and again.

What I'm asking for is any evidence that they were. Being found guilty by a jury means no more than OJ being found innocent by a jury

Read the transcripts. There's the evidence.

We're still waiting for your evidence that they are not guilty. Crickets are not evidence.