Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[pipelineaudio]

Read the transcripts. There's the evidence.

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

We heard you the 85,000th time

 

[Rolfe]

Of course. You're finally getting it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "finally". That is what I have been trying to explain to jharyn all along, because he was insisting that the defence were required to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty.

At what point will you concede they might actually be guilty?

At the point when someone explains to me what the credible evidence for guilt was, to roughly the same degree of clarity employed by the commentary pages I have read which make the case for a miscarriage of justice.

I read that there was no physical evidence, murder weapon, motive or connection to the victims. Is that statement wrong, then?

What you are essentially doing, is saying to someone new to the case, "I'm not going to explain anything to you, go away and research all the primary documentation for yourself". When the side of the argument which believes this was a miscarriage of justice is prepared to explain its case, I have to say you're on a loser with that approach.

Rolfe.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

<crickets>

 

[AvalonXQ]

Read the transcripts. There's the evidence.

I agree -- evidence of unjust proceedings.
Do you have evidence of guilt? No? Didn't think so.

 

[Matthew Best]

<crickets>

Someone upthread pointed out that "crickets are not evidence".

 

[John Jones]

I agree -- evidence of unjust proceedings.
Do you have evidence of guilt? No? Didn't think so.

This.

But of course some will claim that the conviction is ipso facto proof of the actual guilt of the murderers.

<sigh>

 

[pipelineaudio]

Has anyone gone to look at jahryn's link that he keeps posting up? http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html

Its kind of neat as a photo display, but is it anywhere in text or perhaps sensible form where we can view it easier and quote from it?

Its not 500 pieces of proof as has been implied. Many pages are just clerical

 

[John Jones]

Has anyone gone to look at jahryn's link that he keeps posting up? http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html

Its kind of neat as a photo display, but is it anywhere in text or perhaps sensible form where we can view it easier and quote from it?

Its not 500 pieces of proof as has been implied. Many pages are just clerical

I went to it and read Jesse Misskelly's confession before his trial.

I'll take another look.

 

[JustPietzche]

It doesn't matter how many times a person confesses to a crime if there is no evidence, let alone proof that he, in fact, was at the crime scene. His confessions, at best, provide a narrative for what the police and prosecutors already know, and his stories change to fit new evidence as it becomes available.

Some people who believe they are guilty rely on the fact that guilty people tend to minimize their involvement in a crime by providing detectives with misleading information. That's supposed to be their explanation as to why Jessie gave the wrong time and described the wrong material used in the ligatures of the three victims. Jessie, being the good witness whose valuable testimony might earn him a reduced sentence, offered the explanation that he was trying to "get 'em off track."

Those particular inconsistencies don't jibe with the idea that he is distancing himself from the act or trying to "get 'em off track."

Furthermore, his statement in February changes from his first statement in not only correcting his previous statements, but his story also, conveniently, becomes more in sync with what the detectives and prosecutors have since learned. When he first confessed, detectives had assumed the boys had been raped, so Jessie said they were raped. By the time he gave his post-conviction statement, it was learned that there was no evidence of rape, so he said "They didn't do it, he was going to it, then they didn't."

He is admitting further participation in a slightly less heinous crime. He does not explain this previous inconsistency about the rape, but he conveniently provides the prosecutors with an explanation for his other inconsistencies by saying he tried to "throw 'em off."

Nice move. You really had them thinking the shoelace was rope!

Another peculiarity about his last statement is his ability to recall very specific details; mundane things, like how one of the victims' ears turned red, and another victim was cut, specifically on the left side of the face, etc. I don't see this as further evidence of his guilt, because this stuff was presented at his trial and he couldn't remember what Damien was wearing. Oh... he was also intoxicated to the point of puking, so that provides a good explanation for inconsistencies that might be troublesome. Things like how he couldn't remember what Damien was wearing.

He said he beat Michael Moore unconscious with his fists, yet nobody had reported seeing Jessie with a swollen, bruised, or cut hand. Nobody reported him having hurt his hand in any way. Yet, as a demonstration of his propensity to injure himself when punching while sober, when he called his dad from jail (as seen and heard in Paradise Lost), he complained that he thought his hand was broken from punching the commode.

During his first confession it's especially interesting that the detectives don't ask him to corroborate his story. They don't seem interested in anything but getting Jessie to verbally incriminate Damien and Jason, and he accidentally incriminates himself in the process. They don't ask him why they did it, what happened to the clothes they (the WM3) were wearing, has anybody else been told about it, is there anything that they should be looking for that will prove his story... nothing that will help them establish that his story has any basis in fact. I find that peculiar. They readily believe him because of their tunnel vision for Damien Echols. They were just waiting for something to come up that would allow them to execute a search warrant, which they were so positive would lead them to all the incriminating evidence they would need. As it turned out there was a treasure trove of black clothing and books about witchcraft, but nothing linking any of the WM3 to the crime.

As for why Jessie would confess regardless of his attorney's plea, it's pretty simple (and if you read his post-conviction statement, it's evident): the prosecutors had gotten a good 45 minutes with Jessie beforehand, smeared his attorneys, said they were liars and not to trust a word they say, reminded him that he had just been sentenced to life and that only by saying what they wanted would he be able to help himself get out of prison soon. A person simply needs to have a sense that there is a greater benefit to confessing, testifying, pleading guilty, or giving a statement, than there is to denying their involvement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a person might be inclined to try plan B, when plan A didn't work. Watch Paradise Lost on Youtube -- Part 7 of 15, and you can even see the prosecutors discussing with the victims' family their plan for offering Jessie a reduced sentence of 40 years in exchange for his testimony.

 

[Rolfe]

Thank you Just Pietzche (great moniker by the way!).

I'm interested in the case, but not up to reading heaps of original evidence to understand it. I've got too much original Lockerbie evidence still to wade through and that's a lot closer to home.

It seems that those who believe this was a miscarriage of justice are prepared to explain their position sensibly, but those who believe the boys were guilty will only snipe from the sidelines.

If I draw certain conclusions, the latter group have only themselves to blame.

Rolfe.

 

[zerospeaks]

I am familar with this case.
and now I am familar with this thread. I read it all the way through and my eyes are hurting a bit.

The first time I heard of the WM3 was years ago when I was listening to a christian rock band and heard a song talking about the case. A portion of the lyrics:

Can you show me how they're guilty?
YOu liars, you killers, You fools of superstition.

The song has spoken word that describes the case.

May 5, 1993, 3 8 year-old boys disappear from a West Memphis, Arkansas neighborhood. The next day at 1:45 p.m. their bodies are found in a creek. The police, having no previous experience in this type of murder, trample the site, destroying many important artifacts.There was very little effort to preserve the documents. They were inadequately trained. Even a man was seen smoking a cigarette on the crime scene. The police decided that the triple homicide was performed by satanic cults. The three, questioned and arrested, were Damien, Jesse, and Jason. Put under by the superstitions of the foolish police work, and the inadequacy of their investigations

jharyn is defending the guilt of the WM3 with such (almost religious) intensity I wonder what his connection to the case is.


The evidence presented by him so far (which is the same as was presented by the prosecution) is laughable at best and a complete insult of my intelligence at worse.


In a desperate attempt to kill someone (Damien) jharyn seem sto be hanging on to two peices of prosecution introduced "evidence" which falls short.

Exhibit 500. Which shows Damien to be a Normal Teenager who is horny, rebellious and talks big. If I was put on death row everytime I threatened to kill someone, or tried to have sex with a 15 year old, when I was 17, I would have been put on death row countless times.

The confession. Sure.... Lets put a scared kid in police custody for a long period of time, and let him be interrogated. There is no way that type of confession is coerced or tainted. No way the police pressured him into confessing. :rollseyes:

I would like to think that our court system is above holding up t-shirts and finding a knife at a teenagers house (or within 30 yards of that house) as evidence of murder, but apparently not.

Satansm sure is scary though. [Makes woooooo ghost noises]

Happy Bday Rolfe

 

[John Jones]

It seems that those who believe this was a miscarriage of justice are prepared to explain their position sensibly, but those who believe the boys were guilty will only snipe from the sidelines.

This.

 

[JustPietzche]

Supporters of the WM3 may also be interested in "The Manhole Theory."

You'll have to do a google search for it, because I don't have enough privileges to link here, but it's on the WM3blackboard.

 

[Rolfe]

You can post links as text, just by changing www to xxx or some ruse like that. Then a longer-standing member can post the actual link for you, or a mod can even edit your post so that the link appears.

I think maybe you meant this.

http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=2386.0

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This thread is odd. In other contexts, "sceptics" are only too happy to engage "woos" who come to the forum pushing a line they've read on a woo web site. From homoeopaths to antivaxers, we've got the arguments. Come along pushing any of that stuff, and someone will explain patiently and in excruciating detail exactly why the web page in question is full of it.

Not this time though.

Rolfe.

 

[JustPietzche]

It's odd because it's not easily testable, and the incompetent and corrupt system that had arrested and convicted these guys, were also the ones responsible for preserving and sharing exculpatory evidence, and they did not do that. There was is quite a bit of evidence gathered in this case, but none of it points to the WM3.

The guilt of the West Memphis Three has not been proven -- they were merely found guilty, so the burden of proof was shifted, at least from a legal standpoint. Now people who believe they're guilty tend to shift the burden of proof in all forums of discussion, as though we all must approach it from the same legal standpoint, and that's B.S.

 

[Mr.D]

This thread is odd. In other contexts, "sceptics" are only too happy to engage "woos" who come to the forum pushing a line they've read on a woo web site. From homoeopaths to antivaxers, we've got the arguments. Come along pushing any of that stuff, and someone will explain patiently and in excruciating detail exactly why the web page in question is full of it.

Not this time though.

Rolfe.

Indeed. From what I've read about the "satanic ritual" testimony of Dale Griffiis, there should be skeptics criticizing the conviction on that alone.

Does that mean everyone defending the conviction on this thread feels Griffis' testimony is credible? Or is it that that aspect has been misrepresented? Either way, I'd like to hear it.

Otherwise, based on just that aspect I have to conclude that the trial was unfair, the convictions should be tossed and a retrial held.

 

[John Jones]

Indeed. From what I've read about the "satanic ritual" testimony of Dale Griffiis, there should be skeptics criticizing the conviction on that alone.

Absolutely. The fact that there was little or no blood found at the scene was Griffis' evidence that the WM3 saved the blood for future satanic rituals.

 

[John Jones]

It doesn't matter how many times a person confesses to a crime if there is no evidence, let alone proof that he, in fact, was at the crime scene. His confessions, at best, provide a narrative for what the police and prosecutors already know, and his stories change to fit new evidence as it becomes available.

Jesse Misskelley's confession was leaked to the press and was widely known. Police discussions over their radios were intercepted and printed in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. 'Critical details' that were common knowledge were admitted to by Misskelly during his coerced confession, and turned out to be wrong.

It was widely reported that the boys had been sodomized, because that's what the WMPD believed. Jesse Misskelly admitted 'witnessing' this sodomy. Guess what? They weren't sodomized.

 

[Rolfe]

The guilt of the West Memphis Three has not been proven -- they were merely found guilty, so the burden of proof was shifted, at least from a legal standpoint. Now people who believe they're guilty tend to shift the burden of proof in all forums of discussion, as though we all must approach it from the same legal standpoint, and that's B.S.

It's interesting that in the threads about Lockerbie last year, we were getting exactly the same spiel. A court found the man guilty, la la hum real loud, you must be a raving CT nutter if you believe anything different. (And this even from some people who knew so little about the case they declared a jury had found him guilty, when there was no jury trial in that case.)

Since then I and a few others have become so well-versed in the Lockerbie evidence that almost every nay-sayer has more or less run screaming. But even then, relatively few people have come forward and said they have changed their minds, and those who have are the people who weren't particularly vehement in the first place. Others either studiously avoid the threads or say things like, OK you won an internet slap-fest good for you so what. The idea that this realisation might have an implication for one's real-life beliefs about what led to the biggest terrorist attack on US citizens pre-9/11 doesn't really get a hearing.

And here we see the same mindset. Support the "official story" with a blind faith that borders on the religious, while refusing to explain the basis for holding to that belief.

There's an interesting psychological study in there somewhere.

Rolfe.