Has anyone been following the West Memphis Three?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's a very strange place to begin. I would have imagined the place to begin would have been where you showed the evidence actually connecting him to the crime. However crazy, disturbed or otherwise maladjusted he was, it's irrelevant if there's nothing to connect him to the crime.

First things first.

Rolfe.

Perhaps you could show evidence of his innocence.

What you continue to fail to grasp is that jharyn (and the prosecution) don't have to show anything. They already have. That's why the WM3 are sitting in jail.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's the only place he could have possibly begun, because it's the only reason the corrupt hick cops decided to force him into the role of the murderer: he was the sort of "evil" person that they WANTED to have committed this crime. It fit their ignorant preconceptions.
If you need to fake Satanic Ritual Abuse to get a guy convicted, you're wrong.

It's interesting that you pin this on the "corrupt hick cops" while continuing to ignore the role of the judge and jury. Odd, that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't get the mumia reference. Wasn't there some evidence against mumia in the mumia case?

Yes. Just like there is evidence against the WM3. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread? Because if you have, it would be good if you would post it.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Yes. Just like there is evidence against the WM3. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Well, since the other guy wont, perhaps you could say what evidence there was. Could be that all the videos I have seen were biased towards innocence, perhaps you could say what some of the evidence for guilt is

 

[Rolfe]

He's not going to. He's just going to say the court convicted them, end of story. Which it obviously isn't, because verdicts have been overturned on appeal on numerous occasions. In the intervening period between conviction and successful appeal, this is the sort of discussion that tends to take place.

As a newcomer to this case, I read the wiki page, and I read the well-set-out case in the supporters' site, and it seems to me that there is a reasonable case to be made for the verdict being unsound.

I don't present these pages as my opinion, because they're not. They're what I've read about the case, and the only point of view I've been exposed to. So at the moment, that's the side of the argument my sympathies are likely to lie on.

I would have expected that self-styled experts on the case would be able to present the other side of the argument, either by taking the main points raised by the supporters' web site and refuting them in the thread, or by linking to one or more equally well-reasoned and well-presented articles explaining why the prosecution case was in fact sound.

So far, crickets.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Deleted duplicate post.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's interesting that you pin this on the "corrupt hick cops" while continuing to ignore the role of the judge and jury. Odd, that.

I'm pretty sure I referred to the judge as incompetent and the jury as ignorant in an earlier post.

 

[John Jones]

I'm pretty sure I referred to the judge as incompetent and the jury as ignorant in an earlier post.

I started this thread, and have repeatedly used the words "incompetent" and "incompetence" to refer to the WMPD, the judge, the jury, the lawyers, and the entire criminal justice system in Arkansas.

I don't recall making accusations of corruption, but I might have said that Judge David Burnett's position as the appellate judge in a case he originally tried gives the appearance of wrongdoing.

I've had to eat my words before.

 

[John Jones]

Well, since the other guy wont, perhaps you could say what evidence there was. Could be that all the videos I have seen were biased towards innocence, perhaps you could say what some of the evidence for guilt is

The WMPD found a knife with a serrated edge in a lake near Damien Echols' trailer park, and it could have been used to make some of the wounds on the dead children. Of course there is no evidence that the WM3 had ever touched it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, since the other guy wont, perhaps you could say what evidence there was. Could be that all the videos I have seen were biased towards innocence, perhaps you could say what some of the evidence for guilt is

They're sitting in jail. That's all the evidence I need. If that is not good enough, ask the trial judge and/or the jurors. Their analysis is really the only one that matters.

Remember, the WM3 innocence posters are the ones making the claim. They are the ones who need to provide the evidence. They, so far, refuse to do that, besides repeated requests. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He's not going to. He's just going to say the court convicted them, end of story. Which it obviously isn't, because verdicts have been overturned on appeal on numerous occasions. In the intervening period between conviction and successful appeal, this is the sort of discussion that tends to take place.

Yes. Sometimes convictions are overturned on appeal. But, in order to be granted an appeal, the defense needs to provide grounds for appeal - new evidence or judicial error. Contrary to your claims, the prosecution doesn't have to provide anything. They have already proven their case.

I would have expected that self-styled experts on the case would be able to present the other side of the argument, either by taking the main points raised by the trial transcripts and refuting them in the thread, or explaining why the prosecution case was in fact unsound.

So far, crickets.

TCS

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm pretty sure I referred to the judge as incompetent and the jury as ignorant in an earlier post.

Will you provide evidence or crickets?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The WMPD found a knife with a serrated edge in a lake near Damien Echols' trailer park, and it could have been used to make some of the wounds on the dead children. Of course there is no evidence that the WM3 had ever touched it.

Wow. Surely there was more evidence than that?

 

[lionking]

They're sitting in jail. That's all the evidence I need. If that is not good enough, ask the trial judge and/or the jurors. Their analysis is really the only one that matters.

Will you change your tune if the appeal is successful?

 

[pipelineaudio]

They're sitting in jail. That's all the evidence I need.

So that would be a no, you won't show any evidence?

 

[Rolfe]

Yes. Sometimes convictions are overturned on appeal. But, in order to be granted an appeal, the defense needs to provide grounds for appeal - new evidence or judicial error. Contrary to your claims, the prosecution doesn't have to provide anything. They have already proven their case.

In the name of the all-holy FSM, will you please point out where I have made any claim that the prosecution need to provide anything when leave to appeal is being sought!

The defence have to show reasonable grounds for believing that the original verdict might be unsafe. That's what I've been saying all along. It was jharyn, who was declaring that the defence had to prove innocence to a standard of 100% certainty, who was wrong.

Rolfe.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Will you change your tune if the appeal is successful?

Of course.

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

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So that would be a no, you won't show any evidence?

I'm waiting for you to go first.

<crickets>

 

[AvalonXQ]

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

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.