• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

JTF said:
What I did state was my opinion that there was ample evidence of their guilt and I included several examples of why they were convicted of this horrific crime.
Click to expand...

None of your examples was even remotely convincing - they mostly seemed to be along the lines of "they weren't very nice people so they probably did it", which is a very common way of arriving at a miscarriage of justice. It's simply not enough to demonstrate that the accused aren't pleasant or have possibly committed other crimes - you need to prove that they committed this one.
 
There is a term called "Gish Gallop"
It is throwing so many things at a person that it is impossible to answer them all. In the website linked above, I see strong shades of that.

Dr Mark Crislip has an interesting statement however with regards to studies such as homeopathy, chiropracty, and acupuncture. There are huge numbers of poorly done studies which the practitioners of there will throw out. The problem is that no matter how many cow pies you put togetherm, you can never make anything that tastes good.

As such, I am only going to deal with the first item:
FACT - JESSIE MISSKELLEY CONFESSED NUMEROUS TIMES:
The Paradise Lost and West of Memphis documentaries and the book and movie Devil's Knot completely leave out the fact Jessie Misskelley confessed to the murders numerous times both before and after he was convicted.

First off, this is incorrect. The book "Devil's Knot" clearly states that he did make multiple confessions. It does not really matter because it does not deal with the real problem.

The real problems are
1. From watching released interviews, it is clear that he was lead through the confessor by the interviewing officer. You can see that he did not come up with those answers himself but instead were fed to him by the officer.
2. The confession does not really fit the crime scene. Gives the wrong times and what he said happen is not consistent with the events.
3. Jessie Misskelley is very low functioning. Now, there are high function individuals who confess to crimes they do not commit like Marty Tankleff but it does not help. In fact, of interest is that Joseph Dick (of the Norfolk Four) is also low functioning although higher functioning that Jessie Misskelley. Similar as in they both made multiple confessions which do not fit with facts of the crime.
 
Last edited:
hair analysis and cognitive bias

The question of fiber analysis is pertinent to the evidence against Jason Baldwin IIUC. I realize that drawing a comparison between hair analysis and fiber analysis is not without its drawbacks. Yet hair analysis is not the only branch of forensics that is fraught with the problem of cognitive bias. In the essay CSI for Real, Roger Koppl wrote, "Larry S. Miller demonstrates an excellent example of cognitive bias at play. He asked a group of 14 students trained in hair analysis, all of whom met the basic requirements for expert testimony on human hair identification in courts of law, to examine four cases each. For each student, two cases were presented the usual way: They were given two samples and told that one was from the crime scene and the other from the suspect. The other two cases were presented through a forensic line- up. The known sample from the imaginary crime scene was compared to five suspect-known hair samples. In all 56 cases, there were in reality no true matches. The first group of cases yielded an error rate of 30.8 percent; the second group an error rate of only 3.8 percent.12"
 
Chris_Halkides said:
The question of fiber analysis is pertinent to the evidence against Jason Baldwin IIUC. I realize that drawing a comparison between hair analysis and fiber analysis is not without its drawbacks. Yet hair analysis is not the only branch of forensics that is fraught with the problem of cognitive bias. In the essay CSI for Real, Roger Koppl wrote, "Larry S. Miller demonstrates an excellent example of cognitive bias at play. He asked a group of 14 students trained in hair analysis, all of whom met the basic requirements for expert testimony on human hair identification in courts of law, to examine four cases each. For each student, two cases were presented the usual way: They were given two samples and told that one was from the crime scene and the other from the suspect. The other two cases were presented through a forensic line- up. The known sample from the imaginary crime scene was compared to five suspect-known hair samples. In all 56 cases, there were in reality no true matches. The first group of cases yielded an error rate of 30.8 percent; the second group an error rate of only 3.8 percent.12"
Click to expand...

Not only that, if they had taken fiber samples from every trailer in Echols' trailer park, I dare speculate that at least 30% of them would have fibers equally 'consistent' with the fibers from the crime scene. They came from a Walmart, ffs.
 
I know this is a bit of an aside but is the Wayne Williams fiber evidence the same situation? I have heard that it was a very unusual fiber but skeptical.
 
Desert Fox said:
I know this is a bit of an aside but is the Wayne Williams fiber evidence the same situation? I have heard that it was a very unusual fiber but skeptical.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the fiber in the Wayne Williams case was relatively rare, and could be traced to specific automobile makes and models, and that Williams happened to own on of these vehicles. I could be wrong about this.

The fibers in the WM3 case could possibly be traced to the nation's largest retail operation, and often the only one in small towns. Those fibers were consist with garments sold in Walmart. Specifically, a bath robe.
 
None of the fibres used in the prosecution of the wm3 were consistent with any garments belonging to the three. They were all said to be consistent with things like a toilet seat cover from Jason's home, Damien's brother's t shirt, Jason's mother's bath robe. Add to that that we're supposed to accept that the hairs at the crime scene were secondary transfer and irrelevant to the crime. So we have a crime scene full of secondary transfer and no primary transfer found from the killers to the victims - not an impossible scenario given that the crime scene was poorly handled, but still an unlikely one when there are supposedly three killers. You'd think a hair or something would have been found belonging to at least one of them, especially as there are plenty of hairs there consistent with all three of the victims.

Another thing to take into account with the fibres - the police took around 90 items each from the homes of Damien, Jason and Jessie for testing. They took only 6 items each from the homes of Christopher Byers and Michael Moore for exclusionary testing, and nothing at all from Steven Branch's home. As these were all fibres from mass produced garments I wonder if they'd taken an equal amount of items from each of the victims and suspects homes for testing, would they have found those fibres to be consistent with garments from the victims' homes too?
 
mojoe said:
....my real interest is in the interaction between nons and supporters. I find it interesting that they see the same evidence and interpret it so differently. I have been reading various non and supporter sites, including Callahans, since before the second documentary. After reading all sides I came to my own conclusion. As I said before my interest ended with deal.
Click to expand...

It certainly is rather amusing to watch both sides of the debate draw polar opposite conclusions from the same some or another particular fact(s). And never more so than when BOTH side's conclusion then manages to screw the pooch. A typical example being Chupacabras claiming the Alford plea amounts to a tacit prosecutorial admission of factual innocence while the Anti-Dammys claim it's a tacit WM3 admission of factual guilt.

For my money though, nothing tickles the irony bone more than watching the usual suspects, now that they think they've found an even better patsy, dribbling over themselves in the pretense that they never intended to suggest John Mark Byers was the "real killer". And how, all along, they only ever meant to show that he- despite his faults- is really nothing but a lovable eccentric. Just like 'ole Damien.

666
 
There is an important different between Byers and Damien. Damien does not have any connection with the murdered children while Byers does. While not always the case, it is often best to look to those close to home. Your significant other gets murdered, you will be the first suspect.

I don't know if Byers was the killer, I don't know if Hobbs is the killer, and I don't know if it is somebody else. We are almost certain to never know who committed the crimes. I am just arguing that I do not think Byers can be excluded.
 
West Memphis Three Discussion

luchog said:
There's a small vocal constituent who still insists on their guilt. Part of it is the "police/judiciary can do no wrong" attitude we've seen prevalent here; and the "OMG devil worshippers!!!" ignorant crap all too common in the bible belt. The other part is the fact that Echols is mentally ill and prone to delusions; which in the US means that he's clearly an evil person and needs to die. (The way mental illness is stigmatized and treated in this country is barely short of barbaric.)

There will always be those who are completely immune to any evidence, however overwhelming, that contradicts their own personal prejudices.
Click to expand...

They have a list of evidence just not very good evidence
http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/
 
Desert Fox said:
They have a list of evidence just not very good evidence
http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/
Click to expand...


I hope you don't mind the merge, Desert Fox. It escalated a bit further than I anticipated.

There was an even earlier thread, before the Alford Plea, and a new poster piled into that insisting that he was an expert in the case and the boys were certainly guilty. Here's his first post.

jharyn said:
Here is a link to the site that contains all known official documents that are available outside of the evidence room that I know of:

http://callahan.8k.com/

The WM3 were not railroaded, they were not convicted because of the color of clothing or the music they preferred.

The three convicted are guilty. The hearing in my opinion will go no where because the defense has never produced any evidence that shows their innocence by any stretch of the imagination. They only have outright lies and far fetched theories that have never been backed up with anything resembling evidence.

This hearing will go nowhere and is a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...


He took a bit of a pasting after that, but it's interesting reading. The only person I've seen even trying to make a case for guilt, but all he could say is, here's a link to a site hosting a shedload of original trial documents, proof of guilt is in there, and no I will not provide a summary, a precis or even a road map.
 
Last edited:
The WM3 were not railroaded, they were not convicted because of the color of clothing or the music they preferred.

The three convicted are guilty. The hearing in my opinion will go no where because the defense has never produced any evidence that shows their innocence by any stretch of the imagination. They only have outright lies and far fetched theories that have never been backed up with anything resembling evidence.

I cannot prove that I am innocent of the crime. . . . .You can trust my answer that I never have been to Arkansas but I would have a devil of a time proving it. That is why it is the prosecutors job to show guilt not the defendant to show innocence.
 
Desert Fox said:
The WM3 were not railroaded, they were not convicted because of the color of clothing or the music they preferred.

The three convicted are guilty. The hearing in my opinion will go no where because the defense has never produced any evidence that shows their innocence by any stretch of the imagination. They only have outright lies and far fetched theories that have never been backed up with anything resembling evidence.
.
Click to expand...


Who are you quoting? David Burnett? Gary Gitchell? Bryn Ridge?
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
The WM3 were not railroaded, they were not convicted because of the color of clothing or the music they preferred.

The three convicted are guilty. The hearing in my opinion will go no where because the defense has never produced any evidence that shows their innocence by any stretch of the imagination. They only have outright lies and far fetched theories that have never been backed up with anything resembling evidence.

I cannot prove that I am innocent of the crime. . . . .You can trust my answer that I never have been to Arkansas but I would have a devil of a time proving it. That is why it is the prosecutors job to show guilt not the defendant to show innocence.
Click to expand...


IANAL, but I think the presumption of innocence is nullified once a person has already been convicted.
 
John Jones said:
IANAL, but I think the presumption of innocence is nullified once a person has already been convicted.
Click to expand...

There is enough evidence to have the conviction overturned (the tainted juror is enough for that) and a new trial. . . .In a new trial, you then return to a presumption of innocence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom