• 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?

Rolfe: As I have repeatedly stated to you. Your willful ignorance of the case causes me to ignore your opinion. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
 
Unreliable sources and Willful ignorance

jharyn said:
Rolfe: I have not found any official statement from Jesse where he recanted his confession. Only hearsay from very unreliable sources.
Click to expand...

You seem to know very little about the case. Even less than I, which is saying something.

I believe it is common knowledge that the mentally challenged boy recanted his confession within a short period (perhaps days) of giving it. Which is precisely the reason the "confession" couldn't be used in court against the death penalty recipient.

Further your statement above that the confession was not used in his trial is grossly misleading. Ignoring as it does the evidence now that suggests the confession could very well have found its way into jury deliberations. Via juror misconduct.
 
As I have stated numerous times. I refuse to debate with people who have no interest in reading the facts of the case. Familiarize yourself with the facts of the case and I will "enjoy" a debate on the case. Until then, I will not waste my time with another willfully ignorant supporter of three child murderers.
 
You seem also not to want to waste your time with people that HAVE researched the case, pronouncing them willfully ignorant if they come to a different conclusion.
 
jharyn said:
As I have stated numerous times. I refuse to debate with people who have no interest in reading the facts of the case. Familiarize yourself with the facts of the case and I will "enjoy" a debate on the case. Until then, I will not waste my time with another willfully ignorant supporter of three child murderers.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, one of those supporters is a parents of one of the victims. I doubt he's ignorant of the facts of the case. Haven't seen reactions from any of the other parents regarding this release, however.

Mark Byers, who's son was a victim of the West Memphis three killings, has supported the release of Jessie Misskelley, Damien Echols, and Jason Baldwin. "I want justice and I wanted the three of them to be free, and I have no hard feelings against the three. I have love and empathy and sympathy for the family, who I've made amends to. I'm looking for them today just to hug them. To let them know they have their child back. Maybe I can't have my child back, but they're going to get theirs," said Byers. "I think it's a terrible crime to be put in prison for a crime you didn't do, and you have to admit to a crime you didn't do on a plea bargain to get out of prison."
Click to expand...

http://www.kait8.com/story/15300437/families-react-to-bittersweet-ending-of-wm3-trial
 
Last edited:
jharyn said:
As I have stated numerous times. I refuse to debate with people who have no interest in reading the facts of the case. Familiarize yourself with the facts of the case and I will "enjoy" a debate on the case. Until then, I will not waste my time with another willfully ignorant supporter of three child murderers.
Click to expand...

:id:

I've read your posts in the other thread, you were asked several times to explain your position using facts and evidence. You failed miserably. In case you weren't aware, posting links and handwaving isn't defending your position.

There is no physical evidence linking the WM3 to this crime and the latest DNA tests damaged the prosecutors case, which is why they were so willing to make this deal.
 
This deal is a bitter ending, releasing them with broken lives, without compensation or even acknowledgement of the injustice.

Is there a way for them to follow with some civil lawsuits seeking compensation?
 
Katody Matrass said:
This deal is a bitter ending, releasing them with broken lives, without compensation or even acknowledgement of the injustice.

Is there a way for them to follow with some civil lawsuits seeking compensation?
Click to expand...

If you read the prosecutors statement, nothing has changed. They are still guilty, and even pleaded so. No compensation. But they are at least free.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Is there a way for them to follow with some civil lawsuits seeking compensation?
Click to expand...


No. That's what the "Alford plea" thing is about. It's a device to allow the state to release defendands who are clearly going to win an appeal, without having to back down. The defendants agree to be held guilty in law, in return for being released.

It's all about prosecutors and the criminal justice system saving face and not having to admit they were wrong and ruined three young men's lives. Also about not having to re-open cold murder cases, because they can still claim they have convictions so the murders were solved.

Compare and contrast the "Lockerbie bomber" affair.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
So the CTers got it wrong.

We were told the WM3 didn't do it, they are innocent!

Apparently not, as they plead guilty to the crimes today.
Click to expand...

Yesterday I was speaking with my colleagues in germany at meal time about something simila. It was not related to the Memphis 3 at all. One asked : would you admit culpability if you are innocent but can come out of prison early ? Out of 12 persons at the table I was the *only one* which said no. All other said they were ready to admit guilt.

To that I would add that some people were coerced into admitting guilt before process, after process for a plea, and turned out to be innocent.

Sure it is anecdotial, but whereas admitting guilt is most probably a sing of being guilty, it is not a sure thing.

Now if you ask me about the memphis 3 : I know NOTHING beyond what's in wiki so I can only take the law side on this since they have all the data I do not, and see them as guilty as they have been declared in court of law.

ETA heck apparentely they maintain their innocence in the pela, so I am not even sure the guilty position is really granted either.
 
Last edited:
Mary Byers would sell his mother for a dollar. Do a little research on that POS before trying to use him in your argument. That agument will be too easy. Besides the supporter freaks were blaming him for the murders for years.
 
Misskelley is not mentally challenged, his own expert witness showed that he was meandering. The confession was NOT used in the echols baldwin trial. Look that one up also. At least do a little research here people. I thought I was at the randi.org forums.
 
jharyn said:
Mary Byers would sell his mother for a dollar. Do a little research on that POS before trying to use him in your argument. That agument will be too easy. Besides the supporter freaks were blaming him for the murders for years.
Click to expand...

So if it's such a cut and dried case, why have they been released?
 
The release was about the amount of time that has passed and the possibility of a new trial being too expensive, and too many people from the trial are no longer alive. Something that we should be saying about echols. Have any of you read any of miskelley's confessions? There are 4 you know. Anyone at all? Your arguments have been debunked years ago. Years! I lost a lot of faith in the people on this site today.
 
While my own knowledge of the case is limited to watching the two films & a very small amount of reading online, I'm happy they're free. The fact that there was no DNA to tie any of the three to the crimescene - a crimescene that would have been impossible for three teenagers without any 'expertise' in killing people to clean without leaving DNA traces around was the smoking gun for me. Sucks that they chose to take this weird deal that will prevent them from seeking recourse for unlawful imprisonment. My understanding is that the motivation in this was to ensure Echols wasn't executed in the meantime. I'm pretty sure they'll do OK financially from potential movie / book rights.
 
Probonoshil: I have repeatedly stated that I agree with the prosecutions case and the juries verdicts. I have repeatedly posted the link to all the documentation. The burden is on those who disagree with the verdict. The evidence I need to back up my opinion is in the court transcripts of which I have provided the link on too many occasions to bother posting again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom