• 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?

The lack of DNA was caused by the bodies being submerged in water for at least 18 hours.
 
jharyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, your position is known. If things are so clear, why the possibility of a new trial at all? A new trial even you acknowledge could result in exoneration. The prosecution has been humiliated. Embarrassed.
 
jharyn said:
There is a coherent case. Enough so that a jury convicted the three and sentenced one to death.
Click to expand...

You mean there was a coherent case. Apparently there isn't one any longer, as shown by the prosecutor saying "I further believe it would be practically impossible to put on a proper case against the defendants" in the statement you linked to. (Thanks for that, incidentally.)
 
Last November Jharyn joined the forum, and after a few posts in other threads (enough to be able to post links) he concentrated on the then-new thread on the West Memphis Three started by John James.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6543619

He claimed to be an expert on the case, but he was unable to make the most elementary argument, merely repeatedly linking to a collection of original court documents, and another forum where he said posters could discuss the case with a bunch of other people. He also appeared to be extraordinarily ignorant of some pretty basic legal principles, such as the burden of truth.

I can't see any point in running a repeat of that singularly unhelpful exchange in this thread.

Rolfe.
 
jharyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

The confession was not admitted as evidence in the second trial, however there is evidence that the jurors knew of and used the confession during deliberations, and that is partially why this deal was made... possible juror misconduct.
 
jharyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reading the confessions for myself convinced me of innocence more than anything. From the first confession it was clear that he knew little details of the actual crime and the cops were actually providing answers. Misskelly provided no details about the murder that the cops did not feed him and provided no knowledge of the actual murders exclusive to a first person witness to the crime. Classic sort of leading questions that SRA and Alien Abduction hypnotherapists have used for decades.

This trial took place at nearly the height of the Satanic Panic and numerous confessions have been produced alleging impossible acts by 'cultists' and 'satanists'. This is some meat and bones skepticism here. This is indeed the randi.org forums.

I also would like to thank you for pointing that website out.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the teens killed those boys and if I am correct, a confession alone doesn't cut it in a capital murder case for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt mainly because folks simply lie and coercion by law enforcement is not out of the question.

There was zero hard evidence presented by the prosecution exclusively linking the three to the crimes. The knife that was found (by the way, which was found 7 months after the murders) in the lake behind Balwin's trailer is not the kind used in the murders. The reports on the clothing showed no matches for blood. Law enforcement lied to Echols about damning physical evidence that was found at the scene. The evidence presented focused on song lyrics and Damien generally being 'weird' and since recanted 3rd person overheard conversations. None of which should be enough to convict a shoplifter let alone a multiple child murder(s).

Speaking of song lyrics, From Metallica's ...And Justice For All

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

I'm admittedly slow on the up take and all and if there is some damning physical evidence hidden in that excellent website you keep pointing out would you mind pointing it out to me? Until then the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those that prove guilt, it is not the duty of the defendant to prove his innocence. Prints, DNA, exclusive fibers, footprints, you know, stuff like that.
 
On the defense's side we have the fact that the confession was extracted from a mentally retarded minor without his parents consent nor presence (plus only 46 minutes of a 12 hour interrogation was recorded) and inadmissible by any fair evidentiary standards, that there's no physical evidence they committed the crime, the DNA evidence which belongs to none of the 3 men in jail for it (and belongs to the aforementioned stepfather), scads of other physical evidence which does not match the 3 men in prison and serious allegations of jury misconduct.
On the Prosecution's side we have: The testimony of a known liar who was after reward money, and the fact the boys wore black, read Stephen King books and listened to slayer.

Also, big "**** You!" to Mike Huckabee. This is exactly the sort of case that an executive pardon was made for.
 
EvilSmurf said:
On the defense's side we have the fact that the confession was extracted from a mentally retarded minor without his parents consent nor presence (plus only 46 minutes of a 12 hour interrogation was recorded)
Click to expand...
Not to mention the photograph of a baseball bat propped up in the corner of the interrogation room.
 
Rolfe said:
You just said it convinced you....

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


That they pleaded guilty goes a long way in convincing me.

That they also claim to be innocent besides just makes them no different from most people who are guilty of what they went to jail for; it proves nothing.
 
Checkmite said:
That they pleaded guilty goes a long way in convincing me.
Click to expand...

Most of the people executed for witchcraft pled guilty, too. Does that go a long way to convince you they really did sup with the devil, fly through the air, cast murrains on cattle, create storms at sea, and transform into animals? They admitted doing so, after all. Convincing?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Most of the people executed for witchcraft pled guilty, too. Does that go a long way to convince you they really did sup with the devil, fly through the air, cast murrains on cattle, create storms at sea, and transform into animals? They admitted doing so, after all. Convincing?
Click to expand...

Dang. I didn't know they'd all confessed. So all that stuff is real!

I've been a fool.
 
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...


There is one case, pretty much as bad as this one, where the defendant chose to stay in jail rather than admit to a crime he hadn't committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Stefan Kiszko also served about 18 years I believe. He was told at some point that he could be released if he accepted responsibility for the murder and appeared suitably remorseful, but he refused. Of course he wasn't on death row, and his refusal didn't cause anyone else to remain in prison.

Checkmite, the West Memphis Three took a deal that got them immediately out of jail, including the one who had been on death row for 18 years. It is quite obvious the prosecution itself no longer believes they were guilty, but agreed to this deal to save face.

Why does their having agreed to this deal, while still steadfastly maintaining their innocence, convince you they are guilty? When it is quite obvious even the prosecutor doesn't believe they are guilty?

Rolfe.
 
It does read a lot like the Leo Frank case, where the accused was chosen for reasons other than guilt, while the obvious suspect was considered, but rejected for lack of political potential.
(More media attention over getting a Jew than just another black man.)
 
I don't agree. I don't think the investigators in this case had any idea who did it, nor did they deliberately reject the real culprit. I think the three teenagers were just easy pickings.

Rolfe.
 
All you people who think they're guilty are fools! I'll direct you to this website:

http://callahan.8k.com/

It's all in there, people! If you can't be bothered to read the entire case file there's no point in discussing it with you, but the website proves their innocence!

Don't ask me for a particular bit of it, you have to read the whole thing.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I'm just doing this so jharyn realises what his posts look like.)
 
Rolfe said:
I don't agree. I don't think the investigators in this case had any idea who did it, nor did they deliberately reject the real culprit. I think the three teenagers were just easy pickings.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
.
Well, yes.. easier than doing any in-depth investigating.
Go for the most popular suspect(s), media wise.
 
Checkmite said:
That they pleaded guilty goes a long way in convincing me.

That they also claim to be innocent besides just makes them no different from most people who are guilty of what they went to jail for; it proves nothing.
Click to expand...


How do you interpret the fact that the prosecution was happy to go with the Alford plea? You think they offer that to everyone who claims to be innocent? Or might it possibly suggest there's a little more to this?

Like, it's obvious that the prosecution don't think they're guilty, and they've pretty much said so in their public statement.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom