I have never even mentioned his confession. I also don’t appreciate your comments about how those defending the boys have previously wished for bad things to happen to people who didn’t even get a trial. I have done no such thing, and in fact have gotten involved in such threads to say that judgement should be withheld, and that I would not wish such things as prison rape on even the most evil person in the world.
Not really, considering transcripts of all court proceedings have been linked to this thread for those who wish to read it.
If you would like the ability to hear the testimony and see the demeanor of the players, the judge allowed HBO to film the trial, not to mention the interviews with virtually everyone involved.
that post was directed to Diane, not you. I did not claim that you’d wanted bad things to happen to anybody, just that the type of comment that you (I believe it was to you, if it wasn’t then this wasn’t directed to you either) had made (‘you’d feel differently if it were happening to you’) was something that bugs me and I feel is wrong, as I explained.
I feel you and I are talking past each other. You want to re-evaluate the evidence presented at the trial, I find that to be a pointless endeavor, for reasons I’ve already explained.
I very much agree with you. If DNA results do not clear the case against the WM3, even if it proves them to be guilty, I feel that it is still important that this abuse of the justice system be recognized and used to prevent it from happening in the future.
Before I am called a liar again, yes I do know that the documentaried do not show the entire length of the trial. However, if you would like to see the demeanor of all involved, you can certainly rent the videos and get a pretty good idea.
Diane-
A . watching a film isn’t the same as watching IRL.
B. you’ve not address the issue that none of what you’re presenting has had the chance for prosecutorial review and cross examination, yet you wish us to accept it at face value, and reject stuff that has been subject to review and cross examination by the defense.
I believe that you are presenting it as fairly as you can. But it is not the same as having facts examined by experts, investigators, cross examined, questioned etc.
IF you cannot see why that’s a problem here, then we’re at an impass.
Diane I’ve not called you (or anyone else) a liar.
and, as your qualification demonstrates, since the HBO doesn’t show the entire trial, it’s not a good trade for seeing it happen IRL. So my objection remains.
you wish us to hold as stronger: evidence that you’ve presented, that hasn’t been subject to examination or review by the prosecution, investigation by the prosecution, and cross examination/ rebuttal by the prosecution.
and reject as unworthy : all other evidence in the trial which was subject to investigation, examination, review, cross examiniation and rebuttal by both sides
this again is not saying that you’re factually wrong.
And as I have explained numerous times, I also feel that this case involved many abuses of the legal system, such as allowing Jessie’s confession, and allowing many bad tactics by the police and biased decisions by the judge. Even if the defendants were guilty, I would still protest against such abuses, on the off chance that laws can be changed, and because it is just plain wrong.
That comment was not directed at you. I asked Shodan to put himself in the place of the defendants, and to ask himself how he would feel if he was convicted based on testimony which was both admittedly made up and factually impossible. This comment was based on Shodan repeatedly posting lies, and then acting entirely unconcerned when he was corrected, despite his lies being the basis of his whole argument.
It was also based on him calling the defendants “bizarro friends”, which is both factually untrue and suggests that he is incapable of seeing them as actual people. In this case, I believe it was justified to ask him to view the case from his own point of view, as he was clearly unable to view it from the point of view of the “bizarro friends.”
Even if it weren’t directed at me, I feel it’s a dishonest tactic, suggesting, as it does, that one’s moral stance or opinion on a topic is predicated on ‘how much does this personally affect me’.
I understand that you think abuses went on. then attack that at the source - lobby for changes in the cj system regarding questioning by the police of persons who are have disabilities, are under the influence, are minors, etc etc.
arguing it’s application in this case is pointless.
And I feel that you are wrong. If you are unable to see someone as an actual person, it can be helpful to put yourself in their shoes. Does Shodan actually believe he will one day be on trial for a satanic homicide? Doubtful. Clearly it does not personally affect him, and that is not what I intended. I put myself in someone else’s shoes all the time to better understand an issue. Your objection is without merit.
Bringing attention to an atrocity is pointless? Bringing attention to the various reasons it was allowed to happen, and suggesting changes, is pointless?
Perhaps you are right. But I still feel obligated to protest against it all the same. Maybe it is just that I feel partially responsible for the abuses of our legal system. Maybe I just feel that all such atrocities should be protested, whether or not they will likely be fixed. A personal failing on my part.
You really seem incapable of seeing that you’re arguing with some one who essentially agrees with you.
I feel you are wrong about that tactic. By suggesting ‘how would you feel if it were happening to you’ , you are assuming that the person involved hasn’t already placed themselves or loved ones in some one else’s shoes. Just because they’re unsympathetic does not mean that they lack empathy or understanding. Some people place a very high premium on personal responsability for example, so even if it were a loved one in trouble, they’d still have the same position. Assuming that they would feel differently if it were personal is saying you know them better than they know themselves, and/or they’re not telling the truth. I don’t think, in a written medium, you can fairly make either statement about some one else.
arguing the points of the specific case here is, IMHO, pointless because A:. there are those who will reject it because of the type of thing that I pointed out, and (more importantly) B. even if everything you’re presenting is factually true, it still would not help the specific people involved. The time to have argued that piece has gone. it won’t help them.
and if it won’t help them, and is not at all done in a way so that it would prevent further abuse of this type, it really does fall under the category ‘pointless’.
Do you understand what you’re fighting against? ‘people’ (in the generic sense of the word) do not believe that routinely innocent people get arrested and convicted. Hell, look at Gary Condit - he had an affair and tried to not have it become public knowledge. and he got pilloried 'cause the woman he had an affair w/got murdered.
‘people’ (again in the generic sense of the word) do not believe that anyone would confess if they weren’t guilty. This, dispite the fact that people have been cleared post conviction, even tho they confessed.
‘people’ do not believe that police would use unfair tactics to obtain a confession unless they were certain the person was guilty, and once that thought lodges, it doesn’t go away.
‘people’ don’t believe that procedural things can go wrong and innocents can languish behind bars.
You are still misunderstanding. The idea is not that they would think differently if it was personal. The idea is that they would think differently if they thought it through at all!
Shodan was unconcerned that his major arguments turned out to be false. He dismissed the defendants as “bizarro friends.”
From this, I determined that he had not seriously thought it through. Therefore I asked him to think it through. Was I implying that he didn’t think it through? Yes. That was my intention.
However, I was not implying that his moral values would be different if it was personal. I am afraid that strained and convoluted suggestion is entirely of your own creation.
A: There are also those who will not reject it. In fact, many, many people have already accepted it. Some of those people might one day be in a position to do something about the laws that allowed this to happen. On that chance alone, it is worthwhile to protest.
B: As I have already stated repeatedly, it is not only about helping them. Protesting an atrocity is often about bringing attention to it and the things that allowed it to happen. If you wish to consider that a personal failing on my part, I support you in your decision. I don’t expect you to agree.
Nightime you still are admitting that according to you, Shodan hasn’t ‘thought it through’.
and I believe that’s an audacious and offensive stance to take.
YMOV.
we’ve reached an impass. believe what you wish.
I attempted to assist you in your quest to actually do some good. but you have your own way of doing so, which you’re apparently comfortable with.
Believe what you will.
Shodan has shown an incredible ignorance of this case. He not only does not even know the names of the victims, but he mistakes a defendant for a victim and then uses that mistake as his biggest piece of evidence. He repeatedly lies, saying that all three confessed and that they were all friends. He is unconcerned when he is informed of his mistakes.
Yes, I am saying he has not thought it through.
I think that bringing attention to the horrific abuse of the legal system in this case, and the reasons it was able to happen, is a good thing.
Bringing attention to the reasons it was able to happen without a case as an example seems a very poor strategy to me. People generally need an example, or they can simply say “oh, that could never happen.”
So I’m not even sure what your suggestions were. Other than saying how pointless it is to try to bring attention to atrocities in the hopes that they will one day be changed.
You will believe as you wish.
I’ve tried to suggest that your tactics here will not have your stated desired result, you’ve certainly alienated those who don’t agree w/you and are doing your best to alienate those who tend to agree with you. and, of course, will not do jack shit to help the specific people that you’re talking about.
Wow. You take the phrase “disingenuous offense” to a whole new level.
This is honestly the first I have heard that saying “put yourself in their shoes” is a horrible offense. I think it is pretty obvious that Shodan did not look at the situation from the other side.
And again, I myself have put myself in other people’s shoes before. Was I insulting myself by doing so? Or are you just taking offense for the sake of taking offense? Get a grip.
You’ve convinced me that communication w/you is not working well. You’ve misread, misinterpreted, misunderstood, misconstrued/ whatever my words, perhaps I’ve not been as clear as I thought I have been. Either way, I’m not willing to wrestle this through any further.
Actually, he’s the only one with a connection to the case that didn’t have a solid alibi. Jessie’s “confession” originally placed him 40 miles away, Damien and his parents were visiting friends, Jason went straight home from school and had a witness who was not called to testify. Where was John Mark Byers? Only he knows, and like how he lost his teeth his story kept changing.
I agree, but watching the footage of court testimony you can get a pretty good idea and sampling.
I feel that Nightime has addressed this pretty well to you and I am in total agreement. Short of C&P his words, I can’t say it any better.
I was just beating Bricker to the punch.
I agree, but it certainly does give you an opportunity to get somewhat of an idea of the demeanor and mannerisms of the players. Nothing more, nothing less, I was just pointing out that in spite of your beliefs, there is opportunity to witness this. I never claimed that it is as good as seeing it IRL. BUT - as Nighttime pointed out, there are many things that the jury did not get to see. Important omissions that may have changed the outcome of the case.
Again, Nightime has addressed this quite well.
This is being done. I personally have send many letters over the years addressing this point alone.
Why? The trusted court system put one man on death row and two others away for life in spite of some very big injustices and society is just supposed to accept it?
I don’t think you are understanding what Nightime is saying to you.
It is a tactic that hopefully forces another person to open their eyes and see something as more than words on a computer screen or the 10:00 news. Shodan obviously felt far enough removed from the situation emotionally that he was able to spurt out bullshit like “You must just hate me because I own a black t-shirt” and “bizarro friends”. Maybe if he is able to see the situation on a more personal level he might (although I doubt it) understand the importance of it.
As is quite obvious here in this thread where it is clear that a couple of people hold a blind trust in the judicial system. Fortunately, there are many more people who feel differently and are out there trying to make a difference.
You’ve totally lost me.
Other than dissect the judicial system, voice your opinion of debate tactics, and tell us that it is hopeless, you’ve not really offered anything that WILL help this case.
You are right, it is probable that nothing will help Damien, Jessie, or Jason except for the DNA test results. Their case may be hopeless. HOWEVER - and this is where you are not understanding. There were some very big injustices in this case. Some of us don’t feel comfortable to just roll over and accept it. If anything good comes from this case, hopefully it will be an assurance that it will never happen again.
Can you at least not see the importance in that?
His testimony transcripts are found on www.wm3.org