Ignorance, Bigotry, and Apathy May Kill a (Presumedly) Innocent Man

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Diane *
**However, DNA testing has actually begun. It has been financed through donations and benefit concerts, among other sources. No funding has been received from those who fucked the case up from the beginning. **

Well, it’s good that the testing has begun. It’ll be hard for them to pretend they’re guilty if they don’t get a match.

Wait a minute. It’s a state lab doing the test, right? The lab they themselves use for testing.

[Velma]

I did not know about this case and it is highly disturbing. I have written to the governor and I hope others do too. Has this case ever been featured on a show like 20/20 or Dateline? The only interviews I saw were the Leeza show, and I wonder if more publicity would help again now with Damien’s time running out. It seems like a case that the media would be all over, and be doing follow-ups on now that the end is near - are there plans for another big story in the future?

[Zabali_Clawbane]

HBO made two highly acclaimed movies about the case.

[Baldwin]

I haven’t seen the documentaries, but had heard about the case before. Although I’m not religious, my immediate response , Jesus wept.

So many features of this case would seem implausible if they were fiction. Even if for some reason I thought these young people were guilty, that’s got to be one of the worst excuses for a trial I’ve ever heard of.

[Skywatcher]

*Originally posted by Miller *
After seeing the first movie, I couldn’t believe there was still a need to make a second.

There’s a third in the works.

[Velma]

*Originally posted by Zabali_Clawbane *
**HBO made two highly acclaimed movies about the case. **

Yes… I saw that earlier in the thread but I am wondering if a network program has brought attention to it or will be re-examining it soon due to the new developments and time running out. Not everyone gets HBO and I might never have heard about the documentaries without this thread. A network show could get more donations and letters - something like an interview with Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer or even Oprah, they seem to be able to get viewer response.

[Diane]

It seems like a case that the media would be all over, and be doing follow-ups on now that the end is near - are there plans for another big story in the future?

My local paper did a recent article when Henry Rollins was in town last week. It’s a great article.

http://www.wm3.org/framesets/newsframe.html

There’s a third in the works.

They are still casting for the film. The difference is, is that the first two were documentaries while this one will be a feature film. I think it is great! However, I am afraid that its release will be too late to help save Damien if the DNA tests are inconclusive.

[Mojo]

Although Byers creeped me out, I’d be more careful before accusing him of having murdered the kids. After viewing Paradise Lost they made it look like the culprit was the guy with bloody clothes in the Bojangles. After viewing Paradise Lost II that theory was pretty much discounted and they started focusing on Byers. Yes, his behavior creeped me out and seemed suspicious, but that’s what people said about Echols too.

Put me in the “I don’t know if they’re innocent, but they should get a retrial” camp.

[Bricker]

Obviously, the OP has a passionate interest in this case. I am responding to the “background” to offer some observations and information about what the law requires. I am doing this becase the background in the OP suggests that improper or illegal procedures were followed, when, in the instances I am citing, that is not the case.

It’s unclear to me if the same technique was used by the OP in describing other events. I take no position on the fairness of the trial at present.

*Originally posted by Diane *
The police took Jessie in for questioning, without a lawyer, and interviewed him for 12 hours.

If the reader is left with an impression that there is some irregularity in questioning someone without a lawyer, or for twelve hours - there is not. In order for any statements to be used against an accused at trial, the police must have first informed the accused of his rights.

From the Arkansas Supreme Court’s opinion affirming jessie’s conviction, Misskelley v. State, 323 Ark. 449, 915 S.W.2d 702, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 898 (1996). :

Detective Allen read him a form entitled “YOUR RIGHTS,” and verbally advised him of the Miranda rights contained in the form. The appellant responded verbally that he understood his rights and also initialled each component of the rights form. There was no evidence of any promises, threats or coercion.

The form also contained a section entitled “WAIVER OF RIGHTS,” which read as follows:

 I have read this statement of my RIGHTS and I understand
 what my RIGHTS are.  I am willing to make a statement and
 answer questions.  I do not want a lawyer at this time. 
 I understand and know what I am doing, no promises or
 threats have been made to me and no pressure or force has
 been used against me.

The waiver was signed by the appellant.

From the OP:

Less than an hour was recorded by police. What was recorded shows blatant coercion by the police on the many erroneous statements made by Jessie. They more or less put words in his mouth to finally get the facts correct. They also used gruesome photos of the murdered boys as well as a baseball bat (although it isn’t clear how or if it was used, but it was present) to get a confession.

After 11+ hours, metally disabled and without legal representation, Jessie finally confessed and implicated Damien and Jason in the murder.

There is no evidence in the court record of any baseball bat, used or otherwise. The court record does acknowledge numerous inconsistencies in Jessie’s statements, but also numerous items that correctly described the murder scene and facts.

The record does reflect a defense allegation that Jessie was too young, and mentally challenged:

At the time the appellant was interrogated he was seventeen years old, and just thirty-seven days away from his eighteenth birthday. Persons younger than he have been held capable of giving voluntary confessions. Oliver v. State, 322 Ark. 8, (1995) (fifteen-year old); Douglas v. State, supra (fifteen-year old); Smith v. State, 286 Ark. 247, 691 S.W.2d 154 (1985) (sixteen-year old); Hunes v. State, 274 Ark. 268, 623 S.W.2d 835 (1981), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 134 (1994) (sixteen-year old). The appellant also points to evidence that his IQ was 72 and that he read at a third-grade level. A low score on an intelligence-quotient test does not mean that a suspect is incapable of voluntarily making a confession or waiving his rights. Oliver v. State, supra; Hart v. State, 312 Ark. 600, 852 S.W.2d 312 (1993); Hill v. State, 303 Ark. 462, 798 S.W.2d 65 (1990). Oliver is particularly on point. There, we held that a fifteen-year old with an IQ of 74 and a second-grade reading level was capable of comprehending his Miranda rights and of waiving those rights. The appellant’s situation is similar. In fact, he was two years older than Oliver and had a slightly higher reading level.

As we have pointed out, the appellant was nearly eighteen- years old when his confession was made. He was advised of his rights, both verbally and in writing, on three separate and distinct occasions over the course of four hours. There was evidence that, between 1988 and 1992, he had been advised of his rights in juvenile proceedings on three occasions. He was no stranger to the criminal justice system, a factor which we have considered in the past. Lowe v. State, 309 Ark. 463, 830 S.W.2d 864 (1992). Between the first time the appellant was advised of his rights and the time he gave his first statement, a period of just over four hours elapsed, which is not undue. The officers’ questioning was persistent, but that is permissible. Noble v. State, 319 Ark. 407, 892 S.W.2d 477 (1995). There was no evidence of mental or physical punishment.

From the OP:

Travesty after travesty in the justice system, including … a refusal to try Jason and Damien separately

On what legal basis do you believe that Jason and Damien SHOULD have been tried separately? In what way is this a “travesty”?

Ark. R. Crim. P. 21.2 provides for the joinder of defendants when the crimes are alleged to be part of a joint scheme or plan.

…disallowance of evidence including proof that Jason attended school during the time of the murders,

If this happened, it seems to have not made it into the court record:

Baldwin likewise presented an alibi defense that relied upon the fact that he was at school the day of the murders, was at home by ten o’clock that night, and was never placed near the scene.

What evidentiary ruling are you talking about?

allowed testimony of Satanic “expert” (his “expert” title comes from an online course he took from home),

This statement is not consistent with the truth, Diane.

From the opinion:

Dr. Griffis holds an associate in arts degree and a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution, but his advanced degrees are from Columbia Pacific University, which is not nationally accredited. Another qualification was that his doctoral dissertation was on mind control and cults and their effects on the objectives of law enforcement. His first experience with nontraditional groups was in 1967, almost thirty years ago, and he has twenty-six years of experience in law enforcement. For short periods of time, he worked for the Los Angeles and San Francisco Police Departments, where he gained experience in nontraditional groups. He testified that he has talked to about 500 former members of the occult and read about 300 books on the subject. He testified that he receives approximately sixty-five to seventy calls a week regarding nontraditional groups, and about eighty percent of those calls are related to satanism. He has published four books on the subject. He has testified as an expert witness in state courts in Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan; in federal court in Ohio; and in two foreign countries. He has lectured in twenty- eight states and two other foreign countries. Dr. Griffis had much more than ordinary knowledge of nontraditional groups, the occult, and satanism, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing him to testify as an expert witness.

From the OP:

…a COMPLETE lack of physical evidence linking the three teens to the murders

Wow. “Complete” in capital letters, so it must be true. But what about the fiber evidence on the bodies that was consistent with the fiber evidence found in Echols’ home?

From the opinion:

…a criminalist from the State Crime Laboratory and a State Medical Examiner testified concerning the similarity of fibers found on the victim’s clothes with clothing found in Echols’s home and the serrated wound patterns on the three victims that were consistent with, and could have been caused by, a knife found in a lake behind appellant Baldwin’s parents’ residence…

So.

There may well have been massive screw-ups in the investgation. The trial may have been unfair; the boys may be innocent. I express no opinion on those points.

But the OP’s description of events, as opposed to how things actually were, is quite misleading.

• Rick

[Ambrose]

Please define “care.”

Is a tsk, tsk, that seems wrong with a shake of the head as one turns the page (or clicks the mouse)enough to qualify as “caring,” or is something more visceral required?

[Shodan]

As often seems to happen, there is somewhat more to the case against the defendants that would be suggested in the OP.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas found, for instance, that

There was substantial evidence of the guilt of appellant Echols…

This kind of thing happens a lot. If it is so screamingly obvious that all these are as innocent as newborn babes, why have they lost all their appeals?

It sounds rather like I am being asked to take the word of a made-for-TV movie over the appellate court system.

Certainly miscarriages of justice have occurred. But I was asked to believe the same sorts of things about Mumia abu-Jamal, and about every other death-row inmate as soon as his appeal process starts to run out.

Is there a more unbiased website you could cite? It seems like I am supposed to judge guilt or innocence without being able to hear both sides. Especially since Bricker has posted pointing out some of the inconsistencies in the defense case.

Regards,
Shodan

[wring]

Shodan I wouldn’t read too much into that phrase if I were you. What’sbeing claimed is that the eyewitness testimony (“I saw them do it”) was coerced. If you believe the original testimony, you would indeed have ‘much evidence’.
I have no stake in this particular case, though.

[Shodan]

Hi, wring -

The phrase I quoted is part of an explanation of the different standards of the appellate court vs. the jury, so yes, I know that the SC of Arkansas is not going on record that the defendants are guilty. Indeed, the document goes on to list the reasons the SCArk feels it is reasonable for the jury to conclude that the WM3 are guilty, and it includes some evidence that Bricker did not address.

What seems to be getting claimed is that the confessions were coerced, the testimony that they confessed was false, that the physical evidence is invalid, and so forth. Fairly SOP for a defense lawyer, it would seem to me.

Which is why I asked for some objective cites. I have not come to the unshakeable conclusion that the three are guilty. I am also not willing to take the defense team’s word for it that they are not. Especially given the overstatements of the OP (sorry).

I am not willing to contribute either to the defense fund or the general condemnation of the nasty, bigotted, incompetent, evil police who are picking out Wiccans at random to beat and persecute until I have a better idea of the facts.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diane]

If the reader is left with an impression that there is some irregularity in questioning someone without a lawyer, or for twelve hours - there is not. In order for any statements to be used against an accused at trial, the police must have first informed the accused of his rights.

True, but what about cases where the person being questioned is borderline mentally retarded, does not understand his rights, is “influenced” with photos of mutilated children, and coerced into saying the correct things when her continuously made mistake after mistake?

There is no evidence in the court record of any baseball bat, used or otherwise.

A baseball bat was clearly seen in a video tape of the room where Jessie was interviewed. Because nothing was recorded until the last hour of a 12 hour questioning session, there is no way to tell how ir if the bat was used. It can be assumed that it had to have at the least some indirect influence just by being in view.

The court record does acknowledge numerous inconsistencies in Jessie’s statements, but also numerous items that correctly described the murder scene and facts.

There are also 11 hours worth of questioning that was not recorded. If those hours are anything like the last hour, the correct statements came after the police directed his answers.

Have you read the transcript of the part that was recorded?

On what legal basis do you believe that Jason and Damien SHOULD have been tried separately? In what way is this a “travesty”?

Eye witness accounts showing Damien was NOT with Jason during the time of the murders. School records verifying that Jason was in school that day. Completely different religious views between Jason and Damien, which is important considering the bases of the arrests. There are many more reasons why the cases were different enough to be tried separately. This has been a major issue in Jason’s appeals.

If this happened, it seems to have not made it into the court record:

I am not at my home PC where I have saved references to quote, however, this evidence was presented to the investigators who ignored it and later to Judge Burnett who deemed this alibi was not pertinent or admissible to Jason’s case.

This statement is not consistent with the truth, Diane.

If you are familiar with court record or if you have seen court testimony, he specifically states that his qualifications came from an online, non-accredited course in the occult. Other than that, his schooling on the occult has been self taught.

His “expert” qualification is another major issue in the appeals process. Many, including myself, feel that his “expertness” is nothing more than personal opinion. I am not alone in this belief.

Wow. “Complete” in capital letters, so it must be true. But what about the fiber evidence on the bodies that was consistent with the fiber evidence found in Echols’ home?

That was the only physical evidence, however, evidence was presented that shows that the minute fibers were very similar to a large line of clothing found at the local Wal-Mart. Virtually anyone in town who purchased clothing at Wal-Mart could have the same type of fiber in their homes. Furthermore, the police did not initially secure the clothing so the fiber could have transferred from they, themselves.

This was not some exotic fiber found in a limited supply, but a very common fiber found on a large portion of clothing sold in the area.

This evidence is a major part of the appeal and in more than just my opinion, not nearly enough to base a conviction. If so, how many people in the town could have been found guilty based on a shirt or a pair of pants they might own?

Do you personally feel that this was sufficient evidence?

But the OP’s description of events, as opposed to how things actually were, is quite misleading.

In your humble opinion. However, I share my humble opinion with literally thousands and thousands of others, including public officials, media, politicians, writers, entertainers, educators, and more.

I am not sure how much you have read of the case or whether or not you have seen the documentaries. Not to sounds condescending, really, but I would suggest that if you are at all interested in this case that you read everything you can possible get your hands on.

There are very real reasons this case has caused such an outcry. None of those reasons are a result of my over-emotional rant on a message board.

It sounds rather like I am being asked to take the word of a made-for-TV movie over the appellate court system.

Aside from the documentary and written books, you could gain facts from court documents and the facts that were presented to the court.

I have read them all and have based a very solid opinion that these boys did not receive a fair trial. I challenge you to read every bit of verifiable information of this case and then base your opinion on what you have found.

I won’t ask you whether or not you feel they are guilty or innocent, but I would be interested in hearing whether or not you feel they were given a fair trial.

Also, regarding the coerced testimony of Jesse. Have you read the transcript? If so, do you think the line of questioning was acceptable? Do you feel that any of it was coerced or that Jesse was led into changing wrong answers into answers that more accurately fit the crime scene?

JFTR, Jesse immediately recanted his confession even though his testimony against the other two would have greately reduced his own sentence.

I am not willing to contribute either to the defense fund or the general condemnation of the nasty, bigotted, incompetent, evil police who are picking out Wiccans at random to beat and persecute until I have a better idea of the facts.

Fair 'nuff. All I ask is that you read impartial information including complete court records and documentation and base your opinion on what you have found.

I have done that myself and have based a pretty strong opinion on what I have found.

You certainly have the right to do the same.

Ambrose - There is a difference between paging through a message board “tsk tsking” then going on with your life compared to caring enough to actually get off your ass and attempt to make changes to something you see is wrong.

The first is called apathy.

[wring]

no problem - an appellate courts statement of ‘ample evidence’ means that there was evidence that if the jury believed it, that it justifies the conviction. Just wanted to clarify that.

again, I do not know what the facts are in this case (although from things I’ve read, fiber evidence is one of the ones that can be really quite iffy).

[Diane]

again, I do not know what the facts are in this case (although from things I’ve read, fiber evidence is one of the ones that can be really quite iffy).

Exactly. They become even more iffy when the fiber is extremely common and when adequate measures were not initially taken to secure the evidence.

[IzzyR]

From Court TV, an article critical of both the prosecution and the documentaries and book about the case.

Arkansas SC decision here

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Diane *
True, but what about cases where the person being questioned is borderline mentally retarded, does not understand his rights, is “influenced” with photos of mutilated children, and coerced into saying the correct things when her continuously made mistake after mistake?

Well, IF the above suppositions were all true, that would certainly be grounds to exclude the confession. Unfortunately, the suppositions are not all true. There was no showing that Jessie did not understand his rights. He was, as I said before, advised of his rights, both orally and in writing, on three separate and distinct occasions over the course of four hours. In three previous juvenile arrests, he had been advised of his rights. That is sufficient evidence to conclude that he understood his rights. He signed a form saying that he had not been coerced. You’re going to need more than a baseball bat in the room and pictures of the crime scene to rise to the level of coercion.

Have you read the transcript of the part that was recorded?

Yes.

I asked why it was a “travesty” to not separate the trials. You answered as follows:

Eye witness accounts showing Damien was NOT with Jason during the time of the murders. School records verifying that Jason was in school that day. Completely different religious views between Jason and Damien, which is important considering the bases of the arrests. There are many more reasons why the cases were different enough to be tried separately. This has been a major issue in Jason’s appeals.

Appeals which have, heretofore, been denied. There is a reason for this: refusing to sever the cases was not an abuse of discretion. There is no rule that says defendants are entitled to separate trials because eyewitness testimony will be offered that they were not together. There is no rule that says defendants are entitled to separate trials because they have differing religions.

Perhaps a review of Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure is in order.

I am not at my home PC where I have saved references to quote, however, this evidence was presented to the investigators who ignored it and later to Judge Burnett who deemed this alibi was not pertinent or admissible to Jason’s case.

If that’s the case, was the judge’s ruling objected to at trial, and thus preserved for appeal? Why wasn’t it identified as error on appeal?

If you are familiar with court record or if you have seen court testimony, he specifically states that his qualifications came from an online, non-accredited course in the occult. Other than that, his schooling on the occult has been self taught.

His “expert” qualification is another major issue in the appeals process. Many, including myself, feel that his “expertness” is nothing more than personal opinion. I am not alone in this belief.

I quoted above the finding of the appeals court of the issue of expert qualification. I noted that:

Dr. Griffis holds an associate in arts degree and a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution, but his advanced degrees are from Columbia Pacific University, which is not nationally accredited. Another qualification was that his doctoral dissertation was on mind control and cults and their effects on the objectives of law enforcement. His first experience with nontraditional groups was in 1967, almost thirty years ago, and he has twenty-six years of experience in law enforcement. For short periods of time, he worked for the Los Angeles and San Francisco Police Departments, where he gained experience in nontraditional groups. He testified that he has talked to about 500 former members of the occult and read about 300 books on the subject. He testified that he receives approximately sixty-five to seventy calls a week regarding nontraditional groups, and about eighty percent of those calls are related to satanism. He has published four books on the subject. He has testified as an expert witness in state courts in Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan; in federal court in Ohio; and in two foreign countries. He has lectured in twenty- eight states and two other foreign countries.

That was the only physical evidence, however, evidence was presented that shows that the minute fibers were very similar to a large line of clothing found at the local Wal-Mart. Virtually anyone in town who purchased clothing at Wal-Mart could have the same type of fiber in their homes. Furthermore, the police did not initially secure the clothing so the fiber could have transferred from they, themselves.

This was not some exotic fiber found in a limited supply, but a very common fiber found on a large portion of clothing sold in the area.

This evidence is a major part of the appeal and in more than just my opinion, not nearly enough to base a conviction. If so, how many people in the town could have been found guilty based on a shirt or a pair of pants they might own?

Do you personally feel that this was sufficient evidence?

First, let us note that you gone from claiming a complete and utter lack of any physical evidence whatsoever, as you did in your OP, to this statement, which basically argues that the weight of physical evidence in this case is not strong.

I agree with you. The physical evidence, taken by itself, is not sufficient to serve as a basis for conviction.

But there are two points here: in this case, the physical evidence was NOT taken by itself, but was cummulative to other evidence. More to the point, you originally claimed there was no physical evidence whatsoever, which was not true. In your zeal to undermine the prosecution’s case, you took substantial liberties with the truth, which, as far as I’m concerned, severaly hurt your credibility.

In your humble opinion. However, I share my humble opinion with literally thousands and thousands of others, including public officials, media, politicians, writers, entertainers, educators, and more.

Ah, yes. And in the matter of examining the record of a criminal trial, and determining if the law was followed, and applying the correct standards for appellate review, your opinion is just as good as mine, right? After all, each of us is entitled to our own opinions, and it’s wrong to say that one person’s opinion is more valuable than another’s. Writers, entertainers, and educators are just as qualified to review legal issues as I am.

I won’t ask you whether or not you feel they are guilty or innocent, but I would be interested in hearing whether or not you feel they were given a fair trial.

A fair trial is not the same thing as “the best trial possible.”

There are plenty of issues that should have been given air at the trial and were not.

For example, there is credible physical evidence that the murders were committed elsewhere - very little blood was found, despite massive injuries that led one victim to bleed to death. There was an absence of mosquito bites. Speaking of bites, there was no trial testimony concerning the bite marks on the victims, which a upon later review an expert claimed were not matches for any of the accused.

The problem, however, is this: an accused cannot keep getting new trials. The rule, in general, is that new evidence can only serve as the basis for a new trial if it’s TRULY new: that is, if it was not known to the defense at the time of the original trial, AND was not discoverable by the defense through a diligent effort. There is no reason for the defense to have neglected these matters the first time around, so far as I can see.

The defense is not entitled to successive “bites at the apple”.

I think there’s an argument to be made for ineffective assistance of counsel. Unfortunately, the standard is high. The defense must prove two things: first, that the performance of trial counsel fell below a reasonable, objective standard, and second that because of that failure, the accused suffered prejudice sufficient to undermine the confidence in the trial’s outcome. In other words, they must show that but for counsel’s failings, there
was a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

That’s a tough standard to make.

• Rick

[Diane]

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/cop_9.html?sect=7

This page shows why some of us dispute the “occult expert” in front of Griffis’ name.

Well, IF the above suppositions were all true, that would certainly be grounds to exclude the confession. Unfortunately, the suppositions are not all true. There was no showing that Jessie did not understand his rights. He was, as I said before, advised of his rights, both orally and in writing, on three separate and distinct occasions over the course of four hours. In three previous juvenile arrests, he had been advised of his rights. That is sufficient evidence to conclude that he understood his rights. He signed a form saying that he had not been coerced. You’re going to need more than a baseball bat in the room and pictures of the crime scene to rise to the level of coercion.

Again let me ask you if you have read the transcript of the confession and the questioning that clearly steered him into correct answers? Have you read the statements made by Jessie following the confession that shows he clearly was not able to comprehend what the questioning meant. He has stated that he felt the police were helping make up a story as a sort of game.

To me, that, along with his mental condition, clearly shows that he did not fully comprehend or understand completely.

It is your prerogative to feel different, but as I said earlier, I feel that the confession was coerced.

YMMV.

There is no rule that says defendants are entitled to separate trials because eyewitness testimony will be offered that they were not together. There is no rule that says defendants are entitled to separate trials because they have differing religions.

No, but I believe that when a case revolves around religious beliefs and eye witness accounts placing the two in different areas, that it is a travesty of justice to try them together.

I have read enough information to base my solid opinion. Again, YMMV.

If that’s the case, was the judge’s ruling objected to at trial, and thus preserved for appeal? Why wasn’t it identified as error on appeal?

Again, I am not at my home PC and don’t have my saved references. However, and I know you don’t feel the documentary is valid, but there is footage showing this information offered and refused for consideration. It’s there in living color with all the players.

I quoted above the finding of the appeals court of the issue of expert qualification. I noted that:

Exactly, and I just posted a CourtTV page that quotes more expert “experts” on Satanism that point out his numerous errors.

First, let us note that you gone from claiming a complete and utter lack of any physical evidence whatsoever, as you did in your OP, to this statement, which basically argues that the weight of physical evidence in this case is not strong.

Fine, whatever. I will change my statement to “any valid evidence”

But there are two points here: in this case, the physical evidence was NOT taken by itself, but was cummulative to other evidence. More to the point, you originally claimed there was no physical evidence whatsoever, which was not true. In your zeal to undermine the prosecution’s case, you took substantial liberties with the truth, which, as far as I’m concerned, severaly hurt your credibility.

If you have sufficient physical evidence that clearly points to the defendants, I would love to hear about it.

You may feel that I have severely hurt my credibility but I can assure you again that there are many others who feel just as I do. Are they not credible either? Has the massive public outcry surrounding this case been nothing more than non-credible, ill informed, hysterical bullshit?

Well, I don’t believe so. You do? Yeah? Well we all have opinions and assholes.

Ah, yes. And in the matter of examining the record of a criminal trial, and determining if the law was followed, and applying the correct standards for appellate review, your opinion is just as good as mine, right? After all, each of us is entitled to our own opinions, and it’s wrong to say that one person’s opinion is more valuable than another’s. Writers, entertainers, and educators are just as qualified to review legal issues as I am.

Agreed. Just pointing out to you that I am not alone in my non-credible, ill informed bullshit.
A fair trial is not the same thing as “the best trial possible.”

There are plenty of issues that should have been given air at the trial and were not.

For example, there is credible physical evidence that the murders were committed elsewhere - very little blood was found, despite massive injuries that led one victim to bleed to death. There was an absence of mosquito bites. Speaking of bites, there was no trial testimony concerning the bite marks on the victims, which a upon later review an expert claimed were not matches for any of the accused.

So do you or do you not believe Jessie’s confession? If it is to be believed, then it goes against the credible evidence.

Instead of going back and forth, I have been involved long enough and have had this debate many times to know that nothing will sway my opinion so we are basically wasting each others time by posting our opinions, let me just ask you two questions:

Reading what you have read and regardless of whether or not the trial was the best it could have been, do you feel that these boys were given a fair trial?

Was it fair enough to make you feel secure in the death sentence of Damien?

Are you 100 percent convinced that Damien’s execution will be justified without any doubts of his innocence? If not, do you not feel that steps should be taken to insure that an innocent man is not put to death?

See the thing is, is that don’t feel that it is okay to let this case continue without some very really problems being addressed and corrected. If part of the correction includes a confirmation of his guilt, then I agree that justice will have to be served as the court ordered it. Until then, I can not sit back and trust that justice was served.

[Diane]

Is there a more unbiased website you could cite? It seems like I am supposed to judge guilt or innocence without being able to hear both sides. Especially since Bricker has posted pointing out some of the inconsistencies in the defense case.

I don’t think anyone has asked you to judge guilt or innocence. We are not the court system or the jury. What I have suiggested is that there are some very real problems with this case that needs to be addressed before a man is put to death.

Agree or disagree. I happen to agree. Strongly.