Drinking blood proves exactly dick, btw. It doesn’t even merit discussion.
Even Satanism wouldn’t prove anythin. Satanic ritual murder does not exist. Satanists do not practice human sacrifice.
In medievel times, when a child turned up missing or murdered, the Christians used to scapegoat Jews because everyone knew that Jews sacrificed Christian babies. Christian witch hunts into Jewish ghettos often turned into full out pogroms. This case is basically a modern pogrom against some kids who liked to wear black t-shirts in a hillbilly, fundie town.
This is language from a case called Stout v. State, 320 Ark. 552, 898 S.W.2d 457 (1995). If there are any Arkansas lawyers who would like to correct me on this point, I am open to correction. I am not licensed to practice in Arkansas, and make no claims to knowing Arkansas law. I can, however, use Westlaw.
The bases upon which the court found that Dr. Griffis had more than ordinary knowledge are:
[ul]
[li]An associate in arts degree and a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution[/li][li]Advanced degrees are from Columbia Pacific University, which is not nationally accredited. [/li][li]A doctoral dissertation on mind control and cults and their effects on the objectives of law enforcement. [/li][li]Nearly thirty years’ experience with “nontraditional groups”[/li][li]Twenty-six years of experience in law enforcement-related work, including the Los Angeles and San Francisco[/li]Police Departments
[li]Interviews with about 500 former members of the occult [/li][li]Reading of 300 books on the subject [/li][li]Receiving approximately sixty-five to seventy calls a week regarding nontraditional groups, and about eighty percent of those calls relating to satanism[/li][li]Published four books on the subject[/li][li]Testified as an expert witness in state courts in Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan[/li][li]Testified as an expert witness in federal court [/li][li]Testified as an expert witness in two foreign countries[/li][li]Lectured in twenty-eight states and two other foreign countries on the subjects[/li][/ul]
That list is clearly sufficient proof for the court to find that Dr. Griffis had “more than ordinary knowledge.”
Your legal objection, to the extent one may be discerned from the above, is not to his qualifications as an expert witness. Your problem is that you disagree with his conclusions. That is a matter which goes to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissiblity. In other words, it is challenged by a vigorous cross-examination and the addition of other expert witnesses who will contradict Dr. Griffis’ findings.
No, but in your example, the judge could - and should - rule as a matter of law that the testimony of the holistic healer is inadmissible.
Because your example is not analogous to this case.
But that’s not all the evidence, by any means, is it?
[ul]
[li]Two independent witnesses testified that they overheard Echols state that he killed the three boys[/li][li]Testimony of witnesses placed him in dirty clothes near the crime scene at a time close to the murders[/li][li]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 [/li][li]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 Baldwin’s parents’ residence[/li][li]The testimony of a witness that she had seen Echols carrying a similar knife [/li][li]Echols had made a statement regarding the mutilation of one of the victims he would not have known about unless he had been involved in some manner[/li][/ul]
That is sufficent, as a matter of law, for the jury to have found guilt.
Yes, that’s true. What’s missing is proof that this happened HERE.
Cops can also perjure themselves and plant evidence. But absent any proof that they did so, the mere fact that they CAN is irrelevant when it comes to overturning a given conviction.
So what? You were not on the jury. You didn’t hear the case. The jury that was legally selected and empanelled to hear the case felt differently. What I think is also irrelevant to the issue of reasonable doubt. We don’t try cases on message boards, or via documentary films.
phony correspondence degrees in a phony field from a phony university
Anybody can write anything and call it a “doctoral dissertation.” His “dissertation” was not defended in any legitimate academic setting, was not reviewed by any recognized board or body in any recogized field and really has no more right to be called a “dissertation” than this post.
What is meant by “experience?” What context? What recognizable method of study was applied to this “experience?”
What is meant by “law-enforcement work?” What has he actually done? How many cases has he ever helped to solve? How does this give him more than ordinary knowledge? Psychics work with law enforcement. Cops get desperate sometimes. This is not a qualification.
What is a “member of the occult?” What is the “occult” for that matter? As I said before, the term “occult” has no acadaemic meaning, as this witness would know if he had more than ordinary knowledge of non-traditional religions.
On what subject? What books? What is the legitimacy of these books? Most books on the “occult” are complete horseshit. It’s not an actual field of study which contains any theoretical paradigms or hard facts. It’s like saying he’s read books about UFOs so he’s an expert on extraterrestrials.
Calls from who? In what context? How does he respond to these calls? If he gets so many calls about Satanism then why doesn’t he know that Satanic ritual murder is an urban legend? Why doesn’t he know that Wiccans don’t worship Satan?
So what? anybody can publish a book about anything. How does that give them more than ordinary knowledge?
This is really unfortunate, but it does not mean that he has more than extraordinary knowledge. Wher is it in his “credentials?” I don’t see it. I guarantee you, I have better knowledge than he does and i would never call myself an expert just reasonably informed.
Creationists give lectures. UFOlogists give lectures. Psychics give lectures. How does this denote extraordinary knowledge?
It’s more than disagreeing with his conclusions. He isn’t qualified to draw any conclusions. He doesn’t have even a basic understanding of these religions as evidenced by his inability to tell the difference between Wicca and Satanism. That is a factual error, not an interpretive one any more than calling a heart a kidney is a question of interpretation.
Your rebuttals above go to the weight to be accorded to his opinions. You say that anyone can publish a book about anything, but that’s not so. A publisher must decide to spend money on you. That’s an indication that, at least in the publisher’s eyes, you have something to write that people will buy. It doesn’t make you RIGHT. It just means that you have more to say on the subject than the ordinary person.
You ask details about his law enforcement assistance work. That’s irrelevant. The point is that average person has ZERO years of law enforcement assistance work. What he did, and what knowledge he gained, certainly is grounds to make him look ill-informed or wrong on cross. It’s not enough to say he cannot be heard to testify.
You ask about “recognizeable method of study” to be applied to his experience studying non-traditional groups. Again, that’s irrelevant to the question of whether he has more knowledge than the average person, since the average person has ZERO years studying non-traditional groups.
Get the point yet? You are not applying the correct legal standard to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in permitting him to testify. You are saying that you believe his conclusions are wrong. You believe he thinks, for example, that Satanists and Wiccans may be lumped together. That’s not a disqualification of him as an expert witness - it’s a point upon which you believe his conclusion is wrong.
It’s ironic that you continue to press this point, disdaining the doctor for his inability to grasp the difference between Wicca and Satanism, when you yourself don’t have the ability to understand what the legal standard is for appellate review of a trial court’s evidentiary rulings are, and yet you continue to insist that you’re right. Perhaps you should have a bit of sympathy for Dr. Griffis - you both seem insistent that your wrong conclusions should prevail.
I’m asking for a definition of “law-enforcement assistance.” None has been given.
No definition has been given for “studying” non-traditional religions. What system of study has he followed? What differentiates his system of “study” from watching shows on the Discovery Channel. The word “study” doesn’t really mean anything if it’s not in the context of a formal system. If has not spent any time following a formal system of study then he has not studied anything in any meaningful academic or scientific sense.
Ok, here you may be right. I’m going to defer to you on the pure legality of his ability to testify as an expert witness. Maybe I just don’t understand the legal standard. IANAL and you are so it’s stupid for me to argue the law with you. I will concede that he met the legal standard.
Will you concede, though, that his credentials are a joke? Shouldn’t a competent defense attorney have been able to rip him to shreds on cross? Hell, I could rip him to shreds and I know dick about how to cross a witness. Would you personally give his conclusions any weight?
…and please drop the “Doctor” title. You know he ain’t no doctor.
Evidence needs to be refuted before it is dismissed.
You are simply waving your hands and asserting that there is no evidence, that everyone in town except the convicted are ignorant hayseeds, and that you have a better understanding of the legal principles involved than a lawyer.
I don’t believe you, and you are doing your position considerable harm. Statements like this -
seem to be based on an urgent desire to ignore facts inconvenient to your position, in favor of simple invective.
The idea that the three were convicted because they wore black t-shirts is, in a word, stupid.
There is a lot of evidence against these three. Every appellate court who has heard their case for the last decade agrees that this is so, and I have seen no evidence that they are composed entirely of anti-Wiccan hayseed bigots.
And yet you continue to ignore every fact in the case in favor of those that you seem to have made up.
If the argument is that these three deserve a new trial because they have generated a lot of hysteria, I am afraid the case has not been made.
Shodan, rent those Paradise Lost movies and then make up your mind. Pay special attention to the part where the step father confesses in the third person. I’m reacting somewhat emotionally but if you watch those movies you might change your mind.
These are not Michael Moore style editorials either. They are as objective and fair as they can be. They show both sides of the case. They let the audience draw conclusions. Watch these things and then tell me there’s no reasonable doubt. This is not some empty, bullshit, liberal cause. These kids got railroaded.
A competent trial lawyer, armed with information from a competent expert in the field, should have been able to discredit this witness fairly thoroughly, yes.
I don’t give his conclusions much weight. But, of course, I didn’t hear him testify. My review of the record doesn’t compel the conclusion that the faliure to impeach this quasi-doctor was a turning point for the trial.
I have long held the position that the standards mandated by Strickland are too tough. I believe that there are certain kinds of trial error that ought to be considered per se prejudicial, and the failure to adaquately prepare and deliver a strong cross of a shaky expert witness in a case like this ought to be one.
But it ain’t.
Rick
(Strickland is the seminal case on the showing required to reverse a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Shodan raises an excellent point. Both Diogenes and the OP, Diane, have resorted to what is either lies or hyperbole, depending upon how charitable one wishes to be, to make their case. This undercuts their credibility.
I believe there are Sixth Amendment issues arising from this trial. I am personally sure that if these kids had a Johnny Cochrane or a Mark Geragos on their team, the result of the trial would have been different.
The problem is that the Constitution does not require the government to provide a Johnny Cochrane or a Mark Garagos to an accused.
Concern about this disparity of representation is very valid. It’s a problem with no easy solution.
But repeating, or creating, inaccuracies in the reporting of the trial is a very poor way to bring attention to what is a very real problem, since when the inaccuracies are revealed, it alienates people that might otherwise have been sympathetic to the cause.
QED: I posted initially in this thread to rebut the OP’s inaccurate statements. In doing so, I became, at least to some extent, an apologist for the State of Arkansas, despite having some misgivings about the overall result of the trial.
I lived across the river at the time of the murder, arrest, and trials. The community was in an absolute panic. People were on the news calling for the head of the chief of police because he couldn’t protect their babies. It was clear at the time and it is clear now that the whole damned thing was a witch hunt, no pun intended. The police had to make an arrest and they had to make it soon, and there was a rumour at Echols’ school (where everyone hated him) that he did it, and that was enough to set the whole thing in motion.
One other thing to keep in mind: the place where the body was found is a hop, skip, and a jump across the Mississippi river bridge from Memphis, a city of a million people. There’s no reason to assume (as the police did) that the killer(s) came from the Arkansas side. You could leave the body, be on the interstate in five minutes and lost in the wilds of Memphis in less than a half hour, or you could go west to points unknown. I don’t know who the murderer(s) was/were, but I’ll bet dimes to dollars it’s not the folks who are in jail for it.
Bricker, you’ve been going on and on about how legally everything went peachy keen, and that may very well be true. But do you personally feel that this boy got a fair trial?
If you were governor of the state he was in, would you have enough doubt about this particular case to commute his sentence of death?
How much “some”? Have you read enough to have a well rounded and educated knowledge of this case? You may want to before you get too deep into this debate. As it looks now, you don’t have enough working knowledge to make your arguments hold water.
See, this is why this thread is getting so goddamn frustrating. You aren’t really listening. I NEVER stated that the three were innocent Wiccans persecuted for the faith. In fact, I am pretty sure that I cleared stated that only one, Damien, had any interest at all in any religion. He was the only Wiccan.
They were not persecuted for their faith, they were made scapegoats for a town demanding a resolution. Damien and Jason stood out in a small country town because Damien wore black and Jason wore heavy metal t-shirts. Their hair was long and they listened to metal. Damien was a little odd.
They did not fit in.
Again. Frustrating.
Damien was bipolar.
Jessie was borderline mentally retarded.
There was not “their confessions”, there was ONE confession by Jessie.
Are you aware of how and why Jessie was in the police station in the first place? Interestingly enough, as soon as a $30,000.00 reward was offered, another 8 year old boy suddenly remembers that he witnessed the murder. However, his stories are so outrageous and change so drastically that his credibility starts to suffer. In one story, he see Mexican gang bangers commit the murders, in another, he is also a victim but fought the killers off and escaped.
When the cops are no longer interested in the information he has offered, his mother changes tactics. After learning of the Satanic ritual angle, she takes it upon herself to play private investigator and assumed that Damien, because of his oddness and appearance, must be the one.
When this doesn’t work, she meets with a close neighbor boy (Jessie) and tells him about the $30,000.00 reward. That if the two of them could get the killers, they would be able to split the reward. They plan for Jessie to tell the police that he knows who murdered the boys because he witnessed it happen. Jessie was not intelligent enough to keep control of the story and ended up making a wild and inaccurate confession towards the end – after nearly 12 hours.
An interesting point, is at the time this woman was being investigated for writing bad checks. She had to come up with a large amount of money or risk jail time.
Not sure of your point here, but Damien is extremely intelligent. In fact, watching the documentaries, one would think that he was the only person in the entire town with more than a single digit IQ.
Interestingly enough, an anonymous tip to the press told of the impending search of the lake. The front page showed a photo of an investigator holding up the knife with the headlines blaring something about a knife found. Was this tip from the police department? Sure seemed convenient that the press was told to be there during a secret search of the lake.
This knife has not been linked to Jason or Damien. Damien’s knife may have been similar to the one found, but there were still many differences. No sales evidence, no eye witness of possession of that particular knife. No solid evidence that this knife is the true murder weapon. The Byer’s knife however, had human blood on the blade and under the shaft. The blood type matched one of the victims.
Again, where are you getting this “ALL” thing?
Ya think? You’re pulling some pretty big assumptions out of your ass. Just so you know, I have never so much as lifted an eyebrow in an argument against the dealth penalty.
To take this a little further, back in the 1970’s there was a stereo shop here in Utah called the Hi-Fi Shop. Not sure if you are familiar with the Hi-Fi torture murders but I personally know two of the survivors. Without going into all of the gruesome details (you can do a search as I am sure I have mentioned it in the past) I will tell you that three people were tortured to death with stomachs full of Drano (they taped their months shut so as not to lose a precious drop), shot, raped. The man I know, Orrin Walker, had a ballpoint pen kicked into his ear. Courtney, the teenager who survived, has his esophagus melted away by the Drano.
In an added twist, during the murders my aunt and cousin were working right next door (they shared walls) at a photo shop. Later, the police found a robbery hit list which clearly showed Inkley’s Photo as the back up or second hit.
Both convicts were put to death by the State of Utah. I toasted their deaths with a big old glass of Bud.
I do not actively propose the death penalty but except for the case above, I do not revel in it either. I do however; feel that no one should be put to death unless there is absolutely no question as to his or her guilt (there was no question in the Hi-Fi case). Sadly, I feel that there are too many cases where there is a question.
Please, read more of the case. You continue to make assumptions.
DNA testing has been pushed for YEARS! Because the testing is expensive and Arkansas has refused to fund it, the defense has had to rely on donations. Although more money is still needed, enough was raised to start testing. If funding could have happened earlier, they would have welcomed it with open arms as it could have set them free years ago.
You can shove that comment right back into the ass you pulled it from.
It is too bad that his “more than ordinary knowledge” was so wrong that it was almost comical.
The comments were overheard at a ball game where Jason and Damien were discussing the motives of the police in looking at them as suspects. Damien has already said that the idea of it was so absorb, that they laughed and mocked the information.
The second witness, a fellow inmate, was discredited after it was learned that he said he was going to lie to the police and say Jason confessed to him. It was learned that this inmate had a prior history of lying about jail house confessions. The information he gave was wrong.
Testimony from a person who’s story has changed and who had an alterative motive.
Sigh. Fiber that was also testified could be in possession of nearly everyone in the town since it was an extremely common fiber from clothing sold in the local Wal-Mart.
Yeah, same goes with the knife Byer’s handed over to HBO. The knife with one of the victim’s blood on the blade.
Similar. However, it was not identical to the one found in the lake. There were differences.
Did you read this line of questioning in the full content and in line with other evidence?
Rumors were flying around town about the killings. Mark Byer’s admittedly spread rumors that Damien cut the penis from one of the children and was keeping it in a jar in his bedroom. Most of the people in the town had heard of this rumor, including Damien.
During questioning, the police asked Damien if he thought one of the little boys might have been mutilated and referred to the removed penis. Damien said that it could be true. He didn’t say anything that anyone else in the town hadn’t already heard.
Bullshit. We don’t agree with you, we must be liars. :rolleyes:
You come off as nothing more than a hot air blowhard who sees an opportunity to spout off your legalese to your audience. You’re an attorney. We got it.
Not so…anyone can publish anything (think Jack Chick); hell, you can use a Xerox or even a mimeograph machine to do it. Better re-think your too-quick answer.
Damn, Diogones, I usually don’t agree with you, but I sure do this time.
You said things in your OP that simply weren’t true. You claimed there was a complete lack of physical evidence, for example. When called on that lie, you acknowledge there was physical evidence, but question its weight and meaning.
Well, that second position is very reasonable: the physical evidence in this case certainly isn’t rock-solid, and certainly admits of more than one interpretation. But saying that wasn’t sufficient - you had to exaggerate the point. Perhaps, as I said above, it was merely hyperbole.
You claimed that the “expert” testimony was flawed because the expert only gained his expertise from “an online course he took from home.” You didn’t mention the years of experience with law enforcement, the published books, the fact that he had been accepted as an expert witness by other states and federal courts. Now, that doesn’t mean he was right - as Diogenes correctly points out, there is ample reason to question the conclusions he drew. But saying that wasn’t sufficient – you had to exaggerate the point. Perhaps this, too, was hyperbole.
You led your reader to believe that it was a very unusual decision to try two of the defendents together by calling it a “travesty of justice” . You didn’t mention that this was is accordance with the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure. Perhaps this, too, was hyperbole.
You mentioned accusingly that the police questioned Jessie “without a lawyer,” suggesting that this was an improper or unusual tactic. In fact, as long as a suspect does not request a lawyer, it is perfectly legal to question him without one – especially when he waives his rights both verbally and in writing. You failed to mention that he had done that, on multiple occasions, during the questioning. Of course, there is an argument to be made that Jessie was borderline retarded, that he was coerced, that he was manipulated. But you didn’t mentioned any fact which hurt your theory - you just trotted out the facts that were supportive of your position and kept quiet about those facts which were inconsistent with what you wished the reader to believe.
Perhaps this, too, was hyperbole.
If I do, I suppose I’ll have to shoulder that shame and, somehow, try to continue my life as best I can. But if the choices are truly being a hot air blowhard enjoying the chance to spout legalese, and a dishonest advocate willing to conceal facts in order to carry a point… I believe I’d take the former over the latter.
And though you may snark at “legalese” - I would gently point out that this is … well… a LEGAL case. “Legalese” is kind of relevant here.
Again, I shall pick up the pieces of my life and bravely soldier onwards. It wasn’t so much for you that I posted – although the hope that you might choose a more even-handed and honest approach next time did cross my mind – but for the Gentle Reader, who might have left this thread with a far different - and inaccurate - impression of this case had I not posted. It’s for that reader to judge which of us is the more even-handed and plausible.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Perhaps you would agree that this is understandable.
And one of them drank blood at some point in his past, and one of them confessed and implicated the others, and they found a fairly substantial amount of evidence that they were, in fact, convicted not because they didn’t fit in but because they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such was the finding of the appellate courts, who are entirely impartial - not the hayseed bigots being parodied here. And no new evidence has been produced.
You are repeatedly overstating your case, which leads the objective observer to conclude that your case is remarkably weak. If you have evidence that the reasonable mind would conclude established reasonable doubt, you have not produced it.
These three were not convicted because they wore black t-shirts, as you and Diogenes have repeatedly, and falsely, stated. They were convicted because the weight of the evidence produced convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply making bigoted remarks about small town dwellers is not evidence. Fibers, knives, testimony, and confessions are evidence. We have all those things on one side. On the other, we have - well, a dismissive attitude that anyone living in a small town in Arkansas must be an inbred hick who will vote to convict anyone who does not wear overalls.
You don’t seem to have much of a case for the defense. As Bricker and I have pointed out (Bricker better than I, but he is a lawyer and I am not), you keep baldly exaggerating the circumstances of the case. So I am confronted with a choice.
I can read thru all the documents, and see if I agree with the other impartial voice in this case - the appellate court. Or I can wait for the advocates on the other side to come up with credible evidence of actual innocence - something you have substantially failed to do.
It seems to boil down to, who do I find more credible - the Supreme Court of Arkansas, or HBO? HBO is trying to make money off this case, and usually you get more publicity from claiming that an innocent man is about to be executed than by running a movie that say, “Yup - these three losers obviously slashed some kids to death. They claim they didn’t, but who on death row doesn’t?”
The Supreme Court of Arkansas has examined the whole case for the last ten years. They are subject to all the restrictions of the US Constitution, as well as appellate law. They have found that the defendents received a fair trial, and that sufficient evidence exists to show that the verdict of guilty was a reasonable conclusion.
What HBO claims is not evidence. Unless you are arguing that a made-for-TV movie has to be true and is subject to the penalties of perjury. As PhiloVance says, anyone can publish anything.
You haven’t presented any evidence of bigotry. The only ignorance I have seen is that of defenders of these three. And I don’t feel it is apathy to say that the presumption of innocence has been sufficiently overcome to warrant the execution of those sentenced to death so many years ago.
Absent any new evidence - by which I do NOT mean more random accusations that anyone in a town of less than 10,000 must be a small minded bigot - I suggest that the verdict of death is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
