Don’t need to stab someone to get their DNA on a knife. The skin on one of the boys reportedly had imprints of a knife handle.
Shodan – Learn the difference between “not support” and “argue against”. There is a difference, I promise.
Say he who has admittedly not made himself completely familiar with the case.
As I say, go do some research and come back when you have enough information of the case to offer something more. It is hard to take anything you say seriously, knowing that you are spouting off with a half cocked knowledge.
Bricker – Yammer away all you like. I have not lied in anything I have written in this thread, I have not exaggerated, I have not spouted hyperbole. What I have done is state my personal opinion of facts as I know them after years of being interested in this case.
You don’t believe the words I write? :::shrug::: I’ll try to live. Really. My so called lies and exaggerations are shared by literally thousands of others. I’m not alone in my beliefs.
SOME of the knife wounds, not all, could be teeth marks. There were still knife wounds.
NO knife was proven to be the murder weapon.
And ya know, I personally feel that I don’t deserve to be called a liar, but I am pretty certain we both shall live.
And again, my point is that just because that is YOUR opinion, it doesn’t make it true.
Bricker – If you can put your legal mumbo-jumbo aside for one minute, what are your personal feelings and thoughts about the guilt or innocence of the three boys and whether or not they received a fair trial?
Diane, I have answered this question in this thread.
I express no opinion on their guilt or innocence.
I believe they received a legally fair trial, under the current state of the law.
I believe the current state of the law permits trials to occur in which there is insufficent confidence in the verdict. I believe these were two such trials. I believe the law concerning the evaluation of ineffective assistance of counsel needs to be changed.
I don’t believe the interests of justice were met.
- Rick
P.S. Your disdain for “legal mumbo jumbo” is unfortunate, since right now “legal mumbo jumbo” is about the only hope those boys have left.
This is where we agree.
The difference is, is that I have taken my belief a step further in an attempt to help fix this wrong.
I just wanted to say that I’ve only just found out about this case in this thread (I’m from Canada, and I don’t remember ever hearing about it in the news here).
I wouldn’t say I’m 100% sure that they are innocent, but from all I’ve seen here (and read in several of the links), I’d strongly lean towards them being innocent.
The reason I’m posting though, is that while reading this whole thread I’ve been wondering why on earth the state governor doesn’t commute the sentence. There’s definitely enough reasonable doubt to go that far, even if he doesn’t give a pardon.
Then someone posted the contact information for the governor. Mike Huckabee. My jaw dropped.
As I said, I’m from Canada and I’m not familiar with US state political figures. But this name distinctly rings a bell. Just Google “Huckabee AND igloo” if you want to find out more. A comedian from Canada recently did a popular show called “Talking To Americans.” He basically told random made-up completely wrong bullshit stories to Americans, to see if they would agree with it or give an opinion on it - even though they’re obviously ignorant on that subject and talking out of their asses. The point isn’t that Americans are stupid (and I’m not saying that), but that many people will talk about things on tv when they really have no idea what they’re talking aobut.
Huckabee was easily duped into thinking that Canada has a “National Igloo”, with a design that’s identical to the Akansas Capitol building, that’s in danger of melting due to global warming, so Canada’s raising money to build a dome to protect the giant igloo. On television he said “Congratulations Canada, on preserving your national igloo.”
This might seem like an odd hijack. Sorry. But he doesn’t seem like the sharpest crayon in the box.
And a lot of people are hoping that he can prevent a possible miscarraige of justice. I was hopeful before I knew who he was. Now I’m not so sure.
Yes, but you have adopted an odious tactic. In an attempt to help fix this wrong, you’ve evidently decided the truth is too mild. So you’ve jazzed up the story a bit. You think the physical evidence is weak and would have been better rebutted by a competent defense; your OP says that there was a COMPLETE LACK of physical evidence - which wasn’t true. You believe the credentials of an expert witness the prosecution used are thin; your OP says they came solely from an on-line course - which wasn’t true. You believe that two of the three should not have been tried together; your OP calls this a “travesty of justice” and never mentions that it was completely in line with what the law requires.
You are either a liar, Diane, or an extremely poor writer in whose hands the valid rhetorical device of hyperbole becomes a dangerous weapon.
Frankly, if I am ever railroaded and falsely accused of a crime, I implore you to leave my defense to people who will present my case truthfully. I can’t speak for the three boys at issue here – perhaps they welcome distortions - but I’d prefer my case be reported accurately, not hysterically.
- Rick
Sigh.
The trouble is, even a quick read of the evidence presented (providing it is done with an open mind) can find that the case for the defense is very weak.
Witness the following -
And gave details of the crime that corroborated his confession, and leading to evidence that implicated those he said also committed the crime.
I don’t know where you are getting the idea that I am so damn certain about this. I have mentioned several times the extent to which I will commit myself. I doubt reposting my caveats is going to do any good, so I won’t bother.
You are again misstating the extent of the evidence. We are not talking about one fiber match, but multiple.
Please provide evidence that the lake was used to dump junk. And no other “possible murder weapons” were found. Please provide evidence that serrated knives were commonly found in the lake behind the defendant’s home.
Both false statements.
And both Damien and his ex-girl friend testified that he once owned a knife similar in edge to the one found in the lake.
Stop accusing me of saying things I have not said. I have never stated or implied that “it doesn’t matter that the bite marks didn’t match the defendants”.
The knife is relevant because it was found in the lake behind the home of one of the defendants. The fibers are relevant because they match clothing from the defendants.
No, two of the victims and one of the defendants.
Also keep in mind that there was evidence to show that two of the defendants were known to wear the necklace.
This is what I mean when I say that evidence needs to be refuted before it is dismissed.
It seems a little bold so casually to dismiss the fact that the defendant is wearing a necklace with human blood on it, and that the blood type matched two of the victims, and that there were multiple fibers linking the victims with clothing from two of the accused, and finding a knife in close proximity to the home of one of the accused, and a confession, by waving your hands and saying that it has all been “completely debunked”.
Especially when all this points to a blood-drinking weirdo and his two bizarro friends.
Certainly any of these points, taken in isolation as if it were the only evidence available, does not establish guilt. But taken all together, the balance of probability has shifted well beyond any notion of reasonable doubt.
By all means let them get DNA testing done. If the results clearly exonerate any or all of the three, they should be released.
If.
Regards,
Shodan
Excuse moi for leaving out the word “creditable” in front of “physical evidence”. Still disagree? :::shrug::: IMNSHO, I there is a COMPLETE LACK of CREDITABLE physical evidence.
If the evidence isn’t creditable, then, at least in my personal definition, there is no physical evidence.
YMMV and all that shit.
His online course credentials are the credentials the good “Doctor” stated on the witness stand. If those credentials were enough for him, they are certainly enough for me to use in my OP. Regardless of the definition of the law, I continue to believe that he is no more an expert of the “occult” than I am an expert on bending spoons with my mind.
But yet again, you aren’t understanding that there are many of us who feel that the decision to try Jason and Damien together is “travesty of justice” even if it complies with what the law required. Just because there are provisions in the law, doesn’t make it more accepting to some of us. If anything, it makes it even more unaccepting that the law will allow for it in cases such as this.
Was there enough evidence to convict Jason without the reputation and the other evidenced gathered on Damien? Certainly didn’t appear to be. Officials didn’t have a solid case on Jason without using their case against Damien. I personally feel that it is a travesty for someone to be sent to prison for life based largely on how another person is viewed by society (Damien’s weirdness and appearance played a major party in his arrest, trial, and conviction).
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ouch. :rolleyes: You’ve said that a dozen times already. Still means jack to me. Maybe I could hire a secretary to take dictation and make my words purdy.
Boy, there are sure a lot of us over-exaggerating, hyperbole spewing liars who don’t know what the fuck we are talking about because we aren’t lawyers.
At least I am not lonely.
http://www.wm3.org/framesets/newsframe.html
http://www.sixspace.com/upcoming.html
http://www.cmcinternational.com/bandpages/wm3.html
http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1457291/09032002/rollins_henry.jhtml
http://www.morningnewsonline.com/entertainment/MGB1SSKIMGD.html
http://www.ink19.com/issues/december2000/inkSpots/freeWestMemphisThree.html
http://www.witchvox.com/wm3/wm4benefitcd.html
http://www.arktimes.com/000421coverstory.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/entertainment/DailyNews/WestMemphis000929.html
http://pub22.ezboard.com/fguitarriffingeneralguitar.showMessage?topicID=19.topic
http://freewm3.free.fr/ (supporters in France)
http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/PearlJam/echoes/evkndd1.html
When you tuck yourself into your little bed each night with your total trust in the American court system, you can have sweet dreams of sugarplums and fairies and pretend that the laws and the court system and all the judges and “experts” and cops in the country never fuck up. That they don’t ever use their power to fuck someone in an attempt to save face, to get the public off their back, as a tool for revenge (a couple of officials had been hounding Damien for years), or as a means to act out their bigotry.
Nope, you pull those covers up and sleep tight knowing that the laws will always look after your best interest.
You think I am an exaggerating liar. I think you suffer from more than a slight case of blind trust.
Frankly, although I disagree with your accusation, I would rather be lumped in with the rest of the WM3 exaggerating liars (supporters) than have your unquestioning acceptance and trust in the legal system.
I’ll ask you again, have you read the confession yet? I mean the only part that was recorded. Please show those details and quote the complete transcript of the questioning that came before and during those statements.
“Multiple” as in . . . . ?
Both false statements? What is the evidence that this knife was owned by a defendant? The testimony that Damien owned a similar knife? The key word here is similar. The knives had different handles, only one had a compass.
Similar edge does not mean the same knife.
Do you feel it was a little strange that that many searches continued after the murders without notification to the press but at the time of the discovery of the knife information was leaked to the press so the great discovery would be documented on the front page of the local paper?
Why were officials so certain that this knife would be found? There is no evidence that a witness or a defendant gave cops solid information that there was a knife in the pond. Although it sounds like bad television drama, how difficult would it be for someone who really needed murder weapon evidence connected to the defendants to have tossed the knife into the pond. Even though it was behind Jason’s house, it was accessible to anyone.
The fibers were so common to a line of clothing at the local Wal-Mart that virtually anyone in town could have them in their home.
Pop quiz.
Name the three victims.
Name the three defendants.
Jesus H, are you paying attention?
That blood drinking weirdo (which BTW, is not grounds to base a murder) was friends with Jason. He “may” have spoken to Jessie once or twice in his entire life sometimes seen him around town.
I have to wonder why you are in this conversation if aren’t going to pay attention to the facts offered – facts, not opinions – and why aren’t willing to learn the details of the case before you start spouting off from left field.
Wow.
All those cites represent different groups, right? That’s why you offered them? To show you’re not alone.
At least, that’s the impression I got when I read your post. But, knowing it came from you, Diane, I suspected that there might be a bit more to the story.
So let’s see.
#1: http://www.wm3.org/framesets/newsframe.html
Comprehensive list of different bands, radio show segments, and an exhibition that is dedicated to the support of the West Memphis Three. Fascinating that Henry Rollins couldn’t cough up the $1200 needed for a DNA test by themselves - but I digress. This citation certainly supports the comment that you’re not alone.
#2: http://www.sixspace.com/upcoming.html
This mentions the exhibition again. For more details, it refers the reader back to link #1.
#3: http://www.cmcinternational.com/bandpages/wm3.html
This is the Henry Rollins project - a compliation of artists on an album, that was mention in link #1. It invites the reader to peruse link #1 for more details.
#4: http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1457291/09032002/rollins_henry.jhtml
Another story on the Henry Rollins album.
#5:
http://www.morningnewsonline.com/en...GB1SSKIMGD.html
ANOTHER story on the Henry Rollins album. I’m sure you were just being thorough.
#6: http://www.ink19.com/issues/decembe...mphisThree.html
Eddie Spaghetti, lead singer of the Supersuckers, releasing an album in support of their cause.
#7: http://www.witchvox.com/wm3/wm4benefitcd.html
Huh. Another story about Eddie Spaghetti’s efforts. Again, I’m sure you were being thorough. The next cite will be new information, I’m sure.
#8: http://www.arktimes.com/000421coverstory.html
Well, well. A story about Eddie Spaghetti’s album.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ente...phis000929.html
And guess what? Yet ANOTHER story about Eddie Spaghetti’s album! How many albums did this guy produce?? ::checks:: Nope, just the one.
http://pub22.ezboard.com/fguitarrif...opicID=19.topic
Ah, but there will be more albums. This web page is from a musician who wants to make a compliation album to support the WM3 and is soliciting songs online.
http://freewm3.free.fr/ (supporters in France)
From this page and my high-school French: “The words you will find here are taken and translated from the US site of support to the WM3, www.wm3.org .” In other words, you linked to a French translation of #1.
http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/Pe...es/evkndd1.html
Huh. Say it with me: An Eddie Spaghetti link.
This is the same trick you’ve pulled all along. You have some cites that show others support you… but that’s not good enough, so you dress up the impression by adding more links - which are merely cumulative, and don’t say anything different. A more honest report would have left fewer cites, that showed different things, instead of multiple links about the same set of people – which don’t show anything different.
Shodan:
Do you know anything about what happened with Jessie? I think that if you did, you would not make such a statement.
Vicky Hutcheson was at the police station taking a polygraph test because money was missing from her place of work. She had her son Aaron with her. Aaron was a friend of the victims. One officer struck up conversation, and Aaron said he knew where the victims were.
His stories were erratic. He said that the killers were men in the woods, all dressed up and speaking spanish - Devil worshippers. Then he said that Mark Byers was there and killed the boys. He could not identify any of the defendants in a line-up. His statements did not describe the crime scene, and witnesses placed him far from the crime scene at the time of the murders. His stories were completely useless… except that his devil worshipper story got leaked to the public.
Vicky by now wanted to get the reward money, and said so publicly. The police told her that they would help her with her legal problems if she helped them get Damien. She got a wire in her house.
And here is what you may have missed - Vicky then asked Jessie to introduce her to Damien. Jessie said “I know who he is and I can take you to his house.” Little did Jessie know what he was getting himself into - his mind operates at the level of a five year old child.
Damien did come to Vicky’s house. The police say that all the tapes are inaudible, although Vicky says that she listened to them.
Still wanting the reward, Vicky tells a story that Damien drove her and Jessie to an “esbat” in Turrel, AR. Damien had no car and no driver’s license. She later admitted that she was so drunk the night of the so-called “esbat” she could have dreamed it.
But the damage was done. The police decided the crime was a satanic killing, and based on Vicky’s made up story they decided to question Jessie.
Clear so far? The only reason Jessie is involved in the case at all is because Vicky asked him to introduce her to Damien. Jessie is not a friend of Damien, he just knows who he is and where he lives. If Vicky had just asked someone else to introduce her to Damien in her attempt to get him over to her wired house to get a reward, then Jessie would never have been involved in the case at all.
Now, Jessie had already once tried to tell the police he might know who the killer was. Jessie and his friends had been asked by a “bum” to accompany him to a “fort” and drink beer. They called the police, who questioned and released the “bum”, who was the son of a sheriff’s deputy. Jessie was then told that if he found the killer he would get the reward money.
Now, after Vicky’s made up story Jessie was brought in for questioning. Jessie told police he was roofing with Ricky Deese the day of the murders. He denied being at the ficitous Turrel Devil Worshipper meeting, saying he had never been to Turrel at all.
Police then gave Jessie a polygraph test:
"Jessie was administered the polygraph at about noon. Jessie was asked a series of ten questions. One of the questions was “do you do drugs,” which Jessie answered “NO” There were several very generic questions about the murders. Each time Jessie stated that he knew nothing about the murders. After the test was completed, Jessie was told by Officer Durham that he was “lying his ass off.” Jessie admitted that he had lied about the drug question, but officer Durham said that he was lying about the murders, and even told Jessie that he knew he was lying because “Jessie’s brain was telling him so”.
Remember, Jessie is mentally disabled, suggestible, has an IQ of 72, and his mind operated at the level of a five year old. The police told him that his brain was telling them something through the polygraph, and Jessie didn’t even know what a polygraph was. This is a recipe for a false confession. However, Jessie continued to deny any role in the murders for two more hours. He was denied the right to talk to his father. He was grilled repeatedly by the officers. He was shown pictures of the bodies. He said that he wanted out. The police would not let him leave. Finally, after rehearsing the scenario for hours in a question/answer format, he said said he saw Damien and Jason rape and murder the boys. But far from going home as promised, he had unwittingly said enough to make himself an accomplice. On realizing he wouldn’t get to go home, he immediately recanted the confession, but too late. The interrogation lasted a grueling twelve hours, but only twenty minutes is on tape.
In later experiments, Jessie was able to be tricked into confessing to crimes that never occurred. The only surprise is that it took twelve hours of isolation, scare tactics, threats, and lies to get a boy with the mind of a five year old to say what the police wanted him to say.
Interestingly, Jessie’s confession matches up better with what police thought had happened than what actually happened.
Jessie said the boys skipped school, but they were in school all day.
Jessie said the boys were killed at noon on may 5th, but they were seen alive at 6:30, and the time of death was between 1:00 and 5:00 am on may 6th.
Jessie said the boys were raped. The medical examiner says that they were not. Looks like the police got a little too creative in telling Jessie what to say.
Jessie says the boys were bound with brown rope. They were bound with their own shoestrings.
Jessie said one boy was choked with a big stick. Medical Examiner says none of the boys had choking or strangulation injuries.
Remember, there is absolutely ZERO evidence against Jessie other than the confession. Jessie is only involved in the case at all because Vicky asked him to introduce her to Damien. He is only questioned because of a made up story about a fictitious devil worshipper meeting.
An expert in false confessions, Dr. Ofshe, says that Jessie’s confession is the worst false confession he had ever seen.
Jessie was given another polygraph test. He showed signs of deception on one question - the drug question. He was telling the truth that he had no part in the murders. If you remember his original polygraph, he admitted that he lied on the drug question, but the police then said that the machine told them that he was lying about the murders.
The police were lying to him. Their claims that they had a machine that told them that “his brain was lying to them” are a major reason for the false confession.
Dr. Ofshe was not allowed to present the case to the jury that the police had coerced Jessie into the false confession, despite him having done the same in other cases.
The second polygraph was also inadmissable.
Shodan, if you truly did have an “open mind”, as you call it, I do not believe you could have even a basic understanding of this case and believe Jessie is guilty. I can understand that it is not pleasant to think about innocent people undergoing the punishments that have happened in this case. I myself would feel better if they were guilty. But it is clear that Jessie’s confession was a false confession. Jessie should not have ever been involved in the case at all.
Here we see another of the problems I have with this discussion.
This alleged confession - was it given under oath? Was the step father warned of his Miranda rights before he was interviewed? Was he subject to cross-examination by prosecuting attorneys?
It would seem that the answer to all this is “No”. And I find that interesting.
On the one hand, we have the confession of one of the accused - signed, dated, and witnessed, and subject to all the strictures allowed for to protect the rights of the accused under our Constitution. Said confession has survived every appeal by every impartial appellate court for the last decade. Yet we are asked automatically to dismiss it.
On the other hand, we have the word of an HBO producer, which we must accept at face value.
Why?
Because that’s what they said on TV.
Got a bridge for sale, cheap. You interested?
TV is a commercial product, designed and produced for mass consumption. It has to be exciting, or it won’t sell.
If the producers had come up with a movie that said, “Sure enough, these three losers are as guilty as Cain,” do you expect that the film would have been aired? Whereas if they come up with a film that yells, “Innocent teens railroaded! State about to murder a sinless lamb! Police corruption! Ignorance! Bigotry! Southern town full of mouth-breathers targets misunderstood youths! Film at eleven!”, it’s prime time, baby.
The evidence that is relevant in this case is the evidence that is found to be relevant by the impartial courts. Made-for-TV movies dont fit into that category.
Aren’t your fists getting sore yet?
Regards,
Shodan
The prosecutor’s own witness testified that the fiber evidence was inconclusive. You have a very uneducated idea of how fiber evidence works in the first place. Fingerprints it isn’t. Go research it a little.
But let’s see what you have here:
Fiber 1: Fiber is found on victim, and on defendant’s mother’s robe. It is an extremely common fiber, and is also found in the victim’s own house.
Relevance? Zero.
Fiber 2: Fiber found on victim also found on a shirt (which belonged to a child relative) in Damien’s home.
Relevance? Zero. Not only is it a common fiber, but it isn’t even a shirt that Damien ever wore.
You are still showing enormous ignorance of even the basic points of this case.
Statement 1: No reason to think the knife belonged to the defendant.
This is true. The defendant once owned a similar knife. Similar. Not the same. A subtle difference, but I think you can get it.
Statement 2: No reason to think the knife was the murder weapon.
Again, true. The prosecution admitted that Byers knife fitted the description of the murder weapon just as well.
Also, the only possible reason to believe the knife was the murder weapon is because it had a serrated edge, and certain wounds on the victims were thought to be caused be a serrated edge.
But it was later discovered that the particular wounds thought to suggest a serrated edge were in fact bite marks. Bite marks which did not match the defendants.
So not only is there no reason to think the knife was the murder weapon, there is reason to believe, based on the bite marks, that the defendants cannot be guilty.
Oh my sweet lord…
I can’t believe I’m even posting to you.
You know absolutely nothing about this case. You continue to post blatant lies.
What can you possibly be thinking? I just don’t get it.
As Diane said… can you name the defendants and the victims?
I’m pretty sure you have no intention of ever even lessening your absolute ignorance of this case. Why are you here?
Do you even believe what you are posting? All the evidence you have mentioned is irrelevent. When your best piece of evidence is a common fiber from the shirt of a child relative of one defendant, you have a problem. But since you have now resorted to outright lies, in your lack of real evidence, I guess there is nothing left to say.
HBO didn’t say those words–Byers did. The words came out of his own mouth. The film crew merely accompanied him into the woods to the crime site (where the bodies of the boys had been found) and filmed him as he talked. What he said on tape DOES indeed sound as if he was confessing. This was not due to creative editing on HBO’s part. Watch it for yourself! Watch both documentaries and read Mara Leveritt’s book, Devil’s Knot. Heck, if my own copy hadn’t been borrowed by a friend last week I’d be willing to send you mine! I am that certain that by simply reading the entire case history your mind will be changed. Perhaps won’t think they are innocent but you will be damned sure they didn’t get a fair trial.
And as for that so-called “evidence”, here’s some more detailed nfo from the WM3.org site on the subject of the fiber evidence and the knife (from the article “A Point-by-Point Analysis of the Evidence” by Chris Worthington):
- THE FIBER EVIDENCE Lisa Sakevicius, a criminalist from the State Crime Laboratory, testified that she compared fibers found on the victim’s clothes with clothing found in Echols’s home, and the fibers were microscopically similar. Problems: INCONCLUSIVE By Sakevicius’ own admission the fiber evidence was inconclusive. The best that she could testify to was that her lab found a total of four fibers in the homes of Damien and Jason (though none in Jessie Misskelley’s) which were microscopically similar to fibers found at the crime scene. (22)
One red rayon fiber found on Jason Baldwin’s mother’s robe was similar to fibers from Michael Moore’s shirt; a green polyester fiber from Michael’s cap was similar in structure to ones from a blue cotton-polyester blend shirt found in Damien’s trailer (but which actually belonged to a child relative), and finally one cotton and one polyester fiber found on Michael’s blue pants were also structurally similar to fibers from that same shirt.
All but the red rayon can logically be dismissed. And even with the rayon fiber, the defense put on its own fiber expert, Charles Linch of the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas, to dispute its microscopic similarity to the rayon crime-scene fiber. (23) The clout of Òfiber evidenceÓ has taken on considerable prestige in the public’s mind in recent years, but, ironically, professional law enforcement personnel, who ought to know, are not as impressed. For instance, the FBI has elected in the last decade to include on all bureau fiber evidence reports a standard disclaimer about its inherent unreliability (22) . Fibers are not comparable to fingerprints – or dental imprints, for that matter. Moreover, in order for a probable match to have significance in a case like this, it must be shown that the fibers being tested have an ÒexclusiveÓ source – as opposed to so common a source that any match is meaningless.
This is the test the state’s single potentially decent piece of scientific evidence failed. The red rayon fiber – found not on Jason Baldwin’s clothing but on his mother’s robe (though to be fair it could have been transferred there in the process of laundering) – is traceable to the type of material used to make most of the variety of jerseys for sale at the local Walmart, which, by virtue of being the only large retail store in the West Memphis/Marion area, was frequented by nearly every local resident (22). The same fibers were also found in the Moore home. (24)
- KNIFE FOUND IN LAKE BEHIND JASON BALDWIN’S HOME Dr. Frank Peretti, a State Medical Examiner, testified that there were serrated wound patterns on the three victims. On November 17, 1993, a diver found a knife in a lake behind Baldwin’s parents’ residence. The large knife had a serrated edge and had the words ÒSpecial Forces Survival Roman Numeral TwoÓ on the blade. Dr. Peretti testified that many of the wounds on the victims were consistent with, and could have been caused by, that knife. Problems: INCONCLUSIVE, RELEVANCE Police divers searched only a small portion of the large lake in the center of Lakeshore Estates Trailer Park, used by residents as a place to fish from pier or boat and equally, it seems, as a handy spot to dump old junk too big for curbside trash pickup. The defense correctly pointed out that there is no telling how many other Òpossible murder weaponsÓ which might have been found if all of the lake had been searched instead of just one grid behind Jason’s trailer (22).
The state could elicit no testimony from Dr. Peretti – nor from any expert – that this knife was the murder weapon. All Peretti would say was that in his opinion it’s serrated edge could have produced some of the wounds he saw on the boys. But so could the Byer’s knife, he admitted. The state attached great importance to the testimony it elicited from Peretti that the secretions on the lake knife, being wider apart than those on the Byers knife (a 3Ó lock-blade knife belonging to Chris Byers’ stepfather, John Mark Byers), are closer (but not exact) to the size of the cut-dash-cut-dash pattern visible on two of the victims. On cross the defense got him to concede that the stretching and contracting skin goes through during a physical struggle could account for serration marks appearing larger on the flesh in death than a knife’s saw-teeth actually are.
However, new scientific analysis of these wounds from autopsy reports and photos conducted by Forensic Scientist and Criminal Profiler Brent Turvey virtually makes all of Dr. Peretti’s opinions – and the entirety of his testimony for the state – outdated and irrelevant. (6) Amongst his findings are: The cut-dash-cut-dash patterns Peretti refers to were NOT made by a serrated knife as Peretti incorrectly assumed, but are adult human bite marks. These findings make the significance of finding a knife behind Jason Baldwin’s trailer almost completely nil.
-
EVIDENCE DAMIEN ECHOLS OWNED SIMILAR KNIFE Deanna Holcomb testified that she had seen Echols carrying a similar knife, except that the one she saw had a compass on the end. James Parker, owner of Parker’s Knife Collector Service in Chattanooga, Tennessee, testified that a company distributed this type of knife from 1985-87. A 1987 catalog from the company was shown to the jury, and it had a picture of a knife like the knife found behind Baldwin’s residence. The knife in the catalogue had a compass on the end, and it had the words ÒSpecial Forces Survival Roman Numeral TwoÓ on the blade. The jury could have made a determination whether the compass had been unscrewed, and, in assessing the probativeness of the location of the knife introduced at trial, heard ample evidence that Echols and Baldwin spent much time together. Therefore, it could have reasonably concluded that Echols or Baldwin disposed of the knife in the lake. Problems: RELEVANCE, CREDIBILITY In light of the lake knife’s apparent non-relevance as shown above, point 5 almost does not need addressing. Regardless of Brent Turvey’s new findings, however, Damien Echols never attempted to deny that he had once owned a knife similar to ÒThe Special Forces Survival IIÓ lake knife. He testified in court that to the best of his memory his had been a different color, however. He also testified that he had traded or sold it along with several other knifes from his collection at some point during his stay in Oregon the summer of 1992. This stay began after the latest date Deanna, a girl Damien had broken up with a year before the murders, testified it was possible she had seen the knife. (22)
And here’s a rather interesting quote to think about:
“There was a remarkable lack of physical evidence against anybody.”
– Prosecutor John Fogleman
(when asked about the lack of physical evidence against the West Memphis Three - Phoenix Times (11/14/96)
Could you stop with these Arguments from Authority?
Are you willing to consider that maybe, just MAYBE the system failed these boys?
That despite the legal protections put into place, an innocent person could be railroaded through the system and have no real legal recourse?
How would you feel if you were in his place. Hypothetically. Imagine if you were Damien, you knew you were innocent, and you had to listen to the arguments of Shodan refuting your defenders.
After all, browbeating a mentally retarded 17 year old and putting an “expert” on the stand that spouts off about highly discredited Ritual Satanic Murder ideas were perfectly legal and the Impartial Appelate Courts upheld it.
Close your eyes and put yourself in that position.
Yo brainiac, I never claimed all those cites represented different groups, so uh – wrong.
I listed the small sampling of websites to show that there is a widespread support for the WM3. I was merely showing the many websites that mention those who are doing something in support of the defendants. I am pretty certain you cannot find anything in my post that claims that I was listing each reference as an individual and separate supporter.
Keep twisting my words in order to prove some point you are trying to make, but you really are looking like an idiot when you argue something that I never said. If you are so determined to read between the lines and tell me what I really meant instead of what I really said, maybe you could just write the words for me and I will sign my name. Or not. I am pretty sure it wouldn’t matter, considering you only read what you want to read and interpret it to your own liking.
Again, your translation does not make it true.
If I wanted give the impression that each link showed a different supporter, that I would have implied just that. Stop creating my posts for me and trying to see lions in the trees, m’kay? It was multiple links that backed up my claim that there are a lot of people with my same belief.
Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry to disappoint, however your arguments against your misinterpretations of things I have written makes me believe that you are now grasping at straws because your other arguments no longer hold any water.
Jebus, every time you open your gob you appear even dumber than the last time.
The HBO producers didn’t say it on TV. It was a documentary, the actual players said it on TV, you know, like from their own mouths in front of the camera.
You still haven’t answered my pop quiz either. What are the names of the victims, what are the names of the accused?
You continue showing your ass at how little you know about this case but for some ungodly reason, you still feel the need to chime in with your erroneous bullshit. At Nighttime asked, why are you still here? Just to hear yourself yak?
Greywolf your comments to Shodan’s quote are non responsive to his quote. You give what you think are reasons to believe the statement of the step father, but do not answer the objections raised (ie that the statement isn’t given under oath and after Miranda warnings etc, vs. confession). and yes, indeed, I am quite aware of how confessions can be manipulated and coerced, especially when the accused is young, vulnerable, facing horrific charges, and questioned for long periods of time.
your statements re: knife and fiber evidence is more of the same objection that’s being raised by others - ie, reasons that the jury shouldn’t have believed the evidence presented at trial.
PRoblem is, as Bricker has been attempting to demonstrate, the time to object to the quality of the physical evidence was at trial. there’s two potential reasons (IIRC) to raise them now - a. as evidence that the trial lawyer was incompetent and b. as ‘new’ evidence (for example, it’s my understanding that if DNA was not in use at the time of trial but physical evidence remains, and is testable for DNA which can then exclude the prisoner, then it can be claimed as ‘new evidence’).
arguing the substance/quality of the physical evidence presented is the work of the jury. While you may disagree w/the conclusions of the jury, and while you may suggest that therefore the ultimate conclusion of the jury was wrong, it won’t really help the young men in question.
Keep in mind that from what I’ve read in the past few years has made me very skeptical of fiber evidence at all, so in effect, for that purpose, you’re preaching to the Choir here.
But what I see happening over and over in this thread are people talking past each other, one side arguing that the men in question are factually innocent and that a miscarriage of justice has happened.
the other side (contrary to their opponents thoughts) do not seem to be claiming that the men in question are undoubtably guilty and no miscarriage occured, seem to be saying:
a. While some of the evidence that’s been presented (in court/ and here) may seem suspect to us here and now, in the first place, we’re only seeing part of the picture, whereas the jury saw it all (and a transcript is not “all of the picture” since it cannot reflect affect of the witness, which may have influenced the jury into believing their testimony or not).
b. there does seem to be some things that the defense should have raised, and perhaps this is a reason to (1) make some attempt to insure adequate defense,especially in serious cases, (2) perhaps question the use of the death penalty (3) alter the appeals process in some way.
But the reality is that our system of jurisprudence is set up the way it is for some pretty damn good reasons. It does, in fact, assume that deciding the facts of the case is only done at the trial level, and that only ‘new evidence’ can be presented later, such ‘new evidence’ can only be that which was unknowable or unknown until later. One good reason for that is to have an ‘end’ to a case. It’s quite cruel to force the victims of a crime to go through the ‘finding of fact’ portion over and over again. Yes, we wish to abolish all cases of wrongful conviction, but w/o omnicient powers, that just ain’t gonna happen.
Actually, I don’t think most of us are arguing that the men are factually innocent. What we have said is that a man shouldn’t be put to death (or two others put away for life) based on the evidence used in the trial.
fair enough.
although I must say I’m struck by the irony, in that this case, which actually has gone to a jury, and through appealate procedures etc, still has this level of interest here, whereas the same crew (essentially) of folks hanging out in this forum has absolutely no problem offering up physical torture, prison rape, creative death scenes for assorted other folks who merely stand accused of other crimes.
not to mention those devils who drive SUV’s, or litter. 
Diane, I’ve been reading this thread the past few days with a lot of interest, but I just have a hard time with this statement:
I mean, how many people in the prison system now are serving life terms after a less than fair/complete trial? I think the whole point of this is that you and others believe that there’s a pretty significant chance that these guys are innocent. I mean, otherwise, why waste your time, right? If you thought they were guilty, it really wouldn’t be worth your time and effort.
So, while you may not exactly be arguing their innocence (as you have stated over and over again), I think a great deal of your argument has been for the fact that they should not have been found guilty, which is pretty much the same thing.