Reporting of new info in West Memphis 3 case- biased or unbelievably stupid?

Great Debates
1

I am visiting family in Memphis TN and saw last night that Michael Biden of HBO’s Autopsy show and a couple of other high name guys are in West Mem studying the West Mem 3 case. Obvious to anyone with a remote knowledge of the case and or high profile trials is that they are here to find info to exonerate the three currently jailed.

However, the blonde woman reporter of a local news show had a segment titled something like “Is the WM3 really the WM4”, implying (and fairly clearly stating) that the group is here to hopefully find that the three in jail are guilty, but there was a fourth that helped them. Am I daft? Obviously they are here to find the three are innocent and a fourth person was guilty. Am I missing something? Biased or idiotic?

2

Possibly you’re both biased in your own directions. They may be there to try to figure out the truth, whichever way it happens to fall. You (and, I’ll agree, most people without a ready-made prejudice against “weird” people) assume that the truth will be that they didn’t do it. The reporter (and a lot of locals, apparently) assume that the truth will be that they did.

3

For those not familiar with the case,
the Wikipedia site, West Memphis 3
and CourtTV’s Crime Library, The West Memphis Three.

From what I know about Michael Baden, he wouldn’t be there if there wasn’t something that he thought was wrong with the interpretation of the forensic evidence.

CMC fnord!

4

Yes, but is it safe to assume Baden thinks the evidence will exonerate them- what would be in it for him if he proves they’re guilty? You can’t say anyone there who thinks they’re guilty is paying big bucks to confirm something is true that a jury already agreed on. It must be a defense thing for the jailed, right? Unless of course the town thinks they are going to be exposed to the world as ignorant closed-minded hicks, but I can’t see that being the case here.

5

The current wind of this case is clearly leaning toward false conviction. If these guys did do it, the evidence presented at the trial did not show it. By standards of reasonable doubt, it should have been laughed out of court.

Maybe they are guilty. I doubt it, but it bothers me more the methods and decisions made by the police, prosecution, and judge to artificially reinforce thier opinions and decisions.

This was an investigation performed by 5 year olds with less than an Encyclopedia Brown knowledge of detective work. It was presided over by an inept and biased judge. In a community that was running scared from shadows and boogeymen.

If they are guilty, lets actually have some evidence first, then we can let these guys sit in jail for life (or execute one).

I basic reading of the facts of the case, quickly reveals a complete lack of any real evidence linking the WM3 to the murders.

6

Also, recent word is that certain new DNA testing results is finally in, and the defense is already expressing confidence that it seriously helps there case. There really is very little chance of exculpatory evidence being found, but every little bit that pushes these 3 further from guilt should make all of us think about what really happened.

7

I wonder what is going on here.

The defense claimed this back in February. Now it is May, and nothing further has been said. Why is that?

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who supports their innocence would be sitting on their hands waiting, if the DNA results exonerated anyone.

My speculation is that the DNA results are inconclusive, meaning that it has been too long and the samples have deteriorated. The defense would like to spin this as “DNA shows innocence”, but are under a court order not to release the results prematurely, and are abiding by this so as not to mess up their chances for a retrial.

We “discussed” this case a while back. (I will heroically refrain from pointing out that one of the SDMB’s self-appointed experts on the case, after excoriating me for not having a complete mastery of all the details of the case, claimed that the DNA testing was “very close to being completed”. This was about three and a half years ago.)

Regards,
Shodan

8

What specific errors did the judge make, in your view, that rise to the level of “inept” or demonstrate “bias?”

9

I don’t recall the judge being specifically incompetent during the trial but IIRC he did bar certain things from being entered as evidence that would have planted reasonable doubt in the minds of any jury member with an IQ over 80. Also his allowing of testimony from the total idiot with a degree in Satanry from Southeast Bible College of the Holy Trinity and Blessed Sacrement or whatever should have gotten him kicked off the bench.

10

See, when I asked for “specific” above, this wasn’t the sort of claim I had in mind. How can I possibly rebut the allegation that “certain” evidence was improperly excluded? What specific evidentiary ruligns do you claim were so outrageous as to constitute an abuse of discretion? Is it possible that the evidence would indeed have raised reasonable doubt, but that it was proper to exclude it under the law? What are the details?

Why? The proper way to rebut an expert’s testimony that you don’t agree with is by one or more experts on the other side. What, SPECIFICALLY, was the error in allowing that testimony? The guy met the legal qualifications to testify as an expert.

11

From what I know about Michael Baden, he wouldn’t be there unless it was a promising self-promotional opportunity.

12

Maybe it was legal, and maybe he met the requirements, but a made up degree from a probably uncredited God college? And did you see this guy?

I don’t remember specifics, but I do recall nothing about the deranged stepfather was admitted, including the fact he beat the stepson severely the night of the murders. And the black guy covered in blood in the Bojangles restaurant, and other things I’m sure I’m forgetting, which any one would cast reasonable doubt, but all together definitely would. With a normal jury anyway, probably wouldn’t have mattered with this bunch.

13

Wasn’t this a song by The Cowsills?

14

If it met the legal requirements, on what basis would you have had the judge exclude it? Are you really arguing for a judge to say, “Well, legally this guy can testify, but I … I just don’t… I mean, just look at him!”

I know that Mark Byers had spanked his stepson Christopher, one of the victims, before the boy’s disappearance. I don’t recall any evidence that he “severely beat” him. Where did you learn this?

And let’s say that you’re right – that Mark Byers severely beat one of the victims, his stepson, before the crime. Are you saying that this automatically should create reasonable doubt?

Again - even if true, you’re saying that this incident should have created reasonable doubt in the minds of an ordinary jury? Why? What evidence ties this person to the crime? How does this evidence show that the accused did not commit the crime?

15

If there was any piece of real evidence connecting any one of three to the crime, you’re right the deranged stepfather and bloody black guy mean nothing. But there is no evidence linking the three. If you add to that a deranged stepfather (granted, the depths of his derangement may not have been well known until after the trial) and a strange guy covered in blood, that is absolutely reasonable doubt in the mind of any sane person.

The Satan Expert admitted under oath he has no formal education in the area- how did he become an expert witness? My guess is he was the only real “expert” they could find to testify that this was an occult killing. I don’t recall specifics, but the Wikipedia article lists several places where “real” occult experts, i.e. those who have studided actual cults, disagree with the crap he said.

And I am no way saying the three are 100% innocent. I’m saying the info presented in the case has plenty of reasonable doubt, even without the two things mentioned above. ALL you have is the coerced confession of a mentally reatrded lad, who contradicted himself many many times, and was “lead” by the police to give the answers they wanted in an unbelievably laughable manner, and a girl saying she heard one of the three say he did it, but girl recalls nothing else that was said, or where, or anything else.

16

And although admittedly biased for the defense, here is a debunking of most of the expert witnesses claims, just for shits and giggles.

17

Really?

No real evidence?

How about Miskelley’s confession? He said to police that the victims were taken riding their bicycles; the victims had been seen by other witnesses riding their bicycles. He said they beat the victims; the medical examiner testified that the boys had been severely beaten. He said the multilated the genitals of one victim; the Byers boy had indeed been severely mutilated in the genital area. He said they raped all three; and all the boys had injuries which were consistent with rape and forced oral sex. There was evidence that drowning contributed to the deaths of the Moore and Branch boys, but not the Byers boy. This is consistent with Miskelley’s statement that the Byers boy was already dead when he left the scene. The boys were in fact tied up, as he claimed in his statement.

Damien Echols was observed near the crime scene at 9:30 p.m. on May 5. He was wearing black pants and a black shirt and his clothes were muddy. A witness testified that she had attended a satanic cult meeting with Echols and the appellant. Steven Byers’s mother testified that, approximately two months before the murders, her son told her that a man dressed all in black had taken his picture. There was evidence that Baldwin owned a shirt and boots of the type described by the appellant. A witness from the State Crime Lab testified that she found fibers on the victims’ clothing which were microscopically similar to items in the Baldwin and Echols residences.

That’s an argument that the wrong result was reached. This is a far cry from “bias” or “incompetence.”

He was admitted to testify as an expert because he met the threshhold for such testimony:

[ul][li]He holds 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 accredited by his state but not nationally accredited[/li][li]his doctoral dissertation was on mind control and cults and their effects on the[/li]objectives of law enforcement
[li]his first experience with nontraditional groups was in 1967, almost thirty years prior to the trial[/li][li]he has twenty-six years of experience in law enforcement, including work for Los Angeles and San Francisco Police Departments, where he gained experience in nontraditional groups[/li][li]he has talked to about 500 former members of the occult and read about 300 books on the subject[/li][li]he receives approximately sixty-five to seventy calls a week regarding nontraditional groups, and about eighty percent of those calls are related to satanism[/li][li]he has published four books on the subject[/li][li]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[/li][li]he has lectured in twenty-eight states and two other foreign countries[/li][/ul]

I am beginning to wonder if the only source of your knowledge of this case is some “free the WM3” website.

18

No, at the time I was fully up on it, and watched both documentaries (which are biased for the defense, no doubt).

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not a supporter of theirs- I don’t care if they’re guilty or not, and don’t care if after they die, the reall killer, if they aren’t guilty, is found. My thing is with the jury system allowing just any idiot, or group of 12, decide if someone should die or not.

As for your points- read the transcript of the confession- some things he got right, some things he got wrong, then got right after being led by the cops, others he got wrong totally. I believe it was stated in court they were NOT raped, but I could be wrong. He didn’t even get the part about if it was afternoon or late at night when this happened.

Echols near the scene, well he lived near the scene, the rest about him being dirty I don’t know of. The crime lab witness admitted that dozens of things are microscopically similar and admitted that ultimately that proved nothing in this case.

From crimelibrary.com

Dan Stidham was able to secure the expert testimonies of Dr Richard Ofshe and Warren Homes. Dr Ofshe, a Pulitzer Prize winning social psychologist and an expert on false and coerced confessions, believed after reading the confession, listening to the tape and interviewing Jessie Misskelley, that Jessie’s confession was a coerced compliant and false confession. The reasons given for this conclusion were:

Many instances of coaching from the interrogating officers, especially in regard to the timing of events and Jessie’s identification of Christopher Byers as the boy who had been emasculated.
That nearly three hours of the interview were not recorded.
That the interrogating officers had used intimidating methods during the interrogation.
That many areas of Jessie’s confession were not supported by the facts.
Examples of incorrect information in Jason’s “confession:”

Jessie stated that the victims and Jason Baldwin were not at school when in fact they were proven to have been in attendance
Jessie stated that the victims were bound with rope when in fact they were bound with their own shoelaces
Jessie stated that one boy was choked with a stick when the medical examiners report stated that there was no evidence of strangulation
Jessie stated that the boys were anally raped when in fact the medical examiner had found no evidence of this occurring
Jessie described the murders as having been conducted at the scene where the bodies were found when in fact the medical examiner had stated that there was no blood found at the scene.
And as for judge misconudct, I may be way off, but doesn’t a judge have a right to throw out a verdict if its not based on the evidence presented?

19

As noted in the Arkansas’ Supreme Court’s review of this case: To be relevant, it is not required that evidence prove the entire case or even a single issue; all that is required, under Ark. R. Evid. 401, is that it have “any tendency” to make any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable.

Yes, and Dr. Ofshe was allowed to offer that opinion – that the tactics used by the West Memphis Police were suggestive and led the appellant to make his statements – to the jury. The jury heard Dr. Ofshe attack the methods used to secure the confession, and didn’t believe him.

Now you offer his testimony as though it’s handed down from Mt. Sinai.

It’s perfectly OK to argue that the jury got it wrong. But you seem to be advancing the point that no reasonable jury could have found as they did. That’s crazy. And during cross-examination, Dr. Ofshe was asked if, before hearing the officers testify, he had formed a preliminary opinion regarding the coercive nature of the interrogation. He answered that his opinion was “based on the materials available to me which included my having interviewed Jessie Misskelley.” In other words, he had reached his conclusion solely by talking to Misskelley – who, in fairness, was not exactly inclined to be a neutral witness on the point.

Yes, but this verdict finds ample support in the record. As a matter of law, there is no basis to overturn the jury’s verdict.

20

If this were in San Francisco, it would have never gone to trial. Re-reading the crimelibrary.com article, the judge was totally biased because he let in every piece of pointless crap the prosecution wanted and nothing that the defense did. How can a guy covered in blood a half mile from the scene that night not be admissable? How could the police profile of the killers not be admissable? Deranged stepfather is not important? Most insane, he ruled the confession was not coerced. Did he not hear the cops correct the guy numerous times, and ignore things he got wrong? Could any sane unbiased judge call that an uncoerced confession?

Everybody and their mother agrees the bodies were dumped there after being killed elsewhere, but the confession contradicts this. So what do you do- uh ignore that part. Not tied with rope- uh, he was confused. Didn’t know when it happened- uh he forgot.

Maybe he went by the book on everything, but read the article on crimelibary or any non-biased site.

And then, let me ask you a few things, as an intelligent adult:

After reading the transcript of the confession, and taking into account three hours of it were undocumented, do you think it was given freely, and if so, why?

Do you think of all of the things that are now known, is there reasonable doubt in your mind?

The stepfather had all of his teeth knocked out shortly after finding out that there was a bite mark on one of the three that never came out for chrissakes- coincidence?
He said they fell out due to a drug he was taking that no one has ever claimed that as one of the symptoms, ever. Only him.