# West Memphis Three Witness Recants Testimony **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 20, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157 "2004-10-20T02:46:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/21 "2004-10-21T06:09:41Z")
I comprehend what I read just fine, thank you. Whether or not you think it’s bullshit, you denied that it ever existed. Suddenly I find out from elsewhere that there was something. And your retort? Oh, well, that was bullshit. You could have addressed that from the outset. Instead you chose to ignore it, casting doubt upon your comments when it was brought up. You, sir, are not being entirely forthright here. “Liar” is far too strong a word, because I don’t believe that you are lying, and I certainly don’t doubt your sincerity, but c’mon. You can’t just say your side of the story and expect everyone to believe every word of what you say. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/22 "2004-10-21T06:20:04Z")
I still deny that any evidence exists. I haven’t changed my story. Yes some things were technically presented as “evidence” at trial, but those things are not real, probative physical connections between the defendants and the crime. They are mere suggestions- props- hat pegs designed to give a jury an excuse to convict. I have no wish to get into a pissing contest with you, **Airman**. I have nothing against you and I’m sorry I was brusque. This case just pushes all my buttons. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/23 "2004-10-21T12:42:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Would you be willing to kill somebody based on the strength of this “evidence?” Absolutely not. > [@](#): > > Are you at all disturbed by the “confession” which was wrung from a retarded teenager with no lawyer, with multiple factual errors and with a baseball bat visible on a desk? Yes, but not overly so. Similar confessions are extracted all the time, all over the country. I am, as I’ve said elsewhere, much more disturbed at the poor quality of defense representation that permitted the confession to be used. > [@](#): > > You admit yourself that ythe fibers mean nothing. The fact that a knife was found in lake in the general proximity of one of the defendants’ houses is hardly compelling evidence seeing as how it vcannot be connected to the defendant and it cannot even be proven to be the murder weapon. The knife was found in a lake behind one of the accused’s homes, which certainly would allow the jury to infer that the accused was responsible for it being there. While it can’t be said to a scientific certainty to BE the murder weapon, it’s completely consistent with the murder weapon. And it’s quite a coincidence that the only knife found in the lake behind the defendant’s house is exactly the same kind of blade that was used in the killing. This is evidence. It is a set of information which tends to make the facts under dispute seem true. It is WEAK evidence. It is not non-existant evidence. > [@](#): > > You’re an attorney, Rick. You know this is bullshit evidence. You know this goes beyond reasonable doubt. If the physical evidence had been the only evidence, then I agree that the case could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn’t make it “not evidence.” It just makes it WEAK evidence. > [@](#): > > From the evidence you’ve listed would you be willing decide that these kids were guility beyond a reasonable doubt? No, because I am not confident that they received a fair trial, one in which they were represented bya zealous advocate. Their defense was (figuratively) asleep at the table, and the result does not leave me with the confidence of a verdict following a fair trial. > [@](#): > > Are you aware that one of the kids’ had a stepfather who virtually confessed to the murders on camera? Did you jnow he gave the producers of _Paradise Lost_ a knife with human blood on it (they had it tested, it was human. They did not or could not do a DNA test but I don’t remember why). > > These kids had their lives stolen from them because a town wanted a scapegoat and they decided these kids were devil worshippers. Maybe. I’m not ready to proclaim actual innocence. But they didn’t get a fair trial. > [@](#): > > Have you ever seen the _Paradise Lost_ documentaries? Yup. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/24 "2004-10-21T12:49:07Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I still deny that any evidence exists. I haven’t changed my story. Yes some things were technically presented as “evidence” at trial, but those things are not real, probative physical connections between the defendants and the crime. They are mere suggestions- props- hat pegs designed to give a jury an excuse to convict. Fallacy of equivocation. You’re changing the meaning of the word evidence in what seems like a desperate attempt to take your understandable hyperbole and defend it as literal. Consider this: the fiber and knife evidence, along with the dead body, would CERTAINLY support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. Similar evidence is used every day all over the country to obtain warrants. Now, the standard for a warrant is “probable cause” - a relatively weak standard when compared to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” needed for a guilty verdict in a criminal case. “Probable cause” simply says that there is enough evidence to believe a crime was probably committed, and the area to be searched probably will yield evidence relevant to the case. You can hardly claim that the fiber and knife information is evidence in a warrant application, but magically loses its status as evidence at trial. All your arguments go to the WEIGHT of the evidence, not its existence. I really think this would be a good issue on which to back off a bit, take a deep breath, and say, “Yeah, miscarriages of justice make me angry. OK, ok - it was VERY VERY WEAK evidence.” - Rick ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/25 "2004-10-21T12:54:14Z")
> [@](#): > > **Diogenes** said: > Are you aware that one of the kids’ had a stepfather who virtually confessed to the murders on camera? Did you jnow he gave the producers of Paradise Lost a knife with human blood on it (they had it tested, it was human. They did not or could not do a DNA test but I don’t remember why). Didn’t the step-father also have all of his teeth pulled within a relatively short period after the murders, making an eerie ‘coincidence’ (if it is one) with the bite wound evidence on the victims? Is that this case or is it another one that I saw? > [@](#): > > **Airman Doors** said: > I comprehend what I read just fine, thank you. Whether or not you think it’s bullshit, you denied that it ever existed. Suddenly I find out from elsewhere that there was something. And your retort? Oh, well, that was bullshit. Dave, you know that I like and respect you very much, but I’m with **Diogenes** on this one. Red fibers from a very common bathrobe sold at the local Wal-Mart is evidence of the fact that Echols’s mom shops at Wal-Mart. A knife in a lake in the same neighborhood as Jason Baldwin proves what? Where’s the link of the knife to Baldwin? The link of the knife to the murders? How many other people could’ve thrown a knife into that lake? And they you have Mr. Creepy himself, Byers, recounting the murders in the _Paradise Lost_ documentary as if he did it, and of course the knife that he produced that had human blood on it. DNA tests at the time were ‘inconclusive’, but what would they say now that DNA fingerprinting exists? This is the kind of shit you read about, or that they make movies about, set in countries where people have no rights. Finding a retarded kid who will testify that himself and the town scapegoat committed some Satanic murder with a third person, has to be _told what to say in his confession because he doesn’t know the facts of the crime he supposedly committed_, and then they get thrown away for life while everyone who is supposed to care about the law and justice lets them rot. I’d wonder how the prosecutors ever got the fiber and the knife into the trial as ‘evidence’ of anything, but I figure I already know. The judge was just as damned biased against those heavy-metal listening Satanic freaks as the rest of the town. Whether you think they’re innocent or not, at the _very least_ these three deserve the fair trial they never got. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/26 "2004-10-21T12:58:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The knife was found in a lake behind one of the accused’s homes, which certainly would allow the jury to infer that the accused was responsible for it being there. Not really. The “home” in question was a large trailer park- several dozen people had access to the lake. Also, the fact that the serrations on the deceased matched this knife is not particularly compelling; in the first place this was a massed produced knife available at any number of stores in the WM area, and in the second place there were different styles of knife _also_ consistent with the same serrations (one of which was the bloodstained knife John Mark Byers gave to the film crew). > [@](#): > > Their defense was (figuratively) asleep at the table, and the result does not leave me with the confidence of a verdict following a fair trial. Their defense wasn’t as incompetent as it was undefunded (in fact they didn’t even get paid for several months and their budget for research and scientific evidence was $1000). The judge refused to allow them to present the experts who volunteered their time and services yet allowed a self-published quack who received a “Ph.D.” from a _correspondence school_ (that has since been closed by the federal government) to testify as “an expert on the occult” and to tell the jury that the presence of Stephen King novels in Echols’s house was evidence he was a devil worshiper (and, as we all know, devil worshipers kill little boys). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/27 "2004-10-21T13:09:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I still deny that any evidence exists. Thus demonstrating that you are, in fact, a liar. As if any further demonstration were necessary. Most people, past the age of three or so, get past the stage where they think that temper tantrums change reality. Others join the Straight Dope and continue the screaming. Oh well. If the DNA tests come back and give evidence of guilt, maybe you can close your eyes and wish on a star and the Evidence Fairy will make that go away too. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Do yourself a favor and watch the Paradise Lost movies. I think I will try out the **Diogenes the Cynic** line of argument. There are no such movies. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/28 "2004-10-21T13:12:13Z")
> [@WM3.org](#): > > that if she did not testify as instructed they could take her child away from her and implicate her in the slayings. > \ > Aaron, now 18 > \ > Assistant Police Chief Mike Allen dismisses Hutcheson’s account. “It appears that Vicki Hutcheson is trying to get her 15 minutes of fame,” he said. > > Allen noted that she’d testified under oath in the trial of one of the three - Jessie Misskelly Jr. - and that the defense had a chance to cross-examine her. “I don’t know anything about Vicki Hutcheson or her motives for over 11 years later coming out and lying about the events of 1993, but I can say that the case gets more bizarre everyday.” Could the timing be that since her child in now 18, the threats they made no longer hold water for her, and she could recant without fear of CPS taking her son away? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/29 "2004-10-21T13:17:09Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Their defense wasn’t as incompetent as it was undefunded (in fact they didn’t even get paid for several months and their budget for research and scientific evidence was $1000). The judge refused to allow them to present the experts who volunteered their time and services yet allowed a self-published quack who received a “Ph.D.” from a _correspondence school_ (that has since been closed by the federal government) to testify as “an expert on the occult” and to tell the jury that the presence of Stephen King novels in Echols’s house was evidence he was a devil worshiper (and, as we all know, devil worshipers kill little boys). You know the problem with this case? Advocates for the boys stretch the truth, either out of ignorance or out of a genuine desire to help the situation, and end up having all their claims, valid and otherwise, dismissed. The admission of an expert is within the discretion of the trial court. The trial court noted that Dr. Griffis had testified as an expert witness in state courts in Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan; in federal court in Ohio; and in two foreign countries, as well as lecturing on the occult in twenty- eight states and two foreign countries. Dr. Griffis had much more than ordinary, layman’s 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. Now, your beef is with his CONCLUSIONS. That’s fine - experts disagree about conclusions all the time. Some expert credentials are better than others. But you cannot dismiss the guy as an out-an-out fraud, put on the stand with the connivance of a corrupt or ignorant judge – if that were that case, how do you explain the Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and federal judges who also let him get on the stand? A conspiracy that started years ago? Rank incompetence on the benches of many different tribunals? How about just saying that the guy was wrong? Qualified as an expert, yes, properly testifying, yes, but simply wrong? - Rick (And the failure of the defense to get their experts on the stand to refute Griffis was not “underfunding.” The experts were willing. The defense failed to foundationally qualify them.) ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/30 "2004-10-21T13:29:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The trial court noted that Dr. Griffis had testified as an expert witness in state courts in Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan; in federal court in Ohio; and in two foreign countries, as well as lecturing on the occult in twenty- eight states and two foreign countries. Dr. Griffis had much more than ordinary, layman’s 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. That is not demonstrated. The fact that he had appeared in other courts I never once disputed, but the man’s “expertise” I do- again, **ALL** of his books and articles are self-published, his degree is from an unaccredited-by-any-agency institution, and his “Satanic panic” theories have been discredited again and again and again by reputable experts (i.e. people whose Ph.D.s came from schools that actually have a campus in addition to a P.O. box) and by law enforcement personnel (particularly after the Wenatchee, Washington horrors). Another man who has testified as an expert in numerous cases is Dr. Paul Cameron. He states that gay men are far more likely to molest children than straight men are, that gay men have an average life expectancy of 42, and that gay men orally severed the genitalia of a boy in a Nebraska shopping mall just prior to one of his lectures; all of these statements are demonstrably false. Unlike Griffis, his Ph.D. is from an actual accredited university (albeit one that denounced him), but like Griffis his publications are almost all self-published or published through vanity presses and the research he cites the most is his own. He has been expelled from the APA specifically for fraudulent research on the subject of gays and child molestation, is forbidden to practice psychology in some states, and he has been censured by every secular professional organization of which he was ever a part (and even by _Focus on the Family_ and William Bennett), yet he still testifies on matters relating to gay parentage and foster children of gay couples have even been removed on his “expert” testimony. Would you consider him an “expert” based solely on the fact he has testified in other cases? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/31 "2004-10-21T13:30:22Z")
In principle, I’ve always believed that the death penalty is fitting punishment for some crimes. I still believe that to this day. Cases like this one, however, make me seriously question the use of it in any legal system. There’s no way to give these guys back the lives they’ve lost if in fact, they are innocent of these awful crimes. Nothing on earth can give them back the last eleven years of their lives, yet at the very least, a living man can be freed. If Echols is executed, there will never be justice. Not for the family of the victim, not for the victim, and certainly not for Baldwin, Misskelley and Echols. I wouldn’t go so far out onto the limb and say that I can tell for 100% certain that they are innocent, but I don’t have to either. It’s obvious as all hell that they didn’t get a fair trial. Reasonable doubt exists by the ton for all of them. I think the most stupefying part of all of this is that twelve people sat in the jury box and not a single one of them could muster a reasonable doubt. Of course, then there’s the judge who keeps denying every appeal. I don’t even understand why that is. Maybe it’s because I’m not a lawyer that I don’t understand it. Could somebody explain to me how the judge keeps denying appeals? Because right now, it looks like a total apathy for justice and a hard-on for executing Echols. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/32 "2004-10-21T13:32:33Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > But you cannot dismiss the guy as an out-an-out fraud, put on the stand with the connivance of a corrupt or ignorant judge – if that were that case, how do you explain the Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and federal judges who also let him get on the stand? Was this the same guy who couldn’t remember the specifics of a single other case in which he testified, or was that another so-called expert with a Ph.D. from a mail-order school? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/33 "2004-10-21T13:43:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Thus demonstrating that you are, in fact, a liar. As if any further demonstration were necessary. > > Most people, past the age of three or so, get past the stage where they think that temper tantrums change reality. Others join the Straight Dope and continue the screaming. > > Oh well. If the DNA tests come back and give evidence of guilt, maybe you can close your eyes and wish on a star and the Evidence Fairy will make that go away too. > I think I will try out the **Diogenes the Cynic** line of argument. > > There are no such movies. > > Regards, > Shodan What did I say that was a lie? I repeat, there is not a single piece of physical evidence connecting the WM3 with the crime. Not a fucking thing. The DNA will come back negative. Not that I believe you really care. I don’t suppose you’re ready to make your case for guilt yet? I didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/34 "2004-10-21T13:48:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You know the problem with this case? Advocates for the boys stretch the truth, either out of ignorance or out of a genuine desire to help the situation, and end up having all their claims, valid and otherwise, dismissed. > > The admission of an expert is within the discretion of the trial court. The trial court noted that Dr. Griffis had testified as an expert witness in state courts in Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan; in federal court in Ohio; and in two foreign countries, as well as lecturing on the occult in twenty- eight states and two foreign countries. Dr. Griffis had much more than ordinary, layman’s 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. > > Now, your beef is with his CONCLUSIONS. That’s fine - experts disagree about conclusions all the time. Some expert credentials are better than others. But you cannot dismiss the guy as an out-an-out fraud, put on the stand with the connivance of a corrupt or ignorant judge – if that were that case, how do you explain the Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and federal judges who also let him get on the stand? A conspiracy that started years ago? Rank incompetence on the benches of many different tribunals? > > How about just saying that the guy was wrong? Qualified as an expert, yes, properly testifying, yes, but simply wrong? > > - Rick > > (And the failure of the defense to get their experts on the stand to refute Griffis was not “underfunding.” The experts were willing. The defense failed to foundationally qualify them.) The guy was neither a doctor nor an expert. There is no such thing as an expert on “the occult.” It’s a field which does not exist. The fact that he was allowed to testify _as_ an expert does not mean that he _was_ an expert. A person can not have “expertise” in something which does not exist. You might as well call an expert on the Loch Ness Monster or Klingon anthropology. He was absolutely _not_ qualified as an expert. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/35 "2004-10-21T13:58:24Z")
BTW, I am personally more qualified, with an education more legitimate and more specific from a real university in the subjects of cults and Satanism (there is simply no such field of study as “the occult.” It’s an utterly meaningless word with no academic definition) than the “expert” who testified in the WM3 trial. Does that mean I could get qualified as an expert witness in a murder trial? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/36 "2004-10-21T14:01:18Z")
Specifically, Griffis was an “expert” on the subject of “occult murders”, which is a particularly rare specialty since the FBI and DOJ have never recorded a single instance of an “occult murder”. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/37 "2004-10-21T14:04:51Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I repeat, there is not a single piece of physical evidence connecting the WM3 with the crime. Not a fucking thing. Here comes Definition Man to head off a crisis! ev·i·dence > [@www.m-w.com](#): > > 1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter Anyway, by this definition, evidence was presented during the trial, but it wasn’t evidence. The statement “There’s no evidence,” is true, because nothing that furnished proof, or even reasonable suspicion, was brought forth. Actually, even the statement “No evidence was presented,” is true, because things were submitted to a tribunal can be fairly easily shown to **not** have been done so to ascertain the truth of a matter. Therefore, the knife and the fibers aren’t evidence. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/38 "2004-10-21T14:36:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All your arguments go to the WEIGHT of the evidence, not its existence. Is it possible that to a lawyer, anything legally presented as evidence is, by definition, evidence? And that to a layman, really fucking weak and lame evidence is the same as no evidence? Are we playing at word games here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/39 "2004-10-21T14:44:27Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Here comes Definition Man to head off a crisis! > ev·i·dence > Anyway, by this definition, evidence was presented during the trial, but it wasn’t evidence. The statement “There’s no evidence,” is true, because nothing that furnished proof, or even reasonable suspicion, was brought forth. Actually, even the statement “No evidence was presented,” is true, because things were submitted to a tribunal can be fairly easily shown to **not** have been done so to ascertain the truth of a matter. > > Therefore, the knife and the fibers aren’t evidence. I have been reasonably calm up until this point. But this claim is beginning to try my Job-like patience. “Evidence was presented during the trial, but it wasn’t evidence.” Uh huh. Look, refute my probable cause argument, above. Are you saying the fiber and knife had absolutely ZERO probative value? If so, I’m afraid you have shaken the very foundations of criminal procedure in this country. Similar evidence is used to support the issuance of search warrants EVERY SINGLE DAY somewhere in the United States. Are all those search warrants facially invalid? Your argument seems to be - when it approaches coherence, that is - that the evidence was INSUFFICIENT, as a matter of law, to permit a finding of guilty. That’s a perfectly reasonable argument to make. But it’s not the same as claiming there was no evidence at all. There are many standards of proof in the judicial system: reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt. You can attack the strength of evidence, and argue it does not meet the requisite standard of proof, without claiming that it has literally a zero value of probity. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/40 "2004-10-21T15:03:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you saying the fiber and knife had absolutely ZERO probative value? Yes. > [@](#): > > If so, I’m afraid you have shaken the very foundations of criminal procedure in this country. Similar evidence is used to support the issuance of search warrants EVERY SINGLE DAY somewhere in the United States. Are all those search warrants facially invalid? Let’s just say they can be unbelievably weak. But there is still vast chasm of difference between what constitutes probably cause for a serach warrant amd what constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial. The knife and fiber in the WM3 case would be exceptionally weak even as probable cause and does not even pass a basic laugh test as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. > [@](#): > > Your argument seems to be - when it approaches coherence, that is - that the evidence was INSUFFICIENT, as a matter of law, to permit a finding of guilty. That’s a perfectly reasonable argument to make. But it’s not the same as claiming there was no evidence at all. > > There are many standards of proof in the judicial system: reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt. You can attack the strength of evidence, and argue it does not meet the requisite standard of proof, without claiming that it has literally a zero value of probity. > > - Rick I agree that we are talking about semantics here. Technically this crap was presented as “evidence” in a trial but some of us are only talking about a real world, practical definition of “evidence,” not a technical. legal definition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157.md?page=3)