# 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:** 4
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/61 "2004-10-21T18:56:47Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > **Bricker** , how is it that what looks to be so glaringly _not_ a fair trial is still being upheld as appeal after appeal has been denied? > > It just seems so scary that here in the US we can have a trial with the little evidence that does exist being so incredibly weak, such a horrifically inaccurate confession that couldn’t even have been possible without the confessor being fed his lines, and end up with the result that happened here. > > I don’t understand the legal reasons why this has stood for so long as a ‘fair trial’ and a (legally?) unquestionable verdict. An excellent question - and one that takes a long time to explain. First you need to understand how criminal appeals work. It’s not simply a matter of saying to the appeals court, “We don’t think this was a fair trial. Please give us a new one. Regards, The Convicted Defendants.” An appellant must identify, specifically, errors that were made in his trial. Depending on the type of error identified, he may also have to show specifically how the error prejudiced him, and, potentially, how the outcome of the trial would have been different if the rror had not been made. Claims of error are reviewed under several different standards. A ruling of law made by the trial court is reviewed _de novo_ – that is, anew, with no particular deference to whatever the trial court decided. A finding of fact by the trial court, on the other hand, is accepted on appeal, as long as there is enough support in the record for the finding. An exercise of discretion by the trial judge - such as a ruling on the admissibility of evidence - is reviewed under the “abuse of discretion” standard: even if the appeals court doesn’t agree with it, could a reasonable jurist have reached that decision? It may surprise you to learn that even trial errors of constitutional dimension do not mandate reversal if the accused can’t show that the result would have changed. (In the PD world, we called this the “if they wantcha, they gotcha” rule, and it derives from _Chapman v. California_). There’s another major factor at play: the waiver rule. This basically says that if the trial court commits an error, and you fail to object to that error at trial, you cannot later bring it up on appeal. In other words, the trial court should have the chance to hear argument and correct its mistake. You can’t play the game of, for example, letting an error go unremarked at trial hoping it will help you, and then, if it doesn’t, complain on appeal. Finally, we have the rules concerning “effective assistance of counsel.” The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees each person counsel in a criminal trial. Courts have held that this guarantee is meaningless without effective assistance of counsel at every stage of the criminal process. However, the test for whether or not a particular performance was “effective,” derived from a case called _Strickland v. Washington_, creates a high hill for defendants to climb. _Strickland_ mandates a two-prong test: first, did the attorney’s performance fall below the minimum objective standard for effective representation? And, second, even if it did, did the defendant suffer specific prejudice as a result? For example, let us say that your attorney falls asleep during the testimony of a prosecution witness. You might think that it would be enough, on appeal, to say, “Hey - my lawyer fell asleep!” But it’s not. That certainly meets the first prong - falling asleep during trial is below the minimum standard of representation contemplated by the Constitution. But you must also be able to point to prejudice: “While my lawyer was asleep, the prosecutor asked leading questions, elicited hearsay testimony, and permitted the witness to speculate as to matters outside his direct knowledge.” Even that is not enough. You must further be able to say: “That hearsay was the only evidence the jury heard linking me to the robbery, and that speculation about where I got all the money was the only direct link between me and the stolen money. If they hadn’t heard that, they would not likely have voted to convict.” Now to put all these rules together and see what happens. Next post. - 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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/62 "2004-10-21T19:11:36Z")
Here’s the bind: an error gets made at trial, and the defense lawyer does not object. So the waiver rule says that error can’t be used on appeal. (Technically, it can be considered under the “plain error” standard, which is very unforgiving, but let’s not muddy the discussion with technicalities: essentially, the error is useless for appellate purposes). OK, you say. But the REASON there was no defense objection is that my lawyer made a mistake. So I want to complain of ineffective assistance of counsel. BZZZT! Can’t do that either, because you can’t identify with particularity the prejudice you suffered. And why can’t you? Because any statement you make about prejudice needs to be more than guesswork: you must to evidence that shows what would have happened without the error, as I did above. But if the nature of the error includes never making a record of what would have happened, you’re screwed. Example: the defense counsel calls an expert witness, which the judge refuses to let testify about a particular area. On appeal, you point out that the limitation of testimony was an error. Too bad, says the appeals court, you should have objected at trial instead of just following the _in limine_ (pretrial) ruling. Now you’ve waived your error. But the only reason the error was waived is because the lawyer was incompetent! So, show me where you were prejudiced, says the appeals court. If the expert had testified, he would have been able to counter the prosecution’s claims, say you. “How do you know? There’s nothing in the record to indicate that. You can’t show prejudice. You’re just speculating.” “But … but… if my lawyer were smart enough to make a proffer (an offer of proof, a statement to the court outside the jury’s hearing about what the testimony would have been if allowed) then I wouldn’t be in this mess!” The waiver rule and the _Strickland_ standard operate together to create an almost insurmountable obstacle for defendants. If you had a bad lawyer at trial, you have a HUGE uphill battle on appeal. - 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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/63 "2004-10-21T19:17:18Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Rick, I have a question for you. If this had happened in, say, Arlington, do you know of a single DA who would even go to trial seeking a murder conviction against the three with the evidence that the West Memphis DA had? I bet not. I doubt it in Arlington, and in Fairfax, this piece of crap would have been skewered by Horan, who never let his staff proceed until they had solid cases. > [@Weirddave](#): > > As long as we’re piling on Bricker with legal questions (I asked one in my last post, see?) I wanted to add what I’ve always wondered: How come there was never a Federal investigation into weather or not these kids had their civil rights violated? Agree with the conviction or not, I don’t think most people would call the travesty that occurred a “fair” trial. I don’t know. The correct avenue to pursue this would have been thourgh a federal _habeas_ petition, and I don’t recall whether this was done, and what the results were. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/64 "2004-10-21T19:23:59Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > There is no slobber. 😉 > > When **Dio** said there was no evidence, he didn’t say that the DA said “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I got nuthin’.” Of course evidence was presented. What **Dio** meant was there was no _credible_ evidence. This should be evident – even to a slobbering moron – from context alone. Why people are picking apart his exact words is beyond me. Perhaps they are more interested in discrediting **Dio** than discussing the particulars of the case. Because **Diane** kicked off the last thread by doing the same thing - saying “there is no evidence” when she meant “there actually is evidence, but I don’t care for the conclusion to which it points”. Of course, even to slobbering morons it should have been evident what I meant. Why are you all picking apart my exact words? 🙂 Perhaps you are more interested in discrediting me that discussing the particulars of the evidence. Are we all in agreement here? There **is** actually evidence? Or are we going to immediately return to the usual circle of “they must be innocent, because I don’t like the witness for the prosecution and everyone in Memphis is a inbred moron”. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/65 "2004-10-21T19:26:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I doubt it in Arlington, and in Fairfax, this piece of crap would have been skewered by Horan, who never let his staff proceed until they had solid cases. > > I don’t know. The correct avenue to pursue this would have been thourgh a federal _habeas_ petition, and I don’t recall whether this was done, and what the results were. Thanks for the answer. Sorry to bombard you with questions. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/66 "2004-10-21T19:32:16Z")
Thanks for those last few posts, **Bricker** : they were informative and interesting. To continue the pile-on, given the authority, what changes would you institute to prevent situations like this from occuring (if you think it warrants fixing, of course…)? ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/67 "2004-10-21T19:32:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Of course, even to slobbering morons it should have been evident what I meant. Why are you all picking apart my exact words? Then it would seem that nobody here other than you is a slobbering moron, for I’ve no idea your reason for being here. > [@Shodan](#): > > Perhaps you are more interested in discrediting me that discussing the particulars of the evidence. Please note one time in this thread when you made an informed statement on any particular of the evidence. > [@Shodan](#): > > Are we all in agreement here? There **is** actually evidence? Or are we going to immediately return to the usual circle of “they must be innocent, because I don’t like the witness for the prosecution and everyone in Memphis is a inbred moron”. I have never claimed they were innocent; I think that they are, but I do not know that. I _want_ to know, either way. As an umpteenth generation Alabama hillbilly myself I am quite aware that there are people in W. Memphis as in any depressed undereducated town who are not inbred morons, but I am also quite aware of just how corrupt and self-exonerating and blinding and ultimately fatal that much concentrated fundamentalism, xenophobia and need for vengeance can be. More to the point, I am familiar with the case. Please stop posting until you can say that last part as well. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/68 "2004-10-21T19:40:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because **Diane** kicked off the last thread by doing the same thing - saying “there is no evidence” when she meant “there actually is evidence, but I don’t care for the conclusion to which it points”. > > Of course, even to slobbering morons it should have been evident what I meant. Why are you all picking apart my exact words? 🙂 > > Perhaps you are more interested in discrediting me that discussing the particulars of the evidence. > > Are we all in agreement here? There **is** actually evidence? Or are we going to immediately return to the usual circle of “they must be innocent, because I don’t like the witness for the prosecution and everyone in Memphis is a inbred moron”. No, **Shodan** we think they didn’t get a fair trial. We think there is massive reasonable doubt, and guess what else…THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE! Do you have a case to make for guilt? Let’s hear it. If you can’t actually argue anything about the case then go fuck yourself. For fuck’s sake, Even **Bricker** thinks they didn’t get a fair trial. is it your position that _he_ only thinks that everyone in West Memphis (not Memphis, you uninformed clod) is an inbred moron? Once again you are pretending to know what evveryone else actually thinks. You’re making a habit of that. Did I already tell you to go fuck yourself? Well go do it again. Maybe you can borrow Bill O’Reilly’s vibrator. ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/69 "2004-10-21T19:49:04Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > An excellent question - and one that takes a long time to explain. Thanks for excellent answer. I have one more question if you’re willing to answer it. Is there such a thing as appealing because you are actually innocent of the crime for which you were convicted? If there is, do you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you _didn’t_ do it? Guess that’s two questions, sorry. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions though. ---
**Author:** ![Diane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Diane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diane)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/70 "2004-10-21T19:53:57Z")
Thanks for the info Bricker. I also think (correct me if I am wrong), that we are on the same page in agreeing that these three deserve a new (and fair) trial? > [@Shodan](#): > > Because **Diane** kicked off the last thread by doing the same thing - saying “there is no evidence” when she meant “there actually is evidence, but I don’t care for the conclusion to which it points”. I know what I wrote, I know what I think, and I know what I meant, so I don’t need your interpretations, m’kay? In case you didn’t notice, the different interpretations of “evidence” have already been rehashed in this thread and I agree with what has been written. There was evidence in this case, however, my interpretation of “no evidence” (in the old thread and in this one) is the “no _credible_ evidence” definition. Also, will you please explain the “conclusion to which this evidence points” since you obviously know enough about this case that you feel justified to jump in with your fist flaying about and your mouth spouting off with such a strong belief that these men are guilty? Or could it just be that you have nothing at all to offer this debate/discussion except to show your ass and be a fucking noob? BTW, it is **West** Memphis, ARKANSAS, you idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Diane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Diane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diane)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/71 "2004-10-21T20:10:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Are we all in agreement here? There **is** actually evidence? Or are we going to immediately return to the usual circle of “they must be innocent, because I don’t like the witness for the prosecution and everyone in Memphis is a inbred moron”. In case you missed it the first time, I wrote - \*Exactly. I can’t say with 100 percent of my being and bet my life that they are innocent, but with all the information surround this case, I feel that they are. Innocent or not, they did not get a fair trial. My involvement and dedication to this case is to help get them a new trial. If DNA evidence and a new verdict finds them guilty, then that is something that I will accept. What I refuse to ignore is the fact that a man is sitting on death row as a result of the abomination of justice.\* Yep, I have concluded that they must be innocent because I don’t like the witness for the prosecution and everyone in (West) Memphis is an inbred moron. . . . . . . except I didn’t say anything of the sort. Stop creating an argument where there is none. ---
**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, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/72 "2004-10-21T20:29:56Z")
Welcome to Criminal Procedure. I hope everyone’s notes are in order – there will be exams! > [@catsix](#): > > Is there such a thing as appealing because you are actually innocent of the crime for which you were convicted? This is a complex question as well, and it can be answered in many different contexts. The short answer, however, is no: it was the job of the jury at trial to consider all the evidence and reach findings of fact regarding that evidence. You generally can’t ask an appeals court to re-weigh the evidence. However, you may feel that the jury improperly considered evidence it should never have seen, or you may dsicover new evidence after the trial is over, or you may simply feel that the jury made inferential leaps that they should not have, and that no reasonable jury would have. These situations each deserve discussion. One common claim on direct appeal is “insufficiency of the evidence.” This is essentailly a statement to the apellate court that the evidence adduced at trial is not enough, as a matter of law, to find you guilty. For example, let us say that you have been charged with robbery. The store clerk testifies that someone came into his store wearing a mask, pointed a gun at him, demanded money, and fled. The police responded, and during a search of the area, found you walking quickly down a nearby alley. Under a dumpster close by, they find the mask, a gun, and the stolen money. The clerk cannot positively identify you as the robber, but testifies that “It could have been you - you’re the right height and build.” That’s the extent of the prosecution’s case. The defense puts on no case. The jury convicts. (As a side note, let me emphasize the procedural importance of two defense moves: the defense MUST object to the prosecution’s comment, and they must move for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution’s case. We assume here that they have done so, and that those motions were denied by the trial court. If the defense fails to object to the comment, and fails to request a directed verdict, you have probably waived your right to complain about insufficiency of the evidence on appeal). On appeal, you point out that there is no direct evidence linking you to the robbery. The mere fact that the fruit of the robbery was found hidden in a public alley that you happened to be walking down is not enough, as a matter of law, for any reasonable jury to find you guilty. The appeals court should certainly agree, and reverse the trial court’s verdict. Now – let’s look at the second scenario. We’ll keep our hypothetical, but we’ll add some facts. The prosecution calls one other witness in addition to the clerk: John, a homeless guy. John testifies that while he himself was in detox the week of the robbery, when he got back he heard all about it from Bill, another homeless guy. Both John and Bill sleep in that alley, says John, and Bill told him that he saw a guy run out of the store, take off a mask, and hide the mask and gun under the dumpster and begin walking away. The man didn’t get more than a dozen feet away before police entered the alley and arrested him. (Again a procedural note: John’s testimony is what’s called _hearsay_ - an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. It’s generally inadmissible, and the defense must object to the testimony to preserve this error for appeal). Again, the defense presents no case, and the jury convicts. On appeal, the defense makes two arguments: first, that the judge’s ruling admitting John’s testimony over defense objection was in error, an abuse of discretion. Second, that without that testimony, the jury would have no reasonable basis to conclude guilt, as a matter of law. Again, the appeals court should easily agree and overturn the case. Finally, we consider how newly discovered evidence might be treated. It’s important to note that newly-discovered evidence must be just that: new. A defendant may not appeal because he had an alibi that he didn’t tell the jury, and that this alibi proves him innocent. If he had an alibi, he knew about it at the trial: why didn’t he present it then? The new evidence must have been unknown and not discoverable through due diligence at the time of trial. To keep our robbery hypo alive, let’s say that the prosecution finds Homeless Bill, and he testifies directly about what he saw, and identifies you as the robber. Now the evidence is no longer hearsay: it’s good, direct, eyewitness testimony. You take the stand in your defense and explain that you could not have possibly committed the robbery because you were at a baseball game that day… but you went alone, lost your ticket, and no one saw you there. Unconvinced, the jury convicts. Now, this is the sort of thing that is normally unreviewable on appeal: the jury was perfectly entitled to believe Homeless Bill and disbelieve you. Six months later, you’re watching “According to Jim,” in your cell block’s common room, and the characters are attending a baseball game. A random shot of the crowd is shown, and… it’s you! Yes, unbeknownst to you, the show was shooting scenes at the ballpark that day, and they have a shot of you, on tape, at the game, sixty miles away from the robbery, right at the time the robbery happened. This is new evidence, and you are generally permitted to enter a motion (not an appeal, interestingly) at the trial court asking for a new trial on the basis of this new evidence. If, for some reason, the trial court fails to grant this motion, you may then appeal that decision as an abuse of discretion. > [@](#): > > If there is, do you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you _didn’t_ do it? No. You only have to show that, if the new evidence had been seen by the jury, there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Diane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Diane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diane)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/73 "2004-10-21T20:32:15Z")
Bricker - I am not sure if you had seen the documentaries during the old thread but I see that now you have and that you do not think that they received a fair trial. Speaking not as a lawyer but as average Joe Schmo, what are your thoughts? Do you think they are innocent? Guilty? How do you feel about Mark Byers? Did it move you enough to become a supporter (writing to officials, wearing the t-shirts, buying products (Henry Rollins, artwork, etc.), displaying bumperstickers, etc)? IOW, how did it affect you? ---
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/74 "2004-10-21T20:36:24Z")
> [@Diane](#): > > Bricker - > > I am not sure if you had seen the documentaries during the old thread but I see that now you have and that you do not think that they received a fair trial. I always said I thought their representation was subpar and the trial result was suspect. > [@](#): > > Speaking not as a lawyer but as average Joe Schmo, what are your thoughts? Do you think they are innocent? Guilty? How do you feel about Mark Byers? Did it move you enough to become a supporter (writing to officials, wearing the t-shirts, buying products (Henry Rollins, artwork, etc.), displaying bumperstickers, etc)? > > IOW, how did it affect you? Well, as I said, I’m not sure I buy their innocence. But whether I think they’re innocent or guilty is irrelevant: if I think they did not get a fair trial, then I obviously think they should get a retrial, even if I thought they were guilty. If I had to bet? Straight up, yes or no, guilty or not? I think I’d bet on the side of guilty. But that’s just barely. And preponderance of the evidence is a heck-of-a way from reasonable doubt. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/75 "2004-10-21T20:39:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I always said I thought their representation was subpar and the trial result was suspect. > > Well, as I said, I’m not sure I buy their innocence. But whether I think they’re innocent or guilty is irrelevant: if I think they did not get a fair trial, then I obviously think they should get a retrial, even if I thought they were guilty. > > If I had to bet? Straight up, yes or no, guilty or not? > > I think I’d bet on the side of guilty. But that’s just barely. And preponderance of the evidence is a heck-of-a way from reasonable doubt. What evidence DO you base that on? You admitted yourself that the evidence was weak. What do you find convincing? ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/76 "2004-10-21T20:41:44Z")
BTW, when you say there’s reasonable doubt, can we take that to mean you would have voted to acquit if you had been on the jury? ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/77 "2004-10-21T20:44:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Of course, even to slobbering morons it should have been evident what I meant. Why are you all picking apart my exact words? 🙂 > > Perhaps you are more interested in discrediting me that discussing the particulars of the evidence. Projection. It’s not just for movie theatres anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Diane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Diane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diane)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/78 "2004-10-21T20:51:53Z")
Fair enough. Thanks. I hate to add to the Bricker pileon, but how do you feel about Byers? Do you feel that there is more evidence showing he could be the actual killer instead of the other three? Would his arrest automatically force a new trial/release of the three already in jail? If not, what about after a conviction? Could there be two people, or in this case, four (the WM3 and Byers) jailed for the same crime if there is no evidence showing they were involved together? For instance, say Byers is convicted for killing the boys at home then dumping the bodies in Robin Hood Hills, could the WM3 still be held in prison under the original conviction that stated they killed the little boys on the canal bank at Robin Hood Hills. Can there be two separate convictions under two separate circumstances? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/79 "2004-10-21T20:58:40Z")
Question-why hasn’t this gotten MORE media attention? **Diane** , your last thread was the first I had ever heard of it. You’d think SOMEONE, even some sleazy publicity hound, would be screaming to the rooftops about this. ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157/80 "2004-10-21T20:58:48Z")
> [@Diane](#): > > Can there be two separate convictions under two separate circumstances? Ooh ooh! Can I answer? If I’m wrong, I’m sure **Bricker** correct me. They need to get a writ of habeus corpus. Those writs are often denied, so innocent people stay in prison. Happens all the time. Right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-memphis-three-witness-recants-testimony/270157.md?page=5)