Exactly.
When one is talking to Rick about legal matters, this is almost always what happens. I suspect it makes him a very good lawyer, but on forums like this it’s frustrating for all involved. He’s always going to hold forth the most rigid interpretation of the absolute letter of the law. My advice is give it to him. Admit that the knife and fibers were admitted as evidence, and thus meet the definition of the term “evidence”, but argue that they were so weak as “evidence” as to be practically speaking no evidence that the three murdered anyone at all. From what he’s said so far I suspect he’d agree with you.
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 think Bricker’s argument is that the knife and fiber matches were admitted by the court as evidence to be used at trial, and therefore must be considered as legal evidence by its very definition. If a court admits something as evidence, then it is legally considered to be evidence (even if we think it’s weak and lame.)
The layman and lawyer’s definition of evidence are not necessarily the same.
It’s not a word game. Anything legally presented as evidence IS evidence. All relevant evidence is admissble, if the probative value exceeds its prejudicial value. If it was admitted, and if the admission is upheld on appeal, then, by definition, it’s evidence.
This isn’t a legal thing. It’s a common-sense thing.
Now, I grant you that in laymen’s terms, we may say something like, “There’s no chance they’ll get a first down on this play - it’s fourth and twenty-eight, and the punting team is on the field!”
But of course what we mean when is there’s a really small, but admittedly non-zero, chance. If we’re talking in laymen’s terms, there’s no reason we can’t be accurate, and say: really fucking weak and lame evidence. But not ‘no’ evidence.
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.
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 suppose, but only if you want to be deliberately anal and obtuse. It was clear what Dio meant, and there was absolutely no reason for you to take him to task for it. And by “absolutely no”, I mean “Unlikely but non-zero, not a guarantee, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply.”
Shodan -
I do not have time to go back and read the old thread, but if I actually said that “testing was almost complete” I was obviously wrong. Since my post, DNA testing was stopped by the courts.
I’ve asked you before and I will ask you again – Have you watched both Paradise Lost documentaries? Have you read Devil’s Knot? Have you read all court documents and histories?
What exactly do you know of the case?
I remain of the opinion that you are in this argument with little knowledge of what you are arguing. You want to oppose something that has been stated about this case? Fine I’ll listen, but at least have something to bring to the table besides covering your ears and yelling “liar liar liar”. Show us why you don’t agree.
Shodan -
This is why I don’t give your arguments any credence or respect. You continue to flap your lips without making any effort to actually obtain any knowledge of what you are arguing against.
I have concluded you are only here to see yourself yammer and to toss insults.
AirmanDoors -
Speaking for myself, I don’t expect anyone to believe every word I say or to jump on the cause just because I feel it is worthy. That is why I recommend sources for people to watch and read so they can make their own conclusions just as I did.
www.wm3.org which includes court documentation
Paradise Lost, The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills (video)
Paradise Lost 2, Revelations (video - both available at most rental stories like Blockbusters)
Devil’s Know by Mara Leveritt (book)
The Blood of Innocents by *Guy Reel, Marc Perrusquia, and Bartholomew Sullivan (book)
- Authors who believe the WM3 are guilty and will give you a larger array of views on the case wrote the Blood of Innocents. It will give you an opposing view of the case.
Catsix-
Yes. Depending on which version of the story he tells, Byers lost his teeth in a barroom fight or they all fell out due to the medication he was taking for a brain tumor (Carbamezapine, which interestingly was found in his stepson’s blood).
Either way, the timing was uncanny.
catsix -
Same guy.
This link will give you a lot of information surrounding the so-called “expert”.
http://www.wm3.org/live/faq/faq_category.php?id=5&page=2#faq58
Diogenes the Cynic -
From the website:
http://www.wm3.org/live/faq/faq_category.php?id=5&page=2#faq70
***Q: What about the DNA testing done on the blood on the John Mark Byers knife? How could a DNA test be inconclusive? **
A: The test done on the knife was not the type of DNA testing that most people think of these days - like a DNA “fingerprint.” The HLA-DQA test used in 1994 was more useful in discriminating between individuals than a simple ABO blood typing test, but not by much. It was determined that the blood found on the knife could have belonged to Chris Byers, John Mark Byers or both of them. Despite not being related, they happened to share the same HLA-DQA profile (as does approximately 9.2% of the North American Caucasian population).
Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley have filed motions for newer, more sophisticated DNA testing to be performed on all of the evidence. At the time of this writing, tests are not complete. Information will be posted to the News page as it becomes available.*
Sampiro -
Interesting article.
http://www.answers.org/satan/sra.html
- Supervisory Special Agent Kenneth Lanning, of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, has investigated over 300 SRA reports and has yet to find corroborative evidence. While still affirming his willingness to look for and find such hypothetical evidence, Lanning points out the problems inherent in the SRA conspiracy theory:
Any professional evaluating victims’ allegations of ritualistic abuse cannot ignore the lack of physical evidence (no bodies or physical evidence left by violent murders), the difficulty in successfully committing a large-scale conspiracy crime (the more people involved in any crime conspiracy, the harder it is to get away with it), and human nature (intragroup conflicts resulting in individual self-serving disclosures are likely to occur in any group involved in organized kidnapping, baby breeding, and human sacrifice).[25] *
Bricker -
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.
Just to state what should be the obvious- the question is not whether we can declare absolute innocence but if we can declare absolute guilt.
Even Bricker has conceded that the evidence is weak, that the defendants did not get a fair trial and that he personally would not be willing pass a death sentence based on the evidence.
The only person in this thread (and from what I remember, the other thread as well) who is convinced that the WM3 is guilty and that Damien Echols should die is *Shodan, a person who, not uncoincidentally, seems to be the least informed about the actual facts of the case.
Unfortunately, that kind of callous, unreasoning and indifferent desire to see an execution is all too common in this country. 
I don’t mean to pile on Bricker, it’s just that this seems to have been so obviously not a fair trial and I don’t understand how with all the appeals and everything it’s still holding up for all this time.
There were no documentaries. There are no court documents, and no histories. There is no Devil’s Knot.
There is also no DNA testing, and no old thread.
There is no case.
There is no argument.
Nothing has been stated.
And there is no table.
You’re right, Diogenes, this is fun!
Not that you have ever said anything about the case. I don’t agree with what you said, and therefore it doesn’t exist.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m no lawyer, but I can take a few guesses. The judge ordering a retrial would amount to him saying “I was wrong, because I’m a lousy judge.” For an election official, that’s certain death. For the court system, they are pandering to the people that live in that area. While the rest of the country says “Look at the horrific miscarriage of justice!”, the good people of West Memphis are saying “Look at the horrific murders!” They want swift and terrible justice, and they found it. The court system is not going to let them down or confuse them by introducing shades of gray into the equation.
That’s my guess, anyway. Feel free to debunk it.
Well THAT was a productive post.
You know, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to admit you were wrong or ill informed. Sometimes it’s actually a good thing, even.
Shodan, why are you deliberately being a prick?
You truly are a slobbering moron.
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.
Shodan knows he can’t win a rational debate on this subject so he’s reduced to dancing around on a lame semantic point. I consider that a win for my side.
Shodan:
Long version: I started this thread. I have never said there was no evidence. I don’t particularly care what your opinion of Diogenes is.
There are tapes. There are books. LexisNexis can find you the articles written at the time. There is an excellent and objective account here if you don’t want to go to a library or bookstore. Read and review.
This is literally a life and death situation. A bright young man who could very possibly be innocent has been incarcerated for eleven years, has been raped and beaten repeatedly, and may be put to death this year as the result of hysterical fundamentalism (something that you should fear as much as anybody else on this board). It is not a lighthearted matter for you to show your weiner and say “Nyah nyah nyah” about and if you do please understand that it causes anger and not because you disagree with us but because you disagree with us without having even attempted to gauge the facts.
There are several of us on this board who care very deeply about this subject, support it with our time and our dollars, and do not appreciate you joking about young men who as I write this are in 9 x 11 cells forbidden to be near their families, forbidden to go outside for more than one hour per day, forbidden even to have more than 3 books at one time, all because of one of the most gross miscarriages of justice ever to occur in this nation. I don’t care if it was technically legal what happened, it was not justice. Fiat iustitia ruat caelum.
Short version: Go fuck yourself.
Sampiro - I have tried with Shodan, don’t waste your time.
He doesn’t want to discuss it rationally.
He doesn’t want to learn anything about the case.
He doesn’t want to discuss the things posted here.
He doesn’t care that a man may be put to death and two others have been jailed for life because of gross injustices.
He can’t back his disputes with anything other than hysterical insults or idiodic attempts at jokes.
He can’t even explain why he is even in this thread.
All he cares about is running his gaping, yammering gob of a mouth just to see his “Regards, Shodan” on a public message board.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I know little about the details of this case so I’m not qualified to judge the merits of the case. I’m going to read and learn more so that I can give an informed opinion
It’s not that hard to say, Shodan.
Why is it the ones who howl loudest about morality seem to have so little of it themselves?