West Memphis Three Witness Recants Testimony

The BBQ Pit
81

As a balance to the knee-jerkers who believe what they see on TV is more authoritative that sworn testimony in a court of law.

We hadn’t established that there was any to comment on. Diogenes started this thread, and Diane the last one, by denying hotly that any evidence existed. I will assume that we have established that there is.

And I have not claimed they were guilty, either. I think they are, but I do not know that. I want to know as well.

But what seemed to be the problem the last time is that people refused to believe that circumstantial evidence could be cumulative. Because there was no single piece of evidence that proved guilt in and of itself, without regard to any other aspect of the case, that meant that they must be innocent.

It doesn’t work that way, as you probably realize.

For instance. the blood tests already connected two of the suspects to blood samples on a knife. About 9.2% of the Caucasion population of North America shares the characteristics they looked at. In other words, if you chose someone at random, the chances would be roughly nine or ten to one that they would not match.

So, could one chance in ten be a coincidence? Sure, although ten-to-one are pretty long odds.

But there is other evidence as well. And, when we consider that evidence, we should include all the evidence when considering the likelihood of it actually being a coincidence. For instance, there was a red fiber that was similar to a robe belonging to the mother of one of the suspects. Again, it could not be identifed as coming from that robe, to the exclusion of all other possible sources. But the likelihood of finding such a fiber reduces the range of possible suspects to persons who had such a source of fiber close to them. What would you guess that range to be? Let’s take a guess - I doubt it would be 100% of the population of West Memphis. Let’s say 50% of the population owned a robe like that.

But that means that we can determine the probablility that it was pure coincidence that the three were accused. One chance in ten, multiplied by one chance in two, means the likelihood that this was purely a coincidence was about one chance in twenty.

Ten to one is long odds. Twenty to one is still longer.

There were three other fiber matches. Again, none of them could be established with 100% certainty as coming only from a source connected with the suspects. But that does not mean the probability of it being a coincidence goes to 100%. It means that the possible range of suspects includes those who have close contact with a source of fiber that could match the ones found in the suspect’s home. So, again, let’s guess that 50% of the population at random has a source of those fibers too.

Now our odds are one in forty. And, in my view, we are starting to approach the limits of reasonable doubt.

And there is other evidence to add to that as well.

What do you suppose is the likelihood of someone at random having a knife, similar in edge to the knife determined to have committed the killing, found in a lake behind their home? What do you suppose is the likelihood of someone at random being overheard confessing to the crime by several witnesses? What is the likelihood of another of them confessing to the police? Even if we guess that all these are also fifty-fifty propositions, we are still at odds of over three hundred to one.

Coincidence? Really?

I’ve never seen a reasonable refutation of this. And, quite frankly, the supporters of these three seem to be so pig-headedly determined to misrepresent the facts that sustained credibility is darn near impossible. Because all they seem to deal in is accusations against people who live in West Memphis, and made-for-TV movies. And they use that to try to refute sworn and contemporaneous testimony.

And, every time they get in front of an impartial court, they lose.

I suppose the difference between that and me is that I have more faith in the appelate court system than I do an HBO TV producer trying to make money off a sensational case. And rock stars do not strike me as very good judges of guilt or innocence.
Regards,
Shodan

82

Actually, there has been a lot of publicity about the case. The documentaries, books, art shows, concerts, celebrity supporters (Henry Rollins, Pearl Jam, Marilyn Manson, Wynona Ryder), a yet unreleased movie, and then little people like me, Sampiro, Diogenes, and others who try to spread the word with letters, bumper stickers, t-shirts, and posts on message boards. :wink:

Click on News and Events, then “more” on their website:

www.wm3.org

New movie:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0362306/

However, it still amazes me how many people don’t know about the case. That is why, at least in my NSHO, it is important to get the word out.

83

No I didn’t.
And there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE connecting these defendants to this crime.

84

Yes.

85

I am not going to waste my time with your bullshit since it is so clear that you have no fucking clue about anything surrounding this case. I would however like to point out one perfect example.

You link to, and claim that, the blood test connected two of the suspects. Do you even know who the suspects are?

Your link shows the blood connection between Mark Byers, the stepfather of one of the murdered boys, and in my opinion, a more likely suspect, and Christopher Byers, his MURDERED stepson.

Not two of the suspects.

Now tell me, why should we give anything you say here any merit when you are so clearly ignorant of the most basic facts?

86

Shodan - JFTR, I have based my beliefs and opinions on not the documentaries, but the pages upon pages of court documentations, books, and other sources of information surrounding this case.

What do you base your opinion on?

87

Shodan really seems to have no understanding either of the criminal justice system or as to what constututes evidence. From his link:

Ok, so as far as evidence goes, this adds up to nothing. Learn how to read, Shodan. This was the given to the film crew by John Byers, the creepy stepfather. It was not part of the murder trial, you fucking moron, it was not introduced into evidence and there is no way of knowing whose blood is on it. John Byers was not one of the defendants, you fucking tool, he was the stepfather of one of the defendants. The testing says that both Chris (a defendant) and his stepfather ( a creepy weirdo who cnfessed on vamera to the crimes but was not a defendant) were in the 9 percent of the population who could have contributed that blood. Since the knife belonged to the stepfather and was never shown to have a connection to the crime, what the fuck do you think this proves?

The rest of your “evidence,” along with your specious math is just as worthless.

88

Shit. Even I got it wrong. Fuck. I thought Byers was the stepfather of one of the defendants. I need to pull my head out of my own ass.

89

So let me reload. The knife in Shodan’s link is not connected to any of the defendants. It was given to the film crew by the stepfather of one of the victims. The blood test showed that the blood might belong to either the stepfather or the murdered son. There is no argument taht blood belongs to any of the defendants.

90

  • Two witnesses testified that they overheard Echols admit that he killed the three boys

  • Testimony of witnesses placed Echols in dirty clothes near the crime scene at a time close to the murders

  • Testimony of a witness that she had seen Echols carrying a similar knife and the testimony of the owner of a knife collector service regarding the rarity of that type of knife

  • Testimony from a detective that Echols had made a statement regarding the mutilation of one of the victims that he would not have known about unless he had been involved in some manner

And of course the previously-mentioned fiber and knife discovery evidence.

It does not add up to reasonable doubt, and, as I said, as a member of a criminal jury I’d have voted to aquit. But as a member of a civil jury sitting in a wrongful death action, I’d have found Echols, at least, liable. Anthony and Narlene Hollingsworth put him in soiled clothes on the night of the murder, near the scene. Christy VanVickle and Jackie Medford both testified that they heard Echols say, “I killed the three little boys and before I turn myself in, I’m going to kill two more, and I already have one of them picked out.” Deanna Holcomb testified that she saw Echols with a knife just like the one recovered from the lake.

  • Rick
91

Does this story give you any misgivings?

92

I am getting ready to leave so I can’t respond in much detail. I will post links to a couple of the statements you have mentioned. They are from the website. You can draw your own conclusions.

Regarding the two witnesses.

http://wm3.org/live/faq/faq_category.php?id=5&page=2#faq43

Regarding the knife.

http://wm3.org/live/faq/faq_category.php?id=5&page=2#faq44

The fiber:

http://wm3.org/live/faq/faq_category.php?id=5&page=2#faq40
I gotta go. Hopefully someone will come along and offer more.

93

Added:

More police fuck ups.

http://wm3.org/live/faq/faq_category.php?id=5#faq56

Alibis.

http://wm3.org/live/faq/faq_category.php?id=5#faq53
k-bye.

94

I didn’t use any of Hutcheson’s testimony in my list.

Yes, that story gives me misgivings. It suggests - although doesn’t PROVE - that the police had some improper enthusiasm about clearing this case.

But again – you asked what evidence I was relying on. I gave it. I agree that the evidence does not rise to the level necessary to sustain a criminal conviction, but I believe it’s sufficient for a civil verdict.

Diane: the links you gave simply cast doubt on the motives and truthfulness of the witnesses. They don’t show the witnesses are lying because they were in Kalamazoo and thus counld never have heard what they claimed. In short, you’re asking me to disbelieve them and believe the interpretation on the web page… even though jurors heard their testimony face-to-face and evaluated their credibility. Since neither you nor I can say that, I don’t see on what basis you can wholly disregard the testimony. The jury’s FUNCTION is to evaluate the truth. While juries can certainly be misled, they had more of a chance than you or I to get it right.

Why, then, don’t I accept the jury’s finding of criminal guilt? Because I contend the jury heard more evidence than they should – that a veteran defense team would have done a far superior job in managing the admission of key pieces of evidence, including the police confession and the blood-on-a-stick story. The jury should never have heard that.

In fact, the defendants should never have been tried together. While the law permits the joint trials, and there is thus no appealable issue in the lack of severance, a savvy defense TEAM could have forced the trials to sever simply by credibly asserting adverse interests and defense strategy. Once severed, each defendant’s reasonable doubt strategy is clear… it mighta been the other guys; it mighta been someone else, but it WASN’T me. That’s exactly why the prosecution opposed severing the trials.

There’s plenty of credible evidence suggesting guilt. I think there’s a better than even chance they (or at least Echols) is guilty. But THAT’S NOT ENOUGH. If the state can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt – and they didn’t – they have no business putting anyone behind bars.

  • Rick
95

Congratulations on your new low, Shodan. Don’t get comfortable, I’m sure you won’t be there for long.

96

I actually first heard about this a few years ago from a song by the christian band Zao. The lyrics if you’re interested.

Why doesn’t some politician take up this cause? I’m sure it would help the politician’s career.

97

Well said.

98

A member of the jury that convicted Echols has admitted that the jury went in believing he was guilty before the trial even started, and that now they don’t know, and think maybe he needs a new trial.

Juries also don’t get all the facts, or get misinformation. This could be because the defense or prosecution was incompetent, because of legal rules that excluded certain things, because new evidence came to light after the trial, because old evidence was debunked after the trial, or for various other reasons.

I’ve served on a jury myself, and that tends to rid you of your idealized notions pretty fast.

As for the testimony of the witnesses, you can follow Diane’s link to read the testimony itself, but it was a 15 year old girl testifying that, at a girl’s softball game, she saw Echols telling a group of people that he had killed the boys and was going to kill two more.

None of the supposed group of people were ever identified.

Most alarmingly, there had ALREADY been a rumor going around BEFORE the day that she supposedly heard this confession, about Echols being at a girl’s softball game and telling people he had killed the boys.

One 13 year old girl said “Around May 21, 93 I was at the Girls Club in West Memphis at my softball game and this girl name Michelle Carter told me that Damien Echols came up to her and said that he killed those boys and I just said really and she said yes.”

Note that this is before the day that the witnesses in the trial claim to have heard the confession. In other words, an urban legend of Echols at a girl’s softball game telling people he killed the boys and threatening to kill more were going around BEFORE the day the girls claim that they heard that very confession.
Basically, it was trial by urban legend. As the jury even admitted, Echols was considered guilty before the trial even started. And why not, with all the stories going around:
“One man claimed that Damien levitated him during a “devil meeting.” Another person claimed that they saw Damien wearing “dog entrails like a necktie.” John Mark Byers got in on the hysteria by publicly stating that his son’s testicles were found in a jar under Damien’s bed with Damien’s fingerprints all over it - he claims to have heard this wild story over his police radio. Another West Memphis resident stated that human skulls with skin still attached were found in Damien’s closet. A variation on this skull story states that a goat’s skull was found in Damien’s room. Another local person stated that they watched Damien kill a dog and eat the heart during a Satanic orgy/ritual. Another version of this rumor specifies that he ate the dog’s leg.”

99

Bricker, your posts nos. 61, 62, and 72 were extremely helpful and informative. Thank you.

100

Satanic Panic at its worst. Honestly, people can be such idiots. So let’s assume that Damien and the others were not Satanists (an extremely safe bet). What motive would they then have? Why kill a bunch of kids like that?

Then again, what motive would John Mark Byers have? Or anyone else? That’s the one thing about this case that really bothers me (Well, one of many things). Why would anyone do such a thing? The best that the prosecution came up with is Satanism, and that’s really just fucking weak.