I read “Devil’s Knot” and my conclusion was that at the very least these kids didn’t have a fair trial.
My opinion is that the stepfather did it.
I also have to say that I have never read a book with more footnotes documenting the author’s statements than this one. Usually I don’t take long to read a book, but that one took forever because I read every footnote…simply because I kept thinking the author HAD to be blowing smoke since the whole investigation and trial were portrayed as such a travesty of justice that I couldn’t believe that it could happen here in the good 'ol US of A. But she/he documented every single statement.
I guess what bothers me the most isn’t the botched investigation and trial, tho. There are incompetent people in every job, and we all know it. It is uncommon to have them all working on one case, I think…investigators and judge both. But what bothered me the most was what happened after the trial when these kids were basically denied the ability to appeal all the botched stuff. I mean, it is clear to anyone with half a brain that the trial was a travesty of justice and yet it didn’t seem to matter to anyone higher up in the state of Arkansas. The kids had been convicted, and it didn’t seem to matter that the whole case was (apparently) trumped up and that there was clearly corruption in the investigative process, and in the trial process.
I’d like to think that when there is such compelling evidence that a town/county MIGHT be this corrupted, that someone in the state government would want to at least investigate the charges. It does not appear to me that anyone even looked into it. If it happened in my town, I’d be wanting to know where the hell the State Attorney General’s staff was vacationing…and on whose money.
And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, read “Devil’s Knot.” I think you’ll catch my drift.
I don’t know for sure that these boys are innocent. Maybe the author of the book had an agenda…but it sure as hell didn’t look like it to me. Looked to me like the stepfather did it but for some reason the police were protecting him.
All I know is, the state of Arkansas was pretty damned reluctant to do the DNA testing that would prove the verdict was correct. Which leads me to believe that it WASN’T correct. And that someone wanted to cover the whole thing up.
Does anybody have any info on why Paradise Lost is out of print and has never been released into DVD, incidentally? It makes no sense as its sequel is both in print and on DVD and a third film is in the works.
The latest news articles:
Some of us in this thread are not alone in our statements regarding a lack of physical evidence.
“(Attorney) Riordan said his first instinct was to avoid getting involved in a case that’s already been through a decade of appeals. But he said the appalling lack of physical evidence pointing to the defendants’ guilt finally got the better of him.”
“Three jurors in the West Memphis Three case have recently admitted that they reached guilty verdicts by considering deeply incriminating evidence that was strictly off limits, according to habeas corpus petitions being filed today.”
Diane, I trust the difference between “an appalling lack of physical evidence” and “no physical evidence” is clear to you. The first statement – a correct one – says that the physical evidence was scanty, incomplete, much too small to support a conclusion. The second statement claims that no physical evidence at all exists.
I agree with the first statement, but not the second.
I still say that just because something is technically introduced at a trial as “evidence” does not actually make it genuine physical evidence in a rational, empirical sense.
Evidence is simply anything that makes a given proposition more or less likely, however slightly.
Back when I was in law school, my evidence prof used this little bit on day 1 of the class to introduce the concept: imagine you’re hiring a babysitter. You have it narrowed down to two candidates, both of whom are in all respects equally qualified. You hear a rumor that Candidate A has molested children. Do you then pick Candidate B?
Most people will reluctantly admit they will. The rumor may be false, but it might be true, too. Its existence makes the probability that Candidate A is a child molester more likely, albeit only in a very slight way. The rumor is evidence.
It is, of course, inadmissible evidence – its (extremely) prejudicial nature clearly outweighs its (infinitesimal) probative value. But evidence it is nonetheless.
The bar for calling something “evidence” is very, very low. Evidence might be inadmissible, it might be irrelevant, it might have very little probative value – but it is still properly called evidence.
Don’t blame me I just find them and this definition may indeed be wrong. I just wanted to read the definition of evidence. I was always under the impression that ‘evidence’ meant “proof”. I know the legal definition may be different but does this make it the correct definition? We can put lots of word before ‘evidence’ such as in “inconclusive evidence” meaning evidence which does not prove. So if the definition of inconclusive evidence is does not prove then? Oh fuck… I give up.
“it was evident that suspectA had shot the clerk because the video footage shows him pulling the trigger milliseconds before the clerks brains were splashed across the window and we intend to enter this as evidence.”
“The evidence clearly shows he shot the clerk.”
“The evidence does not show suspectB anywhere near the the store.”
“There is no evidence that suspectB shot the clerk.”
“Circustantial evidence show with a high degree of probability that suspectB may have shot the clerk but in and of itself circustantial evidence does not prove he shot the clerk.”
You know it seems that no matter what way I screw with the word evidence it keeps refering to proof. Proof a crime can be entered as evidence but without proof there is no evidence to enter. Now there can be fabricated evidence I know a few people who are guilty of this and also of using a ‘best-guess’ as evidence but that doesn’t make it evidence in the truest definition of the word.
As to the WM3 I have no clue, I haven’t read any of the information provided. However when someone says no evidence then they obviously means no proof which is obviously opinion. However if there appears to be any impropriety in a capital case then all the evidence entered needs to be properly reevaluated. A prosecutor who has done a proper job should never be affraid of a retrial if evidence proves, unless of course the evidence would prove impropriety and if I am to go by the opinions of of the people here who have taken the time to read the information available then I would say there is plenty of doubt and the case should be retried.
While my definition maybe a bit simplistic I doubt it makes me wrong.
No. Evidence is what you use to meet a given standard of proof. You can have evidence that is insufficient to meet such a standard. In that case, you don’t have “proof” but you do have “evidence.”
In fact, your last example illustrates this nicely. What that example basically says is that evidence exists, but it is insufficient to prove the conclusion asserted.
(It’s also flatly wrong, BTW, although it’s a common refrain in TV detective shows. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker than direct evidence, and it can be sufficient to meet a burden of proof. DNA testing is circumstantial evidence; the little old lady with poor eyesight testifying as to what she saw is direct evidence. Upon which would you rather base a prosecution?)
I’m not doubting your legal interpretation of the words but my example:
and my definition of circumstantial:
A) the class is broken.
B) you have a cut on your hand.
C)you broke the glass.
A=B and B=C and as every good doper knows this does not mean A=C. A is not proof of C.
Once again from
Inferred:
Wanna guess where I got these definitions from?
I don’t wish to argue whether or not there was evidence in this case or not, as I have already stated that is opinion given some here. My reason for posting was to point out that if there are reasonable people able to conclude that what was presented did not constitute evidence in thier opinion then what was presented needs to be reexamined judiciously to factually determine whether or not this is in fact evidence. I think the term reasonable doubt could be applied in this case of course YMMV.
The blind lady can believe she saw whatever she wants and it can be entered as evidence but her belief does not constitute evidence if it can be proven that her vision is impaired. Like wise with DNA evidence, as DNA evidence in a lot of cases isn’t direct proof of anything though it can help mightily to prove a case, I’m sure you don’t need an example of this…
B is circumstantial evidence for C, because it demands an inference: that the cut on your hand resulted from you breaking the window, as opposed to resulting from your chopping onions earlier that day.
Direct evidence is evidence which does not demand such an inference, and is almost always eyewitness testimony: “I saw you break the glass.”
You cannot say evidence was not provided in this case. You can say that the evidence was insufficient to meet the necessary standard of proof in a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Whether there was or was not evidence is not a matter of opinion. Clearly, evidence was presented. That is a matter of fact. What is a matter of opinion is the extent to which that evidence supports a guilty verdict.
No, that is not true. Her testimony is evidence. If her vision is impaired, then that means her testimony should be accorded lesser weight. But it doesn’t mean her testimony suddenly becomes not-evidence.
(N.B.: by “impaired” I don’t mean total blindness; clearly, if she’s totally blind, she cannot testify as to what she saw without perjuing herself.)
DNA evidence is always circumstantial evidence, and never direct evidence. Which is my point: circumstantial evidence is often superior to direct evidence. Which makes the TV prosecutor canard of “circumstantial evidence isn’t enough for me to convict on” total bullshit.
I just wanted to read the definition of evidence. I was always under the impression that ‘evidence’ meant “proof”. I know the legal definition may be different but does this make it the correct definition? We can put lots of word before ‘evidence’ such as in “inconclusive evidence” meaning evidence which does not prove. So if the definition of inconclusive evidence is does not prove then? Oh fuck… I give up.