|
Post by jamie on Jul 7, 2003 7:14:19 GMT -6
On another site the WM3 has been brought up. I viewed both documentries and was incredablily convinced that there was enough to warrent a new trial. But someone there pointed me in the direction of what appears to be non-skewed information. Here are both links one for the Crime site and another for the case info on the WM3 I look forward to talking about this with others and learning more about this. pub165.ezboard.com/bcrimeandjustice13552(go to Hot Case, scroll down to West Memphis Three) www.callahan.8k.com/
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jul 30, 2003 18:44:10 GMT -6
I'm reading "Devil's Knot" by Mara Leveritt. She is telling the storying in the way that favors Damien, Jessie and Jason. But she is reporting facts. I am coming back to the conclusion that they were railroaded. Once again I ask that if anyone is interested in this case to read it, talk about, etc.
Please refer to the two links in the above post to find out more about the victims, the crime, the suspects and outcome.
Look forward to your postsings.
Jamie
|
|
|
Post by FromTheHip on Jul 30, 2003 19:38:30 GMT -6
This is a case that I have some experience with - and ... well I disagree with the propaganda that is being drummed up in regards to the case.
What stands out in my mind most about this case is that all the information that is offered publically is offered forward by the defence team - and well...these guys tend to leave things out that might be bad for their clients.
There are literally stacks of things in the case that defence (and the variety of pop books that are out there) that are simply contradictory to what we know happens medically.
Livor mortis issues, rigor issues, time of death issues, murder-must-out issues...
It goes on and on - study it closely Jamie - and on your own. Its not as interesting a tale as defence would have us believe.
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Aug 6, 2003 9:03:53 GMT -6
I've wacthed the documentry and I am not as sure as before that they were treatment wrong.
In the book I do find it interesting how much Jerry Driver, county juvenile officer, rode Damion butt before the murders even though Damien had done what was asked (completed GED, got a job and went to consuling) and even after he turned 18 and was still honoring these requirements.
The doctors before the murders, when Damien was 15, didn't seem as impressed as the police, juvenile officer and the community were in his interests in the occult, poetry, etc.
Still going through the Callahan site for "no doubt about it" information.
So it continues for me.
Jamie
|
|
|
Post by FromTheHip on Aug 6, 2003 10:55:26 GMT -6
WM3 is one of those "Hurricane Carter" and "Mumia" cases that makes me nuts.
People forget to do their own investigation and read what's OUT there... and next thing ya' know they're doing their level best to free a bunch of killers
You, thankfully, have an exceptional mind and will at least test the story on your own.
I have some of the crime scene notes and photos if you're interested.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Aug 6, 2003 11:19:09 GMT -6
Thank you. If it isn't any trouble I would love to have that information. It has been at least 7 years since I first saw this documentery and time has made me less of a reactionary. I'm surprised how I was really able to see it withOUT my old eye. I am also reading the book more of a devil's advocate not as a for or against reader. There is too much focus just on the occult things from the defense side they are using smoke and mirror tricks to detract from the criminal case. Thank you kindly, Jamie
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 6, 2003 13:09:35 GMT -6
FromtheHip, it's so nice to find someone who looks at this case as well as the Mumia case in the same "state of mind" as I do. And you're so right about people accepting the propaganda without asking questions about it, or even trying to verify it.
Jamie, I want to warn you to keep in mind as you read "Devil's Knot" that the author is biased toward innocence and tends to cite things that don't prove innocence, and are generally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the 3 are in fact innocent. Such as the search conducted at night, and Echols "meeting" the requirements of his probation.
The search being conducted at night isn't relevant to the question of guilt or innocence and, in her naivete' Ms. Leveritt appears to believe that the fact that the search was conducted at night (after a co-conspirator was arrested), is an irregularity. She needs to stop preaching and research the Arkansas laws, as well as the judicial exceptions.
Echols, in fact, didn't meet the terms of his probation, which required him to live in Oregon with his family. He violated his probation and returned to Arkansas. Therefore, Leveritt's statements about Echols "complying" with his probation are factually inaccurate.
As for Driver and Jones' interest in Echols, you have juvenile officers who are seeing pentagrams and all sorts of grafitti popping up around town. And Echols is telling them that he's the member of a cult that's about to graduate to human sacrifice.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Aug 6, 2003 14:03:18 GMT -6
kma367- I'm actually having a hard time reading the book because it is so slanted I'm getting vertigo. I will pretty much be sticking with the Callahan site. Funny thing with the Mumia and the Carter case. I never had a doubt about their guilt. These cases seemed much more clear and defined. The whole being picked on for what you look like and listen to rang close to home for me, so much so I just saw it as an attack. kma-I am also going to go back over the stuff you posted before. I read it with a skewed view. Welcome. Respectfully, Jamie
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 7, 2003 14:53:33 GMT -6
Jamie wrote: "I'm actually having a hard time reading the book because it is so slanted I'm getting vertigo." I can relate. I stopped reading right after the part about Miskelley's first confession. "I will pretty much be sticking with the Callahan site." Because of the size of the file, there are still quite a few things from the case file that aren't there. Hopefully someone will have the opportunity to make another trip to WMPD to remedy that soon. But at least there are some documents there to get the "whole" story from. "Funny thing with the Mumia and the Carter case. I never had a doubt about their guilt. These cases seemed much more clear and defined." I suspect that the difference between the Mumia and Carter cases is that there was a lot more factually accurate information available, and perhaps that some of the "pro-innocence" information they came up with was so "out there" that it was difficult to believe. I will give the California group credit - they are relatively subtle and they have, until recently, concentrated on distracting people from Echols' psychiatric history and getting them to concentrate on irrelevant information. "The whole being picked on for what you look like and listen to rang close to home for me, so much so I just saw it as an attack." That also seems to be a theme with a lot of supporters. However, that wasn't the only reason Echols became a suspect. In fact, I would have to say that had the WMPD failed to question him early on that would have been an example of them "dropping the ball." I think in any jurisdiction, the first person(s) to be questioned in connection with a murder of this nature would be the one(s) who openly brag about satanism and devil worship (whether what they "practice" is a pure form, or a "dabbler's cobble" form, which is common among teens). "kma-I am also going to go back over the stuff you posted before." There's a site other than the Crime and Justice board. The General Discussion area has a lot of case related information. pub17.ezboard.com/bmurderincorporatedAll are welcome to join in discussions there, as well. "I read it with a skewed view." Skewed toward innocence? That's okay. The "pro-innocence" sites have done a good job of making it appear that the 3 are innocent and it's only recently that actual case documents became available. "Welcome." Thanks! What nic do you post under at Crime and Justice? I saw your note on the "About the Board" thread, but don't recognize the name. kma367
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Aug 7, 2003 20:51:32 GMT -6
Good looking site. It has been added to my bookmarks. Jaminoshame is the screen and I sign with Jami
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 11, 2003 14:29:35 GMT -6
I came across this post to another board and thought it might make for some interesting discussion. Due to the length, I will post the link to the other site, rather than cutting and pasting the lengthy post here. pub17.ezboard.com/fmurderincorporatedfrm4.showMessage?topicID=1.topicModerators: If this violates any TOS or if you feel it would be easier/better to have the post here, feel free to pull it over, or instruct me to do so. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Dana on Feb 14, 2004 22:19:08 GMT -6
I have read a lot on this subject, but my husband and I came to the conclusion that all you had to do was watch both of the videos, Paradise Lost, and Revelations to find out exactly who is responsible for the killings. It's as if the documentary crew saw so much that was so very obvious that they pointed the viewer in the right direction with very little effort. I felt myself getting knots in my stomach at the gross ignorance of the small town minds in West Memphis. I am completely surprised that a higher court hasn't seen this second film and stepped in and taken over. Even in the slim chance that these boys were guilty, the judge was extreamly neglegent in not declairing this case a mistrial....there were several occasions that called for that to happen. I may never find this site again, but you can respond to this post at Paulsfan@webtv.net
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2004 2:56:16 GMT -6
Higher courts can't just "step in". They must be appealed to and have some factual basis. Any film or story from the media is going to biased in some way because they have to sell their product. People would get pretty bored if they gave all details.
|
|
|
Post by adam on Mar 31, 2004 12:20:04 GMT -6
yes i agree that many parts of the media are biassed, but isn't it ok to be biassed if you're right?
i seriously can't understand how anybody could think these boys were guilty! the foundation of the case was based on a mentally handicapped boy's confession!!! a forced one. plus... what about the evidence of a black man commiting the murder:
1. people witnessed three black men coming from the woods were the boys were killed the day of the murder. the police said that people in satanic rituals paint there faces black.
2. there was the hair of an african american found on one of the boys bodies. that was never investigated.
3. and this is the kicker!! a black man, covered in blood went to the nearby station to clean up!! they took blood samples from the wall's, but "lost" them.
if you ask me, that's enough right there for reasonable doubt!!
and man, damien isn't satanic!! he questioned religion. he was wiccan. they love and cherish the earth.
free the west memphis three!!!!
time to write "the crucible two" i guess.
sorry, i'm just really passionate about innocence adam
|
|
|
Post by adam on Apr 6, 2004 11:42:10 GMT -6
what, nobody has anything else to say? these three men are going to die for an act they didn't commit! i see know justice in that. there is still a murderer/s out there, maybe reading this, thinking, "HAH, suckers!"
we have to help! go to wm3.org. they take donations of anykind. i'm putting on a concert and sending them all the proceeds. they are broke, and the lawyers are working for free. but the still need money for witnesses, and evidence. the lawyers can't pay for everything themselves.
|
|
|
Post by KMA on Apr 16, 2004 12:56:17 GMT -6
Adam wrote: "i seriously can't understand how anybody could think these boys were guilty!" Because they were tried and convicted based upon evidence presented to two juries in two trials that each lasted two weeks (or nearly two weeks), those convictions were upheld on direct appeal and they have never presented any exculpatory evidence on their own behalfs, perhaps? "the foundation of the case was based on a mentally handicapped boy's confession!!! a forced one." There is no evidence that Misskelley's confession was "forced" as you claim. In fact, the evidence and testimony at trial indicates that he was in no way, shape or form coerced into confessing. "plus... what about the evidence of a black man commiting the murder:" There is none. "1. people witnessed three black men coming from the woods were the boys were killed the day of the murder. the police said that people in satanic rituals paint there faces black." Actually, I believe the witness stated she saw two black men and one white man coming out of the woods at some point. However, if the defense claims are what you accept, this is irrelevant, as the woods are allegedly not the crime scene. "2. there was the hair of an african american found on one of the boys bodies. that was never investigated." It was actually found on the sheet used to wrap one of the boys. None of the hairs of African-Americans submitted during the course of the investigation were found to be similar. There were several Caucasian hairs found on the victims' bodies. Three of those hairs were found to be similar to Damien Echols' hair. There were also numerous red and green fibers found on the clothing of two of the boys. Those fibers were found to be similar to a garment from Echols' residence and a garment from Jason Baldwin's residence. "3. and this is the kicker!! a black man, covered in blood went to the nearby station to clean up!! they took blood samples from the wall's, but "lost" them." This is also untrue. The man was seen at a restaurant on Missouri Street in West Memphis at around 9:00 on the night of May 5. He went into the ladies' room at the restaurant and the manager was called to confront him. He was bleeding from one arm, had a cast on the other arm and left the restaurant (at the manager's request) after having a bowel movement on himself and leaving blood on the walls and around the toilet and excrement on the floor. The blood sample was subsequently lost, however, the officer admitted this on the stand, under oath, at trial. Unfortunately, that happens, especially when the sample in question is not one that could have been directly tied to the murders. "if you ask me, that's enough right there for reasonable doubt!!" If it were true, but it isn't. "and man, damien isn't satanic!! he questioned religion. he was wiccan. they love and cherish the earth." He claims to be a Buddhist now. He claimed to be a Wiccan then. More likely than not, he was a teenage dabbler who made things up as he went along. Have you read Echols' psychiatric records? He claimed to be possessed by the spirit of a murdered woman and/or a demon on numerous occasions. "free the west memphis three!!!!" Perhaps you should do more research before you commit to a lost cause. "what, nobody has anything else to say?" It will be interesting to see your response. "these three men are going to die for an act they didn't commit!" Actually, only Echols was sentenced to death. Both Misskelley and Baldwin received life (Baldwin without parole and Misskelley Life +40). "i see know justice in that." Don't you mean "no" justice? "there is still a murderer/s out there, maybe reading this, thinking, "HAH, suckers!" That's an interesting theory considering the fact that no similar murders have been committed during the eleven years since the crime. That suggests the actual perpetrators are behind bars. "we have to help! go to wm3.org. they take donations of anykind." For the operation of their site. They claim to be donating to the "defense" fund and the commissary funds, but they refuse to provide their supporters or anyone else with an accounting of funds received and how they were spent. "i'm putting on a concert and sending them all the proceeds." If you send it to WM3.org, it goes into the pockets of the founders, not the the 3 killers or their defense. "they are broke," Who - the killers? They're in prison. "and the lawyers are working for free." Not according to the recent letters from Echols' wife. And, actually, the State of Arkansas has paid all of the legal fees for Echols in his post-conviction appeal. "but the still need money for witnesses," Are they going to pay witnesses? That's unethical. "and evidence." Again, they're going to buy evidence. Or do you mean they're going to try to bribe the U.S. District Court in Echols' upcoming federal appeal? "the lawyers can't pay for everything themselves." They're not. The State of Arkansas is paying it, or the Innocence Project (a charitable organization that solicits donations) is paying expenses. WM3.org collects money to pay the costs of their website. They do not send those funds for defense of the 3. Again, you really should do more research into the case and into the various "funds" before you do anything else. "time to write "the crucible two" i guess." If only it were that simple. What's it's time to do is to provide some legitimate exculpatory evidence that proves innocence. "sorry, i'm just really passionate about innocence" That's admirable. However, before you declare innocence, perhaps you should actually research the case. Documents, etc. can be found at www.callahan.8k.comkma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2004 13:56:35 GMT -6
Thats one this thats very common amoungest the 98% of the anti's. They are all innocent, and are perfect angles, the west Memphis three, Grary Graham, and Wesly Cook.. Adam wrote: "i seriously can't understand how anybody could think these boys were guilty!" Because they were tried and convicted based upon evidence presented to two juries in two trials that each lasted two weeks (or nearly two weeks), those convictions were upheld on direct appeal and they have never presented any exculpatory evidence on their own behalfs, perhaps? "the foundation of the case was based on a mentally handicapped boy's confession!!! a forced one." There is no evidence that Misskelley's confession was "forced" as you claim. In fact, the evidence and testimony at trial indicates that he was in no way, shape or form coerced into confessing. "plus... what about the evidence of a black man commiting the murder:" There is none. "1. people witnessed three black men coming from the woods were the boys were killed the day of the murder. the police said that people in satanic rituals paint there faces black." Actually, I believe the witness stated she saw two black men and one white man coming out of the woods at some point. However, if the defense claims are what you accept, this is irrelevant, as the woods are allegedly not the crime scene. "2. there was the hair of an african american found on one of the boys bodies. that was never investigated." It was actually found on the sheet used to wrap one of the boys. None of the hairs of African-Americans submitted during the course of the investigation were found to be similar. There were several Caucasian hairs found on the victims' bodies. Three of those hairs were found to be similar to Damien Echols' hair. There were also numerous red and green fibers found on the clothing of two of the boys. Those fibers were found to be similar to a garment from Echols' residence and a garment from Jason Baldwin's residence. "3. and this is the kicker!! a black man, covered in blood went to the nearby station to clean up!! they took blood samples from the wall's, but "lost" them." This is also untrue. The man was seen at a restaurant on Missouri Street in West Memphis at around 9:00 on the night of May 5. He went into the ladies' room at the restaurant and the manager was called to confront him. He was bleeding from one arm, had a cast on the other arm and left the restaurant (at the manager's request) after having a bowel movement on himself and leaving blood on the walls and around the toilet and excrement on the floor. The blood sample was subsequently lost, however, the officer admitted this on the stand, under oath, at trial. Unfortunately, that happens, especially when the sample in question is not one that could have been directly tied to the murders. "if you ask me, that's enough right there for reasonable doubt!!" If it were true, but it isn't. "and man, damien isn't satanic!! he questioned religion. he was wiccan. they love and cherish the earth." He claims to be a Buddhist now. He claimed to be a Wiccan then. More likely than not, he was a teenage dabbler who made things up as he went along. Have you read Echols' psychiatric records? He claimed to be possessed by the spirit of a murdered woman and/or a demon on numerous occasions. "free the west memphis three!!!!" Perhaps you should do more research before you commit to a lost cause. "what, nobody has anything else to say?" It will be interesting to see your response. "these three men are going to die for an act they didn't commit!" Actually, only Echols was sentenced to death. Both Misskelley and Baldwin received life (Baldwin without parole and Misskelley Life +40). "i see know justice in that." Don't you mean "no" justice? "there is still a murderer/s out there, maybe reading this, thinking, "HAH, suckers!" That's an interesting theory considering the fact that no similar murders have been committed during the eleven years since the crime. That suggests the actual perpetrators are behind bars. "we have to help! go to wm3.org. they take donations of anykind." For the operation of their site. They claim to be donating to the "defense" fund and the commissary funds, but they refuse to provide their supporters or anyone else with an accounting of funds received and how they were spent. "i'm putting on a concert and sending them all the proceeds." If you send it to WM3.org, it goes into the pockets of the founders, not the the 3 killers or their defense. "they are broke," Who - the killers? They're in prison. "and the lawyers are working for free." Not according to the recent letters from Echols' wife. And, actually, the State of Arkansas has paid all of the legal fees for Echols in his post-conviction appeal. "but the still need money for witnesses," Are they going to pay witnesses? That's unethical. "and evidence." Again, they're going to buy evidence. Or do you mean they're going to try to bribe the U.S. District Court in Echols' upcoming federal appeal? "the lawyers can't pay for everything themselves." They're not. The State of Arkansas is paying it, or the Innocence Project (a charitable organization that solicits donations) is paying expenses. WM3.org collects money to pay the costs of their website. They do not send those funds for defense of the 3. Again, you really should do more research into the case and into the various "funds" before you do anything else. "time to write "the crucible two" i guess." If only it were that simple. What's it's time to do is to provide some legitimate exculpatory evidence that proves innocence. "sorry, i'm just really passionate about innocence" That's admirable. However, before you declare innocence, perhaps you should actually research the case. Documents, etc. can be found at www.callahan.8k.comkma367
|
|
|
Post by chupa on Apr 28, 2004 6:35:44 GMT -6
hi im doing a project on graphing and ned some hardcor statments on it, opinions and philosephy around the subject
|
|
|
Post by aqueous on Apr 30, 2004 22:03:45 GMT -6
KMA raises some interesting points however I don't think it is necessary to make fun of Adam.We all have the ability to make mistakes,spelling and otherwise.
Now how about when you mention the evidence that you seem to think was proof they were guilty you perhaps add the following.None of the evidence, including the hairs,that you mentioned are actually inconclusive evidence are they?The hairs are only similar to Damiens and a certain amount of the population.They same goes for any of the blood testing that was done on the necklace and the Kershaw knife. It could be linked to a victim,suspect or 11% of the population. Not everyone is blinded by the films,books or supporter sites.Some have done the research and still feel uneasy about the verdict.The only well known fact in this case is there is not one piece of inconclusive forensic evidence that supports the 3 were responsible.When they come up with that evidence then people will feel the right people were incarcerated. No matter how many websites you put up none of those will still hold the key.They may sway people's mind,I am sure many have now read exhibit 500 and think that Damien was responsible but if you take away the cult theory of the crime and many people cannot see how this was linked to cult activity,then Damien's prior physc reports don't equal a whole lot really.
|
|
|
Post by kma on May 3, 2004 10:21:30 GMT -6
KMA raises some interesting points however I don't think it is necessary to make fun of Adam.We all have the ability to make mistakes,spelling and otherwise. Those types of mistakes can make it difficult to discern what a poster means. Now how about when you mention the evidence that you seem to think was proof they were guilty you perhaps add the following.None of the evidence, including the hairs,that you mentioned are actually inconclusive evidence are they? That doesn't make the evidence worthless. The hairs are only similar to Damiens and a certain amount of the population. I think you're confusing types of evidence. I don't believe there's a database for hair or other trace evidence that provides percentages of the population with similar hair. They same goes for any of the blood testing that was done on the necklace and the Kershaw knife. It could be linked to a victim,suspect or 11% of the population. In this case, two victims and two suspects had identical HLA-DQ Alpha profiles. Mark Byers and Chris Byers also had identical profiles. The 11% of the population only applies to the profile found on the necklace. Not everyone is blinded by the films,books or supporter sites.Some have done the research and still feel uneasy about the verdict.The only well known fact in this case is there is not one piece of inconclusive forensic evidence that supports the 3 were responsible. You mean "conclusive" evidence, don't you? Criminal convictions are not required to be supported by conclusive evidence of guilt. That would raise the burden from "reasonable doubt" to "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The circumstantial evidence, when taken together, points only to the guilt of the three and no one else. When they come up with that evidence then people will feel the right people were incarcerated. That evidence, however, doesn't exist. And it's not required. No matter how many websites you put up none of those will still hold the key.They may sway people's mind,I am sure many have now read exhibit 500 and think that Damien was responsible but if you take away the cult theory of the crime and many people cannot see how this was linked to cult activity,then Damien's prior physc reports don't equal a whole lot really. What evidence would link this crime to "cult activity"? Whatever the motive, the victims are still dead and Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley are still responsible. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Aqueous on May 4, 2004 2:22:53 GMT -6
Yes I did actually mean conclusive evidence and the evidence they did have was inconclusive. You may think that no certain conclusive evidence is required but untill that has been achieved there are always going to be people who strongly doubt the convictions of the 3. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that if someone is to be executed for a crime,that you would be 100% sure they are the right person. That has not been proven in this case.For pro-death penalty to be considered fair even the most sturdy supporters would expect that the person being put to death is responsible. The support of the 3 incarcerated is not like some serial killer fanclub,it is people who,with very good reasons, doubt that the wm3 were responsible.I still stand by the belief that 3 young people could not have committed that crime and left not one piece of strong physical evidence.There is nothing solid or conclusive about it and that is the major problem with this case. The truth whether it be innocense or guilt will hopefully come out and then everyone will have an answer.If Damien Echols is executed without ever finding out if he was indeed responsible then that is not justice. As to the question about cult activity I turn that back around to say what proves that this was a cult related crime?What led investigators to believe this was the work of 3 teens up to devil worship?What is a cult murder and what would it look like? Maybe I will be proved wrong.Perhaps you are right KMA and the WM3 were responsible.That is not my belief and I hope they do find out who was responsible for the deaths of Michael,Stevie and Christopher. Executing an innocent person will do nothing for the pro-death movement.Part of the reason people are against the death penalty is because innocent people have and will be executed for crimes they did not commit.That is a proven fact. In modern day America I would think it wouldn't be to difficult to CONCLUSIVELY prove the cases before you execute.Any resonable doubt and this case has a great deal of doubt should not go ahead because more innocents will be executed.
|
|
|
Post by KMA on May 4, 2004 11:00:48 GMT -6
Yes I did actually mean conclusive evidence and the evidence they did have was inconclusive. That's not uncommon. The burden, after all, is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond a shadow of a doubt." You may think that no certain conclusive evidence is required but untill that has been achieved there are always going to be people who strongly doubt the convictions of the 3. That is, unfortunately, based on a failure to understand the system and how it works. Perhaps if these individuals would educate themselves, they would understand why the convictions were obtained and why they have been upheld on direct appeal and in Echols' collateral attack on his conviction and sentence. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that if someone is to be executed for a crime,that you would be 100% sure they are the right person. It's unreasonable to ask that because someone who will spend the rest of his/her life in prison would not be entitled to that same higher burden you place on death-eligible cases. After all, permanent loss of freedom is just as serious as loss of life. Isn't it? Or is it okay to send someone to prison for life based on circumstantial evidence? In that case, the convictions of Miskelley and Baldwin should be acceptable to you, as neither of them has been sentenced to death. That has not been proven in this case. It's rarely proven in any case. The burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt." And I have yet to see one person who supports innocence provide any exculpatory evidence, or any truly reasonable reason to doubt the findings of the two juries in this case, especially in light of the fact that all of the circumstantial evidence in the case points solely to the guilt of Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley. For pro-death penalty to be considered fair even the most sturdy supporters would expect that the person being put to death is responsible. And for anti-death penalty to be fair, there should not be a double-standard employed requiring a higher burden to execute someone. The support of the 3 incarcerated is not like some serial killer fanclub, Yes, it is. Those who follow Echols, et al. simply refuse to see it. it is people who,with very good reasons, doubt that the wm3 were responsible. They doubt that the 3 are responsible (a) because they don't understand the legal system; (b) they think Mark Byers acted suspicious in the movies; (c) they oppose the death penalty under any circumstances; (d) they don't independently research cases they read about on the internet; or (e) all of the above. I still stand by the belief that 3 young people could not have committed that crime and left not one piece of strong physical evidence. The crime was committed in an outdoor location next to a ditch with thousands of gallons of water in it. The bodies were placed in the ditch. The clothing worn by the victims was placed in the ditch. What "strong physical evidence" would you expect to find under those circumstances? There is nothing solid or conclusive about it and that is the major problem with this case. Only as to Echols, since he is the only one sentenced to death. Again, however, the burden is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt." It's "beyond a reasonable doubt." I have yet to see any instances of "reasonable" doubt and I've been following this case, researching it and writing about it for about 5 years now. The truth whether it be innocense or guilt will hopefully come out and then everyone will have an answer. Why else would Echols' counsel stall the DNA testing requested in 2002? If Damien Echols is executed without ever finding out if he was indeed responsible then that is not justice. However, everything available points to Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley and no one else. As to the question about cult activity I turn that back around to say what proves that this was a cult related crime? Again, I asked what evidence would prove it, not that you produce evidence proving it. Answer the question. What led investigators to believe this was the work of 3 teens up to devil worship? That the victims were 3 young children? That Echols had boasted about being a member of a cult? That Echols had told juvenile authorities that his cult was about to graduate to human sacrifice? What is a cult murder and what would it look like? You allegedly know, so why don't you tell us? Whether this was a cult murder or not, we still have a case in which a person involved in the occult or interested in the occult commits murder. Ever heard of Sean Sellers? Maybe I will be proved wrong.Perhaps you are right KMA and the WM3 were responsible.That is not my belief and I hope they do find out who was responsible for the deaths of Michael,Stevie and Christopher. The defense has the ability to answer that question once and for all with DNA testing on the hairs found on the victims, as well as perhaps blood on the victims' clothing and/or assailants' clothing. Yet, they stall. Why is that? Executing an innocent person will do nothing for the pro-death movement. I have yet to see evidence that an innocent has ever been executed Post-Gregg v. Georgia. In fact, the bulk of the "innocents" listed by the anti-DP movement were executed in the early 20th Century, prior to Fuhrman v. Georgia. The "poster boys" Roger Keith Coleman and Joseph O'Dell were not innocent, nor were they ever proven innocent in any stage of the legal process. Propaganda is not exculpatory evidence. Part of the reason people are against the death penalty is because innocent people have and will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Name one person who has been executed who was exonerated by reliable exculpatory evidence. No, it is part of the Anti-DP movements propaganda. In modern day America I would think it wouldn't be to difficult to CONCLUSIVELY prove the cases before you execute. So, death-eligible offenders are entitled to 2 trials, but people who are in prison for life only get one bite at the apple? That just doesn't seem fair to me. Any resonable doubt and this case has a great deal of doubt should not go ahead because more innocents will be executed. You should either argue this case, or argue all cases. Not both. Echols is not innocent. There is no exculpatory evidence as of May 4, 2004, that proves his innocence. There is propaganda, but that isn't exculpatory evidence. There is doubt based on the propaganda but that, too, is not exculpatory. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Aqueous on May 4, 2004 18:21:14 GMT -6
Do I feel like continuing a debate where someone picks apart my posts and places little messages underneath assuming which hold no meaning to what I was saying? I think I will pass because it's obvious you could just go on and on pulling them apart to stick your own little message underneath.I find it quite rude to attack people's intelligence while asserting your own.You state you have been researching the case for 5 years yet the people who believe in the WM3 innocence should better educate themselves and are member of a serial killer fanclub but refuse to see it.None of them could have done equal or more research than yourself? Obviously no one who is innocent has ever been executed,the police get it right everytime and as long as a case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt who cares if someone is innocent or not. This case had reasonable doubt from the very beginning and I don't think society is doing what's best if innocent people are executed or incarcerated(I didn't argue that because it is a death penalty board)just because they followed all the criteria. Proof mistakes are made:Jeanine Nicarico.There was a coverup,police corruption and the list goes on.It does happen and once again innocent people would have been executed. I don't think it is worth continuing this with you because the messages you post after pulling mine apart are, in my view, uncalled for.Making statements about how I feel about people incarcerated is not for you to say because you do not have that knowlege. For every example you come up with that throws the guilt to the WM3,I could come up with one that throws strong doubt on it.Whoever knew that Damien Echols had the ability to brainwash people and that people are just following a propaganda campaign instead of making educated(yes I have read the same documents as you at Callahan's) decisions about what they believed. Must be nice to be you to make the assumptions about people that you have.
|
|
|
Post by KMA on May 5, 2004 11:07:33 GMT -6
Do I feel like continuing a debate where someone picks apart my posts and places little messages underneath assuming which hold no meaning to what I was saying? Quoting the post to which I am responding is my way of debate. As for picking apart your posts, I've always thought that was also part of debate. The "little messages" are my responses. I think I will pass because it's obvious you could just go on and on pulling them apart to stick your own little message underneath. Those are called responses. I find it quite rude to attack people's intelligence while asserting your own. I didn't attack your intelligence, or anyone else's. I pointed out the weakness in your arguments, to a degree. If you can't take that, perhaps you shouldn't post in forums in which your opinions/posts will be critically reviewed and/or challenged. You state you have been researching the case for 5 years yet the people who believe in the WM3 innocence should better educate themselves and are member of a serial killer fanclub but refuse to see it. That has been my experience in discussing this case. None of them could have done equal or more research than yourself? From the content of their posts and their statements, it doesn't appear that they have, nor do they appear to have an interest in doing so. Obviously no one who is innocent has ever been executed, The proponents of such an occurrence have yet to support their claims with reliable, exculpatory evidence. They claim a lot of people were innocent, but propaganda is not exculpatory evidence. the police get it right everytime You're taking my statement out of context and reading into it something that was never intended. The police don't always get it right. However, there is a system in place which corrects their errors before the convicted reach actual execution. and as long as a case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt who cares if someone is innocent or not. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard burden of proof in *all* criminal cases. Not only has this case been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it has been upheld on direct appeal (in which the nature of the evidence and its sufficiency were challenged on behalf of all three killers) and on collateral attack by Echols. Therefore, the three killers remain both factually and legally guilty. This case had reasonable doubt from the very beginning The two juries who observed the two trials from beginning to end, heard *all* of the witness testimony and reviewed *all* of the evidence would disagree. Please cite the reasonable doubt to which you refer, including source (i.e. police reports, testimony, etc.) and I don't think society is doing what's best if innocent people are executed or incarcerated(I didn't argue that because it is a death penalty board)just because they followed all the criteria. Please provide some evidence of *1* innocent person who has been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s. The U.S. system contains numerous avenues by which an actually innocent person convicted of a crime can challenge his conviction and sentence and even obtain reversal and release from prison. That's more than some countries whether the penalty is death, or incarceration. Proof mistakes are made:Jeanine Nicarico. She was a victim, not a person wrongfully convicted. Neither of the individuals wrongfully convicted were executed. They were eventually exonerated and released. Proof that the system works. There was a coverup,police corruption and the list goes on. That occurred in Illinois, not Arkansas. Because it happens in one case does not mean it happens in *every case*. and once again innocent people would have been executed. They, however, were not. I don't think it is worth continuing this with you because the messages you post after pulling mine apart are, in my view, uncalled for. I'm responding to your posts and, in quoting your posts, attempting to illustrate that I'm not taking your arguments out of context as you've done with mine. Making statements about how I feel about people incarcerated is not for you to say because you do not have that knowlege. This statements is very unclear. I responded to your statements. Nothing more. For every example you come up with that throws the guilt to the WM3,I could come up with one that throws strong doubt on it. Please do so. I'd be interested to hear what evidence you believe exonerates the 3. Whoever knew that Damien Echols had the ability to brainwash people and that people are just following a propaganda campaign instead of making educated(yes I have read the same documents as you at Callahan's) decisions about what they believed. I didn't say Echols had the power to brainwash anyone. I believe that many follow Echols and/or sympathize with him because they feel some "kinship" to him. They, however, tend to transfer their own morals and/or values to him, rather than understanding his lack thereof. Or they flat out refuse to see that he was an individual who was capable of committing this crime. Must be nice to be you to make the assumptions about people that you have. I haven't made blind assumptions. I've been involved in discussion of this case for nearly 5 years and I've read the statements made by Echols' proponents (some of which have turned out to be blatantly false) over the years. You appear to be the only one around here making assumptions. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Zoraida on May 14, 2004 17:46:07 GMT -6
Hey everyone, I never thought anybody would research this case so much. In viewing the two films, I was unconvinced that the WM3 were innocent. Besides that, the people who made those movies should be given an Oscar for the most hilarious depictions of people from the South ever in the history of cinema. It's like a handbook for how to be a redneck. Good times, Good times.
|
|
|
Post by wmeeza on May 28, 2004 20:54:49 GMT -6
Regardless of how you feel about the case, DNA tests are now pending. I have serious doubts about their guilt, and serious doubts about how the case was handled. In the interest of justice though, I'll wait for the DNA testing. I do find it odd that Mr. Byers had all of his teeth replaced with dentures after there was bite mark evidence introduced, and that he's continually recieved probation only for his misc. crimes. Regardless of my beliefs about the three in prison, I never forget the three that are in their graves.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 3, 2004 11:00:09 GMT -6
DNA tests have been pending for two years. Echols' attorneys stalled the Arkansas State Supreme Court proceedings on his Rule 37 appeal and Writ of Error application on the basis of the "pending" DNA tests. His counsel has failed to obtain an order from the trial court to order the testing and continues to stall the testing process.
I realize that Henry Rollins and Echols' other supporters say that the State is holding up the testing, but it is, in fact, Echols who is stalling. It was Echols' counsel who filed the request and Echols' counsel who continued the hearing set by the trial court to render a decision on the request. The hearing has never been re-scheduled, nor has the trial court been given the opportunity to issue an order on testing one way or the other.
If DNA tests were going to exonerate Echols and his co-defendants, why would his counsel continue to delay testing?
With regard to Byers' teeth, that he had them extracted after alleged (and disproven) bite marks were discovered is yet another rumor circulated by supporters as fact, without the requisite documentation to prove it.
Byers suffered from periodontal disease. His teeth were extracted prior to Brent Turvey's "discovery" of the alleged and disproven bite mark(s). In fact, they were extracted before Brent Turvey became involved in the case.
Additionally, there are numerous flaws with alleged and disproven bite mark(s) evidence. First, according to Turvey's own profile, bite marks are seen in child abuse cases and are primarily associated with female abusers. Mark Byers is not female and, therefore, his teeth are a non-issue. Additionally, the only mark allegedly identified as a bite mark by Echols' forensic odontologist was the mark on Steve Branch's forehead. Steve Branch was not related to Mark Byers and, therefore, would not be a victim of custodial abuse.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 28, 2004 11:24:15 GMT -6
A couple reasons why I think the WM3 are probably guilty:
1. Not only did Misskelly give a detailed confession that was too elaborate for a "retarded" kid to make up, he supposedly confessed in even more detail to the sheriffs right after the trial in the car on the way to the prison. In the wm3 yahoo group I cannot get a single person to answer for this, it's like everyone who wants to believe they are not guilty want to avoid this topic.
2. Echols NEVER acted like a man who was accused of soemthing he didn't do. He seemed calm and collected with a kind of "oh well" attitude. I don't care who you are, if you're being accused of a crime that can land you on death row, you want to make it clear you are not guilty, which Echols never did.
3. The bloody african american man was spotted at 10pm, but it was already stated the murders happened 2 to 3 hours after that, so whatever that was, is moot.
There's a few other things, but those are a couple of my main points.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Bill on Jul 3, 2004 16:44:45 GMT -6
They are all guilty and I think the only mis-justice in this case is That only 1 got the death penalty when they all should fry in Hell...... Leave it to the bleeding heart liberal idiots in this world to back the cause of a bunch of savage killers Is there a final date when Damien gets his final justice yet? ? I would love to have and execution party in his dead be-half!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by adam white on Jul 21, 2004 19:02:58 GMT -6
1. wild bill: you my dear are a fukk face! you're sick, and should feel like a horrible person when they are proven innocent by dna evidence.
2. about the bloody man: so you're saying that the bloody african american, the negroid hair found on the deceased boy, and the witnesses saying they saw three black men comeing out of the woods the time of the murder, are just mearly coincodence!?!? dude, you really are nieve.
3. damien was a very very depressed kid with little to no feelings towards men that manhandled his life for the few years of his life before he supposedly murdered the boys. he acted like he didn't care, because at the time, he just didn't. he felt like his life was no good anyway. he knows he's innocent, and he knows stuggling wont get him off, evidence and justice will.
4. jessie had the brain power of an 8 year old during the "confession". he was questioned for i think the right amound was 14 hours, and only the last 45 mins of the interrigation was recored on tape. fishy? not too sound mean, but he is mentally handicapped!!! he thought it was a game after a while. if he told the police what they wanted to hear, then he could go home. also, the detailed discription of the murder....when the police asked him questions, knowing the crime scene, they would say things like, "So, did you bind their arms, or did Damien?" leaving jessie not the option of, "i didn't do it!" but, "Fuckin pick one or you'll be here longer!!" it was forced in the way that they manipulated a challenged man for 14 hours until they got him to change his story completely, right down too times, actions, and guiltyness.
just, i'm not saying that i'm 100% sure they are innocent. but, there is absoultly no way that it is BEYOND a reasonable doubt that these boys are guilty. there it's lots to bring upon doubt. death penalties should not be comfort blankets to help society not have to listen to more about dead children. it should be about justice.
|
|