Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2011 19:47:40 GMT -6
why west memphis? why not somewhere in marion? Not sure what you mean. The murders happened in West Memphis. the three are from marion. this to me was always one of the most perplexing parts of the case. had they done it, they would have done it in a place they were comfortable. it's not like they had a big ass van where they could scoop the kids up in and drive them to robin hood. i forget since it's been so long since i've read any of the testimony or anything, but has it ever been explained as to how they allegedly got to the crime scene and then back home after the murders?
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 24, 2011 19:59:48 GMT -6
Another problem I have with the case in addition to the farce of a trial is that generally when there are multiple perps and one confesses, the other perps stumble all over each other confessing trying to minimize their own involvement while blaming each other for committing the actual murders.
While that may confuse identifying the individual among the group who actually did the killing, it does at least identify all who were present and involved somehow.
That didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 24, 2011 21:36:38 GMT -6
Echols' address was actually in West Memphis. Additionally, Marion and West Memphis were right next to each other. The three went to West Memphis every time they went to Wal-Mart, which was within walking distance of the crime scene.
DeadElvis, while in some cases one confession leads to confessions by all parties, that is not always the case. Look at Tommy Arthur. The wife confessed to hiring him to kill her husband, but he continues to claim that he had nothing to do with her husband's murder.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 24, 2011 21:39:37 GMT -6
Echols' address was actually in West Memphis. Additionally, Marion and West Memphis were right next to each other. The three went to West Memphis every time they went to Wal-Mart, which was within walking distance of the crime scene. DeadElvis, while in some cases one confession leads to confessions by all parties, that is not always the case. Look at Tommy Arthur. The wife confessed to hiring him to kill her husband, but he continues to claim that he had nothing to do with her husband's murder. kma367 yea, I just meant "generally" it's the case. Obviously there are some exceptions. I suspect that the more perps there are, the harder it is to resist the finger pointing.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 25, 2011 10:30:48 GMT -6
White Diamonds, John Douglas isn't infallible. He made some major errors on the Green River case that allowed Gary Ridgeway to continue his killing spree. In fact, I think Douglas' work did nothing to assist authorities in Washington to identify and arrest Ridgeway. It also appears that Douglas' approach since he went into business as a "for hire profiler" has changed in that he no longer relies on ALL information, but only that provided to him by the defense. His "profile" also fails to provide any insight into how this one person controlled the three victims. They're all good liars. kma367 I agree, no one is infallible including John Douglas. I agree too, they are all good liars I agree they have not been foind innocent by law. This is just one of those case's in my opinion was so botched up from square one thru today. I am for the DP yet not sure on what actual facts got them incarcerated and one even on DR.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 25, 2011 12:06:19 GMT -6
White Diamonds, go to www.callahan.8k.com where you will find trial transcripts and a lot of case documents. I can tell you right now they weren't convicted because they wore black and listened to Metallica. kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2011 14:33:09 GMT -6
This case makes clear that your system really sucks!!!
look at the press conference:
They are innocent!!
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 25, 2011 15:36:08 GMT -6
Not according to the law, Eagle. They may have been released, but their convictions stand and they are facing 21 years in prison if they violate probation. Therefore, the claims of innocence remain nothing more than conclusory allegations made during the course of post-conviction appeals. None of them have been proven or accepted by a court as true.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2011 15:40:10 GMT -6
If they where guilty, no one ever sent them free. Am I right ?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 25, 2011 15:46:55 GMT -6
White Diamonds, go to www.callahan.8k.com where you will find trial transcripts and a lot of case documents. I can tell you right now they weren't convicted because they wore black and listened to Metallica. kma367 Thanks KMA, for the link will take sometime to go over mega information there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2011 21:35:47 GMT -6
The fact is that satanic cults and ritual abuse, (which the West Memphis police were alleging very early in the case) do not exist, there was no "cult" and Steve Jones obviously thought Damien was a freak.
From Sudbury's notes on 5/7/1993: "During our conversation Steve mentioned that of all the people known by him to be involved in cult type activities one person stood out in his mind, that in his opinion, was capable of being involved in this type of crime. That person was Damien Echols."
What had Damien Echols done to this point to warrant suspicion of murder other than the fact that he was a little bit screwed up? He was under the presumption of guilt from the second the bodies were discovered despite the fact that they had absolutely zero connection with those kids. Were the parents ever even seriously looked at?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 26, 2011 11:17:42 GMT -6
Fact, a lot of Jones and Driver's beliefs about Echols were based on his statements to them. You obviously also haven't bothered to read his psychiatric records, which show that he was more than just a little bit screwed up. Those records also contain statements he made to therapists about blood drinking and power and his occult beliefs.
You've also voiced a common misconception among people who believe the three killers are innocent and that is that they were entitled to a presumption of innocence outside of their trials. That is simply not true. The police, citizens and the media are not required to presume innocence. That is only required of a jury, at trial.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2011 15:34:26 GMT -6
I didn't say the cops are supposed to presume innocence, but it seems like they didn't do much investigating before they zeroed in on Damien. There was nothing "occult" about those murders, and "occult" murders do not exist.
Like saying he wanted to kill Deanna's father if he hit her, threatening to kill his parents, the fact that he told tall tales to make it seem like he was dangerous? That sounds like a run of the mill screwed up/unmedicated manic depressive teenager in a pretty screwed up familial situation crying out for health.
Remind me to never let you see my mental health records.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 26, 2011 18:09:36 GMT -6
Fact, it was nearly a month after the murders before they questioned Miskelley and arrested Echols and Baldwin. The WMPD did a lot of investigating during that time, as evidenced by the number of interviews available at www.callahan.8k.com. The manner in which the victims were tied and the fact that they were naked may not seem odd to you, but it certainly could be interpreted as ritualistic by others and your declaration that there is no such thing as "occult murder" is a bit naive, in light of the Nightstalker's beliefs, as well as the murders of Sean Sellars and quite a few other serial killers between the 1980s and present. Thanks for the "supporter approved" analysis of the mental health records. Of course you think that Echols was just saying things to "shock" people. Maybe some day he'll shock his supporters and admit to the murders. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Aug 26, 2011 18:55:42 GMT -6
Here is my philosophy:
Misskelley was 17 at the time of the murders and Baldwin was 16, so we couldn't get either of them anyway. But Damien (whose name is straight out of The Omen) was 18 and thus eligible for death. So on retrial, we focus on Damien. We give Misskelley and Baldwin COMPLETE prosecutorial immunity in exchange for their testimony against Damien, and we send that a$$wipe straight back to Death Row once and for all. That seems like it would have been the best way to proceed.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Aug 26, 2011 19:35:30 GMT -6
Here is my philosophy: Misskelley was 17 at the time of the murders and Baldwin was 16, so we couldn't get either of them anyway. But Damien (whose name is straight out of The Omen) was 18 and thus eligible for death. So on retrial, we focus on Damien. We give Misskelley and Baldwin COMPLETE prosecutorial immunity in exchange for their testimony against Damien, and we send that a$$wipe straight back to Death Row once and for all. That seems like it would have been the best way to proceed. Can't argue with that, dp excluded,naturally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2011 1:58:19 GMT -6
Fact, it was nearly a month after the murders before they questioned Miskelley and arrested Echols and Baldwin. The WMPD did a lot of investigating during that time, as evidenced by the number of interviews available at www.callahan.8k.com. The manner in which the victims were tied and the fact that they were naked may not seem odd to you, but it certainly could be interpreted as ritualistic by others and your declaration that there is no such thing as "occult murder" is a bit naive, in light of the Nightstalker's beliefs, as well as the murders of Sean Sellars and quite a few other serial killers between the 1980s and present. Thanks for the "supporter approved" analysis of the mental health records. Of course you think that Echols was just saying things to "shock" people. Maybe some day he'll shock his supporters and admit to the murders. kma367 I'm saying this from the perspective of a person who used to get suspected whenever there was a house egged or a neighborhood cat was found missing. I think a lot of the arguments that the wm3.org people use are garbage, including their 15 year crusade against Mark Byers. I live in an affluent area with two stable parents and I have a very competent psychiatrist that I've seen since I was ten years old, but with that said, I used to say some crazy things to get my peers, neighbors, teachers, and school administrators off my case. In a different time, in a different circumstance, I could have been Damien Echols, and that scares the crap out of me. As for occult sacrifice, Kenneth Lanning, formerly of the FBI, who knows far more about this stuff than anybody on this message board says that there is not one credible example of satanic abuse and most importantly, fewer than fifty children are abducted and murdered by strangers in a year. This murder case is the confluence of three or four moral panics at once that clouded the judgment of a bunch of Barney Fifes at the WMPD, and Damien Echols was unfortunate enough to be the screwed up kid who fit the (undefined) profile of a satanist.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 27, 2011 12:16:30 GMT -6
Alas, Rev. Agave, I doubt there will be a re-trial. There won't be any exoneration, either. The killers will continue to beg for money until their supporters lose interest and move on to some other condemned inmate.
Fact, again, you're confused regarding the motive. Supporters presume that the motive was suspected to be an organized, large-scale group of satanic followers. That was never what the prosecution put forth. They presented evidence that demonstrated Echols' belief system because it likely played a part in the motive for the murders.
Echols also has used the "poor me" excuse for why he was suspected. The truth is that his words, whether he was being serious or not, came back to bite him on the ass. The WMPD were not the ones who initially thought him capable of the murders. Those who thought him capable were his peers and the juvenile officers he'd been interacting with due to his criminal record.
You're not looking at this objectively and, therefore, will never see why Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley are all guilty.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Aug 27, 2011 12:54:17 GMT -6
Alas, Rev. Agave, I doubt there will be a re-trial. There won't be any exoneration, either. The killers will continue to beg for money until their supporters lose interest and move on to some other condemned inmate. Oh, I know. I am just commenting on how I wish the state had proceeded instead of making a deal. We cut our losses with the other 2 (who did serve 18 years and could never get death anyway) and use them to score another conviction and death sentence against Damien. I don't like to give free passes to murderers, but the prospect of full immunity might be enough incentive to get Misskelley and Baldwin to roll over on their leader.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 27, 2011 16:27:21 GMT -6
I'm angry that the state didn't proceed with the hearing, too. Had a new trial been ordered then, the state would've faced a lot of challenges and I would've understood if they'd worked a deal at that time. What supporters don't seem to grasp is the fact that something made the defendants go to the prosecution seeking a deal prior to the hearing and instead of getting one that included the exoneration they claim they're due, they took one from which the only benefit was immediate release.
What's more telling is that they're still trying to collect money, either to "help" the three killers start their new lives, or to obtain exoneration. Their only chance to do that was at the motion for new trial and a re-trial.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Aug 27, 2011 18:23:54 GMT -6
I'm angry that the state didn't proceed with the hearing, too. Had a new trial been ordered then, the state would've faced a lot of challenges and I would've understood if they'd worked a deal at that time. What supporters don't seem to grasp is the fact that something made the defendants go to the prosecution seeking a deal prior to the hearing and instead of getting one that included the exoneration they claim they're due, they took one from which the only benefit was immediate release. What's more telling is that they're still trying to collect money, either to "help" the three killers start their new lives, or to obtain exoneration. Their only chance to do that was at the motion for new trial and a re-trial. kma367 Indeed. And I doubt this is the last we will hear of them. Hopefully, when they wind up back in jail, it will be for a petty parole violation as opposed to a new violent crime. If I were their PO, I can tell you that they WILL violate; it's only a matter of time before catching them on some technical breach of the agreement.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 27, 2011 22:19:45 GMT -6
Of course, no matter what crime they are eventually violated for committing, I am sure their supporters will allege framing and conspiracy. The bright spot is that they'll be facing 21 years in an Arkansas state prison.
I suspect that after a few weeks outside of the controlled environment of prison, Echols is the most likely to go off the rails. If he finds followers like Baldwin, it's more likely than not that he will commit another violent crime.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2011 6:27:46 GMT -6
Of course, no matter what crime they are eventually violated for committing, I am sure their supporters will allege framing and conspiracy. The bright spot is that they'll be facing 21 years in an Arkansas state prison. I suspect that after a few weeks outside of the controlled environment of prison, Echols is the most likely to go off the rails. If he finds followers like Baldwin, it's more likely than not that he will commit another violent crime. kma367 It's fairly difficult to predict re offending for those who committed their crimes as teens.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 28, 2011 9:33:46 GMT -6
Of course, no matter what crime they are eventually violated for committing, I am sure their supporters will allege framing and conspiracy. The bright spot is that they'll be facing 21 years in an Arkansas state prison. I suspect that after a few weeks outside of the controlled environment of prison, Echols is the most likely to go off the rails. If he finds followers like Baldwin, it's more likely than not that he will commit another violent crime. kma367 It's fairly difficult to predict re offending for those who committed their crimes as teens. Not really, when they were exposed to men of many criminal backgrounds to learn from thru the many yrs inside. Innocent or guilty orginally,"opinion".
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 29, 2011 10:39:57 GMT -6
Typically, rulings from legitimate trials using solid evidence and expert testimony from actual experts don't result in retrials.
They certainly don't result in convicted murderers getting to sign a paper and walk out of prison.
Even AR finally realized that the initial "trial" for lack of a better term, was a joke.
If AR had successfully proven their guilt, these three wouldn't be free right now.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 29, 2011 12:38:31 GMT -6
Dead Elvis, you're missing the fact that there was no re-trial ordered in the WM3 case. In fact, the WM3 worked out a deal with the State of Arkansas instead of proceeding with the hearing on their motions for new trial. This means that their claims of actual innocence are still based on conclusory allegations that have never been proven in court. I can't change the fact that you don't accept the evidence of their guilt at the time of trial as sufficient, but the fact remains that the evidence has never been found to be insufficient by any court that has reviewed the convictions over the past 18 years.
Personally, I believe, as I've said before, that something inclupatory came up on the recent testing which led the killers' attorneys to realize that new trials would not be ordered once that evidence was disclosed to the state. That would also explain why the killers accepted deals that not only did not include exoneration, but also included an admission that the state possessed sufficient evidence to convict them at a retrial.
Yes, the State of Arkansas let 3 murderers walk free after only serving 18 years. Ellington should have turned the defense down and proceeded with the hearing in December.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Aug 29, 2011 15:11:06 GMT -6
If AR buckled just on the *possibility* of a new trial, it makes it seem even worse.
I can't believe that AR would have let these three walk out of jail if they thought they had any chance at all of letting the first trial stand.
If they AR thought that they had a chance of refusing the retrial request, these releases were completely unnecessary. Why not wait until the hearing results before offering the deal to see if they even would get a retrial?
I'm no legal expert by any means but it sure seems to me that protecting themselves from getting sued was foremost on the minds of AR authorities. It also seems to me that AR was anxious to hand them a deal where the state could still claim that the original conviction was valid rather than risk getting their butts handed to me in a retrial.
This whole thing is fishy no matter how one stands on the initial trial. Am I alone in wondering why a state would release three convicted murderers simply due to the threat of a retrial if the original trial had any validity?
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Aug 29, 2011 18:39:37 GMT -6
What creases me is the notion that they should have gone ahead with the hearing an retrial rather than arrange this deal. If you had been in jail half your life for something you didn't do would you trust an Arkansas court to get you off death row? What possible faith could they have in the process?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Aug 29, 2011 22:48:23 GMT -6
Dead Elvis, the killers approached the state first. That suggests that there was something that jeopardized them prevailing on the motions for new trial, which would've ended their attempts at exoneration. The state suggested the deal and the killers accepted, even though the deal did not include official exoneration and included an admission that the evidence against them was sufficient for a conviction at retrial.
As for the state protecting itself from a suit for wrongful conviction, it's hilarious that supporters ignore the fact that the killers gave this up. To me, that suggests that their attorneys knew any such claim lacked merit.
Brumsongs, I've said that the state should've turned the killers down and proceeded to the hearing on the motions for new trial. If a new trial was ordered, a deal would've been possible. The killers certainly would've been in a better position under that scenario.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2011 5:15:02 GMT -6
Dead Elvis, the killers approached the state first. That suggests that there was something that jeopardized them prevailing on the motions for new trial, which would've ended their attempts at exoneration. The state suggested the deal and the killers accepted, even though the deal did not include official exoneration and included an admission that the evidence against them was sufficient for a conviction at retrial. As for the state protecting itself from a suit for wrongful conviction, it's hilarious that supporters ignore the fact that the killers gave this up. To me, that suggests that their attorneys knew any such claim lacked merit. Brumsongs, I've said that the state should've turned the killers down and proceeded to the hearing on the motions for new trial. If a new trial was ordered, a deal would've been possible. The killers certainly would've been in a better position under that scenario. kma367 They may have discovered evidence that heaped even more suspicion on the WM3 without it being the proverbial smoking gun. Also, does the defence have to turn over such evidence? We have certain things that the defence must turn over, but they are the exception Also, one thing that the prosecution can never get over is the standard of investigation.
|
|