New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[Compassionate Reader]

Nothing in what you quoted from Fogleman implies the "entirely" and "totally" you ascribe to him. His recounting the specifics of the knots which Sakevicius previously testified to is factual, while your recounting of what you quoted from him is not.

That is your opinion. IMO, he is driving home the point that "different" knots were used in order to imply that there were multiple killers.

 

[gheckso]

I am simply stunned that Compassionate Reader is Still explaining the methodology behind the square knot. probably one of the simplest knots that, dare I say it, everyone would have done at some point, especially when tying shoe laces.

 

[reedus23]

That is your opinion. IMO, he is driving home the point that "different" knots were used in order to imply that there were multiple killers.

CR---There is no doubt that he was arguing that the different knots were evidence of more than one perpetrator.

 

[reedus23]

Where exactly, in your opinion, did the prosecution do what you claim? Please quote trial transcripts so every can see exactly what you are referring to for themselves

I'm not sure why you are worked up about the knots. While I don't find the argument persuasive, I do think it was a proper argument to make and one that had to and should have been made if you were in the prosecution's shoes. I'm just a bit confused why someone who believes strongly there were 3 murderers is arguing against the fact that the prosecution used the knots to suggest there were multiple killers.

Everything is flawed. Perfection only exists in the realm of imagination.

kyle, are you suggesting that the investigation in this case met acceptable standards? That is the question. Not if it was perfect.

 

[kyleb]

I'm just a bit confused why someone who believes strongly there were 3 murderers is arguing against the fact that the prosecution used the knots to suggest there were multiple killers.

I'm not. I'm pointing out the fact that Fogleman didn't imply the knots were "entirely" and "totally" different, regardless of how much CR or anyone else wants to imagine he did. That said, your question would be better directed at CR, as she believes there were four killers, yet denies the fact that there were notable differences in how the knots were tied.

kyle, are you suggesting that the investigation in this case met acceptable standards?

In general, yes. The handling of the crime scene was poor, but I've yet to find any notable reason for criticism beyond that, just a bunch of fallacious claims and supposition.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm not. I'm pointing out the fact that Fogleman didn't imply the knots were "entirely" and "totally" different, regardless of how much CR or anyone else wants to imagine he did. That said, your question would be better directed at CR, as she believes there were four killers, yet denies the fact that there were notable differences in how the knots were tied.

I believe that four murderers is possible. However, the number of murderers is really immaterial. What is more germane to the issue of the knots is why they were tied. If they were tied for restraint, then they might be important. OTOH, if they were tied for transport (which I believe to be the case), then they are immaterial, except for the fact that a hair which could belong to Terry Hobbs (and 1.5% of the population which excludes any of the three falsely convicted of the murders) was found within one of the ligatures, the one binding Michael Moore, BTW, not Hobbs' stepson.

 

[reedus23]

In general, yes. The handling of the crime scene was poor, but I've yet to find any notable reason for criticism beyond that, just a bunch of fallacious claims and supposition.

The unbolded portion answered my question. Thanks. I suppose those that don't believe it met acceptable standards believe your statements to be a bunch of fallacious claims and supposition, which is why I don't think those kind of attacks are helpful to either side of the argument. It's ok to have honest differences of opinion.

 

[kyleb]

I believe that four murderers is possible.

you previously stated:

However, I do believe that the affidavits did accurately identify the killers.

So, do you believe that four murderers is simply a possibility, of do you believe that the affidavits which claim four people committed the murders are accurately identify the killers?

If they were tied for restraint, then they might be important.

Are you not aware of the evidence that the boys were tied for restraint?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

So, do you believe that four murderers is simply a possibility, of do you believe that the affidavits which claim four people committed the murders are accurately identify the killers?

I said that the affidavits accurately identified the killers. It could have been Hobbs and Jacoby alone or all four mentioned. It was not Damien, Jason and Jessie.

Are you not aware of the evidence that the boys were tied for restraint?

Any evidence pointing to the tying being for restraint is spurious and has been misinterpreted. There is a video out there somewhere (sorry, I can no longer find it) showing how someone tied as the boys were could have easily escaped the bindings. So, the way the boys were tied would not have restrained them for very long. The dead bodies were tied for transport.

 

[kyleb]

I said that the affidavits accurately identified the killers. It could have been Hobbs and Jacoby alone or all four mentioned.

You've cited the affidavits as if they were credible evidence, yet they identify Lucas and Hollingsworth as having confessed to committing the murders along side Hobbs and Jacoby. Do you not comprehend the fact that it's a matter of either the the four having committed the murders, or that the affidavits are double hearsay from people who were lying at best?

Any evidence pointing to the tying being for restraint is spurious and has been misinterpreted.

What evidence are you aware of in this regard, and on what basis do you believe it's been misinterpreted?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You've cited the affidavits as if they were credible evidence, yet they identify Lucas and Hollingsworth as having confessed to committing the murders along side Hobbs and Jacoby. Do you not comprehend the fact that it's a matter of either the the four having committed the murders, or that the affidavits are double hearsay from people who were lying at best?

I've cited the affidavits as new evidence (which is what prompted this thread). You believe Narlene Hollingsworth saw Damien and Jason (who she identified as her niece, Domini but the prosecution some how morphed into Jason - in flowered pants no less!) on the night of May 5, 1993, walking the Service Road in muddy clothes. You consider that as part of the evidence that Damien and Jason were in the area and could have committed the crime. If these new affidavits are in any way accurate, wouldn't they call into question Narlene's statement, just as the statements you refuse to accept from family and friends who give Damien and Jessie alibis are disbelieved by some, since Narlene is LG's aunt? Isn't it possible that her statement is totally bogus, being given in an attempt to shield her nephew, regardless of her protestations to the contrary? As I've said before, every word in the affidavits of Stewart and Guy may not be true, but I have no doubt but that Lucas and Hollingsworth told them the stories, maybe even making themselves more active participants than they were for "cred" or some such.

What evidence are you aware of in this regard, and on what basis do you believe it's been misinterpreted?

You were the one who said that there was evidence of restraint. I am simply saying, if any evidence was interpreted to prove restraint, it was misinterpreted because the way those knots were tied would not have restrained the boys - or anyone - for very long.

 

[reedus23]

So, do you believe that four murderers is simply a possibility, of do you believe that the affidavits which claim four people committed the murders are accurately identify the killers?

I know you weren't addressing me, but to me, it's not a question of whether the affidavits are 100% accurate, but do they create enough reason to justify re-opening the investigation to determine their validity. To me, I would believe so. I understand if you believe to the contrary.

 

[kyleb]

You believe Narlene Hollingsworth saw Damien and Jason

Rather, I believe Narlene Hollingsworth, Tabitha Hollingsworth, Anthony Hollingsworth, who reported seeing Echols near scene the murders in muddy/dirty clothes, and Rick Hollingsworth who reported having been present for the sighting though only saw two people with long hair from behind himself. As for the prosecution's theory that Baldwin was actually the person thee three Hollingsworths identified as Teer, I consider that possible but I'm also open to the possibility that it was actually Teer.

If these new affidavits are in any way accurate, wouldn't they call into question Narlene's statement, just as the statements you refuse to accept from family and friends who give Damien and Jessie alibis are disbelieved by some, since Narlene is LG's aunt?

As I've [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9547693&postcount=299"]noted to you previously[/ame] "The issues with the alibi witness isn't that they are friends and family", and some people dismissing on such grounds justify employing such faulty logic elsewhere.

You were the one who said that there was evidence of restraint.

And there is, but you're apparently dismissing that evidence it without even knowing what it is.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Rather, I believe Narlene Hollingsworth, Tabitha Hollingsworth, Anthony Hollingsworth, who reported seeing Echols near scene the murders in muddy/dirty clothes, and Rick Hollingsworth who reported having been present for the sighting though only saw two people with long hair from behind himself. As for the prosecution's theory that Baldwin was actually the person thee three Hollingsworths identified as Teer, I consider that possible but I'm also open to the possibility that it was actually Teer.

One "Hollingsworth" is like another. They were all together in the car. Any and all of them could be covering up for LG. Narlene is the one most often discussed, which is why I mentioned her specifically.

As I've noted to you previously "The issues with the alibi witness isn't that they are friends and family", and some people dismissing on such grounds justify employing such faulty logic elsewhere.

Just because the prosecution's attorneys were better at cross-examination than the defense's attorneys were at redirect doesn't make the testimony of the alibi witnesses false. Those witnesses were teenagers for the most part and easily confused.

And there is, but you're apparently dismissing that evidence it without even knowing what it is.

Again, I'm familiar with the evidence. I just question it's interpretation. Remember, just because something is presented at trial (which makes it "evidence") doesn't make it true. Otherwise, Jessie's alibi witnesses would have been believed unquestioningly. The jury is empaneled to decide what they believe is true. In this case, two juries got it wrong (for a multitude of reasons, chief of which in the E/B trial was juror misconduct), which is why we have an appeals process in this country.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Great article on the three 'witnesses': http://www.capitalpunishmentbook.com/?p=772

 

[kyleb]

One "Hollingsworth" is like another.

No, people are individuals, Hollingsworths and otherwise.

Any and all of them could be covering up for LG.

Given the available evidence, that supposition makes about as much sense as the notion that Mark Byers got his teeth removed because human bight marks were found on the boys. But I suppose when refusing to accept what the body of evidence does prove beyond any reasonable doubt, one has to engage in all sorts of wild speculation.

Just because the prosecution's attorneys were better at cross-examination than the defense's attorneys were at redirect doesn't make the testimony of the alibi witnesses false.

Sure, but asserting the convicted had legitimate alibis doesn't make it true either.

Remember, just because something is presented at trial (which makes it "evidence") doesn't make it true.

Of course, but you claiming that "Any evidence pointing to the tying being for restraint is spurious and has been misinterpreted" doesn't make it true either, or even prove you actually know what the evidence you're dismissing is for that matter.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No, people are individuals, Hollingsworths and otherwise.

However, all of these people supposedly witnessed the same event.

Given the available evidence, that supposition makes about as much sense as the notion that Mark Byers got his teeth removed because human bight marks were found on the boys. But I suppose when refusing to accept what the body of evidence does prove beyond any reasonable doubt, one has to engage in all sorts of wild speculation.

You can call it "wild speculation" if you wish. IMO, it's my interpretation of the evidence. IMO, it is you who refuse to accept the body of evidence, which, IMO doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Damien, Jason and Jessie killed Christopher, Michael and Steven. That works both ways!

Sure, but asserting the convicted had legitimate alibis doesn't make it true either.

Unless one was present at the murders, all one can do is interpret the evidence to the best of one's ability. IMO, the juries misinterpreted the evidence, including the rejection of the alibis. You are entitled to your opinion, but, it's still just your opinion.

Of course, but you claiming that "Any evidence pointing to the tying being for restraint is spurious and has been misinterpreted" doesn't make it true either, or even prove you actually know what the evidence you're dismissing is for that matter.

It is my opinion, but my opinion and interpretation are just as valid as yours.

 

[reedus23]

It is my opinion, but my opinion and interpretation are just as valid as yours.

Oh, just wait for the response. I don't think it's as simple as you being entitled to your own opinion or interpretation.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Oh, just wait for the response. I don't think it's as simple as you being entitled to your own opinion or interpretation.

Something tells me you're probably right!

 

[Miranda!]

In reference to your last part on the release of WM3 (I know our legal systems are extremely different) we have actually had a case like this in australia . . .

CeeCee both the American Justice System and the Australian are based on English Common Law which evolved over time. For the main part all three have way more in common than in the way they differ as the same basic principles were the foundations. Over time legal precedents have been set but in more recent times more and more is laid down by statute and the possible legal precedents are more in the interpretation of said statutes.

This was amply demonstrated in the the outcome of the Oral Argument presented by Riorden on behalf of Echols to the Supreme Justices of Arkansas. They overturned Former Judge Burnett's interpretation of the admissability of DNA findings as new evidence in a unanimous decision. Furthermore they expanded their findings to grant Evidentiary hearings of ALL the evidence for ALL three of the convicted.

The Echols Defence team wanted to proceed straight to trial rather than, effectively, going through the whole process twice. This was refused as the new Prosecutor Scott Ellington was going to use the Evidentiary Hearings as his 'discovery' as he knew so little about the case.

There then followed a period of 'brinkmanship' which resulted in the Alford Pleas. Baldwin desperately wanted to have a new trial but finally succombed to preassure due to Echols' declining health and the fact that the State made it very clear that they could drag things out for a long time.

That Alford Pleas deal was a way the State could save both 'face' and 'money' and they were hoping that this case would 'go away' and be forgotten. Not going to happen. There are still a great number of people who deserve true justice rather than the original travesty compounded by another for reasons of fiscal and political expediency.

Most supporters have now come to the realisation that the 'seed' for the Alford Plea was 'planted' by the State and the 'harvested' by the Defence, rather than the Defence asking for it!

Here in the UK once a person has been charged with a crime, all public media speculation stops, and the general public only learns more about the case after each court session. In the US 'Freedom of Speech' trumps our laws of sub judice and thus one gets the whole speculative process of 'trial by media'. This, in my view, radically reduces the chance of either a really fair trial or any respect for 'presumption of innocence'. The way Misskelley's 'confession' was leaked to the media is a perfect example of this and why it managed to figure so very strongly as the only real evidence of his guilt!

The sad irony of Misskelley being persuaded to descirbe what happened so that he could go home - which led to him telling them what they seemed to want to hear - and ending up inside. Then, 18 years later being told to lie again and plead guilty so that he could go home. Justice? I think not.

Also, like your case in Australia, Governor Huckabee's last act as Arkansas' Governor pardoned a guy. He went on to murder three more people the other side of the country.

No way were the State Authorities going to risk being in that position again so for them to accept the Alford Pleas for lesser crimes and time served means they must be very confident that there will not be a repeat!

Whilst we do have freedom of speech in the UK our laws of defamation, slander and libel are much tighter. Furthermore we do not have a written constitution granting the right of free speech.

The next decade is going to be fascinating as somehow the standard of individual countries will have to cope with how the internet recognises no geo-political boundaries. Although we have already seen the Cold War equivalent of 'radio jamming', operated by the Chinese in terms of social networking sites, Google and Yahoo!