West Memphis 3

Charlie said:

what i'm trying to illustrate Jeana is that if reasonable doubt was presented to the jury it means that the defence is trying to demonstrate to the jury that u cant be 100% certain that the defendant/s commited this crime as there is always going to be this doubt.

Click to expand...

Always doubt - not always reasonable doubt.

A kid is in a room with a candy dish, alone. You come back in 15 minutes, the candy is gone. Kid claims a stranger opened the door, ate the candy, ran back out. Do you have any reasonable doubts that the kid ate the candy? No. Can you be 100% certain? No.

That's the difference between reasonable doubt, and any doubt.

Details said:

Always doubt - not always reasonable doubt.

A kid is in a room with a candy dish, alone. You come back in 15 minutes, the candy is gone. Kid claims a stranger opened the door, ate the candy, ran back out. Do you have any reasonable doubts that the kid ate the candy? No. Can you be 100% certain? No.

That's the difference between reasonable doubt, and any doubt.

Click to expand...

Well, were not talking about kids and candy here. We are talking about 3 peoples lives.
I really don't care who thinks they are guilty, although I wish someone would list on what basis that they form this opinion ....... and not just because the " courts said so ", I mean on what evidence??? And yes sometimes in some cases circumstantial evidence is enough to convict without a "reasonable doubt", So okay lets stay with that for a moment...hmm... we have, lets see...Jesse's confession (we all know the controversy on this) ... Okay what else, Damien has a mental illness, ohhh! I work @ a mental hospital, and mental illness does not = killer! (LOL) Shoot half of the people who post here probably have a mental illness the other half just haven't been diagnosed yet! Ok we have a young girl @ a baseball game that over heard Damien "Yelling out" to the world that he killed these boys and he was planing on killing 2 more before he turned himself in...( I should'nt even need to comment on that one) Then we have a jail bird that Jason confessed to while in jail, on their second conversation ever! And this was allowed in court, but not the counselor from the jail, who could prove that he was lying ( you should know exactly what I'm talking about if you know this case) We have a knife found in the lake @ the trailer park where Jason lived, I shouldn't have to mention that it was a trailer park that lots of other people reside their also. The knife could not be matched with any certainty to the wounds. We have 3 fibers that couldn't be matched to any particular garment to the exclusion of any other. We have hmmm... The Hollingsworths' that claim they saw Domini & Damien on the service road... well that puts Damien in the area... hmmm but Domini, why she's not supposed to be there hmm... where's Jason? hmmm... where's Jesse? For that matter where's the blood? Where's the footprint's? Where's the fingerprint's? You mean they found no hair... oh but wait they did find hair...hmmm was it Damien's? NO! was it Jason's? NO!! was it Jesse's? No!!! Well by god whose was it you ask? Well it seems that it was negriod hair.... hmmm??? Wasn't there a report of a black man in a resturaunt (Bojangles) the night of the boys disappearance, I believe he had blood on him ( actually dripping off him) and covered in mud? But those wonderful, thorough WM police, they drove through the drive through & didn't even go in... oh but wait they came back the next day and got some of the blood... oh great... now we can have it tested, oh-no!!! They lost it... misplaced it.. its gone!!! Whew...those WM police there Grrrrrrrrrreat! Oh wait I forgot some of their best evidence... Damien and Jason were Satanist, yes ladies and gentlemen they were in a cult. They worshipped the devil, had orgies, and sacrifices!!! You know how we know all this well lets see... they wore black (no!) they listened to heavy metal music (no!) Oh and read books...horror books and strange religious books, non-christian!!! (nonono! Heaven forbid... lets burn'em @ the stake!) Ok ... Oh And yes Damien failed the polygraph, ohhh, but Jesse passed his ( even though they told him he failed it) so if you are going to bring up Damien's as evidence, even though we all know its not admissable in court then we must bring up Jesse's too! Because we must play fair here!
I just can't understand how any intelligent, caring, and informed person can think for a second that this case wasn't investigated half assed. I mean... come on really guys! They lost evidence, they didn't investigate anything, it was a botched job. They were under investigation for losing evidence in numerous drug cases, they were under pressure to solve this case... a big case... to get a conviction... they had a reputation to repair.... I want to say so much more I want to point out all the evidence and testimony that was not allowed in that the defense had.... how prejudicial the judge was... but I just do'nt have the time right now... I would be typing all night... but like I said if you "have read it and watched it all" as some of you have stated then you should already know all this!!! So how in god's name can you not atleast admit that these boys deserve another trial, atleast admit that... you know the investigation was fouled... you know the judge was onesided... deep down you know this was not justice !!!! If not for Damien, Jason, and Jesse... then for Christopher, Michael, and Stevie!!! All we all really want is JUSTICE!

WM3 WORLDWIDE AWARENESS DAY
June 3, 2006

June 3, 2006 marks the 13th anniversary that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were arrested for murders they did not commit. It is also West Memphis Three Worldwide Awareness Day, the perfect opportunity for supporters to join together and let the world know the truth about their unjust convictions. All over the globe, people will stage concerts, screen Paradise Lost I & II and host benefits to raise money for the WM3's defense funds.

This a letter that is posted on http://www.wm3.org website, I just thought I would share it with everyone here, who may not have seen it...

Dear Supporters of the WM3:

A friend and I were chatting this weekend when she brought up an important issue. With Awareness Day fast approaching, what is being planned for Arkansas? After all, this state needs to be everyone’s focal point. She proposed a brilliant idea, which I want to pass on to you.

I know many of you over the past decade or so have literally inundated the Governor’s office with letters. How many letters have been sent? Well, it could be anyone’s guess. I don’t believe anyone is keeping a record, and of course, the Governor’s office keeps an apparently endless supply of those rubber-stamped “form” letters everyone receives in response.

VIOLATION OF TOS - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. SEE LINK FOR REST OF LETTER

Charlie said:

what i'm trying to illustrate Jeana is that if reasonable doubt was presented to the jury it means that the defence is trying to demonstrate to the jury that u cant be 100% certain that the defendant/s commited this crime as there is always going to be this doubt.

Click to expand...

The defense's case is where the "reasonable doubt" is supposed to come from. Now, if you're trying to say these three should be freed on "pure innocence" claims alone, that's one thing. If you're trying to say they had ineffective counsel and should get a new trial, that's another. You may always have reasonable doubt and that's too bad. However, it wasn't your case to decide, so what you believe (and what I believe for that matter) isn't relevant.

Jeana (DP) said:

The defense's case is where the "reasonable doubt" is supposed to come from. Now, if you're trying to say these three should be freed on "pure innocence" claims alone, that's one thing. If you're trying to say they had ineffective counsel and should get a new trial, that's another. You may always have reasonable doubt and that's too bad. However, it wasn't your case to decide, so what you believe (and what I believe for that matter) isn't relevant.

Click to expand...

I Dont believe they are innocent, i dont believe they are guilty either. I can't make a decision that grave with such little evidence. Jeana you seem very grounded in your belief on these boys guilt...what was it (evidence) that made your so sure?

Jeana (DP) said:

The defense's case is where the "reasonable doubt" is supposed to come from. Now, if you're trying to say these three should be freed on "pure innocence" claims alone, that's one thing. If you're trying to say they had ineffective counsel and should get a new trial, that's another. You may always have reasonable doubt and that's too bad. However, it wasn't your case to decide, so what you believe (and what I believe for that matter) isn't relevant.

Click to expand...

Enough issues about this case has been brought up to grant a new trial. It seems the courts don't want to take a chance of a seriously flawed case getting retried.
It may not be our case to decide but it is important if many of the public do not believe the right people are in jail. More important is the idea of having 3 innocent people in jail. And I am not one for wanting to grant retrails, but this case is screaming for one so that justice can be served. IMO with the new representation they would all be found not guilty.

Charlie said:

I Dont believe they are innocent, i dont believe they are guilty either. I can't make a decision that grave with such little evidence. Jeana you seem very grounded in your belief on these boys guilt...what was it (evidence) that made your so sure?

Click to expand...

Well, like most people who followed the case, I read all of the articles, books, etc. and saw the documentaries. I also searched out all I could in the internet, including the websites supporting the accused. I guess for not being in the courtroom, I had about as much info as anyone else not in the courtroom. Of course, its been quite some time, but no information has come to light that made me change my opinion.

Becba said:

Enough issues about this case has been brought up to grant a new trial. It seems the courts don't want to take a chance of a seriously flawed case getting retried.
It may not be our case to decide but it is important if many of the public do not believe the right people are in jail. More important is the idea of having 3 innocent people in jail. And I am not one for wanting to grant retrails, but this case is screaming for one so that justice can be served. IMO with the new representation they would all be found not guilty.

Click to expand...

I disagree. They had their day in court and they've had their appeals. That's what they're entitled to. No more and no less than any other defendant in America. Clogging up our already slowly moving justice system with trial after trial because it didn't turn out the way some people wanted it to is not the way to go.

Jeana (DP) said:

Well, like most people who followed the case, I read all of the articles, books, etc. and saw the documentaries. I also searched out all I could in the internet, including the websites supporting the accused. I guess for not being in the courtroom, I had about as much info as anyone else not in the courtroom. Of course, its been quite some time, but no information has come to light that made me change my opinion.

Click to expand...

Jeana, you didnt actually specifiy what evidence made you believe in thier guilt.

Jeana (DP) said:

I disagree. They had their day in court and they've had their appeals. That's what they're entitled to. No more and no less than any other defendant in America. Clogging up our already slowly moving justice system with trial after trial because it didn't turn out the way some people wanted it to is not the way to go.

Click to expand...

Jeana, what about the cases of death row inmates that were wrongfully accused and exonerated after DNA analysis...by your reasoning they should have died simply because the jury in their cases made their choice and therefore the jury is correct...

Charlie said:

Jeana, you didnt actually specifiy what evidence made you believe in thier guilt.



Jeana, what about the cases of death row inmates that were wrongfully accused and exonerated after DNA analysis...by your reasoning they should have died simply because the jury in their cases made their choice and therefore the jury is correct...

Click to expand...

Charlie, as I said, its been a long time since this case was fresh in my mind. There's no way I can remember all of the evidence, so I'm sorry that I can't answer your question with more specificity.

If there is DNA evidence that can be tested, it should be done before the trial; or, if the inmate is awaiting trial and DNA evidence comes to light, the governor and the Supreme Court takes that into consideration before their execution. Otherwise, how would those you spoke of have been exonorated?

I'm 100% for the death penalty, and your not about to get me into a debate with you about it here, but we do have a thread going in the parking lot, if you'd like to join in.

Jeana (DP) said:

Charlie, as I said, its been a long time since this case was fresh in my mind. There's no way I can remember all of the evidence, so I'm sorry that I can't answer your question with more specificity.

If there is DNA evidence that can be tested, it should be done before the trial; or, if the inmate is awaiting trial and DNA evidence comes to light, the governor and the Supreme Court takes that into consideration before their execution. Otherwise, how would those you spoke of have been exonorated?

I'm 100% for the death penalty, and your not about to get me into a debate with you about it here, but we do have a thread going in the parking lot, if you'd like to join in.

Click to expand...

C’mon Jeana stop dodging the bullet here, you stated yourself that you have real all the articles and books and saw the documentaries yet you can’t think of one piece of evidence in this case. For someone who professes such knowledge of the case you sure have a bad memory.

List of exonerate death row inmates
- Houston: over 100 inmates have been exonerated from death row since 1973 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0412/p01s02-usju.html)

- Lousianna: 92 death-row inmates have been exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973. (http://www.truthinjustice.org/no92.htm)

- Illinois: The 13 men freed from Death Row since 1977 have been exonerated.
(http://www.truthinjustice.org/exonerated.htm)

shall i continue?

Charlie said:

C’mon Jeana stop dodging the bullet here, you stated yourself that you have real all the articles and books and saw the documentaries yet you can’t think of one piece of evidence in this case. For someone who professes such knowledge of the case you sure have a bad memory.

List of exonerate death row inmates
- Houston: over 100 inmates have been exonerated from death row since 1973 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0412/p01s02-usju.html)

- Lousianna: 92 death-row inmates have been exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973. (http://www.truthinjustice.org/no92.htm)

- Illinois: The 13 men freed from Death Row since 1977 have been exonerated.
(http://www.truthinjustice.org/exonerated.htm)

shall i continue?

Click to expand...

Thanks Charlie!!! Thats the question I would love to be answered....How can someone be so conviced that they are guilty... and post here about how guilty they are... and how they do not deserve a new trial... and on and on and on....but cannot list the reasons why, just convienently forget what it was about the case that convinced them of the guilt.... cannot even remember what evidence was presented in the case... I find it laughable!!!

If anyone was to ask me why I think they are innocent... I could answer that question... I could list the reasons, based on the evidence, the trial.... you know "the facts".... not just "because", thats not an answer... thats an answer a child gives when they really don't have a reason!

All Im saying is if you are going to stand up against something or for something you believe in... than you should have a "reason"!!!

And please do not "dodge the bullet" as Charlie stated above! By dodging the bullet I mean answering this question with one of the following....
1- because the courts (judge/jury) decided their fate
2- It was proved in a court of law
3- because the state proved the case

These are all cop outs... I want you to use your own brain, and answer the question accordingly.... what convinced you of their guilt?

Charlie, when I get into a in depth conversation about a criminal case, I'd like to have facts to talk about. Since it was MANY years and MANY MANY cases ago that I read the facts of this case, I'm not in a position to do so. You can accept that or not as you like, but it doesn't change the fact. I told you that what I do remember is that everything I read and saw made me believe they were guilty. I also told you that I have seen nothing since that time to change my mind. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you, but you'll have to deal with that yourself.

Ok, this is one of the cases I have to say they fowled up on. No way do I believe these kids are guilty. I believe it was Daddy all the way.

Jeana (DP) said:

Charlie, when I get into a in depth conversation about a criminal case, I'd like to have facts to talk about. Since it was MANY years and MANY MANY cases ago that I read the facts of this case, I'm not in a position to do so. You can accept that or not as you like, but it doesn't change the fact. I told you that what I do remember is that everything I read and saw made me believe they were guilty. I also told you that I have seen nothing since that time to change my mind. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you, but you'll have to deal with that yourself.

Click to expand...

Jeana i dont want to get into big thing about it, but i dont understand why you would bother posting on this topic if u dont have anything to say about it other than they are guilty case closed....its seems odd to me that u make a point of posting on this case yet dont feel compelled to dicuss the case with the rest of us...I enjoy reading others members opinions about cases as it sometimes makes me look at the case from a whole different perspective, you could even say thats what the point of the forum is, to convey our ideas to each other and make the puzzle complete.

Charlie said:

Jeana i dont want to get into big thing about it, but i dont understand why you would bother posting on this topic if u dont have anything to say about it other than they are guilty case closed....its seems odd to me that u make a point of posting on this case yet dont feel compelled to dicuss the case with the rest of us...I enjoy reading others members opinions about cases as it sometimes makes me look at the case from a whole different perspective, you could even say thats what the point of the forum is, to convey our ideas to each other and make the puzzle complete.

Click to expand...

Never said case closed. That's what this forum is here for. I want you to talk about to your heart's content. I think I said I studied it at lenght a LONG TIME ago and what my opinion was. I'm the moderator of this forum and sometimes posters want to know where I stand. So, I posted my opinion and now its up to ya'll to talk. So . . .talk.

dasgal said:

Ok, this is one of the cases I have to say they fowled up on. No way do I believe these kids are guilty. I believe it was Daddy all the way.

Click to expand...

He's a creepy little man, isn't he???

Yeah, he is pretty creepy. Did you see the second documentary DP? I suspected him before, but the second doc just sealed the deal for me. Not anything that the DOC said, but just by his own actions, and weird circumstances. It seems his wife mysteriously died as well.

dasgal said:

Yeah, he is pretty creepy. Did you see the second documentary DP? I suspected him before, but the second doc just sealed the deal for me. Not anything that the DOC said, but just by his own actions, and weird circumstances. It seems his wife mysteriously died as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've got the VHS.