1135 users online (216 members and 919 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177

    Evidence....

    What evidence did the prosecution present that made the jury deliver a guilty verdict?

    And------if you had been on the jury, what evidence would have convinced you they were guilty?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10
    You'll find the prosecution and defense's arguments here:
    http://callahan.8k.com/trial_transcripts.html

    Decide for yourself

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    13,612
    From what I have, and there's probably more;

    Jessie's confession
    Witness testimony
    Jason's confession to fellow Michael Carson
    Fibres found at scene linking back to clothes from both Jason and Damien's houses
    Knife marks and serrated knife
    Damien knew details about the crime that hadn't been released when talking to LE
    Knot evidence points to three individuals

    I do have a problem though.....why weren't the bite marks compared to dental impressions from the defendants, were they and I just can't find it? Is there an explanation for that?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    110
    I do have a problem though.....why weren't the bite marks compared to dental impressions from the defendants, were they and I just can't find it? Is there an explanation for that?
    Yes, and no.

    Yes, The injuries were in fact compared to dental impressions from the convicts, and there was no match.

    But no, there was nothing to indicate they were bitemarks - even according to the bulk of the Defense witnesses.

    From Burnett's ruling:

    the evidence is not reliable. The bulk of the testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that no bite mark could be identified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

    The testimony of Doctors Peretti, Sturner, and Dugan, and that of Val Price and defendant's investigator, Ron Lax, established that there are not identifiable bite marks on the photographs of the bodies. Dr. Harry Mincer testified that the identification of bite marks is not an exact science. Dr. Mincer, president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology and an expert in the field of forensic odontology also concluded that the mark over the eye brow of Steve Branch was not a bite mark within a degree of reasonable medical certainty.


    http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/ruling.html

    A funny historical bit of supporter rhetoric on this one though from the time it was going down.

    They all claimed that since Burnett ordered the dental impressions from the convicts, that he also believed they were bitemarks.

    The simple fact is, Burnett ordered said impressions be taken because the Defense requested them, and he had no reason at all to deny them - the Prosecution never objected.

    Peretti made me chuckle recently when he addressed the "animal predation" theory presented at Baldwin's rule37.

    He said essentially "ten years ago I was incompetent because I didn't identify human bitemarks on these victims - now, I'm incompetent because they are were clearly animal bites".
    Last edited by Dirty larry; 09-06-2010 at 11:44 PM.