Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by emmaline View Post
    Your question has been answered. Nons don't want a retrial because they don't believe there was anything wrong with the first one, simple as that. Why waste more money on a trial to convict 3 convicts? From what I understand based on speaking with many nons, they believe there is nothing to prove innocence, and there is enough to prove guilt (clearly, based on the previous trials), so if the 3 were to be granted a re-trial they would absolutely be re-convicted. Even if you remove the alleged juror misconduct, if you add the "new evidence", get rid of the hype, you still have evidence of guilt and no evidence of innocence. I'm not speaking my own opinion here, just what I have understood based on the discussions I have had with nons. If that doesn't answer your question, I'm sure what will.

    I encourage everyone to sit down and really listen to the non argument then go back and look at the supporter argument - I promise you it won't look the same.
    emmaline, you're the first person to answer the question flat out. thank you. that's all i wanted.
    trials are not designed to prove innocence but to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    i have tried to listen to the non argument but all i get is a lot of spin. a lot of 'in your face' berating. i can almost hear glenn beck screaming "Get Off My Phone!!!!!!!!!" until his face turns purple. that breeds a lot of distrust and makes folks think something is up, something bigger is at stake... something secret, someone has something to hide.

    the instinct is to recoil from the lunacy and is the goal of the aggressor.

    open, honest discourse is the only way. unless people just enjoy the division, in which case, far be if from me to take that purple, vein popping hate away.

    trust me, i've received the most horrific p/ms, (not recently but in past months), from some nons that lets me know there is no way all of this is not on the up & up.
    Hinky Dinky Parlez Vous!-Sleuthy Gal


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to EntreNous For This Useful Post:


  3. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,218
    Re:Questions for the nons

    What does "nons" refer to?


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Brwnigirl For This Useful Post:


  5. #33
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    12,341
    ^ Thanks, yes! What's that about then?


  6. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Brwnigirl View Post
    Re:Questions for the nons

    What does "nons" refer to?

    Nons refers to non-supporters.


  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sunnyone For This Useful Post:


  8. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunnyone View Post
    Nons refers to non-supporters.
    Hahaha in 6 years of being on WS, you think I might have figured that out!


  9. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty larry View Post
    No, I didn't.

    And failed appeal after failed appeal.

    They have all formally requested new trials numerous times.

    They were denied.

    You know why?

    Because there is no new evidence.

    There is simply no justification for new trials.

    My answer remains the same.

    Until they present legal justification for new trials, then they haven't earned right to burden the taxpayer for the cost.

    But they have failed to provide any justification for them.

    Then they already had them.

    If the key word is NEW, then they need to present justification just like any other convict.

    I did.

    Several times.

    You seemed confused.

    You asked what would be the problem with the courts carefully looking at the case again with new eyes.

    I pointed out that several courts already had many times in the last decade and a half.

    If you want to say that doesn't count, then just say so, but don't edit your question and then claim I failed to address it.

    You bet.

    Nope.

    I don't FAVOR killing a human being under ANY circumstances.

    But let's proceed beyond your obvious baiting and address the remainder of your rhetoric.

    It would appear you are in the habit of accepting Defense.allegations as fact.

    This is why there's such a discrepancy between your opinion, and that of the courts and jurors.

    Except for those pesky foreign alleles on Moore's penile swab, and Branch's bindings which were in fact consistent with the convicts.

    You know, the two of the three foreign alleles that the Defense didn't request any further testing on?

    But as the DNA evidence applies to a motion for re-trial?

    The Arkansas Act 1780 Scientific evidence statute is very clear.

    In order for a claim to have merit, the results must generate new non cummulative evidence of actual innocence.

    Non cummulative means evidence that wasn't presented during trial.

    The Defense raised the lack of biological evidence at trial, so raising it again is cummulative, and without merit.

    Branch and Moore drowned.

    I watched video of the police pumping gallons of the murder weapon from the creek.

    Well, except for the sworn confessions from an accomplice who even maintained his participation to his nown attorneys in private.

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Please don't couch your questions in patently false information.

    Your personal opinion that the evidence in this case is weak doesn't give you the right to deny it exists.

    There are those on this board who are objectively seeking the facts of this case, and it's not fair to them.

    If you wish to challenge the evidence, then by all means do so, but let the readers here weigh it's merit for themselves - don't try to hide it from them.
    I thought the foreign DNA was found on Stevie, not Michael and wasn't further tested because the samples were too small to get a full profile on, no?
    There was evidence found on Stevie's bindings that is consistent with the convicted? All 3 of them? Wow, I have never heard/read this, could you please point me in the right direction where this information is verified or post it after the TO is up?
    Thank you, I appreciate it!
    "IT TAKES A LOT BIGGER MAN TO STAND UP AND ADMIT HIS MISTAKES THAN TO HIDE BEHIND A LIE"
    WHY WON'T ANYONE STAND UP FOR HALEIGH??!! WHY?? TELL THE TRUTH!!
    HALEIGH DESERVES IT!!


  10. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    110
    I thought the foreign DNA was found on Stevie, not Michael and wasn't further tested because the samples were too small to get a full profile on, no?
    No.

    There are three foreign alleles listed in Bode's report.

    The one the Defense presented in the writ, one from Moore's penile swab which was consistent with Misskelley, and one from Branch's binding consistent with Echols.

    could you please point me in the right direction where this information is verified
    Bode's report is in the Federal HC writ.


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Dirty larry For This Useful Post:


  12. #38
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    12,341
    ^ which fits right in with Misskelley's confessions where he claims that he attacked Michael Moore, while Echols and Baldwin attacked the other two. Misskelley states he 'pulled the strings out of their shoes and Damien and Jason tied them'.


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Mrs G Norris For This Useful Post:


  14. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    110
    which fits right in with Misskelley's confessions where he claims that he attacked Michael Moore, while Echols and Baldwin attacked the other two.
    More than that even.

    Misskelley claimed Branch was Echol's victim, and that Moore was his victim.

    Remember, he claimed Echols "slicked blood off Branch's cheek" - the one who's face just happened to be cut.

    Hell, Forget about the Alleles for a moment.

    The blood on Echol's pendant - which victim was it consistent with?

    Branch.

    The blood on Misskelley's shirt - which victim was it consistent with?

    Moore.

    Just amazing coincidences I guess?


  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Dirty larry For This Useful Post:


  16. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,699
    Quote Originally Posted by emmaline View Post
    What I would like to know is why you think a re-trial will give us all the answers? How many times have the 3 been given the opportunity to appeal their sentences? They've been rejected every time and every single time it's always the same "oooh that judge is corrupt" "oh that prosecutor was corrupt" "oh the high court are all in on this big conspiracy". What difference will it make? Say Damien is granted an appeal at federal level and it's rejected, will you back down and say "Okay, I guess he really is guilty" or will you continue to cry injustice? This will never end, re-trial or not, that is why I believe nons are so against it. A re-trial suggests there was something wrong with the result of the first one. I'm not a non, but I'm also not stupid enough to believe supporters will just drop this if the 3 are given a re-trial.
    Because an appellate review is not the same - not even close - to a trial. It's only a review. They don't look at the evidence and basically re-try the case; they only look for procedural errors.

    A new trial would mean new pre-trial motions and perhaps more INculpatory evidence could be produced like the luminol. It may also result in evidence formerly allowed to be ruled inadmissible under fresh eyes and without the prejudice that permeated the atmosphere at the time.

    I'm a fence sitter - but when 3 lives are in the balance and three little boys were murdered in such a heinous manner - the truth is important to me...call me crazy but that's how I feel. Trials do not always GET TO THE TRUTH due to many factors and in this case I think a big factor was Arkansas in that time period - jury prejudice - good ole boyisms; a complete misunderstanding of occult ritual killings and the evidence that would accompany them; the complete and utter farce of an expert witness on the occult etc.

    Let's get to the truth. The West Memphis III in my mind are Michael, Stevie and Christopher. Those poor babies need to rest in peace with a much more definitive answer to who killed them and WHY.
    __________________
    Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.


  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ziggy For This Useful Post:


  18. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    110
    Because an appellate review is not the same - not even close - to a trial. It's only a review. They don't look at the evidence and basically re-try the case; they only look for procedural errors.
    This is not true.

    Appellate claims take many forms, some review evidence presented, some consider new evidence, and some simply review rulings for procedural errors.

    It may also result in evidence formerly allowed to be ruled inadmissible under fresh eyes and without the prejudice that permeated the atmosphere at the time.
    I don't suppose you could provide us with an example or two?
    the truth is important to me...call me crazy but that's how I feel.
    If you feel justice has not been served, Then I suspect the place to start is to offer some sort of challenge to the convictions.
    I think a big factor was Arkansas in that time period - jury prejudice - good ole boyisms; a complete misunderstanding of occult ritual killings and the evidence that would accompany them; the complete and utter farce of an expert witness on the occult etc.
    It wasn't Griffis' opinion that Echols was a violent psychotic dabbler in Satanism, it's a documented fact.
    Let's get to the truth.
    The jurors already have - The presumption is guilt now.

    It's up to the Defense to prove actual innocence - and they have failed for a decade and a half in three seperate courts.

    Why do you suppose that is?


  19. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    488
    Did anyone get a chance to read the affidavit pertaining to the jury tampering? It was the previously sealed document that has been mentioned, not necessarily on this thread but on others. The contents have been rumored but now the actual, leaked, document is available.

    I'm curios if it has changed anyones mind on if a new trial should be granted.


  20. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty larry View Post
    This is not true.

    Appellate claims take many forms, some review evidence presented, some consider new evidence, and some simply review rulings for procedural errors.


    I don't suppose you could provide us with an example or two?

    If you feel justice has not been served, Then I suspect the place to start is to offer some sort of challenge to the convictions.

    It wasn't Griffis' opinion that Echols was a violent psychotic dabbler in Satanism, it's a documented fact.

    The jurors already have - The presumption is guilt now.

    It's up to the Defense to prove actual innocence - and they have failed for a decade and a half in three seperate courts.

    Why do you suppose that is?
    I admit that Arkansas often seems like a foreign country, but in the United States of America the defense never has to prove actual innocence. Ziggy is basically correct that the appellate process only deals with the procedural validity of the trial and any underlying constitutional issues attaching to the law upon which the verdict is based.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that proof of actual innocence is NOT grounds for a habeas corpus release absent a finding of procedural error on appeal. See Herrera v. Collins.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15710052.html


    ETA: Okay, I think I see what you are talking about. Most states with the death penalty allow for a habeas corpus claim of "actual innocence" (usually used in DNA exoneration cases), and when such a writ is filed, it's true the burden of proof falls on the defense.

    http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2010/...n-proceedings/


    But this is not the only avenue of appeal. The way you state it, it sounds as if once a jury verdict is reached, the burden of proof immediately falls on the defense to prove actual innocence. In fact, this is true only when an "actual innocence" writ is filed. In the vast majority of cases, the defense is arguing that the jury verdict was reached improperly because of procedural error.

    "Actual innocence" writs are rare (usually DNA cases) because proving actual innocence is very nearly impossible except through the DNA testing of semen, etc. Even "air-tight alibis" are commonly ignored by juries unless the alibi witness has no relation to the defendant whatsoever.
    Last edited by Nova; 10-15-2010 at 06:42 AM.


  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  22. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    110
    I admit that Arkansas often seems like a foreign country, but in the United States of America the defense never has to prove actual innocence.
    They do if there is no constitutional error.

    Ziggy is basically correct that the appellate process only deals with the procedural validity of the trial and any underlying constitutional issues attaching to the law upon which the verdict is based.
    You are confused, Appellate claims take many forms beyond constitutional errors.
    The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that proof of actual innocence is NOT grounds for a habeas corpus release absent a finding of procedural error on appeal. See Herrera v. Collins.
    Herrea v. Collins simply states that the convict isn't eligible for a federal HC writ with a claim of actual innocence alone.

    One only has to look into why Federal Habeas Corpus writs were concieved to see why.
    Most states with the death penalty allow for a habeas corpus claim of "actual innocence" (usually used in DNA exoneration cases), and when such a writ is filed, it's true the burden of proof falls on the defense.
    I know.

    The way you state it, it sounds as if once a jury verdict is reached, the burden of proof immediately falls on the defense to prove actual innocence.
    The way I stated it is that once a verdict is reached, the presumption is guilt.
    In fact, this is true only when an "actual innocence" writ is filed.
    As opposed to a "possible innocence" writ?

    Is that a state or federal claim?
    In the vast majority of cases, the defense is arguing that the jury verdict was reached improperly because of procedural error.
    In the vast majority of WHAT cases exactly?
    "Actual innocence" writs are rare
    Actual innocence writs do not exist.

    However, there are many appellate claims where evidence of actual innocence are presented.
    (usually DNA cases)
    Like this one.
    proving actual innocence is very nearly impossible except through the DNA testing of semen, etc.
    This is not true.

    There are many cases where people have proven actual innocence which predate DNA testing.

    In some, for example, irrefutable alibi evidence was discovered post conviction.

    In others, the actual offender was conclusively identified by overwhelming evidence.


  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dirty larry For This Useful Post:


  24. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,699
    Dirty Larry the point you are missing is that you keep claiming that they've had all these chances "appeal after appeal" etc. when that is disingenuous because the appellate review does not even look at the evidence and any discretionary calls by the judge are not questioned; the judge is given the benefit of the doubt. It is strictly to see if any procedural errors were made - a jury instruction that was wrong; a constitutional right that was violated etc. The appellate judges are not weighing the evidence here and they are looking at things in a light more favorable to the prosecution and that is what frustrates people because the jury may have been overly prejudiced - a conclusion that is not far fetched due to the lack of evidence against these guys.
    __________________
    Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Copyright question/ Online photo question
    By laini in forum Forum Finesse
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 10:54 AM
  2. A Question
    By Elisea in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-25-2006, 05:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •