I have a question about all of this finality business. Why is finality so important in the first place? Not just in this case, so I guess this is kind O/T in a "backwards kinda way" but seriously, what difference does finality make when there is a possibility that a mistake has been made? There have been at least 138 people released from death row, having been exonerated of horrific crimes. Is finality really more important than making sure that you are not about to execute an innocent person (which is done in the names of the people of the state, and hence, makes the people of the state murderers of innocent people if someone were to be executed who was, in fact, innocent) and maybe more important to the finality crowd, when making sure that you don't still have a murderer walking the streets? In Earl Washington's case, it is my understanding that the person whose DNA matched the DNA at the crime scene was in the system because while we were punishing Earl Washington for a crime he didn't commit, the true murderer remained on the outside and killed someone else. Was that person's death less important than the finality of Rebecca William's case?
In my state, we are so concerned with finality that we give only 21 days to present evidence, evidence of jury misconduct, etc. And if any of that evidence was available at the time of the trial and the accused is just too poor to have a proper investigation done on things that the state hasn't tested, it cannot be brought up ever again after this 21 days. Even if it is DNA. There are some lucky people, whose evidence was not available at the time, because DNA wasn't a big things back then who will or have been released, but as science advances, we here in the Commonwealth of VA have to trust and pray that the investigators don't make any mistakes, because for the sake of finality, we simply do not care...or in the words of former Attorney General Mary Sue Terry, "evidence of innocence is irrelevant."
Is it really all just about an eye for an eye, regardless of whose eye that is?
Last edited by HRCODEPINK; 08-29-2011 at 05:39 PM.
One of the things that really rankles me about this case is when someone discusses "finality" like that's more important than the truth. Like with the jury misconduct issue. It is my understanding that the main reason Burnett refused to accept the jury misconduct is that the attorneys brought it up too late. IMO, in a murder case, since murder has no statute of limitations, finding evidence of unfairness in the trial should, likewise, have no statute of limitations. Like was said above, it just sounds too much like an eye for an eye for the State to, in essence, say, "HA HA! You didn't get your paperwork in on time so you can't get relief!" It's so infuriating! We call it a "justice" system, but sometimes I wonder, "Where's the justice???"
Cappuccino, you state the others produced family and telephone alibis. First, there's no plural to others because Jason proffered no alibi because his attorney knew his alibi witnesses wouldn't stand up to cross examination, so no witnesses for Jason were produced.
None of the people that Damien claimed to have been on the phone with that night were able to reach him by phone until after 9:30PM. Damien also agreed with the prosecution that his mother made up his alibi, and changed it to fit the changing times of the facts in the case.
The West Memphis 3 had no viable alibis.
About Jessie's alibi : the whole wrestling scenario was not based on the receipt.
They went to practice up to 2 or 3 times a week.There are other witnesses who know for sure one of the dates they went was on May 5th 1993 like Johnny Hamilton
Jason has an alibi and alibi witnesses and I think the lawyer made a big mistake when he decided not to put them on the stand.
As for Damien's alibi it's hard to get a concrete time line without the phone records.
But either way,even if he is not accounted for between 06:30PM and 09:30PM
why would he have left the house ,pick up Jessie,who he never even socialized with walk across town to pick up Jason ,on a school night ,Jason was buying a tape at 8PM and home at 09:30PM when his mom called,so either way the time line makes no sense ,nobody saw them together and they must have committed the murders in like a 10 minute window sometime between 08:30 and 08:45 ????????
Last edited by claudicici; 09-05-2011 at 05:35 AM.
These three young men are innocent of these horrific murders. Someday soon I am confident that fact will be established beyond even a shadow of a doubt. People who continue to insist that they are guilty are in part responsible for allowing a killer to continue to walk the streets.
It's possible that no one drowned. The basilar skull fractures could have caused aspiration of either vomitus or spinal fluid (or both) which could account for the small amount of water and froth in the stomachs or lungs. Peretti's skills IMO are so substandard that he could have mentioned drowning in the autopsies when it didn't really occur. Some of the things I've read say that a ruling of drowning as a COD is not easy to make. Just because there's fluid in the lungs doesn't mean the victim drowned. So, since the official COD forms all mention "multiple injuries" as the COD, maybe no one drowned. Just a thought.
When given the opportunity to possibly have a new trial, they did not want to do that all the while claiming to have 'new evidence' that will never be known (cuz there is none). They all three give a guilty plea. That to me really says something. The supporters should be questioning that move since they have sent in donations for their so called defense.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
The defense approached the state with the offer of skipping the evidentiary hearing and going to a new trial. If the prosecution was so confident of their case, why did they refuse? Furthermore, if they were so confident that the defense had no new evidence that would lead a jury to acquit, why did they counter offer to let them go straight away in return for a guilty plea? They even conceded that down to an Alford plea, allowing them to maintain their innocence.
Because they were afraid that the state of Arkansas would get sued, that's why. If they had any realistic expectations of keeping three supposed child killers in prison, there is no way they would have let them go with time served.
If anyone hasn't read the December, 2011, article in Gentlemens Quarterly, please do so. Here is a link:
IMO, why this article is important is the tacit admission by Scott Ellington that Judge Laser would have granted a new trial at the evidentiary hearing and that, at that new trial, Damien, Jason and Jessie would have been found not guilty. Ellington also mentions the monetary concerns mentioned before. Ellington has reiterated those monetary reasons for not wanting Damien, Jason and Jessie to have a new trial many times now that he is running for Congress.
IMO, the only reason that Judge Laser could have even contemplated granting a new trial would be if new and compelling evidence had been presented at the evidentiary hearing. Since even Ellington admits that a new trial would have been granted, there must have been some new evidence. IMO, all of the evidence collected by the defense hasn't yet been made public. I hope it will be - soon.
What I have always wondered is...if Jessie's confession was coerced...why did he manage to include the part about Damien and Jason duck diving for each others penis in the water?
I mean...how weird...how exact...how specific is this little aside in his confession. If he wasn't there and they weren't there at the creek...why did he include this piece of information?
Btw, the scenario Jessie describes there is impossible. It was a two and a half foot deep muddy, stagnant ditch. In order for the sex act Jessie describes to have happened, one person would have to be down on his knees and the other would have to be lying flat down in the mud. That particular part of Jessie's statement makes it very clear that he'd never even been to the crime scene, let alone taken part in a crime there.
I thought there was much more water in the stream and that it only became shallow when the police dammed it and drained it. Aren't there photos showing a much higher depth early on in the salvage?
And btw, the answer is no. The earliest photos of the crime scene show Mike Allen falling into the drainage ditch beside Michael Moore's body. The water just about comes up to his knees.
I don't think the statement was convincing or otherwise...just interestingly specific.