Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 120 of 120

Thread: Question for supporters

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    I agree, Nova, but that was one of the considerations that Judge Burnett based his ruling on at the time. However, I'm of the opinion that, since there's no statute of limitations on charging someone with murder, then there should be no statute of limitations on the presentation of evidence to overturn a convicted murderer's conviction, especially when the sentence is death. I'm very familiar with the term "getting off on a technicality" but, in this case, they're not asking that the WM3 be freed on the jury misconduct issue alone but only that a new trial should have been granted on the issue many years ago. IMO, this is just another of many examples of the mishandling of this case.

    Now, before all you nons start yelling about finality, this situation doesn't happen all the time. Like I Must Break You was saying, there are plenty of cases where the guilt is obvious to any astute person. However, in a case like the WM3, when there are still so many lingering questions as to the guilt of the convicted in many people's minds, finality should be suspended until all questions are answered. Remember, in this case, you can't release Damien after he's executed. I would think that any sane and rational person would want to be as sure as possible (the law says beyond a reasonable doubt, and I simply don't believe that standard has been met here) of guilt before executing someone. Execution can't be "corrected" later if additional information is obtained that further proves innocence.
    BBM

    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.

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to HRCODEPINK For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    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???"

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:


  5. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,196
    Quote Originally Posted by DIXIECAT View Post
    BBM
    Mr. Hobbs was the stepfather (familial reltationship) of one of the boys who were killed... as someone posted previously, Hobbs may have killed his stepson first, and then killed the others to get rid of any witnesses.
    Except that the autopsy reports invalidate that speculation as Stevie and Michael both drowned. Christopher Byers was already dead when placed in the water.

  6. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    Except that the autopsy reports invalidate that speculation as Stevie and Michael both drowned. Christopher Byers was already dead when placed in the water.
    I don't believe that the boys died in the initial attack. I believe that they succumbed to their injuries later in shallow water. There was not really that much fluid in the lungs and stomachs to give drowning as the COD, which is why the official COD statements list "multiple injuries" for all three boys. The order in which they died is not necessarily the order in which they were struck down.

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


  8. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Cappuccino View Post
    Jessie has the strongest alibi of the three. The others were only able to produce family members and telephone alibis, whereas Jessie had non-family members testifying that he was in a nearby town at wrestling practice on the night of May 5th.
    This is just false information. Upon cross-examination, Misskelley's alibi proved to be false. The whole wrestling scenario was predicated on a receipt the boys had. The prosecution introduced the receipt, and the receipt was dated 4,27, 1993 not May 5, 1993 as they believed, proving Misskelley's alibi to be worthless.

    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.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to justthinkin For This Useful Post:


  10. #106
    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
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jhamilton.html
    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.
    http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax...85581#msg37521

    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.

  11. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to claudicici For This Useful Post:


  12. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    This is just false information. Upon cross-examination, Misskelley's alibi proved to be false. The whole wrestling scenario was predicated on a receipt the boys had. The prosecution introduced the receipt, and the receipt was dated 4,27, 1993 not May 5, 1993 as they believed, proving Misskelley's alibi to be worthless.

    As claudicici stated, there are several alibi witnesses to the wrestling. Just because the prosecution was better at cross examination than the defense was at redirect only proves that the prosecutors were better attorneys (at the time) than the defense attorneys. It doesn't prove that the witnesses were lying.

    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.

    It's true. Jason's attorneys did not put on any alibi witnesses. However, that doesn't mean anything other than the fact that Paul Ford and his partner (Robin Wadley, IIRC) saw what happened at Jessie's trial and didn't want the same to happen to Jason's witnesses. It doesn't prove that Jason had no alibi.

    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.

    Damien did not say that his mother made up his alibi. He said that, because of the medication he was taking, he was often sleepy and had some short term memory problems. He said that his mother would know better than he did about the times. He did admit to changing his story after his mother refreshed his memory. Too bad about the phone records that the prosecution told the defense were unavailable. If the prosecution hadn't pulled a slick one on the inexperienced and underfunded defense, we might not even be here.


    The West Memphis 3 had no viable alibis.
    The WMFree did have viable alibis. Only most non-supporters refuse to accept statements from family and friends, saying that they're lying while swallowing whole hog statements from giggly tweens who eavesdropped on a conversation and misunderstood it totally and the testimony of a "Dr." whose PhD really was piled higher and deeper as it was from a now-defunct diploma mill plus accepting the testimony of the uncertified ME over that of certified forensic pathologists. Again, what would you have them do for an alibi if they were with family and friends - make one up that you consider more believable?

    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.

  13. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:


  14. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tupelo, MS
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    Except that the autopsy reports invalidate that speculation as Stevie and Michael both drowned. Christopher Byers was already dead when placed in the water.
    Huh? That's like saying "I didn't really kill him when I threw him in the water, chained to a concrete block. The water actually killed him." Which might actually be a viable defense in some states....

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SheBoss For This Useful Post:


  16. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,196
    Quote Originally Posted by SheBoss View Post
    Huh? That's like saying "I didn't really kill him when I threw him in the water, chained to a concrete block. The water actually killed him." Which might actually be a viable defense in some states....
    No, my intent was simply to say that drowning caused their deaths before the injuries they sustained did. Yes, they drowned, but they also likely would have died from their injuries without medical attention.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to justthinkin For This Useful Post:


  18. #110
    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.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:


  20. #111
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,448
    Quote Originally Posted by SheBoss View Post
    Huh? That's like saying "I didn't really kill him when I threw him in the water, chained to a concrete block. The water actually killed him." Which might actually be a viable defense in some states....
    Now, that sounds like a typical defense when they actually don't have one. It's the defense's job to create doubt, but they could never successfully do that, even their appeals failed.

    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.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to UdbCrzy2 For This Useful Post:


  22. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,849
    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.

  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cappuccino For This Useful Post:


  24. #113
    If anyone hasn't read the December, 2011, article in Gentlemens Quarterly, please do so. Here is a link:

    http://www.gq.com/news-politics/news...-december-2011

    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.

  25. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:


  26. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    122
    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?

  27. #115
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by hello people View Post
    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?
    does anyone know about this? did i have a stroke at some point because this is the first if heard of it???
    Hinky Dinky Parlez Vous!-Sleuthy Gal

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


  29. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by hello people View Post
    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?
    Because Bryn Ridge told him before the tape recorder was turned on that he, Ridge, had personally seen Damien and Jason having sex with each other. There was a weird little obsession with gay sex among the officers investigating this case, which even extended towards describing explicit sex acts to an 8 year old witness, (Aaron Hutchinson), and sending him for an invasive anal exam.

    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.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cappuccino For This Useful Post:


  31. #117
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    122
    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?

  32. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by hello people View Post
    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?
    Why are you asking that now, if you found Jessie's statement about Damien and Jason ducking down on each other so convincing? Didn't you look for those photos first?

  33. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,849
    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.

  34. #120
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    122
    I don't think the statement was convincing or otherwise...just interestingly specific.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Any Supporters who crossed over?
    By dasgal in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 06-10-2014, 12:09 PM
  2. Ramsey Campaign Thanks Their Supporters
    By VespaElf in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2004, 11:29 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
  •