Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 241

Thread: West Memphis 3

  1. #46
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    198
    Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no matter what you believe guilt or innocence, you have to ask yourself this question ,where is the evidence linking these boys to the crime? If these three teenagers...one of whom is mentally handicapped , committed this crime, and left not one scrap of evidence... DNA, blood, fingerprints, hair, fibers,ect. Then they have done something impossible in the eyes of modern forensic science... they are utterly "genius"!!!





    Let Love Rule


  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    460
    Here's a blog with links to a lot of info-
    I read Damien's psych reports also, but it was a long time ago. It would most likely have found them by following links from this site-

    http://crime-spree.blogspot.com/2005...re-guilty.html

    I have to say I believe it is more likely than not that the 3 are guilty.


    Here's a bunch of stuff, I believe from the trial.- http://callahan.8k.com/

    Interesting-Damien failed the polygraph- I didn't know that.

    It's probably better to read the actual documents than rely on books and documentaries. I don't believe the writers/filmakers are ever truly objective.
    Last edited by Labrat; 05-30-2006 at 10:16 PM.
    Character is destiny


  3. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Amy Noel
    Where did you read Damien's Mental health records from? I don't believe they were ever released for public record, I know that excerpts were read from the full report in court, and therefore in the transcripts. But I'd be very interested to know how you got your hands on his records or if they were on the internet, what site that was?

    Its been too long ago for me to remember the link, but they were on the net. Very telling. Very frightening. This boy was in a deep deep dark place.


  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    197
    The fact still remains they were convicted of murder without suffcient evidence - reasonable doubt was cast everywhere in that court room. Even if they are guilty they deserve another trial.


  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie
    The fact still remains they were convicted of murder without suffcient evidence - reasonable doubt was cast everywhere in that court room. Even if they are guilty they deserve another trial.

    Reasonable doubt is in the eye of the tryer of fact -- in this case the jury. We've heard of cases where a conviction was had based solely on circumstantial evidence. We've heard of cases where the body of the victim hadn't even be located. Of course, all are entitled to their opinions, but the only ones that matter in this case belong to the jury and the appeals courts. I agree with them.


  6. #51
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
    Reasonable doubt is in the eye of the tryer of fact -- in this case the jury. We've heard of cases where a conviction was had based solely on circumstantial evidence. We've heard of cases where the body of the victim hadn't even be located. Of course, all are entitled to their opinions, but the only ones that matter in this case belong to the jury and the appeals courts. I agree with them.
    I found this very interesting, informative, and fitting to this topic...
    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ple19apr04.htm





    Let Love Rule


  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Amy Noel
    I found this very interesting, informative, and fitting to this topic...
    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ple19apr04.htm

    Interesting, but hardly applicable to the case we're discussing.


  8. #53
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
    Interesting, but hardly applicable to the case we're discussing.
    Here is an excerpt.....
    On the other hand, the study found that the leading causes of wrongful convictions for murder were false confessions and perjury by co- defendants, informants, police officers or forensic scientists.

    A separate study considering 125 cases involving false confessions was published in the North Carolina Law Review last month and found that such confessions were most common among groups vulnerable to suggestion and intimidation.

    "There are three groups of people most likely to confess," said Steven A. Drizin, a law professor at Northwestern, who conducted the study with Richard A. Leo, a professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine. "They are the mentally retarded, the mentally ill and juveniles."

    Professor Drizin, too, said that false confessions were most common in murder cases.

    "Those are the cases where there is the greatest pressure to obtain confessions," he said, "and confessions are often the only way to solve those crimes."

    Professor Drizin said that videotaping of police interrogations would cut down on false confessions.





    Let Love Rule


  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Amy Noel
    Here is an excerpt.....
    On the other hand, the study found that the leading causes of wrongful convictions for murder were false confessions and perjury by co- defendants, informants, police officers or forensic scientists.

    A separate study considering 125 cases involving false confessions was published in the North Carolina Law Review last month and found that such confessions were most common among groups vulnerable to suggestion and intimidation.

    "There are three groups of people most likely to confess," said Steven A. Drizin, a law professor at Northwestern, who conducted the study with Richard A. Leo, a professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine. "They are the mentally retarded, the mentally ill and juveniles."

    Professor Drizin, too, said that false confessions were most common in murder cases.

    "Those are the cases where there is the greatest pressure to obtain confessions," he said, "and confessions are often the only way to solve those crimes."

    Professor Drizin said that videotaping of police interrogations would cut down on false confessions.

    Thanks Amy, but the words didn't change once you copied that from the thread to here, and neither did my opinion. Yes, it happens. Did it happen in this case? No.

    By the way, nice pic of Lenny!!


  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
    Thanks Amy, but the words didn't change once you copied that from the thread to here, and neither did my opinion. Yes, it happens. Did it happen in this case? No.
    How can u be 100% positive that Jessie's Misskelley's confession wasnt false? U need to be 100% to send someone to jail for life....i dont know how anyone could be 100% when they are big holes in his confession
    1. time of death
    2. nature of attack on the boys

    Jeez his account doesnt even match up with the medical examiners.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,533
    You don't need to be 100% - that's beyond any doubt - and I can't even say beyond any doubt, 100% sure that I'm here typing this message - could all be an elaborate dream...

    The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.


  12. #57
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    198
    You are right about only needed reasonable doubt to convict. But I still ask the question that no one wants to answer, so once again.......
    Where is the evidence linking these boys to the crime? If these three teenagers...one of whom is mentally handicapped , committed this crime, and left not one scrap of evidence... DNA, blood, fingerprints, hair, fibers,ect. Then they have done something impossible in the eyes of modern forensic science... they are utterly "genius"!!!
    Last edited by Amy Noel; 06-02-2006 at 09:36 AM.





    Let Love Rule


  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    You don't need to be 100% - that's beyond any doubt - and I can't even say beyond any doubt, 100% sure that I'm here typing this message - could all be an elaborate dream...

    The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
    The whole idea of having reasonable doubt is that if there is one piece of the puzzle that doesnít fit and hence casts doubt on the defenders perpetrating this crime then they shouldnít be found guilty. I would say then u would need every part of the puzzle to fit in order to guarantee a conviction.
    100% sure vs. reasonable doubt - same thing really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amy Noel
    Where is the evidence linking these boys to the crime? If these three teenagers...one of whom is mentally handicapped , committed this crime, and left not one scrap of evidence... DNA, blood, fingerprints, hair, fibers,ect. Then they have done something impossible in the eyes of modern forensic science... they are utterly "genius"!!!
    would be nice is someone professing thier guilt would answer this one.


  14. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie
    How can u be 100% positive that Jessie's Misskelley's confession wasnt false? U need to be 100% to send someone to jail for life....i dont know how anyone could be 100% when they are big holes in his confession
    1. time of death
    2. nature of attack on the boys

    Jeez his account doesnt even match up with the medical examiners.

    You DO NOT have to be 100% certain. The Tryer of Fact needs to decide beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. That juror's reasonable doubt -- not your's.


  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
    You DO NOT have to be 100% certain. The Tryer of Fact needs to decide beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. That juror's reasonable doubt -- not your's.
    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.


Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast

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
  •