Question For The Nons...

if we keep injecting trouble where there is none, we will never progress.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

"Don't start no S.H. - won't be no I.T."

emmaline said:

I must have missed the "insult"...


So Entre Nous, do you honestly believe "everyone will be able to sleep well knowing that any doubt had been squelched, once and for all" if the 3 receive re-trials and they're re-convicted? Do any other supporters here believe this will be the case?

Click to expand...

sleep better? yeah. i don't think anyone sleeps particularly Well after they've executed someone. i just want to get to the bottom of this. there is too much that leads in other directions. i've seen people get off when evidence showed otherwise and i've seen people convicted when they shouldn't have.

the difference here is that somebody was sentenced to death.

wouldn't it be a tragedy if a person was killed because it was more convenient than holding a new trial after jury misconduct and everything else that's happened since then? it would be a monumental tragedy if that person wasn't actually the person that perpetrated the crime. these possible mistakes are being corrected more and more since the development and ever improving science in DNA testing.

all i wanted to know was what difference would it make. that's all. everyone knows that in their hearts. as a Christian there is no way i could end the life of one of God's children with the new DNA findings, the jury misconduct, all the satan worshiping nonsense that plagued the nation during that time period, etc. death is death, folks. if... IF that guy is innocent and we kill him, we have blood on our hands, all of our hands. every person that fought for his execution will have to deal with their maker, every person that didn't fight hard enough to win a new trial will be every bit as guilty as the person or people that murdered those three little boys. is it worth it to you guys to take that chance?

Dirty larry said:

Exactly.

"Don't start no S.H. - won't be no I.T."

Click to expand...

?????

emmaline said:

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.

Click to expand...

it might not. but it just might, also. the simple fact is there was misconduct in the first trial. it was a biased jury. that is a miscarriage of justice. every american citizen has a right to a fair trial. the misconduct negated the "fairness" of the trial.

i don't know the number, off-hand, of the number of appeals.

why am i being asked so many questions when i asked one and subsequently one more and those have gone unanswered?

i don't think anyone sleeps particularly Well after they've executed someone.

Click to expand...

I've read many reports from families of victims who claim they do.

i just want to get to the bottom of this.

Click to expand...

It would appear that even if you you were convinced of Echol's guilt you wouldn't want him executed.

If this is in fact true, then you should simply be honest about your agenda, and let folks take that into consideration.

there is too much that leads in other directions.

Click to expand...

But you can't cite a single example that hasn't already been shot down in the courtroom.

What do you make of this discrepancy between your opinions and the facts?

i've seen people get off when evidence showed otherwise and i've seen people convicted when they shouldn't have.

Click to expand...

That's all well and fine, but it has nothing to do with your position on this case, because you can't present even a hint that these convicts are innocent - and you don't even pretend that you can.

the difference here is that somebody was sentenced to death.

Click to expand...

Another difference is that you aren't nearly as familiar with the facts of this case as you make out.

And regardless of how "offensive" you find this claim, you've proven this yourself time and time again.

Fact is, you don't really have a rudimentary grasp on even the most basic concepts.

wouldn't it be a tragedy if a person was killed because it was more convenient than holding a new trial after jury misconduct and everything else that's happened since then?

Click to expand...

There you go again presenting Defense allegations as fact.

That's the real tragedy here.

That you have made such an emotional investment in Echols, that you are willing to cast your integrity to the wind, and intentionally mislead folks in order to acheive your ultimate goal - which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with justice, but rather your own personal sense of morality.

it would be a monumental tragedy if that person wasn't actually the person that perpetrated the crime.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why our legal system allows convicts an incredible amount of opportunities to challenge their convictions, and why the trial process is stacked in favor of the defendant at every turn.

It's not easy to get an inditement, let alone a conviction.

Hell, It's a monumental task to get twelve people to agree on pizza toppings.

That's why the overwhelming majority of convicts are factually guilty, and why the overwhelming majority of Defense attorneys are liars by trade.

With all it's flaws, our system works the vast majority of the time, and using the possibility of it's failure is a pretty damn weak argument.

It's not unlike saying that flying on a commercial airline is inherently deadly because crashes do happen.

these possible mistakes are being corrected more and more since the development and ever improving science in DNA testing.

Click to expand...

To some extent perhaps.

But the fact is, Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the innocence project has stated that even in the cases which are so overwhelmingly compelling that they agree to get involved, the DNA results ultimately confirm guilt over half the time, so any attempt to use their cases as some sort of barometer is pretty much a waste of time.

The fact that Barry Scheck quietly walked away from this case six years ago should probably tell you something.

As for your appeals to Christian sensibilities.... I am neither Christian nor pro capitol punishment.

I'm not thirsting for Echol's blood.

But he IS a sick psychotic child murderer, and he has no place in regular society.

At least not in any society where the families of his victims reside, and none that I want to raise my own children in.

EntreNous said:

sleep better? yeah. i don't think anyone sleeps particularly Well after they've executed someone. i just want to get to the bottom of this. there is too much that leads in other directions. i've seen people get off when evidence showed otherwise and i've seen people convicted when they shouldn't have.

the difference here is that somebody was sentenced to death.

wouldn't it be a tragedy if a person was killed because it was more convenient than holding a new trial after jury misconduct and everything else that's happened since then? it would be a monumental tragedy if that person wasn't actually the person that perpetrated the crime. these possible mistakes are being corrected more and more since the development and ever improving science in DNA testing.

all i wanted to know was what difference would it make. that's all. everyone knows that in their hearts. as a Christian there is no way i could end the life of one of God's children with the new DNA findings, the jury misconduct, all the satan worshiping nonsense that plagued the nation during that time period, etc. death is death, folks. if... IF that guy is innocent and we kill him, we have blood on our hands, all of our hands. every person that fought for his execution will have to deal with their maker, every person that didn't fight hard enough to win a new trial will be every bit as guilty as the person or people that murdered those three little boys. is it worth it to you guys to take that chance?

Click to expand...

Can supporters show where the evidence leads to their innocence? Not reasonable doubt, but actual innocence?
Wouldn't it be just as much a tragedy that if these three were set free and they were guilty as charged and convicted? There has been no evidence of innocence, it's more smoke and mirrors on the part of the defense in my opinion to sway those that are unwilling to read the transcripts, or don't have the time, or just blindly believe after seeing two documentaries and a few television shows that were clearly bias and gave false or inaccurate information.

Can anyone prove the jury misconduct, no sorry. Which is why the ASSC already denied on these grounds.

Here is where the tragedy would really lie in my opinion if these three were to receive a new trial based on what we know at this point.
It would set a new precedent for future and past convictions to be overturned, then to be retried. At whose expense, the taxpayers. We have a judicial system that has been in place for many years, it's updated and reworked almost on a daily basis to better serve the public. When in reality sometimes it serves the accused and even convicted much more so than the victims. We may not have the best system, but if you (generally speaking) do not like it, then do something about it. However if we allow one case such as this one, that obviously has no merits for a new trial according to the law, but it's allowed anyway because of a cause celeb movement, then what is that saying to those already convicted, or those that will commit crimes in the future.

To me when supporters talk about how unfair the trial was, but yet can't give one single legal reason it was, it tells me that they don't understand our judicial system. It's emotional not legal. That to me is what the defense is doing, they are playing with the supporters emotions, feeding them a lot of misinformation over the years to garner support.
Satanic Panic? no... more of a way for the prosecution to try and show Damien's psyche without bringing in his mental history.
No evidence, yes there was evidence. Was it what would be found on a CSI, or Law and Order, or Cold Case, no but then this case is reality and those are fictional drama.
Jessie's confession was coerced, okay just for the sake of argument let's say his first one was, why would he confess to his own attorney with no prosecution or police present? Why confess again to the officers transporting him to prison, or why once again to the prosecution? Were they all coerced, hardly. (IMO none of them were)
DNA evidence exonerates the three: no sorry it doesn't. It does not prove their innocence which is what exonerate means. Although it might give reasonable doubt to supporters, it doesn't to non's. It's easily explained by transfer. Of course the source of the DNA itself is in question considering they took cigarette butts from TH front yard and from a ashtray in his house. Let's say it was his cigarettes, it still is only consistent, not a match. Very weak evidence, even the defense stated this.

Every witness that went against the three were lying, had a agenda, etc..
Every police officer, prosecutor, judge, and the ASSC are using this case to further their career, are corrupt, are inept, are just outright bias due to the good ol boy system.
Supporters are the only ones that know the truth, we non's are just stupid, ignorant and refuse to see the truth.

What this all boils down to though is that supporters believe that no matter what they deserve a new trial. They can't justify it legally, just emotionally. Even the defense has been unsuccessful in justifying it legally so supporters shouldn't feel bad. Most defense attorney's and prosecutor's will tell you (generally speaking, no one in particular) that if someone has reached this stage in their appeals with no opinions in their favor at all, it's over. It's just last ditch efforts with little to no hope of success. As it has been said before now the burden is not on the prosecution or the state, it's now firmly on the shoulders of the defense, we aren't talking reasonable doubt either. We are talking proof of actual innocence. Now let's be realistic here, if the defense had that burden of proof, those three would already be out. What I believe the defense is hoping for is to put enough pressure on the Governor of Arkansas to grant them clemency. However since 1976 Arkansas has only had 1 clemency granted. I'm not worried about either a retrial or a clemency being granted. One is that they have little to no hope of being granted. But if they were to get a retrial, I have no doubts what so ever all three will be convicted again. Supporters don't realize that Jessie's statements are admissible in appeals. That the defense experts could and would be cross examined on their animal predation theories that they based purely on seeing photographs and reading the original reports. All statements made to the press by Damien, Jason, and Jessie (although the later two seem to have remained almost silent, probably due to their attorney's). Also if they were granted a retrial then the prosecution could retest all those items the defense chose not to retest. Such as the penile swab, clothes, pendant. I believe Damien's mental history would be admissible as well since it's public knowledge at this point. We also still have the softball girls to testify, Michael Carson to testify, and maybe some new ones to add to the list. Amanda Hobbs for one, since the defense has tried to crucify her dad and make him out the killer. I wonder if she will mention the hypnotist and the promise of a car if she was to remember certain things in favor of the defense? I wonder how a new jury would take that information? I wonder if Domini could be found to testify and what she would say at this point and time? Or how they would take Damien's letters to his supporters that clearly show his mental illness versus teenage angst. IMO

So the bottom line to me, do we grant a new trial to the three and set a new precedent in granting new trials with no legal justification? Or do we trust our judicial system that is not perfect but certainly tends to favor the convicted versus the victim. Do we grant them a new trial just because celebrities say they are innocent? Do we believe two documentaries as fact when the two guys that made those documentaries have admitted bias?

Now let me say this, if the defense comes up with evidence of proof of actual innocence. Let me be the first to say.. set them free. However, after 17 years of almost unlimited resources, some of the best attorney's, and they can't seem to find that evidence says more to me that anything the defense has said to date.

why am i being asked so many questions when i asked one and subsequently one more and those have gone unanswered?

Click to expand...

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.

it might not. but it just might, also. the simple fact is there was misconduct in the first trial. it was a biased jury. that is a miscarriage of justice. every american citizen has a right to a fair trial. the misconduct negated the "fairness" of the trial.

Click to expand...

You think they'll get a "fair trial" now?! 17 years of media, 17 years of supporters. You think they'll find jurors that haven't heard of this case now? I'll bet everyone in West Memphis knows about Misskelley's confessions now. They moved the trial to a different county for crying out loud. No trial is perfect, but saying they deserve a re-trial purely based on the fact that the jurors may or may not have known Jessie Misskelley confessed is just ridiculous.

If you remove the things you think were off with the trial, you're still left with a lot. And 17 years on the prosecution have got even more than they had then, yet the defense have pretty much got the same. What new evidence do the defense have?

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.

Click to expand...

That won't happen simply because the "non" argument as a rule is promptly removed from this board as soon as people start seriously taking it into consideration and questioning the supporter movement.

Personally, I don't see it. But if it is true that WS and its mods somehow "favor" those who believe justice was miscarried in the WM3 case, I have to wonder why?

As anyone can see with even a brief look around, Websleuths tends to be enthusiastically pro-victim and very sympathetic to LE efforts to put perpetrators of violent crimes behind bars.

I am NOT claiming the mods are unfair to those who argue for a defendant's innocence, just that this site attracts a membership that tends to be pro-prosecution in most cases, and the mods themselves are usually drawn from that membership.

So why, I wonder, is the WM3 case and forum supposedly just the opposite? (My own answer, as I said, is that it isn't. But I'd love to hear the reasoning of those who feel the mods are somehow conspiring to free guilty child-murderers.)

Click to expand...

I think this thread answers this question quite well. I expect to see this board go back to the rare post about every 10 days with just supporters posting here.

emmaline said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re:Questions for the nons

What does "nons" refer to? :waitasec:

^ Thanks, yes! What's that about then?

Brwnigirl said:

Re:Questions for the nons

What does "nons" refer to? :waitasec:

Click to expand...

Nons refers to non-supporters.

Sunnyone said:

Nons refers to non-supporters.

Click to expand...

Hahaha in 6 years of being on WS, you think I might have figured that out!

Dirty larry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Bode's report is in the Federal HC writ.

^ 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'.

which fits right in with Misskelley's confessions where he claims that he attacked Michael Moore, while Echols and Baldwin attacked the other two.

Click to expand...

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?

emmaline said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.