Question for supporters

Nova said:

I simply don't understand how there can be a time limit on revealing juror misconduct in a CAPITAL case!

Click to expand...

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.

I too am familiar with the phrase "getting off on a technicality", and I also know it is actually a rare occurrence. The overuse of "technicalities" in movies and TV shows has given us the idea that such dismissals are common when they are not.

justthinkin said:

laurensmom, I think if you've read Damien's psychological history, and watch the interview he gave on the Larry King Show, you'll find numerous lies that Damien told Larry King. It seems to me, if Damien was innocent, he wouldn't need to lie about his personal history, but he did. I would suggest his reasoning was because the real Damien Echols doesn't match the Damien Echols his supporters envision.

The crime happened May 4th or 5th. Daylight Savings Time would have been in place. At the earliest, I would think dark would occur around 7:30 give or take 15 minutes. If this is wrong, I stand corrected.

I don't know whether or not Domini's cousin saw what she thought was Domini and Damien after dark from the front or a rear view of the two in question. Maybe someone does know. I do know that both Domini and Jason Baldwin were wearing black shirts that day, and both had similar hair color, length, and texture. Since eyewitnesses are often wrong, the best I would give the cousin is to say she had a 50% chance of being right.

Ziggy, the luminol testing wasn't done until 5 or 6 days after the crime so that would have been at issue had it come up during the trial. Simple reason it wasn't admitted into evidence. The prosecution didn't want to have to explain the delay.

Whoever Bojangles had a run in with, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the 3 eight year olds or he wouldn't have been bleeding so badly. Sounds more like someone knifed him to me.

Yes, while it's true that children most often die at the hands of people they know, that would not apply in this case since we have 3 boys from 3 different families. For that reason alone, to me common sense dictates that this wasn't a familial killing at all.I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Jessie Misskelley stated he was trying to throw the police off the track when he said the boys were tied with rope. It then follows that he may well have been trying to do the same when he gave a time line that was at odds with the known facts.

Click to expand...

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.

Compassionate Reader said:

The people in the region (including those on the juries) were so frightened that they, too, latched on to the line the cops were feeding them. So, the WM3 were railroaded.

Click to expand...

By this statement, I assume you have spoken to all 24 jurors.

Do you mind sharing?

I don't know about CR, but I did read some of the jurors' affidavits posted on the Callahan's site. One juror said that "due to my religious beliefs, I viewed Damien Echols as the devil walking alive."

Now, I ask you - is that a rational frame of mind for a juror to be in while sitting through a murder trial? That's pure religious hatred, and in no way was that person fit to serve on a jury. All jurors are supposed to start with the presumption of innocence and wait for the prosecution to make their case beyond reasonable doubt. That juror was mentally unable to do her constitutional duty if she viewed one of the defendants as the devil walking alive.

Cappuccino said:

I don't know about CR

Click to expand...

That's fine and dandy.

However, CR made the statement that 24 jurors convicted these three men based solely on fear.

I'm hoping she will share the insight she gained from speaking to these jurors.

I did not say that the jury convicted based solely on fear. I said that the prosecution used the inherent fear of the people to promote their version of the crime. When you consider that the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial wanted to convict the young men before the trial began (which goes along with the affidavits Cappuccino referenced) and you add that to the "Satanic panic" being preached from local pulpits (because the WMPD said that the murders were Satanic cult killings), you have an atmosphere conducive to conviction - regardless of whether or not there was sufficient evidence for said conviction. I have no doubt but that this atmosphere extended well past West Memphis into the entire region, including the towns of Corning and Jonesboro where the trials were held. I don't have to speak to all 24 jurors to understand the mindset of a small town in the Bible belt. I was raised in one. IMO, the jurors were under the influence of "group think" or a mob mentality intent on conviction. No way were the trials fair.

I agree. And along with fear and group think some of the jurors in the Echols/Baldwin trial displayed another disturbing characteristic - contempt for the law.

The jury foreman illegaly introduced evidence which the trial judge had ruled inadmissable. Then the juror I quoted makes no bones about the fact that she reached her verdict against one of the defendants, wholly or partly on the grounds of her religious beliefs, which is also unconstitutional.

Contrary to what some in the Bible belt would like, the US is not a Christian theocracy, it is a secular democracy, and that woman's religious beliefs had no fecking place in a courtroom. She was supposed to reach her verdict solely and purely on the grounds of evidence devoloped under oath under the supervision of the judge, not her religion. That would even be the case if it literally had been the Devil himself on trial, as opposed to a mere teenage misfit from a local trailer park.

Dirty larry said:

Why?

What is it that prevents you from even considering the possibility that these convicts are guilty?

You demand Misskelley was coerced into a false confession without so much as an accusation from Misskelley himself in 15 years.

Your knee-jerk reaction to every single witness against the convicts is a blanket dismissal of every single one of them with no rational explaination what so ever.

What is it that makes you need to believe these convicts are innocent?

Click to expand...

First of all, I do believe Baldwin, Echols and Miskelley are innocent. But THAT is not why I have supported them all these years. Even if I had doubts about their innocence, I would still take issue with the fact that all 3 were found guilty based on rumor, innuendo, and the confession of a mentally challenged minor obtained under duress. "Believing" someone is guilty is NOT the same as PROVING someone guilty in a court of law. The proof, quite simply, wasn't there. And if our legal system begins to accept "belief" in lieu of "proof"...we're ALL is a spitload of trouble.

That's where I stood 18 years ago, and that's where I stand today.

Why does everyone beilieve all three are innocent?? What if only 2? I think Jessie did it. Maybe by himself, maybe with someone else, but he was there. It seemed like in his confessions, he only ever made himself look like the best of the three. He seemed like the most violent in 93 but minimized his involment. The guilty always seem to lay more blame elsewhere. Also if the guy has a mentality of a child, how can he be getting married? He was also sexually active and violent as a teen. Doesnt sound like a childs mentality to me!

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right - that changes the theory of the crime so drastically from the prosecution's original case that Jessie would still be entitled to a retrial.

Sorry if I missed it somewhere in all my reading, but does anyone know Jessie's alibi if he didn't do it? Was anyone able to say, No Jessie could not have done it because I saw him somewhere else?
I cannot believe all the messed up folks in such a small area of the world, West Memphis.

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.

Sorry just throwing my thoughts out there but does anyone agree that Damien and Jason were probably the most normal people around those parts. They seemed like normal teens acting out and not as backwards as others in the area. I suppose that is why the witch hunt on those two.
If the murders hadn't happened in 93, I really think that Damien and Jason both would have led very succesful lives.

Cappuccino said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanx!! Didn't the Sanders' neighbors say that the saw the Echols family going into the Sanders home after dinner time? I think Damiens mom is very credible as an alibi because she was trying to help her son with his mental problems and I think she would turn him in if she thought he was sick.

IIRC, Jason's alibi was the weakest. He cut his uncle's lawn (Domini and Damien watched him part of the time.) He played video games with a friend at Wal-mart. Then, he went home to babysit his little brother while his mother was at work. IIRC, his mother's boyfriend was his alibi for the critical time period.

Many non supporters believe that, because family and friends provided alibi information for all three, the alibi witnesses were not to be believed. In fact, many of the alibi witnesses did not fare well during cross examination. Since those that didn't fare well were teenagers, that, IMO, is pretty understandable. My question has always been (when someone says the alibis were lies), "Do you want them to make up alibis that don't involve family and/or friends?"

The simple truth is if they were with family and friends, they were with family and friends. Just because the prosecutors were better lawyers than the defense attorneys (at the time) and were able to confuse some of the alibi witnesses doesn't mean that the alibi witnesses were lying. It just means that the prosecutors were better lawyers and the defense attorneys didn't know how to turn things around during redirect.

Dirty larry said:

Why?

What is it that prevents you from even considering the possibility that these convicts are guilty?

You demand Misskelley was coerced into a false confession without so much as an accusation from Misskelley himself in 15 years.

Your knee-jerk reaction to every single witness against the convicts is a blanket dismissal of every single one of them with no rational explaination what so ever.

What is it that makes you need to believe these convicts are innocent?

Click to expand...

Like others on this thread, I don't need to believe the WM3 are innocent. I also have considered the possibility that they are guilty. In fact, I assumed they were, until I began reviewing the evidence.

Basically, comments from investigators indicted to me that they targeted Damien for being "goth" and troubled, with a mental health history and investigated from this standpoint, rather than from what evidence showed. It seemed as if they found evidence to fit instead of viewing evidence to see where it led.

I also have a problem with 11 hours of interrogation of a teenager with borderline intelligence being somehow omitted from what was recorded. I think of the case of Michael Crowe, a teen of normal intelligence, who was coerced into making a detailed, false confession of the murder of his sister.

I also am troubled by reports from witnesses or young people in the area who claim they were badgered in a very lengthy and hostile manner until they gave LE what LE wanted to hear.

I see a connection to Salem witch hunts. Once a target was known, witnesses would come forward with first hand information implicating the accused. Many of the witness statements in this case seem to fit that scenario. They knew Damien was accused. They knew he was weird, off, dark, sarcastic and socially inept. They knew the authorities believed him to be guilty of murder. It seems to me that they jumped on the bandwagon.

But most important to me in believing they are innocent is the lack of forensic evidence which solidly implicates the three and instead, implicates the abusive step-father of one of the kids.

Finally, watching Jason Baldwin speak after he was freed really clinches it for me. He shows none of the coy, dead-eyed arrogance or phoniness of people I believe to be killers, like drew peterson, scott peterson, casey anthony, etc. He seems like an earnest, slightly nerdy young man with real, positive feelings - simply incapable of what amounts to a gruesome, horrific, torture-murder of Stevie, Michael and Christopher.

I don't criticize those who believe the WM3 to be guilty but I do have a problem with either side thinking the other is not acting with logic or is acting in a "knee-jerk" manner, in order to satisfy some psychological need. Both sides have solid and rational arguments for their position, in my opinion.

Sunnyone said:

Or how about what Damien told police 4 days after the bodies were found (you can find this in the link below)
On May 10, four days after the bodies were found, the police had not solved the cases. When Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, he asked him how he thought the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols's answer is abstracted as follows:

• He stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.

At the time Echols made the statement, there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others.

Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped for space.

During this interview Damien was asked whether one of the boys was more savagely attacked than the other two, to which Damien told them that he believed one of the boys had been mutilated more than the others and had his genitals cut. Police considered that this was information that would only have been known by the killer(s), but it was, in fact, common knowledge in the community. The prosecution later used this statement to support their case that Damien had prior knowledge of the crimes that was not generally available.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/suspect_4.html

Fishmonger Dave said:

No - even Peretti (state pathologist) denied it, and the more recent expert evaluations have confirmed it. This was about Hobbs exploding in rage and (1) Either Chris & Michael saw something they shouldn't have seen (Hobbs beating Steve) or (2) Hobbs wanted there to be 3 victims so as to disperse suspicion from a sadistically abusive stepfather (him). Either way, it was an explosion of rage, not a sexual crime, not a cult ritual (in spite of the State's testimony at trial that "8 is a witches' number", not a satanic sacrifice, etc.

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
"Test everything, Test. Test. Test. I want them to test every damn thing." - Damien Echols, Jonesboro Sun interview from Death Row, August 2010
http://www.dpdlaw.com/jmstatements.htm
http://www.wm3blackboard.com
----------------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped for space. Yes, after reading about Hobbs and amateurishly trying to profile, that was my feeling, if Hobbs did it.

I find his intense interest in knowing where his stepson was, after he got home from work, stating he questioned his wife and kept going outside and looking up the road at 4:30 p.m. for him, coupled with evidence that he sadistically whipped Stevie on numerous occasions, forcing him to put his hands on his head so they "would not get hit", may fit a scenario in which in a rage, or wanting to have a bit of fun punishing his stepson, he goes on the hunt. Not finding him right away allows his anticipatory adrenaline to build.

When he found the three, he may have either forced Stevie to strip for a beating, tying his hands to keep them out of the way of what he knew would be a prolonged "discipline" session, or he did this with all three boys, one other who was subject to whippings by a parent and all of whom would likely compliantly obey the orders of an angry parent and adult. Or, he could have staged it later to make it look like something it wasn't.

I have not studied enough to be certain that Hobbs did this, however, the way the boys were found and the history of Hobbs and Stevie make this seem likely.

By the way, I'm another fellow attorney on here. Mostly family law and some civil, taking a break when I can from billable hours as well!