Both??

[reedus23]

Supporters don't want the boys to be judged for their behaviors, interests, moods, etc ... we all know kids like that to a certain degree, right? Some of us were just like them. YET, we are quick to call the behavior of others into question and even quicker to point the accusing finger.

This quote, from someone much wiser than me, kind of sums up my concerns with any of the discussions about behaviors, interests, moods, etc...

“Character evidence is of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. It tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion. It subtly permits the trier of fact to reward the good man to punish the bad man because of their respective characters despite what the evidence in the case shows actually happened.”

That is why one of my repeated themes has been, ok, fine, consider whatever character evidence you want, but show me the evidence that actually ties this particular person to this particular crime. In this case, this type of evidence is very scant. There is a plethora of talk about past bad acts, past beliefs, past crimes, past drug use, poor intelligence and everything else that makes up one's character, but where is the plethora of talk in this case about things that actually tie JB, DE or JM to this particular crime.

 

[reedus23]

Most of all, we owe it to Stevie, Michael, and Chris.

This is the part that seems to be lost on so many(I'm not talking about here, but just in general). Heck, I'd extend that same sentiment to the LE and DA responsible for this case. Don't they, along with everyone, owe it to these 3 young boys to ensure that justice has and will be served in their name? If something arises that calls into question whether or not justice had properly been meted out, isn't it incumbent upon them particularly to ensure that justice is properly handed out by reviewing the facts and the evidence. Isn't it an injustice for those 3 kids if they instead bury their heads in the sand and don't look into it at all?

I suppose what I'm getting at is... me and John Doe may disagree on the guilt or innocence of the WM3, but I don't see how reasonable minds could differ on the fact that there are serious questions as to whether or not justice has been served for Steve, Michael and Chris that would warrant further investigation, even if ultimately John Doe is right and I am wrong.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here's the thing for me. Ok, as a kid he was disturbed or off or however it was described. Now, so what? Even if he is all that (and I'm not saying I believe he was or was not), so what? Lot's of kids with disturbed or troubling histories don't commit murder and when they do, there has to be some credible evidence linking them to that particular crime.

For me, whether it's JB being disturbed, DE being into witchcraft or JM having a low IQ, my question is so what? Even if I were to assume each and every one of those things were true, what says they still committed this particular crime?

Sometimes I feel like Clara Peller. Remember her? "Where's the evidence?"

It is just appalling that a jury can bring back a verdict of guilty on such flimsy evidence. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Sometimes I question the jury system. It might be more equitable if suspected criminals were tried in front of a panel of judges, who understand the ins and outs of the law much better than lay persons ever will! I'm just not sure how these judges should be chosen, but I don't think they should be elected!

 

[SmoothOperator]

Absolutely these boys deserve to have justice FULLY served upon those responsible for their horrific deaths and IMO this issue lies solely at the feet of the LE officials who headed up, controlled, and IMO failed at their job where this case is concerned.

While I strongly opine that the 3 that were arrested, charged, and convicted are indeed the responsible individuals for the 3 young boys deaths.. I do however fully recognize the very real failure on the part of LE and the DA for how they did not allow for assistance to be given by officials with the experience and know-how to go about securing evidence, building a solid case based in reality, rather than the false pretense that they chose as the foundation by which the entire case would be built upon..the satanic ritual hype.. Sure, it worked for them in the short term as far as getting the guilty convictions on all 3..and again I strongly opine that all three were guilty of the murders, tho for totally unrelated reasons than what this DA claimed as their motive..

IMO plain and simple this small town LE agency who had already been found to have corruption in the agency, and involved in illegal activities regarding confiscated drugs, for one(and this had come out immediately preceding the murders)..this small town LE was not dare going to have any of the higher ups coming in and being involved in this case, IMO, due to the fact that the last thing they wanted was more light being shone on their LE agency(IMO this concern obviously outweighed their ensuring full justice on behalf of the young victims)..

IMO it is this that led to the biggest mistake this LE made in this case.. Their refusal to accept any assistance when assistance and experience is exactly what this small town LE was in need of to go about the investigation in the manner of reality as the foundation..and from that solid foundation this case could have been successfully prosecuted, and most importantly a CREDIBLE, successfully prosecuted case that stood the test of time due to the credible, solid investigation, and it being prosecuted on the reality of it being an opportunistic, impulsive act of violence that led to murder.

IMO this LE had the perfect opportunity to have really served true justice on behalf of Stevie, Michael, and Christopher, but IMO that opportunity was not seized and there for is exactly why we now have seen justice for these boys having gone by the wayside.. This LE had the three responsible for those heinous murders and with the assistance offered them by so very many, they could have made damn certain to have justice served fully on behalf of those three, innocent, young boys by building a solid, credible case upon the foundation of this being the opportunity based, impulsive act of violence that led to murder, that it truly was.

As always Jmo, tho.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Yes, the wmpd really messed this one up. One big mistake was not questioning all family members immediately. Even Gitchell said (in the Pasdar deposition) that the first thing that should be done in a case like this is to clear all family members. That wasn't done in this case, and it is the primary reason (IMO) that there is still so much uncertainty about this case over 20 years later.

Had the wmpd questioned TH, for instance, as intensely as they questioned JMB, for instance, we might know what happened. It still makes me scratch my head and wonder why TH has never been considered a suspect, even when his mtDNA was found at the scene! Even with that evidence, the wmpd don't consider him a suspect to this day. Either he has "something" on the wmpd or they are the most arrogant PD I've ever encountered. JMO

All of the mistakes of the wmpd are magnified when testing that should have been done at the time is conducted by someone from New Zealand (well, funded by him anyway). It simply boggles the imagination. As usual, our adversarial justice system encourages "winning" over "justice" IMO. That's very sad.

 

[kyleb]

That is why one of my repeated themes has been, ok, fine, consider whatever character evidence you want, but show me the evidence that actually ties this particular person to this particular crime.

Yet that's exactly how the site you so loath references to lays out their The Case Against the WM3 section, first they dress the evidence which connects the three the murders and then they present character evidence for each in their respective profile pages.

I do however fully recognize the very real failure on the part of LE and the DA for how they did not allow for assistance to be given by officials with the experience and know-how to go about securing evidence, building a solid case based in reality, rather than the false pretense that they chose as the foundation by which the entire case would be built upon..the satanic ritual hype..

What offers of assistance were turned down specifically, and were exactly did the prosecution ever suggest the murders were committed in the course of a ritual?

It still makes me scratch my head and wonder why TH has never been considered a suspect, even when his mtDNA was found at the scene!

It's not necessarily even Hobbs mtDNA, though he can't be excluded of the source of it. It may well be his though, just as many of the other hairs not connected to anyone may well be from parents of the boys, friends, teachers and other people who had regular contact wit the boys. Also, as I've explained to you before:

according to this report: "in standard reporting practices three differences are required for an exclusion." By that standard, Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report, as that only has two differences when compared to Baldwin's swab.

But you've no trouble ruling Baldwin out of having commited the murders even though mDNA which he can't be excluded of the source of was found at the scene, eh?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

However, the ASSC ruled that "While there is a significant dispute in this case as to the legal effect of the DNA test results, it is undisputed that the results conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested." That's pretty clear.

 

[reedus23]

Absolutely these boys deserve to have justice FULLY served upon those responsible for their horrific deaths and IMO this issue lies solely at the feet of the LE officials who headed up, controlled, and IMO failed at their job where this case is concerned.

While I strongly opine that the 3 that were arrested, charged, and convicted are indeed the responsible individuals for the 3 young boys deaths.. I do however fully recognize the very real failure on the part of LE and the DA for how they did not allow for assistance to be given by officials with the experience and know-how to go about securing evidence, building a solid case based in reality, rather than the false pretense that they chose as the foundation by which the entire case would be built upon..the satanic ritual hype.. Sure, it worked for them in the short term as far as getting the guilty convictions on all 3..and again I strongly opine that all three were guilty of the murders, tho for totally unrelated reasons than what this DA claimed as their motive..

IMO plain and simple this small town LE agency who had already been found to have corruption in the agency, and involved in illegal activities regarding confiscated drugs, for one(and this had come out immediately preceding the murders)..this small town LE was not dare going to have any of the higher ups coming in and being involved in this case, IMO, due to the fact that the last thing they wanted was more light being shone on their LE agency(IMO this concern obviously outweighed their ensuring full justice on behalf of the young victims)..

IMO it is this that led to the biggest mistake this LE made in this case.. Their refusal to accept any assistance when assistance and experience is exactly what this small town LE was in need of to go about the investigation in the manner of reality as the foundation..and from that solid foundation this case could have been successfully prosecuted, and most importantly a CREDIBLE, successfully prosecuted case that stood the test of time due to the credible, solid investigation, and it being prosecuted on the reality of it being an opportunistic, impulsive act of violence that led to murder.

IMO this LE had the perfect opportunity to have really served true justice on behalf of Stevie, Michael, and Christopher, but IMO that opportunity was not seized and there for is exactly why we now have seen justice for these boys having gone by the wayside.. This LE had the three responsible for those heinous murders and with the assistance offered them by so very many, they could have made damn certain to have justice served fully on behalf of those three, innocent, young boys by building a solid, credible case upon the foundation of this being the opportunity based, impulsive act of violence that led to murder, that it truly was.

As always Jmo, tho.

What is ironic about the refusal of assistance is that, had they followed through with the FBI assistance on a profile, it would have fallen under the purview of John Douglas' group I believe. Pretty sure he didn't retire from the FBI until some time after these trials.

 

[reedus23]

Yes, the wmpd really messed this one up. One big mistake was not questioning all family members immediately. Even Gitchell said (in the Pasdar deposition) that the first thing that should be done in a case like this is to clear all family members. That wasn't done in this case, and it is the primary reason (IMO) that there is still so much uncertainty about this case over 20 years later.

Had the wmpd questioned TH, for instance, as intensely as they questioned JMB, for instance, we might know what happened. It still makes me scratch my head and wonder why TH has never been considered a suspect, even when his mtDNA was found at the scene! Even with that evidence, the wmpd don't consider him a suspect to this day. Either he has "something" on the wmpd or they are the most arrogant PD I've ever encountered. JMO

All of the mistakes of the wmpd are magnified when testing that should have been done at the time is conducted by someone from New Zealand (well, funded by him anyway). It simply boggles the imagination. As usual, our adversarial justice system encourages "winning" over "justice" IMO. That's very sad.

Yes, at this point it is about ego and saving face. The old "I can't ever be wrong" mentality.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What is most insane to me about this case is watching the footage of their trials. With hindsight the whole thing is a circus and satanic rituals and all kinds of bizarre witnesses and such. It was a travesty from the beginning.

The one person they actually seem to have some evidence against they don't seem to be investigating.

This is everything that can go wrong with a case.

 

[tezi]

What is most insane to me about this case is watching the footage of their trials. With hindsight the whole thing is a circus and satanic rituals and all kinds of bizarre witnesses and such. It was a travesty from the beginning.

The one person they actually seem to have some evidence against they don't seem to be investigating.

This is everything that can go wrong with a case.

IMO, everything that could go wrong in this case did. Everything.

I hope that someday justice is served, but I really have my doubts.

 

[reedus23]

What is most insane to me about this case is watching the footage of their trials. With hindsight the whole thing is a circus and satanic rituals and all kinds of bizarre witnesses and such. It was a travesty from the beginning.

The one person they actually seem to have some evidence against they don't seem to be investigating.

This is everything that can go wrong with a case.

I think I've said it before, but what is ironic is the fact that one of those most responsible for allowing the trial to become a circus is the Judge himself. Not just allowing cameras in the courtroom, but some involved actually giving interviews or being filmed during the trial is beyond bizarre. Typically, it's news footage that is then used in documentaries/movies. Here, the Judge actually allowed his courtroom to become a movie set. The ironic part, is that it is this circus that ultimately allowed so much attention to be drawn to the WM3 and the issue of whether or not they were wrongfully convicted.

 

[hopingicanhelp]

Again, WOW, I'm so grateful for everyone's participation!

As I read through each reply, I find myself wanting to respond to each comment -- I SOOOO wish I had more time to spend debating or at minimum a Q & A! It means so much to me; I firmly believe in the power of everyday people coming together, willing to participate in discussion, willing to stand behind and argue their points, willing to keep an open mind and hear each other -- and Lord knows if it paid the bills I'd be here 24/7. You can relate.

We can disagree and it can get quite heated at times as we all passionately defend our points of view.

BUT WHAT WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON IS JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS.

To this day, the loss resonates for each and every one of us -- or we wouldn't be here! As a parent, I can't begin to imagine what the boys' parents have endured -- and the majority of us can agree that the original investigation, trial(s), and conviction(s) were FLAWED. That is a starting point and a communal place for us to gather.

So, while we often disagree -- both respectfully, and at times, disrespectfully (giving benefit to the intense emotion involved) -- hopefully going forward we can remember that we all have Chris, Michael, and Stevie in mind FIRST... Damien, Joshua, and Jessie close behind.

All were still children, living at home with parents.

The re-visitation of the Bulger case in the past few days has reminded us that evil can exist in children -- we need to remember LOGIC vs FALLACY in our competent, well-informed arguments. Evil can look innocent -- and innocent can appear evil.

While I find myself in an unfortunate and sad place, stating my firm belief that we will NEVER know the whole truth in THIS case -- I do not ever wish to stop the debate. The victims deserve the fight for truth.

In addition -- my hope is that each of us can take what we have learned in this case and apply it to the others we hold dear, the ones that grab our attention for one reason or another... and hopefully some of us are focused on the cases that are receiving little to no attention.

Perhaps it's just me, but there are times that the faces of Chris and Michael and Stevie are RIGHT THERE, and I have a sense that they are at peace and that they want us to bring justice to those who need it -- even if it's not them. I get a feeling that -- while it's unfair -- the boys are ok with the fact that we may never really know... this has gone on for a very long time; they want peace and rest for those who loved and cherished them; they want us to take our dedication and passion and lessons learned and apply all of that to bringing justice to others.

Is it just me?

 

[reedus23]

You're right, we should all be able to agree on the fact that what's important is justice for the victims. That's why, in my mind, if there are the doubts or questions as to how the investigation was handled or how the trials went, there shouldn't even be a question about truly re-opening the investigation to make sure justice is served. It doesn't matter if all the evidence points right back to the WM3, to someone or more other people or, as your thread initially started out about, to one or two of the WM3. What does matter is that those that have the power to ensure that full justice is served do so.

 

[Cappuccino]

The re-visitation of the Bulger case in the past few days has reminded us that evil can exist in children

That's not what it reminded me of, but no matter...

we need to remember LOGIC vs FALLACY in our competent, well-informed arguments. Evil can look innocent -- and innocent can appear evil.

Very true. And I would add, that evil can also look righteous and mask itself as the voice of justice. A person with a law degree, a suit and tie, and a respectable position in society can use all that to convince a jury that a teenager facing the death penalty has no soul. Black t shirts, heavy metal lyrics, weird books, all these things are innocent, but if you put them together, there isn't a soul in there. Then he can sit down 20 years later and smile and assure the interviewer that his son wore black, it was nothing to do with that.

The same evil in a person with no law degree, no suit and tie, and no respectable position in society which they can use, manifests itself differently. A raging mob outside Preston Crown Court, for example, salivating over the thoughts of watching two ten year old boys twitch and kick at the end of a rope.

That's what the re-visitation of the Bulger case reminded me of anyway.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

<respectfully snipped>

...evil can also look righteous and mask itself as the voice of justice. A person with a law degree, a suit and tie, and a respectable position in society can use all that to convince a jury that a teenager facing the death penalty has no soul. Black t shirts, heavy metal lyrics, weird books, all these things are innocent, but if you put them together, there isn't a soul in there. Then he can sit down 20 years later and smile and assure the interviewer that his son wore black, it was nothing to do with that.

I've always wondered if this character assassination of Damien by Fogleman is actionable. I've assumed that being convicted took away Damien's right to sue Fogleman for the obvious character assassination. If this is acceptable legally, it doesn't speak well for our justice system, does it? Fogleman's statement about "no soul there" is one of the things that first struck me in the first documentary as being so totally out of line as to be viciously evil. I don't think that respectable attorneys should resort to character assassination. Finding facts that prove a case is fine, but character assassination? That's low!

 

[reedus23]

<respectfully snipped>


I've always wondered if this character assassination of Damien by Fogleman is actionable. I've assumed that being convicted took away Damien's right to sue Fogleman for the obvious character assassination. If this is acceptable legally, it doesn't speak well for our justice system, does it? Fogleman's statement about "no soul there" is one of the things that first struck me in the first documentary as being so totally out of line as to be viciously evil. I don't think that respectable attorneys should resort to character assassination. Finding facts that prove a case is fine, but character assassination? That's low!

I don't know about Arkansas law, but I would doubt there is any kind of libel or slander suit that would be viable. By getting on the stand and testifying, Damien pretty much put his character at issue and from there an attorney is given some latitude in both questioning and even more so in closing arguments.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't know about Arkansas law, but I would doubt there is any kind of libel or slander suit that would be viable. By getting on the stand and testifying, Damien pretty much put his character at issue and from there an attorney is given some latitude in both questioning and even more so in closing arguments.

I just can't help but think that's not right. It might be legal, but is it right? IMO, it's akin to questioning a person with limited mental abilities without having an attorney or parent present. It may be legal, but it just isn't ethical, IMO.

 

[reedus23]

I just can't help but think that's not right. It might be legal, but is it right? IMO, it's akin to questioning a person with limited mental abilities without having an attorney or parent present. It may be legal, but it just isn't ethical, IMO.

Don't disagree but that is also one of the reasons you rarely have a defendant testify in his own defense. Frankly, I'm curious to know if Damien's attorneys advised against it and Damien simply insisted. When there's scant physical evidence to tie a person to a crime, you'll see lawyers resort to this because they have nothing else. I can't help but wonder if it wasn't a mistake for Damien to testify in this case. Do you know if his lawyers advised against it but he insisted regardless? I don't recall reading either way and usually there's some back room, on the record discussions where the lawyer is putting his advice on record so it doesn't come back to haunt him that he allowed a defendant to testify if it's over the lawyer's objection.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Don't disagree but that is also one of the reasons you rarely have a defendant testify in his own defense. Frankly, I'm curious to know if Damien's attorneys advised against it and Damien simply insisted. When there's scant physical evidence to tie a person to a crime, you'll see lawyers resort to this because they have nothing else. I can't help but wonder if it wasn't a mistake for Damien to testify in this case. Do you know if his lawyers advised against it but he insisted regardless? I don't recall reading either way and usually there's some back room, on the record discussions where the lawyer is putting his advice on record so it doesn't come back to haunt him that he allowed a defendant to testify if it's over the lawyer's objection.

I've never heard one way or the other, but I agree that it was a mistake - whether the idea was the attorney's or Damien's. Damien simply believed (naively) that you cannot be convicted of a crime you didn't commit. I can totally understand Damien insisting on testifying, and I can totally understand an inexperienced attorney suggesting it. The problem, as I've said before, is that the prosecutors were much more adept at cross examination than the defense attorneys were at redirect. That, IMO, was very telling in the jury room, and, at least in part, lead to the false convictions.