West Memphis 3
- Thread starter VespaElf
- Start date
- Status
Jeana (DP) said:
Well I see here that you may not be as informed on this case as you may believe you are... If you only read one book, I'd be interested in knowing which book that was. And you really need to watch both PL & PL2 to really understand all the in's and out's of the case.... I would also like to ask you on what grounds you believe these boys are guilty... just because a judge and jury decided there guilt? These boys were already found guilty before the cases ever went to trial. The real question is where is the evidence linking these boys to the crime? If these three teenagers...one of who 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"!!!Jeana (DP) said:
Charlie
New Member
Just to set the record straight
The infamous bite marks was not found till after all three boys had been convicted for the murders. Jessies defence attorney Daniel Stidham has asked the WMPD before the trials whether they had composed any criminal profile on the case. The WMPD answered no. After the trial Daniel Stidham found they the WMPD had lied and indeed had recieved a criminal profile from the FBI.
"All efforts by Stidham to procure the services of a reputable and qualified Criminal Profiler before the trials were fruitless due to the lack of resources available. It was not until after the three young men had been convicted and sentenced that he was able to secure the services of Brent Turvey, who agreed to take the case pro-bono. Brent Turvey has a Master of Science degree and is a highly qualified and experienced Forensic Scientist and Criminal Profiler." - crime library
"Turveys Criminal Profile revealed many areas of physical evidence which were missed or misinterpreted by the Medical Examiner and Coroner on this case and overrules many of the assumptions made by police as to the nature of these murders." - crime library
"After examining the evidence available, Turvey revealed a number of evidentiary points which had not been noticed during earlier examinations. The most important of these was his opinion that the patterned injuries all over Steven Branchs face were not the result of an attack with a serrated edge knife, as was originally believed, but were, in fact, bite marks. This opinion was confirmed by Dr Thomas David, a board certified forensic odontologist, who identified the marks as being human adult bite marks. After comparing these marks with bite impressions obtained from Jessie, Jason and Damien, Dr. David gave his expert opinion that they did not match. Bite marks are extremely useful in identifying the perpetrator of a crime as they can be as unique as a fingerprint. Further suction type bite marks were also found all over Christopher Byerss inner thigh." - crime library
2. Melissa Byers did NOT commit suicide her death has been labled undetermined.
"Instead, he had the crime lab's vague conclusion that, "because of the lack of definitive anatomic or toxicological findings, the cause and manner of death are left undetermined." - http://www.corpus-delicti.com/arknews080197.htm
The infamous bite marks was not found till after all three boys had been convicted for the murders. Jessies defence attorney Daniel Stidham has asked the WMPD before the trials whether they had composed any criminal profile on the case. The WMPD answered no. After the trial Daniel Stidham found they the WMPD had lied and indeed had recieved a criminal profile from the FBI.
"All efforts by Stidham to procure the services of a reputable and qualified Criminal Profiler before the trials were fruitless due to the lack of resources available. It was not until after the three young men had been convicted and sentenced that he was able to secure the services of Brent Turvey, who agreed to take the case pro-bono. Brent Turvey has a Master of Science degree and is a highly qualified and experienced Forensic Scientist and Criminal Profiler." - crime library
"Turveys Criminal Profile revealed many areas of physical evidence which were missed or misinterpreted by the Medical Examiner and Coroner on this case and overrules many of the assumptions made by police as to the nature of these murders." - crime library
"After examining the evidence available, Turvey revealed a number of evidentiary points which had not been noticed during earlier examinations. The most important of these was his opinion that the patterned injuries all over Steven Branchs face were not the result of an attack with a serrated edge knife, as was originally believed, but were, in fact, bite marks. This opinion was confirmed by Dr Thomas David, a board certified forensic odontologist, who identified the marks as being human adult bite marks. After comparing these marks with bite impressions obtained from Jessie, Jason and Damien, Dr. David gave his expert opinion that they did not match. Bite marks are extremely useful in identifying the perpetrator of a crime as they can be as unique as a fingerprint. Further suction type bite marks were also found all over Christopher Byerss inner thigh." - crime library
2. Melissa Byers did NOT commit suicide her death has been labled undetermined.
"Instead, he had the crime lab's vague conclusion that, "because of the lack of definitive anatomic or toxicological findings, the cause and manner of death are left undetermined." - http://www.corpus-delicti.com/arknews080197.htm
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Amy Noel said:
Darlin, I'm not sure where you got the impression I only read one book. I've seen and read everything I could get my hands on with regard to this case, including Damien's mental health records. Its been some time, but I don't remember hearing or seeing anything that lead me to believe they are anything but guilty.
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?Jeana (DP) said:
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"!!!
Labrat
New Member
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/2005/04/why-i-think-west-memphis-3-are-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.
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/2005/04/why-i-think-west-memphis-3-are-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.
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Amy Noel said:
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.
Charlie
New Member
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.
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Charlie said:
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...Jeana (DP) said:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Prison-Innocent-People19apr04.htm
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Amy Noel said:
Interesting, but hardly applicable to the case we're discussing.
Jeana (DP) said:
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.
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Amy Noel said:
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!!
Charlie
New Member
Jeana (DP) said:
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 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"!!!
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"!!!
Charlie
New Member
The whole idea of having reasonable doubt is that if there is one piece of the puzzle that doesnt fit and hence casts doubt on the defenders perpetrating this crime then they shouldnt be found guilty. I would say then u would need every part of the puzzle to fit in order to guarantee a conviction.Details said:
100% sure vs. reasonable doubt - same thing really.
Amy Noel said:
would be nice is someone professing thier guilt would answer this one.
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Charlie said:
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.
Charlie
New Member
Jeana (DP) said:
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.
- Status