WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

New Posts

Compassionate Reader said:
Then let me invite you to the supporter site: www.wm3blackboard.com. We discuss evidence and much more, and we're usually not snippy or rude. JMB is one of the administrators on that site, and occasionally he and his wife post, too. Come, join us! The site is working again (something about an expired domain name that took a couple of days to resolve itself). Anyway, come on over.
Click to expand...

I'm already a member there and I talked to you in chat one night remember? Actually I think you were having problems that night...LOL

Anyway I was on my phone so I really didn't elaborate.

I want a non supporter to give me evidence that isn't the confession and certainly not the fibers or necklace. I wish they would understand that blood type can match a number of people and not just one. I might share the same blood type with my brother, but if he commits a murder and his blood type is left behind that doesn't mean that I committed the murder too because I have the same blood type.....
 
missy_g said:
I'm already a member there and I talked to you in chat one night remember? Actually I think you were having problems that night...LOL

Anyway I was on my phone so I really didn't elaborate.

I want a non supporter to give me evidence that isn't the confession and certainly not the fibers or necklace. I wish they would understand that blood type can match a number of people and not just one. I might share the same blood type with my brother, but if he commits a murder and his blood type is left behind that doesn't mean that I committed the murder too because I have the same blood type.....
Click to expand...

I remember now. That night I wasn't feeling well at all. And, yes, all the non supporters seem to want to talk about is Jessie's "confession," the fibers and the necklace/shirt. None of those things prove anything to me, either. If you read the articles that I posted in the "Recent Developments" thread, you'll see that the new judge is expecting the hearing in July, August or October because that's when there are open court dates. He considers it a pre-trial. He also placed all attorneys under a gag order. Apparently, contrary to a gentlemen's agreement between the two sides, the State did some additional DNA testing without informing the defense. (Any testing that the defense did would require that the State be notified as they would have to obtain permission to use the evidence.) Of course, if anything was found, the rules of discovery would require that it be divulged to the defense. The new judge, Laser, has forbidden any further testing of biological material without the consent of both parties. Personally, I feel if anything implicating the WM3 was found in that "secret" testing, the State would have shouted it from the rooftops in order to countermand the DNA tests that the defense has revealed. I feel that, once again, the testing excluded the WM3. Or, it's possible that the further testing was of the blood on the necklace and shirt and it proved to be Jason's and Jessie's respectively. We'll just have to wait for the hearing to find out.
 
Just want to add to CR's remarks above that another problem with the trial transcript is that the judge excluded a lot of testimony, including some that casts doubt on the credibility of State witnesses. Excluded info has to be gleaned from other sources.
 
Exactly, Nova! And not all of it was revealed in the pre-trial hearings. Some of it was obviously skirted, and that's part of the reason that two juries convicted innocent men - the juries didn't hear all of the evidence!
 
I saw one time in a case where the court reporter actually changed the transcripts after the trial. She changed just simple words to get the statements a whole new meaning. I wonder if something like this happened as well?

Also if the jury is using information that wasn't presented in the trial (like Misskelly's) confession then that should be enough for a retrial IMO.

Also according to the Devil's Knot (which I'm still deciding is a reputable source) there was a lot of information that was leaked to the media before Jessie's confession...that's why he knew some things the she "shouldn't" have known.

CR, do you know where the new trials will take place? I'm wondering if they can actually get a non biased jury this time around.
 
I believe either Jonesboro or Little Rock. I'm not sure which. I hope they can get an unbiased jury, too. Since the "Satanic panic" situation has lessened, I think that they can. The question is whether or not the State will seek to retry them. Once the evidentiary hearing orders a new trial (which I'm confident that it will), the State has the option to refuse to retry the three, saying that so much time has past and so many witnesses cannot be located that a trial would be a waste of the taxpayer's money. Once the new trial is ordered, the old verdicts are vacated (overturned). Then the State has a certain amount of time (45 days I think) to decide if they will retry. If they decide to retry, the guys will remain incarcerated. (They may be moved from State prison to county lockup, however, but I'm unsure of that.) If the State decides not to retry, then the guys will be released, but not exonerated. Therein lies the problem. They would always have this thing hanging over them. I would like to see a new trial so they can be exonerated, but if they can live with release without exoneration, I can, too.
 
missy_g said:
I saw one time in a case where the court reporter actually changed the transcripts after the trial. She changed just simple words to get the statements a whole new meaning. I wonder if something like this happened as well?

Also if the jury is using information that wasn't presented in the trial (like Misskelly's) confession then that should be enough for a retrial IMO.

Also according to the Devil's Knot (which I'm still deciding is a reputable source) there was a lot of information that was leaked to the media before Jessie's confession...that's why he knew some things the she "shouldn't" have known.

CR, do you know where the new trials will take place? I'm wondering if they can actually get a non biased jury this time around.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this trial, but I do have some experience with litigation and court reporters. It is quite common for the reporter to go over what s/he had recorded and make corrections, sometimes significant ones. This is why each court reporter prepares her own transcripts. The notes don't just go to a "steno pool" for someone else to compile the official record.

So any transcript may have some corrections based on the recorder's memory and there have been cases where the official record was challenged as containing errors. (How one would do that after 17 years, I don't know.)
 
P.S. I agree about Devil's Knot. I think it's well-researched and if the author came to certain conclusions about guilt, that's just honesty on her part.

That doesn't mean she is infallible, but the wholesale trashing of the author that one sees has no credibility with me.
 
Nova said:
Just want to add to CR's remarks above that another problem with the trial transcript is that the judge excluded a lot of testimony, including some that casts doubt on the credibility of State witnesses.
Click to expand...

He also excluded testimony that cast doubt on the credibility of defense witnesses.

It astounds me that this is so often overlooked.


Nova said:
Excluded info has to be gleaned from other sources.
Click to expand...

The other sources are biased information, not subject to cross-examination in a courtroom.

At this point, they amount to nothing more than rumors.
 
Mary456 said:
He also excluded testimony that cast doubt on the credibility of defense witnesses.

It astounds me that this is so often overlooked....
Click to expand...

If you find that excluded testimony relevant, you are certainly free to bring it up here.


The other sources are biased information, not subject to cross-examination in a courtroom.

At this point, they amount to nothing more than rumors.
Click to expand...

Everyone has biases, Mary, whether or not they testify in court; cross-examination (depending on the skill of the examiner) may help to expose those biases, but it doesn't magically eliminate them. The issue is whether an individual's bias casts reasonable doubt on his or her testimony.

Sources other than trial testimony include depositions, which are admissible in court, often include cross-examination, and in which the deponent is subject to perjury laws.

In this case, because the prosecution wore blinders, people have had to rely on media accounts as well as out-of-court statements given to police and defense attorneys. Because the original defense attorneys weren't given the money to hire sufficient experts, those interested in the case have had to rely on experts hired in later years as supporters raised funds.

But if you want to stick to trial testimony, I'd like to see you prove the guilt of DE and JB, using trial testimony alone (which in their cases, does not include the JM confessions). Let's be clear: sarcasm on the stand may be bad manners, but it isn't evidence of murder.
 
The problem with Jo3eph's posts is that he's just a blogger, just like you and me. We don't know what his credentials are. Lisa Sakevicius, the State's trace evidence expert, stated that none of the fiber evidence was conclusive. It is my understanding that further enhanced testing, which can provide definitive proof of the source of the fibers, is ongoing. Hopefully, we'll have the results of that testing soon. I tend to believe in lab results over a blogger who has not actually examined the fibers, regardless of what qualifications to do so he might have.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
The problem with Jo3eph's posts is that he's just a blogger, just like you and me. We don't know what his credentials are. Lisa Sakevicius, the State's trace evidence expert, stated that none of the fiber evidence was conclusive. It is my understanding that further enhanced testing, which can provide definitive proof of the source of the fibers, is ongoing. Hopefully, we'll have the results of that testing soon. I tend to believe in lab results over a blogger who has not actually examined the fibers, regardless of what qualifications to do so he might have.
Click to expand...

If this is about the fibers found at the scene that were consistent with things found in Damiens and Jasons houses one thing kills it for me. If I remember correctly one of the fibers was consistent with a shirt of Jason's brother, a Garanimals shirt which is commonly sold at Walmart. Well being a father of a two year old, I'm pretty sure there are about 20 different pieces of Garanimal apparel in her closet... So there if a pretty good chance there is a consistent fiber in my house at this very moment.
 
I'm sure they could have found the same matches in any given household .They just decided to single out Jason's and Damiens.
I don't see what makes "Joseph's" posts different from the prosecution theory or why they should make more sense then their ridiculous theory?
 
Rebdot said:
I have been mildly interested in this case since I watched Paradise lost and I am about to read Devils Knot, I have read a couple volumes of the transcripts but I would like to know what evidence there is against the WM3?

I can't seem to find any info on any key evidence that helped convict them.

I just need a little push in the right direction :help:
Click to expand...
I have placed references after the vast majority of my posts. You can read through all or none of them by clicking my screen name, then click "statistics", and then click "find all posts by Pensfan".
 
Originally posted by Rebdot

"I have been mildly interested in this case since I watched Paradise lost and I am about to read Devils Knot, I have read a couple volumes of the transcripts but I would like to know what evidence there is against the WM3?

I can't seem to find any info on any key evidence that helped convict them.

I just need a little push in the right direction."

The easy answer to your question is that there is no evidence against the WMFree. Some people have opinions about certain things that they try to turn in to evidence, but all the State ever had was:

1) Jessie's statements (which are constantly debated because they are inaccurate and because he could have been coerced or he could have been fed information)

2) some fibers (which, according to the State's own trace evidence expert, cannot be definitively matched to the garments collected from the defendants' homes and could have just as easily come from a plethora of other garments from the local Wal-Mart)

3) statements from some girls that said that they "overheard" Damien saying that he was responsible at a softball game (but they were not actually part of the conversation and only overheard it and the mother of two of them has since said that she doubts that the statement was said seriously)

4) a statement from a jailhouse snitch who claims that Jason confessed to him at the juvenile detention center (but one of the snitch's counselors claimed that he discussed the case with the snitch and told the snitch everything that the snitch later told the police)

That's it. People try to insert Damien's mental history, but that only shows that he should be interviewed, not that he committed the murders. Something else often mentioned is the Hollingsworth's siting of Damien and Domini on the service road at around 9:30 that night. The police tried to morph Domini into Jason, but it simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In short, there's nothing except the four things I listed above, none of which is proof that the WMFree committed these murders, even if it's all put together, IMO.
 
Confessions are evidence. Damien Echols bragged to other teens that he killed the little boys and Jessie confessed numerous times even with his attorney telling him to stop confessing.
 
Aaron confessed too.Why don't you believe him?
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/aaronh13094.html

BRAY: Okay, what ah...describe to me, describe to me how he made you cut him?
AARON: He...made me take my hand, and...cut his private spot off.
BRAY: Alright, did you just use one hand?
AARON: Yes sir.
BRAY: How'd you just use one hand?
AARON: He had his hand on my hand.
BRAY: And Chris is just layin' there?
AARON: Yes sir.
BRAY: Alright, then what happened after you cut it off?
AARON: I stood back and I was watching, and then that...they...tied Michael and Steve up.
 
claudicici said:
Aaron confessed too.Why don't you believe him?
Click to expand...
Realize what you posted. You might want to delete it.

Aaron was a traumatized/grief stricken playmate of the murdered little children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 117 more.
Total: 3,455 (members: 118, guests: 3,337)

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
3,337
Total visitors
3,455
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,559
Messages
17,970,984
Members
228,809
Latest member
SashaBN1
Back
Top