Attorney Dennis Riordan

[ziggy]

I suggested to my Graduating Class of 2013 future lawyers that we ask Dennis Riordan to be our guest speaker. He is here in SF (the school is in Santa Rosa as is the graduation venue). My class was unanimous that this was a great idea.

Does anyone who follows here know him? I'm putting the feelers out to anyone who might communicate with those close to the case or those close to the case who lurk here. WE WANT DENNIS!!!

The Dean of my school will contact him if none of us can find a good way to approach him.

I've been on this forum for YEARS and YEARS. I watched his oral argument live streaming and watched and read everything I could on the case. Despite preferring to be a prosecutor, the work of these San Francisco attorneys and their counterparts in other parts of the country really impressed me.

So, get the message to Riordan if you can. Ziggy has followed you and when she asks you to be guest speaker at graduation, please say yes!!!

 

[ziggy]

Bump: had some views but no posts.

 

[Cappuccino]

The Dean of my school will contact him if none of us can find a good way to approach him

The Dean of your school is probably the best person to approach him.

 

[ziggy]

My ex boss said he knows someone from his Calamari Club that knows him. He's working on it!!! Exciting!

 

[news247]

hope you are successful

 

[Compassionate Reader]

ziggy,

I, too, hope you are successful. I, too, was impressed by his oral argument. Have you tried to contact Arkansas Takes Action or any of the other supporter groups? ATA might be able to hook you up. Or possibly Mara Leveritt. Please let us know if you are successful.

(BTW, I've been out of the loop for a while due to eye surgery.)

 

[kyleb]

I was disappointed in what I saw of Dennis Riordan in West of Memphis, where he proffers an argument that prosecutor John Fogleman "knew that knife in the lake had nothing to do with the crime" because "the same people who told him it was in the lake let him know that it was thrown into the lake a year before the crime." Surely anyone who ponders on that argument for a bit can recognition the possibility that whoever told Fogleman of the knife either misremembered or misrepresented the timeline, but Riordan apparently failed to ever accomplish as much before saying what he did on camera.

Beyond that, Riordan isn't even shown name who he's claiming originally told Fogleman either, which makes it difficult to determine of Fogleman's claim has any basis in reality at all. Granted, that might well be the fault of the filmmakers rather than Riordan, but either way it leaves open the question of who he might be referring to. The closest thing to an answer I've been able to find is this 2006 affidavit from Sam Dwyer which says in part:

I arrived at Jason’s trailer just after Jason’s mom had thrown a knife into the lake. At the time, Jason’s Mom was walking toward the trailer from the direction of the lake. Jason was at the trailer and was mad that she had just thrown his knife into the lake. I remember that Jason said something about going to get the knife.

The knife was thrown into the lake before the three boys turned up missing. I do not recall exactly how long before it was, but I remember that it definitely happened before the boys were found dead in Robin Hood Woods.

However, noting in Dwyer's statement suggests he recalls the indecent happening a year before the murders, nor does he claim to be the person who originally told Fogleman that a knife could be found in the lake. So I'm curious, does anyone here have any idea who exactly Riordan might have been alluding to in all of this?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think the important thing about Dwyer's statement is that he was sure that the knife was thrown into the lake before the bodies were found. That means before the murders as I believe had the knife-throwing occurred on May 5, 1993, Dwyer would have remembered that. Riordan may well have another informant with a more precise timeline, but Dwyer's testimony is sufficient to establish that the Lake knife could not have been the murder weapon. Of much more interest, in case you are unaware, is the Rule 37 testimony of forensic experts who have opined that there were no knife wounds on the bodies. So, in short, the knife is irrelevant in this case.

 

[kyleb]

No, Dawyer's statement doesn't prove the claim that the Lake knife could not have been used in the murders, as there's no way to rule out the possibility that Dawyer either misremembered or misrepresented the timeline.

As for the opining of defense experts you mention, yes I'm aware, we've been discussing that with each other over in this thread.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If the Lake knife was thrown into the lake before the murders were committed, it could not have been the murder weapon. Dwyer was sure that the knife he saw thrown into the lake was thrown there before the murders. Therefore, it was not the murder weapon. However, as I said, the knife is irrelevant as the wounds to the boys were not knife wounds.

 

[CatMama3]

If the Lake knife was thrown into the lake before the murders were committed, it could not have been the murder weapon. Dwyer was sure that the knife he saw thrown into the lake was thrown there before the murders. Therefore, it was not the murder weapon. However, as I said, the knife is irrelevant as the wounds to the boys were not knife wounds.

I so admire your patience and well-considered responses. Would others might as well.

 

[kyleb]

Dwyer was sure that the knife he saw thrown into the lake was thrown there before the murders. Therefore, it was not the murder weapon.

I thought I was sure that I left my keys on the end table the other day, but it turned out they were in my coat pocket. What makes Dwyer incapable of such faulty memory, particularly after over a decade between the murders and his statement?

 

[Cappuccino]

I thought I was sure that I left my keys on the end table the other day, but it turned out they were in my coat pocket. What makes Dwyer incapable of such faulty memory, particularly after over a decade between the murders and his statement?

There is no forensic evidence that links the lake knife with either the murder scene or the defendants. It was fished out of a lake behind the trailer park which Jason Baldwin lived in at the time, and pretty much everybody was in the habit of throwing rubbish into the same lake.

So nine months after the murder, Fogleman has a "hunch" and decides to send divers into the communal lake behind Jason's trailer park. They found a knife, and managed to find it in front of a few pet journalists.

What about the Jacoby hair? Is it not important because it was found a month later, (ie, eight months earlier than the lake knife)? Is it not important because it could belong to 7% of the population, (what percentage owned similar types of knife to the lake knife, was it more or less than 7%?)

 

[kyleb]

If you'd first be so kind as to answer my question, I'll be happy to reciprocate by answering yours.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Can Dwyer be mistaken? Sure. He said he wasn't entirely sure of when the knife was thrown into the lake, but he was sure that it was after the murders. Had he said that he saw Jason's mom throw the knife into the lake at 3:30 pm on March 24, 1992, I would certainly question his memory. However, all that is important here is that he is sure that the knife was thrown into the lake before the murders In a small town like West Memphis/Marion, those murders are almost like the JFK assassination, the Challenger explosion or 9/11. For those who lived there at the time, it is a very memorable day. If the knife had been thrown into the lake shortly after the murder, that date would be emblazoned into the witness' brain. Therefore, I believe that Dwyer's memory of the knife being thrown into the lake before the murders is valid.

 

[kyleb]

Therefore, I feel

Heh, feelings, nothing more than feelings. I figured as much. If you could cite some research to substrate your claim that people's memories are flawless regarding the timeline of important events, you'd actually have an argument. But of course you can't, I've seen plenty of examples to prove as much over the years, and I suspect could recall some examples yourself if you stopped letting your feelings get in the way.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Heh, feelings, nothing more than feelings. I figured as much. If you could cite some research to substrate your claim that people's memories are flawless regarding the timeline of important events, you'd actually have an argument. But of course you can't, I've seen plenty of examples to prove as much over the years, and I suspect could recall some examples yourself if you stopped letting your feelings get in the way.

I should have said "believe" instead of "feel" so I fixed it. The point remains, as even you agree, people have vivid memories of the events associated with a personal or public traumatic event.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm not saying that every detail is remembered with total accuracy. However, if that knife had been thrown into the lake after the murders, that would have been remembered. But, once again, there is no forensic evidence tying that knife to the murders and certified forensic pathologists experienced in identifying wounds have stated, under oath, in the Rule 37 hearings, that none of the wounds were caused by knives.

 

[kyleb]

However, if that knife had been thrown into the lake after the murders, that would have been remembered.

That's how you felt and what you've come to believe, but it remains only one among multiple possible scenarios which might have lead to Dwyer's statement.

certified forensic pathologists experienced in identifying wounds have stated, under oath, in the Rule 37 hearings, that none of the wounds were caused by knives.

Please quote what you are alluding to here, I'd like to check the wording of the statements myself before discussing your claim here any further.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here are excerpts from Dr. Werner Spitz's testimony at the Misskelley/Baldwin Rule 37 hearing:

"Looking at the body of Michael Moore (Exhibit 48Q) I see a pattern on the right shoulder. The pattern is shown in other photographs including 48I. The pattern is all part of one event. It is inconsistent with a tool like a serrated knife.This seems to look like the paw of a large animal. There are also scratches that look to me like animal mutilation."

"If you look at the injuries that are on the body, you see claw marks from some kind of a large animal that might be able to go into the water. To better understand that, you have to look at the overlying skin, and I am showing the Judge the totality of the injuries to the head to demonstrate my point. My opinion is that all three boys died of drowning."

These next quotes were related to Steven's autopsy photos:

"Looking at the injuries, which in my opinion you need to look at as a group, I view the injuries to the lips as consistent with those that would have been caused by an animal. I don’t see injuries looking at what you are showing me, including 48R, that is consistent with a beating and a knifing."

"There is a close-up of the left cheek, which is Photograph 48T. These are not knife wounds. Looking at other photographs in this series, including 48U which shows the body further down and 48V which shows the left side of the face, all of these are injuries sustained after death. I am not sure about superficial scratches, but the significant injuries, gouging type and bites, are not bloody. These look like tooth marks from an animal."

The next quotes refer to Christopher's autopsy photos:

"Photograph 48E shows an area of mutilation, a tearing of the genitalia. This was not done by a knife. It shows claw marks."

"Looking at the close-up shots, including 48FF and 48F, I see no evidence of knife wounds. I see claw marks, and irregular wounds that are inconsistent with what a knife would do. A knife would leave a sharp surface."

(http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_spitz2.html)

That is one expert. There are several others. I invite you to read the Abstract for yourself. You will see that the forensic experts, although disagreeing about some things, all agreed that the egregious wounds were not caused by a knife.