Is there even a case against Baldwin?

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by reedus23, Oct 24, 2013.

  1. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If a new trial had been granted, would the state even be able to submit a case against Baldwin? In looking for Arkansas law on polygraphs, I cam across this case. http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19861215_0043379.AR.htm/qx

    It got me to thinking, if a new trial was granted, what corroborating evidence is there connecting Baldwin to the murders?

    Carson? No.

    What else is there?

    This case shows how invaluable the softball girls were to the state's case against Echols and might also explain why the state made the crazy assertion that Domini isn't Domini, but rather Domini is Jason.

    Even if you believe every single word of Jessie's so-called "confession", the state could not even submit a case against Jason at this point unless I'm missing something. No wonder he held out as long as he did before accepting the Alford Plea.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is the case against Baldwin which was presented at his trial and there wasn't any testimony of an accomplice in it, so what you quoted from Foster v. State is irrelevant to that case. As for Carson, his vague Hollywood recantation after the three were released doesn't rightly come anywhere close to proving he would've recanted under the hypothetical circumstance you propose, let alone that such a recantation would've stood the test of the prosecution's questioning. Also, the state didn't rightly suggest that "that Domini isn't Domini, but rather Domini is Jason" as you allege, but rather simply that the Hollingsworth's might've mistook Baldwin for Teer. And then of course there's the matter of the knife recovered from the lake behind Baldwin's house which was addressed in detail at trial which the prosecution in your hypothetical trial would be unlikely to dismiss as casually as you do.
     
  4. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How exactly is the knife forensically tied to the murders?
     
  5. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, missing the point. Put yourself in Ellington's shoes. It sounds like you would agree you have Jessie's words, you have Carson's words, you have Hollingsworth's words and you have the knife. Accept Jessie's words as 100% true but Jessie's words alone cannot convict Jason. There needs to be corroborating evidence that tends to connect the defendant to the crime. Not a chance in hell Ellington would use Carson at this point. Frankly, he could possibly be brought up on ethical charges if he tried. Hollingsworth's testimony NEVER say it could have been Jason. That was an inference and an argument proffered by the state. There is ZERO evidence it was Jason and not Domini, only argument. That leaves only the knife. There is ZERO evidence that that knife ever belonged to Jason. There is ZERO evidence that that knife was used in these crimes.

    I stand by what I said. If you are in Ellington's shoes, what do you have to corroborate Jessie's words? I'm not seeing it.
     
  6. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IMO, what I placed in bold type is the crux of the issue here. There is no evidence (but Jessie's inaccurate statements) placing Jason at the crime scene. There is no forensic evidence that the knife was used in the commission of the murders. There is no evidence, forensic or otherwise, that the knife was Jason's. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever (other than Jessie's statements) that Jason was involved. Of course, the same is true of the other two as well.
     
  7. Mrs G Norris

    Mrs G Norris #JeSuisUrsa

    Messages:
    13,580
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Jessie wasn't the first person to suggest Jason was involved in the crime, Damien was.
     
  8. ScarlettScarpetta

    ScarlettScarpetta When the going gets tough, drink coffee

    Messages:
    12,667
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't believe there is enough on any of them to bring a case. I think had this been tried today rather than when it was it never would have gotten to trial. Not with these 3 defendants.
     
  9. Cappuccino

    Cappuccino Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's not true. Damien suggested Jason Howard Baldwin and LG Hollingsworth as suspects, he never suggested Charles Jason Baldwin. I believe the similarity of the two names may have confused you.
     
  10. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If witness testimony put Echols near the crime scene with Domini, both covered in incriminating mud, and...

    .. seeing as this was seen to be evidence of Echols' guilt, and...

    ...the eyewitnesses were believed, regarding Echols and their ability to discern him definitely as himself..

    .. then why was Domini never also arrested or regarded as a serious suspect? Why is the witness' eyesight spectacular enough to positively ID Echols, but not to put Domini also at the crime scene? Or indeed, for those who believe it was Baldwin seen, also unable to tell a male from a female they personally knew?

    ,,, I realise there's endless, endless, quibbling about this already in existence. But this point has always very much bothered me.
     
  11. gheckso

    gheckso New Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How was Jason Howard Baldwin cleared or investigated? I see his uncle had a history of sexual abusing children and not much went into clearing him as far as I can see. Just on that, how can someone be cleared through a polygraph but holds no weight in a court?
     
  12. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's nothing spectacular about what the Hollingsworths described, and they didn't put anyone at the scene, but only near it, which isn't enough to arrest anyone for. I'm in not rightly in any position to know how seriously Teer was ever considered a suspect though, and doubt anyone else here is either. Also, I've never seen anyone proclaim it had to be Baldwin the Hollingsworths saw, but I don't rule out the possibility that it might have been given the similarity in appearance between Baldwin and Teer at the time, particularly given the similarity between how the Hollingsowrths described the clothing and how Misskelley described Baldwin as having been dressed that night.
     
  13. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IMO, the reason Domini wasn't arrested was because the police had their suspects, and Domini wasn't one. That's why the identification of Domini by the Hollingsworth clan was morphed into Jason by the prosecution. I don't know if the police had pity on her or if there was some other nefarious reason why, but the bottom line is still "Damien Echols tunnel vision" that wiped out any other suspects.
     
  14. Mrs G Norris

    Mrs G Norris #JeSuisUrsa

    Messages:
    13,580
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Do you think it's possible Domini went down there after the crime? I have wondered if she might have gone down there and met Damien and walked back with him as described with Jason leaving before hand.
     
  15. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure, or perhaps she just met up with Echols near by and got mud all over herself by hugging him, or maybe she was actually there during the murders but Misskelley didn't want her to get in trouble for what Echols got her into and hence chose not to implicate her. Regardless, absent any evidence which actually implicates someone in a crime a judge can't rightly issue a search warrant regarding them, let alone an arrest warrant for them, and at least as far as I've seen there's no evidence that Teer took part in the murders.
     
  16. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Take your word for it. Not going to argue if he did or not because the simple fact is, that wouldn't be evidence. Wasn't evidence the first time and wouldn't have been evidence the 2nd time.
     
  17. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So true. Not just in this case, in any case, it is almost unheard of that an attorney puts on a witness whom they also have to call into question their credibility. To tell a jury "Believe him/her when he says X, but they were wrong when they say Y".
     
  18. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My take is that the only use polygraphs have is to trip someone up like they did Jessie. Whether they pass it or not almost matters none. But can you trip them up by telling them they failed. That is one of the many problems with Jessie's "confessions" because of his mental faculties, he was more susceptible to being tripped up regardless of guilty or innocence.
     
  19. reedus23

    reedus23 New Member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They couldn't have a female defendant, particularly a pregnant or new mom one. Too much of a risk that a jury would feel sympathy.
     
  20. missy_g

    missy_g New Member

    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is kind of unrelated but I was watching an Episode of Dexter and the one investigator told Dexter to do his analysis but make it look like the crime happened the way they wanted and now how it really happened. Of course Dexter didn't follow that demand and told them the evidence pointed to a different scenario altogether.
     
  21. kyleb

    kyleb New Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't recall that episode off hand, but know there are plenty of others where Dexter falsified evidence to suit his own ends. That's how sociopaths operate, and Dexter fooled a lot of people, much like Echols continues to.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice