Question For The Nons...

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by EntreNous, Sep 6, 2010.

  1. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what's it to ya? seriously, what does it matter to you if the courts take another, very careful look at this case and all facets thereof with fresh eyes and ears? if you are so certain that all the evidence clearly shows the correct 3 have been convicted with one sentenced to death, surely the outcome will be the same and everyone will be able to sleep well knowing that any doubt had been squelched, once and for all.
    the bickering, questioning, rallying will finally be put to bed and then all involved with the initial investigation, trials, etc. will be able to hold their heads high with respect and without question. heck, there might even be commendations in order for these men and their work. if you are so sure, don't you want them vilified?
    why is there such scrambling to keep any new evidence from coming to light? why is there such scrambling to immediately discredit any new evidence findings?
    wouldn't the smart thing be to address everything professionally and in the open to avoid even the slightest inkling of doubt?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I respect the opinions of those who've actually heard and seen the evidence.
    How many more times do the courts have to take another look at this case exactly?

    Three different courts already have, over and over again, and they have all came to the same conclusion the jurors did - And this process isn't free.

    You expect the taxpayers to keep paying and paying until you get the verdicts you want?
    As it has in every appeal for a decade and a half.

    How much is enough?
    Personally, I sleep fine, and I'm not interested in burdening Arkansas residents with another incredible expense to squelch doubts of people who can't be bothered to objectively review the original trials.

    Convicts are fully entitled to file motions for new trials - all they need is proof that they were wrongfully convicted.

    There's nothing in the constitution about getting a "do-over" simply because some people watched a movie, and "feel" they were wrongfully convicted.
    No it won't.

    I have yet to see a single supporter who would accept a second guilty verdict any more readily than they accept the first ones, or the many appellate decisions which followed.

    The typical supporter reaction to every new Misskelley statement which comes to light bears this out.

    There is absolutely nothing that will convince someone with an emotional investment in these convicts that they are guilty - They won't even consider the possibility.
    There already are from the folks who know them and the work that they did.
    There isn't.

    There just hasn't been any new evidence come to light which hasn't been completely fabricated by the Defense.

    That's why there's never been a successful appeal.
    That might seem to be the smart thing to those who have doubts, but they are an overwhelming minority of the people who are actually familiar with the facts of this case.

    But let's get to the real issue here.

    When you call on a supporter to answer that million dollar question - why do they believe the three are innocent, there's only ever been one answer.

    "I'm not saying they are innocent - I'm just saying they deserve a new trial."

    Well, until the Defense can come up with an answer to that million dollar question - they aren't going to get a new trial - nor should they.

    It's really just as simple as that.
     
  4. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you missed the point. there has been two trials for the 3. the request is for another trial for each of them. the question is... what's it to ya? they are asking for new trials. the key word is: TRIALS. can you answer the question asked and not several other mentions of things that were NOT asked?

    one more question, if you will. are you in the habit of favoring killing a human being when jury misconduct, zero DNA evidence is found linking the convicted, no murder weapon, no eye witnesses linking the convicted to the victims, or even any prior contact between the convicted and the victims?

    please, simply answer the questions. no spin.
     
  5. Sunnyone

    Sunnyone Former Member

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the answer to this question is in the thread "why unfair trial". They weren't, therefore why would they deserve a new trial.

    I could site numerous reasons why Charles Manson deserves a new trial, or Scott Peterson, or any convicted murderer, doesn't make it right, won't make it happen. The courts decide if the appeal for a new trial has merit, and so far... in this case.. it's been denied for 17 years now.
     
  6. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I didn't.
    And failed appeal after failed appeal.
    They have all formally requested new trials numerous times.

    They were denied.

    You know why?

    Because there is no new evidence.

    There is simply no justification for new trials.
    My answer remains the same.

    Until they present legal justification for new trials, then they haven't earned right to burden the taxpayer for the cost.
    But they have failed to provide any justification for them.
    Then they already had them.

    If the key word is NEW, then they need to present justification just like any other convict.
    I did.

    Several times.
    You seemed confused.

    You asked what would be the problem with the courts carefully looking at the case again with new eyes.

    I pointed out that several courts already had many times in the last decade and a half.

    If you want to say that doesn't count, then just say so, but don't edit your question and then claim I failed to address it.
    You bet.
    Nope.

    I don't FAVOR killing a human being under ANY circumstances.

    But let's proceed beyond your obvious baiting and address the remainder of your rhetoric.
    It would appear you are in the habit of accepting Defense.allegations as fact.

    This is why there's such a discrepancy between your opinion, and that of the courts and jurors.
    Except for those pesky foreign alleles on Moore's penile swab, and Branch's bindings which were in fact consistent with the convicts.

    You know, the two of the three foreign alleles that the Defense didn't request any further testing on?

    But as the DNA evidence applies to a motion for re-trial?

    The Arkansas Act 1780 Scientific evidence statute is very clear.

    In order for a claim to have merit, the results must generate new non cummulative evidence of actual innocence.

    Non cummulative means evidence that wasn't presented during trial.

    The Defense raised the lack of biological evidence at trial, so raising it again is cummulative, and without merit.
    Branch and Moore drowned.

    I watched video of the police pumping gallons of the murder weapon from the creek.
    Well, except for the sworn confessions from an accomplice who even maintained his participation to his nown attorneys in private.
    What does that have to do with anything?
    Please don't couch your questions in patently false information.

    Your personal opinion that the evidence in this case is weak doesn't give you the right to deny it exists.

    There are those on this board who are objectively seeking the facts of this case, and it's not fair to them.

    If you wish to challenge the evidence, then by all means do so, but let the readers here weigh it's merit for themselves - don't try to hide it from them.
     
  7. nephers

    nephers New Member

    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dirty Larry,

    I am one of those people that is trying to find the actual facts of this case, not an opinion based narritive, actual facts. I know I could read the trial transcripts, but I don't want to go there just yet. I would like to start from the beginning, pre-trial hearings, trial, appeals. I would like to see what the evidence is, why things where allowed at trial and why they weren't etc. I've been reading up on this case the last few days and for the life of me, cannot find a non-opinion based site. Can you please point me in the right direction?
     
  8. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm afraid I can't.

    The closest thing to an unbiased site is Callahan's where the trial transcripts are.

    Even my own site is biased - although the members there are more prone to supporting their claims with documentation than most other sites - it is biased none the less, and I readily admit this.

    There really are no shortcuts I'm afraid.

    I realize the trial transcripts are a challenge, even given the fact that both trials lasted less than two months total - it's taken me years to fully take them in.

    And i'm not going to ask you to accept my views anymore than anyone else's, but I will certainly try to the best of my ability to guide you toward any information you feel will answer whatever questions you have.

    Short of that, all you can really do is read with an open mind, and try to seperate fact from opinion.

    I will say that the case isn't nearly as complex as the media would lead you to believe.

    Supporters constantly refer to the many unanswered questions in this case, but for the most part, they are simply answers supporters refuse to accept.
     
  9. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    23,603
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "What's it to ya"? OK that phrase in itself can appear to be baiting. I chose to leave it but see that it just keeps coming back.

    Please refrain from this. There is no need to bait or to goad.

    Keep it mature and stick to the facts and your opinions please.

    Tricia
     
  10. nephers

    nephers New Member

    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks so much....Shortly after I asked you, I found mention of Callahans site. I'm going to dive in there and figure out a starting point.

    The reason I didn't want to start with trial transcripts is because I know there is often evidence, witness statements, etc. that doesn't make it to trial. I would like to see all of that stuff first, then see why it wasn't admitted or was admitted. I want to do it that way because many people site misconduct on the part of the Judge or prosecution. I would like to form my own opinion on that.

    I'm a good, solid, fence sitter right now. I've spent the last few days researching (after reading an article about celebrities being involved) and I just don't know yet. I've become interested enough to get down and dirty. I'm afraid my boyfriend will be upset that I've found a new case to research while awaiting the Casey Anthony trial :)
     
  11. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't take that particular phrase as baiting myself, however the poster asking me if I have a habit of favoring the killing of human beings was more than a little offensive.

    But I will leave that for the admins to sort it out -
     
  12. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that's an excellent idea.

    You no longer have to limit yourself to the evidence presented at trial, because the trials are over.

    Now EVERYTHING is admissable.

    I will say that from my own research, on key issues Burnett ruled in favor of the Defense more often than the State.

    One example was the luminol testing.

    As you probably know, luminol is often admitted, but Burnett chose not to admit it.

    As a result, the Defense took advantage of this, and hammered away that there was "no blood" found at the scene - a tactic the film makers used quite effectively - and an argument supporters still heavily rely on.

    It wasn't until the Prosecution requested a hearing to ccomplain that Burnett warned the Defense if they persisted in this tactic that he may well reverse his initial ruling and allow the luminol.

    http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/luminolhearing.html
     
  13. emmaline

    emmaline Former Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I would like to know is why you think a re-trial will give us all the answers? How many times have the 3 been given the opportunity to appeal their sentences? They've been rejected every time and every single time it's always the same "oooh that judge is corrupt" "oh that prosecutor was corrupt" "oh the high court are all in on this big conspiracy". What difference will it make? Say Damien is granted an appeal at federal level and it's rejected, will you back down and say "Okay, I guess he really is guilty" or will you continue to cry injustice? This will never end, re-trial or not, that is why I believe nons are so against it. A re-trial suggests there was something wrong with the result of the first one. I'm not a non, but I'm also not stupid enough to believe supporters will just drop this if the 3 are given a re-trial.
     
  14. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To me, a supporter claiming that just one more quilty verdict will settle this in their minds is like a junky asking for just one more hit.

    Or to quote Perry Ferrell from Jane's addiction... "I'm go-nna kick tomorrrrrr-ow".

    And as we all know,... tomorrow never comes.
     
  15. Tricia

    Tricia Owner Websleuths.com Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    23,603
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't care if you write out an insult to a member and make it sound polite and intelligent. It is still an insult. Stop it.

    We have too much to do on this forum than to babysit here.

    Stop the insults, stop the baiting, or next time banning will take place.

    Every day thousands of people post on Websleuths without a problem. It can be done.
     
  16. emmaline

    emmaline Former Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. The ONLY reason supporters want a re-trial is because they are convinced that a re-trial means freedom. A re-trial is something to strive for, something to work toward, but realistically if they get there and they're convicted all over again we will be back to square one.

    Who is insulting who?
     
  17. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since my post was the only one edited, I think it's safe to assume she feels it was me.

    Go figure?
     
  18. emmaline

    emmaline Former Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I must have missed the "insult"...


    So Entre Nous, do you honestly believe "everyone will be able to sleep well knowing that any doubt had been squelched, once and for all" if the 3 receive re-trials and they're re-convicted? Do any other supporters here believe this will be the case?
     
  19. Dirty larry

    Dirty larry Former Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There wasn't one on my part.

    Entre Nous made an incredibly offensive comment, and I graciously dismissed it as an overly emotional reaction from an otherwise rational person.

    There was no other interpretation of my response, but none the less, it was removed and bookmarked as an insult.

    I suspect most folks reading here can see where this is heading,.... and why.
     
  20. emmaline

    emmaline Former Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll bet there are quite a few nons out there who are feeling very much like this:

     
  21. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    though i'm not an addict, i LOVE me some jane's addiction so i have to give you props for that! it made me smile, so kudo's to you.

    tricia, i totally understand your point. that aside, i was not insulted in the least. it's nice to know that even though we may disagree, we can connect here on some level and that, to my anyway, means a lot.

    "what's it to ya?" is a popular phrase in tennessee and possibly other parts of the south. kinda like "fuhget about it!" or "whataya gonna do?" is popular and accepted slang in parts of the northeast. since this is a southern case and most folks here are southern, i think, or at least i thought that was a given. if we keep injecting trouble where there is none, we will never progress.
     

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