WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by Rebdot, Jan 2, 2011.

  1. Rebdot

    Rebdot New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
     


  2. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    First, as you know if you've read any of my posts, I am firmly convinced that the three are innocent. However, I will give you a list of the "evidence" that was presented in the trials:

    In the Miskelley trial, the only real evidence was Jessie's "confession" which I believe (as do experts on false/coerced confessions) was coerced because of his suggestibility due to his limited mental ability.

    In the Echols/Baldwin trial, the following was presented:

    1) Against Echols, statements by a couple of tweens who claimed that they overheard a conversation at a softball game in which he admitted that he killed the little boys, was going to kill two more and then turn himself in. Damien doesn't remember making these statements, but even if he did, it is my opinion that it was typical of his behavior (wanting to say shocking things) and was a defense mechanism against the unacceptance that he felt from the community, even before these murders. Also, the two girls did not claim to be part of the conversation. They only claim that they overheard part of it. One of their mothers has since stated that she didn't believe that the statements were true.

    2) Against Baldwin, a "jailhouse snitch" statement from another juvenile, Michael Carson, who claimed that Jason admitted to him that he committed the crimes. However, Carson's drug counselor (whose name I can never remember) told the defense that he (the counselor) told the facts of the case to Carson before Carson told his story to the police. Unfortunately, while allowing Carson to testify, Burnett disallowed his counselor's testimony at trial. Also, the Arkansas Department of Corrections officials on duty at the time stated that the two (Jason and Michael Carson) were not out of earshot long enough for such a conversation to have taken place.

    3) Against both, fiber evidence. The fiber evidence was weak at best, and Davis (one of the prosecutors) admitted this to the parents and grandparents during a briefing between the trials. The fibers found could be linked to any of probably thousands of garments which could be purchased at the local Wal-mart. They were found to be "microscopically similar" to Jason's mom's bathrobe and a child's shirt found at Damien's residence (or was it Jason's?). The defense has been trying to get permission for a while to retest the fibers with newer methods which could provide more information. Burnett has denied that request, but I believe that when the evidentiary hearing was ordered, those fibers were sent for retesting.

    4) A knife with a serrated blade which was found in the lake behind Jason's trailer home. This knife was not linked in any way to the crime in 1994. It was found about a month after the arrests and no evidence has been released that was found on the knife that would link it to the crime or to either of the defendants. Back in 1994, the theory was that a knife (with a serrated blade) was used to "castrate" Chris Byers. However, since then, several experts (although disagreeing on some points) examined autopsy photos and notes and concluded that the wounds originally attributed to the knife were actually caused by post mortem animal predation.

    Additionally, according to an affidavit by Lloyd Warford, a lawyer, the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial discussed Jessie's "confession" during deliberations, and some jurors have indicated that the confession, which was ruled inadmissible at the Echols/Baldwin trial (because Jessie recanted and refused to testify against the other two), was the major reason they voted to convict. So, to answer your question about evidence in one word, none.

    These boys were convicted because of "Satanic panic" along with the community's and the police department's need to punish someone for these horrendous murders. So, through the malicious machinations of a juvenile officer, the police zeroed in on Damien as the primary suspect, got a mentally challenged youth to "confess" (a story which BTW doesn't match the evidence) and fabricated a case against three poverty-stricken kids who did not have the finances to get proper council. Now, through many different groups, funds for proper council have been forthcoming and the result is that, finally, a new evidentiary hearing has been ordered. We still don't have a date, but most people "in the know" believe that it will be in March or April of this year. It has been suggested by Damien and his wife (and others) that new evidence will be presented at this hearing. All supporters are looking forward to the hearing, whenever it happens.

    One last word, many non supporters point to "Exhibit 500" which is about Damien's mental health as proof that he is the guilty party. All the Exhibit shows (and you can read it for yourself on callahan) is that Damien was a troubled youth. He needed medication at the time. So do many kids today. No matter what mental condition Damien suffered from, his mental state simply doesn't prove that he committed these murders. To properly convict someone of murder, the police need to show motive, opportunity and evidence. The only motive they could find was Satanic ritual. Their expert was shown to have a mail order doctorate. No evidence of Satanic rituals was presented. The opportunity is not there as the three all had alibis. However, since the alibis were provided by family and/or friends, the prosecution chose to discount them. Unfortunately, the defense failed to subpoena phone records which could have confirmed Damien's alibi. It is possible that this failure was because the defense council was inexperienced. It is also possible that the prosecution or the WMPD misled the defense into believing that the phone records were unavailable. Either way, it is an unfortunate situation. The evidence situation has been discussed above. Please feel free to visit the callahan site (which is the depository of court documents) and read for yourself. You can also visit www.wm3.blackboard.com where an ongoing discussion of the trial is carried on by supporters seeking justice for six people, the three little boys killed and the three young men falsely imprisoned for the murders.
     
  3. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    everybodhi and Choochoobella like this.
  4. iluvmua

    iluvmua Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,812
    Likes Received:
    10,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please go here: http://www.wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php

    Here are your answers:

    http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3326&page=10

    Read All of Joseph's Posts.

    He makes a LOT of sense

    Read through pages 10 through 14 for all of his posts.
     
  5. Rebdot

    Rebdot New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Compassionate Reader, although it seems I already do know all the evidence presented, I thought that there had to be more!

    I have visited both these sites recently.

    Iluvmua- These sites I have never seen, thanks.

    :gthanks:
     
  6. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A lot of what that guy on the other board says is his own conclusion, and he admits that he is no expert. The fiber evidence is still inconclusive (at this time) and, as I said before, even the prosecution said that the fiber evidence was weak. After the results from further testing are back, possibly there will be more answers on this front. The shirt and the pendant with blood only show blood types, as that guy said. Blood types can only exclude a donor with certainty because there are a limited number of blood types and so many people share the same blood type. As to his other ramblings, I prefer to believe people who have consulted experts, not researched on their own. The Manhole Theory on the Blackboard (www.wm3.blackboard.com) was researched and developed by consulting experts in various fields. Jessie's "confessions" never agreed with the evidence, even though he kept trying, as someone with his IQ is prone to do in order to please an authority figure. He has recanted his confessions, and he has not confessed since February of 1994. To say that the boys were killed before dark by the teens is not in keeping with the alibis the teens have. Yes, the alibis are from friends and family, but that doesn't mean that they are not true alibis. Much of what is on that thread is a bit outdated now. For example, turtles are not the only possible predators. And, anyone who doesn't believe that turtles can do that damage needs to read this: http://www.bestfx.com/what-the.html. It's the story with a headline about Darwin and about a guy named Dayle Nisi.
     
  7. Rebdot

    Rebdot New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I went to the site and read Joseph's posts, I read about the fibre evidence and I agree that with what your saying Compassionate reader.

    I originally thought they were guilty and then I felt they were innocent, but now I'm on the fence, I do think they were wrongly convicted in the sense that the evidence against them was vauge.
     
  8. iluvmua

    iluvmua Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,812
    Likes Received:
    10,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so I guess 24 people got it wrong then? If there is a trial this time around, You can bet the Prosecution is going to be VERY well prepared.

    If there was enough evidence that TH and his friend committed these murders, they would be arrested and quite simply there is not enough evidence to do so.

    I believe both sides have new evidence and I'm curious to see what both sides have that either point to guilt or innocence.
     
  9. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The juries "got it wrong" because the attorneys for the three were inexperienced and Burnett was a State-leaning judge and made rulings in that direction. And, let's not forget the foreman in the E/B trial who illegally introduced Jessie's confession into the deliberations. Now, the three have good attorneys. We will see what the hearings reveal. I am anxious to see the new evidence, too. It's high time justice was done in this case.
     
  10. Rebdot

    Rebdot New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    I'm not sure, Maybe they are guilty, I have not formed a clear discission yet.

    I would have an issue with finding 3 people guilty based on wishy washy evidence.

    I don't feel comfortable with one person on DR because some fibres were consistent with fibres from items he owned or blood on a necklace is the same blood type as one of the victims but also 11% of the population including one of the acussed, the evidence is so broad and inconclusive.
     
  11. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,119
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Indeed. I don't pretend to know with any certainty who killed those children. For all I know, it could have been anyone in the tri-state area.

    To me, the point is there is insufficient evidence to convict any of the WM3, must less put a man to death.
     
  12. missy_g

    missy_g Member

    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    .I still can't believe that people go by JM confession, some fibers that can come from anywhere, and a blood type that is easily shared to convict 3 men. I want clear cut evidence that can convict them before I make my decision. Im sorry nons, I can't go to that non supporter site the people on there argue like tweens.
    I want to read actual evidence that doesnt include the necklace, confession and fibers
     
  13. missy_g

    missy_g Member

    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    .I still can't believe that people go by JM confession, some fibers that can come from anywhere, and a blood type that is easily shared to convict 3 men. I want clear cut evidence that can convict them before I make my decision. Im sorry nons, I can't go to that non supporter site the people on there argue like tweens.
    I want to read actual evidence that doesnt include the necklace, confession and fibers
     
  14. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  15. Mary456

    Mary456 Active Member

    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    At the sake of sounding like a broken record, Rebdot, have you read the trial transcript?

    As in the Darlie Routier case, that's where the truth lies.
     
    Kennedy Jo likes this.
  16. Rebdot

    Rebdot New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hehe Mary I actually have read about the fibres and the necklace :crazy:
    I have also read and listened to Jessies confession amongst other things. I have not read anything transcript wise or anywhere else in regards to any evidence that is clearly linked to the accussed.?

    I have not read the entire transcripts for this case as yet as I have only just begun.

    Is there something I am missing in regards to evidence? I have read from the Callahan site.

    I take it you believe they are guilty? I am neither here nor there in guilt or innocence.

    I can't believe I had to be told to read the transcripts :tears: how embarrassing
     
  17. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Rebdot,

    As you probably know, the transcripts are also available on callahan. I encourage you to read them, too. The problem is that too often two people will hear and/or read the same thing and have two different understandings. I am a staunch supporter of the innocence of the WM3, and I have read the trial transcripts. Some people who believe the WM3 are guilty also believe that anyone who reads the transcripts will come to that conclusion. People who believe in the innocence of the WM3 believe that anyone who reads the transcripts will come to that conclusion. See what I mean?
     
  18. Mary456

    Mary456 Active Member

    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No, no! I honestly didn't mean it that way.

    What I meant is that we decide guilt or innocence in this country based on a trial. Not on the media, not on celebrities, not on movies or message boards.

    In a trial, both sides are given a fair shot to produce evidence and testimony. The prosecution can attempt to refute the defense, and vice-versa. So it makes sense to start with the transcript, which is an unbiased record of what the jurors saw and heard in the courtroom.

    Nothing wrong with reading the post-trial information on Callahan's, but I sure wouldn't start with it.
     
  19. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But what the trial transcripts don't reveal is the machinations inside the jury room and/or the limited funds available to the "new" lawyers who were appointed for the defendants as a result of their poverty. Yes, the trial transcripts record what happened in the courtroom. They don't reveal tone, facial expressions and other body language. So, although they are definitely something to read and ponder, there is more to the case than is presented in the trial transcripts. Read them, by all means, but don't stop there. Read post-trial information, too. Remember, these murders happened almost two decades ago. There has been a lot of scientific advancement in those two decades, and some of those advancements have shed new light on the "facts" presented at these trials. That's why reading just the transcripts is usually not enough to see the entire picture.
     
  20. Rebdot

    Rebdot New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I'm only kidding Mary :D, I was so careful on the DR forum and I read the transcripts but I was not as careful here and you got me! :blushing:

    I really do appeciate your guidence.

    I have gone back and started reading some info from non supporter sites but I will read some more of the transcripts later on when everyones in bed.
     

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