West Memphis Three

haffajappa

I just erad this in a CNN article

The state argues that under Arkansas law, Echols' defense team did not have the right to test the DNA because they did not first prove he was innocent. West Memphis police and the lead prosecutors, who are both now judges, have long considered the case closed.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FF'd UP THAT IS? :shock:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guilty til proven innocent. :roll:

Byrnzie

haffajappa wrote:

I just erad this in a CNN article

The state argues that under Arkansas law, Echols' defense team did not have the right to test the DNA because they did not first prove he was innocent. West Memphis police and the lead prosecutors, who are both now judges, have long considered the case closed.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FF'd UP THAT IS? :shock:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guilty til proven innocent. :roll:

And this:

'Assistant Attorney General David Roupp argued the evidence has to prove innocence, not raise questions.'

So, despite new DNA testing which has produced nothing to tie Echols to the scene of the crime, along with the statement from a witness - which at the time of the original trial was witheld by the police - that 'she was on the phone with Echols at 9 o'clock which would have made his participation in the crime impossible', the earlier conviction still stands based on the fact that Echols wore black clothes and read books on the occult?

The authorities are clearly just reluctant to admit that the initial conviction was based on a fraudulent trial, supported by police coercion, corruption, and incompetence.

haffajappa

Byrnzie wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

I just erad this in a CNN article

The state argues that under Arkansas law, Echols' defense team did not have the right to test the DNA because they did not first prove he was innocent. West Memphis police and the lead prosecutors, who are both now judges, have long considered the case closed.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW FF'd UP THAT IS? :shock:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not guilty til proven innocent. :roll:

And this:

'Assistant Attorney General David Roupp argued the evidence has to prove innocence, not raise questions.'

So, despite new DNA testing which has produced nothing to tie Echols to the scene of the crime, along with the statement from a witness - which at the time of the original trial was witheld by the police - that 'she was on the phone with Echols at 9 o'clock which would have made his participation in the crime impossible', the earlier conviction still stands based on the fact that Echols wore black clothes and read books on the occult?

The authorities are clearly just reluctant to admit that the initial conviction was based on a fraudulent trial, supported by police coercion, corruption, and incompetence.

and they're willing to kill a man for it.

polaris_x

what ever happened to: "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about?"

i guess killing an innocent man is much better than admitting someone made a mistake ... :(

Gern Blansten

I watched some of Paradise Lost yesterday...

If you haven't watched it in awhile I recommend it.

Byrnzie

CR 08-1493 - Damien Wayne Echols v. State of Arkansas, from Craighead Circuit, Western District

http://www.arkansasonline.com/supremevideo/

JonnyPistachio

if you all had to guess, what will be happening with the WM3 this same time next year?

_

JonnyPistachio wrote:

if you all had to guess, what will be happening with the WM3 this same time next year?

I think they'll still be in prison. Even if things start turning out in their favor, the wheels of justice move slowly. :(

JonnyPistachio

scb wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

if you all had to guess, what will be happening with the WM3 this same time next year?

I think they'll still be in prison. Even if things start turning out in their favor, the wheels of justice move slowly. :(

yeah it sure is slow... I hope that they are at least granted a new trial. Maybe I should've said "where will they be in 2-3 years?"