West Memphis Three

Byrnzie

decides2dream wrote:

you would think, right?

for me, the point is....there IS a lot of grey around these convictions, enough so that many question the validity of these convictions, and rightly so. if they ARE murderers, well they are right wehre they belong and any further evidence would just support that, no? more importantly, if they ARE innocent...a grave disservice has been done to these men, our justice system has failed...taken years away from them.....and we absolutely DO need to know who commited these crimes so that justice can rightly be served. idk what to believe, all i do know is there definitely seems far enough questioning and speculation that it only seems right and fair that further investigation is done to right it all, one way or another. i would also think that the parents of these children would want to know that the RIGHT men are in prison for the crimes commited against their children. maybe they are in prision right now...maybe they aren't...and i think it should be reevaluated.

You could have just said "There are enough inconsistencies surrounding this case to warrant a re-trial".

Byrnzie

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Hey Byrnzie....

Go do some research on Damien Echols.....

You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.

Eddie must be a really bad judge of character. He spent 5 hours with him a week ago and regards him as a fine individual, and is convinced of his innocence. Maybe he should have consulted you first.

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Hey Byrnzie....

Go do some research on Damien Echols.....

You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.

Eddie must be a really bad judge of character. He spent 5 hours with him a week ago and regards him as a fine individual, and is convinced of his innocence. Maybe he should have consulted you first.

for some reason i see it kind of like in the big lebowski....speedy sitting there in a limo saying 'some new shit has come to light, man....' to Ed and Kelly Curtis

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

and what of OJ?

I can play that game too....

What of Charles Manson??? That guy NEVER murdered anyone....right???

But that piece of shit is rotting in prison...right????

That's right, Manson didn't kill anyone. So why is he in jail? Something to do with a sensationalistic media and an upcoming, ambitious, crooked lawyer called Vincent Bugliosi.

You've got to be joking about this one, right?

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Hey Byrnzie....

Go do some research on Damien Echols.....

You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.

Eddie must be a really bad judge of character. He spent 5 hours with him a week ago and regards him as a fine individual, and is convinced of his innocence. Maybe he should have consulted you first.

Shit, if Ed can tell a person's soul/guilt after 5 hours, why do we have a justice system? We could just have Ed sit down with suspects for 5 hours and tell us if he thinks they're guilty and not bother with trials ever!

There are a lot of problems with the WM3 case and they may or may not be guilty, but regardless the "Ed thinks he's too nice to be guilty" argument is incredibly stupid.

TriumphantAngel

Byrnzie wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Hey Byrnzie....

Go do some research on Damien Echols.....

You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.

Eddie must be a really bad judge of character. He spent 5 hours with him a week ago and regards him as a fine individual, and is convinced of his innocence. Maybe he should have consulted you first.

eddie is also switched on enough to realise, that he is brilliant and talented musician and not the messiah. not all of his fans are disciples and go along with whatever eddie believes in. speedy should be allowed to speak freely and have his opinions heard without the 'eddie vedder fan boy card' pulled on him.

TriumphantAngel

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Hey Byrnzie....

Go do some research on Damien Echols.....

You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.

irrelevant speedy. you have a guy sitting on death row, convicted of a crime he may not be guilty of. there's so much conflicting information surrounding the case, i just don't know. Have you read up on Misskelleys confession? That's the only 'evidence' they have, and it's full of inconsistencies that do not match crime scenes and victims injuries.

something is not right..

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

You've got to be joking about this one, right?

Nope. Manson was innocent, and Bugliosi admitted Manson was innocent in his book.

I suppose you're of the opinion that Manson was a devil worshiper who brainwashed his 'followers' into killing for him?

Anyway, back to topic . Start another thread if you like.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Hey Byrnzie....

Go do some research on Damien Echols.....

You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.

Eddie must be a really bad judge of character. He spent 5 hours with him a week ago and regards him as a fine individual, and is convinced of his innocence. Maybe he should have consulted you first.

Shit, if Ed can tell a person's soul/guilt after 5 hours, why do we have a justice system? We could just have Ed sit down with suspects for 5 hours and tell us if he thinks they're guilty and not bother with trials ever!

There are a lot of problems with the WM3 case and they may or may not be guilty, but regardless the "Ed thinks he's too nice to be guilty" argument is incredibly stupid.

Because reading my above post would clearly lead one to believe that Ed simply decided on a whim to go and sit down with Damien Echols for 5 hours and then proclaim his innocence, right?

The "Ed thinks he's too nice to be guilty" argument may be incredibly stupid, but then nobody here remotely suggested that. That's just a way of twisting what people say in order to get your point across - though I've no idea what your point is.

Byrnzie

TriumphantAngel wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Hey Byrnzie....

Go do some research on Damien Echols.....

You will discover what a sick, disgusting, piece of human garbage that guy is.

Eddie must be a really bad judge of character. He spent 5 hours with him a week ago and regards him as a fine individual, and is convinced of his innocence. Maybe he should have consulted you first.

eddie is also switched on enough to realise, that he is brilliant and talented musician and not the messiah. not all of his fans are disciples and go along with whatever eddie believes in. speedy should be allowed to speak freely and have his opinions heard without the 'eddie vedder fan boy card' pulled on him.

O.k, I'll pretend to play your game...Eddie Vedder - aka 'The Messiah' - decided on a whim to jump on the Memphis 3 case in order to appear to be cool, or something - and so last week he just happened to be in the area and so decided to pop in and spend 5 hours with Damien Echols. After this meeting Ed is now convinced of Damien Echol's innocence. Therefore, what we can all assume is that Ed Vedder is an asshole who never carries out any detailed prior research into issues such as those involving the murder of 3 youths. He simply jumps unthinkingly into these cases/causes in order to appear to be right-on, and to gain the favour of lefties and wackjobs.

Thanks to Soulsinging and TriumphantAngel for putting me in my place, and showing me the light.

Byrnzie

Yep, this case sure does show, without any shadow of a doubt, what a sick, disgusting piece of human garbage Damien Echols is:


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/0 ... index.html

November 8, 2007

Defense: New evidence may clear 'West Memphis Three'

'...Defense attorneys for death row inmate Damien Echols say they have uncovered forensic evidence that could spare their client's life and help clear his co-defendants as well...

In court papers filed last week, attorneys for Echols stated that -- even with DNA testing unavailable in 1993 -- they have uncovered no forensic evidence tying the three to the murders of Christopher Byers, Steven Branch and James Michael Moore. But DNA that might belong to two other men was found in hairs found at the crime scene, the documents state...

In their court papers, Echols' defense team pointed out that there is no physical evidence linking the three men convicted to the three boys slain. No hairs, no fibers, and not a shred of DNA.

"We are saying is that there's no credible evidence that links any of these defendants to the crime," said Dennis Riordan, San Francisco-based defense attorney.

Riordan said a team of seven forensic scientists has reviewed the autopsy results, photographs and trial testimony. As part of a 200-plus page filing, the experts concluded there was no evidence of sexual abuse or any type of satanic killing.

They also found that the injuries on the bodies of the boys -- which prosecutors called mutilation -- actually were caused by animals after the boys were killed.

Echols' lawyers maintained that it's not their job to solve the crime, only to show that their client wasn't involved. But the defense team said two hairs found at the crime scene could belong to one of the victim's stepfathers and the man's friend.

"The new DNA evidence is that one hair that was found in the ligature of the shoelaces that bound Michael Moore is consistent with the DNA of Terry Hobbs, who is the father of Stevie Branch," Lax told CNN.

He continued: "Another hair that had been found at the crime scene, which had been unidentified for all these years, has just recently been tested. And the DNA on that hair is consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby. David Jacoby is a good friend or was a good friend of Terry Hobbs, and Terry Hobbs was at his house just that afternoon and evening."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3

'...In September 2008, Judge David Burnett (Circuit Court) denied Echols' application for a hearing on the new DNA evidence. Hearings for Baldwin and Misskelley are scheduled to continue in August, 2009.

In May, 2008, an affidavit was provided to the defense attorneys by Lloyd Warford, a former prosecutor and head of the Arkansas Department of Human Services. In the affidavit, Warford states that during the trial of Echols and Baldwin, he was contacted by Kent Arnold, the jury foreman, who indicated he had begun the trial with a strong prejudgment as to the guilt of the defendants, that the State "had presented a weak circumstantial case" and that "it would be up to him to obtain a conviction."[cite this quote] Arnold then stated that he intended to ensure the other jurors of a statement made by defendant Misskelley, which was inadmissible in the Echols Baldwin trial. In April, 2009, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed to hear argument concerning the juror misconduct issue, which legal observers indicate will probably result in the vacating of the Echols Baldwin convictions.[2]

Echols' next stage in the legal process is an appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Unless that court reverses the conviction, he will proceed to federal court on his pending writ of habeas corpus...'

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Shit, if Ed can tell a person's soul/guilt after 5 hours, why do we have a justice system? We could just have Ed sit down with suspects for 5 hours and tell us if he thinks they're guilty and not bother with trials ever!

There are a lot of problems with the WM3 case and they may or may not be guilty, but regardless the "Ed thinks he's too nice to be guilty" argument is incredibly stupid.

Because reading my above post would clearly lead one to believe that Ed simply decided on a whim to go and sit down with Damien Echols for 5 hours and then proclaim his innocence, right?

The "Ed thinks he's too nice to be guilty" argument may be incredibly stupid, but then nobody here remotely suggested that. That's just your usual tactic of twisting what people say in order to get your point across - though I've no idea what your point is.

Then I suppose I don't know what your point is either. What has Ed's opinion on the WM3 got to do with anything?

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

You've got to be joking about this one, right?

Nope. Manson was innocent, and Bugliosi admitted Manson was innocent in his book.

I suppose you're of the opinion that Manson was a devil worshiper who brainwashed his 'followers' into killing for him?

Anyway, back to topic . Start another thread if you like.

No, I'm of the opinion that he's a charismatic paranoid schizophrenic that conspired with his groupies to commit murder for bizarre pseudo-social/political reasons, but was smart enough to not do any of the killing directly.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Then I suppose I don't know what your point is either. What has Ed's opinion on the WM3 got to do with anything?

This is a Pearl Jam fans message board.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

No, I'm of the opinion that he's a charismatic paranoid schizophrenic that conspired with his groupies to commit murder for bizarre pseudo-social/political reasons, but was smart enough to not do any of the killing directly.

And you base this opinion on what exactly?

I've read Bugliosi's book. I've also read the book 'Manson in his own words'.


Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion. Start another thread if you're interested in this subject.,

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Then I suppose I don't know what your point is either. What has Ed's opinion on the WM3 got to do with anything?

This is a Pearl Jam fans message board.

I'm not following. This is a political forum, supposedly for reasoned debate. "Ed thinks they're innocent" is not a good reason to believe they are.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

No, I'm of the opinion that he's a charismatic paranoid schizophrenic that conspired with his groupies to commit murder for bizarre pseudo-social/political reasons, but was smart enough to not do any of the killing directly.

And you base this opinion on what exactly?

I've read Bugliosi's book. I've also read the book 'Manson in his own words'.

Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion. Start another thread if you're interested in this subject.,

Couple of documentaries and interview footage I've seen featuring Charlie Manson himself. If you think that guy is not mentally disturbed... well, it would explain a lot I guess. But I'm not that interested in the subject, so I guess I'll leave it at that.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Couple of documentaries and interview footage I've seen featuring Charlie Manson himself. If you think that guy is not mentally disturbed... well, it would explain a lot I guess. But I'm not that interested in the subject, so I guess I'll leave it at that.

He enjoys playing the fool and the 'psycho' for his own amusement because he knows that the U.S public lap it up - which may also explain why these wacky videos are such a hit. Anyway...

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Then I suppose I don't know what your point is either. What has Ed's opinion on the WM3 got to do with anything?

This is a Pearl Jam fans message board.

I'm not following. This is a political forum, supposedly for reasoned debate. "Ed thinks they're innocent" is not a good reason to believe they are.

Maybe not, but if you have any respect for the man then his involvement in this case and his belief in these boys innocence should at least be reason enough to make you look at the details of the case - and maybe contribute to this thread topic in some way. Or maybe, like the Manson case, you're really just not that interested?

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

I'm not following. This is a political forum, supposedly for reasoned debate. "Ed thinks they're innocent" is not a good reason to believe they are.

Maybe not, but if you have any respect for the man then his involvement in this case and his belief in these boys innocence should at least be reason enough to make you look at the details of the case - and maybe contribute to this thread topic in some way. Or maybe, like the Manson case, you're really just not that interested?

I'm always interested in miscarriages of justice. But not because Ed Vedder says so. All I'm saying is that your response to speedy about Ed thinking he's innocent was a lame fanboy kind of response. There is plenty of evidence that justice wasn't done in this case. Ed's involvement is not.

As to Manson, I'm not interested. There was no miscarriage of justice there. And I don't much feel like debating it with someone who is so far gone that he thinks the guy that carved a swastika into his forehead is a rational victim of some vast conspiracy to convict him for... no apparent reason. Don't tell me he's playing it up for cameras. I have a schizophrenic uncle and when he wasn't taking medication, he spoke in the exact same manner as Manson. You don't fake that.