Well, there's probably enough people who do the opposite to even those people out. The ones that say the did it just because they were given the verdict guilty, as if the system is flawless and no one ever got fucked over by it. Those people piss me off to no end so I can see where you're coming from.
let me take the Eddie fanboy stuff out of the equation and just talking about the case.
You supporters of the WM3 justifiably hate how much of a bullshit trial it was. It wasn't very fair how things like Echols being into satanic stuff or one of them having Metallica lyrics written on their notebook were actually used as evidence against them. that's retarded.
Now people like me who don't support the WM3 are equally frustrated with how much of a bullshit trial it was because though they were found guilty (which I think they are), they weren't fully found guilty on the grounds of the real evidence against them. It's almost as if the jury was "duped." or maybe not. maybe they saw three scummy looking dudes and thought "yeah, they must have done it." that's not how it's supposed to be.
Obviously there can't be a retrial because of double jeopardy but I would love one just as much as you supporters would so it can be proven that they indeed are guilty.
let me take the Eddie fanboy stuff out of the equation and just talking about the case.
You supporters of the WM3 justifiably hate how much of a bullshit trial it was. It wasn't very fair how things like Echols being into satanic stuff or one of them having Metallica lyrics written on their notebook were actually used as evidence against them. that's retarded.
Now people like me who don't support the WM3 are equally frustrated with how much of a bullshit trial it was because though they were found guilty (which I think they are), they weren't fully found guilty on the grounds of the real evidence against them. It's almost as if the jury was "duped." or maybe not. maybe they saw three scummy looking dudes and thought "yeah, they must have done it." that's not how it's supposed to be.
Obviously there can't be a retrial because of double jeopardy but I would love one just as much as you supporters would so it can be proven that they indeed are guilty.
there's no logic in that. another member here has atleast given reason as to why they're innocent. you haven't given any reason as to why you think they're guilty.
if there was evidence to prove they're guilty, then don't you think the prosecutors would use it? obviously the only reason the prosecution used things like music and stuff is to associate the kids with something like the crime, however there was no real evidence to prove it.
innocent until proven guilty. there's no evidence to prove they're guilty. in fact, there's evidence to prove that they're innocent.
let me take the Eddie fanboy stuff out of the equation and just talking about the case.
You supporters of the WM3 justifiably hate how much of a bullshit trial it was. It wasn't very fair how things like Echols being into satanic stuff or one of them having Metallica lyrics written on their notebook were actually used as evidence against them. that's retarded.
Now people like me who don't support the WM3 are equally frustrated with how much of a bullshit trial it was because though they were found guilty (which I think they are), they weren't fully found guilty on the grounds of the real evidence against them. It's almost as if the jury was "duped." or maybe not. maybe they saw three scummy looking dudes and thought "yeah, they must have done it." that's not how it's supposed to be.
Obviously there can't be a retrial because of double jeopardy but I would love one just as much as you supporters would so it can be proven that they indeed are guilty.
there's no logic in that. another member here has atleast given reason as to why they're innocent. you haven't given any reason as to why you think they're guilty.
if there was evidence to prove they're guilty, then don't you think the prosecutors would use it? obviously the only reason the prosecution used things like music and stuff is to associate the kids with something like the crime, however there was no real evidence to prove it.
innocent until proven guilty. there's no evidence to prove they're guilty. in fact, there's evidence to prove that they're innocent.
I said that I think they did it based on the first kid's confession. but I think that they should have been found innocent because the confession was gained illegally and the evidence in the trial wasn't sufficient. so in a nutshell, I think they did it, but they should have got off.
like I said in my last post quoting Vedderlution_Baby!, the unbelievable nature of that trial frustrates even those who think they did it. we THINK they did it, but this trial didn't prove they did it. so as someone who THINKS they did it, I don't lose sleep over their incarceration. those of you who think they didn't do it have the right to be outraged.
also, I know the supporters think that the confession should just be tossed out the window (and it should have been in court) but it's fair game for public opinion. I've read the interview. Some things in his account were disproven (anal rape on the victims for instance) but the very fact that his story went that far says to me that something had to happen.
I said that I think they did it based on the first kid's confession. but I think that they should have been found innocent because the confession was gained illegally and the evidence in the trial wasn't sufficient. so in a nutshell, I think they did it, but they should have got off.
like I said in my last post quoting Vedderlution_Baby!, the unbelievable nature of that trial frustrates even those who think they did it. we THINK they did it, but this trial didn't prove they did it. so as someone who THINKS they did it, I don't lose sleep over their incarceration. those of you who think they didn't do it have the right to be outraged.
also, I know the supporters think that the confession should just be tossed out the window (and it should have been in court) but it's fair game for public opinion. I've read the interview. Some things in his account were disproven (anal rape on the victims for instance) but the very fact that his story went that far says to me that something had to happen.
Something did happen but it didn't involve the three guys suffering for it. Between dna evidence that doesn't point at the wm3 but at one of the stepfathers of one of the victims, bite marks that were found on one of the victims that did not match to any of the wm3, and other evidence that points the opposite way of the wm3, that confession is basically nothing more than a piece of paper with bullshit on it.
My life probably is affected "by someone I don't know who is caring." But why should that make me care about Echols?
On the flipside, Echols has found support from people who don't know him. And that's fine. It's fine for Ed to support him. It's fine for you to support him. It's LAME for people to support him just because Ed does though. The people who heard him sing "free the west memphis 3" on the Touring Band DVD and suddenly become their biggest supporters are who I'm talking about.
My disdain isn't so much for the WM3. My disdain is for Eddie fanboys who blindly follow him. again, I'm not saying you're one because you seem to be very, very, VERY much a supporter of Echols and his co-assailants. But to many others around here, the WM3 is just another PJ-related thing...not unlike Chris Cornell or poster collecting.
It should not make you care about Echols. But I find it strange that you acknowledge a pretty substantial miscarriage of justice and yet be ready to wash your hands and not care. Also, I guess I was calling sad the idea that unless something affects you, your family, and your friends, it is not worthy of your attention or your care. I hope there IS something beyond the scope of your narrow circle that does command your attention and your care.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
Obviously there can't be a retrial because of double jeopardy but I would love one just as much as you supporters would so it can be proven that they indeed are guilty.
See? That's when caring about stuff other than your family and friends comes in handy. Double Jeopardy? Surely you know that someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. If new evidence is found, or new ways of processing it, as it is the case now with the Memphis three, of course the case will be reopened. Interesting that the lawyers of the "co-assailants" would fight so hard to introduce DNA evidence.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
Comments
let me take the Eddie fanboy stuff out of the equation and just talking about the case.
You supporters of the WM3 justifiably hate how much of a bullshit trial it was. It wasn't very fair how things like Echols being into satanic stuff or one of them having Metallica lyrics written on their notebook were actually used as evidence against them. that's retarded.
Now people like me who don't support the WM3 are equally frustrated with how much of a bullshit trial it was because though they were found guilty (which I think they are), they weren't fully found guilty on the grounds of the real evidence against them. It's almost as if the jury was "duped." or maybe not. maybe they saw three scummy looking dudes and thought "yeah, they must have done it." that's not how it's supposed to be.
Obviously there can't be a retrial because of double jeopardy but I would love one just as much as you supporters would so it can be proven that they indeed are guilty.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
if there was evidence to prove they're guilty, then don't you think the prosecutors would use it? obviously the only reason the prosecution used things like music and stuff is to associate the kids with something like the crime, however there was no real evidence to prove it.
innocent until proven guilty. there's no evidence to prove they're guilty. in fact, there's evidence to prove that they're innocent.
I guess we'll see what happens after Oct. 03.
I said that I think they did it based on the first kid's confession. but I think that they should have been found innocent because the confession was gained illegally and the evidence in the trial wasn't sufficient. so in a nutshell, I think they did it, but they should have got off.
like I said in my last post quoting Vedderlution_Baby!, the unbelievable nature of that trial frustrates even those who think they did it. we THINK they did it, but this trial didn't prove they did it. so as someone who THINKS they did it, I don't lose sleep over their incarceration. those of you who think they didn't do it have the right to be outraged.
also, I know the supporters think that the confession should just be tossed out the window (and it should have been in court) but it's fair game for public opinion. I've read the interview. Some things in his account were disproven (anal rape on the victims for instance) but the very fact that his story went that far says to me that something had to happen.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Something did happen but it didn't involve the three guys suffering for it. Between dna evidence that doesn't point at the wm3 but at one of the stepfathers of one of the victims, bite marks that were found on one of the victims that did not match to any of the wm3, and other evidence that points the opposite way of the wm3, that confession is basically nothing more than a piece of paper with bullshit on it.
It should not make you care about Echols. But I find it strange that you acknowledge a pretty substantial miscarriage of justice and yet be ready to wash your hands and not care. Also, I guess I was calling sad the idea that unless something affects you, your family, and your friends, it is not worthy of your attention or your care. I hope there IS something beyond the scope of your narrow circle that does command your attention and your care.
See? That's when caring about stuff other than your family and friends comes in handy. Double Jeopardy? Surely you know that someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. If new evidence is found, or new ways of processing it, as it is the case now with the Memphis three, of course the case will be reopened. Interesting that the lawyers of the "co-assailants" would fight so hard to introduce DNA evidence.