New Evidence in the West Memphis Three...

Tboz51

I think I'll wait to see what evidence comes out of a retrial. I'll give my opinion then.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Tboz51 wrote:

I have nothing, but won't convict an innocent kid based upon your claims of he is a "lunatic".

Again you come across single focused on your own agenda.

Ok...
I am still listening...

What facts do you have...
That proves they are innocent???

Ill be here all night....

Tboz51

This is another problem with you, the burden lies with the state. Not withthe innocent/accused.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Tboz51 wrote:

This is another problem with you, the burden lies with the state. Not withthe innocent/accused.

1st trial...

The jury was presented fiber evidence??
The jury was presented blood evidence?
The jury was presented 3 confessions by Misskelley???

And the jury came up with a GUILTY verdict based on that evidence.......

Tboz51

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Tboz51 wrote:

This is another problem with you, the burden lies with the state. Not withthe innocent/accused.

1st trial...

The jury was presented fiber evidence??
The jury was presented blood evidence?
The jury was presented 3 confessions by Misskelley???

And the jury came up with a GUILTY verdict based on that evidence.......

Again, I'd be very interested in the retrial.

You are again entitled to your opinion.

I hope justice is served.

pjradio

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Tboz51 wrote:

This is another problem with you, the burden lies with the state. Not withthe innocent/accused.

1st trial...

The jury was presented fiber evidence??
The jury was presented blood evidence?
The jury was presented 3 confessions by Misskelley???

And the jury came up with a GUILTY verdict based on that evidence.......

There was no DNA testing done during the trial 15 years ago. As this technology has become more available and accurate, a great deal of evidence from the crime scene has been tested. All tests failed to link Damien, Jessie or Jason to the crime scene in any way. DNA testing did, however, place other individuals' DNA at the crime scene.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

pjradio wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Tboz51 wrote:

This is another problem with you, the burden lies with the state. Not withthe innocent/accused.

1st trial...

The jury was presented fiber evidence??
The jury was presented blood evidence?
The jury was presented 3 confessions by Misskelley???

And the jury came up with a GUILTY verdict based on that evidence.......

There was no DNA testing done during the trial 15 years ago. As this technology has become more available and accurate, a great deal of evidence from the crime scene has been tested. All tests failed to link Damien, Jessie or Jason to the crime scene in any way. DNA testing did, however, place other individuals' DNA at the crime scene.

Lack of DNA evidence...
Or not having their DNA at the scene........

Will not set these 3 free....
Didnt we learn that a year or so ago....
Judges ruling????

Tboz51

Tboz51 wrote:

Remember... Some people in here only want to go against every grain. They want to rile people up and take the opposite position.

They do it because they have their own skewed opinions about things. Beyond that no matter what logic and reasoning, no facts or evidence you present them... They'll always be stuck in their own single focused self.

This

SPEEDY MCCREADY

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

pjradio wrote:

There was no DNA testing done during the trial 15 years ago. As this technology has become more available and accurate, a great deal of evidence from the crime scene has been tested. All tests failed to link Damien, Jessie or Jason to the crime scene in any way. DNA testing did, however, place other individuals' DNA at the crime scene.

Lack of DNA evidence...
Or not having their DNA at the scene........

Will not set these 3 free....
Didnt we learn that a year or so ago....
Judges ruling????

circuit court judge Wednesday rejected claims that new DNA evidence proves the innocence of three men convicted of killing three boys 15 years ago, and denied their requests for a new trial.

Circuit Court Judge David Burnett issued a 10-page order Wednesday denying requests for a new trial. Lawyers for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley -- known by supporters as the "West Memphis Three" -- had requested a new trial, arguing that new DNA evidence clears their clients.

Both Baldwin and Misskelley claim their lawyers failed to adequately represent them during their separate trials. Their lawyers also say DNA evidence provided by Echols' defense team shows the men did not kill Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

"The court finds that (Echols's) DNA-testing results are inconclusive because they do not raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offenses; that is, they are inconclusive as to his claim of actual innocence," Burnett wrote in the order.

In his appeal, Echols argued that newly analyzed DNA found no trace of him, Misskelley or Baldwin at the crime scene. But Burnett said he agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the absence of DNA didn't equal innocence.

"Proof of actual innocence requires more than his exclusion as the source of a handful of biological material that is not dispositive of the identity of a killer," Burnett wrote.

Burnett also said that even if he agreed that the new DNA evidence should be heard in court, he would deny Echols' request for a trial because there was "not compelling evidence that he would be

pjradio

Explain the "other individuals".....their blood/DNA is there...at the scene of the crime....but NOTHING from the "WM3"...explain that...I'm open, will consider ANY explanation...apparently it was a horrific crime scene, blood everywhere....why no blood from the WM3...THREE individuals currently in jail for this, but NO DNA from ANY of them....however, there is DNA from "OTHER" individuals from a "Horrific" Crime scene....but, NOT from ANY of the WM3...who are the other ppl?...if thats not a reason for at LEAST a new trial, I don't know what is

SPEEDY MCCREADY

pjradio wrote:

Explain the "other individuals".....their blood/DNA is there...at the scene of the crime....but NOTHING from the "WM3"...explain that...I'm open, will consider ANY explanation...apparently it was a horrific crime scene, blood everywhere....why no blood from the WM3...THREE individuals currently in jail for this, but NO DNA from ANY of them....however, there is DNA from "OTHER" individuals from a "Horrific" Crime scene....but, NOT from ANY of the WM3...who are the other ppl?...if thats not a reason for at LEAST a new trial, I don't know what is

DNA of the people who worked the crime scene....

There..
Explained!!!!!

pjradio

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

DNA of the people who worked the crime scene....

There..
Explained!!!!!

so you're ADMITTING the Crime Scene was contaminated?!

SPEEDY MCCREADY

pjradio wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

DNA of the people who worked the crime scene....

There..
Explained!!!!!

so you're ADMITTING the Crime Scene was contaminated?!

You wanted to know whose DNA it might be??
There is an answer....

SPEEDY MCCREADY

pjradio wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

DNA of the people who worked the crime scene....

There..
Explained!!!!!

so you're ADMITTING the Crime Scene was contaminated?!

So that means EVERY single crime scene known to mankind would then be considered contaminated....

Right???

Cuz all it would take is one piece of fiber...
One piece of hair...
One piece of ANYTHING left behind by someone working the crime scene.....

And now the crime scene would be contaminated....Right??

pjradio

so...

3 boys bodies? their DNA...CHECK
"DNA of the people who worked the crime scene...."...CHECK
DNA from the WM3?....che....whoops!

pjradio

pjradio wrote:

so...

3 boys bodies? their DNA...CHECK
"DNA of the people who worked the crime scene...."...CHECK
DNA from the WM3?....che....whoops!

it would be SOOO easy to exclude the Crime Scene ppl...then what?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

pjradio wrote:

pjradio wrote:

so...

3 boys bodies? their DNA...CHECK
"DNA of the people who worked the crime scene...."...CHECK
DNA from the WM3?....che....whoops!

it would be SOOO easy to exclude the Crime Scene ppl...then what?

Well...
If the new DNA turns out to be people who worked the crime scene.....

Then we are back to square 1......Right????

You better HOPE and Pray it isnt the DNA of people who worked the crime scene......

Cuz then you supporters may be in trouble....Right???

pjradio

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

pjradio wrote:

pjradio wrote:

so...

3 boys bodies? their DNA...CHECK
"DNA of the people who worked the crime scene...."...CHECK
DNA from the WM3?....che....whoops!

it would be SOOO easy to exclude the Crime Scene ppl...then what?

Well...
If the new DNA turns out to be people who worked the crime scene.....

Then we are back to square 1......Right????

You better HOPE and Pray it isnt the DNA of people who worked the crime scene......

Cuz then you supporters may be in trouble....Right???

Do you HONESTLY think that they wouldn't have tested the Crime Scene ppl BEFORE they announced that the DNA was different from the ppl currently in Jail?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

pjradio wrote:

Do you HONESTLY think that they wouldn't have tested the Crime Scene ppl BEFORE they announced that the DNA was different from the ppl currently in Jail?

These are the same people...
Who FOR YEARS I have been told....Botched the whole case....Right???

Now I am supposed to believe they are SMART enough to test their own people 1st???

pjradio

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

pjradio wrote:

Do you HONESTLY think that they wouldn't have tested the Crime Scene ppl BEFORE they announced that the DNA was different from the ppl currently in Jail?

These are the same people...
Who FOR YEARS I have been told....Botched the whole case....Right???

Now I am supposed to believe they are SMART enough to test their own people 1st???

weak argument