http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/jb_response_motion_new_trial.html
Attached is the States Response to Baldwin's Motion for a trial that involves the necklace.
For those of you unaware Damien had a necklace (pendant) that had two different types of blood on it. They didn't discover/ get the results of the necklace until late in the trial and Judge Burnett made statements that he would probably grant a mistrial if it were introduced at that time because of the implications of it.
Read the part near the end.
" (3) On the afternoon of March 15, 1994, after Court had recessed for the day, the State was informed at approximately 4:30 p.m. by representatives of Genetic Design in North Carolina that they had received a result which would be consistent with the blood of both the defendant Charles Jason Baldwin and the victim Steve Branch."
Wow, Blockhead, I suggest that maybe YOU should actually read the documents you are posting. Your statement that I underlined above is just totally not true, according to the document you posted, nor is your implication that this is some kind of evidence against Damien.
You conveniently left out the next sentence of the document in your quote: "The representatives of Genetic Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to determine which person the blood came from."
So there was NOT "two types of blood" on the necklace & blood did NOT necessarily come from the victim with whom it "would be consistent". It could very easily have come from Damien's best friend. Furthermore, since they weren't doing DNA testing, the blood was probably also consistent with your blood, my blood, the judge's blood, & a million other people's blood. It is evidence of NOTHING.
The only question I now have remaining about guilt is whether you are guilty of lying to us on purpose or just guilty of not understanding the reports you read. Either way, you are clearly not a reliable source of information.
Here's my problem, I think we are completely changing the legal system, perhaps for the better in reality, but it is a giant change. It use to be there was evidence presented and no slam door cases, but we allowed jurors to make the decision based upon the facts presented.
Now, unless you have a slammed door case where you have video evidence of the person committing the crime, it seems to be more difficult to convict, thus really removing the "jury of peers" and any reasoning of theirs from the equation. Again, that might be good because humans are flawed and thus the system is flawed. But, while it does mean less innocent people are wrongly convicted, it certainly also means less guilty people are convicted and convicted at higher levels of charges. Probably a win overall for improving the justice system, but it is tough to swallow at times.
Damiens necklace with two different types of blood matching one of the boys.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... nce_7.html
On the night of Damien’s arrest, a necklace he was wearing was taken in as evidence and sent away for testing as there appeared to be blood spots on it. The results of these tests were not available when other evidence had been presented at the trial so the prosecution asked for a continuance in order to obtain these results. The continuance was granted and the court reconvened two days later. The minute quantities of genetic material present for testing meant that only the blood types present could be determined. It was found that one spot was consistent with the blood type of Damien and the second spot was consistent with the blood type shared by both Jason Baldwin and Steven Branch, and 11% of the world’s population.
Because there was evidence to show that both Jason and Damien were known to wear this necklace on occasions, Judge Burnett offered the State the opportunity to re-open the case presenting the new evidence, if they would agree to a severance for Jason Baldwin from the State’s case against Damien Echols as it was no longer legally acceptable for the defendants to be tried together. The reason for this was that the evidence could now be used by either party to implicate the other in what is called an "antagonistic defense." The State chose not to present the evidence and proceeded to its closing arguments. This was probably because this new evidence was very weak and a case against Jason standing on its own merits would be very risky for the State...'
you do realize that blockhead is posting selective stuff and that he hasn't responded to anyone who has addressed his points and that the website he keeps linking is being put together by 3 guys ... 2 of which believe the WM3 are innocent ... ????
haha, what am I posting that is selective, its not like I am leaving things out.
THey are all court documents showing:
THey lied about all there alibis and damiens story changes up to 7 times (same with Jesse)
Miskelleys had multiple confessions (also after conviction) he named pieces of evidence (Evan Williams bottle) and where they could be found.
Damiens mental history.
Damiens necklace with 2 types of blood on it. Later found that it matched blood of one of the victims. (The court document has been posted a page or two back, explaning why the piece could lead to mistrial)
You see that and you see Innocent?
At least my info is factual unlike everybody else that has commented. No one else has posted anything from the courts, people are only refering to Eddie and Paradise Lost (1 &2) why do you give those movies any credit when they are extremely biased and portray one of the murders as a RETARD and I just showed court documents where he had a normal IQ and tried to LIE to make it look like he was mentally challenged...
And I am the one being selective... If you actually have a rebutle please contribute, if not shut the fuck up.
No, no, no! Please stop your fucking lying! The blood on the necklace did NOT MATCH the blood of one of the victims! It was "consistent with" the blood of one of the victims, which means something ENTIRELY different. "Matching" means it's his blood, which is what you are incorrectly trying to say. Being "consistent with" just means that they have not yet ruled out that it was his blood, but it could any number of other people's blood. Your other claims are misrepresentations as well.
So where the he'll do you get off refusing to respond to legitimate posts & telling other people to shut the fuck up???
Wow, Blockhead, I suggest that maybe YOU should actually read the documents you are posting. Your statement that I underlined above is just totally not true, according to the document you posted, nor is your implication that this is some kind of evidence against Damien.
You conveniently left out the next sentence of the document in your quote: "The representatives of Genetic Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to determine which person the blood came from."
So there was NOT "two types of blood" on the necklace & blood did NOT necessarily come from the victim with whom it "would be consistent". It could very easily have come from Damien's best friend. Furthermore, since they weren't doing DNA testing, the blood was probably also consistent with your blood, my blood, the judge's blood, & a million other people's blood. It is evidence of NOTHING.
The only question I now have remaining about guilt is whether you are guilty of lying to us on purpose or just guilty of not understanding the reports you read. Either way, you are clearly not a reliable source of information.
I posted the entire document, I didn't try and leave anything out.
And well never know becuase they didn't use it as evidence or get further testing done.
But TO ME, (With supporting court documents) raises more questions. Its not as If this is my case.
Why are you ignoring the other questions?
Its funny that you are trying to attack me for not being a reliable source yet you support three people who did nothing but tell lies in court and you have no issues with that.
THey fabricated alibis's and changed their story (damien 7 times)
Why would he do that?
None of these are confessions by Damien Echols. They're all second-hand statements made by individuals who claimed to have 'overheard' Damien Echols talking.
Also, William Jones later recanted his statement.
Eight year old Aaron Hutcheson was considered unbelievable even by the West Memphis police.
And Alvis Bly was considered a '"drug looped" mental case'.
See, Blockhead, it's really hard to take you seriously when you BLATENTLY misrepresent the "evidence" by saying things like "These are statements where Damien confessed" when in fact that's just outright bullshit. People who are able to support their opinions don't have to resort to those kinds of tactics.
THEY Are statements FROM PEOPLE who HEARD damien confess... How do you not understand that.
Keep getting your info from Eddie, and those Paradise Lost movies. Have you posted a single item from the case?
All my links are court documents showing:
They all lied about their alibis and changed their story up to 7 times. WHy would they do that if they are innocent?
Damiens mental history
Damiens necklace with two different types of blood matching one of the boys.
Its hard to take you seriously when you can't post anything that supports your case of their innocence.
Please post some court docuemnts, Ill be waiting.
Or are you going to refer to your Paradise lost movie when they portray one of the boys as mentally challenged when he confessed.
Why do you ignore all the confessions from MIskelly naming the evans williams bottle and where it would be?
You can stop right now with your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude that you are the only person in the world who has read the court documents, as evidenced by the fact that we disagree with you. I have read just as many court documents as you have. All the legal scholars who say they're not guilty have read just as many court documents as you have (and certainly understand them a hell of a lot better).
I don't need to post documents that indicate a lack of evidence when YOU are already doing that for me.
Other people have already given you good reasons why your conclusion is illogical. Why do you ignore all their points? I have no need to waste my time reiterating the same thing of you're not going to pay attention.
FYI, though... Statements from people who said they overheard Damien say something they thought was a confession and "statements where Damien confessed" are NOT the same thing. Just get it straight next time.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien1.html
Q. Mr. Price has asked you about your feelings about being arrested. You said you had good days and bad days. Was it a bad day the day after you were arrested when you blew a kiss to the victims' families? Was that a bad day when you did that?
A. That was one of the times I lost my temper.
Q. You lost your temper is why you blew a kiss to the victims' families?
A. Yes.
For supports, why would an innocent person blow kisses at the victims families?
Because they are threatening to kill him, and much worse, for a crime he had nothing to do with.
Miskelleys had multiple confessions (also after conviction) he named pieces of evidence (Evan Williams bottle) and where they could be found.
http://www.members.tripod.com/~VanessaW ... dence.html
The statements [ in Jessie Misskelley's confession ] were the strongest evidence offered against the appellant at trial. In fact, they were virtually the only evidence, all other testimony and exhibits serving primarily as corroboration.
The above statement is very important to keep in mind. The statements were obtained in a question-and-answer format rather than in a narrative form. However, we will set out the substance of the statements in such a way as to reveal with clarity the appellant's description of the crime:
In the early morning hours of May 5, 1993, the appellant received a phone call from Jason Baldwin. Baldwin asked the appellant to accompany him and Damien Echols to the Robin Hood area. The appellant agreed to go. They went to the area, which has a creek, and were in the creek when the victims rode up on their bicycles. Baldwin and Echols called to the boys, who came to the creek. The boys were severely beaten by Baldwin and Echols. At least two of the boys were raped and forced to perform oral sex on Baldwin and Echols. According to appellant, he was merely an observer.
While these events were taking place, Michael Moore tried to escape and began running. The appellant chased him down and returned him to Baldwin and Echols. The appellant also stated that Baldwin had used a knife to cut the boys in the facial area and that the Byers boy was cut on his penis. Echols used a large stick to hit one of the boys. All three boys had their clothes taken off and were tied up. According to the appellant, he ran away from the scene at some point after the boys were tied up. He did observe that the Byers boy was dead when he left. Sometime after the appellant arrived home, Baldwin called saying, "we done it" and "what are we going to do if somebody saw us." Echols could be heard in the background. The appellant was asked about his involvement in a cult. He said he had been involved for about three months. The participants would typically meet in the woods. They engaged in orgies and, as an initiation rite, killing and eating dogs. He noted that at one cult meeting, he saw a picture that Echols had taken of the three boys. He stated that Echols had been watching the boys. The appellant was also asked to describe what Baldwin and Echols were wearing the day of the murders. Baldwin was wearing blue jeans, black lace-up boots and a T-shirt with a rendering of a skull and the name of the group Metallica on it. Echols was wearing black pants, boots and a black T-shirt. The appellant initially stated that the events took place about 9:00 a.m. on May 5. Later in the statement, he changed that time to 12:00 noon. He admitted that his time periods might not be exactly right. He explained the presence of the young boys by saying they had skipped school that day.
The first tape recorded statement concluded at 3:18 p.m. At approximately 5:00 p.m., another statement was recorded. This time, the appellant said he, Echols and Baldwin had come to the Robin Hood area between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Upon prompting by the officer, he changed that to 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. He finally settled on saying that his group arrived at 6:00 p.m. while the victims arrived near dark. He went into further detail about the sexual molestation of the victims. At least one of the boys had been held by the head and ears while being accosted. Both the Byers boy and the Branch boy had been raped. All the boys, he said, were tied up with brown rope.
One of the interrogating officers later testified that his notes revealed the appellant told him he received a phone call from Baldwin on the night before the murders. Baldwin stated that they planned to go out and get some boys and hurt them.
The appellant's statements are a confusing amalgam of times and events. Numerous inconsistencies appear, the most obvious being the various times of day the murders took place. Additionally, the boys were not tied with rope, but with black and white shoe laces. It was also revealed that the victims had not skipped school on May 5. Problems with the evidence: CREDIBILITY, EVIDENCE WITHHELD, NEW EVIDENCE REFUTES As even the Arkansas Supreme Court admits, there are serious problems with this evidence. Jessie's statement lacks CREDIBILITY for a two-pronged reason. One, structural clues that it was not a sincere confession but rather the coerced compliant variety of a false confession (1), and, two, evidence its contents conflict with known facts, indicating it is not a credible source of information about the crimes it pertains to. For a thorough explanation of how Jessie may have come to give police a false confession, it is strongly recommended that you read his attorney Dan Stidham's Synopsis of the Case. Here is a brief outline of support for its claim of false confession.
a) There is a pattern of intimidation and threats evident in juvenile interrogations conducted by The West Memphis Police Department. One-time suspect Bob Loomis' experience being grilled by Gary Gitchell are detailed in The Blood Of Innocents (page 150). The Commercial Appeal reports that Kenneth Clyde Watkins, then 17, told private investigator Ron Lax that police browbeat him into saying Echols had confessed to him about killing the boys. Buddy Sidney Lucas says police "yelled and screamed" until he falsely told them that Misskelley had admitted helping Echols and Baldwin hurt someone. (2).
b) Polygraph expert Warren Holmes' analysis of Jessie's test tapes indicate that Jessie was lied to about its results in order to scare him into confessing. This portion of his testimony was WITHHELD from the jury by Judge Burnett on the grounds that polygraph test results are not admissible evidence. He did however, offer the defense a compromise. He would allow them to tell jury that Jessie Misskelley had been told he had failed a polygraph, as long as no other detail was added. (3)
c) The expert opinion of Dr. William E. Wilkins who, despite being under disciplinary review by the Arkansas Board of Examiners in Psychology was an accredited psychologist, testified that Jessie had an IQ of around 72 and was of a highly suggestible personality. (4)
d) The expert opinion of Dr. Richard Ofshe, a professor of Social Psychology at Berkely, that Jessie's confession was a coercive compliant confession. This, too, was WITHHELD from the jury. Judge Burnett ruled that the law allows no expert witness to testify about anything which "speaks to the core of the issue", which is whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. This is despite the fact that Ofshe had been allowed to offer similar testimony in other courts without the judges so ruling. Ofshe also pointed out many instances of coaching about the proper timing of events in the forty minutes of tape Jessie's statement is recorded on, as well as instances where he is coached about the identity of the victim who'd been emasculated, and attempted coaching about what materials were used to bind the victims. Nearly three hours of the interrogation which led to the taping were never recorded. (1) The errors of fact in Jessie's statement can also be used to support a claim that it is a false confession, but they are an issue unto themselves in regards to the CREDIBILITY the statement should be given allowance for.
At the time of his 1994 trial, it conflicted with at least six known issues of fact:
a) Placing the victims and Jason Baldwin out of school at times they were demonstrably in school.
b) Stating victims were bound with rope whereas they were found tied with their own shoelaces.
c) Stating one boy was choked into unconsciousness with a stick whereas the medical examiner could detect nothing to indicate this.
d) Stating boys were "screwed," implying anal rape, whereas medical examiner could find no signs of the expected anal abrasions or other evidence which would back this up.
e) Describing traumatic beatings issued to the boys which would have left more sign of blood in the soil of reputed crime scene than tests ever indicated.
f) Describing Chris Byers' emasculation as accomplice with a single swing of a knife whereas medical examiner testified it would take a great deal of precision and skill. (5)
Ironically, both Jessie and the medical examiner turn out to be wrong about the last point. NEW EVIDENCE in the form of a Forensic Analysis and Psychological Profile by Forensic Scientist Brent Turvey, concludes the emasculation was a crude, imprecise act, yet one which was not accomplished with one swing of a blade. (6) This is only a tiny part of Turvey's findings, which represent the first true scientific look by a qualified professional at the crime materials.
In Turvey's opinion, Robin Hood Hills Woods was only the the dump site for a crime committed elsewhere, indicated only in part by a) The nature and extent of Byers' wounds especially required adequate lighting conditions, time and privacy. From beginning to end crime would have taken two hours. (6)
b) The injuries on all boys would likely have resulted in great deal of screaming. If crime were committed when and where state proposed it was, then this noise, not to mention the span of time the crime required, would have been occurring during a time searchers were already in the woods looking for the boys. (6)
c) Lack of blood at dump site indicates assaults committed elsewhere. (6)
d) Lack of mosquito bites on victims indicates they were no longer alive when bodies were taken to the stream for dumping. (7) Through forensic odontology, it will be possible to match a set of teeth to who made these bites. Jessie Misskelley never mentioned biting as part of the assault he witnessed or took part in.
Moreover, Turvey has created a psychological profile of the offender based, in part, on factors such as the following:
* Due to the sudden violent nature of the attack and the limited resistance displayed by the victims, it is likely the offender is someone they knew and trusted. (6)
* The likelihood that emasculation of one victim in particular has a sexual meaning to offender but not necessarily for sexual gratification.. (6)
* The level of attention paid to victim's faces, in terms of depersonalization and rage, is further indicative of familiarity. (6)
* The punishment orientation of act, as opposed to being one of an erotic sexual nature. (6) * The method would need access to a vehicle as means of transportation. (6)
Turvey's analysis invalidates every detail of Jessie Misskelley's confession, impeaching it in total, thereby robbing the state of the entirety of its case against Jessie Misskelley, and the entirety of the West Memphis Police theory of the crime, as well.
Funny how he wants to say a so-called changing alibi is evidence that it's not credible, but a changing confession is evidence that it IS credible. Man, if I'm ever on trial, I sure hope my jury has some basic understanding of logic.
Miskelleys had multiple confessions (also after conviction) he named pieces of evidence (Evan Williams bottle) and where they could be found.
http://www.members.tripod.com/~VanessaW ... dence.html
The statements [ in Jessie Misskelley's confession ] were the strongest evidence offered against the appellant at trial. In fact, they were virtually the only evidence, all other testimony and exhibits serving primarily as corroboration.
The above statement is very important to keep in mind. The statements were obtained in a question-and-answer format rather than in a narrative form. However, we will set out the substance of the statements in such a way as to reveal with clarity the appellant's description of the crime:
In the early morning hours of May 5, 1993, the appellant received a phone call from Jason Baldwin. Baldwin asked the appellant to accompany him and Damien Echols to the Robin Hood area. The appellant agreed to go. They went to the area, which has a creek, and were in the creek when the victims rode up on their bicycles. Baldwin and Echols called to the boys, who came to the creek. The boys were severely beaten by Baldwin and Echols. At least two of the boys were raped and forced to perform oral sex on Baldwin and Echols. According to appellant, he was merely an observer.
While these events were taking place, Michael Moore tried to escape and began running. The appellant chased him down and returned him to Baldwin and Echols. The appellant also stated that Baldwin had used a knife to cut the boys in the facial area and that the Byers boy was cut on his penis. Echols used a large stick to hit one of the boys. All three boys had their clothes taken off and were tied up. According to the appellant, he ran away from the scene at some point after the boys were tied up. He did observe that the Byers boy was dead when he left. Sometime after the appellant arrived home, Baldwin called saying, "we done it" and "what are we going to do if somebody saw us." Echols could be heard in the background. The appellant was asked about his involvement in a cult. He said he had been involved for about three months. The participants would typically meet in the woods. They engaged in orgies and, as an initiation rite, killing and eating dogs. He noted that at one cult meeting, he saw a picture that Echols had taken of the three boys. He stated that Echols had been watching the boys. The appellant was also asked to describe what Baldwin and Echols were wearing the day of the murders. Baldwin was wearing blue jeans, black lace-up boots and a T-shirt with a rendering of a skull and the name of the group Metallica on it. Echols was wearing black pants, boots and a black T-shirt. The appellant initially stated that the events took place about 9:00 a.m. on May 5. Later in the statement, he changed that time to 12:00 noon. He admitted that his time periods might not be exactly right. He explained the presence of the young boys by saying they had skipped school that day.
The first tape recorded statement concluded at 3:18 p.m. At approximately 5:00 p.m., another statement was recorded. This time, the appellant said he, Echols and Baldwin had come to the Robin Hood area between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Upon prompting by the officer, he changed that to 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. He finally settled on saying that his group arrived at 6:00 p.m. while the victims arrived near dark. He went into further detail about the sexual molestation of the victims. At least one of the boys had been held by the head and ears while being accosted. Both the Byers boy and the Branch boy had been raped. All the boys, he said, were tied up with brown rope.
One of the interrogating officers later testified that his notes revealed the appellant told him he received a phone call from Baldwin on the night before the murders. Baldwin stated that they planned to go out and get some boys and hurt them.
The appellant's statements are a confusing amalgam of times and events. Numerous inconsistencies appear, the most obvious being the various times of day the murders took place. Additionally, the boys were not tied with rope, but with black and white shoe laces. It was also revealed that the victims had not skipped school on May 5. Problems with the evidence: CREDIBILITY, EVIDENCE WITHHELD, NEW EVIDENCE REFUTES As even the Arkansas Supreme Court admits, there are serious problems with this evidence. Jessie's statement lacks CREDIBILITY for a two-pronged reason. One, structural clues that it was not a sincere confession but rather the coerced compliant variety of a false confession (1), and, two, evidence its contents conflict with known facts, indicating it is not a credible source of information about the crimes it pertains to. For a thorough explanation of how Jessie may have come to give police a false confession, it is strongly recommended that you read his attorney Dan Stidham's Synopsis of the Case. Here is a brief outline of support for its claim of false confession.
a) There is a pattern of intimidation and threats evident in juvenile interrogations conducted by The West Memphis Police Department. One-time suspect Bob Loomis' experience being grilled by Gary Gitchell are detailed in The Blood Of Innocents (page 150). The Commercial Appeal reports that Kenneth Clyde Watkins, then 17, told private investigator Ron Lax that police browbeat him into saying Echols had confessed to him about killing the boys. Buddy Sidney Lucas says police "yelled and screamed" until he falsely told them that Misskelley had admitted helping Echols and Baldwin hurt someone. (2).
b) Polygraph expert Warren Holmes' analysis of Jessie's test tapes indicate that Jessie was lied to about its results in order to scare him into confessing. This portion of his testimony was WITHHELD from the jury by Judge Burnett on the grounds that polygraph test results are not admissible evidence. He did however, offer the defense a compromise. He would allow them to tell jury that Jessie Misskelley had been told he had failed a polygraph, as long as no other detail was added. (3)
c) The expert opinion of Dr. William E. Wilkins who, despite being under disciplinary review by the Arkansas Board of Examiners in Psychology was an accredited psychologist, testified that Jessie had an IQ of around 72 and was of a highly suggestible personality. (4)
d) The expert opinion of Dr. Richard Ofshe, a professor of Social Psychology at Berkely, that Jessie's confession was a coercive compliant confession. This, too, was WITHHELD from the jury. Judge Burnett ruled that the law allows no expert witness to testify about anything which "speaks to the core of the issue", which is whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. This is despite the fact that Ofshe had been allowed to offer similar testimony in other courts without the judges so ruling. Ofshe also pointed out many instances of coaching about the proper timing of events in the forty minutes of tape Jessie's statement is recorded on, as well as instances where he is coached about the identity of the victim who'd been emasculated, and attempted coaching about what materials were used to bind the victims. Nearly three hours of the interrogation which led to the taping were never recorded. (1) The errors of fact in Jessie's statement can also be used to support a claim that it is a false confession, but they are an issue unto themselves in regards to the CREDIBILITY the statement should be given allowance for.
At the time of his 1994 trial, it conflicted with at least six known issues of fact:
a) Placing the victims and Jason Baldwin out of school at times they were demonstrably in school.
b) Stating victims were bound with rope whereas they were found tied with their own shoelaces.
c) Stating one boy was choked into unconsciousness with a stick whereas the medical examiner could detect nothing to indicate this.
d) Stating boys were "screwed," implying anal rape, whereas medical examiner could find no signs of the expected anal abrasions or other evidence which would back this up.
e) Describing traumatic beatings issued to the boys which would have left more sign of blood in the soil of reputed crime scene than tests ever indicated.
f) Describing Chris Byers' emasculation as accomplice with a single swing of a knife whereas medical examiner testified it would take a great deal of precision and skill. (5)
Ironically, both Jessie and the medical examiner turn out to be wrong about the last point. NEW EVIDENCE in the form of a Forensic Analysis and Psychological Profile by Forensic Scientist Brent Turvey, concludes the emasculation was a crude, imprecise act, yet one which was not accomplished with one swing of a blade. (6) This is only a tiny part of Turvey's findings, which represent the first true scientific look by a qualified professional at the crime materials.
In Turvey's opinion, Robin Hood Hills Woods was only the the dump site for a crime committed elsewhere, indicated only in part by a) The nature and extent of Byers' wounds especially required adequate lighting conditions, time and privacy. From beginning to end crime would have taken two hours. (6)
b) The injuries on all boys would likely have resulted in great deal of screaming. If crime were committed when and where state proposed it was, then this noise, not to mention the span of time the crime required, would have been occurring during a time searchers were already in the woods looking for the boys. (6)
c) Lack of blood at dump site indicates assaults committed elsewhere. (6)
d) Lack of mosquito bites on victims indicates they were no longer alive when bodies were taken to the stream for dumping. (7) Through forensic odontology, it will be possible to match a set of teeth to who made these bites. Jessie Misskelley never mentioned biting as part of the assault he witnessed or took part in.
Moreover, Turvey has created a psychological profile of the offender based, in part, on factors such as the following:
* Due to the sudden violent nature of the attack and the limited resistance displayed by the victims, it is likely the offender is someone they knew and trusted. (6)
* The likelihood that emasculation of one victim in particular has a sexual meaning to offender but not necessarily for sexual gratification.. (6)
* The level of attention paid to victim's faces, in terms of depersonalization and rage, is further indicative of familiarity. (6)
* The punishment orientation of act, as opposed to being one of an erotic sexual nature. (6) * The method would need access to a vehicle as means of transportation. (6)
Turvey's analysis invalidates every detail of Jessie Misskelley's confession, impeaching it in total, thereby robbing the state of the entirety of its case against Jessie Misskelley, and the entirety of the West Memphis Police theory of the crime, as well.
Nice blog. Any court documents?
Jessie admitted guilt the day of his arrest.
Jessie told Buddy Lucas directly that he was guilty
Jessie told his own lawyer he was guilty and maintained his guilt after the trial.
Jessie gave a taped statement to his own lawyer and even gave outside evidence that he was telling the truth (Evan Williams bottle).
Jessie confessed to two transport officers after conviction.
Jessie confessed to prosecutors after he was convicted and against his lawyers pleadings.
Jessie confessed to fellow inmates at least 8 months after he had been incarcerated.
For supports, why would an innocent person blow kisses at the victims families?
Maybe because of all the false accusations, animosity, and abuse having been hurled his way.
Well, it doesn't show if he is guilty or innocent, but certainly an asshole.
I'm not saying it was right, but if a group of people were in the process of trying to kill me, I might not respond politely either, especially if I was a teenager & lacked coping skills.
Maybe because of all the false accusations, animosity, and abuse having been hurled his way.
Well, it doesn't show if he is guilty or innocent, but certainly an asshole.
I'm not saying it was right, but if a group of people were in the process of trying to kill me, I might not respond politely either, especially if I was a teenager & lacked coping skills.
Yep, you might act like an asshole. Not really the best thing to do when being charged with murder though. And it shows that he has some impulse that he can't control...again, not a murderer though. For that anyhow.
I'm curious, Blockhead, since you seem to think anything who disagrees with you is an uninformed, idiot: Are you saying you're smarter than all the independent legal scholars who say they're not guilty, or just that you understand the case better than they do?
Well, it doesn't show if he is guilty or innocent, but certainly an asshole.
I'm not saying it was right, but if a group of people were in the process of trying to kill me, I might not respond politely either, especially if I was a teenager & lacked coping skills.
Yep, you might act like an asshole. Not really the best thing to do when being charged with murder though. And it shows that he has some impulse that he can't control...again, not a murderer though. For that anyhow.
I agree that it was impulsive & unwise. I think we ALL have a breaking point, though, at which we lose our temper, i.e. some impulse that we can't control, given the right circumstances. Thankfully none/most of us have ever had to find out how we'd react to such a horrible situation.
I'm curious, Blockhead, since you seem to think anything who disagrees with you is an uninformed, idiot: Are you saying you're smarter than all the independent legal scholars who say they're not guilty, or just that you understand the case better than they do?
Not really, but the people the support them have failed to post anything other than blogs or Paradise Lost movies.
Why would you beleive a documentary done by the person who did "the blair witch project" and spreads lies that one of the boys is mentally challenged.
I have seen it posted in this thread.
Have you read damiens mental history? I mean I posted almost the entire index so you can just read it. I am the only one referencing the court documents showing how many lies they told and made up alibis.
I have not said once that I am smarter than a leagal scholars.
From Index 500:
050: Individual Progress Note (1/19/93)
“Mom told me to apply for disability – what do you think?”
Reveals a history of abuse as he talked of how he was treated as a child.
Denies that this has influenced him stating “I just put it all inside” Describes this as more than just anger – like rage. Sometimes he does “blow up”.
Relates that when this happens the only solution is to “hurt someone”.
Damien reports being told at the hospital that he could be another “Charles Manson or Ted Bundy”
When questioned on his feelings he states, “I know I’m going to influence the world – people will remember me”.
DAVIS: Ok. Now what happens next, you said that Damien was pullin on one of the boys penis'. What happens next?
MISSKELLEY: We tied'm up.
DAVIS: Ok. Now you said before when the police asked you in their statement and asked you what they were tied up with. And you said they were tied up with rope. Ah..
MISSKELLEY: I made that up.
DAVIS: Why?
MISSKELLEY: Tied to get off, you know get'm off track.
I'm curious, Blockhead, since you seem to think anything who disagrees with you is an uninformed, idiot: Are you saying you're smarter than all the independent legal scholars who say they're not guilty, or just that you understand the case better than they do?
Not really, but the people the support them have failed to post anything other than blogs or Paradise Lost movies.
Why would you beleive a documentary done by the person who did "the blair witch project" and spreads lies that one of the boys is mentally challenged.
I have seen it posted in this thread.
Have you read damiens mental history? I mean I posted almost the entire index so you can just read it. I am the only one referencing the court documents showing how many lies they told and made up alibis.
I have not said once that I am smarter than a leagal scholars.
I have read a lot of the links you posted, (and have seen many of them in the past). I do not see them as smoking gun evidence that they are guilty. You might as well drop the Echols mental history stuff. It doesnt implicate him in murder. I feel like thats just as inflammatory as the misconception that Miskelley is considered retarded.
The Wm3 were pretty fucked up kids before all this happened, but there are fucked up kids all over the world -- that doesnt make them guilty of murder. I honestly dont like to make a conclusion in my mind if they are innocent or guilty because there are a lot of unanswered questions, but I do feel like they were convicted on poor evidence and were not granted a fair trial when this began.
You also keep posting what you call 'confessions' by Echols -- when they were classmates who claimed to have overheard him saying he killed those boys, those arent confessions. Some recanted, some were considered unreliable.. and we all know how high school is and how the 'normal kids' sometimes make up shit to make the 'weird kids' look bad. isnt posting that stuff as biased and misleading as the Paradise lost documentaries?
In all honesty, I saw the Paradise lost documentaries, and I kept a neutral stance through the whole thing because I knew they were biased. But They defintely shed some light on how fucked up all the people/parents/investigators were in the case. the case was fucked up --there is no doubt about that, and it was handled poorly from the start.
How about giving us your interpretation of these facts:
--Why was there no blood at the scene of the murders??
--how do you explain the bloody guy who entered Bojangles and the evidence collected (I vaguely recall) was lost??
I'm curious, Blockhead, since you seem to think anything who disagrees with you is an uninformed, idiot: Are you saying you're smarter than all the independent legal scholars who say they're not guilty, or just that you understand the case better than they do?
Not really, but the people the support them have failed to post anything other than blogs or Paradise Lost movies.
Why would you beleive a documentary done by the person who did "the blair witch project" and spreads lies that one of the boys is mentally challenged.
I have seen it posted in this thread.
Have you read damiens mental history? I mean I posted almost the entire index so you can just read it. I am the only one referencing the court documents showing how many lies they told and made up alibis.
I have not said once that I am smarter than a leagal scholars.
Yes, I've read Damien's mental history. You're not the only one here who's done research, ya know. Many of us have read the same stuff you have & come to a different conclusion. Just because you can read & post links doesn't mean your analysis of (or even representation of) the facts is sound.
The point is, you have not posted anything that proves guilt.
Yes, I've read Damien's mental history. You're not the only one here who's done research, ya know. Many of us have read the same stuff you have & come to a different conclusion. Just because you can read & post links doesn't mean your analysis of (or even representation of) the facts is sound.
The point is, you have not posted anything that proves guilt.
So what your saying is you need video evidence or they didn't do it.
Look at the facts. Jesse confessed multiple times even after conviction. Why do you dismiss that?
He admitted he lied during his first confession to throw the cops off (which I have linked).
He disclosed evidence of the scene (Evan William wiskey bottle) that he had, which was later found at the scene? Why do you dismiss these? Whats your explanation for them?
All of their alibis were fabricated/lies and their stories changed (7 times) All revolving around the time of the murder of where they were. Can you explain why all of their alibis were lies and why the had to change their story so many times if they were innocent?
I don't know why you are dismissing damiens mental history. He had a history of violence, Saying he wanted to sacrifice a child, hospitilizations for violent behavior. Both him and jesse failed poly's, admitting in his own hand writing that he had homicidal urges... Why do you dismiss all of this?
So what your saying is you need video evidence or they didn't do it.
Look at the facts. Jesse confessed multiple times even after conviction. Why do you dismiss that?
He admitted he lied during his first confession to throw the cops off (which I have linked).
He disclosed evidence of the scene (Evan William wiskey bottle) that he had, which was later found at the scene? Why do you dismiss these? Whats your explanation for them?
False confessions are not uncommon, and happen for a variety of reasons. Mental impairment, ignorance of the law, coercion, duress etc, they can, and have all caused people to confess to crimes they were later cleared of by solid proof like DNA evidence. Whilst I wouldn't want to make any particular judgement on Jessie Misskelley's mental state, even watching the court proceedings from the weekend, it's quite clear that he is (for want of a better word) simple. Now imagine him as a scared and confused 17 year old kid in that situation.
A whiskey bottle found under a bridge, a bridge that may well be frequented by transients who could easily have dropped a bottle there, never tested for finger prints or dna that could link it to any of the WM3? That's some kind of smoking gun to you? He could have dropped the bottle there way before the crime took place, and that's how he knew it was there.
All of their alibis were fabricated/lies and their stories changed (7 times) All revolving around the time of the murder of where they were. Can you explain why all of their alibis were lies and why the had to change their story so many times if they were innocent?
Maybe they didn't have alibis for the time and they panicked because they knew if they said they didn't have an alibi that the police would use that as evidence against them? That's a perfectly plausible explanation.
I don't know why you are dismissing damiens mental history. He had a history of violence, Saying he wanted to sacrifice a child, hospitilizations for violent behavior. Both him and jesse failed poly's, admitting in his own hand writing that he had homicidal urges... Why do you dismiss all of this?
Well firstly, polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable, and as such are generally not considered a scientifically accurate test. Guilty people have passed them, innocent people have failed them, so I don't think there is any way you can argue that this is a significant point, because it just isn't.
The reason why people dismiss all of this is because it alone is not proof of anything.
So what your saying is you need video evidence or they didn't do it.
Look at the facts. Jesse confessed multiple times even after conviction. Why do you dismiss that?
He admitted he lied during his first confession to throw the cops off (which I have linked).
He disclosed evidence of the scene (Evan William wiskey bottle) that he had, which was later found at the scene? Why do you dismiss these? Whats your explanation for them?
All of their alibis were fabricated/lies and their stories changed (7 times) All revolving around the time of the murder of where they were. Can you explain why all of their alibis were lies and why the had to change their story so many times if they were innocent?
I don't know why you are dismissing damiens mental history. He had a history of violence, Saying he wanted to sacrifice a child, hospitilizations for violent behavior. Both him and jesse failed poly's, admitting in his own hand writing that he had homicidal urges... Why do you dismiss all of this?
Again, I am nuetral on whether or not they commited the crime. I am adamant that they got shafted at their original trial.
1. YOU are now creating biased false info. That bottle wasnt found at the scene. it was by a bridge, where they frequently walked past. Also, I agree with Facepollution.. a broken bottle that he saw isnt great evidence.
2. I agree with facepollution again on the alibi thing. I was home playing video games by myself last sunday. If I was accused of murder, i'd have no alibi. Maybe they knew that their reputations would bring heat and being a stupid 16-17 year old, they made shit up. Not uncommon.
3. Failed polys? So what. see facepollutions post too. Do you have details of this too?.. I honestly havent seen this before.
4. Mental history could be analyzed if there was pure evidence that they did the murders. Again, there are tons of unbalanced folks out there.. this has NOTHING to do with the actual crime. if you saw the art I created between the age of 12-17, you'd put me in a mental institution too.
August 23, 2011
Last week, the "West Memphis Three" were released from prison, having spent half their lives — 18 years — behind bars for crimes they almost certainly didn't commit. So what made prosecutors and investigators sure they had the right guys, and why were those beliefs, once established, so hard to reverse?
The crimes for which the three Memphis men were convicted were brutal. Three 8-year-old Cub Scouts were found dead, hogtied and apparently mutilated. The police decided early on that it was likely the boys had been victims of a satanic cult killing, which led them to consider self-described Wiccan teen Damien Echols, a young man with asymmetric black hair, a pale face and oddball taste in clothes and music. They hauled in an acquaintance of his, a minor named Jessie Misskelley, who had an IQ of 72, and interviewed him for hours without his parents or an attorney present. Finally, he confessed, implicating Echols and another friend, Jason Baldwin.
The confession confirmed what police expected to hear — that Echols was involved — which may be why they accepted it at face value. But Misskelley's account contradicted the evidence in multiple ways. The time he initially gave for the murders was noon, an hour for which the other teens had an ironclad alibi (they were in school); he said that the other suspects raped the boys, but the medical evidence showed no physical trauma consistent with rape and no semen was found in any body cavity; he said the boys were tied up with a brown rope, when they were actually found tied with their own shoestrings.
An overarching problem, which this case illustrates perfectly, is that humans have a tendency to see what they expect to see. Much psychological research shows that people are subject to an array of "cognitive biases" that affect their evaluation of evidence, and prosecutors and sworn officers are by no means immune to the phenomenon.
Investigators and prosecutors, even when they are trying their best to do their jobs, may seek out or take special notice of evidence that confirms their prior beliefs rather than evidence that challenges it. And they are likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in ways that accord with their preconceptions.
Misskelley promptly recanted his confession. But prosecutors nonetheless pressed the case, and he and the others were ultimately convicted. The prosecutor's case was based largely on character assassination, innuendo and the not-very-credible testimony of the likes of a jailhouse snitch and a witness with a mail-order doctorate. Not a shred of physical evidence linked any of the young men to the crime scene (and post-conviction DNA testing has also failed to find any biological evidence that they were there). Echols received the death penalty, the others life sentences.
That's how things might have ended if two documentary filmmakers hadn't ventured to Arkansas to make a film about the case. Initially they thought they would be examining a sensational satanic cult killing. But the more research they did, the more they began to doubt that it was a cult killing and that the men who were convicted were the perpetrators. Their film suggested the defendants had been railroaded, and it led to widespread publicity and higher-powered legal representation.
But nothing happened quickly. The film came out almost 15 years ago. Even now, to win freedom, the three men agreed to Alford pleas, whereby they proclaimed their innocence but formally pleaded guilty nonetheless.
The case demonstrates the need for criminal justice and evidentiary reforms that would make wrongful convictions less common on the front end. Although releasing some fraction of those wrongfully convicted afterward is all to the good, it would be even better if there were fewer of them in the first place.
So what produces wrongful convictions? At least three of the often-seen causes were present here: dubious forensic science evidence, false confessions and evidence from unreliable jailhouse informants who often have a strong incentive to tell law enforcers what they want to hear.
Cognitive bias helps explain why prosecutors can focus on a suspect (or three) and fail to see the warning signs that they are headed down the wrong path. Cognitive bias is not the same thing as racial bias or personal animus. It's the habit of our brains to let the first fact we encounter guide our evaluation of the second and the third. One false start can lead to a miscarriage of justice more quickly than any of us would like to believe.
In this case, once the cops saw Echols as something of a freak, an odd duck who read about witchcraft, liked Metallica and didn't exactly fit in, the jump from weirdo to likely satanic cult killer was easier than it should have been. Facts that didn't really prove anything were lumped together with suspicions and dubious theories.
We can't eliminate cognitive biases altogether; they're part of how we think. But we can design procedures to reduce their effects on investigators, prosecutors and even jurors. Police departments and prosecutors can and should implement mechanisms explicitly designed to combat it. For example, in every major case, an investigator or prosecutor with no prior involvement could be asked to review the evidence and assess its strengths and weaknesses. Even better would be if this reviewer weren't expected to provide a "neutral" review but instead were assigned the role of devil's advocate, explicitly asked to find the flaws in the prosecutors' theory. In this case, the filmmakers played an equivalent role, but most defendants aren't so lucky.
If this high-profile release helps spur thoughtful attention to the problems of combating cognitive bias in police departments and prosecutors' offices, then some good could still come out of a terrible wrong. Bad convictions harm everyone. Not only do they put innocent people behind bars; they also leave actual criminals — in this case a child murderer — on the streets.
Jennifer L. Mnookin is a professor at UCLA Law School.
the people the support them have failed to post anything other than blogs or Paradise Lost movies.
I could post the entire court documents on here and then still claim what's been claimed already; that there's no direct, solid evidence to convict these three boys. Everything I've posted above is based directly on the court documents.
All of their alibis were fabricated/lies and their stories changed (7 times) All revolving around the time of the murder of where they were. Can you explain why all of their alibis were lies and why the had to change their story so many times if they were innocent?
Except it wasn't quite as bad as you're pretending, was it?
The only discrepancies involved him changing the time from 'one week' here, to 'five days' there, or from 'one hour' here to 'two hours' there.
If someone asked me how long I was at a certain place last week, or one month ago, I'm pretty sure my recollection would also be inaccurate.
So what produces wrongful convictions? At least three of the often-seen causes were present here: dubious forensic science evidence, false confessions and evidence from unreliable jailhouse informants who often have a strong incentive to tell law enforcers what they want to hear.
Cognitive bias helps explain why prosecutors can focus on a suspect (or three) and fail to see the warning signs that they are headed down the wrong path. Cognitive bias is not the same thing as racial bias or personal animus. It's the habit of our brains to let the first fact we encounter guide our evaluation of the second and the third. One false start can lead to a miscarriage of justice more quickly than any of us would like to believe.
In this case, once the cops saw Echols as something of a freak, an odd duck who read about witchcraft, liked Metallica and didn't exactly fit in, the jump from weirdo to likely satanic cult killer was easier than it should have been. Facts that didn't really prove anything were lumped together with suspicions and dubious theories.
Except it wasn't quite as bad as you're pretending, was it?
The only discrepancies involved him changing the time from 'one week' here, to 'five days' there, or from 'one hour' here to 'two hours' there.
If someone asked me how long I was at a certain place last week, or one month ago, I'm pretty sure my recollection would also be inaccurate.
This isn't evidence of anything.
You have no evidence.
So...we have more than a few discrepancies...(this is just damien)
1# Change in time from around 3 to around 6.30.
2# Change from taking Jason home to just taking Domini home.
3# Change in when Damien's medicine was collected.
4# Change in the date when Joe and Pam seperated.
5# Change in who was seen going into the Sanders residence.
6# Change in Damien getting home at 6 and staying at home through the night.
7# Change in Damien being picked up from the laundromat at 6 to 3.45
Nice try... All of these times revolve around when the murder were comitted.
Comments
Wow, Blockhead, I suggest that maybe YOU should actually read the documents you are posting. Your statement that I underlined above is just totally not true, according to the document you posted, nor is your implication that this is some kind of evidence against Damien.
You conveniently left out the next sentence of the document in your quote: "The representatives of Genetic Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to determine which person the blood came from."
So there was NOT "two types of blood" on the necklace & blood did NOT necessarily come from the victim with whom it "would be consistent". It could very easily have come from Damien's best friend. Furthermore, since they weren't doing DNA testing, the blood was probably also consistent with your blood, my blood, the judge's blood, & a million other people's blood. It is evidence of NOTHING.
The only question I now have remaining about guilt is whether you are guilty of lying to us on purpose or just guilty of not understanding the reports you read. Either way, you are clearly not a reliable source of information.
Now, unless you have a slammed door case where you have video evidence of the person committing the crime, it seems to be more difficult to convict, thus really removing the "jury of peers" and any reasoning of theirs from the equation. Again, that might be good because humans are flawed and thus the system is flawed. But, while it does mean less innocent people are wrongly convicted, it certainly also means less guilty people are convicted and convicted at higher levels of charges. Probably a win overall for improving the justice system, but it is tough to swallow at times.
Please read the court document as to why it was not allowed.
No, no, no! Please stop your fucking lying! The blood on the necklace did NOT MATCH the blood of one of the victims! It was "consistent with" the blood of one of the victims, which means something ENTIRELY different. "Matching" means it's his blood, which is what you are incorrectly trying to say. Being "consistent with" just means that they have not yet ruled out that it was his blood, but it could any number of other people's blood. Your other claims are misrepresentations as well.
So where the he'll do you get off refusing to respond to legitimate posts & telling other people to shut the fuck up???
And well never know becuase they didn't use it as evidence or get further testing done.
But TO ME, (With supporting court documents) raises more questions. Its not as If this is my case.
Why are you ignoring the other questions?
Its funny that you are trying to attack me for not being a reliable source yet you support three people who did nothing but tell lies in court and you have no issues with that.
THey fabricated alibis's and changed their story (damien 7 times)
Why would he do that?
You can stop right now with your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude that you are the only person in the world who has read the court documents, as evidenced by the fact that we disagree with you. I have read just as many court documents as you have. All the legal scholars who say they're not guilty have read just as many court documents as you have (and certainly understand them a hell of a lot better).
I don't need to post documents that indicate a lack of evidence when YOU are already doing that for me.
Other people have already given you good reasons why your conclusion is illogical. Why do you ignore all their points? I have no need to waste my time reiterating the same thing of you're not going to pay attention.
FYI, though... Statements from people who said they overheard Damien say something they thought was a confession and "statements where Damien confessed" are NOT the same thing. Just get it straight next time.
Because they are threatening to kill him, and much worse, for a crime he had nothing to do with.
http://www.members.tripod.com/~VanessaW ... dence.html
The statements [ in Jessie Misskelley's confession ] were the strongest evidence offered against the appellant at trial. In fact, they were virtually the only evidence, all other testimony and exhibits serving primarily as corroboration.
The above statement is very important to keep in mind. The statements were obtained in a question-and-answer format rather than in a narrative form. However, we will set out the substance of the statements in such a way as to reveal with clarity the appellant's description of the crime:
In the early morning hours of May 5, 1993, the appellant received a phone call from Jason Baldwin. Baldwin asked the appellant to accompany him and Damien Echols to the Robin Hood area. The appellant agreed to go. They went to the area, which has a creek, and were in the creek when the victims rode up on their bicycles. Baldwin and Echols called to the boys, who came to the creek. The boys were severely beaten by Baldwin and Echols. At least two of the boys were raped and forced to perform oral sex on Baldwin and Echols. According to appellant, he was merely an observer.
While these events were taking place, Michael Moore tried to escape and began running. The appellant chased him down and returned him to Baldwin and Echols. The appellant also stated that Baldwin had used a knife to cut the boys in the facial area and that the Byers boy was cut on his penis. Echols used a large stick to hit one of the boys. All three boys had their clothes taken off and were tied up. According to the appellant, he ran away from the scene at some point after the boys were tied up. He did observe that the Byers boy was dead when he left. Sometime after the appellant arrived home, Baldwin called saying, "we done it" and "what are we going to do if somebody saw us." Echols could be heard in the background. The appellant was asked about his involvement in a cult. He said he had been involved for about three months. The participants would typically meet in the woods. They engaged in orgies and, as an initiation rite, killing and eating dogs. He noted that at one cult meeting, he saw a picture that Echols had taken of the three boys. He stated that Echols had been watching the boys. The appellant was also asked to describe what Baldwin and Echols were wearing the day of the murders. Baldwin was wearing blue jeans, black lace-up boots and a T-shirt with a rendering of a skull and the name of the group Metallica on it. Echols was wearing black pants, boots and a black T-shirt. The appellant initially stated that the events took place about 9:00 a.m. on May 5. Later in the statement, he changed that time to 12:00 noon. He admitted that his time periods might not be exactly right. He explained the presence of the young boys by saying they had skipped school that day.
The first tape recorded statement concluded at 3:18 p.m. At approximately 5:00 p.m., another statement was recorded. This time, the appellant said he, Echols and Baldwin had come to the Robin Hood area between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Upon prompting by the officer, he changed that to 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. He finally settled on saying that his group arrived at 6:00 p.m. while the victims arrived near dark. He went into further detail about the sexual molestation of the victims. At least one of the boys had been held by the head and ears while being accosted. Both the Byers boy and the Branch boy had been raped. All the boys, he said, were tied up with brown rope.
One of the interrogating officers later testified that his notes revealed the appellant told him he received a phone call from Baldwin on the night before the murders. Baldwin stated that they planned to go out and get some boys and hurt them.
The appellant's statements are a confusing amalgam of times and events. Numerous inconsistencies appear, the most obvious being the various times of day the murders took place. Additionally, the boys were not tied with rope, but with black and white shoe laces. It was also revealed that the victims had not skipped school on May 5. Problems with the evidence: CREDIBILITY, EVIDENCE WITHHELD, NEW EVIDENCE REFUTES As even the Arkansas Supreme Court admits, there are serious problems with this evidence. Jessie's statement lacks CREDIBILITY for a two-pronged reason. One, structural clues that it was not a sincere confession but rather the coerced compliant variety of a false confession (1), and, two, evidence its contents conflict with known facts, indicating it is not a credible source of information about the crimes it pertains to. For a thorough explanation of how Jessie may have come to give police a false confession, it is strongly recommended that you read his attorney Dan Stidham's Synopsis of the Case. Here is a brief outline of support for its claim of false confession.
a) There is a pattern of intimidation and threats evident in juvenile interrogations conducted by The West Memphis Police Department. One-time suspect Bob Loomis' experience being grilled by Gary Gitchell are detailed in The Blood Of Innocents (page 150). The Commercial Appeal reports that Kenneth Clyde Watkins, then 17, told private investigator Ron Lax that police browbeat him into saying Echols had confessed to him about killing the boys. Buddy Sidney Lucas says police "yelled and screamed" until he falsely told them that Misskelley had admitted helping Echols and Baldwin hurt someone. (2).
b) Polygraph expert Warren Holmes' analysis of Jessie's test tapes indicate that Jessie was lied to about its results in order to scare him into confessing. This portion of his testimony was WITHHELD from the jury by Judge Burnett on the grounds that polygraph test results are not admissible evidence. He did however, offer the defense a compromise. He would allow them to tell jury that Jessie Misskelley had been told he had failed a polygraph, as long as no other detail was added. (3)
c) The expert opinion of Dr. William E. Wilkins who, despite being under disciplinary review by the Arkansas Board of Examiners in Psychology was an accredited psychologist, testified that Jessie had an IQ of around 72 and was of a highly suggestible personality. (4)
d) The expert opinion of Dr. Richard Ofshe, a professor of Social Psychology at Berkely, that Jessie's confession was a coercive compliant confession. This, too, was WITHHELD from the jury. Judge Burnett ruled that the law allows no expert witness to testify about anything which "speaks to the core of the issue", which is whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. This is despite the fact that Ofshe had been allowed to offer similar testimony in other courts without the judges so ruling. Ofshe also pointed out many instances of coaching about the proper timing of events in the forty minutes of tape Jessie's statement is recorded on, as well as instances where he is coached about the identity of the victim who'd been emasculated, and attempted coaching about what materials were used to bind the victims. Nearly three hours of the interrogation which led to the taping were never recorded. (1) The errors of fact in Jessie's statement can also be used to support a claim that it is a false confession, but they are an issue unto themselves in regards to the CREDIBILITY the statement should be given allowance for.
At the time of his 1994 trial, it conflicted with at least six known issues of fact:
a) Placing the victims and Jason Baldwin out of school at times they were demonstrably in school.
b) Stating victims were bound with rope whereas they were found tied with their own shoelaces.
c) Stating one boy was choked into unconsciousness with a stick whereas the medical examiner could detect nothing to indicate this.
d) Stating boys were "screwed," implying anal rape, whereas medical examiner could find no signs of the expected anal abrasions or other evidence which would back this up.
e) Describing traumatic beatings issued to the boys which would have left more sign of blood in the soil of reputed crime scene than tests ever indicated.
f) Describing Chris Byers' emasculation as accomplice with a single swing of a knife whereas medical examiner testified it would take a great deal of precision and skill. (5)
Ironically, both Jessie and the medical examiner turn out to be wrong about the last point. NEW EVIDENCE in the form of a Forensic Analysis and Psychological Profile by Forensic Scientist Brent Turvey, concludes the emasculation was a crude, imprecise act, yet one which was not accomplished with one swing of a blade. (6) This is only a tiny part of Turvey's findings, which represent the first true scientific look by a qualified professional at the crime materials.
In Turvey's opinion, Robin Hood Hills Woods was only the the dump site for a crime committed elsewhere, indicated only in part by a) The nature and extent of Byers' wounds especially required adequate lighting conditions, time and privacy. From beginning to end crime would have taken two hours. (6)
b) The injuries on all boys would likely have resulted in great deal of screaming. If crime were committed when and where state proposed it was, then this noise, not to mention the span of time the crime required, would have been occurring during a time searchers were already in the woods looking for the boys. (6)
c) Lack of blood at dump site indicates assaults committed elsewhere. (6)
d) Lack of mosquito bites on victims indicates they were no longer alive when bodies were taken to the stream for dumping. (7) Through forensic odontology, it will be possible to match a set of teeth to who made these bites. Jessie Misskelley never mentioned biting as part of the assault he witnessed or took part in.
Moreover, Turvey has created a psychological profile of the offender based, in part, on factors such as the following:
* Due to the sudden violent nature of the attack and the limited resistance displayed by the victims, it is likely the offender is someone they knew and trusted. (6)
* The likelihood that emasculation of one victim in particular has a sexual meaning to offender but not necessarily for sexual gratification.. (6)
* The level of attention paid to victim's faces, in terms of depersonalization and rage, is further indicative of familiarity. (6)
* The punishment orientation of act, as opposed to being one of an erotic sexual nature. (6) * The method would need access to a vehicle as means of transportation. (6)
Turvey's analysis invalidates every detail of Jessie Misskelley's confession, impeaching it in total, thereby robbing the state of the entirety of its case against Jessie Misskelley, and the entirety of the West Memphis Police theory of the crime, as well.
Well, it doesn't show if he is guilty or innocent, but certainly an asshole.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Jessie admitted guilt the day of his arrest.
Jessie told Buddy Lucas directly that he was guilty
Jessie told his own lawyer he was guilty and maintained his guilt after the trial.
Jessie gave a taped statement to his own lawyer and even gave outside evidence that he was telling the truth (Evan Williams bottle).
Jessie confessed to two transport officers after conviction.
Jessie confessed to prosecutors after he was convicted and against his lawyers pleadings.
Jessie confessed to fellow inmates at least 8 months after he had been incarcerated.
I'm not saying it was right, but if a group of people were in the process of trying to kill me, I might not respond politely either, especially if I was a teenager & lacked coping skills.
Yep, you might act like an asshole. Not really the best thing to do when being charged with murder though. And it shows that he has some impulse that he can't control...again, not a murderer though. For that anyhow.
I agree that it was impulsive & unwise. I think we ALL have a breaking point, though, at which we lose our temper, i.e. some impulse that we can't control, given the right circumstances. Thankfully none/most of us have ever had to find out how we'd react to such a horrible situation.
Why would you beleive a documentary done by the person who did "the blair witch project" and spreads lies that one of the boys is mentally challenged.
I have seen it posted in this thread.
Have you read damiens mental history? I mean I posted almost the entire index so you can just read it. I am the only one referencing the court documents showing how many lies they told and made up alibis.
I have not said once that I am smarter than a leagal scholars.
050: Individual Progress Note (1/19/93)
“Mom told me to apply for disability – what do you think?”
Reveals a history of abuse as he talked of how he was treated as a child.
Denies that this has influenced him stating “I just put it all inside” Describes this as more than just anger – like rage. Sometimes he does “blow up”.
Relates that when this happens the only solution is to “hurt someone”.
Damien reports being told at the hospital that he could be another “Charles Manson or Ted Bundy”
When questioned on his feelings he states, “I know I’m going to influence the world – people will remember me”.
Jessie said he lied about the time and the rope to "trick the police and to see if they were lying."
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html
DAVIS: Ok. Now what happens next, you said that Damien was pullin on one of the boys penis'. What happens next?
MISSKELLEY: We tied'm up.
DAVIS: Ok. Now you said before when the police asked you in their statement and asked you what they were tied up with. And you said they were tied up with rope. Ah..
MISSKELLEY: I made that up.
DAVIS: Why?
MISSKELLEY: Tied to get off, you know get'm off track.
I have read a lot of the links you posted, (and have seen many of them in the past). I do not see them as smoking gun evidence that they are guilty. You might as well drop the Echols mental history stuff. It doesnt implicate him in murder. I feel like thats just as inflammatory as the misconception that Miskelley is considered retarded.
The Wm3 were pretty fucked up kids before all this happened, but there are fucked up kids all over the world -- that doesnt make them guilty of murder. I honestly dont like to make a conclusion in my mind if they are innocent or guilty because there are a lot of unanswered questions, but I do feel like they were convicted on poor evidence and were not granted a fair trial when this began.
You also keep posting what you call 'confessions' by Echols -- when they were classmates who claimed to have overheard him saying he killed those boys, those arent confessions. Some recanted, some were considered unreliable.. and we all know how high school is and how the 'normal kids' sometimes make up shit to make the 'weird kids' look bad. isnt posting that stuff as biased and misleading as the Paradise lost documentaries?
In all honesty, I saw the Paradise lost documentaries, and I kept a neutral stance through the whole thing because I knew they were biased. But They defintely shed some light on how fucked up all the people/parents/investigators were in the case. the case was fucked up --there is no doubt about that, and it was handled poorly from the start.
How about giving us your interpretation of these facts:
--Why was there no blood at the scene of the murders??
--how do you explain the bloody guy who entered Bojangles and the evidence collected (I vaguely recall) was lost??
Yes, I've read Damien's mental history. You're not the only one here who's done research, ya know. Many of us have read the same stuff you have & come to a different conclusion. Just because you can read & post links doesn't mean your analysis of (or even representation of) the facts is sound.
The point is, you have not posted anything that proves guilt.
So what your saying is you need video evidence or they didn't do it.
Look at the facts. Jesse confessed multiple times even after conviction. Why do you dismiss that?
He admitted he lied during his first confession to throw the cops off (which I have linked).
He disclosed evidence of the scene (Evan William wiskey bottle) that he had, which was later found at the scene? Why do you dismiss these? Whats your explanation for them?
All of their alibis were fabricated/lies and their stories changed (7 times) All revolving around the time of the murder of where they were. Can you explain why all of their alibis were lies and why the had to change their story so many times if they were innocent?
I don't know why you are dismissing damiens mental history. He had a history of violence, Saying he wanted to sacrifice a child, hospitilizations for violent behavior. Both him and jesse failed poly's, admitting in his own hand writing that he had homicidal urges... Why do you dismiss all of this?
False confessions are not uncommon, and happen for a variety of reasons. Mental impairment, ignorance of the law, coercion, duress etc, they can, and have all caused people to confess to crimes they were later cleared of by solid proof like DNA evidence. Whilst I wouldn't want to make any particular judgement on Jessie Misskelley's mental state, even watching the court proceedings from the weekend, it's quite clear that he is (for want of a better word) simple. Now imagine him as a scared and confused 17 year old kid in that situation.
A whiskey bottle found under a bridge, a bridge that may well be frequented by transients who could easily have dropped a bottle there, never tested for finger prints or dna that could link it to any of the WM3? That's some kind of smoking gun to you? He could have dropped the bottle there way before the crime took place, and that's how he knew it was there.
Maybe they didn't have alibis for the time and they panicked because they knew if they said they didn't have an alibi that the police would use that as evidence against them? That's a perfectly plausible explanation.
Well firstly, polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable, and as such are generally not considered a scientifically accurate test. Guilty people have passed them, innocent people have failed them, so I don't think there is any way you can argue that this is a significant point, because it just isn't.
The reason why people dismiss all of this is because it alone is not proof of anything.
Again, I am nuetral on whether or not they commited the crime. I am adamant that they got shafted at their original trial.
1. YOU are now creating biased false info. That bottle wasnt found at the scene. it was by a bridge, where they frequently walked past. Also, I agree with Facepollution.. a broken bottle that he saw isnt great evidence.
2. I agree with facepollution again on the alibi thing. I was home playing video games by myself last sunday. If I was accused of murder, i'd have no alibi. Maybe they knew that their reputations would bring heat and being a stupid 16-17 year old, they made shit up. Not uncommon.
3. Failed polys? So what. see facepollutions post too. Do you have details of this too?.. I honestly havent seen this before.
4. Mental history could be analyzed if there was pure evidence that they did the murders. Again, there are tons of unbalanced folks out there.. this has NOTHING to do with the actual crime. if you saw the art I created between the age of 12-17, you'd put me in a mental institution too.
** HOW COME YOU DISMISSED MY LAST TWO QUESTIONS??
August 23, 2011
Last week, the "West Memphis Three" were released from prison, having spent half their lives — 18 years — behind bars for crimes they almost certainly didn't commit. So what made prosecutors and investigators sure they had the right guys, and why were those beliefs, once established, so hard to reverse?
The crimes for which the three Memphis men were convicted were brutal. Three 8-year-old Cub Scouts were found dead, hogtied and apparently mutilated. The police decided early on that it was likely the boys had been victims of a satanic cult killing, which led them to consider self-described Wiccan teen Damien Echols, a young man with asymmetric black hair, a pale face and oddball taste in clothes and music. They hauled in an acquaintance of his, a minor named Jessie Misskelley, who had an IQ of 72, and interviewed him for hours without his parents or an attorney present. Finally, he confessed, implicating Echols and another friend, Jason Baldwin.
The confession confirmed what police expected to hear — that Echols was involved — which may be why they accepted it at face value. But Misskelley's account contradicted the evidence in multiple ways. The time he initially gave for the murders was noon, an hour for which the other teens had an ironclad alibi (they were in school); he said that the other suspects raped the boys, but the medical evidence showed no physical trauma consistent with rape and no semen was found in any body cavity; he said the boys were tied up with a brown rope, when they were actually found tied with their own shoestrings.
An overarching problem, which this case illustrates perfectly, is that humans have a tendency to see what they expect to see. Much psychological research shows that people are subject to an array of "cognitive biases" that affect their evaluation of evidence, and prosecutors and sworn officers are by no means immune to the phenomenon.
Investigators and prosecutors, even when they are trying their best to do their jobs, may seek out or take special notice of evidence that confirms their prior beliefs rather than evidence that challenges it. And they are likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in ways that accord with their preconceptions.
Misskelley promptly recanted his confession. But prosecutors nonetheless pressed the case, and he and the others were ultimately convicted. The prosecutor's case was based largely on character assassination, innuendo and the not-very-credible testimony of the likes of a jailhouse snitch and a witness with a mail-order doctorate. Not a shred of physical evidence linked any of the young men to the crime scene (and post-conviction DNA testing has also failed to find any biological evidence that they were there). Echols received the death penalty, the others life sentences.
That's how things might have ended if two documentary filmmakers hadn't ventured to Arkansas to make a film about the case. Initially they thought they would be examining a sensational satanic cult killing. But the more research they did, the more they began to doubt that it was a cult killing and that the men who were convicted were the perpetrators. Their film suggested the defendants had been railroaded, and it led to widespread publicity and higher-powered legal representation.
But nothing happened quickly. The film came out almost 15 years ago. Even now, to win freedom, the three men agreed to Alford pleas, whereby they proclaimed their innocence but formally pleaded guilty nonetheless.
The case demonstrates the need for criminal justice and evidentiary reforms that would make wrongful convictions less common on the front end. Although releasing some fraction of those wrongfully convicted afterward is all to the good, it would be even better if there were fewer of them in the first place.
So what produces wrongful convictions? At least three of the often-seen causes were present here: dubious forensic science evidence, false confessions and evidence from unreliable jailhouse informants who often have a strong incentive to tell law enforcers what they want to hear.
Cognitive bias helps explain why prosecutors can focus on a suspect (or three) and fail to see the warning signs that they are headed down the wrong path. Cognitive bias is not the same thing as racial bias or personal animus. It's the habit of our brains to let the first fact we encounter guide our evaluation of the second and the third. One false start can lead to a miscarriage of justice more quickly than any of us would like to believe.
In this case, once the cops saw Echols as something of a freak, an odd duck who read about witchcraft, liked Metallica and didn't exactly fit in, the jump from weirdo to likely satanic cult killer was easier than it should have been. Facts that didn't really prove anything were lumped together with suspicions and dubious theories.
We can't eliminate cognitive biases altogether; they're part of how we think. But we can design procedures to reduce their effects on investigators, prosecutors and even jurors. Police departments and prosecutors can and should implement mechanisms explicitly designed to combat it. For example, in every major case, an investigator or prosecutor with no prior involvement could be asked to review the evidence and assess its strengths and weaknesses. Even better would be if this reviewer weren't expected to provide a "neutral" review but instead were assigned the role of devil's advocate, explicitly asked to find the flaws in the prosecutors' theory. In this case, the filmmakers played an equivalent role, but most defendants aren't so lucky.
If this high-profile release helps spur thoughtful attention to the problems of combating cognitive bias in police departments and prosecutors' offices, then some good could still come out of a terrible wrong. Bad convictions harm everyone. Not only do they put innocent people behind bars; they also leave actual criminals — in this case a child murderer — on the streets.
Jennifer L. Mnookin is a professor at UCLA Law School.
I could post the entire court documents on here and then still claim what's been claimed already; that there's no direct, solid evidence to convict these three boys. Everything I've posted above is based directly on the court documents.
There is no evidence, Just rumour and conjecture.
Except it wasn't quite as bad as you're pretending, was it?
The only discrepancies involved him changing the time from 'one week' here, to 'five days' there, or from 'one hour' here to 'two hours' there.
If someone asked me how long I was at a certain place last week, or one month ago, I'm pretty sure my recollection would also be inaccurate.
This isn't evidence of anything.
You have no evidence.
Right.
1# Change in time from around 3 to around 6.30.
2# Change from taking Jason home to just taking Domini home.
3# Change in when Damien's medicine was collected.
4# Change in the date when Joe and Pam seperated.
5# Change in who was seen going into the Sanders residence.
6# Change in Damien getting home at 6 and staying at home through the night.
7# Change in Damien being picked up from the laundromat at 6 to 3.45
Nice try... All of these times revolve around when the murder were comitted.