No New Trial for WM3
Vedderman51
Posts: 606
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Vedderman51
Posts: 606
Comments
That's sad.
indeed. :(
DNA evidence itself is strong, isn't it?
I wonder if they can say this part in the article:
"A month passed before police arrested the three defendants, who were teens at the time. Misskelley told investigators he watched Baldwin and Echols sexually assault and beat two of the boys as he ran down another trying to escape."
And leaving out that he said it was forced on him to "confess" so he could go home.
One month is plenty of time for the police to know the details surrounding the murders of the boys and feeding that to Jessie with the way they were questioning him.
I know they had more things to support the new evidences - such as other possible suspects and even the victim's family were questioning about the whole thing.
Just the DNA itself argument (however stronger it is than others) to ask for a new trial....you'd think the judge would go for that, but had he considered other evidences brought into the picture, would he have re-considered?
thanks for the updates, Jeetz.
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
3 Decibels Doubles the Volume
2006
Seems like a corrupt judge and corrupt police force....if you ask me. Seems like one of those little town cases where no one could ever get a fair trial; unless you're related to one of the big 'ole boys pr are in bed with them.
The judge in Arkansas is looking out for his own more than anything.
*edit* I just noticed the links to the other articles as well. This sad beyond words....
Leaving is for the answering machine.
I hope so too but I found it on Googletrends this morning and it was one of the top stories
I live in a small town and do see how it happens.
Letting little things slip by and relationships/roles getting blurred and letting friendships getting in the way, favors, etc etc etc....to the point where when it gets exposed, people get pissed off and wonder what the fuck happened.
The problem is holding people accountable. Even the "friends".
Sometimes I don't know what is worse - knowing those people and knowing what's going on and not knowing those people and knowing what's going on.... it's quite distressing, especially when I and others are drowned out when we question the people or the system.
But I don't know anything about the current mentality of the judge/police - and I do have to wonder, though...
With so much publicity the WM3 and the town - I imagine even to this day - receive, you'd think that the current judge/police would be under scrutinization?
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
That isn't a dumb question and I am wondering the same thing, too.... it doesn't look too good.
It is hard and a very expensive process to request a new trial.
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
I am not sure, but they may still be able to take it to the US Supreme Court
While DNA evidence is strong, it is circumstancial evidence, not direct evidence.
A confession is direct evidence.
That does make sense...
Unfortunately, I do question the confession part. The more I read about different things going on and what people said, it did seem like he was coerced into 'confessing' the crime so he could go home.
That's why I wondered why they didn't include other things along with the DNA evidence for the judge to consider a new trial.
But I think you are right, though about the DNA evidence on its own.
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
With that, instead of dropping the charges completely, I had to pay a $125 court cost fee. All because a confused cop said "I can't quite remember, but you got cross with me." Obviously, this is on a much smaller scale. But what if it had been something larger.
Growing up in a small town in a county on the Missouri/Arkansas border, I completely see how this could happen. Unfortunate. But true.
Don't know if the ad had anything to do with this big bang or not:
the judge issued a ruling just before 5:00 today (just before running out the back door?) that he would not hear any of the DNA evidence in dismissing the petition for a new trial. If you've seen the state's response to Damien's filing on our website, that's what the judge used in the content of his order changing the wording only slightly.
We haven't seen the document. We got word from a reporter, so check the newspaper tomorrow for any more details on this. We've got a Jonesboro TV reporter working on getting through to the judge at his house tonight. We don't know what his plans are in regards to the rule 37 petitions for Jason and Jessie, whether he'll hear those or not.
I'm wondering if it is normal for a judge to release his information to the press before sending anything to the lawyer's? Dennis Riordan, Damien's lawyer, should just now be in receipt of the judge's statement by fax from a reporter. Craighead Co. court does nothing electronically with lawyers, press, anyone--only hard copies.
We do know that Mr. Riordan should be making a statement, or giving us one to make, tomorrow after getting the full details. He and Lorri were both ecstatic at the news of a non-hearing in Damien's case. It is very good news to be able to move on to federal court in LR.
******* Anyone interested in any information regarding this case, pm me.
I work closely with the Arkansas chapter of supporters.