WestMemphis3 Question

SPEEDY MCCREADY · September 2010

Paul David wrote:

why the hell would he? do you think the call would be welcome? he probably wouldn't want to cause them any more pain than they already have experienced.

imagine someone you loved being murdered. imagine the alleged killers being sent to prison. imagine a celebrity trying to get convicted killers out of jail. imagine that celebrity calling you to discuss.

would you welcome that call? I wouldn't. I'd call it a slap in the face.

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Not ONCE has Eddie Vedder contacted or spoken to any of the victims families???

I find that strange....

Why would Eddie Vedder contact the families???

Who are the victims here???
The convicted murderers or the 3 little boys?

AmishGuy91 · September 2010

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Who are the victims here???
The convicted murderers or the 3 little boys?

Both.

dimitrispearljam · September 2010

i dont know if those three are guilty,but ed,or who ever support the guys on jail and believe that their innocent MUST contact the 3 boys family was murdered ..is the normal to do it,and try to prove them that they try to lock down the real bad guys in jail..the ones they believe that kill their childrens

Gern Blansten · September 2010

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Paul David wrote:

why the hell would he? do you think the call would be welcome? he probably wouldn't want to cause them any more pain than they already have experienced.

imagine someone you loved being murdered. imagine the alleged killers being sent to prison. imagine a celebrity trying to get convicted killers out of jail. imagine that celebrity calling you to discuss.

would you welcome that call? I wouldn't. I'd call it a slap in the face.

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Not ONCE has Eddie Vedder contacted or spoken to any of the victims families???

I find that strange....

Why would Eddie Vedder contact the families???

Who are the victims here???
The convicted murderers or the 3 little boys?

You are arguing like someone who hasn't reviewed the reasoning behind why so many people feel the wrong people were convicted.

Educate yourself please.

mrpink90 · September 2010

2 girls also testified that they heard echols admit to the killings at a softball game shortly after the murders, which echols recently admitted that he might have done and chalked it up to being a dumb teenager. Does that make any sense?

Also a kid jason baldwin spent time in jail with testified that baldwin told him he did the crime.

So all 3 supposedly admitted to the killings (well 1 obviously definitely did, misskelley), whether you believe those people that testifed against echols and baldwin is another story. But the jury obviously believed it.

SPEEDY MCCREADY · September 2010

Gern Blansten wrote:

You are arguing like someone who hasn't reviewed the reasoning behind why so many people feel the wrong people were convicted.

Educate yourself please.

I GUARANTEE you, I have read more material on Damien Echols and The west Memphis, than you or 99% of the people on this board....

Hugh Freaking Dillon · September 2010

whether they are guilty or innocent is irrelevant to your question anyway, Speedy. of course the original victims are the boys and their families. but what purpose would it serve for Ed to contact the families of the boys? to try to explain himself and why he believes the WM3 are innocent? to apologize to them? what?

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

You are arguing like someone who hasn't reviewed the reasoning behind why so many people feel the wrong people were convicted.

Educate yourself please.

I GUARANTEE you, I have read more material on Damien Echols and The west Memphis, than you or 99% of the people on this board....

Hugh Freaking Dillon · September 2010

the thing I don't get, from what was stated on the show last night (I still admit I know very little of this case, so go easy on me), is that Ed believes 100% that the evidence they now have exonerates the WM3. But the only thing they mentioned was that they found no DNA of any of the WM3. That doesn't, to me anyway, prove their innocence, it just doesn't prove their guilt. Big difference. Am I wrong?

Ed never fully stated whether he believes the conviction needs to be thrown out/reversed or overturned and new trial ordered. Does he think they should get a new trial, or their outright innocence declared?

left the porch · September 2010

I would bet that the victims families, two of which now believe the WM3, just want the real killer(s) brought to justice. And if that isn't Jessie, Damien and Jason then they should be set free. I'm sure that Ed, Natalie and Johnny would be more than willing to help the families if they were behind bars and facing the death penalty.

The one kid's dad wears a Free the WM3 t-shirt for fuck sakes!

And I'm sure that they have done their research and wouldn't put their reputations on the line for something they didn't truly believe. I think Ed seems like a pretty good judge of character. Except for his friendship with that asshole Chris Chelios. Can't figure that one out.

Should the WM3 get a new trial? Dosen't everyone involved deserve to know the truth? Have innocent people ever gone to jail because of poor police investigations or crooked lawyers? Have confessions ever been co-erced from people with a lot higher IQ than Jessie? Should DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time of the original trial be observed now?

YES to all of the above!

Here's what needs to happen; a new trial outside of Arkansas with an impartial jury and judge. Both sides put their cards on the table and let's see what comes out of it. Until that happens nobody wins and justice remains unserved.

All I know is that if my kid was murdered I would want who did it to pay the highest price possible. And that would mean that without a shadow of a doubt the real killer was the one behind bars facing the death penalty. If he is still out there then the victims families did not receive justice at all, they are just being lied to like the rest of us.

fox_mulderX · September 2010

THEBIBLEISTEN wrote:

Intersting. I guess ill try and watch that paradise lost documentary.

very interesting documentary. there's a sequel to it which is a little more recent.

Gern Blansten · September 2010

mrpink90 wrote:

2 girls also testified that they heard echols admit to the killings at a softball game shortly after the murders, which echols recently admitted that he might have done and chalked it up to being a dumb teenager. Does that make any sense?

Also a kid jason baldwin spent time in jail with testified that baldwin told him he did the crime.

So all 3 supposedly admitted to the killings (well 1 obviously definitely did, misskelley), whether you believe those people that testifed against echols and baldwin is another story. But the jury obviously believed it.

2. DAMIEN ECHOLS' OVERHEARD CONFESSION Twelve-year-old Christy VanVickle testified that she heard Echols say he "killed the three boys." Fifteen-year-old Jackie Medford testified that she heard Echols say, "I killed the three little boys and before I turn myself in, I'm going to kill two more, and I already have one of them picked out." The testimony of these two independent witnesses was direct evidence of the statement by Echols. These witnesses were cross-examined by Echols's counsel, and it was the jury's province to weigh their credibility. Problems: CREDIBILITY, RELEVANCE One wonders what kind of scale the jury was using. The credibility -- even the relevance -- of the girls' accounts are vulnerable to attack on virtually every front. They allege to have overheard these remarks the first of several occasions Damien Echols attended games at the local softball field starting sometime in May. (22).

They only came to believe the man they saw was Damien Echols after seeing television news reports days about his arrest, at which point Jody Medford's mother contacted the authorities. Till then, the mother had not taken the girls' stories seriously enough to take this measure. Neither girl could account for why it was physically possible that they could hear Damien Echols make this statement, yet nothing else Damien may have said, nor anything being said by any of the people he was allegedly in conversation with.

Neither could they describe any of these persons' appearance. By the lack of context provided for their quote, its meaning is thrown into question. Even if the story was not something the girls invented to draw attention to themselves, even if their memory of the words was accurate after the month which had elapsed before reporting them, and even if the man who made them was indeed Damien Echols, this can be asked: Was it said in a serious manner, meant to be taken literally, or was it perhaps a sarcastic, facetious parody of what Damien knew other people were saying about him, made by him in the casual company of friends with whom he felt he could joke around? Given the outlandish nature of the remarks, this is ironically not a possibility which can be dismiss outright even if one were to presume that Damien is guilty.

left the porch · September 2010

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

You are arguing like someone who hasn't reviewed the reasoning behind why so many people feel the wrong people were convicted.

Educate yourself please.

I GUARANTEE you, I have read more material on Damien Echols and The west Memphis, than you or 99% of the people on this board....

Oh I doubt that bud, but you seem to know everything so........maybe.

But I bet Ed, Johnny, Natalie, Patti etc. has read more than you.

Who do you trust?

MB50486 · September 2010

I remember reading somewhere that there is more evidence that one of the murder victims father committed the crime. Anyone know/hear anything similar?

Gern Blansten · September 2010

mrpink90 wrote:

2 girls also testified that they heard echols admit to the killings at a softball game shortly after the murders, which echols recently admitted that he might have done and chalked it up to being a dumb teenager. Does that make any sense?

Also a kid jason baldwin spent time in jail with testified that baldwin told him he did the crime.

So all 3 supposedly admitted to the killings (well 1 obviously definitely did, misskelley), whether you believe those people that testifed against echols and baldwin is another story. But the jury obviously believed it.

10) JASON BALDWIN'S JAILHOUSE CONFESSION Jason Baldwin does not contend that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt. This is, perhaps, in part, because of the testimony of Michael Carson, who testified that he talked to Baldwin about the murders. Carson's testimony, in pertinent part, was abstracted as follows: I said, just between me and you, did you do it. I won't say a word. He said yes and he went into detail about it. It was just me and Jason [Baldwin]. He told me he dismembered the kids, or I don't know exactly how many kids. He just said he dismembered them. He sucked the blood from the penis and scrotum and put the balls in his mouth. Problems: CREDIBILITY, EVIDENCE WITHHELD Questions about Carson's credibility abound. The jury was not allowed to hear several important pieces of information which may have helped them better judge Carson's story. Carson was medically-diagnosed LSD addict. (32) This information was denied the jury because Judge Burnett ruled that substance abuse was not sufficient grounds to argue the probativeness of a witness's truthfulness. (33) Danny Williams, a juvenile detention counselor at a detention center Jason Baldwin was held after his arrest, admitted in communications to both the prosecution and the defense near the beginning of the trial that he had discussed this case with Michael Carson, who was an inmate at the center for a brief overlap with Jason Baldwin. In the counselor's opinion, Carson was about to perjure himself by testifying in court to the many crime rumors he himself told Williams, passing them off as though . They were a confession coming out of Baldwin's mouth. (34) Judge Burnett apparently chose not to let the jury hear his testimony because he felt it would violate Carson's right to patient-counselor confidentiality. (35) Although Carson was able to testify that he was not receiving any upcoming legal consideration in return for his testimony, he neglected to mention that shortly before the trial he had been granted parole. (36) It has never been proven Carson and Jason ever came in contact with each other while in the center.

SPEEDY MCCREADY · September 2010

Shortly after Misskelley's original confession, police arrested Echols and his close friend Baldwin. Eight months after his original confession, on February 17, 1994, Misskelley made another statement to police with his lawyer Dan Stidham in the room continually advising Misskelley not to say anything. Misskelley ignored this advice continually and went on to detail how Damien and Jason abused and murdered the boys, while he watched until he decided to leave

left the porch · September 2010

MB50486 wrote:

I remember reading somewhere that there is more evidence that one of the murder victims father committed the crime. Anyone know/hear anything similar?

Terry Hobbs - step father red neck wife beating loser! Whose DNA WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE!

wolfamongwolves · September 2010

U R A Crazy Breed wrote:

I guess the OP doesn't know how the pigs...err.....police operate....there are plenty of innocent people who have gone to jail for shit they didn't do...

... and many more who have been executed - based on coerced, or subsequently retracted, witness statements.

One of the countless reasons why the death penalty should be abolished.

Paul David wrote:

...the only thing they mentioned was that they found no DNA of any of the WM3. That doesn't, to me anyway, prove their innocence, it just doesn't prove their guilt. Big difference. Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong, but that surely amounts to cause for reasonable doubt, which at the very least, should be justification for a new trial.

AmishGuy91 · September 2010

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Paul David wrote:

...the only thing they mentioned was that they found no DNA of any of the WM3. That doesn't, to me anyway, prove their innocence, it just doesn't prove their guilt. Big difference. Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong, but that surely amounts to cause for reasonable doubt, which at the very least, should be justification for a new trial.

And that's really the whole issue. The bottom line is to convict you have to be 100% certain beyond a reasonable doubt. And there's no way anyone can hear all the evidence (including the new DNA evidence) in this case and come to a 100% conclusion that these three men committed the crime. There's just no way.

Blah · September 2010

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

You are arguing like someone who hasn't reviewed the reasoning behind why so many people feel the wrong people were convicted.

Educate yourself please.

I GUARANTEE you, I have read more material on Damien Echols and The west Memphis, than you or 99% of the people on this board....

I'm in the 1 percent you haven't and I think a strong doubt exists and if we have doubt then a person shouldn't be executed. I would bet you wouldn't be willing to personally execute Echols because I will bet you have a little tiny doubt yourself hidden away you don't talk about at parties............how can someone not if they know as much as you claim to know...............so either your fibbing about your depth of knowledge about the case or your IQ is only a few points higher than Misskelley's. And I don't say that to be mean but no way any person with a normal functioning brain can not have some doubt about weather they did this crime based on all the evidence.

SPEEDY MCCREADY · September 2010

Beach Bum wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

You are arguing like someone who hasn't reviewed the reasoning behind why so many people feel the wrong people were convicted.

Educate yourself please.

I GUARANTEE you, I have read more material on Damien Echols and The west Memphis, than you or 99% of the people on this board....

I'm in the 1 percent you haven't and I think a strong doubt exists and if we have doubt then a person shouldn't be executed. I would bet you wouldn't be willing to personally execute Echols because I will bet you have a little tiny doubt yourself............how can someone not if they know as much as you claim to know not have doubt in this case...............so either your fibbing about your depth of knowledge about the case or your IQ is only a few points higher than Misskelley's. And I don't say that to be mean but no way any person with a normal functioning brain can not have some doubt about weather they did this crime based on all the evidence.

Well I am glad you dont want to be mean about it.....hehehehehehehe

WestMemphis3 Question

Comments

Categories