Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

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.

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

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?

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

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.

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

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.

_ wrote:

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?