Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed

cincybearcat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

Newsflash for you blockhead, Echols mental history means absolutely nothing. There are a million kids with histories just like his and way worse. They aren't going around killing kids. It means fuck all.

ooooooh yes it does,it shows violent tendensies with the possibilty of murder with no remorse....would someone please spell check that for me..

Godfather.

I do believe he spelled "blockhead" and "fuck" correctly in his personal attack.

you've got the passive-aggressive thing nailed down ...

The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:

I can only imagine what I would have been like if I'd grown up in fucking West Memphis, Arkansas. It must be right in the bible belt because when I was looking for a local radio station to listen to on the day of the hearing, most radio stations were either talking religion or playing christian rock. Every other song had 'God' in the title. These guys had been locked up in nut country.

If the WM3 went to church, listened to christian rock and dressed "properly," they probably never would have gone to jail for these crimes, or even been suspected of committing them.

The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children). But it would have been a lot more difficult to find the killer(s) because EVERYONE would have been a suspect. Much easier to focus on the weird teenagers that listened to "devil's music" and dressed in black.

HAHAHA!!!! Perfect example of doing what you hate...

You think they are biased and looking at "weird teenagers", etc.

But you say "The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children)"

How's it feel to be just like them?

It's the simple truth.

not really. perhaps you should look up truth in the dictionary. No where will you find "opinion".

Why did the state free them?

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Never once in the last 5 years...All the little documentaries I have watched...60 minutes?? 20/20?? Blah Blah Blah....All the little news specials on the West Memphis 3...

Never once did they EVER bring up Damiens mental history...
Never once did they actually bring up the court transcripts...
Never once did they bring up Jesse confessing with a lawyer present....

All they said was "These were 3 kids who listened to heavy metal and dressed different"

Which is nothing but PURE HORSESHIT!!!!!

Anyone who can ignore confession after confession after confession - including a taped statement to his own attorneys in private - simply doesn't WANT to believe Misskelley

Like i've said a hundred times, I do not consider Echols, Balwin and Miskelley innocent. This is the most concerning thing to me.. Miskelleys inconsistencies and lies.. but Convicting them and sentencing to death on this shoddy confessoin is inappropraite in my opinion.

And not just in your opinion, but in the eyes of the LAW. It's fucking mystifying to me how so many people are so willing to disregard the system of justice that (when not disregarded) protects us & makes our nation great. Sad. And frightening. :(

It never ceases to amaze (and sadden) me when people think if they spout the same bullshit over & over & over again - loudly & with a condescending, assholeish attitude - then that will make it true - regardless of things like facts, logic, understanding, basic analytical skills, etc. It makes it impossible to move forward with a reasonable discussion - and it makes me afraid to ever be judged by a jury of my "peers".

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I just dont underastand why you cant accept that the scene was handled poorly. The entire case was handled poorly. Yes, there are many, many biased opinions on this case, but in the end, the way evidence was handled was a joke and the authorities fucked up continuously.

Again, Echols and Miskelley were VERY fucked up kids. No denying that. But what was used at trail was a sham and did not warrant a guilty verdict. If those copes/detectives had done their job better, maybe, just maybe Echols would still be in jail. I dont know why you keep dismissing that. the Shit job the authorities did to implicate Echols is exactly what set him free. You should be bashing these authorities with equal conviction.

Who says I am not, has anyone asked that question?
What specific evidence was handled poorly.
Its funny how you complain that I am dismissing the detectives jobs,
Yet everyone in here is dismissing multiple confessions, changes in stories (time of murder) 7 times, The fact that they fabricated/lied about all their alibis... You can take the evidence piece by piece and argue it, but if you put this together as a whole and look at it from the point of view, time/place/lying about alibis/whereabouts/ its clear it was them. (my opinion)

how about the very basic foundation of our legal system. Its called "innocent until PROVEN guilty" I know, I know it seems to have been flipped on its head at some point. But it is still there.

the burden here is not on these now not so young men, but on law enforcement and the prosecutors to PROVE beyond a REASONABLE doubt , with hard PHYSICAL evidence that these guys are guilty.

Until then , we all have our OPINION one way or the other.

_ wrote:

You seem to be saying one should never trust the judgement of another person, Godather. Is there no one in the world whose judgement you trust, whose knowledge/opinions/beliefs you would take into the slightest bit of consideration when forming your opinions??

Eddie has proven himself to be an extremely intelligent man with similar values to most of us and the wisdom to appropriately apply them. Additionally, he has more knowledge of this case than any of us. He has the resources (time, money, staff) to have researched every detail of the case. He knows ALL the evidence from both sides. He has been involved in the investigation for years. And he actually KNOWS the defendants personally. Eddie Vedder is one of the few EXPERTS on this case. The only people who know more about it are the WM3, the boys who were murdered, & the killers.

Should we blindly follow experts on any subject? No, and no one is blindly following Ed in this case. But when we don't have the resources to become experts ourselves on a subject, it is wise & appropriate for us to give weight to what the experts have to say. This is how the world of knowledge works.

In summary:
1. Ed is well-educated on the facts in the case & is personally familiar with the characters the defendants.
2. Ed is intelligent & wise enough to critically process this information & come to a logical conclusion.
3. Ed is trustworthy enough for us to believe he wouldn't lie to us about the case.
Therefore: Ed is a legitimate source of information.

I felt to need to bold a couple things here to prove my point. You go on and on about how much of an expert Eddie is on this case and list a short summary.
Quick question. I went to the Eddie Vedder concert In June (2009) and was given a Playbill which had a nice little summary of the WM3 case (2 pages). Contained in those pages were 3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)
I am trying to figure out how such an extremely intelligent man with more knowledge on the case than anyone could write such a biased summary containing lie after lie and omitting alot of important facts? He describes damien as "dark haired and thoughtful mannered, fingered as the ring leader" Sounds like somebody didn't read Damiens mental history (index 500).
Its sad that somone could lead such a support for a case to get people free, when he clearly hasn't read or studied any case files. If he did, why is he supporting such disinformation/ lies.

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Eddie has proven himself to be an extremely intelligent man with similar values to most of us and the wisdom to appropriately apply them. Additionally, he has more knowledge of this case than any of us. He has the resources (time, money, staff) to have researched every detail of the case. He knows ALL the evidence from both sides. He has been involved in the investigation for years. And he actually KNOWS the defendants personally. Eddie Vedder is one of the few EXPERTS on this case. The only people who know more about it are the WM3, the boys who were murdered, & the killers.

Should we blindly follow experts on any subject? No, and no one is blindly following Ed in this case. But when we don't have the resources to become experts ourselves on a subject, it is wise & appropriate for us to give weight to what the experts have to say. This is how the world of knowledge works.

In summary:
1. Ed is well-educated on the facts in the case & is personally familiar with the characters the defendants.
2. Ed is intelligent & wise enough to critically process this information & come to a logical conclusion.
3. Ed is trustworthy enough for us to believe he wouldn't lie to us about the case.
Therefore: Ed is a legitimate source of information.

I felt to need to bold a couple things here to prove my point. You go on and on about how much of an expert Eddie is on this case and list a short summary.
Quick question. I went to the Eddie Vedder concert In June (2009) and was given a Playbill which had a nice little summary of the WM3 case (2 pages). Contained in those pages were 3 lies in the second paragraph alone (about IQ, 12 hour confession). Contained in the rest of the summary are more lies (motive, etc..)
I am trying to figure out how such an extremely intelligent man with more knowledge on the case than anyone could write such a biased summary containing lie after lie and omitting alot of important facts? He describes damien as "dark haired and thoughtful mannered, fingered as the ring leader" Sounds like somebody didn't read Damiens mental history (index 500).
Its sad that somone could lead such a support for a case to get people free, when he clearly hasn't read or studied any case files. If he did, why is he supporting such disinformation/ lies.

Wow, that's a bold accusation against Ed: that he is straight up lying to all of us when he claims to be educated about the case. (And that he would shell out probably millions of dollars without doing any basic research. :roll: ) And, of course, in sticking with your theme about what constitutes evidence, your "evidence" of this is that he disagrees with you by claiming that Damien has dark hair, has a thoughtful manner, and was thought to be the ringleader.

The fact is, blockhead, of the three criteria I presented above for giving any weight to what someone says on a subject - educated, intelligent, & trustworthy - Ed possesses all of these & you possess none. So I don't actually give a flying fuck about your arrogant, un-American opinion.

It doesn't really matter what either of you say anyway because I have done all my own research on this case & read just as much as, if not more than, you have about it, I'm sure I possess the ability to critically examine the evidence & weigh it against the law, & I have come to my own opinion. And it disagrees with yours. Get over it, blockhead.

ETA: Just because none of us have the time to wade through all the case files AGAIN to disprove every kernel of shit you throw out there in hopes that it will stick, doesn't mean you are smarter or better educated about this than any of us. It means we have JOBS. And LIVES. And we are not going to waste that much time arguing with someone on a message board who has already demonstrated that he will just disregard all facts & logic one presents about an issue. If you ever presented yourself or any of your positions in a reasonable manner so we could take you seriously, we might take all the time that's needed to fully engage in this debate on your terms. But instead you twist the truth to (intentionally?) misrepresent the fact, you have demonstrated that you lack a solid understanding of even the facts that you present (and refuse to admit it), you have demonstrated a disregard for the fundamental tenants of our justice system, and you refuse to engage in a civil discussion, instead repeatedly barking your standard comeback that anyone who disagrees with you must be less educated. So WHY would any of us take the time to seriously engage you? :?