Unsolved West Memphis 3

[Hard_to_Beat]

Maybe so, but how does that follow from what I've posted here? I've emphasised multiple times that the evidence did not come anywhere near what's required to merit a conviction.

My personal opinion is that there are a fair few things about their story that stinks, which tarnishes the halo the media have given somewhat and in my view still makes them the most likely suspects. My personal opinion is lightyears from BRD, as I've stated repeatedly.

A story "not adding up" is no ground for assigning guilt. That's how it's supposed to work anyway.

We're talking about a group of teenagers, including a mentally incapacitated person, going up against the might of the assembled powers of the state.

A defence by Mother Teresa could be made to look shaky against the zealous wielding of such accumulated and combined power.

Damian Echols describes it beautifully when he states, "...it's like an insect going up against a steam roller"

 

[Caesar]

A story "not adding up" is no ground for assigning guilt.

Have I said it is?

It's excellent grounds for suspicion, however.

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

I assume they can't investigate further or charge him because the WM3 had to plead guilty to be released and to stop Damien Echols being executed. There isn't a word to describe how ridiculous it all is.

It is beyond mental to think that a judge would let his ego get in the way of justice for the 3 little boys that were murdered. Just insanity.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Have I said it is?

It's excellent grounds for suspicion, however.

Where were you on the night Azaria Chamberlain went missing?

 

[Caesar]

It is beyond mental to think that a judge would let his ego get in the way of justice for the 3 little boys that were murdered. Just insanity.

In this case at least, it's got nothing to do with the judges being obstuctionist. The WM3 chose to plead guilty rather than take a retrial. If they'd been given a retrial they would have been found not guilty, paving the way for reinvestigation of the case.

It doesn't matter anyway. The reality is that there is even less evidence pointing to other suspects than there is to the WM3. Nobody is ever going to be convicted of this crime.

Where were you on the night Azaria Chamberlain went missing?

Hyperbole much?

There is a big difference between saying somebody is the prime suspect for a crime, saying you think they were the ones who probably did it, and saying they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is nothing wrong with the former two as long as you don't let them interfere with the burden of proof required by the latter.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

It is beyond mental to think that a judge would let his ego get in the way of justice for the 3 little boys that were murdered. Just insanity.

Ego? Perhaps not.

Emotions and instincts? Absolutely.

 

[Magpira]

It is beyond mental to think that a judge would let his ego get in the way of justice for the 3 little boys that were murdered. Just insanity.

I agree and have struggled with this a lot myself. But so many things about this case are 'just insanity'.

I think we must remember that they lived in a place which is as far removed from anything we know or perhaps have experienced personally. Arkansas is part of the bible belt of America, and it's not 'city' Arkansas, West Memphis would be like living in a rural area and these people are intense in their beliefs, I mean if you reside in such a place and somewhat stray from anything the bible claims as 'good' or 'right' then you are scrutinized and labelled as a non-believer who will ultimately have a lot to answer for on Judgement day. People who are not into the church are outcast from general society in places like that. Turning the police towards Damien Echols was an arsehole by the name of Jerry Driver who was the Juvenile Officer for Crittenden County and had been riding Damien for years. Driver obviously hated the fact that Echols was a 'misfit' and was convinced he was a devil worshipper, even though there was no actual proof of that, but that didn't matter because the Arkansas Courts were happy to accept testimony from what I like to call 'money/media unreliable witness whores', who have now, funnily enough reneged everything they said at the trials. And FWIW, Jerry Driver is now residing in Michigan and did time in Florida for felony grand theft charges and was suspected of Pedophilia from claims of a lot of young boys who resided in West Memphis at the time.

A lot of the time when these types of crimes occur, the county or city is under immense pressure to make an arrest, as the citizens are freaked out and scared to send their kids to school or whatever with a maniac running around etc.. The general consenus from the WM3 innocence party is that the key players were politically motivated. The main players being Judge David Burnett - who is now the Arkansas State Senator, Prosecutor John Fogleman - who is now elevated to Judicial District Circuit Judge and Gary Gitchell who was the Chief investigator on the case and Mike Allen who was his right hand man throughout this ordeal. Both of whom have been elevated to higher roles within their jurisdiction as a result of the convictions..

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Do you disagree that many people associated with the case still believe they are guilty?

No, but I can find plenty of people who believe in a God too, with far less evidence than that with which these halfwits believe about the guilt of the WM3.

All I am saying is that there is a lot of stuff about the WM3 that is a bit whiffy and was glossed over by the popular accounts. Echols' degree of knowledge about the bodies has never really been comprehensively explained, neither has why he offered a false alibi at the trial, or why he bragged about the murders.

That the kids should never have been convicted is not something I dispute. There really is not much evidence pointing to anybody, them included. But if you put together a betting market of all the alleged suspects, all things considered I'd still have my money on the three.

I'll ask again, where you read this stuff?

I'd question as much about Echols knowing anything about the bodies, as I would a Brunswick person knowing anything about the Jill Meagher case in the days and weeks after her disappearance. It was a crime that occurred in his backyard, in a small town. Every second person would have had a story, theory or comment on the child victims and how they were found.

Someone cynical might say that the reason they pled guilty a few months before they would have received a retrial at which they were certain to be acquitted is that Paradise Lost had painted a far clearer picture of their innocence in the minds of the public than a trial would have.

Someone cynical may ask why the parents of 2 of the child victims, who've lived the horror of the cases every day for nearly 20 years, and who insisted that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelly should burn in hell at the time of their conviction, soon became advocates for a retrial and applauded their release.

 

[Magpira]

No, but I can find plenty of people who believe in a God too, with far less evidence than that with which these halfwits believe about the guilt of the WM3.
I'll ask again, where you read this stuff?

I'd question as much about Echols knowing anything about the bodies, as I would a Brunswick person knowing anything about the Jill Meagher case in the days and weeks after her disappearance. It was a crime that occurred in his backyard, in a small town. Every second person would have had a story, theory or comment on the child victims and how they were found.

Someone cynical may ask why the parents of 2 of the child victims, who've lived the horror of the cases every day for nearly 20 years, and who insisted that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelly should burn in hell at the time of their conviction, soon became advocates for a retrial and applauded their release.

Absolutely they did! Let's not forget about the huge cash reward on offer for information that leads to the arrests. Apparently the start of the whole confession from Jessie was based around the money on offer. Perfect example is that dim wit Vicki Hutcheson and her son Aaron, who went to school with the boys and who had many a wild tale to tell about the story of the murdered boys that day, that went from one extreme to the other and changed (exactly like Jessie's confession) in accordance with info that officers Gitchell, Allen & Co feed to them.

Rumours were flying around everywhere, some that each boy had been raped (which is completely untrue) and is testament to Jessie's obviously false confession as he stated that Jason and Damien raped all three boys, and stated that they were tied with ropes (also untrue) and that it took place around 9am (which is also untrue) as all boys were at school that day and knowing this fact, detectives then worked on Jessie propelling him to rethink that perhaps it happened after school let out, to then changing once again, to Jessie saying that it took place at night, which became evident after the coroner reported back with a time of death approximately sometime between 5 and 9pm!

It is nothing but heresay about Damien 'bragging about murders' and Jessie did infact pass his polygraph but was told that he had failed in an effort to coerce further information from him.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Hyperbole much?

There is a big difference between saying somebody is the prime suspect for a crime, saying you think they were the ones who probably did it, and saying they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is nothing wrong with the former two as long as you don't let them interfere with the burden of proof required by the latter.

Yeah.

"Satanists"

I forgot.

 

[Caesar]

I'll ask again, where you read this stuff?

There have been journal articles written on this stuff.

I'd question as much about Echols knowing anything about the bodies, as I would a Brunswick person knowing anything about the Jill Meagher case in the days and weeks after her disappearance. It was a crime that occurred in his backyard, in a small town. Every second person would have had a story, theory or comment on the child victims and how they were found.

The information Echols knew was not known to the general public. There was a theory proposed at one point as to how the information may have got back to him through police leaks to the families of the victims, but he was never able to properly explain how he came into the knowledge. Echols himself has openly admitted he bragged about it, but says he was 'joking'.

Look, for the hundredth time - yes, the investigation and trial were deeply flawed. Yes, on the basis of the evidence there is nothing remotely approaching BRD that they killed anybody. Totally agree they should be cleared, and that they should be regarded as not guilty.

Nonetheless, any assessment that the boys are unequivocally innocent is very much a matter of faith. The inconsistencies, circumstantial indicators and unanswered questions still make them genuine suspects, arguably still the best ones. Stuff like Paradise Lost completely gloss over this.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

There have been journal articles written on this stuff.


The information Echols knew was not known to the general public. There was a theory proposed at one point as to how the information may have got back to him through police leaks to the families of the victims, but he was never able to properly explain how he came into the knowledge. Echols himself has openly admitted he bragged about it, but says he was 'joking'.

Look, for the hundredth time - yes, the investigation and trial were deeply flawed. Yes, on the basis of the evidence there is nothing remotely approaching BRD that they killed anybody. Totally agree they should be cleared, and that they should be regarded as not guilty.

Nonetheless, any assessment that the boys are unequivocally innocent is very much a matter of faith. The inconsistencies, circumstantial indicators and unanswered questions still make them genuine suspects, arguably still the best ones. Stuff like Paradise Lost completely gloss over this.

That's not going to wash.

If they were still such genuine suspects as you suggest, and "arguably the best ones", the parents of the dead kids would not have been campaigning to have them given a new trial.......and Arkansas would not have offered them a plea that would see them walk free, and unable to litigate for the years that they were incarcerated.

 

[Caesar]

They were offered a plea because they were about to get a new trial with an inevitable not guilty verdict, and the state were making the best of a bad lot. That doesn't automatically absolve them from suspicion, although plenty of people would have you believe that it does.

The opinions of the parents are pretty much irrelevant. Its nice that they think the WM3 are innocent but it's not evidence. There's a reason that victims aren't part of the criminal justice system.

 

[Sabot]

The Alford Plea. This Plea basically releases a convicted person from a dodgy conviction without the need for The State to pay compensation for wrongful conviction.
Two of them wanted to refuse this plea but gave in to get the third one off Death Row.
Guilty or Innocent, the whole Investigation and Trial was a disgrace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea.

There is much more on Google. I don't actually know who Alford was, but I expect that it is on Google somewhere.

 

[Lockyer24]

West of Memphis. Incredible.
See it.

While I already knew 99% of its content the 1% it made up for me was massive re timings and fitting it all together.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

West of Memphis. Incredible.
See it.

While I already knew 99% of its content the 1% it made up for me was massive re timings and fitting it all together.

Agreed.

You can read all the articles in the world, but when a doco is done well(as this one is), it really can gather all the information and slam it home in almost an instant.

I watched it last night, and although I found the entire story and re-telling of the case to be very informative on a number of levels( the alibi's, the finger pointing at Byers, the DNA evidence), I got particular amusement/joy simply from watching Jason after his release.

 

[Lockyer24]

Yep, that was brilliant.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Damien Echols on Safran now

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/default.htm

 

[Lockyer24]

Damien Echols on Safran now

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/default.htm

Any chance this was recorded somewhere?

 

[Cudi]

Any chance this was recorded somewhere?

http://www.speedyshare.com/Qqnn5/echols.mp3

Short interview and nothing new but still interesting.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

There have been journal articles written on this stuff.


The information Echols knew was not known to the general public. There was a theory proposed at one point as to how the information may have got back to him through police leaks to the families of the victims, but he was never able to properly explain how he came into the knowledge. Echols himself has openly admitted he bragged about it, but says he was 'joking'.

Look, for the hundredth time - yes, the investigation and trial were deeply flawed. Yes, on the basis of the evidence there is nothing remotely approaching BRD that they killed anybody. Totally agree they should be cleared, and that they should be regarded as not guilty.

Nonetheless, any assessment that the boys are unequivocally innocent is very much a matter of faith. The inconsistencies, circumstantial indicators and unanswered questions still make them genuine suspects, arguably still the best ones. Stuff like Paradise Lost completely gloss over this.

When discussing a serious crime, I think to call the presumption of innocence “very much a matter of faith” is pretty misleading and unfair. From what I’ve read (which admittedly isn’t as much as others), there was and is absolutely zero hard evidence linking the WM3 to the crime.

If anything, I think it would be for more accurate to describe the notion that they were involved as “very much a matter of faith”.

If we want to talk circumstantial indicators and unanswered questions, there’s many surrounding other possibilities as well, and they’re just as intriguing. Mr Bojangles anybody?

 

[Caesar]

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty BRD is a legal standard, nothing more.

We're human beings, and our natural method of reasoning leads us to draw our conclusions on the balance of probabilities. On the balance of probabilities, I think they probably did it. I can understand if people think that they probably didn't. But to say they are unequivocally innocent is very much a matter of faith.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty BRD is a legal standard, nothing more.

We're human beings, and our natural method of reasoning leads us to draw our conclusions on the balance of probabilities. On the balance of probabilities, I think they probably did it. I can understand if people think that they probably didn't. But to say they are unequivocally innocent is very much a matter of faith.

Is there any factor/s in particular that lead you to that conclusion? Or is it just the sum of a lot of little things?

I only ask as there’s so much reading to do on this case, it’d be good to focus on some particular things.

 

[Caesar]

The sum of all the little circumstantial stuff. Witnesses did testify that Echols was seen in the area. He and the others did give demonstrably false alibis at trial. They did brag about killing the kids. They did know stuff about the bodies that wasn't public knowledge at the time they were interviewed.

There's explanations of varying degrees of plausibility for all that stuff, which meant that by rights they should have been acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt even if the police hadn't completely bungled the case (which they also did). I'm not for one minute suggesting they should have been convicted.

I'm just saying that if you look at all the suspects that have been put forward, they are still the ones that stink the worst. If I was a betting man, I'd still have my money on them as the likely killers over anyone else who's been suggested.

Not that it matters anyway. This case will never be solved.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The sum of all the little circumstantial stuff. Witnesses did testify that Echols was seen in the area. He and the others did give demonstrably false alibis at trial. They did brag about killing the kids. They did know stuff about the bodies that wasn't public knowledge at the time they were interviewed.

There's explanations of varying degrees of plausibility for all that stuff, which meant that by rights they should have been acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt even if the police hadn't completely bungled the case (which they also did). I'm not for one minute suggesting they should have been convicted.

I'm just saying that if you look at all the suspects that have been put forward, they are still the ones that stink the worst. If I was a betting man, I'd still have my money on them as the likely killers over anyone else who's been suggested.

Not that it matters anyway. This case will never be solved.

The issue I’m having about this stuff is it seems that everybody has testified about those things has also at some stage recanted it. Citing ulterior motives (rewards etc), police coercion, etc etc.

That’s the way it seems, anyway. Possibly I’m not digging deep enough.

I know the recanting could also be false, but I do think things like police coercion are very real risks, particularly when you’re dealing with a police force under pressure, subjects who are young and/or possibly not too bright, and interviews that may have lasted (uninterrupted) for ridiculously long periods of time.