- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: West Memphis three
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:20 am to davyjones
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:20 am to davyjones
quote:
Surely they collected the necklace as evidence, eh? So they'd have that blood to test DNA. And they had the kids' DNA. Are there DNA test results concluding that the DNA on necklace and DNA of the youngster matched? That should be rather easy to do.
Bless your heart. They already have been convicted and pleaded guilty. The DNA on the necklace would change nothing, and clearly would not convince the MSNBC crowd of their guilt. Why waste hillbilly state resources on pointless DNA inquiries? Who is going to pay for it? Who benefits? Who has a stake in the game? They're already guilty.
However, a better question is why has the WM3 defense not release its DNA tests on the hair? The killers raises tens of millions from celebrities - why have they not released any exonerating DNA evidence?
3
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:23 am to Baylor Kyle
You really need to differentiate between differences in opinion and what you declare to be "deliberate misrepresentation of facts" and the like. We're having a difference in opinion here, do you not agree?
Evan Williams bottle: You'd have to tell me what that's even about. I know nothing of it.
Alibis: since when are you obligated to provide an alibi in order to prove your innocence? Burden is on the state, defendant has the right to remain silent. I'm sure you know all that, I'm not trying to be snarky.
Confessions: Any and all confessions on the part of Misskelley were and are false confessions from a mentally deficient person. Bottom line for me on the Misskelley confessions.
Evan Williams bottle: You'd have to tell me what that's even about. I know nothing of it.
Alibis: since when are you obligated to provide an alibi in order to prove your innocence? Burden is on the state, defendant has the right to remain silent. I'm sure you know all that, I'm not trying to be snarky.
Confessions: Any and all confessions on the part of Misskelley were and are false confessions from a mentally deficient person. Bottom line for me on the Misskelley confessions.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:25 am to Baylor Kyle
quote:
why have they not released any exonerating DNA evidence?
I can't even imagine what that would mean. What the hell is "exonerating DNA evidence"? There was exonerating DNA evidence. It was the DNA that didn't match any of the three.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:27 am to Baylor Kyle
quote:
pleaded guilty.
And no, they didn't plead guilty, they entered Alford pleas which means they acknowledge it's in their best interest to enter the plea, but expressly do not admit guilt. Look it up.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:28 am to JimNat
quote:
Fascinating story. Just got into it. I am going to watch documentaries on it.
Did not know Jessie Miskelly admitted three times that he, Echols and Baldwin were involved in the murders. Any thoughts
I watched a couple of documentaries on them over 10 years ago.
It is possible that those three were guilty. But there is no actual evidence to support it. Miskelly, who has clearly got some mental issues of some sort, was interrogated for something like 12 hours, if I remember correctly. They would not relent until he confessed. That seems like a textbook coerced confession, which is exactly what the lawyers of the three argued.
Physical evidence was found at the scene, none of it matching any of the three. Those kids all looked like trouble makers, and two of them had really poor attitudes, which ultimately played into the hands of the prosecution. I know that Jason and Damien later admitted they they didn't do themselves any favors by acting like punks during the whole trial. They didn't seem to realize the very real possibility that they'd be convicted.
I was very skeptical when I first heard about them years ago, but after looking at several different accounts of the situation, it really looked like a classic witch hunt, where everyone in the community was in shock, the police didn't know who was responsible, and so they profiled three punks to be their scapegoats.
This post was edited on 6/19/21 at 12:30 am
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:39 am to Baylor Kyle
Baylor Kyle has it right. The evidence was circumstantial but it pointed to the WM3 who are guilty and should be in prison. They had no alibis and there was way too much to explain to blame anyone else. If you disagree you are basically an OJ juror and you have to do a lot of moral and intellectual gymnastics to acquit, but you are not alone and there are a lot of celebrities you can commiserate with.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:46 am to Tall Tiger
quote:
If you disagree you are basically an OJ juror and you have to do a lot of moral and intellectual gymnastics to acquit, but you are not alone and there are a lot of celebrities you can commiserate with.
Or maybe it's a case of someone simply having a little more experience directly on point than the next guy. Personally, the current inventory of murder or attempted murder clients I'm representing would take more than 2 hands to count. Even then I'm not going to go there and say that any non-attorney practicing in this exact area doesn't have perfectly valid opinions, and I respect that. But I certainly wouldn't say that you have anyone pegged, as you described.
This post was edited on 6/19/21 at 12:47 am
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:49 am to Tall Tiger
quote:
Baylor Kyle has it right. The evidence was circumstantial but it pointed to the WM3 who are guilty and should be in prison. They had no alibis and there was way too much to explain to blame anyone else. If you disagree you are basically an OJ juror and you have to do a lot of moral and intellectual gymnastics to acquit, but you are not alone and there are a lot of celebrities you can commiserate with.
Circumstantial evidence against the three was VERY weak, even if they ARE guilty. There is no comparison to the OJ situation. The circumstantial evidence pointing away from them was considerably stronger. Because it involved actual DNA, which was not a match for any of the three.
Everyone is free to imagine all sorts of theories in their minds, but I choose to live in the world where actual proof is needed to convict. There is a reason the state agreed to a "win-win" plea deal to let them out. The state gets to say that they got their convictions, and the three guys get to walk free. They knew their case was built on a corrupt process, otherwise, why let them out? Who cares what celebrities were saying? Celebrities complain about a lot of things, and it never changes anything. This just happened to be a situation where the investigation was a sham.
Again, it is possible that they really were guilty. But the investigation was more about propaganda and less about actual evidence.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 7:07 am to JimNat
Thanks for all information guys. Baylor Kyle thanks for turning me to Callahan site WOW! Good information here.
Good opinions on both sides
Good opinions on both sides
Posted on 6/19/21 at 7:13 am to Baylor Kyle
quote:
Bless your heart. They already have been convicted and pleaded guilty. The DNA on the necklace would change nothing, and clearly would not convince the MSNBC crowd of their guilt
Never watched MSNBC
Voted R since 1980
Believe these 3 were scapegoated by a police force that “had to do SOMETHING!!!”
You can keep this up, but trying to claim common sense makes one MSNBC!!! just makes you look foolish. It IS possible to get a youth to admit to something he did not do, and convict him and others. Deal with it.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 8:01 pm to davyjones
I appreciate that. I as I have stated I have no quibble with anyone who thinks they're not guilty. I acknowledge my own ignorance of the details of the jurisprudence process as well as your bias as a defense attorney.
My qualm only is with those that repeat the propaganda promoted by the authoritarian leftists, which is what I mean by the "MSNBC crowd." The blatant lies and misinformation from Hollywood and "documentaries" as well as the media is no different tactics than deployed against Republicans, Trump, etc.
Stated more plainly in aggy, I have no objection to one stating: "I do not believe there was enough evidence to convict." It is an intentional lie to say: "there was no evidence against them."
Again, explain:
1. The Evan Williams bottle
2. The four other confessions
3. No alibis (for three people! what are the odds three teenagers and no one can account for their whereabouts during the crime?)
My qualm only is with those that repeat the propaganda promoted by the authoritarian leftists, which is what I mean by the "MSNBC crowd." The blatant lies and misinformation from Hollywood and "documentaries" as well as the media is no different tactics than deployed against Republicans, Trump, etc.
Stated more plainly in aggy, I have no objection to one stating: "I do not believe there was enough evidence to convict." It is an intentional lie to say: "there was no evidence against them."
Again, explain:
1. The Evan Williams bottle
2. The four other confessions
3. No alibis (for three people! what are the odds three teenagers and no one can account for their whereabouts during the crime?)
Posted on 6/19/21 at 8:02 pm to JimNat
You may be different but I have found that most people who actually dig into these cases realize the Hollywood propaganda was just that. The agenda is clear: anti-death penalty (which I too happen to be for the record).
Posted on 6/19/21 at 8:08 pm to Metaloctopus
Jessie Misskelley's five confessions was not circumstantial evidence.
The testimony of witnesses that heard Misskelley and Echols admit to the crime was no circumstantial.
The DNA consistent with one of the boy's blood found on Baldwin and Echol's necklace is not enough to convict but certainly points to the convicted.
The lack of alibis (for three teenagers) is curious.
The eyewitness that placed Echols and Baldwin near the scene near the time of the murders is compelling (and not circumstantial).
Finding the murder weapon behind Baldwin's house is compelling.
Finding purple wax at the scene consistent with wax found at Echol's girlfriend's home is compelling.
OJ didn't confess.
I always find it funny the strict standard those that believe they are innocent demand but then will toss around wild, evidence-less theories ... sounds sort of like talking to an authoritarian leftist.
The testimony of witnesses that heard Misskelley and Echols admit to the crime was no circumstantial.
The DNA consistent with one of the boy's blood found on Baldwin and Echol's necklace is not enough to convict but certainly points to the convicted.
The lack of alibis (for three teenagers) is curious.
The eyewitness that placed Echols and Baldwin near the scene near the time of the murders is compelling (and not circumstantial).
Finding the murder weapon behind Baldwin's house is compelling.
Finding purple wax at the scene consistent with wax found at Echol's girlfriend's home is compelling.
OJ didn't confess.
I always find it funny the strict standard those that believe they are innocent demand but then will toss around wild, evidence-less theories ... sounds sort of like talking to an authoritarian leftist.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 8:14 pm to Baylor Kyle
Interesting web site on the case. Has a lot of information that is not easy to find...including info on Damien's past.
westmemphisthreefacts.com
westmemphisthreefacts.com
Posted on 6/19/21 at 8:19 pm to Baylor Kyle
Kyle, I was just reading the transcript of the parts of the interrogation that were actually recorded. Misskelley says very early on that he witnessed Echols "screwing" the boys. Yet medical examiner concluded that there was no evidence of any sexual assault involved at all. That's not an extremely glaring problem just within the first couple or few minutes of the recorded interview?
Please do me a favor.....specify the additional "confessions" you keep referencing, because I know only the one given during the interrogation. Because if we're talking about second and third hand information and hearsay, there's a reason those things can't be used as evidence.
Please do me a favor.....specify the additional "confessions" you keep referencing, because I know only the one given during the interrogation. Because if we're talking about second and third hand information and hearsay, there's a reason those things can't be used as evidence.
This post was edited on 6/19/21 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 6/19/21 at 8:25 pm to Baylor Kyle
The Hollywood propaganda interfered and ruined the investigation. It is hard to get to the bottom of a case when you open the front door and you see a circus.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 8:38 pm to dchog
Which investigation are you referring to? The primary/initial investigation that led to arrests that led to convictions had well concluded prior to any Hollywood people even knowing of the matter.
Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:35 pm to davyjones
quote:
Kyle, I was just reading the transcript of the parts of the interrogation that were actually recorded. Misskelley says very early on that he witnessed Echols "screwing" the boys. Yet medical examiner concluded that there was no evidence of any sexual assault involved at all. That's not an extremely glaring problem just within the first couple or few minutes of the recorded interview?
Please do me a favor.....specify the additional "confessions" you keep referencing, because I know only the one given during the interrogation. Because if we're talking about second and third hand information and hearsay, there's a reason those things can't be used as evidence.
Fair point, and thank you for your grace around my lack of legal education and expertise.
You're right - there is one formal, legal, documented confession, i.e. evidentiary. Additionally, there is the "Bible" confession where he confesses - in the presence of and against the advice of his attorney - to his participation. Similarly, he confesses to the sheriff's deputies as they are transporting him after his conviction. I believe there is a another, but I apologize if I misspoke, and I can try and look up more details later.
I do not portend that these would be admissible in court, but adjudicating the matter in conversations online this is very convincing. If he falsely confessed, I just cannot fathom a scenario where he would continue to claim his guilt. It just gives me confidence in his original confession.
And I agree that his initial - legal - confession is problematic. He does get some details wrong - the most glaring of course is the time. One could take this in several ways. I actually take this as a sign that it was not coerced and shows a little savvy ... the cops would have no motive to have him get details wrong, and I think him trying to get some details wrong just underscores he was smart enough to both clear his conscience but also try and weasel out of being arrested. Yes, that is speculation but so is the claim it was coerced. Again I am in no way a legal expert, but I think it is probably common that confessions are not 100% perfect initially but that details emerge over time as the confessor gets boxed into a full confession. He gets a lot more details right than wrong, and I would guess this probably is how many confessions / interviews play out.
I keep going back to the Evan Williams bottle ... to me that is a strong indicator the confession was true: the cops would have zero knowledge to plant that detail, and its veracity in my mind proves he was there.
This post was edited on 6/21/21 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:48 pm to JimNat
quote:
Jessie Miskelly admitted three times that he, Echols and Baldwin were involved in the murders.
Miskelly went into great detail about what they did to those boys. Was he just a ruhtard making up stuff? Maybe.
Posted on 6/21/21 at 1:53 pm to JimNat
quote:
I just don’t understand why he would confess three times.
Because he was guilty of murder. The HBO doc blatantly sided with the murderers.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News