Dirty larry
Former Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 2
Exactly.if we keep injecting trouble where there is none, we will never progress.
"Don't start no S.H. - won't be no I.T."
Exactly.if we keep injecting trouble where there is none, we will never progress.
I must have missed the "insult"...
So Entre Nous, do you honestly believe "everyone will be able to sleep well knowing that any doubt had been squelched, once and for all" if the 3 receive re-trials and they're re-convicted? Do any other supporters here believe this will be the case?
Exactly.
"Don't start no S.H. - won't be no I.T."
What I would like to know is why you think a re-trial will give us all the answers? How many times have the 3 been given the opportunity to appeal their sentences? They've been rejected every time and every single time it's always the same "oooh that judge is corrupt" "oh that prosecutor was corrupt" "oh the high court are all in on this big conspiracy". What difference will it make? Say Damien is granted an appeal at federal level and it's rejected, will you back down and say "Okay, I guess he really is guilty" or will you continue to cry injustice? This will never end, re-trial or not, that is why I believe nons are so against it. A re-trial suggests there was something wrong with the result of the first one. I'm not a non, but I'm also not stupid enough to believe supporters will just drop this if the 3 are given a re-trial.
I've read many reports from families of victims who claim they do.i don't think anyone sleeps particularly Well after they've executed someone.
It would appear that even if you you were convinced of Echol's guilt you wouldn't want him executed.i just want to get to the bottom of this.
But you can't cite a single example that hasn't already been shot down in the courtroom.there is too much that leads in other directions.
That's all well and fine, but it has nothing to do with your position on this case, because you can't present even a hint that these convicts are innocent - and you don't even pretend that you can.i've seen people get off when evidence showed otherwise and i've seen people convicted when they shouldn't have.
Another difference is that you aren't nearly as familiar with the facts of this case as you make out.the difference here is that somebody was sentenced to death.
There you go again presenting Defense allegations as fact.wouldn't it be a tragedy if a person was killed because it was more convenient than holding a new trial after jury misconduct and everything else that's happened since then?
Yes, and that's why our legal system allows convicts an incredible amount of opportunities to challenge their convictions, and why the trial process is stacked in favor of the defendant at every turn.it would be a monumental tragedy if that person wasn't actually the person that perpetrated the crime.
To some extent perhaps.these possible mistakes are being corrected more and more since the development and ever improving science in DNA testing.
sleep better? yeah. i don't think anyone sleeps particularly Well after they've executed someone. i just want to get to the bottom of this. there is too much that leads in other directions. i've seen people get off when evidence showed otherwise and i've seen people convicted when they shouldn't have.
the difference here is that somebody was sentenced to death.
wouldn't it be a tragedy if a person was killed because it was more convenient than holding a new trial after jury misconduct and everything else that's happened since then? it would be a monumental tragedy if that person wasn't actually the person that perpetrated the crime. these possible mistakes are being corrected more and more since the development and ever improving science in DNA testing.
all i wanted to know was what difference would it make. that's all. everyone knows that in their hearts. as a Christian there is no way i could end the life of one of God's children with the new DNA findings, the jury misconduct, all the satan worshiping nonsense that plagued the nation during that time period, etc. death is death, folks. if... IF that guy is innocent and we kill him, we have blood on our hands, all of our hands. every person that fought for his execution will have to deal with their maker, every person that didn't fight hard enough to win a new trial will be every bit as guilty as the person or people that murdered those three little boys. is it worth it to you guys to take that chance?
why am i being asked so many questions when i asked one and subsequently one more and those have gone unanswered?
it might not. but it just might, also. the simple fact is there was misconduct in the first trial. it was a biased jury. that is a miscarriage of justice. every american citizen has a right to a fair trial. the misconduct negated the "fairness" of the trial.
That won't happen simply because the "non" argument as a rule is promptly removed from this board as soon as people start seriously taking it into consideration and questioning the supporter movement.I encourage everyone to sit down and really listen to the non argument then go back and look at the supporter argument - I promise you it won't look the same.
Personally, I don't see it. But if it is true that WS and its mods somehow "favor" those who believe justice was miscarried in the WM3 case, I have to wonder why?
As anyone can see with even a brief look around, Websleuths tends to be enthusiastically pro-victim and very sympathetic to LE efforts to put perpetrators of violent crimes behind bars.
I am NOT claiming the mods are unfair to those who argue for a defendant's innocence, just that this site attracts a membership that tends to be pro-prosecution in most cases, and the mods themselves are usually drawn from that membership.
So why, I wonder, is the WM3 case and forum supposedly just the opposite? (My own answer, as I said, is that it isn't. But I'd love to hear the reasoning of those who feel the mods are somehow conspiring to free guilty child-murderers.)
Your question has been answered. Nons don't want a retrial because they don't believe there was anything wrong with the first one, simple as that. Why waste more money on a trial to convict 3 convicts? From what I understand based on speaking with many nons, they believe there is nothing to prove innocence, and there is enough to prove guilt (clearly, based on the previous trials), so if the 3 were to be granted a re-trial they would absolutely be re-convicted. Even if you remove the alleged juror misconduct, if you add the "new evidence", get rid of the hype, you still have evidence of guilt and no evidence of innocence. I'm not speaking my own opinion here, just what I have understood based on the discussions I have had with nons. If that doesn't answer your question, I'm sure what will.
I encourage everyone to sit down and really listen to the non argument then go back and look at the supporter argument - I promise you it won't look the same.
Re:Questions for the nons
What does "nons" refer to? :waitasec:
Nons refers to non-supporters.
No, I didn't.
And failed appeal after failed appeal.
They have all formally requested new trials numerous times.
They were denied.
You know why?
Because there is no new evidence.
There is simply no justification for new trials.
My answer remains the same.
Until they present legal justification for new trials, then they haven't earned right to burden the taxpayer for the cost.
But they have failed to provide any justification for them.
Then they already had them.
If the key word is NEW, then they need to present justification just like any other convict.
I did.
Several times.
You seemed confused.
You asked what would be the problem with the courts carefully looking at the case again with new eyes.
I pointed out that several courts already had many times in the last decade and a half.
If you want to say that doesn't count, then just say so, but don't edit your question and then claim I failed to address it.
You bet.
Nope.
I don't FAVOR killing a human being under ANY circumstances.
But let's proceed beyond your obvious baiting and address the remainder of your rhetoric.
It would appear you are in the habit of accepting Defense.allegations as fact.
This is why there's such a discrepancy between your opinion, and that of the courts and jurors.
Except for those pesky foreign alleles on Moore's penile swab, and Branch's bindings which were in fact consistent with the convicts.
You know, the two of the three foreign alleles that the Defense didn't request any further testing on?
But as the DNA evidence applies to a motion for re-trial?
The Arkansas Act 1780 Scientific evidence statute is very clear.
In order for a claim to have merit, the results must generate new non cummulative evidence of actual innocence.
Non cummulative means evidence that wasn't presented during trial.
The Defense raised the lack of biological evidence at trial, so raising it again is cummulative, and without merit.
Branch and Moore drowned.
I watched video of the police pumping gallons of the murder weapon from the creek.
Well, except for the sworn confessions from an accomplice who even maintained his participation to his nown attorneys in private.
What does that have to do with anything?
Please don't couch your questions in patently false information.
Your personal opinion that the evidence in this case is weak doesn't give you the right to deny it exists.
There are those on this board who are objectively seeking the facts of this case, and it's not fair to them.
If you wish to challenge the evidence, then by all means do so, but let the readers here weigh it's merit for themselves - don't try to hide it from them.
No.I thought the foreign DNA was found on Stevie, not Michael and wasn't further tested because the samples were too small to get a full profile on, no?
Bode's report is in the Federal HC writ.could you please point me in the right direction where this information is verified
More than that even.which fits right in with Misskelley's confessions where he claims that he attacked Michael Moore, while Echols and Baldwin attacked the other two.
What I would like to know is why you think a re-trial will give us all the answers? How many times have the 3 been given the opportunity to appeal their sentences? They've been rejected every time and every single time it's always the same "oooh that judge is corrupt" "oh that prosecutor was corrupt" "oh the high court are all in on this big conspiracy". What difference will it make? Say Damien is granted an appeal at federal level and it's rejected, will you back down and say "Okay, I guess he really is guilty" or will you continue to cry injustice? This will never end, re-trial or not, that is why I believe nons are so against it. A re-trial suggests there was something wrong with the result of the first one. I'm not a non, but I'm also not stupid enough to believe supporters will just drop this if the 3 are given a re-trial.