Dna

[justthinkin]

I don't know who told you the "Hobbs hair exonerated the WM3", but I do know that I didn't. Kindly refrain from accusing me of doing a "rerun" of things which I've never posted in the first place.

The DNA results so far are as follows...




So, I'd like to hear how three drunken teens could torture, rape, beat, sexually mutilate, and murder three 8 year olds without leaving a trace of themselves behind. Any explanation needs to take into account that the crime scene was not clean, there are plenty of other peoples' DNA there. It also needs to take into account that this was all done as part of a Satanic ritual, as per Jessie's "confessions".

@Justthinkin - I'm still waiting for your thread about Jessie's June 3rd statement. I hope you didn't change your mind, I was really looking forward to discussing that subject.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I merely thought this may be a similar circumstance to when some, not all, supporters went around saying the Hobbs hair exonerated the WM3. It wasn't intended to be personal at all. I believe Riordan made that statement along with Lori Davis, and it filtered down to the rest. Isn't that what's being said on supporter boards now about this latest DNA? Some supporters do get that it doesn't exonerate the WM3, but there are others who don't get it. And what's the title of this thread? New DNA evidence clears the WM3. That's not a truthful statement.

Of course then there's the old report on the partial palm/fingerprints from which the WM3 have not been excluded, and the Jacoby hair which jivepuppi, a supporter, claimed was so close to Echols mtdna, that Echols could not be excluded.

I get that you, unlike some others here, do not support TH as the perp. I believe you made that quite clear, and I said I respected that.

Thanks for the source info you provided. I do appreciate it.

No need for a thread on what Jessie said. I got the answer I was looking for. I wasn't looking for a discussion. Not everything has to be a discussion.

I have already posted a list of 5 or 6 cases that went to trial based on circumstantial evidence, and for which the perp/s left no DNA behind, and were still convicted.

What does it matter? The new DNA evidence is still not, so far, basis for a new trial. Damien admitted his alibi was changed to fit the facts of the case under oath. Jason offered no alibi, none, and Jessie's was a mess as well. The explanation, I read for why other DNA, but not that of the WM3 is present is last on--first washed off.

Really, I don't have to prove anything because the WM3 have already been convicted. The onus is on the defense to prove new, cumulative evidence prevails that the WM3 would likely be acquitted if a new trial were held. At least that's my take on it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As one who supports TH as THe perp, let me say that the hair and subsequent mtDNA that is a very strong match to TH is only one piece of evidence that, IMO, points to TH as THe perp. I have discussed this ad nauseum in other threads, so I won't belabor the point.

As to Echols not being excluded from the hand print (or whatever it is), it is my understanding that there was so little identifiable information in the print that the number of people who couldn't be excluded would be pretty large. IMO, it's kind of like the pendant and the blood types.

As to your statements about alibis (although slightly OT), Damien didn't lie on the stand. He said, repeatedly, that he was unsure of times. His mother's statement helped him pin them down. Remember two things: at the time, he was on an anti-depressant and he was a teenager. Those who are on anti-depressants often have slight memory problems (he said that the medication made him sleepy) and teenagers often cannot give a full account of what to them was a totally normal day. (They might be able to state events, but times will elude them.)

Jason's not providing an alibi doesn't mean that he didn't have one; it's just an indication of what poor counsel he had at his trial. As to Jessie, yes, some of his alibi witnesses got confused on cross examination. That doesn't mean that they were lying. All it means is that Jessie's attorneys weren't as effective as the prosecutors, again showing that he had inadequate representation at his trial. (IMO, Damien's representation was inadequate because no competent attorney allows his client to take the stand in a murder trial. Jose Baez didn't.)

Finally, jt, as to the "layers of paint" theory (last on - first off), DNA isn't paint. Seriously, for all incriminating DNA to have been washed off but other DNA left behind, all of the incriminating DNA would have had to have been exactly on top of all other DNA that has been found, thereby protecting the other DNA, which IMO is highly improbable if not impossible. In other words, that theory would require either that all incriminating DNA was on top of non incriminating DNA or that the water was selective in what it washed away and only washed away the DNA of the WM3 but left other DNA behind. IMO, that theory is just a bit ridiculous.

 

[justthinkin]

No, it wasn't OT, CR, and that is because any DNA evidence simply can't stand alone to exonerate the WM3. Other evidence exists that any DNA evidence must be considered in conjunction with it, and that includes prior testimonies in this case of various witnesses.

Just because you and other supporters want to dismiss other, prior evidence or explain it away is absolutely meaningless to the court process. You are simply wishcasting.

Jason's alibi would've bit the dust when the prosecution called D. D. to the stand. The problem with all three alibis is there is no consensus among them, and that is why they fail.
Damien's witnesses couldn't agree, Jessie's couldn't, and Ford was smart enough to realize the same would happen with Jason's witnesses if called.

The so called Hobbs hair is not evidence. It was collected from TH's garbage by the defense, and is outside the law. We have laws in this country about how evidence is collected. The Hobbs hair is absolutely worthless and meaningless. The only evidence that matters is what the state has collected. Can you not understand that only evidence in the chain of possession of the state is valid?

If some supporters can't understand that, it is a waste of anyone's time to engage those supporters in a discussion because nons base their opinions on the law and actual evidence presented at trial, and those supporters base their opinions on wishful thinking.

It is my opinion, that supporters are like the jurors in the Casey Anthony trial, incapable of connecting the dots. What you seek is not evidence beyond every reasonable doubt. You seek incontrovertible truth, evidence without any doubt, realistic or unrealistic. You want this case to be CSI, and it's not. You demand that DNA be present that conclusively excludes the WM3. You boast that any DNA evidence unrelated to the WM3 proves their innocence. It does not.

Answer me this. What cumulative evidence, in the court records, all of them, prove the innocence of the WM3? On second thought, I'll answer that. There is none. The preponderence of the evidence gathered so far, resides with the state, and that is why the WM3 aren't going anywhere.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

jt,

I guess that lack of evidence is why the ASSC unanimously ordered the evidentiary hearing.

The Hobbs hair was not collected by the defense. It was already in evidence. He wouldn't volunteer his DNA (little wonder), so some was collected from a cigarette butt. That was what the defense collected. The chain of evidence was preserved in the case of the hairs. If the collection of the DNA sample is a problem, I'm sure that a subpoena for Hobbs' DNA can be served and new DNA acquired. The State will probably do that if they grow a pair and investigate Hobbs (like they should have but didn't back in 1993).

What other prior evidence am I dismissing? Griffis' testimony? Peretti's opinions? The statements of the police? Griffis was proven to be a fraud. Peretti is not certified. The police could be lying. If you're talking about Jessie's statements, I've discussed that subject at great length.

As to the alibis, just because some of the alibi witnesses didn't fare well under cross examination doesn't mean that they were lying. It means that the cross examining attorney had practiced his craft and was more adept at it than the attorney who did the direct examination. If the defense attorneys had been competent, they would have been able to repair the damage on redirect. That they didn't is just further proof IMO that the WM3 were inadequately represented at their original trials. However, they no longer have inadequate representation.

As to proof of innocence, that's simply not the standard to be met in December. The defense has to prove, by "compelling" evidence, that a new jury would, in all likelihood, render a verdict of "not guilty" in the case. They don't have to prove "actual innocence." I am confident that the defense will easily meet their burden in December.

The explanation of the wounds by several certified forensic pathologists will provide a viable alternative for those wounds which will not match any of the State's theories or Jessie's wild stories. Additionally, the defense will provide evidence that will suggest another viable suspect for the murders. That will be enough to allow Judge Laser to order new trials and vacate the original verdicts.

I am confident that, after the evidentiary hearing, the preponderance of the evidence will rest with the defense. I can't speak for all supporters, but I'm not looking for incontrovertible evidence of the innocence of the WM3. I simply don't feel that sufficient evidence of their guilt was provided at the original trials. IMO, there is "reasonable doubt" that the WM3 are guilty of these murders.

As we have a standard of "innocent until proven guilty" in this country, and as I feel that the State didn't meet their burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the original trials, I believe the original verdicts were in error. That's why we have an appeals process in this country - so that errors can be corrected. In this case, an error was certainly made and hopefully the correction will begin in December.

 

[*~Aimee~*]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/us-crime-dna-arkansas-idUSTRE76R0D920110728

BBM


(Reuters) - Newly tested DNA evidence in the 1993 killings of three 8-year-old Cub Scouts in Arkansas has failed to link the crimes to the men convicted in the murders, including one on Death Row, advocates for the men said on Wednesday.

The DNA, including materials from the crime scene, instead matched three unidentified people, furthering supporters' claims that the so-called West Memphis Three are innocent, the advocates told Reuters.

There were no DNA matches for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr, who were convicted of the crime, said Capi Peck, a co-founder of Arkansas Take Action, a civic group working to free the trio.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

So I guess the DNA didn't match anyone in the CODIS? Does this mean whoever did this awful crime has never done no serious crime again? Kind of strange if they have DNA I would think whoever would of done something again. Don't get me wrong I agree about WM3 innocence

 

[Cappuccino]

I doubt this DNA has been put through CODIS, Aimee. These tests aren't being carried out by the State but by the defense, which means their responsibility ends once their clients have been excluded as the source. It would be up to the authorities to then take it from there and find out who it does belong to.

I would also hesitate to jump to the conclusion that whoever did this must necessarily have killed again. Not every killer is a serial killer, in fact serial killers are very rare. If somebody did this and got away with it, it would be well within the bounds of possibility that they would have kept their nose very clean since and tried not to draw attention to themselves.

 

[Cappuccino]

Of course then there's the old report on the partial palm/fingerprints from which the WM3 have not been excluded, and the Jacoby hair which jivepuppi, a supporter, claimed was so close to Echols mtdna, that Echols could not be excluded.

Jivepuppi never claimed that. His site details that there is one nucleotide difference between Jacoby and the tree stump hair, and one separate nucleotide difference between Echols and Jacoby, (ie, there is a two nucleotide difference between Echols and the tree stump hair). That excludes Echols as the source, and even casts some doubt on Jacoby as the source, although one nucleotide difference could be explained by heteroplasmy.

Oh, and DNA aside - the tree stump hair is a lovely shade of RED. I'm no expert on the tints of peoples' tresses, but even I can see that Damien Echols does not have red hair.

 

[iluvmua]

So I guess the DNA didn't match anyone in the CODIS? Does this mean whoever did this awful crime has never done no serious crime again? Kind of strange if they have DNA I would think whoever would of done something again. Don't get me wrong I agree about WM3 innocence

Based on what?

 

[iluvmua]

No, it wasn't OT, CR, and that is because any DNA evidence simply can't stand alone to exonerate the WM3. Other evidence exists that any DNA evidence must be considered in conjunction with it, and that includes prior testimonies in this case of various witnesses.

Just because you and other supporters want to dismiss other, prior evidence or explain it away is absolutely meaningless to the court process. You are simply wishcasting.

Jason's alibi would've bit the dust when the prosecution called D. D. to the stand. The problem with all three alibis is there is no consensus among them, and that is why they fail.
Damien's witnesses couldn't agree, Jessie's couldn't, and Ford was smart enough to realize the same would happen with Jason's witnesses if called.

The so called Hobbs hair is not evidence. It was collected from TH's garbage by the defense, and is outside the law. We have laws in this country about how evidence is collected. The Hobbs hair is absolutely worthless and meaningless. The only evidence that matters is what the state has collected. Can you not understand that only evidence in the chain of possession of the state is valid?

If some supporters can't understand that, it is a waste of anyone's time to engage those supporters in a discussion because nons base their opinions on the law and actual evidence presented at trial, and those supporters base their opinions on wishful thinking.

It is my opinion, that supporters are like the jurors in the Casey Anthony trial, incapable of connecting the dots. What you seek is not evidence beyond every reasonable doubt. You seek incontrovertible truth, evidence without any doubt, realistic or unrealistic. You want this case to be CSI, and it's not. You demand that DNA be present that conclusively excludes the WM3. You boast that any DNA evidence unrelated to the WM3 proves their innocence. It does not.

Answer me this. What cumulative evidence, in the court records, all of them, prove the innocence of the WM3? On second thought, I'll answer that. There is none. The preponderence of the evidence gathered so far, resides with the state, and that is why the WM3 aren't going anywhere.

Do they have any new evidence that points to the WM3?

And will we know what that new evidence is in December?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Based on the briefs filed prior to the hearing, the State intends to use Jessie's statements as the bedrock of their case. Since the defense now has competent attorneys, I believe that those statements will be proven to be the unreliable fiction that they are. However, it is possible that the State will try some new tactic (such as changing the motive from "ritual cult killing" to "thrill kill" because the "Satanic panic" phenomenon that fueled that bogus motive is long gone), but personally I don't believe any such shenanigans will be helpful. Ask yourself this: Before the gag order, the State had some secret testing (I believe it was DNA testing) performed. With the defense making all of the evidence excluding the WM3 public, I would think that, if for no other reason than to save face, if any of their testing had produced incriminating evidence, the State would have revealed that to the public. As to what we'll know in December, IMO the defense will not show all of its cards. They will only reveal enough to get a new trial. As to the State, IMO they don't have any other cards to play. They are married to Jessie's statements, and when those statements are disproved and/or discredited, the State's "case" will collapse like a house of cards.

 

[southerngal]

I don't think you'll see the state showing/saying anything until December and the only reason imo that Lori is releasing these press statements is to drum up more support for more donations. IMO, unless the defense comes up with something explosive, like blood or semen excluding them then I don't see them getting a new trial. These new DNA test only mean these items excluded them, doesn't mean they were not there or that they didn't do it.

 

[iluvmua]

I don't think you'll see the state showing/saying anything until December and the only reason imo that Lori is releasing these press statements is to drum up more support for more donations. IMO, unless the defense comes up with something explosive, like blood or semen excluding them then I don't see them getting a new trial. These new DNA test only mean these items excluded them, doesn't mean they were not there or that they didn't do it.

Bingo!!! Thank You!

I'm sure Lori will tell you anything regarding Damien, Jessie & Jason's "Innocence" for a price.

So, If anybody wants to send her money.... go right ahead.. I'm sure she will be more that happy to receive a check from you.

Lori probably knows they are guilty, but does not care unless the money keeps on rolling in.

 

[Cappuccino]

Bingo!!! Thank You!

I'm sure Lori will tell you anything regarding Damien, Jessie & Jason's "Innocence" for a price.

So, If anybody wants to send her money.... go right ahead.. I'm sure she will be more that happy to receive a check from you.

Lori probably knows they are guilty, but does not care unless the money keeps on rolling in.

This is a very common myth among non-supporters. I had never even heard of the West Memphis Three until I came across people on another forum espousing opinions almost identical to the ones in the above two posts.

Once you actually use google and look up how much Bode charges for this and that, and then look up on the Callahan's site how many results have been returned, including victims DNA, non-testable DNA, etc, etc, its impossible not to smell a rat.

Basically, I felt lied to by the initial non-supporters I came across, and I've never really trusted anything they say since.

 

[iluvmua]

Well. I don't trust anything the supporters say, so I guess we are in the same boat.

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't care what boat you are in, Iluvmua. That's your business. If somebody lies to me about a, b, and c, I see no reason to trust them about d. Everything non-supporters claim has to be double checked in my book, because they have collectively lied to me from the outset.

It doesn't really help when I see ones who start threads claiming that Stevie Branch's blood was found on Damien's pendant.

 

[southerngal]

This is a very common myth among non-supporters. I had never even heard of the West Memphis Three until I came across people on another forum espousing opinions almost identical to the ones in the above two posts.

Once you actually use google and look up how much Bode charges for this and that, and then look up on the Callahan's site how many results have been returned, including victims DNA, non-testable DNA, etc, etc, its impossible not to smell a rat.

Basically, I felt lied to by the initial non-supporters I came across, and I've never really trusted anything they say since.

Not a myth.Every letter returned asks for donations, she has celebrity friends who send financial support including Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder and Ozzy Osbourne and that doesn't even count the public ones. She won't tell you what she has raked in but I can guarantee you it is enough that she doesn't need to keep begging for it. Questioning where the money goes on the blackboard will set off a firestorm! try it and see what happens. I mean just ask an innoccent question questioning this and see what happens. I know because I was a supporter for a long time and saw it happen. Same thing happens when you question some of their "theories". Ever hear of the WM3IP? You know the group of supporters that banded together from the other board to raise money because all the money was going to Damien and it was suppose to be split among the 3 of them? ask them how much went to Echols and what went to the other two. Lorri controls it all. If you smell a rat, that's what your smelling.

It's funny you say that about nons, I feel the same way about supporters and I use to be one of them.

 

[southerngal]

I don't care what boat you are in, Iluvmua. That's your business. If somebody lies to me about a, b, and c, I see no reason to trust them about d. Everything non-supporters claim has to be double checked in my book, because they have collectively lied to me from the outset.

It doesn't really help when I see ones who start threads claiming that Stevie Branch's blood was found on Damien's pendant.

I couldn't agree with you more, I feel the same way as you do but it's reversed for me.

 

[southerngal]

Well. I don't trust anything the supporters say, so I guess we are in the same boat.

I don't visit the boards there anymore but there were quite a few who didn't tow the supporter line and thought for themselves. I think some of them really were trying to find out the truth and were straddling the fence. I just fell of it. There are hardcore supporters AND nons. Just as I didn't listen to the hardcore supporters then, I don't listen to the hardcore nons now. To me this is something you have to really study and wade through to come to your own conclusion but that's JMO.

 

[Cappuccino]

Not a myth.Every letter returned asks for donations, she has celebrity friends who send financial support including Johnny Depp, Eddie Vedder and Ozzy Osbourne and that doesn't even count the public ones. She won't tell you what she has raked in but I can guarantee you it is enough that she doesn't need to keep begging for it

So how much has she "raked in", and how can you guarantee that she doesn't need to keep begging for it? How much do the current level of DNA tests run into, in your estimate? And how much has the supporters fund garnered?

Facts and figures, please. Assertions with no evidence are not at all convincing from a non-supporter source, (or indeed any source). No disrepect intended, but you do have an obvious bias.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I believe Bode is the laboratory used. Here is their forensic price list:

http://www.bodetech.com/forensic-solutions/ordering-information/forensic-services-price-list/