Dna

[claudicici]

what circumstantial evidence?
This case was based on a coerced confession and satanic panic.

 

[iluvmua]

what circumstantial evidence?
This case was based on a coerced confession and satanic panic.

I'll let Just Thinkin explain this one......

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The "evidence" consisted of fibers (with no definite link to the crime or the WM3 as they were only "microscopically similar" to items found at the discovery ditch), the "lake" knife (which has only been linked to the crime by Fogleman's ridiculous grapefruit demonstration), Damien's journal writings (which were primarily teen angst and heavy metal lyrics) and Jessie's statements (which are simply ridiculous - all of them).

As claudicici said, what really convicted the WM3 was the "Satanic panic" prevalent at the time. It's no longer present, and the new defense team will make mincemeat of anyone who tries to use Jessie's statements as proof of anything except that Jessie can't tell a story and Jessie wasn't in the BB woods on May 5, 1993.

As to the fibers, further testing is now underway that I am confident will prove that the fibers from the ditch have no link to the fibers collected from Damien's and Jason's homes. Since certified forensic pathologists have determined that no knife was involved, the "lake" knife will be moot.

 

[SheBoss]

Jessie said that when he was trying to make a deal with the prosecution. Once he realised he wasn't going to get his sentence reduced, you won't find any more confessions from Jessie.

However, he is on the record as saying that none of it is true, and that "everything I said on that tape is what they told me to say."

Cappuccino or anyone else, can someone please point me to where Jesse said this? I can't find it anywhere and I'd love to read it. Thanks!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

SheBoss,

Sorry, I'm not really sure, but I believe that the statement about the deal came from Stidham in a PC or interview. I don't know if I can find a link, but I'll look. As to Jessie's profession of innocence, since Friday's events, his profession of innocence is in the hearing. He also professed innocence during a chat on the YUKU board some years back in response to a parent who was baiting him by basically asking him how he could live with himself. His response was that he didn't kill the kids and knows nothing about the murders.

 

[Cappuccino]

Cappuccino or anyone else, can someone please point me to where Jesse said this? I can't find it anywhere and I'd love to read it. Thanks!

I've never read it, I heard him say it in an interview he did from the jail with a local television station. Its posted on You Tube but the owner of the video has now made it private. If I can find another copy of it, I'll post it here.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

At about the 60 minute mark on the video below, Ellington claims that they are going to run the DNA through the system when the labs are finished with it.

http://wm3org.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/west-memphis-three-past-present-and-future-wm3.html

ETA: He also said that he has made an agreement with the defense team to have an open door and that he does not plan on re-opening the case, but if they have compelling evidence he will. He asked that no one send evidence to the prosecution and that if you have evidence you need to get it to the defense team who will be screening it and bringing things to him. He will only look at evidence that has come through the defense team. How weird. Seems very trusting, if you ask me. @ about 75 minutes.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

At about the 60 minute mark on the video below, Ellington claims that they are going to run the DNA through the system when the labs are finished with it.

http://wm3org.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/west-memphis-three-past-present-and-future-wm3.html

ETA: He also said that he has made an agreement with the defense team to have an open door and that he does not plan on re-opening the case, but if they have compelling evidence he will. He asked that no one send evidence to the prosecution and that if you have evidence you need to get it to the defense team who will be screening it and bringing things to him. He will only look at evidence that has come through the defense team. How weird. Seems very trusting, if you ask me. @ about 75 minutes.

I've done a lot of thinking about Ellington's statements at the Q & A, and I've come to the conclusion that he really does want the truth to come out, but he may be hindered by the "requests" (or possibly demands) of his superiors, mainly Dustin McDaniel, the AG. I could be wrong about this, but I believe he's sincere. I believe that, if the defense gives him "compelling evidence" that either proves the innocence of the WMFree or gives him enough evidence to warrant an investigation into someone else, he'll reopen the case. Time will tell, but my gut tells me that he and Laser both believe that the WMFree are factually innocent in these murders and they are both hoping that the defense will provide some "compelling" proof.

The only thing I'm worried about is the time line. Damien's attorneys were unable to present the jury misconduct issue in Burnett's court because, in part, he said that it wasn't done in a "timely manner" (which seems unfair to me, but I'm no lawyer). I've heard something about a 60 day time frame for presenting the new information, but I don't have any definite statements about this. It's just all rumor. Do any of you legal types know about this? I'm of the opinion that, since there is no statute of limitations on murder, there should be no statute of limitations on presenting evidence of innocence for one falsely convicted of murder. Help, please!

 

[Pensfan]

The "evidence" consisted of fibers (with no definite link to the crime or the WM3 as they were only "microscopically similar" to items found at the discovery ditch), the "lake" knife (which has only been linked to the crime by Fogleman's ridiculous grapefruit demonstration), Damien's journal writings (which were primarily teen angst and heavy metal lyrics) and Jessie's statements (which are simply ridiculous - all of them).

As claudicici said, what really convicted the WM3 was the "Satanic panic" prevalent at the time. It's no longer present, and the new defense team will make mincemeat of anyone who tries to use Jessie's statements as proof of anything except that Jessie can't tell a story and Jessie wasn't in the BB woods on May 5, 1993.

As to the fibers, further testing is now underway that I am confident will prove that the fibers from the ditch have no link to the fibers collected from Damien's and Jason's homes. Since certified forensic pathologists have determined that no knife was involved, the "lake" knife will be moot.

LOL
Werner Spitz, who appears to be close to 118 years of age, made this senile comment 5 years ago after looking at some PHOTOS. The doctor who ACTUALLY examined the wounds on the bodies said it was a serrated knife. (Werner Spitz is the same ancient man that said Dr. G’s botched the autopsy of Caylee Anthony.)

 

[Cappuccino]

No, there were seven forensic pathologists who said that the wounds were caused by post mortem animal predation, not a knife. It doesn't stand or fall by Werner Spitz's word.

Making judgements like that from examining the totality of autopsy photographs, autopsy reports and bench notes is common practice for board certified forensic pathologists. Its acceptable both scientifically and legally.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

No, there were seven forensic pathologists who said that the wounds were caused by post mortem animal predation, not a knife. It doesn't stand or fall by Werner Spitz's word.

Making judgements like that from examining the totality of autopsy photographs, autopsy reports and bench notes is common practice for board certified forensic pathologists. Its acceptable both scientifically and legally.

Is that your opinion or do you have a valid link? I've never heard of that one before, 7-pathologists?

According to Peter Jackson who has given 10 million toward the convicted's fund they are still looking for ways to prove their innocence. Wow, with all that money plus money from all the other celebrity donors and 18-years later you would think they would have that by now. I'm still waiting...


Jackson seeks pardon for 'killer'

Echols was here to "work with us on a couple of things", Sir Peter said.


"We're doing investigative work. We're doing forensic work. We're still ongoing for the purpose of getting a complete pardon."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10762288

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The article concludes: "Despite their guilty pleas, new crime tests from the crime scene in 2007 proved negative for the trio's DNA and showed others were present when the three boys were murdered." That may not be evidence of innocence, but it's certainly not evidence of guilt. Since it's difficult to prove a negative, the easiest way to prove innocence may be to prove the guilt of the real killer. IMO, that's what everyone is working on now. Once the guilt of the real killer is established, that will prove the innocence of the WMFree.

 

[FairM]

No, there were seven forensic pathologists who said that the wounds were caused by post mortem animal predation, not a knife. It doesn't stand or fall by Werner Spitz's word.

Making judgements like that from examining the totality of autopsy photographs, autopsy reports and bench notes is common practice for board certified forensic pathologists. Its acceptable both scientifically and legally.

If a knife wasn't used can you please tell me what the cause of death was- am I right in thinking the boys drowned?

were they beaten ?

If a knife wasn't used then thus would account for the lack of blood at the scene of discovery?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If a knife wasn't used can you please tell me what the cause of death was- am I right in thinking the boys drowned?

The autopsy for two of the boys (Stevie and Michael) listed cause of death as multiple injuries with drowning while the autopsy report for Chris listed multiple injuries as the COD. However, the official Cause of Death form listed multiple injuries as the COD for all three. Branch autopsy: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autsb.html ; Branch COD: http://callahan.8k.com/images/ascl/MENotice_Steve.JPG ; Byers autopsy: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autcb.html ; Byers COD: http://callahan.8k.com/images/ascl/MENotice_Chris.JPG ; Moore autopsy: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html ; Moore COD: http://callahan.8k.com/images/ascl/MENotice_Michael.JPG . As usual, Peretti was confused.

were they beaten ?

Peretti concluded that some of the injuries could have been inflicted with fists. However, other forensic pathologists concluded that the only injuries inflicted by human hands were basilar skull fractures suffered by all three. Jessie's story included a beating, but no blood was found on the clothing. So, it's just another of the things in this case, IMO, that Peretti really blew. I don't think that they were beaten, except maybe one or two blows to incapacitate them.

If a knife wasn't used then thus would account for the lack of blood at the scene of discovery?

IMO, the lack of blood at the discovery ditch was a result of the murders having taken place in another location and several hours having intervened before the bodies were placed in the discovery ditch.

 

[Dysthymia]

I, too, would like to see a link to those 7 pathologist's reports. Just saying it doesn't make it a fact.

This isn't about the knife but it is a DNA report that I have never heard supporters dispute. When they say that Hobbs (who was the stepfather of one of the little boys and all of the little boys were friends so they had been in his home. That would explain a hair that is "consistent" with one of his. But that doesn't come close to saying that he murdered his step son and the other little boys...all three of them at the same time! Sounds more than impossible to me.

There is an excellent series (part 1 and 2) on Blink's crime blog about this case. In her investigation, she discovered that luminol tests were done back then and there was evidence that a great deal of blood was there at the site where the boy's bodies were found. The luminol tests were not considered reliable scientific evidence back then as they are now.

I agree that Mr. Werner Spitz is not credible. I based this on the Phil Spector trial, the Casey Anthony trial, and his opinion on this case. This is my opinion only.

 

[Cappuccino]

This isn't about the knife but it is a DNA report that I have never heard supporters dispute. When they say that Hobbs (who was the stepfather of one of the little boys and all of the little boys were friends so they had been in his home. That would explain a hair that is "consistent" with one of his. But that doesn't come close to saying that he murdered his step son and the other little boys.

You're right, but you're overlooking something. Let's say Hobbs' hair was at the crime scene due to innocent transfer - that means it was there from before the crime was committed. Add in the fact that most of the DNA at the crime scene belonged to the three victims themselves, and we have a ludicrous scenario where three drunken teens on a thrill kill rampage completely cleaned the scene of all their own DNA while leaving behind DNA belonging to at least four other individuals. Five if you count the Jacoby hair.

I think experienced serial killers and Mafia hitmen would have trouble pulling off that feat, so I just don't buy the idea of three teenage eejits drunk on whiskey and beer doing it.

There is an excellent series (part 1 and 2) on Blink's crime blog about this case. In her investigation, she discovered that luminol tests were done back then and there was evidence that a great deal of blood was there at the site where the boy's bodies were found. The luminol tests were not considered reliable scientific evidence back then as they are now.

Blink is talking nonsense, luminol is not a blood specific chemical - never has been and never will be. Here's a more reliable source on the subject...

When a luminol solution is sprayed on surfaces, it reacts with metal ions, such as iron, which are stored and transported by hemoglobin cells (red blood cells). Very discrete iron concentrations on a surface, such as 1 part per million, are enough to catalyze luminol's chemi-luminescence (react and cause a glow). However, luminol sensitivity is not blood-specific, and the compound also reacts with other substances, such as saliva, rust, potassium permanganate, animal proteins, vegetable enzymes, and other organic fluids and tissues. Therefore, luminol tests are not conclusive for blood and cannot be admitted for evidence in court.

http://www.enotes.com/luminol-reference/luminol

I agree that Mr. Werner Spitz is not credible. I based this on the Phil Spector trial, the Casey Anthony trial, and his opinion on this case. This is my opinion only.

I share your opinion. Spitz, God love him, is a bit past it. I've always discounted his testimony in my assessment of this case.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This is from the Rule 37 Hearing Abstracts:

Michael Baden (forensic pathologist): http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_baden.html

Richard Souviron (forensic odontologist): http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_souviron.html

Janice Ophoven (pediatric forensic pathologist): http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_ophoven.html

I believe that the other pathologists who examined the materials were unable to testify. Their reports might be part of the Exhibits, but I couldn't find a link to them. However, the three above, all board certified, discuss animal predation as the cause of the wounds to the boys and dismiss any use of a knife, as does Spitz, whose testimony I didn't link as you seem to discount it.

Dr. Cohen testified at Damien's Rule 37 hearing. His testimony was long and involved, but he mentioned several times that many of the injuries could have been from postmortem marine activity. Here's a link to his testimony: http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/october28.html#cohen

I don't know if any of these certified pathologists actually prepared reports, but their testimonies were under oath. I believe it is obvious from these testimonies that certified pathologists, including Dr. Spitz, disagree with Peretti about many of his findings.