Is there even a case against Baldwin?

[kyleb]

I not only read the laws relevant before I posted the link, I also familiarized myself with the meanings of the terms used rather than just taking them to mean whatever I want like you've done to attack me. with respect to the actual meaning of the terms, what Climer described has nothing to do with this:

Mentally defective – A person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders the person incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of sexual acts or unaware the sexual act is occurring. A determination that a person is mentally defective shall not be based solely on intelligence quotient.

And rather borders on this:

Mentally incapacitated – A person is temporarily incapable of appreciating or controlling the person’s conduct as a result of the influence of a controlled or intoxicating substance either administered to the person without her/his consent or which renders the person unaware the sexual act is occurring.

As Ridge noted "there is a real fine line" though, and while the "getting her doped up and everything, and then she would say, yes" which Climer described is disgusting behavior, it doesn't legally constitute rape.

 

[Cappuccino]

As Ridge noted "there is a real fine line", and while "getting her doped up and everything, and then she would say, yes" as Climer described is disgusting behavior, it doesn't legally constitute rape.

Did you deliberately misquote Climer there, or did you not read that link either? He doesn't say "then she would say yes", he says "so she would no longer say no". There's a big difference legally between incapacitating a girl who is saying no till she can no longer say it, and giving a girl a few drinks to lower her inhibitions so she says yes.

Ricky Climer is clearly describing the former, otherwise known as rape.

 

[kyleb]

Did you deliberately misquote Climer there, or did you not read that link either? He doesn't say "then she would say yes", he says "so she would no longer say no".

Rather, Ridge said something very close to what you've falsely attributed to Climer to persist in your attacks on me, but only after Climer said what I accurately quoted from him. Here's the relevant portions of the transcript highlighted to help you sort through your confusion:

 

[Cappuccino]

OMG, I did misread it, and thanks for pointing that out Kyle, because that's even worse. It would be bad enough if Climer had described rape and Ridge said it wasn't - we might be able to excuse that by saying that Ridge misunderstood him.

But, as you have so rightly pointed out, its Ridge who describes rape and then says it isn't rape.

 

[kyleb]

No, Ridge's description was made in the context of an intoxicated person consenting to sex as Climer described, and Ridge correctly identified that as not crossing the line into what legally constitutes rape. Of course one can take Ridge's statements out of context to slander him as you've joined PF in doing, but there's nothing right about that.

 

[Cappuccino]

The context of the conversation is a police officer talking to a confused teenager in a mental hospital. In that context he changes the wording of Climer's scenario from one that probably just constitutes sleazy behaviour into one that constitutes rape. And tells the confused teenager it isn't rape.

Either Ridge himself doesn't know where that "thin line" lies, or at the very least he was dangerously sloppy in his wording.

 

[kyleb]

The context of the conversation is a police officer talking to a confused teenager in a mental hospital.

How do you come up with these lies? Perhaps?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What I find interesting is this has nothing to do with the case. There is no evidence against any of the three.. Until there a discussion of the FACTS of the crime, no spin on things that don't matter, is going to help anything.

 

[kyleb]

There's considerable evidence against the three, and a variety of it has been mentioned throughout this thread alone. However, there's also a lot of people like yourself who prefer to argue around that evidence in various ways, which is why we wind up in situations where people are spinning false allegations against Ridge and other nonsense while actual discussion of the facts of these murders such as in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9976821#post9976821"]my post here[/ame] go completely ignored.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There's considerable evidence against the three, and a variety of it has been mentioned throughout this thread alone. However, there's also a lot of people like yourself who prefer to argue around that evidence in various ways, which is why we wind up in these situations of people spinning false allegations against Ridge and other nonsense while actual discussion of the facts of these murders such as in my post here go completely ignored.

Actually there isn't. No sign they were there. No evidence they were there. No dna that they were there. Nothing..

 

[kyleb]

Come on Scarlett, let's talk about the evidence here, starting with these wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead:

Now please tell me Scarlett, have you ever seen surfaces which are consistent with any of those wounds?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Come on Scarlett, let's talk about the evidence here, starting with these wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead:



Now please tell me Scarlett, have you ever seen surfaces which are consistent with any of those wounds?

There is nothing that connects These Three to this crime. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. They did not kill those children.

That photo should have come with a warning.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

There's considerable evidence against the three, and a variety of it has been mentioned throughout this thread alone. However, there's also a lot of people like yourself who prefer to argue around that evidence in various ways, which is why we wind up in situations where people are spinning false allegations against Ridge and other nonsense while actual discussion of the facts of these murders such as in my post here go completely ignored.

Sadly you are correct. I guess some supporters are so invested that they refuse to see the truth when it's right in front of their face. Guiding them to the facts doesn't seem to help either. They just come back with more WM3 spin and talking points.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, it's a lot like trying to discuss carbon decay and the fossil record with young earth creationists. Nothing can be considered evidence when it contradicts faith.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Show me the DNA. IT would be there. It is not. I don't support the WM3, But I do stand up for unjust verdicts and prosecutions. Then I hollar..

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Show me the DNA. IT would be there. It is not. I don't support the WM3, But I do stand up for unjust verdicts and prosecutions. Then I hollar..

Do you require DNA on all cases before you think someone is guilty of committing a murder?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do you require DNA on all cases before you think someone is guilty of committing a murder?

I do in this one. This is 3 boys that were teens, if you want me to believe that they went into the woods and brutally killed and tortured these babies, there would be evidence and DNA and the only DNA that I have seen that connects anyone is to TH. Not any of the 3.

I don't take up for child killers. But I also don't want people convicted of something so heinous that they did not do. That is not justice.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

" The most important of these was his opinion that the patterned injuries all over Steven Branch's face were not the result of an attack with a serrated edge knife, as was originally believed, but were, in fact, bite marks. This opinion was confirmed by Dr Thomas David, a board certified forensic odontologist, who identified the marks as being human adult bite marks. After comparing these marks with bite impressions obtained from Jessie, Jason and Damien, Dr. David gave his expert opinion that they did not match. Bite marks are extremely useful in identifying the perpetrator of a crime as they can be as unique as a fingerprint. Further suction type bite marks were also found all over Christopher Byers's inner thigh."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/evidence_11.html

 

[kyleb]

if you want me to believe that they went into the woods and brutally killed and tortured these babies, there would be evidence and DNA

There's no reason to believe in WMPD's ability to gather such evidence, particularly back in 1993 when understanding of DNA was just starting to make its way into the field of criminal investigation.

As for claims that the wounds on Stevie Branch's head are human bite marks, those were thrown out of court for the nonsense they are over a decade and a half ago at Echols' rule 37 hearing, the transcripts of which can be found here. The more recent attempts to argue around the consistency between the wounds and the survival knife eschew the human bite mark nonsense in favor of what Dr. Werner Spitz summed up in his opening statements at Echols' 2007 press conference:

Good morning. I analyzed a lot of pictures. I analyzed a lot of written material. It is my opinion, or following on my opinions, injuries on the body surface of all the three victims, three boys, including the emasculation of Chris Byers, were produced by animals, after death.

None of the injuries were caused during life, and none were caused by a serrated knife, or any knife for that matter. These are not sharp injuries that have characteristics, and those characteristics are not identifiable or synonymous with a knife or any other sharp force type injury.

But there's no reason to believe such vague claims either, particularly not in the face of the evidence to the contrary.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There's no reason to believe in WMPD's ability to gather such evidence, particularly back in 1993 when understanding of DNA was just starting to make it's way into the field of criminal investigation.

As for claims that the wounds on Stevie Branch's head are human bite marks, those were thrown out of court for the nonsense they are over a decade and a half ago at Echols' rule 37 hearing, the transcripts of which can be found here. The more recent attempts to argue around the consistency between the wounds and the survival knife eschew the human bite mark nonsense in favor of what Dr. Werner Spitz summed up in his opening statements at Echols' 2007 press conference:


But there's no reason to believe such vague claims either, particularly not in the face of the evidence to the contrary.

It makes no difference that they did not have the skill back then.. Just like they found the evidence later that TH DNA was there, so would have the other 3 eventually, But it is not there.

Those marks can not be attributed and tied to E,B or M.