Is there even a case against Baldwin?

[kyleb]

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

They can and were by mounds of direct and circumstantial evidence in a court of law, which lead to the convictions of the three child murders who you defend with wildly misguided notions regarding DNA evidence and by dredging up long debunked claims of human bite marks.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

They can and were by mounds of direct and circumstantial evidence in a court of law, which lead to the convictions of the three child murders who you defend with wildly misguided notions regarding DNA evidence and by dredging up long debunked claims of human bite marks.

Sorry. No. they were convicted on fear and lies. They were convicted because Misskelley lied.

If they were so guilty then there would have been no alford plea.

 

[kyleb]

Does the fact that you just posted nonsense about bite marks which were debunked over a decade and a half ago as if they were gospel not even give you a moment of pause in presuming upon yourself the ability to divine lies from truth?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This thread is about Baldwin.. There is no evidence that he was there. No evidence that he murdered anyone.. Especially these babies.

 

[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]

"The hair found in the ligature was consistent with Branch's stepfather, Terry Hobbs, while the hair found on the tree stump was consistent with the DNA of a friend of Hobbs, according to the documents."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/19/arkansas.child.killings/

 

[kyleb]

This thread is about Baldwin...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes it is.. and evidence that could prove there is a case against him or exonerate him..

That exonerates him.. It pretty much puts two other people at the scene.

Maybe bring them to trial..

 

[kyleb]

Again, you're operating from misguided notions regarding DNA evidence, much as you were doing with when presenting the long debunked claims of bite marks as if they were gospel, and you're doing so in flagrant denial of what those wounds are in fact consistent with.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I see nothing that points at all to Baldwin.. But I see a lot that points elsewhere.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, that's how misdirection works, as was done for a decade in a half with attempts to scapegoat Mark Byers before the witch hunt turned its pitchforks on Terry Hobbs.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That is not misdirection.. It is facts and evidence. But what is funny is that Mark Byers is firmly in the "they are innocent" camp." He does not believe Baldwin or any of the others did it either..

 

[primitivefuture]

That is not misdirection.. It is facts and evidence. But what is funny is that Mark Byers is firmly in the "they are innocent" camp." He does not believe Baldwin or any of the others did it either..

And Byers has stated that when he looks back, he is sickened by his own behavior during the filming of paradise lost 2.

Earlier, I wrote a long post complete with links in response to the topics discussed previously in the day, and then accidentally deleted it. I decided not to rewrite it, not only because it was off topic, but also because I knew it would fall on deaf ears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gheckso]

Ahh the knife again. Drug up from a filthy waterhole with no link to baldwin or the crime. Circumstantial is really stretching it. I posted a ruling on another thread about circumstantial evidence.

No matter how suspicious, inappropriate, or unexplainable the behavior may be, it will not support a jury verdict. This court has stated more than once with regard to suspicion and circumstantial evidence and its inferences that where inferences are relied upon, they should point to guilt so clearly that any other conclusion would be insufficient.  Hodge v. State, 303 Ark. 375, 797 S.W.2d 432 (1990);  Ravellette v. State, 264 Ark. 344, 571 S.W.2d 433 (1978).

One of many.

I hardly see how this piece of circumstantial evidence clearly points to guilt absent another conclusion. So what other evidence is there?

 

[Ausgirl]

rather than attacking with a derogatory and false insinuation, but I suppose that would be too much to ask, eh?

This put me into an extended gigglefit, and now I've forgotten what I was going to say...

Anyway- to the OP's question - "Is there even a case against Baldwin?" let's run through a checklist of basic stuff that can incriminate a person:

Is there is conclusive DNA evidence of Baldwin's on the victims, or at the crime scene? -- No.

Can Baldwin conclusively be placed at the crime scene by any other means (aside from Miskelly's highly dubious confessions)? -- No.

Does Baldwin have a history of violence or anger toward the victims? - No.

Does Baldwin have a history of violence or cruelty toward children of that age? -- No.

Is there any conclusive evidence that places the serrated knife from the lake in Baldwin's hands, or at the crime scene? -- No. Though one "resembling it" was "once owned" ... etc. So yeah.. no.

Is it conclusive that ANY knife was used at the crime scene? -- Apparently not.

On and on... basically, there's less hard AND circumstantial evidence of Baldwin being a killer than there is two of the parents, and one of those has been exonerated, apparently.

(I am not saying I believe Hobbs did it, for sure, just pointing out the difference)

I believe the ONLY reason Baldwin was convicted was on the basis of Misskelly's confessions, which are confused and in places incorrect to vital details, to the point where I find them highly questionable.

I await the inevitable onslaught of polite, respectful discourse.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well of course you're not going to see how any evidence points to guilt as long as you're intent on drawing the opposite conclusion, particularly when you can't even recount the body of evidence for yourself and hence are left to ask others to do it for you. Thankfully the juries didn't choose to wallow in such ignorance though, and neither did the prosecution at the 2011 hearing:

Sorry this has nothing at all to do with this topic. And it has no evidence in it.

Is there enough to believe Baldwin had anything to do this? No. Not at all.

 

[Ausgirl]

Please don't think this reflects any theory I hold dear to me, it's just a passing thought..

If I was presented with irrefutable, hard evidence of Echols being one of the killers, and was asked who was the most likely sidekick to have participated in the murder of children, based on what evidence remains.. I'd not be saying 'Baldwin'.

Maybe 'Hollingsworth' (off topic, but doesn't he have the eyes of a Russian hitman? vicious looking little yob..) - I think he had that kind of violence in him, and unlike Baldwin his own family were all but throwing him under the bus for this crime, which really says something about what sort of person he was.

All rather like Echols at the time, which is why he was such a great suspect.

I think Hollingsworth might have been an even better one, had he had been put under the magnifying glass as Echols was.

 

[primitivefuture]

Please don't think this reflects any theory I hold dear to me, it's just a passing thought..

If I was presented with irrefutable, hard evidence of Echols being one of the killers, and was asked who was the most likely sidekick to have participated in the murder of children, based on what evidence remains.. I'd not be saying 'Baldwin'.

Maybe 'Hollingsworth' (off topic, but doesn't he have the eyes of a Russian hitman? vicious looking little yob..) - I think he had that kind of violence in him, and unlike Baldwin his own family were all but throwing him under the bus for this crime, which really says something about what sort of person he was.

All rather like Echols at the time, which is why he was such a great suspect.

I think Hollingsworth might have been an even better one, had he had been put under the magnifying glass as Echols was.

And then everyone would be talking about his "Little Gangster" tattoo the way they talk about Damien's pentagram. And probably deciphering rap lyrics instead of metal.

I'm not sure I know what to make of L.G. And the whole Hollingsworth clan. Have you ever heard the tape recorded phone call between L.G. and Domini? It's a weird one. I keep wondering about her references to Tabitha testifying in order to get back at her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Please don't think this reflects any theory I hold dear to me, it's just a passing thought..

If I was presented with irrefutable, hard evidence of Echols being one of the killers, and was asked who was the most likely sidekick to have participated in the murder of children, based on what evidence remains.. I'd not be saying 'Baldwin'.

Maybe 'Hollingsworth' (off topic, but doesn't he have the eyes of a Russian hitman? vicious looking little yob..) - I think he had that kind of violence in him, and unlike Baldwin his own family were all but throwing him under the bus for this crime, which really says something about what sort of person he was.

All rather like Echols at the time, which is why he was such a great suspect.

I think Hollingsworth might have been an even better one, had he had been put under the magnifying glass as Echols was.

One other thing against LG is that he was named as one of the killers in the affidavits of Guy and Stewart. I know that many people don't believe those affidavits. I'm not sure that I can swallow everything in them, but I believe that those affidavits might have gotten the names of the killers correct. According to those affidavits, the killers were Terry Hobbs, David Jacoby, Buddy Lucas and LG Hollingsworth. If you're interested, there's a lot more about LG on jivepuppi's site. He died in an auto accident on October 26, 2001.

 

[Ausgirl]

Thanks, guys, for those links and references.