I've Changed My Opinion

[dogmatica]

To be fair, you can't prove the bolded part of this sentence. That is why the State agreed to the Alford plea also. The State would have had a huge upward battle, 20 years after the fact.

But I can agree with the first part of the sentence: that the WM3 were convicted based on all of the evidence that was presented -- not just the "satanic cult" angle -- but all of the evidence. The injustice was, that the original jury took into account the JM confession. That rightfully should have never been allowed in deliberation, and arguably, didn't even need to be introduced. Honestly, if that never was, I don't think the WM3 would have ever gotten out of prison -- and it was not only unethical but utterly stupid for the foreman to introduce that. If the jury needed that to convict (which I don't necessarily believe they did, but I digress), then they should have never found DE and/or JB guilty.

No, I cannot prove that. The point is, by accepting the Alford Plea, the WM3: "admitted that the evidence the prosecution has would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

Good points on the rest of your post. I agree that even without JM's confessions, they would've been convicted. The culmination of all the other evidence (nons denying its existence doesn't make it go away) was incredibly damning. However the JM confessions were incredibly powerful as well, even if they shouldn't have been allowed into the courtroom.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

*sigh*

A lie is a lie, no matter how many times it is asserted. JM, because of his low IQ and youth, told the police a lie, but it was a lie that he thought they wanted to hear - and a lie that they manipulated him into telling which is why he told it. Remember, his original statement was that he heard that DE and someone else (not JB) did it. However, that wasn't what the police wanted to hear!

Besides the JM statement, there is no other evidence of guilt for DE, JB and JM. The fibers have been debunked. The DNA that could be theirs could also belong to any male on the planet. The statements from MC are, simply put, those of a "jailhouse snitch" and he has admitted that he was "pretty messed up" on drugs at the time. The softball girls are laughable. If they heard what they claim to have heard (and weren't just seeking to "help"), I'm pretty sure that DE was being sarcastic.

As to the Alford plea, I totally understand why DE, JB and JM took it - they were afraid that they could be falsely convicted again! It happened once. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. What still is incomprehensible to me is why the State agreed to the Alford plea. The three were already in custody. Why let three child killers out? Nons often ask, "where's the evidence of innocence that the defense promised?" We didn't see it, but, since the State readily agreed to an Alford plea, maybe it was there. I don't know, but there had to be something other than financial concerns that the State saw/heard that prompted them to release three child killers, wouldn't you think? Y'all know my refrain: "Find out why TH has never been considered a suspect for these murders and this case will be solved - once and for all!"

 

[dogmatica]

*sigh*

A lie is a lie, no matter how many times it is asserted. JM, because of his low IQ and youth, told the police a lie, but it was a lie that he thought they wanted to hear - and a lie that they manipulated him into telling which is why he told it. Remember, his original statement was that he heard that DE and someone else (not JB) did it. However, that wasn't what the police wanted to hear!

Besides the JM statement, there is no other evidence of guilt for DE, JB and JM. The fibers have been debunked. The DNA that could be theirs could also belong to any male on the planet. The statements from MC are, simply put, those of a "jailhouse snitch" and he has admitted that he was "pretty messed up" on drugs at the time. The softball girls are laughable. If they heard what they claim to have heard (and weren't just seeking to "help"), I'm pretty sure that DE was being sarcastic.

As to the Alford plea, I totally understand why DE, JB and JM took it - they were afraid that they could be falsely convicted again! It happened once. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. What still is incomprehensible to me is why the State agreed to the Alford plea. The three were already in custody. Why let three child killers out? Nons often ask, "where's the evidence of innocence that the defense promised?" We didn't see it, but, since the State readily agreed to an Alford plea, maybe it was there. I don't know, but there had to be something other than financial concerns that the State saw/heard that prompted them to release three child killers, wouldn't you think? Y'all know my refrain: "Find out why TH has never been considered a suspect for these murders and this case will be solved - once and for all!"

<mod snip>
So when is Echols and his team going to present this exculpatory evidence and reveal the "real killer"? You must be getting impatient - it's been 4 years now that they've been free. And they claimed to have it before they were released. Are they just teasing us by making us wait?

 

[whonos]

Goblin Keeper's quote was so long, I am only using the sentence that jumped out at me:
"To say that someone stomps a dog to death is a far cry from saying that same individual will knife, savage, tie, and drown three eight year old boys."

People who have lived with animals are aware of their intelligence and emotions. Scientists have now determined through experiments that an adult dog has the same level of intelligence and emotions of a three year old child.

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness that was publicly proclaimed on July 7, 2012 at the University concluded that animals are sentient beings. The group that signed this declaration were some of the most renowned scientists in the world, including Stephen Hawking.

Even if an animal's intelligence and emotions are not clear to the person stomping it to death, the suffering of the animal would be clear.

An adult dog would probably react much like a three year old child.

 

[reedus23]

<modsnip>

So when is Echols and his team going to present this exculpatory evidence and reveal the "real killer"? You must be getting impatient - it's been 4 years now that they've been free. And they claimed to have it before they were released. Are they just teasing us by making us wait?

You seem so fixated on this that you equate failure to produce exculpatory evidence with being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for other evidence of guilt, I'd love to hear it. Some time back I started a thread specifically asking for evidence that directly ties these defendants to this crime. I was waiting then and I'm waiting now. I'd be more than happy to bump that thread if you have some to contribute.

 

[Userid]

^ There is zero evidence that ties anybody to this crime -- yes, TH included (the hair can belong to at least 1,000 people in the area); that's why it's still unsolved.

 

[dogmatica]

You seem so fixated on this that you equate failure to produce exculpatory evidence with being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for other evidence of guilt, I'd love to hear it. Some time back I started a thread specifically asking for evidence that directly ties these defendants to this crime. I was waiting then and I'm waiting now. I'd be more than happy to bump that thread if you have some to contribute.

Nice try. The WM3's inability to produce the exculpatory evidence that THEY SAID EXISTS is but another glaring fact that points to their guilt. I never stated that that in and of itself is proof positive. It's another glaring piece of evidence, that, combined with everything else, makes it painfully obvious the right men were found guilty and later plead guilty. Once again, you child murdering supporters twist logic and take one piece at a time, out of context, and claim that as your victory in proving their innocence. They WERE proven guilty beyond a reasonable - as is evidenced by their GUILTY verdict and their subsequent GUILTY pleas.

Regarding your question of evidence - it's been presented ad nauseam. Simply read the trial transcripts, the many, many, many confessions, both pre and post conviction of Jessie Misskelly, and the countless documents (including the 500) on Callahan's. If you're still unable to comprehend the guilty verdicts and subsequent guilty pleas after (honestly) reading all of that, then I wish you best of luck in your delusions.

And be sure to let me know when the WM3 finally stop teasing us and reveal the "real killer", which apparently they have proof of, but are withholding for...I dunno, entertainment purposes?

 

[dogmatica]

^ There is zero evidence that ties anybody to this crime -- yes, TH included (the hair can belong to at least 1,000 people in the area); that's why it's still unsolved.

You and I have very different definitions of the word "zero". Confessions, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdicts, followed by guilty pleas. The crime was solved long ago.

 

[Userid]

You and I have very different definitions of the word "zero". Confessions, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdicts, followed by guilty pleas. The crime was solved long ago.

If that is (or was) the case, they'd still be in jail.

The confessions are something, but nonetheless; the only evidence in this case that ties anyone to these crimes is circumstantial, whether you're a supporter or a non.

And you can't gloss over the jury misconduct by the jury foreman in introducing JM's confession illegally in the deliberations. Don't gloss over that like supporters gloss over the confessions -- it doesn't help your argument.

 

[dogmatica]

If that is (or was) the case, they'd still be in jail.

The confessions are something, but nonetheless; the only evidence in this case that ties anyone to these crimes is circumstantial, whether you're a supporter or a non.

And you can't gloss over the jury misconduct by the jury foreman in introducing JM's confession illegally in the deliberations. Don't gloss over that like supporters gloss over the confessions -- it doesn't help your argument.

They're out of prison because of the multi million dollar celebrity machine that got fooled by the "documentaries" and certain people's (many on this board) love affair with the "enigma" that is Damien Echols. Not because there's any actual "reasonable" doubt about their guilt. And the evidence is not purely circumstantial.

I've never "glossed over" the jury's misconduct, nor have I ever denied it. That doesn't make the multiple confessions any less relevant, or true.

 

[Userid]

You keep using the confessions. The confessions should not have had any bearing on the verdicts delivered to DE and JB, but they obviously did, considering they were introduced during deliberations (which in itself is grounds for a mistrial, and which surely would have been brought up by Echols' defense team had the Alford plea never materialized). So yeah, you're somewhat glossing over that fact because you keep trumpeting the confessions as the end-all-be-all in the guilt of all three men. It surely was the end-all-be-all (and rightfully so) for JM, but the confessions should have had zero bearing whatsoever for JB and DE because JM refused to testify against the two and because he was tried separately.

Again, there is nothing that directly ties anyone to this crime. If there was, we (the royal) wouldn't be in this position. The confessions -- in my and I'm sure your opinion -- are relevant of course, but they are nonetheless circumstantial because more evidence is need to validate them. A confession alone is usually not enough to convict someone (particularly when only one person out of the three has confessed) -- an easy and well-known example from another case being John Mark Karr. It was enough to convict JM (in my opinion) due to the fact that the specific injuries to the specific boys were correct, and that JM himself was confessing to being there, but they didn't prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that DE and JB were there (particularly because they themselves hadn't confessed) and because originally, JM states that two other boys had committed the crime with him before saying it was DE and JB.

 

[dogmatica]

Nope, never proclaimed the confessions were the "end all be all". And I'm aware they were inadmissible. We'll have to disagree that "there is nothing that directly ties anyone to this crime.". We obviously gleaned very, very different information and conclusions from the trial transcripts, the evidence presented and all the info on Callahan's. The reason "we" are in this position is because of celebrity, Hollywood, f'ed up celebrities with millions of dollars who are lovestruck by Damien Echols and a worldwide fanbase of the WM3. If those "documentaries" were never made, none of this would have happened. They were disingenuous, sensational and sexy to some (messed up) people. The confessions were absolutely validated by the other evidence. Hence the guilty verdicts and the subsequent guilty pleas.

Comparing JMK's confessions (which had zero other evidence to back it up - AND was disproven) is ridiculous. Completely different ball park. There was a huge amount of evidence to back up JM's confessions, and NOTHING has been disproven about the guilt of the WM3. JMK was proven to be in a different state and DNA ruled him out. JM and the other 2 child killers were in fact in WM at the time of the crimes, and they were NOT ruled out by DNA.

 

[zencompass]

The saddest part of this is that there were many suspects and many were never followed up properly.

On May 5, 1993 there seemed to be the "perfect storm" for these three little innocent guys to be slaughtered. So horrific.

D.N.A. evidence was so lacking in this case that it doesn't conclusively point to any suspect, in my opinion.

 

[Just Jake]

The guys are free and I have watched countless interviews and they don't seem like they did it. I have watched countless vidoes of criminals that did something and still claimed they didn't and I can see it in them or at least I can see that seed or grain of evil. There is no grain in these men now and I think it would be hard to cover that up. That being the only murder and catch you have committed. Think about it. The more you get caught the better you get at obfuscation. If you have only done it once think about hard it would to keep that facade up. So I believe it could be possible to have done it, but exponentially harder to maintain innocence for that duration as it pertains to their immaturity, for lack of a better them being amateurs.

 

[Just Jake]

Basically you are putting these guys on a Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Gacey, Ramirez level. It's like saying a Jr high school football player can all of a sudden play in the NFL. These kids were not pros by any means nor were they psycho-socio-prodigies.

 

[dogmatica]

Basically you are putting these guys on a Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Gacey, Ramirez level. It's like saying a Jr high school football player can all of a sudden play in the NFL. These kids were not pros by any means nor were they psycho-socio-prodigies.

Either you haven't read the 500,or you did,and didn't understand it.

 

[reedus23]

Regarding your question of evidence - it's been presented ad nauseam. Simply read the trial transcripts, the many, many, many confessions, both pre and post conviction of Jessie Misskelly, and the countless documents (including the 500) on Callahan's. If you're still unable to comprehend the guilty verdicts and subsequent guilty pleas after (honestly) reading all of that, then I wish you best of luck in your delusions.

I have read every word of the trial transcripts. I have read every police report, witness interview and so forth. You have given the same non-answer for an answer that I get every time that I ask what evidence there is that suggests these 3 did it to the exclusion of others outside of the confession. I am truly willing to listen but all I ever get is rhetoric and name calling like "child murdering supporters" and "delusions". You can't have a rationale discourse. It took me reading only a handful of your posts to determine that you are either 10 years old, a relative of one of the 3 kids murdered or lack the ability to provide critical thought to anything. See how easy playing the silly name game is, yet answers nothing.

 

[reedus23]

You and I have very different definitions of the word "zero". Confessions, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdicts, followed by guilty pleas. The crime was solved long ago.

Saying they are guilty because of guilty pleas and double verdicts gives the issue as much critical thought as someone making a decision only based on the movies that were made.

 

[reedus23]

They're out of prison because of the multi million dollar celebrity machine that got fooled by the "documentaries" and certain people's (many on this board) love affair with the "enigma" that is Damien Echols. Not because there's any actual "reasonable" doubt about their guilt. And the evidence is not purely circumstantial.

I've never "glossed over" the jury's misconduct, nor have I ever denied it. That doesn't make the multiple confessions any less relevant, or true.

Because some celebrities jumped on a band wagon? Are you kidding me? I would tell you that States do not release people convicted of slaughtering 3 little kids just because of peer pressure. The more likely answer is they know their investigation and case were flawed and/or had serious doubts about either their guilt or their ability to maintain the convictions.

 

[reedus23]

We obviously gleaned very, very different information and conclusions from the trial transcripts, the evidence presented and all the info on Callahan's.

Just give me, I don't know, a half dozen examples of evidence introduced at trial that points to any of the 3 convicted to the exclusion of others. I'll make it easier. It didn't even have to be introduced at trial.