Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does anyone know what kind of hairs they found? Pubic hairs? Hairs from head, Arm hairs?
I don't believe being scared was reason enough for him to let down his mask, which is what "persona" means. He had tried to appear tough throughout this ordeal because he knew he was innocent and he wanted to be left alone. As I said before, a mature person knows better than to act the way he did, but he was an immature teen who was being persecuted because of his beliefs, his taste in clothes and music and a community's desire to punish someone for these heinous crimes. To the community, even if he wasn't guilty, he was weird. Jessie and Jason were collateral damage; they just picked the wrong friend. So, "Hang 'em; hang 'em high" was their attitude, one fostered by the police and the media at the time. Although the media is definitely coming around (at least part of it), the police are still sticking to their original ideas of the guilt of the guys. The only reason (and it's certainly a lame one IMO) that I can think of for this action on their part is that careers were made on this case, and changing now would make them look like the fools that they are. However, when the guys are freed, I look for a monster of a tap dance by the AG and several other people.
Also, looking back on what sindydee said about the deposition, I just realized that TH was saying that the hairs weren't found at the crime scene. He's right about that, you know. They were found at the dump site. IMO, the crime scene was a nearby manhole that has never been found/investigated.
And if someone were truly innocent, and faking being a bad-azz, then that would explain what a great acting feat it was to create the look of, "Oh well, when they were pronounced guilty.
Clap, clap, clap. Damien and Jason should have won oscars for their performance.
Sorry, but that is taking it too far--them covering up their dismay at being found guilty. Innocent people would have protested or cried or looked downcast, downhearted, but no, not these innocents. Sorry, their nonchalance is just more evidence of their guilt. JMO
Let's not forget Jason's reaction at the sentencing. When asked if there was anything that he wanted to say before sentence was pronounced, his reply was, "Yeah, I'm innocent." The fact that they showed little emotion when pronounced guilty IMO could easily be a result of total exhaustion after the ordeal of being on trial. These are teens, not hardened criminals or even adults. Like Nova said, in watching various feeds of trials, I have seen a wide variety of reactions and non reactions. Usually, in my experience at least, the defendants who show the most emotion when pronounced guilty are usually guilty. For example, Clara Harris, who ran over her husband multiple times (with her husband's daughter in the car with her) when she had heard that he was in the hotel with his mistress. She wept and professed her innocence, even though the daughter was a witness. Being guilty doesn't result in an unemotional response to a guilty verdict, and being innocent doesn't mean that the defendant reacts emotionally to a guilty verdict. People are different, and different people will react in different ways. No one should judge a person's innocence or guilt on his/her reaction to the verdict or to the events in the trial. Guilt or innocence should not be determined by how a person acts or reacts. Guilt or innocence should be determined by evidence, and there was no evidence against these three young men.
Let's not forget Jason's reaction at the sentencing. When asked if there was anything that he wanted to say before sentence was pronounced, his reply was, "Yeah, I'm innocent." The fact that they showed little emotion when pronounced guilty IMO could easily be a result of total exhaustion after the ordeal of being on trial. These are teens, not hardened criminals or even adults. Like Nova said, in watching various feeds of trials, I have seen a wide variety of reactions and non reactions. Usually, in my experience at least, the defendants who show the most emotion when pronounced guilty are usually guilty. For example, Clara Harris, who ran over her husband multiple times (with her husband's daughter in the car with her) when she had heard that he was in the hotel with his mistress. She wept and professed her innocence, even though the daughter was a witness. Being guilty doesn't result in an unemotional response to a guilty verdict, and being innocent doesn't mean that the defendant reacts emotionally to a guilty verdict. People are different, and different people will react in different ways. No one should judge a person's innocence or guilt on his/her reaction to the verdict or to the events in the trial. Guilt or innocence should not be determined by how a person acts or reacts. Guilt or innocence should be determined by evidence, and there was no evidence against these three young men.
That was my own opinion based on real trials I've seen. I have seen defendants shake their heads in disbelief, cry, practically pass out, etc. Usually, IMO, it's the guilty ones who just sit there like bumps on a log.
This is all my own opinion based on my observations alone. I believe I am entitled to my opinons just as you are yours....
Compassionate Reader! Compassionate Reader!
I love the content and presentation of logic in your posts but please break it all into shorter paragraphs, if you will. It's not that I can't get it--like, I can read long sentences, haha--but it's so hard to track through large blocks of text that I sometimes move on to responses. Anyway, just a friendly request. From an editor, sure, but....![]()
justthinkin',
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone. However, many times when I have expressed an opinion, someone (I'm not saying you) has asked for verification.
I guess the biggest problem here is that this case evokes so much passion that people tend to "convert" others to their point of view. I myself am very guilty of that, because I am convinced that I am right and a life depends on it.
I do appreciate hearing the "other side" in a non-threatening way, however. On other sites, when the pro-guilty crowd expresses opinions, they are often vulgar and sarcastic. I don't think that there's any reason for that, and I'm thankful that the admins here quickly ban those people (on either side) that make these obnoxious posts.
Let me state right now unequivocally that I am never offended by someone who believes differently than I believe, but I will probably present my side of things because I do feel very passionately about this case. Therefore, I am very thankful for this site which allows both sides to be presented but which refuses to allow abusive language.
(Was that better?)
Damien Echols has also said that there is additional evidence that will come out at the evidentiary hearing. There are only a handful of blood types in the world. Blood types can only prove innocence, not guilt. DNA is stronger than blood types, and there was DNA found with the bodies which doesn't match any of the three in prison.
BBM: What is the source for your assertions as to how innocent defendants react to verdicts?
Because I've watched far too many trials on TV to count and it's a rare defendant, guilty or innocent, who reacts much at all. Yes, a few faint or burst into tears, but most simply blink a few times.
If the WM3 defendants didn't react to the verdicts, it probably means nothing except that they expected to be found guilty. And the way the trials were conducted, no wonder.
I've read all the pro material and once was. I had never bothered to read the actual transcripts and facts. Then watching the docs again, I remember beinf creeped out by Damien and amazed at some of the things he said - but I put that aside. I see him differently now.
What do the pro WM3's have to say about Damien's failed lie detector test and the passing of Michael Carson's? They blow it off as not being credible.
However, if Damien had passed and Carson failed, they'd be singing it from the rooftops.
The facts speak for themselves.
In order for me to go back to "Not Guilty" I'd have to see ALL the evidence they included and excluded. I'd like Jessie's Shirt & the Necklace tested.
going to read @ Callahan's.
I don't know if the shirt and necklace are included or not, but I do know that the defense would have no objection to having them tested. As Dave said earlier, it is the State that is wanting to curtail all testing. That speaks volumes.