My view has done a complete 180

[kline]

I have read everything on the net and everything availiable on this case. And watched the documentaries.
And while I feel bad for the many young people who are discriminated against in conservative communities because they choose to be different through their appearence and what they read or the music they listen too I feel these three are in fact guilty.
Being a musician myself I can see why celebritires like Eddie Vedder and Henry Rollins who I respect would be more then willing to give these three far more then the benefit of the doubt since both im sure have suffered the same kind of unfair treatment as young people(I did as well) in this case I think their sympathy and support is misguided as their indentification with Echols and Co. has blinded them to the sad truth.
Just because you wear black and listen to alternative music doesnt automatically make you a saintly individualist struggling against a backdrop of rigid conformity harried by jocks and bible thumping rednecks.
People have tried to make the same case for the Columbine killers in a misguided attempt to mitigate or equivocate their attrocities and to indict the Conservative communities they lived in .
And im sorry im as Liberal as they come and it doesnt wash.
Murdering psychopaths can like alternative literature and music too.

 

[Cazzie]

I have read everything on the net and everything availiable on this case. And watched the documentaries.
And while I feel bad for the many young people who are discriminated against in conservative communities because they choose to be different through their appearence and what they read or the music they listen too I feel these three are in fact guilty.
Being a musician myself I can see why celebritires like Eddie Vedder and Henry Rollins who I respect would be more then willing to give these three far more then the benefit of the doubt since both im sure have suffered the same kind of unfair treatment as young people(I did as well) in this case I think their sympathy and support is misguided as their indentification with Echols and Co. has blinded them to the sad truth.
Just because you wear black and listen to alternative music doesnt automatically make you a saintly individualist struggling against a backdrop of rigid conformity harried by jocks and bible thumping rednecks.
People have tried to make the same case for the Columbine killers in a misguided attempt to mitigate or equivocate their attrocities and to indict the Conservative communities they lived in .
And im sorry im as Liberal as they come and it doesnt wash.
Murdering psychopaths can like alternative literature and music too.

JMO this not a valid analogy...there was far, far, far more actual evidence in the Columbine case (wasn't there?).

 

[Cazzie]

This would only work, Pensfan, if the 'judge' managed to convince us that you were an 'expert'. And even then it would have to be assumed that the educational achievements of the jurors were such that they were easily duped!

Being a long time 'cat lover' even I would not immediateloy assume you were talking about the ubiquitous domesticated feline! Newly born lion and tiger cubs could be 'covered' by your desciption and then there are all the many other cat variants on the planet! Panthers, leopards, pumas, cheetahs . . . etcetera!

Trouble in this case were the assumptions made that anything the 'authorities' said was gospel.

Driver started it and then Griffis added fuel to the fire by assuming your cat was that witches familiar in the form of a black domestic cat!

The saddest aspect of the case is that at the end of the twentieth century the community was such that they could 'buy in' to the 'satanic' argument.

Emotion has always trumped reasoned logic, in this case, in the minds of the majority of those closely involved back in 93 and 94. It is much easier for many to just stay hunkered down in their comfort zone rather than having to face up to the fact that just maybe the 'authorities' pulled a fast one. Loss of faith in the status quo means opening the door to a great many discomforting questions, which makes many turn aside from wanting answers that may just throw that faith in to doubt. This is both human and understandable but regretable. It is why realising a 'perfect world' which is caring and civilised is such a long time coming even though we think we are all 'civilised'!

Hell, one could even argue that a baby rabbit might sqeak in a feline way enough to convince someone that you were holding a rabbit! All that is needed now is the magician's top hat!

And said authorities may not ever admit any alleged wrongdoings...especially if they fear loss of reputation, loss of livelihood and lifestyle, especially if they are not the type that is self-introspective and can admit their mistakes, especially if they fear legal action against them and paying any consequences for what they did/failed to do in this case (altho apparently they ensured that cannot happen due to Alford plea stipulation)...especially if they had/have anything else to hide (then and since, about this case or any other case).

Meanwhile, this case of 3 murders remains unsolved (legally, because of the Alford pleas accepted by our "justice" system), JMO. If the case was solved beyond reasonable doubt, the 3 would not have been released from prison, let alone death row. The Alford pleas accepted by our judicial system are a coverup of misjustice done in 1993 and ever since (until the release). How do the prosecutors and judge sleep at night? I guess because they built lucrative careers on this case, and they have no conscience....

 

[claudicici]

I have read everything on the net and everything availiable on this case. And watched the documentaries.
And while I feel bad for the many young people who are discriminated against in conservative communities because they choose to be different through their appearence and what they read or the music they listen too I feel these three are in fact guilty.
Being a musician myself I can see why celebritires like Eddie Vedder and Henry Rollins who I respect would be more then willing to give these three far more then the benefit of the doubt since both im sure have suffered the same kind of unfair treatment as young people(I did as well) in this case I think their sympathy and support is misguided as their indentification with Echols and Co. has blinded them to the sad truth.
Just because you wear black and listen to alternative music doesnt automatically make you a saintly individualist struggling against a backdrop of rigid conformity harried by jocks and bible thumping rednecks.
People have tried to make the same case for the Columbine killers in a misguided attempt to mitigate or equivocate their attrocities and to indict the Conservative communities they lived in .
And im sorry im as Liberal as they come and it doesnt wash.
Murdering psychopaths can like alternative literature and music too.

I completely agree with you on that point.But may I ask what evidence do you see in this case that links Jessie,Damien and Jason to the victims and the crime scene?Do you really find the confession believable?Or do you simply agree with a lot of the nons here that Damiens medical history makes him guilty as if there were no other disturbed individuals in West Memphis that evening?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I completely agree with you on that point.But may I ask what evidence do you see in this case that links Jessie,Damien and Jason to the victims and the crime scene?Do you really find the confession believable?Or do you simply agree with a lot of the nons here that Damiens medical history makes him guilty as if there were no other disturbed individuals in West Memphis that evening?

What I placed in bold is the crux of the issue. There simply is no evidence (except the statement of a mentally challenged youth who, according to his attorney, would have confessed to the JFK assassination if questioned about it intensely) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the WMFree were the murderers of Christopher, Michael and Stevie. OTOH, there is evidence that points in another direction and toward another suspect.

And what's worse, this suspect was never questioned at the time of the murders (and he's a member of a group of individuals that statistically are very often responsible in the murder of a young child). The WMPD simply did not do a proper investigation and instead latched onto these three teens because they were poor and handy. Now they claim that too much time has past, witnesses have died and changed their stories (I wonder why) and they could not get a conviction if they tried the case again.

Stop and think for a minute. Is that justification for letting three men go who you believe to be murderers of the most heinous kind? I would think that the good people of the State of Arkansas would want these "vicious killers" behind bars - where they were until the defense presented the State with the "Get Out of Jail Free" card of the Alford Plea.

By accepting the Alford Plea the State (which is cash-starved and near bankruptcy) is free from the possibility of having to pay the multimillion dollar settlements that the WMFree would surely be entitled to if they were found not guilty in a court of law (which Ellington all but admitted would be the result of a new trial). By accepting the Alford Plea the State is able to protect the careers that were built on the convictions in this case. Finally, by accepting the Alford Plea the State thinks it will silence all its critics regarding this case.

The State sees this Alford Plea as a win-win situation. The State gets its "convictions," flawed though they may be. The WMFree are - free. However, unfortunately for the State, the WMFree and their supporters plan to continue to fight to clear their names. This isn't over - and IMO the State of Arkansas will not come out of this affair smelling like a rose.

 

[justthinkin]

Or do you simply agree with a lot of the nons here that Damiens medical history makes him guilty as if there were no other disturbed individuals in West Memphis that evening?

claudicici, if you're going to make statements such as this, you're going to have to back them up. Would you care to enlighten everyone as to what Nons on this board think Damien is guilty on the basis of his medical history?

I can tell you right off the bat, I'm not one of them, and personally, I don't know of any Nons posting here that do think Damien is guilty on the basis of his medical history.

 

[claudicici]

that's what I've heard so far when I asked.What evidence do you think links Damien to the crimescene and the victims?

 

[h818]

that's what I've heard so far when I asked.What evidence do you think links Damien to the crimescene and the victims?

Damien's confession, Jessie's multiple confessions. The fibers. His mental health records only show that he was capable of it, not that he did it. DNA testing was not the same then. A lot of stuff was not tested. We all know that the victims were in water for hours, you wouldn't expect to find much on them.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Damien's confession, Jessie's multiple confessions. The fibers. His mental health records only show that he was capable of it, not that he did it. DNA testing was not the same then. A lot of stuff was not tested. We all know that the victims were in water for hours, you wouldn't expect to find much on them.

Again, Damien never confessed. Jessie's statements, all of them, are error-filled, as would be expected from someone with an IQ of 72. The fibers were inconclusive and are being retested.

Damien has always said, "Test everything." For a long time, the State was blocking the additional testing. Some of that testing has been completed; all of the results have excluded the WMFree as the source. What has been identified as to DNA points to TH. I guess the water was selective as to what DNA was washed away.

 

[justthinkin]

You're right, CR. Damien didn't confess; he bragged about committing the murders. He only confessed to having a fake alibi.

And as for Jessie's error filled statements, do you think the average suspect sits down, tells the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when cops are interrogating them?

It's not like police interrogation was new to Jessie. He had priors, though most of it was sealed with the exception of what we know about the 13 year old girl he beat up.

All of the results have also excluded Terry with the exception of that one hair. Guess DNA just isn't proving to be very reliable in this, a circumstantial case.

So how come the defense didn't do a DNA test on that shirt of Jessie's that had blood on it? Maybe they did, and maybe that's why they went for an Alfred Plea, ya think?????

 

[justthinkin]

Damien's confession, Jessie's multiple confessions. The fibers. His mental health records only show that he was capable of it, not that he did it. DNA testing was not the same then. A lot of stuff was not tested. We all know that the victims were in water for hours, you wouldn't expect to find much on them.

Ditto.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You're right, CR. Damien didn't confess; he bragged about committing the murders.

IF Damien "bragged" about the murders, he was being sarcastic. He was often sarcastic, and the tweens who supposedly overheard his statement probably didn't recognize sarcasm.

And as for Jessie's error filled statements, do you think the average suspect sits down, tells the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when cops are interrogating them?

Jessie wasn't the "average suspect." His IQ is only 72 and he is therefore highly suggestible and easily manipulated. However, the most important thing about his statements is that they were not accurate. The first one was so inaccurate that they had to get a "clarification" statement in order to get the arrest warrants.

It's not like police interrogation was new to Jessie. He had priors, though most of it was sealed with the exception of what we know about the 13 year old girl he beat up.

Again, most of Jessie's previous problems with the law were minor and were indicative of his low IQ and possibly small stature. Ever hear of the Napoleon complex? I think that might explain some of Jessie's brushes with the law.

All of the results have also excluded Terry with the exception of that one hair. Guess DNA just isn't proving to be very reliable in this, a circumstantial case.

That "one hair" is more than there is on the WMFree, isn't it? I guess that's the point here. Although physical evidence and DNA may be limited, none of it points to the WMFree.

So how come the defense didn't do a DNA test on that shirt of Jessie's that had blood on it? Maybe they did, and maybe that's why they went for an Alfred Plea, ya think?????

IIRC, the State secretly tested that shirt. Even if the defense had tested it, they would have had to reveal the results to the State. Since the results have never been reported, my guess is that it didn't produce anything but Jessie's blood, which he explained by some sort of injury.

The Alford Plea was presented by the defense after the State refused the defense's request to skip the evidentiary hearing and move straight to the trial. Ellington wanted something that would give "global" results. The defense presented the Alford Plea, which the State accepted.

Again, who gained the most from the Alford Plea? The three young men who had been falsely imprisoned gained their freedom. The State gained protection from future law suits, protection of the multiple careers that were made on this case and (they hoped) release from the intense media pressure that had plagued them since the first documentary aired. Seems to me that the State gained quite a lot.

Why would the three plead guilty rather than go to trial? Well, the State had already imprisoned them for over 18 years for something that they did not do. Why should they trust the same system to get it right this time? I totally understand why they took the deal. However, if I were a citizen of Arkansas, I would want the State to explain to me why they let three vicious murders out of prison when they already had them in prison for life, one on death row. That's simply illogical to the extreme.

 

[Cappuccino]

So how come the defense didn't do a DNA test on that shirt of Jessie's that had blood on it? Maybe they did, and maybe that's why they went for an Alfred Plea, ya think?????

Judge Laser stipulated full disclosure of all test results to the court within 90 days, and "no under the table testing." If any tests done on Jessie's t shirt had revealed something incriminating, we would all know about it by now, and so would Scott Ellington and Judge Laser. No way would Ellington go for an Alford plea instead of an evidentiary hearing if he knew there was one of the victims blood on Jessie's t-shirt, and neither would Laser agree to the deal under those circumstances.

There are only two ways in which your suspicion could be true...

1) Jessie Misskelley's lawyers are guilty of such gross disrespect for the court that they should be struck off, and possibly also prosecuted for contempt of court.

2) Scott Ellington and Judge Laser are in conspiracy with the defense to pervert the course of justice.

Both are serious allegations to make, and I would seriously advise against making them unless you have solid evidence to back them up.

 

[claudicici]

Damien's confession, Jessie's multiple confessions. The fibers.
Damien did not confess,I just can't believe anyone who reads Jessie's confessions would not come to the conclusion that this boy was not at the crime scene.Like I always ask,if you believe Jessie's confession,why don't you believe Aaron's? What makes Jessie's more believable?
The fibers are too common and could have been found in many households.
"His mental health records only show that he was capable of it, not that he did it."
ITA .

 

[h818]

Damien's confession, Jessie's multiple confessions. The fibers.
Damien did not confess,I just can't believe anyone who reads Jessie's confessions would not come to the conclusion that this boy was not at the crime scene.Like I always ask,if you believe Jessie's confession,why don't you believe Aaron's? What makes Jessie's more believable?
The fibers are too common and could have been found in many households.
"His mental health records only show that he was capable of it, not that he did it."
ITA .

Damien did confess. I just can't believe that anyone who reads Jessie's confessions, particularly the confession he insisting on making to his own attorney, with his hand on the Bible, would believe that anyone would ever make that up. Aaron was a child with a crazy, drug addicted mother who very much wanted to be involved in the case. It's been claimed that the fibers are so common, but I haven't seen any proof of that. Just because a shirt was sold at a store in town doesn't mean that fibers from that shirt are in every house in town.

Not very many people would be capable of doing what was done to the young victims.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

:woohoo:

Damien did confess. I just can't believe that anyone who reads Jessie's confessions, particularly the confession he insisting on making to his own attorney, with his hand on the Bible, would believe that anyone would ever make that up. Aaron was a child with a crazy, drug addicted mother who very much wanted to be involved in the case. It's been claimed that the fibers are so common, but I haven't seen any proof of that. Just because a shirt was sold at a store in town doesn't mean that fibers from that shirt are in every house in town.

No, Damien did not confess. Some tween girls claimed that they overheard him saying that he killed the boys. That is not a confession. Jessie's "Bible" statement was made to his own attorney because the attorney (Stidham) had been informed by the prosecution that Jessie wanted to make a statement. Stidham wanted to hear what Jessie would say before he said it in case Jessie was going to perjure himself in which case Stidham would be guilty of suborning perjury. After hearing the statement, Stidham was convinced that Jessie was in fact about to commit perjury which is why the statement was not made that day to LE. Jessie's statements, regardless of whether his hand was on the Bible or a phone book, are about as reliable as Aaron's as they were approximately the same mental age at the time. Just like Vicki encouraged Aaron to tell tales (and possibly put ideas and/or words in his mouth), the prosecutors and/or the WMPD interrogators possibly put ideas and/or words in Jessie's highly suggestible mind. Lisa Sakevicius, the State's witness, said that she couldn't state that any of the fibers recovered from the scene could be definitively linked to any of the items collected from the defendants' homes. All she would say is that the fibers from the scene were "microscopically similar" to some fibers collected from the defendants' homes.

19 Q. Can you tell the jury what microscopically similar means?
20 A. That I cannot distinguish the two. They look the same to
21 me.
22 Q. Does that mean it is a definite match or just similar?
23 A. That means there are no distinguishable differences between
24 the two fibers.
25 Q. Are you able to exclude all other possibilities between the
1 two? In other words does it definitely come from that source
2 because it's similar?
3 A. It does not necessarily mean it comes from that source.
4 There could be a number of items containing that same fiber type
5 so we can never say it came from a particular source.
6 Q. So we are not talking about exactness then, are we.
7 A. It can be exactness in that the fibers are alike, but you
8 cannot say that it came from a particular source.
9 Q. You cannot exclude all other sources?
10 A. Correct.

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/lisas.html

Not very many people would be capable of doing what was done to the young victims.

Three semi-drunk teenagers certainly wouldn't be able to do what was done to the boys that night.

 

[claudicici]

Three drunk teenagers that never hung out together drinking.
I think the circumstancial evidence is what really makes the prosecution's theory so ridiculous.
If Damian,Jason and Jessie usually hang out together drinking on school nights ,roaming the Robin Hood woods the theory would become much more plausible.
But we know that 's not the case.Damian would be with Jason until his mom picked him up mostly hanging around Walmart or playing Video games and Jessie would be with his friends.Jason went to school in the morning.
They had routines.Why would that night have been so different?

 

[justthinkin]

IIRC, the State secretly tested that shirt. Even if the defense had tested it, they would have had to reveal the results to the State. Since the results have never been reported, my guess is that it didn't produce anything but Jessie's blood, which he explained by some sort of injury.

The Alford Plea was presented by the defense after the State refused the defense's request to skip the evidentiary hearing and move straight to the trial. Ellington wanted something that would give "global" results. The defense presented the Alford Plea, which the State accepted.

Again, who gained the most from the Alford Plea? The three young men who had been falsely imprisoned gained their freedom. The State gained protection from future law suits, protection of the multiple careers that were made on this case and (they hoped) release from the intense media pressure that had plagued them since the first documentary aired. Seems to me that the State gained quite a lot.

Why would the three plead guilty rather than go to trial? Well, the State had already imprisoned them for over 18 years for something that they did not do. Why should they trust the same system to get it right this time? I totally understand why they took the deal. However, if I were a citizen of Arkansas, I would want the State to explain to me why they let three vicious murders out of prison when they already had them in prison for life, one on death row. That's simply illogical to the extreme.

I don't believe the state secretly tested anything. What I do believe is that the defense tested something, and it incriminated their clients. Rather than expose that evidence, the defense opted for the Alfred Plea, and the state was willing to go that route.

There is a disconnect in this country in morality, evident at every level of government. The number of appalling things going on in this country is unbelievable. Given that, it is not at all surprising that a district attorney looking to gain a higher position would seek to save the state money to impress those who could advance his career.

It is illogical as h3ll.

 

[justthinkin]

Three drunk teenagers that never hung out together drinking.
I think the circumstancial evidence is what really makes the prosecution's theory so ridiculous.
If Damian,Jason and Jessie usually hang out together drinking on school nights ,roaming the Robin Hood woods the theory would become much more plausible.
But we know that 's not the case.Damian would be with Jason until his mom picked him up mostly hanging around Walmart or playing Video games and Jessie would be with his friends.Jason went to school in the morning.
They had routines.Why would that night have been so different?

IMO, all people and all killers have routines. It changes when someone decides to kill. Then their pattern is altered. What made Jessie Misskelley's sister kill her baby? Why would that day, for her, have been any different?

Damien and Jason were cowards, IMO, and needed a third person because they could not be sure the two of them could control 3 eight year olds. Jason had hung out with Jessie in the past when they lived in the same trailer park. I'm guessing that Jason thought Jessie was the only one dumb enough to go along with helping them. To this day, I don't know how much Jessie knew beforehand about what was slated to happen. I feel sure, Damien knew exactly what the habits of the 3 eight year olds was, since he said he was in the Robin Hood Hills neighborhood 2-3 times a week. If Jason's brother is correct, and D & J were together almost every day, then Damien was probably in that neighborhood even more often than that.

I think killing someone was initially Jason's idea, and it was Jason who wanted to kill a bum, but the two of them decided a bum might fight back, and win or even kill them instead, so they went after mere children. I also think once Jason brought up the idea of killing someone, Echols and Baldwin orchestrated it from there. I believe Jason orchestrated cleaning up the crime scene because Echols had too many screws loose to do so. Damien and Jessie would have followed Jason's orders, and Jason would have checked to make sure nothing was left behind, except for one thing, the bag that was found at the crime scene, that the WMPD never were able to connect to any of the three. I think Blink made that connection, although too many years too late to make a difference. I forget whether it was Damien's father or step-father who worked for Petro, but I think Damien's intent with the Petro bag was to lead the police to his father or step-father as a frame-up, and they missed the connection altogether.

It now occurs to me that the bag may well have been what caused the defense to seek the Alford Plea.

 

[justthinkin]

Judge Laser stipulated full disclosure of all test results to the court within 90 days, and "no under the table testing." If any tests done on Jessie's t shirt had revealed something incriminating, we would all know about it by now, and so would Scott Ellington and Judge Laser. No way would Ellington go for an Alford plea instead of an evidentiary hearing if he knew there was one of the victims blood on Jessie's t-shirt, and neither would Laser agree to the deal under those circumstances.

There are only two ways in which your suspicion could be true...

1) Jessie Misskelley's lawyers are guilty of such gross disrespect for the court that they should be struck off, and possibly also prosecuted for contempt of court.

2) Scott Ellington and Judge Laser are in conspiracy with the defense to pervert the course of justice.

Both are serious allegations to make, and I would seriously advise against making them unless you have solid evidence to back them up.

I don't need anything, and you are wrong. I learned from the Casey Anthony case that until there is an actual written report, an attorney does not have to disclose information he becomes aware of. The state of Florida had the FBI lab withhold sending out a written report so they didn't have to share information with Jose Baez until such time as they were ready to release that information to him. Now obviously, it had to be released before the trial, and it was. Whether you realize it or not, it's part of the back and forth between opposing attorneys. Both sides do it.

An opposing attorney can scream all day long about the other side not releasing info via discovery, but his adversaries aren't obligated to disclose anything for which a report has yet to be written. Now a judge can order a side to release the info, but they can still stall so long as they don't have the report in their hands, and they can lay blame to the lab or something beyond their control, at least for awhile. Eventually the information gets shared before the trial, and both sides have everything. If a side fails to release something in discovery then whatever it was is stricken by the court from entering into evidence.

I think something similar happened in this case. The defense perhaps got a verbal that some testing did not go well for their side, and they possibly asked the lab not to send them the written report just yet.

Then they went to work on the Alford Plea, a whole separate deal from the evidentiary hearing. Once the state agreed, that immediately brought to an end any requirement the defense had to produce any written accounts of lab results for the evidentiary hearing or any requirement to expose what the lab may have found. This is how I understand it and to the best of my knowledge.