New Damien Echols Interview

[kyleb]

I'm not attempting to redirect, I'm attempting to determine if there was actually any additional testing which would've proven whether or not the luminol reaction on the soil was caused by blood. Furthermore, in searching back through the trial documents I've been unable of find anything to support your claim that such additional testing was mentioned in them. And again, the WMPD wasn't in charge of the luminol testing, the State Crime Lab was.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm not attempting to redirect, I'm attempting to determine if there was actually any additional testing which would've proven wither or not the luminol reaction on the soil was caused by blood. Furthermore, in searching back through the trial documents I've been unable of find anything to support your claim that such additional testing was mentioned in them. And again, the WMPD wasn't in charge of the luminol testing, the State Crime Lab was.

Bottom line, the State was in charge of the testing. It doesn't matter if the agency of the State is the wmpd or the ACL. The State of Arkansas directed the testing. As to no mention in the court documents wrt Luminol testing, in talking with attorneys, I have learned about the insufficiency of the Luminol testing and the requirement of additional testing in order to make Luminol testing, or really the additional testing, admissible in court. Not everything about this case is contained in the court documents; they only contain the legal maneuverings. There is much more to this case than the legalities. However, if you want legalities, here is a link which, in part, says:

Luminol Testing

 Dunn argues that the circuit court erred when it allowed into evidence the results of luminol testing.   Prior to trial, Dunn filed a motion in limine to exclude the results of luminol testing and a motion to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of those tests, pursuant to this court's holding in Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579, 847 S.W.2d 1 (1993).   In Brenk, we held that it was reversible error to admit evidence of luminol testing showing positive results for blood without also admitting evidence of follow-up tests confirming the presence of blood.   Here, Detective Dew testified that the luminol testing showed positive results for blood on the bathtub plug lever, the soap dish on the wall, the bathtub wall, the floor in the area in front of the sink and toward the bathtub, the sink, the wall behind the sink, and the faucet knob and cap.   Kermit Channel, with the Arkansas State Crime Lab, testified that DNA testing was done on the samples obtained from Creer, her shirt, the comforter covering her body, and a faucet knob, and that the testing he performed showed that the blood in all the samples was that of Creer..

If you will note the reference to a previous case, legally called a precedent, you will see that it was adjudicated in 1993, before the trials of the WM3. Therefore, it was legal precedent at the time.

Additionally, here is the Luminol Report for this case, which clearly states, "The soil samples E1, E2, and E3, recovered from the crime scene were sprayed with luminol, heated and then resprayed. A positive luminol reaction was not detected for the presence of blood. Results were inconclusive." (Emphasis added) I hope this clears up the Luminol question for you.

 

[kyleb]

I'd already found and read both the documents you've just presented before you linked them, and neither support your claim "that additional testing was required in order to make the Luminol results admissible". Furthermore, if there was a document which does support your claim, it would be contained of the court record. So, if such a document does exist, please quote it here.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Here is the precedent-setting case. Check out pages 4 - 6. The above-cited case is the one Brent Davis was referencing when he mentioned the Brink case during an exchange (out of jury hearing) with Burnett during the E/B trial.

 

[kyleb]

I'm aware of the fact that Burnett deferred to prior precedent when excluding the luminol evidence. That doesn't prove that additional testing which would've determined whether or not the luminol reaction on the soil was caused by blood was available at the time of the trials though, let alone that Burnett suggested as much when he ruled the luminol results inadmissible.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Again, from the above-cited case:

"In Brenk, we held that it was reversible error to admit evidence of luminol testing showing positive results for blood without also admitting evidence of follow-up tests confirming the presence of blood." (Emphasis added)

The implication here is that those tests are available. The Brenk case was in January, 1993, before the crime in the WM case occurred. So, it is a reasonable assumption that such testing was available to the ASL then, too. If such testing were not available, it would be an impossibility to demand such testing.

 

[kyleb]

No, even if there as followup tests which would've determine if the luminol reaction "in the trailer, the block building, appellant's car, or on any of the other items tested where follow-up testing was not able to confirm the presence of human blood" in the Brenk case, there's no reason to assume such tests would work on soil.

 

[reedus23]

I've yet to find an argument which makes the case for reasonable doubt while acknowledging all the publicly available evidence. If you've found such an argument, please share.

That is fine. It is you're opinion and you're entitled to it just as I am mine.

 

[reedus23]

I can and I do. People cling to all sorts of positions of faith regardless of what evidence exists to the contrary, which leaves me to doubt reopening the case would have any notable effect on popular perception. A new investigation isn't going to stop people from doing things such as pretending Misskelley only confessed once and after a far longer interrogation than actually took place, dismissing witness reports of Echols confessing as if they were anecdotes or hearsay and not even acknowledging but a couple of those reports, embracing any of the many other fallacious arguments which they do to convince themselves and others that the convicted are innocent.

I suspect a re-opening the case would not stop people from blindly believing in guilt either regardless of what evidence is provided to the contrary. Despite that, I don't think that is reason enough to not re-open the investigation.

 

[kyleb]

Sure, there's always people who believe blindly on both sides of any notable issue of contention, but people who come to terms with the available evidence all wind up on one side. And again, I've yet to find anyone make the case for reasonable doubt while acknowledging all the available evidence against the convicted, or even attempt to respond to my request for such an argument.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Sure, there's always people who believe blindly on both sides of any notable issue of contention, but people who come to terms with the available evidence all wind up on one side. And again, I've yet to find anyone make the case for reasonable doubt while acknowledging all the available evidence against the convicted, or even attempt to respond to my request for such an argument.

Wrt the portion of the quote I placed in bold, I have yet to see a list of "all the available evidence against the convicted." If such a list were provided, I would be glad to give my opinion of such evidence. This request has been made before, but I have not seen this information provided.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No, even if there as followup tests which would've determine if the luminol reaction "in the trailer, the block building, appellant's car, or on any of the other items tested where follow-up testing was not able to confirm the presence of human blood" in the Brenk case, there's no reason to assume such tests would work on soil.

There's no reason to assume such tests wouldn't work on soil, either. If the tests are designed to confirm the presence of human blood, I would believe that such tests would be valid regardless of what substance was being tested. Otherwise, it would, again, be a Catch-22 to demand such testing. So, since such testing is demanded, it is not unreasonable to assume that such testing is possible.

 

[kyleb]

I have yet to see a list of "all the available evidence against the convicted."

You could always make one yourself. Copying your list from the evidence complied in WM3 Truth's "The Case Against the WM3" would get most of the task done for you, far more than any other source i've managed to find.

There's no reason to assume such tests wouldn't work on soil, either.

Sure, there's no reason to assume at all. If tests existed which would've proven whether or not the luminol reaction was caused by blood, research will uncover actual evidence to confirm that as fact.

since such testing is demanded

I've yet to find anything to support your claim that Burnett demanded additional testing. I have found where he said the luminol results required "strong corroborative evidence" to be admissible, but he doesn't say that evidence had to be in the form of additional testing there, let alone that any such testing could accomplish as much. Furthermore, as [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9543347&postcount=105"]I noted previously[/ame], more a more recent ruling found that "the surfaces on which the blood would have spattered were removed or cleaned within a day or two of the victim's disappearance" was considered sufficient corroborative evidence, and goes on to explain:

The state relies on Arrick v. State, 107 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App. 2003), in which it was held that the fact that the test is only presumptive goes to the weight, not the admissibility. The court noted that defense counsel was able to demonstrate the limits of what the test establishes and that the test result would help the jury understand and weigh the evidence. The court further held that the probative value outweighed the possible unfair prejudice. In State v. Canaan, 964 P. 2d 681 (Kan. 1998), the Kansas Supreme Court also allowed Luminol tests, holding that the fact that it can react to other materials goes to its weight, not to its admissibility.
The result of a Luminol test has been admitted in Florida, Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986); however, the issue addressed in Johnston was whether the police officer who testified as to the Luminol test was qualified to do so. The court held that the defendant’s objections to the qualifications of the officer went to the weight of his testimony, not his competency to testify as an expert.
Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (2003) defines relevant evidence as “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” Although the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that standard does not apply to each piece of evidence. Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1983) (medical expert’s opinion as to cause of death need not be within a reasonable medical certainty. It is still admissible, with the weight given it to be determined by the jury). Garland v. State, 834 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (test showing trace amount of gunshot residue, which was not forensically significant, had probative value).

Given that, Burnett arguably erred in favor of the defense with his luminol ruling, particularly when considering how hard the defense pushed the fact that there was no plainly visible blood found on the creek bank.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You could always make one yourself. Copying your list from the evidence complied in WM3 Truth's "The Case Against the WM3" would get most of the task done for you, far more than any other source i've managed to find.

Then you make it. I'm not giving that bogus site another hit.

Sure, there's no reason to assume at all. If tests existed which would've proven whether or not the luminol reaction was caused by blood, research will uncover actual evidence to confirm that as fact.

Then, feel free to do the research yourself. I am satisfied with the use of precedent by Burnett in excluding the Luminol testing because the State didn't submit the additional testing that would have made the Luminol results admissible.

I've yet to find anything to support your claim that Burnett demanded additional testing. I have found where he said the luminol results required "strong corroborative evidence" to be admissible, but he doesn't say that evidence had to be in the form of additional testing there, let alone that any such testing could accomplish as much. Furthermore, as I noted previously, more a more recent ruling found that "the surfaces on which the blood would have spattered were removed or cleaned within a day or two of the victim's disappearance" was considered sufficient corroborative evidence, and goes on to explain:

"The state relies on Arrick v. State, 107 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App. 2003), in which it was held that the fact that the test is only presumptive goes to the weight, not the admissibility. The court noted that defense counsel was able to demonstrate the limits of what the test establishes and that the test result would help the jury understand and weigh the evidence. The court further held that the probative value outweighed the possible unfair prejudice. In State v. Canaan, 964 P. 2d 681 (Kan. 1998), the Kansas Supreme Court also allowed Luminol tests, holding that the fact that it can react to other materials goes to its weight, not to its admissibility.
The result of a Luminol test has been admitted in Florida, Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986); however, the issue addressed in Johnston was whether the police officer who testified as to the Luminol test was qualified to do so. The court held that the defendant’s objections to the qualifications of the officer went to the weight of his testimony, not his competency to testify as an expert.
Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (2003) defines relevant evidence as “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” Although the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that standard does not apply to each piece of evidence. Delap v. State, 440 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1983) (medical expert’s opinion as to cause of death need not be within a reasonable medical certainty. It is still admissible, with the weight given it to be determined by the jury). Garland v. State, 834 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (test showing trace amount of gunshot residue, which was not forensically significant, had probative value)."

The precedent demands the additional testing. Burnett didn't have to make a point of it. Even Brent Davis mentioned the precedent-setting case, if you recall.

Given that, Burnett arguably erred in favor of the defense with his luminol ruling, particularly when considering how hard the defense pushed the fact that there was no plainly visible blood found on the creek bank.

Again, Burnett followed precedent, as he should have. He didn't err in favor of the defense. In one of his few correct decisions, he followed precedent and disallowed the Luminol testing.

 

[kyleb]

Then you make it.

I've got a fairly complete list of the available evidence in my head, which is how I manage I reference that evidence regularly in response to arguments from you and others which misrepresent and ignore so much of that evidence.

Then, feel free to do the research yourself.

I keep busy researching my own speculation before making my arguments, and have yet to find any value in researching your attempts to do otherwise.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I've got a fairly complete list of the available evidence in my head, which is how I manage I reference that evidence regularly in response to arguments from you and others which misrepresent and ignore so much of that evidence.

I, too, know the evidence without referring to a site, especially one that doesn't tell the truth, despite its name!

I keep busy researching my own speculation before making my arguments, and have yet to find any value in researching your attempts to do otherwise.

I, too, am constantly researching this case. So, this is a Mexican standoff. I believe what I believe, based on my research and understanding. You believe what you believe, based on your research and understanding. Hopefully, some day soon, all of the evidence will be made public and everyone will know the truth. Then, and only then, can justice prevail. It hasn't yet.

 

[reedus23]

Sure, there's always people who believe blindly on both sides of any notable issue of contention, but people who come to terms with the available evidence all wind up on one side. And again, I've yet to find anyone make the case for reasonable doubt while acknowledging all the available evidence against the convicted, or even attempt to respond to my request for such an argument.

That is only your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm not here to try to change your mind. Others can look at the exact same evidence and come to a completely different opinion and not be wrong either however.

I could just as easily keep spouting the same mantra that "I've yet to find anyone make the case that the WM3 were rightfully convicted following a fair and just trial while acknowledging all the available evidence in favor of the WM3, or even attempt to respond to my request for such an argument." Then when you answer my request, I will just continue to spout the same mantra. That is hardly debate or discussion of the evidence.

 

[reedus23]

You could always make one yourself. Copying your list from the evidence complied in WM3 Truth's "The Case Against the WM3" would get most of the task done for you, far more than any other source i've managed to find.

Why do you only refer to some outside website like that? You don't see supporters answering all questions by saying go read wm3blackboard.com.

Given that, Burnett arguably erred in favor of the defense with his luminol ruling, particularly when considering how hard the defense pushed the fact that there was no plainly visible blood found on the creek bank.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but are you citing to a Florida case? If so, that wasn't/isn't the law in Arkansas. The paragraph immediately before what you quoted states:

Appellant relies on two cases which have held that, because Luminol only establishes the possibility of the presence of blood, it has no probative value. Brenk v. State, 847 S.W 2d 1 (Ark. 1993)...

Burnett didn't err on the side of the defense. He erred on the side of not being overturned on appeal. Given the known facts and the law in Arkansas, he likely would have been overturned on that issue had he allowed it.

 

[reedus23]

I've got a fairly complete list of the available evidence in my head, which is how I manage I reference that evidence regularly in response to arguments from you and others which misrepresent and ignore so much of that evidence.


I keep busy researching my own speculation before making my arguments, and have yet to find any value in researching your attempts to do otherwise.

Then why didn't you just set forth those facts instead of referring someone to a site? If you're going to throw out those accusations, I'd like to know what was misrepresented and what was ignored?

 

[kyleb]

Why do you only refer to some outside website like that?

I'm not only refering to WM3 Truth, but rather the evidence compiled in their "The Case Against the WM3", and I do so because I see no point in reinventing the wheel.

You don't see supporters answering all questions by saying go read wm3blackboard.com.

I've yet to find a supporter who will respond to my requests for an argument in favor of reasonable doubt which addresses all the evidence against the convicted. If one ever does I'll read it, whether it is on the Blackboard or otherwise.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but are you citing to a Florida case?

Yes, and the appellant in that case cited an Arkansas case as you quoted, along with a Connecticut case and a Hawaii case, while the state cited cases from Kansas and Texas along with some from in state. Citing precedent from other states is hardly unusual.

The paragraph immediately before what you quoted states:

Appellant relies on two cases which have held that, because Luminol only establishes the possibility of the presence of blood, it has no probative value. Brenk v. State, 847 S.W 2d 1 (Ark. 1993)...

Sure, and the paragraph [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9543347&postcount=105"]I previously quoted[/ame] explains that the court sided against the appellant and in favor of the state.

Given the known facts and the law in Arkansas, he likely would have been overturned on that issue had he allowed it.

I figure it would've been upheld, as I consider the reasoning in rulings in other states I've referenced previously to be sound.

I'd like to know what was misrepresented and what was ignored?

Well for instance when CR claimed "anecdotal evidence from the likes of a couple of 'tweens", she was misrepresenting witness reports as if they were simply anecdotes, and ignoring the fact that more than a couple young girls reported witnessing Echols brag about commuting the murders. In reality, Jodee Medford, Jessica Medford, Jackee Medford, Christy VanVickle, and Katie LaFoy all reported witnessing as much at a softball game, and Brandy Wilson reported witnessing the same at the skating rink.