New West Memphis Three Website

[Puffin]

As I think I have said many times before, I have read extensively on Callahan's. I do not allow other people to form my opinion for me. I have been obsessed with this case for years now, and I believe I am well informed on it. To imply, as I feel your post did, that anyone who reads at Callahan's and is still a supporter is doing a disservice to the little boys who are crying out for justice from Heaven is very mean-spirited, IMO. Believe me, as a retired mathematics teacher, there is nothing wrong with my critical thinking. The fact that different people can read the case documents and form different opinions just proves to me that something beyond the case documents is needed in order to have a well-informed opinion on this horrendous miscarriage of justice.

You obviously misinterpreted my post. Here is what I said:

If a person takes the time to really research the case starting with the actual CASE DOCUMENTS and they still come away with the opinion that the WM3 is innocent, so be it. At least they used their head. If a person needs someone else to interpret and tell them what to think then their opinion means very little. Critical thinking is a very valuable skill. I suggest people attempt to use it more often.

I did not accuse anyone of failing in the of usage of critical thinking if they study the case documents at Callahan's. A critical thinker uses their mind to analyze the information provided. If one is only getting their information from biased documentaries, websites & message boards (whether supporter or non), they have failed in the practice of critical thinking concerning the topic. Anyone familiar with with critical thinking should be aware that caution should always be taken when forming opinions solely based on biased sources.

I'm not sure what the goal here is. Is it to attain supporters for the WM3 regardless? Does it matter if they used their critical thinking to reach their opinions? Or is it like a politician seeking votes. Doesn't matter what means as long as the WM3 get donations and support?

To imply, as I feel your post did, that anyone who reads at Callahan's and is still a supporter is doing a disservice to the little boys who are crying out for justice from Heaven is very mean-spirited, IMO.

I believe I clearly stated one only does a disservice to those boys if one doesn't take the time to familiarize themselves with the actual documents. To don "Free the WM3" tee-shirts and donate funds just because Johnny Depp said the WM3 are innocent or because you read it on a message board is an injustice to Michael Moore, Stevie Branch & Christopher Byers. They are the victims who's lives where brutally taken at the tender age of 8. As a mother and a human being, I would just hope anyone would at least take the time to get the facts before supporting the convicted. I hope that you feel the same way. I'm not trying to tell people what to think. Just hoping they put some effort into it. We should at least agree on that.

 

[Nova]

Over 18 years, I've read the transcripts and major case docs and both major books, and seen both documentaries, only to forget many of the details and reread and rewatch everything again--at least three or four times.

I'm sure there are WM3 supporters who are young and willing to do whatever Johnny Depp tells them to do. But by and large, those people don't last long in discussions here.

Amounts of knowledge retained vary, of course (I always bow to CR), but nearly everyone here (regardless of their views of the case) is pretty knowledgeable. So I don't understand why we are arguing about Callahan's.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Puffin,

If I misinterpreted your post, I apologize. I must admit that I often become defensive when I feel that I am being accused of not thinking for myself. As Nova said, most of the posters here seem to have strongly-held but self-obtained views on this case. It has been my experience that posters about this case wherever I have posted and/or read tend to have strongly-held views.

My major point here is that reading case documents at Callahan's, although informative, may not give one the total picture of the case. To criticize someone for referring a friend to this board in addition to Callahan's is IMO unfounded. This is the only board on the Internet where I have found civil discussion of both sides of this case. I see it as an excellent compliment to the Callahan site.

Callahan's requires a lot of time and patience, and it can be very difficult to understand, especially some of the legal debates between lawyers at the hearings and at the bench conferences during the trials. For people with limited time to devote to reading, I think that this message board is a very acceptable starting point.

 

[Mary456]

Puffin,
For people with limited time to devote to reading, I think that this message board is a very acceptable starting point.

It's about as acceptable as starting with the Paradise Lost movies

If someone is looking for a truly unbiased account of how and why these three men were convicted, the only starting place is the trial transcript. That is how guilt or innocence is determined in this country...not by movies, books, celebrities, or message boards.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The only problem with the determination of guilt or innocence is that sometimes juries get it wrong. IMO, that is what has happened in this case. The existence of information outside the trial transcripts is important in determining when such miscarriages of justice have occurred. I agree that reading the trial transcripts alone will show why these three young men were convicted. However, what the trial transcripts do not show is the amount of evidence that was excluded in pretrial hearings and the import of new information (such as new DNA testing, etc.) that has come to light since the original trials back in 1994. Therefore, IMO in the interest of justice for the three little boys who were so brutally murdered and in the interest of justice for the three young men falsely convicted of these murders, it is necessary to look beyond the trial transcripts. Failure to do so could result in the execution of an innocent man.

 

[David366]

The trial transcripts also don't include Jessie Misskelley's many post-conviction confessions. Or the statements of Buddy Lucas and William Winford Jones. Or the blood found at the crime scene.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

We can go back and forth citing what wasn't in the trial transcript. It just proves my point - that relying solely on the trial transcripts doesn't present the entire truth. It just presents the things that the judge allowed at the trial. If you read the Rule 37 Abstracts, you will discover a plethora of witnesses whose testimony was either disallowed or severely truncated at the trial.

More importantly, what is being discussed about this case at this time is more about the additional testing of items found in '93 but only able to be adequately tested now. For instance, the hairs that have been tested further and have yielded additional information - information certainly not available in the trial transcripts. Additionally, witnesses have come forward and made statements that could have changed the outcomes of the original trials had their testimony been available back in '94.

In short, in the eighteen years since the original trials, things have changed. New testing has been done that provides additional information. Also, new witnesses have come forward that have provided new information. The trial transcripts alone are simply not sufficient to be certain if the verdicts were correct. That is why the ASSC has ordered an evidentiary hearing.

That is why reliance on a trial transcript is simply not enough to make an informed decision. Examining the trial transcripts alone may show one why the defendants were convicted, but it simply will not show if those convictions took into consideration "all" evidence. And the validity of those convictions is what is being questioned at this time.

Yes, there were some pieces of evidence that appeared to incriminate the defendants that were excluded from the trials. However, there was much more exculpatory evidence and testimony that was not allowed. Read the Rule 37 Abstracts and you will see what I mean.

 

[Nova]

It's about as acceptable as starting with the Paradise Lost movies

If someone is looking for a truly unbiased account of how and why these three men were convicted, the only starting place is the trial transcript. That is how guilt or innocence is determined in this country...not by movies, books, celebrities, or message boards.

What country do you live in?

The American judicial system doesn't even pretend to be "unbiased." It's an adversarial system where two, highly biased sides clash in the hope that the truth will emerge out of the conflict. Yet truth was very much the primary casualty in the West Memphis Three trials because a lot of prejudicial information was included that should never have been allowed into evidence.

Though there are differences, of course, in many ways a successful trial is more like a message board than an "objective," "unbiased" encyclopedia article. The primary difference, of course, is that trial witnesses usually have some qualification for testifying--but even that was questionable with some of the witnesses in West Memphis.

But given the various sources you want people to avoid, I'm guessing you don't really intend to steer newcomers to "unbiased" anything; you want them to read only whatever will best convince them you are right.

 

[Puffin]

Callahan's requires a lot of time and patience, and it can be very difficult to understand, especially some of the legal debates between lawyers at the hearings and at the bench conferences during the trials. For people with limited time to devote to reading, I think that this message board is a very acceptable starting point.

Yeah, thinking is hard. I know I expect too much. How about we take turns? You can tell one person what to think, and I can take the next person. That way it will be fair and balanced.

For the last time. I stated that any supporter of 3 convicted child murderers should take the time to familiarize themselves with the actual case documents at Callahan's. If that is too hard or expecting too much, then they really shouldn't be supporting convicted child murderers. That is disrespectful to the memories of the 3 eight-year old victims. This board is perfectly acceptable for debate and discussion but it is no substitute for the actual case files.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I have never discouraged people from reading at Callahan's. I just suggest that they read the pretrial hearings along with the actual trial transcript in order to get the whole picture. Many people say, "Read the trial transcripts." I say, "Read everything."

Please don't suggest that I'm incapable of reading and understanding the material at Callahan's. That's simply not true. I can (and do) read and understand Callahan's. I'm simply stating that it takes some time and thought (of which I am fully capable, thank you very much). I'm obsessed with this case. Therefore, I'm willing to put in the time to fully investigate. Most lay people struggle with the legal language in court documents. For them, a message board is helpful. If this is not true, why is this board in existence?

When you say that supporters of the WM3 are supporting child murderers, IMO I see that as an ad hominem attack. When you suggest, as I feel you did in your last post, that the reason supporters don't think the three are guilty is because they don't read the case documents, I take offense. I have read the trial documents - all of them, including the most recently released Rule 37 Abstracts, all 911 pages. I also know of a lot of supporters who have done so, too.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you are a mother. So am I. My heart breaks for the mothers of those murdered children. However, I also have compassion for the mothers of the three young men unjustly in prison. I feel very strongly that justice has not been served, and I want justice for all six victims of this situation.

 

[Puffin]

I have never discouraged people from reading at Callahan's. I just suggest that they read the pretrial hearings along with the actual trial transcript in order to get the whole picture. Many people say, "Read the trial transcripts." I say, "Read everything."

Where did I say just read the trial transcripts? We both know I didn't. I said the case files @ Callahan's. I didn't specify. All means all, right?

Please don't suggest that I'm incapable of reading and understanding the material at Callahan's. That's simply not true. I can (and do) read and understand Callahan's. I'm simply stating that it takes some time and thought (of which I am fully capable, thank you very much). I'm obsessed with this case. Therefore, I'm willing to put in the time to fully investigate Most lay people struggle with the legal language in court documents. For them, a message board is helpful. If this is not true, why is this board in existence?

Please don't suggest that I suggested that you were incapable of reading and understanding the material at Callahan's. In fact, the only person that suggested some people wouldn't be capable of doing that is you. I want anyone that has an active interest in this case to study Callahan's. At least before they send Lori & Damien some money and don their WM3 tee-shirts. And again, I stated this message board was perfectly acceptable for discussion and debate. But it is no substitute for the actual case files.

When you say that supporters of the WM3 are supporting child murderers, IMO I see that as an ad hominem attack. When you suggest, as I feel you did in your last post, that the reason supporters don't think the three are guilty is because they don't read the case documents, I take offense. I have read the trial documents - all of them, including the most recently released Rule 37 Abstracts, all 911 pages. I also know of a lot of supporters who have done so, too.

Supporters of the WM3 are supporting CONVICTED CHILD MURDERERS. You can take it personal or not. Sorry. The fact remains all three of them are CONVICTED CHILD MURDERERS. Until the State of Arkansas or a higher law sees otherwise, they will remain CONVICTED CHILD MURDERERS. I never stated that all supporters of the WM3 haven't read the case files. But I can bet you one thing, a lot of them haven't. As I said before, if you read the case documents and still think they are innocent, so be it. At least you took the time..that's not asking too much before supporting CONVICTED CHILD MURDERERS.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you are a mother. So am I. My heart breaks for the mothers of those murdered children. However, I also have compassion for the mothers of the three young men unjustly in prison. I feel very strongly that justice has not been served, and I want justice for all six victims of this situation.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not sure why you are taking it personal. The only thing I was criticizing was failing to direct new people to the case to Callahan's. Where you got that I was suggesting that you failed to read or apparently comprehend the case files at Cally's is beyond me.

Why is it Nons are the only people that point new persons interested in the case directly to Callahan's? :aktion1:

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You're right on one thing - we'll have to agree to disagree.

I always tell people to read on Callahan's, and I'm a supporter. Therefore, nons are not the only people who direct people to read on Callahan's.

Yes, the WM3 have been falsely convicted of these murderers. The juries got it wrong. That happens sometimes, or do you believe that OJ is innocent because the jury said so?

 

[Mary456]

What country do you live in?

The American judicial system doesn't even pretend to be "unbiased." It's an adversarial system where two, highly biased sides clash in the hope that the truth will emerge out of the conflict. Yet truth was very much the primary casualty in the West Memphis Three trials because a lot of prejudicial information was included that should never have been allowed into evidence.

Though there are differences, of course, in many ways a successful trial is more like a message board than an "objective," "unbiased" encyclopedia article. The primary difference, of course, is that trial witnesses usually have some qualification for testifying--but even that was questionable with some of the witnesses in West Memphis.

But given the various sources you want people to avoid, I'm guessing you don't really intend to steer newcomers to "unbiased" anything; you want them to read only whatever will best convince them you are right.

You misunderstood me.

I was replying to Compassionate Reader's post #23:

"I think this message board is a very acceptable starting point" (to determine guilt or innocence of the three murderers).

I disagree.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Mary,

You misunderstood my point. I believe that, for someone with limited time, a message board such as this one is an acceptable starting point, not a place to "prove" guilt or innocence. After becoming somewhat familiar with the case in layman's terms, then they should advance on to Callahan's. There they should read all the case documents, not just the trial transcripts.

As I said before, it takes concentration to understand the legal language in a trial and in all the hearings attached to a trial. Starting at Callahan's, unless you are obsessed with the case and already know something about it, can be a daunting task, and some people might get discouraged and think, "Why bother? It doesn't really affect me." Then, they might not investigate any further.

I want people to thoroughly investigate the case, and a message board, especially one like this which presents both sides civilly, might be easier reading to the beginner. I did not mean to imply that all someone needed to do to investigate the case was to read message boards. I hope that clears it up for you.

Personally, I believe that most people have formed some sort of opinion of guilt or innocence about the case before they seek out a message board. When they go to boards, they are seeking confirmation of their beliefs or gut feelings. Supporters will seek out supporter boards and non supporters will seek out non supporter boards. True fence-sitters can come here and see both sides argued. Then, they can go to Callahan's to determine whether they feel the WM3 are guilty or innocent.

Most cases don't have a site like Callahan's that is a repository of case documents. Does that mean that people can't investigate these cases? That's why an open discussion forum such as this site can help someone who is searching for the truth.

 

[Nova]

You misunderstood me.

I was replying to Compassionate Reader's post #23:

"I think this message board is a very acceptable starting point" (to determine guilt or innocence of the three murderers).

I disagree.

I understood you perfectly. You wrote:

If someone is looking for a truly unbiased account of how and why these three men were convicted, the only starting place is the trial transcript.

My response is that there is nothing "unbiased" in a trial transcript with the possible exception of the judge's instructions re lunch breaks.

I'm all for reading transcripts; but not if one starts with the assumption that they are unbiased.

 

[MsFacetious]

I am surprised to see that people think it is non supporters who direct people to Callahan. :waitasec:

It is worth noting or repeating that in addition to the creator of Callahan believing in the WM3's innocence... the WM3 appear to support Callahan as well. THEY direct people to Callahan themselves.

They link Callahan and the article about Callahan, in their blog post here and refer to the keepers of Callahan as unsung heroes.

http://wm3org.typepad.com/blog/2011...reated-an-invaluable-wm3-online-archive-.html

If I come across as "heavy," I'm sorry. I feel very passionately about this case. Of course, I want you to make up your own mind. Read on callahan's, but don't neglect the pretrial hearing transcripts and the Rule 37 abstracts if you want all the facts.

When there is a miscarriage of justice, as I feel is the case with the WM3, oftentimes the trial transcripts don't tell the whole story, especially if the judge was a State-leaning judge who ham stringed the defense. They will show why the unjustly-convicted were convicted, but they will not show all of the pertinent facts in the case, which is why justice wasn't served. Read it all. Form your own opinion. You'll see.

SBM

I just want to say for the record... that when I came across this part of this thread... I had been thinking... "I am amazed that CR can get the facts out there, without being snarky, or overbearing or spiteful... etc."

I don't think you are coming across as heavy... but I am also NOT the least bit defensive on this case. :seeya:

I know that I don't know every single detail of the case.
I know that I believe there was not enough to convict.
I know I believe there is more evidence against others who were not charged.
I know that I have a brother who was "gothic" as a teenager.
I know that I believe the WM3 are innocent...
but I won't get defensive about it.

After all of the "adversarial" situations in my life I have learned that it doesn't help to get defensive.
I simply do not have the energy unless I am actually fighting a battle that is going to make a difference.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

MsFacetious,

I guess I'm the eternal optimist in that I feel that it is possible that something I write might actually help. I don't mean this to come across as arrogant, because I don't claim to know everything about this case. I have read and researched quite a bit, but I am not an attorney. I only hope that something I write (or something some other supporter may write - or possibly even something that some non may write) will jog a memory or steer the defense team's thinking in the right direction. That's why I persist in researching and discussing this case.

 

[MsFacetious]

What YOU write will help. You are putting facts out there and doing it in an articulate, non overbearing manner. MY arguing my point will not help. It will only get me banned. I don't argue nicely... it's why I didn't become a lawyer and why I don't talk to my in laws if I can avoid it. :innocent: