New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[deelytful1]

OT: I just read thru this entire thread and I must say Reedus23, YOU have the patience of a saint! I felt like YOU were on trial! I admire how you stayed calm, focused and did not lash out in rage. I would have lost my temper 8 pages back. kudos! But youndeserve better than to be grilled merely for your insights and perceptions!! I've followed this case forever and have given up sparring with closed minds that will regurgitate trial notes and depositions but never use common sense or "gut" instinct.
Bottom line, They are free men... finally. I have faith new evidence will eventually come to light proving their innocence..even if its a deathbed confession. Yes I DO believe they are innocent and that the whole trial was manipulated by the good ol' boy "justice" system.
First and last post on this thread. Have fun kids!

 

[reedus23]

OT: I just read thru this entire thread and I must say Reedus23, YOU have the patience of a saint! I felt like YOU were on trial! I admire how you stayed calm, focused and did not lash out in rage. I would have lost my temper 8 pages back. kudos! But youndeserve better than to be grilled merely for your insights and perceptions!! I've followed this case forever and have given up sparring with closed minds that will regurgitate trial notes and depositions but never use common sense or "gut" instinct.
Bottom line, They are free men... finally. I have faith new evidence will eventually come to light proving their innocence..even if its a deathbed confession. Yes I DO believe they are innocent and that the whole trial was manipulated by the good ol' boy "justice" system.
First and last post on this thread. Have fun kids!

Thanks deelytful1. Trust me, there are times I have implemented my 24 hour rule. Instead of responding right away, I give it 24 hours and then put together a more thoughtful response. If I'm still upset after 24 hours, it's probably rightfully so. Frankly, in my line of work, I see a lot of these types of arguments so it's nothing new to me. My only regret is that I learned of this case too late and missed out on what was probably a lot of good discussion.

After reading what I have, I have no doubt that it was a perfect storm that led to their conviction as opposed hard evidence. You had the good old boy network. You had a community wrapped up in concern over satanic practices and the occult. You had 3 kids that were unique in their own ways. You had one that, regardless of any technical diagnosis, was slow and easily influenced. You had a lot of media attention that sensationalized a lot of the case. You had an LEA that succumbed to the public pressure and grasped onto an easy scapegoat and set about finding facts to fit their theory instead of the theory that fits the facts. You had a Judge that had a pro-prosecution tilt. All of it came together to generate 2 convictions that there is no direct evidence to support other than the word of a scared, impressionable kid in one instance, a jailhouse snitch in another instance and a couple young kids in the third instance. Absolutely nothing else to support the convictions.

The bottom line is people can talk about such and such could have done this or such and such could have made this mark, but at the end of the day, that is all speculation. There is no evidence that such and such DID leave this mark or such and such WAS used to hit the kids.

 

[kyleb]

I've followed this case forever and have given up sparring with closed minds that will regurgitate trial notes and depositions but never use common sense or "gut" instinct.

My common sense and gut instinct tells me to stick to documented facts and analyze them with formal logic regarding all matters, while it seems everyone proclaiming innocence in this matter is adverse to such things.

I have faith new evidence will eventually come to light proving their innocence

Faith is a powerful thing, but it's not a valid substitute for reasonable doubt.

All of it came together to generate 2 convictions that there is no direct evidence to support other than the word of a scared, impressionable kid in one instance, a jailhouse snitch in another instance and a couple young kids in the third instance. Absolutely nothing else to support the convictions.

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence which supports the convictions too, both that which was presented at trial to win them and other evidence which has come out since then, and regardless of how intent you are on ignoring it. On the other hand, where is there any actual evidence to support your claims that Misskelley was "easily influenced", "LEA that succumbed to the public pressure", "Judge that had a pro-prosecution tilt", or is that all just based on faith that the three are actually innocent?

The bottom line is people can talk about such and such could have done this or such and such could have made this mark, but at the end of the day, that is all speculation.

Consistency between wounds and objects isn't a matter of speculation, but rather one of measurements.

There is no evidence that such and such DID leave this mark or such and such WAS used to hit the kids.

Rather, there's no absolute proof that the survival knife was used to inflict wounds on the victims, but then there's really no absolute proof of anything. The facts remain that the knife: is consistent wounds in publicly available autopsy photos, was described at trial as consistent with other wounds and with a knife carried by Echols, and was found behind Baldwin's home. That constancy between wounds on the victims, the knife, and the two people Misskelley confessed many times to committing the murders is far beyond any reasonable possibility of coincidence, and hence requires a huge leap of faith to ignore.

 

[reedus23]

My common sense and gut instinct tells me to stick to documented facts and analyze them with formal logic regarding all matters, while it seems everyone proclaiming innocence in this matter is adverse to such things.

Wow. Just wow. I think it is possible for both sides of an argument to use formal logic and still come to 2 different conclusions in instances such as this. Why you don't seem willing to acknowledge that weakens your argument IMO.

Faith is a powerful thing, but it's not a valid substitute for reasonable doubt.

And I have a lot of reasonable doubt.

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence which supports the convictions too, both that which was presented at trial to win them and other evidence which has come out since then, and regardless of how intent you are on ignoring it. On the other hand, where is there any actual evidence to support your claims that Misskelley was "easily influenced", "LEA that succumbed to the public pressure", "Judge that had a pro-prosecution tilt", or is that all just based on faith that the three are actually innocent?

Kyle, I truly am interested in seeing all sides. What circumstantial evidence was there? In Jessie's trial, the first day was spent with witnesses testifying about the 3 young boys. The second day dealt with the ME and the confession. On day 3 you had Hutcheson who didn't say anything that tied Jessie to the crime but talked about the cult. Melissa Byers talked about some guy taking a picture in Feb/March which doesn't implicate anyone, particularly Jessie in a crime. Ridge and Sudbury talked about what they collected with the search warrants. Turbyfill gave defense testimony. Sakevicus talked about knots and fibers that didn't implicate any of the three any more than it implicated hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people. Channell gave defense testimony. DeGuglielmo gave defense testimony. Driver said he saw the 3 together the year before, which hardly implicates any of them in the crime. So out of all that testimony, other than the confession, what circumstantial evidence are you talking about in Jessie's case(already too long so I limited myself to his case)?

Consistency between wounds and objects isn't a matter of speculation, but rather one of measurements.

Saying there is a consistency is different than saying it caused it. Heck, I don't even think the prosecution's experts were willing to speculate that a specific item caused a specific wound.

Rather, there's no absolute proof that the survival knife was used to inflict wounds on the victims, but then there's really no absolute proof of anything. The facts remain that the knife: is consistent wounds in publicly available autopsy photos, was described at trial as consistent with other wounds and with a knife carried by Echols, and was found behind Baldwin's home. That constancy between wounds on the victims, the knife, and the two people Misskelley confessed many times to committing the murders is far beyond any reasonable possibility of coincidence, and hence requires a huge leap of faith to ignore.

The ME's testimony is very misleading IMO. Unless he can say, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, a certain object created a certain wound, he is only tossing out there speculation. He should have also thrown out there the other million things that would be consistent with those wounds. If there was anything on any of the weapons that affirmatively tied it to the crimes, it would be a different story. Like I said before, I would have brought in a host of knives and he would have said they were all consistent. I would have brought in a host of sticks and asked if they were consistent and he'd have to say yes. Testifying that maybe, possibly is not enough to condemn someone for life IMO.

 

[kyleb]

I think it is possible for both sides of an argument to use formal logic and still come to 2 different conclusions in instances such as this.

The only way to reach different conclusions through formal logic is by working with different sets of evidence. That's why I keep asking you for evidence when you make claims that Misskelley was "easily influenced", LEA "succumbed to the public pressure", the judge "had a pro-prosecution tilt", and such. But as long as you ignore or refuse such requests, why should I believe your claims have any logical basis behind them?

 

[reedus23]

The only way to reach different conclusions through formal logic is by working with different sets of evidence. That's why I keep asking you for evidence when you make claims that Misskelley was "easily influenced", LEA "succumbed to the public pressure", the judge "had a pro-prosecution tilt", and such. But as long as you ignore or refuse such requests, why should I believe your claims have any logical basis behind them?

Your first sentence is a complete over simplification of the legal process. There are way more shades of gray and not so much black and white as you indicate.

Regarding your second sentence, read the entire investigative reports and trial testimony and come to your own conclusions. Those are mine and I'm entitled to mine as much as you are to yours and I am perfectly confident in my beliefs when I say those.

Regarding your last sentence, you don't have to believe anything. I don't have to respond to any requests and if I don't it doesn't make a point incorrect. It means I'm not responding to you and it's likely because I find your request to be either silly or I find that it was asked in a rude manner and I'm choosing to ignore it.

Simple question for you kyle....Is it possible that the WM3 did not commit these crimes?

 

[kyleb]

Your first sentence is a complete over simplification of the legal process.

It's actually a statement of fact which exists regardless of there being a legal process or otherwise. If you take a body of evidence and apply formal logic, only one conclusion can be reached. 2 + 2 = 4 is a simple example, but the complexity of the evidence doesn't change the fact that only one logical conclusion can be drawn from it.

I don't have to respond to any requests and if I don't it doesn't make a point incorrect.

Of course not, your unwillingness to respond to requests for substantiation of your claims just leaves your claims unsubstantiated, like every other argument for innocence I've come across.

Simple question for you kyle....Is it possible that the WM3 did not commit these crimes?

Sure, it's possible that this is all a dream within a dream and there was never actually any murders to begin with. I've yet to see any evidence to reasonably contend anything of the sort, but such possibilities remain regardless.

 

[reedus23]

It's actually a statement of fact which exists regardless of there being a legal process or otherwise. If you take a body of evidence and apply formal logic, only one conclusion can be reached. 2 + 2 = 4 is a simple example, but the complexity of the evidence doesn't change the fact that only one logical conclusion can be drawn from it.

I can confidently say there is nothing that simple in law. By your reasoning, you could try every single case that has ever been tried in the history of American jurisprudence one hundred times with the exact same evidence and get the exact same results one hundred times. Absolutely, positively would not happen. Do you think if OJ Simpson was tried in a different venue, but with the exact same evidence that there still is only one logical conclusion?

Of course not, your unwillingness to respond to requests for substantiation of your claims just leaves your claims unsubstantiated, like every other argument for innocence I've come across.

Take them for whatever you like.

Sure, it's possible that this is all a dream within a dream and there was never actually any murders to begin with. I've yet to see any evidence to reasonably contend anything of the sort, but such possibilities remain regardless.

Thanks. You do realize that the opinion you just gave as to the innocence of the WM3 was given with the same amount of certainty that the state's witnesses gave when testifying about whether or not the fibers, knives or sticks were used by the defendants. I presume I should believe their testimony as much as I believe you think the WM3 are innocent then.

 

[kyleb]

By your reasoning, you could try every single case that has ever been tried in the history of American jurisprudence one hundred times with the exact same evidence and get the exact same results one hundred times.

That's not my reasoning, it's you're ridiculous misapplication of what I said. What you suggested would be true if people always strictly adhered to formal logic, but such is far from the reality of the world we live in.

Do you think if OJ Simpson was tried in a different venue, but with the exact same evidence that there still is only one logical conclusion?

I doubt that the verdict in the O.J. trial was derived logically, though I admittedly haven't looked into the evidence in that case nearly enough to say he his guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

You do realize that the opinion you just gave as to the innocence of the WM3 was given with the same amount of certainty that the state's witnesses gave when testifying about whether or not the fibers, knives or sticks were used by the defendants.

Oh really, where exactly did the state's witnesses suggest "the fibers, knives or sticks were used by the defendants" beyond any reasonable doubt? Or are you just asking me to accept yet another unsubstantiated claim?

 

[EntreNous]

okay, kyleb, you have prolifically posted to this forum for far more time than is healthy for anyone. it's springtime. go enjoy it.
here is what this all boils down too. every time i check in here of late it is the same old repetitive cycle. people leave this board and move on to either other cases or other sites and that is because there are a few here who want this particular subject to be the very antithesis of productive investigation. just as you have every right to your opinion, others who may or may not differ in opinion have the exact same right. no need to pounce on every single view that may be different from yours.
the truth is, there are only a very scant few who know what actually happened to those little boys. we may never know what really happened, but some of us are indeed interested and will continue to try and make sense of it all. regardless of what you believe or what i believe, for anyone to purposely stand in the way of progress, understanding and a deeper level of learning about this case and honoring the memory of these children is in the poorest taste.
further, we all know the justice system is imperfect. yes, it works about 90% of the time but it is well known that there are innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes and there are very bad people who get away with crimes.
i continue to peruse this site though i rarely post these days for the reasons i have stated above. no progress can be made by the continuous wagging of the dog. there are ways to respectfully disagree with someone without the constant diversions. truly, if you want to be heard, respected and have your views given weight, then you must listen, be respectful and honor others here. my father used to say, "you will always gather more flies with honey rather than vinegar". i'm sure you don't want flies, but hopefully you get the gist of the idiom.
can we now get back to discussing this thread's subect?

 

[reedus23]

That's not my reasoning, it's you're ridiculous misapplication of what I said. What you suggested would be true if people always strictly adhered to formal logic, but such is far from the reality of the world we live in.

I have found in my line of work, people resort to rude behavior and comments when they have nothing else left to stand on.

I doubt that the verdict in the O.J. trial was derived logically, though I admittedly haven't looked into the evidence in that case nearly enough to say he his guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

So juries can arrive at illogical verdicts or verdicts that do not conform to the evidence?

Oh really, where exactly did the state's witnesses suggest "the fibers, knives or sticks were used by the defendants" beyond any reasonable doubt? Or are you just asking me to accept yet another unsubstantiated claim?

I didn't say they did. I simply stated that you expressed as much certainty as the prosecution's experts did as to any connection of those items to the crimes. In essence what I was saying was just the opposite of what you read but because you are so dug in to your beliefs, you read it that way. In other words, they didn't believe those items were related to the crime any more than you believe the WM3 are innocent. That is my claim and I think my claim is substantiated by the fact that you, yourself, just said they never claimed the items were connected to the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[reedus23]

okay, kyleb, you have prolifically posted to this forum for far more time than is healthy for anyone. it's springtime. go enjoy it.
here is what this all boils down too. every time i check in here of late it is the same old repetitive cycle. people leave this board and move on to either other cases or other sites and that is because there are a few here who want this particular subject to be the very antithesis of productive investigation. just as you have every right to your opinion, others who may or may not differ in opinion have the exact same right. no need to pounce on every single view that may be different from yours.
the truth is, there are only a very scant few who know what actually happened to those little boys. we may never know what really happened, but some of us are indeed interested and will continue to try and make sense of it all. regardless of what you believe or what i believe, for anyone to purposely stand in the way of progress, understanding and a deeper level of learning about this case and honoring the memory of these children is in the poorest taste.
further, we all know the justice system is imperfect. yes, it works about 90% of the time but it is well known that there are innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes and there are very bad people who get away with crimes.
i continue to peruse this site though i rarely post these days for the reasons i have stated above. no progress can be made by the continuous wagging of the dog. there are ways to respectfully disagree with someone without the constant diversions. truly, if you want to be heard, respected and have your views given weight, then you must listen, be respectful and honor others here. my father used to say, "you will always gather more flies with honey rather than vinegar". i'm sure you don't want flies, but hopefully you get the gist of the idiom.
can we now get back to discussing this thread's subect?

Very good post EntreNous. That is kind of the point I was getting at. Frankly, other than the boys (who are no longer with us) and the person(s) who committed the crime, absolutely no one else knows what happened or who did it. Those that claim to know (whether pro or con) are either being disengenous or participated in the crime. To hold a belief one way or the other is a different story. To claim one's belief system is the only system actually weakens that person's position.

 

[kyleb]

no need to pounce on every single view that may be different from yours.

Are you referring to the fact that I often request evidence in response to bare assertions? If not, would you please quote an example of me doing whatever you are referring to here?

for anyone to purposely stand in the way of progress, understanding and a deeper level of learning about this case and honoring the memory of these children is in the poorest taste.

I agree completely. I don't imagine anyone is purposefully doing such a thing here though, and I'm quite continuously working to do the opposite.

there are ways to respectfully disagree with someone without the constant diversions.

I only know of one way to accomplish such a thing: present evidence to substantiate one's claims. What ways are you alluding to?

I have found in my line of work, people resort to rude behavior and comments when they have nothing else left to stand on.

I've found many of examples where people whose beliefs stand in contradiction to reality resorted to dismissing others as rude or such in aversion to rational discourse. Pope Urban VIII locking up Galileo for pointing out the fact that the Earth is not at the center of our planetary system being a notable historical example. That said, what is your line of work anyway?

So juries can arrive at illogical verdicts or verdicts that do not conform to the evidence?

Of course. I've yet find any evidence to support the notion that such a thing happened here though, just a bunch of people who argue as much with bare assertion while scoffing at requests for evidence to support their claims.

 

[reedus23]

That said, what is your line of work anyway?

I'm a lawyer.

ETA - And no, not a lawyer any way involved in this case. Truly did just start reading up on this case in the last month or so.

 

[ceecee30]

I'm a lawyer.

ETA - And no, not a lawyer any way involved in this case. Truly did just start reading up on this case in the last month or so.

Ah now I know why your answers on my legal questions were so thorough!!

 

[hello people]

You had one that, regardless of any technical diagnosis, was slow and easily influenced.

I thought he was no stranger to run ins with the law...

I don't think he ever went full *advertiser censored*

He was street smart wasn't he more or less

 

[reedus23]

I thought he was no stranger to run ins with the law...

I don't think he ever went full *advertiser censored*

He was street smart wasn't he more or less

Without going back and looking it up (because I don't recall it off the top of my head), I'd have little doubt he had multiple run-ins with the law. I would also assume he had some street smarts, though if he truly had street smarts he wouldn't have even talked to LE in the first place. I would also imagine that most of the trouble he got into was as a follower and not a leader. He did it because that's what the people around him were doing. That doesn't excuse it or justify it, but it explains it in my humble opinion. I think that same mentality is what lead to his statements to LE.

 

[reedus23]

Ah now I know why your answers on my legal questions were so thorough!!

I don't practice in Arkansas though, and tried to qualify my answers with that fact because the laws for each of our states can vary to some degree.

 

[kyleb]

if he truly had street smarts he wouldn't have even talked to LE in the first place.

Being street smart doesn't preclude possessing the moral decency to take responsibility for having committed/witnessed heinous crimes.

 

[reedus23]

Being street smart doesn't preclude possessing the moral decency to take responsibility for having committed/witnessed heinous crimes.

You make the assumption that he committed/witnessed a heinous crime. Even making that assumption, being street smart would lead to him never talking to LE on his own and IF responsibility is to be taken, having a lawyer guide you through the process. That would also prevent LE from taking your statements out of context and using them against you or from LE coercing you into saying something that isn't true. Someone street smart, guilty or not guilty, would have never talked to LE on their own.