New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[ceecee30]

Your first comment is probably a safe bet. I was holding back on my own judgment until I read through the cases, but I'm finding myself drawn into the arguments regardless. It is a very very very safe bet that absolutely no prosecuting attorney anywhere in this country would ever even remotely consider taking the actions that the prosecuting attorneys did here that allowed for the release of 3 individuals convicted of murder unless the prosecuting attorneys were not 100% convinced, but 200% convinced that the persons being released did not, in fact, commit the crimes. That just would not happen for multiple reasons.

Double jeopardy would prevent the same person from being charged with the same crime twice so the WM3 could not be tried again but it wouldn't prevent others from being charged and tried. The state is still free to charge other people as far as the law is concerned. While the charges could be brought, obtaining a conviction would be extremely difficult because the state has already tried and convicted others. Think about all the arguments a defense attorney could make because the prosecution has already asserted someone else was responsible.

Thankyou! I (think) understand double jeopardy a bit better now!

Lets go hypothetical here and say LE finds clear evidence of Damien's guilt (evidence that can't be anyone but him) can he be tried again? Or does double jeopardy rule that out?

Could he be charged with a different offense pertaining to the same case under the DJ rules?

 

[ceecee30]

Torturing animals is a big red flag.
Again, I have never tortured a helpless creature and by my nature can not ever torture a helpless creature.
i dont have it in me. I am NoT capable of it. I have empathy.. Sadistic behaviour is not in my dna. now Im not saying I wouldnt be able to kill an animal for food if I had too, but it would be a quick and painless death for the poor thing. Does torturing and mutilating poor helpless creatures implicate him in the torture and murder and mutilation of those 3 helpless young boys? No. But his actions sure do earn him some points on Hare`s checklist.

Yep agree his actions do earn him points, but his physciatric state has to be accounted for in the mutilation as well.

I myself I am capable, but yet I'm no sadist, I say everyone is capable because isn't using a mouse trap torturous? For the mouse at least?? it doesn't die instantly always, very generalized yes, but it's where I base my everyone is capable statement.

The human mind also can do funny things to us in certain situations or stress. I'm not saying that if I got stressed I'd go out and kill a animal.. I'm just leaving all options out there.

 

[reedus23]

Thankyou! I (think) understand double jeopardy a bit better now!

Lets go hypothetical here and say LE finds clear evidence of Damien's guilt (evidence that can't be anyone but him) can he be tried again? Or does double jeopardy rule that out?

Could he be charged with a different offense pertaining to the same case under the DJ rules?

Others can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the quick answer is no. Damien actually already has a finding of guilty filed against him for the murders of the 3 victims so he cannot be tried for their murders again.

As to your second question, there is no simple answer to that. There are certain situations in which other charges can be brought, but they are always subject to attack. I don't know if you had heard about it but one of the most famous cases here in the United States of this happening involved the Rodney King cases where 4 cops were videotaped beating the holy heck out of a black guy. The 4 cops were charged in the California state court for the assault and were acquitted or found not guilty(which set off major riots in the Los Angeles area). Even after the acquittal, the same 4 cops were later charged in Federal court for violating Rodney King's civil rights and 2 were found guilty. So it's possible but it doesn't happen often.

 

[kyleb]

been tried/sentenced and convictions then overturned...

The convictions weren't overturned, the three got a new eventuality hearing, and then they offered to plead guilty in exchange for time served and 10 years suspended imposition of sentence, as can be read in the transcript from the 8/19/2011 hearing. So, no, double jeopardy is completely irrelevant here.

It is a very very very safe bet that absolutely no prosecuting attorney anywhere in this country would ever even remotely consider taking the actions that the prosecuting attorneys did here that allowed for the release of 3 individuals convicted of murder unless the prosecuting attorneys were not 100% convinced, but 200% convinced that the persons being released did not, in fact, commit the crimes.

I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty, and I agree with the actions of the prosecution and the court. Granted I'm also familiar with the circumstances of the case up through the release, while you're still wading around in what happened two decades ago. Shame there is no way to prove what is in the prosecuting attorney's head, as I'd bet you every penny I have.

 

[kyleb]

I say everyone is capable because isn't using a mouse trap torturous? For the mouse at least? it doesn't die instantly always, very generalized yes, but it's where I base my everyone is capable statement.

Do you not comprehend the difference between using mousetraps for the sake of protecting people from disease and property from destruction compared to beating, disemboweling, and stomping a Great Dane to death only to come back later and burn its hair and skin off with battery acid?

Regardless, some relevant facts for consideration:

Analyses by sociologists, psychologists and criminologists during the past 25 years show that perpetrators of animal cruelty frequently do not stop with animal victims. Many will move on to commit acts of violence against humans. A 1997 study by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA reported that nearly 40% of animal abusers had committed violent crimes against people.

A FBI survey of convicted serial killers found that most serial killers tortured or killed animals as children or teens, before moving on to human victims. Among them were Jeffrey Dahmer, who had impaled dogs' heads, frogs and cats on sticks as a teen, as well as Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who bragged about mutilating animals to their friends, before shooting and killing 12 classmates and taking their own lives.

 

[ceecee30]

Do you not comprehend the difference between using mousetraps for the sake of protecting people from disease and property from destruction compared to beating, disemboweling, and stomping a Great Dane to death only to come back later and burn its hair and skin off with battery acid?

Regardless, some relevant facts for consideration:

Firstly if you quote me, read what I've written..

When I ask about the double jeopardy rules, I am asking what happens if someone is tried/convicted then overturned.

I am well aware he has not been exonerated of the crime. My question was relating the USA legal system which I have NO knowledge on.

In relation to the mousetrap, I am merely stating a point that I believe that is a form of torture, and the generalisation that I believe we are all capable of evils in some way, just not all of us act on them.

I am also well aware of studies done in relation to convicted/incarcerated/caught offenders and mutilation animals.

Again if your going to quote me make sure that you understand what's written, not what YOU WANT TO READ

 

[ceecee30]

Others can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but the quick answer is no. Damien actually already has a finding of guilty filed against him for the murders of the 3 victims so he cannot be tried for their murders again.

As to your second question, there is no simple answer to that. There are certain situations in which other charges can be brought, but they are always subject to attack. I don't know if you had heard about it but one of the most famous cases here in the United States of this happening involved the Rodney King cases where 4 cops were videotaped beating the holy heck out of a black guy. The 4 cops were charged in the California state court for the assault and were acquitted or found not guilty(which set off major riots in the Los Angeles area). Even after the acquittal, the same 4 cops were later charged in Federal court for violating Rodney King's civil rights and 2 were found guilty. So it's possible but it doesn't happen often.

I'm not 100% on all details of Rodney king, but I am aware somewhat of the story. Thanks for answering my silly Aussie questions

 

[kyleb]

I ask would this apply to WM3?

And I answered:

no, double jeopardy is completely irrelevant here.

And you can click the little view post arrow by my name to jump back to the rest of my post and read the context of that comment, just like anyone can click the little view post arrow next to your name and read the context of your comments which I've quoted from. That makes quoting whole posts completely superfluous, which is why I won't be adhering to your demand that I do so.

 

[ceecee30]

And I answered:


And you can click the little view post arrow by my name to jump back to the rest of my post and read the context of that comment, just like anyone can click the little view post arrow next to your name and read the context of your comments which I've quoted from. That makes quoting whole posts completely superfluous, which is why I won't be adhering to your demand that I do so.

No I said read my comments not what you want to read. You have taken my statements out of context, and read only what you want to read and I'm not the only person or thread you do this too..

Welcome to my little friend ignore and block... Your statements/posts are ignorant and rude.

 

[kyleb]

Would anyone here be so kind as to explain to Ceecee that I did respect the context and answer the question?

 

[claudicici]

Claudici, I truly apologize for hijacking your thread, but I wasn't sure where else to ask this. I just got done reading the state's case in chief in Jessie's case. I have very briefly summarized what I recall reading as far as it relates to specifically tying Jessie to the murders. Can anyone kindly tell me if I misread or completely missed testimony that specifically ties Jessie to the crime. What I saw was:

Dana Moore: Nothing
Pam Hobbs: Nothing
Melissa Byers: Nothing
Debra O'Tinger: Nothing
Regenia Meek: Nothing
John Moore: Nothing
Ryan Clark: Nothing
Allen: Nothing
Ridge: Nothing
Griffin: Nothing
Peretti: Nothing
Allen: Nothing
Durham: Polygraph
Ridge: Confession
Gitchell: Confession
Hollingworth: Nothing
Gitchell: Confession
Hutcheson: Nothing
Byers: Nothing
Ridge: Nothing(Echol's Search Warrant)
Sudbury: Nothing(Echol's Search Warrant/Baldwin's boots)
Sakevicius: Nothing
Turbyfill: Nothing
Channell: Nothing
DeGuglielmo: Nothing
Driver: Nothing

I feel I must have missed something because the only thing I saw as far as evidence directly tying Jessie to the murders was the testimony concerning the confession. Help is appreciated.

I'm glad you've hijacked the thread,I never have time to post anyways.Yes,all they had to tie jesse to the crime is the "confession"
I wished Cappuccino and Compassionate reader would come and post here.They have incredible knowledge of the case and could answer every question!

 

[kyleb]

Yes,all they had to tie jesse to the crime is the "confession"

No, it's just all the positive evidence which was admissible at trial. Sticking to what was in the trial for now: there's also the negative evidence of Misskelley being unable to explain away that confession, and the fact that attempts at an alibi fell apart on the stand. That evidence considered as a whole is what proved Misskelley guilty beyond any reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.

 

[reedus23]

The convictions weren't overturned, the three got a new eventuality hearing, and then they offered to plead guilty in exchange for time served and 10 years suspended imposition of sentence, as can be read in the transcript from the 8/19/2011 hearing. So, no, double jeopardy is completely irrelevant here.

I don't know that it makes much difference, but I do believe the term "overturned" as used by a layperson isn't necessarily wrong. My understanding is that a new trial was granted by the court, which in essence means that there was some error made in the first trial that was serious enough to warrant a new trial. So it was not overturned in the sense that an appellate court or the supreme court "overturned" the convictions, but in essence, the trial court itself "overturned" the convictions by granting a new trial. The trial court then did enter what is called an alford plea, in which the defendants do not admit guilt, maintain their innocence but acknowledge that there is sufficient evidence to convict them if tried and then handed down the sentence as you say. In other words, it's a plea of a "I didn't do it but you may be able to convince someone I did it" type of plea.


I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty, and I agree with the actions of the prosecution and the court. Granted I'm also familiar with the circumstances of the case up through the release, while you're still wading around in what happened two decades ago. Shame there is no way to prove what is in the prosecuting attorney's head, as I'd bet you every penny I have.

You are right, I have not formed any personal opinion as to whether they committed the crimes they were accused of or not. My observations about how a prosecuting attorney would not agree to the release of a convicted murderer unless they truly believed they did not commit the crime is more of an observation of the prosecuting attorney's actions as opposed to what whether there is sufficient facts known to point towards guilt.

I would be curious kyle, why do you think the prosecuting attorney agreed to their release? I don't think public pressure would be enough. They're not going to put someone they believe is a murderer, much less someone that killed young kids and not only killed them but mutilated them, on the streets just because some actors and singers are putting public pressure on them. If the prosecution truly believes they did the crimes, what are your thoughts on why they would agree to such a deal? Look forward to your input. Thanks.

 

[reedus23]

I'm not 100% on all details of Rodney king, but I am aware somewhat of the story. Thanks for answering my silly Aussie questions

You're welcome. There are entire legal books written on those issues, so do understand that is a very abbreviated explanation.

 

[reedus23]

No, it's just all the positive evidence which was admissible at trial. Sticking to what was in the trial for now: there's also the negative evidence of Misskelley being unable to explain away that confession, and the fact that attempts at an alibi fell apart on the stand. That evidence considered as a whole is what proved Misskelley guilty beyond any reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.

Thanks for sticking to just what was used at the trial to obtain the conviction. As you know, I haven't gotten beyond that. As I'm sure you know, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The defense has no obligation to explain away a confession or establish an alibi. There is a difference between proving guilt and proving a defense. The "negative evidence" you speak of has nothing to do with proving guilt but is directed to whether they were able to prove a defense, which they are under no obligation to prove in the first place. So I suppose my question was, regarding the State's burden to prove guilt, was there anything offered by the prosecution directly tying Jessie to the murders beyond the few witnesses discussing the confession/polygraph.

 

[Cappuccino]

So I suppose my question was, regarding the State's burden to prove guilt, was there anything offered by the prosecution directly tying Jessie to the murders beyond the few witnesses discussing the confession/polygraph.

I don't think you're going to find anything, reedus23. I remember reading interviews with several of the jurors at the Misskelley trial and they said themselves that the confession was basically all they had to go on. I got the impression that their deliberations revolved around whether the confession was true or false, and that's it.

 

[Samantha Spade]

Yep agree his actions do earn him points, but his physciatric state has to be accounted for in the mutilation as well.

I myself I am capable, but yet I'm no sadist, I say everyone is capable because isn't using a mouse trap torturous? For the mouse at least?? it doesn't die instantly always, very generalized yes, but it's where I base my everyone is capable statement.

The human mind also can do funny things to us in certain situations or stress. I'm not saying that if I got stressed I'd go out and kill a animal.. I'm just leaving all options out there.

Ceecee,
That's kind of funny. I guess I am on the extreme end. I won't even use a mouse trap. But I would use a have a heart trap then release into the wild. But I don't think if you used a mouse trap to rid your home of a rodent you were afraid of spreading disease would be considered "sadistic" behavior. Torturing animals for the sake of getting a good feeling from watching the animal suffer, well, that is something else entirely.

 

[ceecee30]

Ceecee,
That's kind of funny. I guess I am on the extreme end. I won't even use a mouse trap. But I would use a have a heart trap then release into the wild. But I don't think if you used a mouse trap to rid your home of a rodent you were afraid of spreading disease would be considered "sadistic" behavior. Torturing animals for the sake of getting a good feeling from watching the animal suffer, well, that is something else entirely.

I used the mousetrap as a very generalized comment, so thanks for not taking it out of the context I'm using it in.

Not exactly sure what a heart trap is, I'm assuming its the same style trap as our "big cheese" catch and release traps. Not coming from an area that has rodent issues, I have no need for traps. I personally wouldn't use a trap that kills the animal.

 

[Samantha Spade]

Ceecee,
I first heard about the West Memphis Three case about 5 years ago. My nephew's high school teacher was discussing it in his class. He was learning about the justice system and they were discussing how many people have been wrongly accused, arrested, convicted, imprisoned and put to death. The numbers are staggering and I too find that frightening. The investigation may have many flaws and they just might have imprisoned the wrong young men. I can't dispute that, because I really don't know. Hopefully the truth will finally be discovered and revealed. But what concerns me is that young men who score high on Dr. Hare's psychopath checklist have a tendency to grow up to be sadistic and dangerous men. Now, I am sure many of those men may have had horribly abusive childhoods that molded their personality to become the men who can commit sadistic behaivor on animals and then later human beings. But my priority is protecting the innocent from these men, before rationalizing why these men act the way they do.
Professionals who study antisocial pd explain that it is very difficult to treat. We all know from reading here at websleuths that there are many victims of these psychopaths. And many of their killers are still walking free in the streets waiting for their next victim. I just hope they didn't just release 3 more, whether they brutalized those three young boys or not.

 

[Samantha Spade]

Oops. Double post.