New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[LunaticFringe]

Forgive me for my ignorance, aren't their convictions still valid?

I think I remember reading somewhere that one of the wm3 was studying law but can't practice due to still being convicted? I'll see if I can find that story again.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...mfort-salem/K7qr8uVtzLU4UPxOjV3JiL/story.html

They are still convicted felons.They are on a 10 year probation period.

 

[kyleb]

I'll figure out the names of those I would have definitely left off.

Are you convinced that Misskelley was actually off wrestling at the apparent time of the murders, or would you attempt to persuade the jury of such an alibi regardless?

I will see if my thoughts of him change after reading/listening to the closings.

I'm really more interested in your thoughts on Ofshe's claims rather than he himself, and Fogleman spends considerable time addressing those claims during his closing arguments, so figure it's best you hear him out before delving into that mater.

They are still convicted felons.They are on a 10 year probation period.

From what I've seen, suspended imposition is a type of parole, at least when implemented on top of time served. Granted I've never right looked into the mater and hence can't cite any notable sources to back my understanding on that, so take it for what little it's worth.

That said, calling the three felons is letting them off rather easy. Felony convictions range from arguably victimless crimes such as possession of various controlled substances to the darkest of human behavior, and what the three were convicted of is far towards the latter side of that scale.

 

[reedus23]

Are you convinced that Misskelley was actually off wrestling at the apparent time of the murders, or would you attempt to persuade the jury of such an alibi regardless?

I quite honestly haven't made a conclusion one way or the other. What I do feel comfortable opining is that some of those witnesses that completely changed their story were lying to try to help a friend in my opinion. I also feel comfortable saying I complete understand why a jury would have disregarded the alibi testimony entirely. When it was established one witness may not have been truthful, it colors all of the witnesses in the same light. If forced to give an opinion as to whether he was wrestling, based on all of the testimony that was used, I don't know that I would have been persuaded of such. There were too many inconsistencies. While not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he was wrestling, would it have created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case? Not sure yet.

Would I attempt to persuade the jury of an alibi? I'm assuming you are putting me in the shoes of defense counsel and I think ultimately, I probably would have if it was possible to do so without utilizing witnesses who had already given statements to the contrary to law enforcement. If some consistently said he was there at the incident and at wrestling, I think I would have been obligated to, but not if they said otherwise previously to the police.

I'm really more interested in your thoughts on Ofshe's claims rather than he himself, and Fogleman spends considerable time addressing those claims during his closing arguments, so figure it's best you hear him out before delving into that mater.

Ok, I'll reserve judgment until getting through the closings.

From what I've seen, suspended imposition is a type of parole, at least when implemented on top of time served. Granted I've never right looked into the mater and hence can't cite any notable sources to back my understanding on that, so take it for what little it's worth.

No need to cite anything. I was just curious. Both a suspended imposition of sentence and a suspended execution of sentence are forms of probation/parole where I am at. The first results in no guilty plea/conviction if you do your time clean. The latter still results in a guilty plea/conviction on your record but you simply avoid further jail time if you do your time clean. I was a bit surprised to see that language and that's why I asked. Arkansas may very well not have such a distinction.

That said, calling the three felons is letting them off rather easy. Felony convictions range from arguably victimless crimes such as possession of various controlled substances to the darkest of human behavior, and what the three were convicted of is far towards the latter side of that scale.

I hope to get through the closings this weekend.

 

[kyleb]

Would you try to persuade the jury of an alibi even if you haven't concluded it is legitimate yourself?

 

[reedus23]

Would you try to persuade the jury of an alibi even if you haven't concluded it is legitimate yourself?

Again, I have to assume you are asking me to step in the shoes of the defense attorneys on their case. I would also make sure we are on the same page with your question too. There is a difference between if I haven't concluded that an alibi is legitimate myself versus I have affirmatively concluded that the alibi is false.

In the first situation, I do believe it would be defense counsel's obligation to put on evidence of an alibi even if they haven't concluded that it is legitimate. The thing they have to be cognizant of though, in zealously representing their client, is that if they have not been convinced of an alibi, there is a reason for that and a jury would likely have the same apprehension about the alibi.

If I am defense counsel and I have affirmatively determined that an alibi is false, no I personally would not be willing to put on such testimony. I don't know the ethical rules in Arkansas, but I would suspect there is some prohibition from knowingly putting on perjured testimony. I am also a firm believer that juries can see through false testimony.

I hope that makes sense how I see it as 2 different situations. One where I'm simply not convinced myself that it's legitimate versus the second situation in which I have been able to determine that an alibi is, in fact, false.

 

[kyleb]

Huh. I'd feel obliged to reach a conclusion myself before attempting to persuade a jury to do so, and obligated to advise a client to find new representation if he wants to present an alibi which I couldn't conclude is legitimate.

 

[reedus23]

Huh. I'd feel obliged to reach a conclusion myself before attempting to persuade a jury to do so, and obligated to advise a client to find new representation if he wants to present an alibi which I couldn't conclude is legitimate.

I could understand that. The obvious concern would be how well of a sales job you can give the jury if you aren't 100% convinced yourself. The only other thing I would say from my experience, is that rarely are things black and white. There are always things that can be picked apart, whether it's in the prosecution's case or the defense's case. There are always more than one side to a story so assuming you don't have information that suggests you would be putting on perjured testimony, you almost always have situations where the evidence/theory you assert is some shade of gray instead of black or white. As to the last part of your comment, I would give the same advise if I thought I was being asked to put on perjured testimony.

 

[ceecee30]

I could understand that. The obvious concern would be how well of a sales job you can give the jury if you aren't 100% convinced yourself. The only other thing I would say from my experience, is that rarely are things black and white. There are always things that can be picked apart, whether it's in the prosecution's case or the defense's case. There are always more than one side to a story so assuming you don't have information that suggests you would be putting on perjured testimony, you almost always have situations where the evidence/theory you assert is some shade of gray instead of black or white. As to the last part of your comment, I would give the same advise if I thought I was being asked to put on perjured testimony.

Making a huge assumption here, in relation to yours and kyleb's post.

Either the defense team were good salesman or they genuinely believed the testimonies/alibis given to them by the WM3... I'm not sure how the defence was able to make such a judgement as after pouring through the Callahan files I am still a fence sitter (and possibly because I do genuinely believe that Echols suffered/suffers from a mental illness, not that it would excuse his behaviour if he is guilty).

I am even contemplating the purchase of Echols new book life after death

Reedus - I believe your also a fence sitter?
Kyleb - from what I gather you are quite sure of the WM3's guilt, if you wouldn't mind sharing as to what has helped you come to that conclusion?

I'm very intrigued by this case, and would love for these 3 little boys to finally receive the justice they deserve, be it new suspects or original suspects.

 

[kyleb]

The obvious concern would be how well of a sales job you can give the jury if you aren't 100% convinced yourself.

Huh, the obvious concern to me would be not wanting to mislead a jury into setting a child murder free. Particularly in case of someone who maintained his involvement in the murders for months before ever taking on claims of an alibi, as Misskelley apparently did with Stidham, I'd of had to tell Misskelley to either plead guilty or find a different lawyer.

Either the defense team were good salesman or they genuinely believed the testimonies/alibis given to them by the WM3...

Well they obviously weren't good salesman since they lost the trials. Also, Baldwin's lawyers didn't even attempt to present an alibi, knowing better than to try to sell a bad one. Regarding Echols, I think he had a strong case for the insanity defense, particularly so assuming this is true:

Imipramine - the antidepressant Mr. Echols was given daily for at least a year prior to and during his trial - is contra-indicated for the signs and symptoms of his mental illness. Imipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant used primarily for the treatment of depression, but has been shown to significantly increase the risk of mania and hypomania. In other words, Imipramine can expand the symptoms of depression to include manic episodes. Manic episodes, like severe depression, can include psychotic features in which the patient develops delusions, and intermittently or completely loses contact with reality.

Given the above, it seems like there was also a strong case for malpractice and even criminal liability for whoever prescribed Echols that medication. Though I'm no lawyer, let alone a doctor, so I'm hardly in a position to say for sure. Regardless, Echols chose not to attempt the insanity defense and maintained complete innocence instead, which arguably worked out for him in the long run, but it doesn't make me any less convinced that he is a child murderer.

As for explaining how I reached my conclusion, I don't mind at all. You can actually find the answer in my first post on this forum along with many others, but I'm happy to explain again.

Basically, the website WM3 Truth lays out the bulk of the evidence against the convicted in their The Case Against the WM3 section. I was convinced beyond any reasonable doubt after reading that, page by page in order over the course of few days, checking the citations as I went and taking time to ponder each section before moving on to the next. That was after I'd read the Wikipedia page on the situation along with many of its references, watched West of Memphis, and found all that incredibly one sided and more about impressions than evidence. So, I goggled around for quite a while looking for the other side of the argument, and eventually came across WM3 Truth, which is still the only place of found which does a thorough job of laying out the case against the convicted.

This all took place in around a week, starting a little less than two months ago, after I was directed to the Wikipedia article when someone on another forum it linked it furring an unrelated discussion. So, having reached the conclusion, I searched to see if I might have overlooked evidence to the contrary, watching all thee Paradise Lost movies and reviewing various documents and recordings at Callahan archives an more articles and discussions in various forums, which is how I found Websluths. Since then I've only found more evidence to support my conclusion, and none to introduce even a semblance of reasonable doubt.

 

[ceecee30]

Huh, the obvious concern to me would be not wanting to mislead a jury into setting a child murder free. Particularly in case of someone who maintained his involvement in the murders for months before ever taking on claims of an alibi, as Misskelley apparently did with Stidham, I'd of had to tell Misskelley to either plead guilty or find a different lawyer.


Well they obviously weren't good salesman since they lost the trials. Also, Baldwin's lawyers didn't even attempt to present an alibi, knowing better than to try to sell a bad one. Regarding Echols, I think he had a strong case for the insanity defense, particularly so assuming this is true:


Given the above, it seems like there was also a strong case for malpractice and even criminal liability for whoever prescribed Echols that medication. Though I'm no lawyer, let alone a doctor, so I'm hardly in a position to say for sure. Regardless, Echols chose not to attempt the insanity defense and maintained complete innocence instead, which arguably worked out for him in the long run, but it doesn't make me any less convinced that he is a child murderer.

As for explaining how I reached my conclusion, I don't mind at all. You can actually find the answer in my first post on this forum along with many others, but I'm happy to explain again.

Basically, the website WM3 Truth lays out the bulk of the evidence against the convicted in their The Case Against the WM3 section. I was convinced beyond any reasonable doubt after reading that, page by page in order over the course of few days, checking the citations as I went and taking time to ponder each section before moving on to the next. That was after I'd read the Wikipedia page on the situation along with many of its references, watched West of Memphis, and found all that incredibly one sided and more about impressions than evidence. So, I goggled around for quite a while looking for the other side of the argument, and eventually came across WM3 Truth, which is still the only place of found which does a thorough job of laying out the case against the convicted.

This all took place in around a week, starting a little less than two months ago, after I was directed to the Wikipedia article when someone on another forum it linked it furring an unrelated discussion. So, having reached the conclusion, I searched to see if I might have overlooked evidence to the contrary, watching all thee Paradise Lost movies and reviewing various documents and recordings at Callahan archives an more articles and discussions in various forums, which is how I found Websluths. Since then I've only found more evidence to support my conclusion, and none to introduce even a semblance of reasonable doubt.

I can't snip... On iPhone.

Regarding the medications he was on (and from my experience with many different types) MOST (not all) medications have the increased risk of mania/manic episodes and alot of other unwanted side effects, as I'm sure you're aware with your mothers battle with mental illness.

However if Damien had complained/mentioned to his doctor that this was happening (and I'm purely speculating that he didnt) then his meds would have been changed to a more appropriate/suitable medication. I do agree if the doctor was aware the medication was not working then there'd be more than enough for malpractice/negligence.

As I've mentioned previously I do believe (again this is what i have assumed from reading his physc reports, I'm no doctor or physcologist) Damien had more of a personality disorder than just depression, be it APD, BPD or even PTSD, medication would not have been entirely effective, again I refer to my BPD which is untreatable via medication, medications are prescribed to me to reduce the co morbid conditions (I.e depression, self harm, hearing voices, anxiety etc)

I have not seen the documentaries, these will be my next step, and possibly even Damien's book as well as the site you have mentioned.

I have read all through Callahan, wiki and also seen the crime scene pics, and although brutal I cannot myself come to a clear conclusion as to who is guilty or not.

 

[reedus23]

Making a huge assumption here, in relation to yours and kyleb's post.

Either the defense team were good salesman or they genuinely believed the testimonies/alibis given to them by the WM3... I'm not sure how the defence was able to make such a judgement as after pouring through the Callahan files I am still a fence sitter (and possibly because I do genuinely believe that Echols suffered/suffers from a mental illness, not that it would excuse his behaviour if he is guilty).

I am even contemplating the purchase of Echols new book life after death

Reedus - I believe your also a fence sitter?
Kyleb - from what I gather you are quite sure of the WM3's guilt, if you wouldn't mind sharing as to what has helped you come to that conclusion?

I'm very intrigued by this case, and would love for these 3 little boys to finally receive the justice they deserve, be it new suspects or original suspects.

I am very much a fence sitter and probably always will be. I rarely take a hard and fast position on things like that, but try to gain an understanding of how things got to where they got or where they are now. I'm sure the defense attorneys knew they were going to have some issues with inconsistent statements with some of the witnesses. I think they went with the approach of if you have a volume of witnesses it makes it more believable as opposed to picking and choosing a select few who were more consistent with their statements. Tough call to make at the time.

 

[reedus23]

Huh, the obvious concern to me would be not wanting to mislead a jury into setting a child murder free. Particularly in case of someone who maintained his involvement in the murders for months before ever taking on claims of an alibi, as Misskelley apparently did with Stidham, I'd of had to tell Misskelley to either plead guilty or find a different lawyer.

I don't know if things are ever that black and white for an attorney. They did have alibi witnesses that were consistent but they chose to go with volume over quality in my opinion.

Well they obviously weren't good salesman since they lost the trials. Also, Baldwin's lawyers didn't even attempt to present an alibi, knowing better than to try to sell a bad one. Regarding Echols, I think he had a strong case for the insanity defense, particularly so assuming this is true:

Not going to speak to Baldwin or Echols, but so far from what I've read on Miskelley's case, in my opinion, there were multiple things that went into losing the trial. One is how the alibi evidence was presented. Second was the handling of the experts, who did not seem to have been prepared to testify. Third, the prosecution did a good job of attacking defense witnesses. Fourth, the Judge had a pro-prosecution slant. Off the top of my head, those were just a few things I stood out to me.

Respectfully snipped by me.

 

[kyleb]

Regarding the medications he was on (and from my experience with many different types) MOST (not all) medications have the increased risk of mania/manic episodes and alot of other unwanted side effects, as I'm sure you're aware with your mothers battle with mental illness.

Lithium carbonate was my mother's primary medication for the majority of her life, which is effective in preventing mania. Of course that was supplemented by many other medications, and occasionally she was transftered to different primary medications, but she always went manic shortly thereafter and hospitalized to be brought back on lithium.

However if Damien had complained/mentioned to his doctor that this was happening (and I'm purely speculating that he didnt) then his meds would have been changed to a more appropriate/suitable medication.

Echols did mention as much, as early his first week in Charter Hospital, in the answers to his 6/8/92 Minnesota Multphastic Personality Inventory testing:

Evil spirits posses me at times [t]
I have very peculiar and strange experiences [t]
I'm afraid of loosing my mind [t]
I have strange and peculiar thoughts [t]

And again in this 1/25/93 Individual Progress Note:

Damien relates that a spirit is now living with him. The spirit was put inside him last year. He indicates that a month ago the spirit decided to become part of him and he to become part of the spirit. This is reportedly a spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband. When questioned about how he feels with this spirit or what the difference is, Damien is able to relate that he feels stronger and more powerful with this spirit. He has not seen the spirit but does hear the spirit. In addition, he also reports conversations with demons and other spirits.

Furthermore, beyond his own mention of such mania, another page of his his 6/8/92 Minnesota Multphastic Personality Inventory testing showed high levels of psychomotor acceleration and ego inflation. The same is true of his 9/2/92 MMPI Scoring Program II results, which also list a high level of amorality on that page, and high levels of subtle mania on the next page. Dr. Woods elaborated on those test results along with a post-arrest one in his affidavit which I referenced in my previous post:

Mr. Echols has been evaluated on three separate occasions by three different psychologists, each of whom administered a battery of tests. A prominent feature of each evaluation was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which was administered on June 8, 1992; September 2, 1992; and February 20, 1994. The independent test results were quite consistent; all revealed valid profiles and strong indications of depression, mania, severe anxiety, delusions and psychosis.

Test results for the June 8, 1992, MMPI reflected elevations on scores of psychotic thinking, including hallucinations, paranoid ideation, and delusions, as well as severe anxiety and other related emotional disturbances. The suggested diagnoses were schizophrenia, disorganized type; and bipolar disorder, manic. Individual responses on this test revealed that Mr. Echols was afraid of losing his mind, had bizarre thoughts, and had very peculiar experiences. Three months later, on September 2, 1992, a second MMPI was administered. The test results very closely paralleled the findings of the earlier MMPI. Shortly before Mr. Echols’ trial began in 1994, he was administered the MMPI a third time for the purpose of identifying mitigating evidence. Like the other two, this MMPI revealed psychotic thought processes consistent with schizophrenia. Specific indicators of a thought disorder included mental confusion, persecutory ideas, acute anxiety, and depressed suicidal ideation.

Symptoms of such pychosis were noted as early as Echols' second day in Charter Hospital, in his 6/2/93 Psychological Assessment:

The patient appeared to be sniffing the air around him as if he were responding to an external stimulus. When he was questioned as to what he was doing, the patient gave an inappropriate smile and was unwilling to discuss what he was doing. Upon several occasions, the patient also cut his eyes in one direction or the other as if he were hearing or thinking of something before he spoke. Again, it did appear to this social worker as though the client was responding to an outside stimulation.

Granted, I haven't come anywhere close to reading through all of Echols' psychological records, let alone all of the Callahan archives. However, given the just what I've listed above above, that goes well beyond what I've ever seen described as a personality disorder, and I'm at a loss as to how anyone could rationally have justified keeping Echols on an antidepressant which "has been shown to significantly increase the risk of mania and hypomania" throughout the course of his treatment.

As for the movies, they aren't documentaries in the proper definition of term, but rather character studies which weave a narrative of innocence based largely on opinions rather than addressing the evidence against the convicted. Echols' books are surely much the same, though I've no interest in reading them.

there were multiple things that went into losing the trial.

All of what you list is easily explained by one overriding factor: Misskelley was guilty as charged.

 

[ceecee30]

Lithium carbonate was my mother's primary medication for the majority of her life, which is effective in preventing mania. Of course that was supplemented by many other medications, and occasionally she was transftered to different primary medications, but she always went manic shortly thereafter and hospitalized to be brought back on lithium.


Echols did mention as much, as early his first week in Charter Hospital, in the answers to his 6/8/92 Minnesota Multphastic Personality Inventory testing:



And again in this 1/25/93 Individual Progress Note:



Furthermore, beyond his own mention of such mania, another page of his his 6/8/92 Minnesota Multphastic Personality Inventory testing showed high levels of psychomotor acceleration and ego inflation. The same is true of his 9/2/92 MMPI Scoring Program II results, which also list a high level of amorality on that page, and high levels of subtle mania on the next page. Dr. Woods elaborated on those test results along with a post-arrest one in his affidavit which I referenced in my previous post:



Symptoms of such pychosis were noted as early as Echols' second day in Charter Hospital, in his 6/2/93 Psychological Assessment:



Granted, I haven't come anywhere close to reading through all of Echols' psychological records, let alone all of the Callahan archives. However, given the just what I've listed above above, that goes well beyond what I've ever seen described as a personality disorder, and I'm at a loss as to how anyone could rationally have justified keeping Echols on an antidepressant which "has been shown to significantly increase the risk of mania and hypomania" throughout the course of his treatment.

As for the movies, they aren't documentaries in the proper definition of term, but rather character studies which weave a narrative of innocence based largely on opinions rather than addressing the evidence against the convicted. Echols' books are surely much the same, though I've no interest in reading them.


All of what you list is easily explained by one overriding factor: Misskelley was guilty as charged.

Im not very familiar with bipolar medications and what is used in USA, lithium is also the bipolar med of choice over here or seroquel, which I myself have been given.

We can agree to disagree on the personality disorder assumption that I have come to, but I can say again that personality disorders come with alot of co morbid conditions, ie. mania, paranoia, severe depression, anxiety, hearing voices etc. etc. they are also extremely difficult to diagnose (personality disorders) due to the long line of co morbid conditions, I was diagnosed initially with just depression and anxiety (2008) and as time has gone on, trialing therapies & difficult pregnancies I have now been bumped up to BPD (this diagnosis has only happened last august) Although i can see it is something I've always had even since an extremely young child.

I must have missed parts whilst reading (in relation to Echols meds not working) forgive me as I have 2 little boys under 2 and as you can probably imagine, when they are having a tantrum it's extremely hard to focus/take in information that you're reading!

 

[reedus23]

All of what you list is easily explained by one overriding factor: Misskelley was guilty as charged.

I can appreciate that approach. My experience has been, like I said before, things are never that black and white. Innocent people get convicted and guilty people go free. It's all a question of who can present the more persuasive evidence and in this instance, the jury believed the prosecution did.

 

[pufnstuf]

Again you taken my whole quote and snipped what you wanted to answer, prior to the little piece you've snipped, I ask would this apply to WM3?

If your going to quote me, quote my whole comment.

Because you look stupid when you haven't read the whole thing and go off on your little tangent.

And you were calling Kyle rude?

Really?

 

[ceecee30]

And you were calling Kyle rude?

Really?

Seriously are you coming here just to cause drama? Because if you've read this thread you can see Kyleb has a certain way of answering people's posts. Rude, yes, arrogant, sometimes yes..

I have come to learn this is the way Kyle writes, and it is not attacking anyone in particular.

That aside if you've read further along you can see Kyle and I can have dialogue without the rudeness and TBH I think that is because we have expressed how we are perceiving each others posts.

Back to the actual topic, instead of snarkiness hey?

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, that's all water under the bridge, or mostly anyway. I still contend that those calling me rude are simply misconstruing my respect for facts. Arrogant is hardly fitting either, as It's not like I imagine I've accomplished anything notable here, I've simply familiarized myself with the facts of this case which were compiled by others who have put notable effort into collecting and sorting through them.

 

[ceecee30]

Yeah, that's all water under the bridge, or mostly anyway. I still contend that those calling me rude are simply misconstruing my respect for facts. Arrogant is hardly fitting either, as It's not like I imagine I've accomplished anything notable here, I've simply familiarized myself with the facts of this case which were compiled by others who have put notable effort into collecting and sorting through them.

Maybe I should have clarified the arrogant comment further, it's the wording of your posts that can appear arrogant... And maybe arrogant isn't the correct wording. I can't even think what word i would use instead (forgive me I have a sick prem baby who I've been in hospital with and had 4.5hrs sleep, so the brain is a little off today)

But you do come armed with alot of facts and your rebuttals can be taken as rude... Again I stress, this is just your style of typing/writing.

Now that I've explained myself again, hopefully we can all move forward and get back on topic.

 

[pufnstuf]

Yeah, that's all water under the bridge, or mostly anyway. I still contend that those calling me rude are simply misconstruing my respect for facts. Arrogant is hardly fitting either, as It's not like I imagine I've accomplished anything notable here, I've simply familiarized myself with the facts of this case which were compiled by others who have put notable effort into collecting and sorting through them.

Some people take facts personally, as if they're personal insults... doesn't surprise me that the same people who believe the WM3 innocent are personally insulted by your facts.

Keep doing what you're doing, Kyle. Accusations that you're "rude" just show that they can't defend against the facts you're consistently presenting. Can't tear down the post, tear down the person... Ad hominem, I believe.

;-)