New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[pufnstuf]

Seriously are you coming here just to cause drama?

I've been posting here since I joined WS. Just because I don't engage in every single post in this forum doesn't change the fact that I've been here LONG before you joined, and my posts are based on fact and are within the rules.

Whereas yours accusing other members of rudeness and snarkiness are NOT within the rules, so maybe it would behoove you to just settle a bit and spend your time debating facts instead of insulting messengers.

 

[reedus23]

I've been posting here since I joined WS. Just because I don't engage in every single post in this forum doesn't change the fact that I've been here LONG before you joined, and my posts are based on fact and are within the rules.

Whereas yours accusing other members of rudeness and snarkiness are NOT within the rules, so maybe it would behoove you to just settle a bit and spend your time debating facts instead of insulting messengers.

Talk about snarkiness. What does the length of time have to do with anything anyways? You did make me laugh though, asking another poster to spend their time debating the facts when there were no facts being debated in your post at all.

 

[reedus23]

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.

;-)

Have these threads always been like this? Little discussion and more arguments that go along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong.".

 

[reedus23]

Back to the discussion.

I got through the completion of Jessie's case. Just my meaningless opinions, but I found it interesting that the prosecution mentioned the yellow ribbons not once, but at least twice. Mistake by the defense.

Thought the prosecution did a good job in summation attacking the "wrestling" alibi witnesses, though those were probably the easiest ones to attack. Personal opinion is that they weren't quite as strong in attacking the "Stephanie/Connie Incident" alibi witnesses. As to the experts, my again meaningless opinions really didn't change much. I think the manner in which the prosecution attacked Ofshe demonstrated that they respected or appreciated the fact his testimony could be more damaging than the others.

Thought the defense actually did a good job at summation as well.

I truly wish I would have done it from the beginning and it seemed so lopsided I am tempted to skim through all the testimony and count how many rulings were in favor of the prosecution and how many in favor of the defense. Does anyone know if this has already been done? My perceptions could be off, but it certainly seemed like the Court's rulings definitely had a pro-prosecution tilt.

 

[gheckso]

but it certainly seemed like the Court's rulings definitely had a pro-prosecution tilt.

Not sure of the rulings vs rulings but IMO, with the level of experience and qualifications (lack thereof) that the defense brought to the table, I'm not surprised with the tilt.

Good Ole boys club.

 

[kyleb]

I am tempted to skim through all the testimony and count how many rulings were in favor of the prosecution and how many in favor of the defense.

Counting rulings in favor of either side won't rightly prove bias. To actually substantiate your opinion you'd have to point out specific improper rulings in favor of the prosecution. Also, if you can point out any in weakness in Fogleman's deconstruction of the Highland Park alibi witnesses, or anything of strength from Ofshe's testimony or Stidham's references to it in the closing arguments, please do.

And since you've been reading the Callahan archives chronologically, surely you realize that Missekelley maintained his involvement in the murders to Stidham at least a couple of months after his initial confession, right? Of course neither the prosecution nor the jury wasn't aware of that fact, but I'm at a loss as to how someone who is could rightly put any stock in the notion that Misskelley was wrongly convicted.

 

[pufnstuf]

Have these threads always been like this? Little discussion and more arguments that go along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong.".

The schoolmarming on rudeness is something that gets tedious, no matter when or where it occurs.

 

[gheckso]

And since you've been reading the Callahan archives chronologically, surely you realize that Missekelley maintained his involvement in the murders to Stidham at least a couple of months after his initial confession, right? Of course neither the prosecution nor the jury wasn't aware of that fact, but I'm at a loss as to how someone who is could rightly put any stock in the notion that Misskelley was wrongly convicted.

Since you bring this confession up, I'd just like to state he never mentions the use of a hunting knife here, only a folding knife.

First thing that I saw just quickly looking at it was he mentions not very deep in your link, although in this one Link it's above his head.

Still so many inconsistencies, don't have time or will to cover them. This has been done by many in the past.

Also amazing how he is slowly but surely getting more details somewhat correct (from a prosecution standpoint) from the original statements he made. Is he learning them perhaps?

 

[kyleb]

Amazing how you point out a detail Misskelley got correct on 8/19/93 and wrong on 2/8/94, yet claim "he is slowly but surely getting more details somewhat correct" in flagrant contradiction to the very facts you noted. As for the knifes, the obvious explanation is that Misskelley was simply too busy pounding on Michel Moore to notice Echols using the survival knife to scrape and pound on Stevie Branch, yet couldn't help but notice Baldwin mutilating Christopher Byers' groin with a lock-blade. Also, the fact that the survival knife didn't appear confessions after it was found flies in the face of the notion that Misskelley was being manipulated into changing his story to fit with the facts, and the notion that he was somehow manipulated into falsely confessing multiple times to his own lawyer is quite a stretch of the imagination.

 

[gheckso]

Well if you read what I had said and what you quoted from it you will notice I said somewhat correct. I think its quite easy to see that I am showing inconsistencies here and this is merely one of them.

your obvious explanation is contradicted by his statements which highlight many events caused by echols and I find it highly improbable that Jessie wouldn't have seen Echols use or have a large knife.

The reason I bring up the knife is to somehow understand what facts you are basing its use on. Is it proximity alone?

 

[kyleb]

You said "getting more details somewhat correct" while pointing out a detail which went from correct to wrong. As for the survival knife, what part of [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202132"]Purported "Bite Mark" is Consistant with the Lake Knife[/ame] do you not understand?

 

[reedus23]

Counting rulings in favor of either side won't rightly prove bias. To actually substantiate your opinion you'd have to point out specific improper rulings in favor of the prosecution. Also, if you can point out any in weakness in Fogleman's deconstruction of the Highland Park alibi witnesses, or anything of strength from Ofshe's testimony or Stidham's references to it in the closing arguments, please do.

And since you've been reading the Callahan archives chronologically, surely you realize that Missekelley maintained his involvement in the murders to Stidham at least a couple of months after his initial confession, right? Of course neither the prosecution nor the jury wasn't aware of that fact, but I'm at a loss as to how someone who is could rightly put any stock in the notion that Misskelley was wrongly convicted.

Not in front of my own computer or notes so I will give more thoughts to your first paragraph when I am in front of them. Briefly, however, it's not as much of a knock against Fogleman's deconstruction of the Highland Park alibi as it is the fact that those witnesses were not nearly as inconsistent as the wrestling alibi witnesses, who flat out changed their story. You may recall from our conversation of the telephone calls with Damien, I don't expect people to remember down to the minute, exact times. Others may and that is their right, but for this reason, I personally didn't think the Highland Park alibi witnesses were deconstructed nearly as much as the wrestling alibi witnesses. I will give my thoughts on Ofshe later because that will require more specific references.

Regarding the second paragraph, yes I was aware of that. In one of my first posts, I made mention of the fact that I, personally, had some real concerns about the confession and how it was obtained, making me question the confession all together. At the same time, I made mention of the fact that he essentially re-affirmed his confession to his own lawyer months later, which does give some credence to the confession. Very bizarre all the way around IMO.

 

[reedus23]

Not sure of the rulings vs rulings but IMO, with the level of experience and qualifications (lack thereof) that the defense brought to the table, I'm not surprised with the tilt.

Good Ole boys club.

Again with the caveat that I don't know Arkansas law, there are many instances where a Judge can make a wrong ruling and not be overturned on appeal because the error doesn't amount to prejudicial error. A Judge rarely, if ever, is going to willingly make a decision that he/she knows will amount to prejudicial or reversible error. However, one can get a decent idea from the 50/50 rulings or rulings that wouldn't amount to prejudicial error as to whether a Judge has pro-prosecution or pro-defense leanings.

ETA - Also, when you see a Judge suggesting arguments to one side or the other or actually making the arguments for one side or the other, one can get that same sense.

 

[ceecee30]

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.

;-)

Actually I don't believe the WM3 are innocent, nor am I sure of their guilt either. In relation to this I am a fence sitter.

However I do know they are convicted felons, and that they have been fortunate enough to be released under certain legal conditions (and I do not have enough knowledge on the US legal system or the legal aspects of this case to comment, put in my opinion, make judgements etc)

The one thing I am sure of is that 3 little boys killer(s) have gotten away with it and these boys need justice.

 

[mattfz]

You said "getting more details somewhat correct" while pointing out a detail which went from correct to wrong. As for the survival knife, what part of Purported "Bite Mark" is Consistant with the Lake Knife do you not understand?

The "evidence" of the "lake knife" comes down to this-- garbage in, garbage out.

The knife DID belong to Jason Baldwin. But here is the catch. It was thrown into the lake a YEAR before the murders by Baldwin's mother. The cops knew it was there.... because Jason's mother told them.

Remember the video of the knife being found by the divers? It was filmed by a news crew. And how did the news crew happen to be there? Because the cops already knew the knife was there, and told them to come with the cameras. How? Because they were told by Baldwin's mother that she threw it in there a year prior.

The "lake knife" shouldn't be even considered in ANY scenario. Just because it was presented as "evidence" at the original trial, does not make it so.

 

[kyleb]

I consider the Lake Knife because I've seen wounds on at least one of the victims which are consistent with it, and because I've not seen any proof to support that the knife was in the lake before the murders, or even proof that Baldwins mother is the one who told the Fogleman that the knife was in the lake.

 

[reedus23]

The "evidence" of the "lake knife" comes down to this-- garbage in, garbage out.

The knife DID belong to Jason Baldwin. But here is the catch. It was thrown into the lake a YEAR before the murders by Baldwin's mother. The cops knew it was there.... because Jason's mother told them.

Remember the video of the knife being found by the divers? It was filmed by a news crew. And how did the news crew happen to be there? Because the cops already knew the knife was there, and told them to come with the cameras. How? Because they were told by Baldwin's mother that she threw it in there a year prior.

The "lake knife" shouldn't be even considered in ANY scenario. Just because it was presented as "evidence" at the original trial, does not make it so.

This is why lawyers advise never talk to the cops without representation frankly. On occasions they will take only the part that helps their case and ignore the rest if it conflicts with their theory. And that can be done with nearly any statement given by anyone in any case.

 

[reedus23]

claudici, I apologize again, but I just got done with the state's case in the Echols/Baldwin trial and would like to briefly do the same thing that I did with Jessie's case and ask others if I'm missing anything again that directly ties Echols or Baldwin to the crime to the exclusion of others:

Dana Moore - Nothing
Pam Hobbs - Nothing
Melissa Byers - Nothing
Debra O'Tinger - Nothing
Bryan Woody - Nothing
Reginia Meek - Nothing
John Moore - Nothing
Mike Allen - Nothing
Bryn Ridge - Nothing
Bryn Ridge - Nothing
Frank Peretti - Nothing
Michael Carson - Jailhouse Confession
Mike Allen - Nothing
Joel Mullins - Nothing
Shane Griffin - Nothing
Glen Masengale - Nothing
Bryn Ridge - Nothing
Gary Gitchell - Nothing
Anthony Hollingworth - Nothing (Echols AND Teer walking)
Narlene Hollingworth - Nothing (Echols AND Teer walking)
Kermit Channell - Nothing
Michael DeGiglierlmo - Nothing
Jerry Driver - Nothing
James Sudbury - Nothing
Lisa Sakevicius - Nothing
Ralph Turbyfill - Nothing
Deanna Holcomb - Nothing
James Parker - Nothing
Bill Durham - Nothing
Bryn Ridge - Nothing
Bryn Ridge - Nothing
Lisa Sakevicius - Nothing
Kermit Channell - Nothing
John Murray - Nothing
Bryn Ridge - Nothing
Dale Griffis - Nothing
Christy Vanvickle - Softball game admission
Jodee Medford - Softball game admission
Donna Medford - Nothing

Unless I'm missing something, it appears, much like the Miskelley trial, the only evidence of direct involvement of the defendants specifically was a statement allegedly made by Baldwin to an inmate and Echols' alleged comment at a softball game. Please let me know if I'm missing more. TIA.

 

[mattfz]

I consider the Lake Knife because I've seen wounds on at least one of the victims which are consistent with it, and because I've not seen any proof to support that the knife was in the lake before the murders, or even proof that Baldwins mother is the one who told the Fogleman that the knife was in the lake.

I *might* stand corrected on this one! I think this is a theory that had been floating around, but not fact. There was no connection between the knife and the murders that could be proven. I believe there were individuals who were interviewed and could connect a SIMILAR knife to Jason and Damien but that proves nothing since the knife is extremely common among teenagers of their demographic.

Here is a link. It does describe more recent testimony that indicates that the knife may have been there prior to the murders.


http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_knives_2.html

 

[mattfz]

I consider the Lake Knife because I've seen wounds on at least one of the victims which are consistent with it, and because I've not seen any proof to support that the knife was in the lake before the murders, or even proof that Baldwins mother is the one who told the Fogleman that the knife was in the lake.

It may be considered, but I don't believe much time should be spent on this one. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence to suggest it was involved in the murders. :twocents: