New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[reedus23]

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:

I doubt the judge would have allowed it, but if I were a defense attorney, I would have paraded 1000 knives into trial, all of which could have been consistent and all of which had the same amount of evidence (or lack of it) that connected them to the crime just to prove the point that the evidence that was presented was meaningless as to tying any weapon to the crime.

 

[ceecee30]

I doubt the judge would have allowed it, but if I were a defense attorney, I would have paraded 1000 knives into trial, all of which could have been consistent and all of which had the same amount of evidence (or lack of it) that connected them to the crime just to prove the point that the evidence that was presented was meaningless as to tying any weapon to the crime.

My limited knowledge of the US legal system may hinder me in this response.. So apologies in advance

Surely if the defense had an expert do test with several knives and more than one was consistent, would the judge not allow that to be presented as eveidence? (not sure if that would fall under a forensic experts job description) but in my personal opinion if the was such testing done it certainly would make me cast a shadow of doubt over the knife evidence (imagining I was a juror)

 

[kyleb]

Please let me know if I'm missing more. TIA.

I'm pretty sure you're only missing what you've chosen to miss, the circumstantial evidence which was presented at trial and otherwise.

if I were a defense attorney, I would have paraded 1000 knives into trial

Do you mean you would have rounded up 1000 Special Forces Survival II knifes, or do you imagine that you could find 1000 differently branded knifes which are demonstrably consistent with the wounds which Peretti and Fogleman suggested are consistent with a Special Forces Survival II knife such as the one found behind Baldwin's home?

 

[gheckso]

Surely if the defense had an expert

The defense had no experts, from what I've read of the rule 37 hearing they shouldn't have even been in that court room.

who ruled over these hearings again?

 

[reedus23]

My limited knowledge of the US legal system may hinder me in this response.. So apologies in advance

Surely if the defense had an expert do test with several knives and more than one was consistent, would the judge not allow that to be presented as eveidence? (not sure if that would fall under a forensic experts job description) but in my personal opinion if the was such testing done it certainly would make me cast a shadow of doubt over the knife evidence (imagining I was a juror)

Based on what I read from the trial transcripts, I would seriously doubt that that judge would have allowed it. Frankly, he curtailed the defense at nearly every opportunity and that leads me to believe he would have there as well.

 

[reedus23]

I'm pretty sure you're only missing what you've chosen to miss, the circumstantial evidence which was presented at trial and otherwise.

Mind you, I said evidence that directly ties them to the crime to the exclusion of others. I was not listing circumstantial evidence such the fact they wore black, liked rock music or fibers/sticks/knives that could have come from or belonged to multiple people. With that in mind, what did I miss?

Do you mean you would have rounded up 1000 Special Forces Survival II knifes, or do you imagine that you could find 1000 differently branded knifes which are demonstrably consistent with the wounds which Peretti and Fogleman suggested are consistent with a Special Forces Survival II knife such as the one found behind Baldwin's home?

I'm assuming you're talking about the abrasions that Peretti said were consistent with that type of knife. If so, yes, 1000(maybe more) differently branded knives, not just Special Forces Survival knives, and that's based on Peretti's own testimony, that other than a butter knife, those wounds would have been consistent with just about any serrated knife. His testimony is quoted below.

Ford: - So, most serrated knives could cause this injury? Most serrated -

Peretti: - No, I think we can rule out a butterknife ok, a serrated butterknife.

Ford: Ok, but most serrated knives can cause it?

Peretti: Yes.

All just my opinion.

 

[kyleb]

Mind you, I said evidence that directly ties them to the crime to the exclusion of others.

That's why I said "I'm pretty sure you're only missing what you've chosen to miss", and referred you to all the evidence presented at WM3 Truth. Anyway, a friend of mine just stopped by, so I'll have to get back to responding to you later, likely not until tomorrow as I'm near sleep as it is.

 

[reedus23]

That's why I said "I'm pretty sure you're only missing what you've chosen to miss", and referred you to all the evidence presented at WM3 Truth. Anyway, a friend of mine just stopped by, so I'll have to get back to responding to you later, likely not until tomorrow as I'm near sleep as it is.

I have "chosen" to miss nothing. May I have missed something? Possibly. That is why I asked if I missed anything. If I did miss evidence that directly ties them to the crime to the exclusion of others, I truly would like to know. I don't even think the Hollingsworth testimony directly ties either to the crime to the exclusion of others but included that to be safe.

 

[kyleb]

You've chosen to ignore a lot of circumstantial/indirect evidence, effectively dismissing it all as a pile of coincidences, and and you've chosen to ignore the evidence which came out after the trial since you've chosen to study the case chronologically and hence deprive yourself of the benefit of hindsight. You've also chosen to take Perreti's word as if it were gospel where it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't rather than reserving judgment on evidence which isn't publicly available. Oh, and you've chosen to introduce a canard about wearing black and listening to heavy metal, as neither the prosecution, WM3 Truth, nor myself have suggested there's anything damning about either.

 

[ceecee30]

You've chosen to ignore a lot of circumstantial/indirect evidence, effectively dismissing it all as a pile of coincidences, and and you've chosen to ignore the evidence which came out after the trial since you've chosen to study the case chronologically and hence deprive yourself of the benefit of hindsight. You've also chosen to take Perreti's word as if it were gospel where it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't rather than reserving judgment on evidence which isn't publicly available. Oh, and you've chosen to introduce a canard about wearing black and listening to heavy metal, as neither the prosecution, WM3 Truth, nor myself have suggested there's anything damning about either.

I think the way reedus is referring to the wearing black & heavy metal listening is that sometimes in certain states there is a stigma attached to people that dress this way / listen to that music..

I know myself when I went through the "goth phase" people certainly viewed me differently..

It is part of human nature that we judge others

 

[claudicici]

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.

...and Michael Carson admitted he lied.So that's another nothing.

 

[reedus23]

You've chosen to ignore a lot of circumstantial/indirect evidence, effectively dismissing it all as a pile of coincidences, and and you've chosen to ignore the evidence which came out after the trial since you've chosen to study the case chronologically and hence deprive yourself of the benefit of hindsight. You've also chosen to take Perreti's word as if it were gospel where it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't rather than reserving judgment on evidence which isn't publicly available. Oh, and you've chosen to introduce a canard about wearing black and listening to heavy metal, as neither the prosecution, WM3 Truth, nor myself have suggested there's anything damning about either.

I think because I'm being methodical in reading through the documents it is giving you that impression. When did I ever say I am ignoring any circumstantial evidence? I didn't. Direct evidence specifically pointing to their involvement would be more damning in my opinion than circumstantial evidence and what my question was geared to was determining if I missed any such evidence. I take it from your response that you would agree with my initial assessment of what evidence was presented that directly ties them to the crime to the exclusion of others.

I am beginning to get through the evidence that has come out since but like I said before, just begininning to read about this case, I didn't want the benefit of hindsight from the outset. I wanted a sense of how things transpired at the time, no armchair quarterbacking it after the fact. There's plenty of time for me to do that down the road.

As to Peretti, please tell me what I missed where he provided evidence that directly tied any of them to the crime to the exclusion of others. Like I said before, that's what I was looking for...things I may have missed. I did not see anything like that in his testimony but I may have missed it like I said. I also am confused about the publicly available mention. I will readily admit all I have done is read what was publicly available. If it wasn't publicly available, I would have no way of reading it.

As for some of the circumstantial evidence I referred to, I would submit to you that the prosecution did, in fact, submit evidence that DE wore black, submitted song lyrics from rock songs and such.

 

[reedus23]

...and Michael Carson admitted he lied.So that's another nothing.

I hear you, but in fairness to kyle, I haven't gotten to that point but have been trying to get an understanding of what led to their convictions in the first place, so I haven't considered anything that has come to light since the trials, though I'm beginning to sift through that now. So I was simply listing what I saw in so far as evidence that was presented at the time.

ETA - Though I will say, even with viewing things as they would have appeared in 1994, I don't give Carson's testimony much weight in the first place. I take jailhouse snitches with a grain of salt in the first place. So even only looking at things as they were then, personally, I didn't give much credence to his story and I would bet, if the prosecution had better evidence, they never would have even used him as a witness, much like they eventually chose not to use Aaron Hutcheson.

 

[kyleb]

When did I ever say I am ignoring any circumstantial evidence?

By listing only direct evidence you implicitly ignored circumstantial evidence.

As to Peretti, please tell me what I missed where he provided evidence that directly tied any of them to the crime to the exclusion of others.

I didn't suggest Peretti provided any direct evidence, as I'm not one to ignore circumstantial evidence. What i meant by "evidence which isn't publicly available" is the various autopsy photos of wounds which Peretti and Fogelman said are constant with the knife found behind Baldwin's house which aren't available to us, and hence we aren't rightly in a position to make any judgements regarding them.

As for some of the circumstantial evidence I referred to, I would submit to you that the prosecution did, in fact, submit evidence that DE wore black, submitted song lyrics from rock songs and such.

Well then please go on and really summit as much by actually quoting the prosecution.

...and Michael Carson admitted he lied.

Or did Carson lie by claiming he lied before? I've yet to find an explanation from him of how he managed to get his testimony constant with the details of the crime to the extent that he apparently did.

 

[reedus23]

By listing only direct evidence you implicitly ignored circumstantial evidence.

No, you're taking me not posting about the circumstantial evidence as me ignoring it. Not true. Don't know how else to explain it to you.

I didn't suggest Peretti provided any direct evidence, as I'm not one to ignore circumstantial evidence. What i meant by "evidence which isn't publicly available" is the various autopsy photos of wounds which Peretti and Fogelman said are constant with the knife found behind Baldwin's house which aren't available to us, and hence we aren't rightly in a position to make any judgements regarding them.


Well then please go on and really summit as much by actually quoting the prosecution.

I'd refer you to the trial testimony from the Echols/Baldwin case on callahans.

Or did Carson lie by claiming he lied before? I've yet to find an explanation from him of how he managed to get his testimony constant with the details of the crime to the extent that he apparently did.

I would agree with you if you're saying neither story can then be believed.

I think I'm satisfied with my question concerning the evidence. Thanks.

 

[kyleb]

you're taking me not posting about the circumstantial evidence as me ignoring it.

That's because I'm referring to what you've done in your posts.

I'd refer you to the trial testimony from the Echols/Baldwin case on callahans.

And again I'm asking you to quote whatever testimony you are referring to specifically, so I can address it directly.

I would agree with you if you're saying neither story can then be believed.

I'm saying both stories must be taken in the context of the rest of the available evidence to rightly determine what truth there might be in either.

 

[reedus23]

but financial pressure is a very different beast. The state was between a rock and a hard place. The hard place was the hearing and potential jury trial for which the state would have to devote considerable resources to, against a defense team with a virtually unlimited budget, and in such situations there's a strong possibility that the guilty will be found innocent. Furthermore, expending such resources from the limited budget of the state would've diminished the resources available to prosecute other criminals, potentially resulting in more murders and such walking free.

Just watched the snippet of the DA following entry of the Alford Plea. What I heard him say was that, in light of all the evidence, a new trial would likely have been granted and that at a new trial, based on all the evidence, the WM3 would be acquitted and THAT is why he agreed to the Alford Pleas. The only specific reference I heard to financial concerns was the civil suits that the WM3 would likely win against the State for wrongfully chargimg, trying and imprisoning them.

 

[gheckso]

Just watched the snippet of the DA following entry of the Alford Plea. What I heard him say was that, in light of all the evidence, a new trial would likely have been granted and that at a new trial, based on all the evidence, the WM3 would be acquitted and THAT is why he agreed to the Alford Pleas.

Have you got that link handy?

Also here [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRgomMXTnoU"]Link[/ame]

6:30-7:00 Clearly states the same.

 

[LaurieHavens]

Apparently you have never seen the "witnesses" that testified against the WM3 in the mockery of a trial. Speaking of HEARSAY, the prosecution sent them to prison on really bad HEARSAY. At least Baldwin and Echols are actively and legally pursuing evidence that that was initially left out. I agree the hearsay won't be enough. They need more. But guilty people just don't do that. There would be a chance of them finding something on them. Clearly there is and never has been anything on these men.

 

[reedus23]

Have you got that link handy?

Also here Link

6:30-7:00 Clearly states the same.

I could be wrong but I think it was cut from the end of the last Paradise Lost. I'll see if I can find it again. I was just surfing around youtube playing different interviews but I remember the title of the video had purgatory in it, which I think is the last film.

ETA - And it was straight from the DA's mouth, so hard to argue that.