so there is no DNA evidence that ties the WM3.....

[Compassionate Reader]

Again, agreeing with Nova, no matter how many cases can be cited that did not involve DNA, I hope that some sort of physical evidence or a valid confession was involved. As he mentioned, if the rain washed away all the evidence, how did the hairs survive? Those hairs are evidence, and they do not belong to any of the WM3.

As I've stated many times before, there is no physical evidence connecting the WM3 to these murders. In fact, there is no credible evidence of any kind connecting any of the WM3 to these crimes. There is, however, physical evidence connecting a step father to the discovery site, and IMO it cannot be explained away as "innocent transfer," especially the Jacoby hair.

TH claims that he did not see the boys at all on May 5th. For his hair to have been on Stevie's shoelace (if Stevie's shoelace was used to tie Michael), it would have had to survive being jerked through the eyelets when it was removed to tie Michael. And, even if that were the case, innocent transfer cannot explain the Jacoby hair.

People who believe in the guilt of Damien are quick to point to his psychological background as evidence that he is the murderer. Have those same people examined TH's background? A deposition during the Pasdar case by Mildred French gives us some insight into the man. Then, after the murders, he leaves town (and Pam) for an extended period of time. He beats Pam, and, when her father and brother come to defend her, he shoots her brother (who later dies of complications caused by this shooting).

TH is also guilty of plenty more suspicious actions after the murders. He quits his job because his coworkers are just too sympathetic toward him. Some of Stevie's possessions are found in TH's possession (Can anyone say trophies?). I'm sure there is more that I could mention, but I'll stop.

As to JM's "confession," it was coerced, pure and simple. I'm confident that the new lawyers will be able to bring credible expert witnesses to prove this point as well. And, as Nova mentioned, none of his statements matched the evidence at the discovery ditch. So, coerced or not, his statements are simply not true.

It is true that the documentaries did not show everything that happened at the trial, but much of the footage, at least from the first documentary, was from the trial. And, as I've stated before, everything about this case didn't happen at the trials. The last trial concluded in 1994. A lot has happened since then. Just reading the documents on Callahan's is not sufficient information. To get all the information, a true searcher must dig deeper. Anyone who just reads on Callahan's is just as uninformed as someone who just watches the documentaries.

Finally, I have a question for those who believe that the WM3 are guilty. When new evidence is presented that both exonerates the WM3 and points to the true killer, will you be willing to admit that you were mistaken? What would that evidence (that would change your mind) have to be? I'm just curious to know.

 

[Nova]

Well clearly, Nova, that is your opinion. You doubt the testimonies of the state's witnesses while I have possible proof the testimonies the Sanders girls gave providing Damien an alibi the early evening of May 5, 1993 were false.

I believe both Sanders girls were mistaken about their reference to memory of Damien Echols activities on the evening of May 5, 1993. Both girls based their testimony on their memories of watching 90210.

According to
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0522918/ which lists the original air dates for each episode of 90210, there was no 90210 episode shown the week of May 5, 1993.

That is indeed interesting, jt. But I doubt imdb would claim to be accurate to the degree of certainty required in a court of law. Don't get me wrong: I use imdb all the time; I think it's a great site. But AFAIK, it depends on volunteers and I doubt the info there is "certified" as irrefutably factual.

And even if the Sanders girls are mistaken, I tend to believe DE's mother, who IIRC testified that she and DE were at home from early evening on.

 

[Melanie]

The one TH hair is not enough to convict TH, I agree. However, when seen with the additional DJ hair, it is much more convincing. How did the DJ hair get there? DJ says that he was not near the discovery site. Either he's lying or TH is lying because he also denies being at the discovery site prior to the discovery of the bodies. Direct transfer from DJ himself or secondary transfer from TH IMO are the only ways to account for the DJ hair. One (or both) had to be there, so one is lying. I vote that TH is the liar.

I believe that more evidence against TH will be presented at the hearing, and I agree that the State will fight like all get out to exclude the TH hair (and the depositions from the Pasdar case), but this will not be an issue until a new trial. Those things will come out at the hearing, and when they do, no excluding them from trial will totally take away their impact on the case.

Yes, TH was the step father of Stevie Branch at the time of the murders. However, as I've said before, the hair was not found in Stevie's ligature but in Michael's. I just don't see how that can be innocent transfer.

Like mgardner said, if the WM3 were guilty of this crime, they would have left some sort of biological evidence, either at the discovery site or on the bodies. Whoever tied up those little boys had to touch the shoestrings. When they did, they would have left touch DNA at least. That type of evidence is not washed away by water or time. I hope that the shoestrings can be tested for touch DNA.

I guess we are all anxiously awaiting the findings and revelations from the hearing.

To add why the hair is so interesting - Damien Nichols had long black hair. Did LE find a single hair that matched DN amongst the site? Yes, I realize it did rain, but hair can become entwined in branches/rocks/mud. Who's to say all trace evidence went down the river.

MOO

Mel

 

[Melanie]

Finally, I have a question for those who believe that the WM3 are guilty. When new evidence is presented that both exonerates the WM3 and points to the true killer, will you be willing to admit that you were mistaken? What would that evidence (that would change your mind) have to be? I'm just curious to know.

Hi CR,

Snipped respectfully for space.

I don't know. I wouldn't ask anyone to admit they were mistaken. Trust me, I've been wrong many times (most recently the case of children being killed, but the dad only being stabbed superficially). Yeppers, I blamed the dad -- he HAD to be the one. Nope it was the ex-boyfriend (who is now behind bars). http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-home-invasion-boys,0,2699942.story

I don't want to promote a who's wrong and who's right re: the WM3. I just hope the truth comes out and they are granted a new trial. I honestly believe the 1st trial was nothing more than a witch hunt/lynch mob.

My opinion is just that - my opinion. I don't know what happened that fateful day, and can only pray we one day learn the truth.

Hugs,

Mel

 

[iluvmua]

1. All three defendants confessed, in fact DE had his next victim(s) already picked out

2. Fibers found at Jason's and Damien's homes matched the fibers from some of the children's clothing.

3. Jason & Stevie Branch's blood type were found on the necklace that Jason was wearing

4. Jessie's T-shirt had blood on it that matched his & MM's blood type.

I guess all of these are just pure coincidences.

Jessie confessed THREE times, if he truly is innocent than why did his lawyers tell him to shut up and why did one grab a Bible?

I think they could not believe what they were hearing.

Jessie isn't as stupid as people want to believe he is. He's just slow.

 

[iluvmua]

Again, agreeing with Nova, no matter how many cases can be cited that did not involve DNA, I hope that some sort of physical evidence or a valid confession was involved. As he mentioned, if the rain washed away all the evidence, how did the hairs survive? Those hairs are evidence, and they do not belong to any of the WM3.

As I've stated many times before, there is no physical evidence connecting the WM3 to these murders. In fact, there is no credible evidence of any kind connecting any of the WM3 to these crimes. There is, however, physical evidence connecting a step father to the discovery site, and IMO it cannot be explained away as "innocent transfer," especially the Jacoby hair.

TH claims that he did not see the boys at all on May 5th. For his hair to have been on Stevie's shoelace (if Stevie's shoelace was used to tie Michael), it would have had to survive being jerked through the eyelets when it was removed to tie Michael. And, even if that were the case, innocent transfer cannot explain the Jacoby hair.

People who believe in the guilt of Damien are quick to point to his psychological background as evidence that he is the murderer. Have those same people examined TH's background? A deposition during the Pasdar case by Mildred French gives us some insight into the man. Then, after the murders, he leaves town (and Pam) for an extended period of time. He beats Pam, and, when her father and brother come to defend her, he shoots her brother (who later dies of complications caused by this shooting).

TH is also guilty of plenty more suspicious actions after the murders. He quits his job because his coworkers are just too sympathetic toward him. Some of Stevie's possessions are found in TH's possession (Can anyone say trophies?). I'm sure there is more that I could mention, but I'll stop.

As to JM's "confession," it was coerced, pure and simple. I'm confident that the new lawyers will be able to bring credible expert witnesses to prove this point as well. And, as Nova mentioned, none of his statements matched the evidence at the discovery ditch. So, coerced or not, his statements are simply not true.

It is true that the documentaries did not show everything that happened at the trial, but much of the footage, at least from the first documentary, was from the trial. And, as I've stated before, everything about this case didn't happen at the trials. The last trial concluded in 1994. A lot has happened since then. Just reading the documents on Callahan's is not sufficient information. To get all the information, a true searcher must dig deeper. Anyone who just reads on Callahan's is just as uninformed as someone who just watches the documentaries.

Finally, I have a question for those who believe that the WM3 are guilty. When new evidence is presented that both exonerates the WM3 and points to the true killer, will you be willing to admit that you were mistaken? What would that evidence (that would change your mind) have to be? I'm just curious to know.

I'm going to reserve my thoughts until they get a new trial (if they do) and if they are found not guilty.

 

[Redbird]

This is my opinion only, I read enough to believe the their trial was a complete witchhunt and it made me embarrassed to be a native Arkansan. A trip back to the dark ages. I read all I wanted to read to believe they are completely innocent and I am very pleased with the new developments in the case.

 

[justthinkin]

Yes, Jessie confessed, and of great significance is that he confessed to his own father. People can claim that his confessions to LE were coerced, but what about his confession to his father?

I wouldn't buy for a single second the suggestion that he was just parroting to his father what he told LE.

I watched Paradise Lost again last night, and despite the intended slant, it actually supports the guilt of the WM3.

We have Jessie's father saying that Jessie told him he was guilty, Jason basically claiming he couldn't hurt a fly, yet shooting daggers with his eyes at Carson in court, and later in his lawyer's office tossing Damien to the vultures by telling his own lawyer, he couldn't say whether Damien was innocent.

That Jason Baldwin is a sly one for sure, and as a side note, he tries to do a great snow job on those who might believe his lies in the video of him on YouTube, released a few months ago. I'm sure he'd like nothing better than for everyone to believe he's Mother Teresa incarnate.

Then we have Damien, who doesn't give a flying flip about his trial, not because he's a stupid teenager, but because he doesn't give a carp about anything, and who mouths off to his own lawyer about "no more beer." That wasn't sarcasm, that was Damien cutting loose with the truth, IMO.

And just as Baldwin would sell Damien up the river to save his own neck, Damien goes on record as saying most of the stupid things they do are at Jason's lead, throwing the blame his way.

Too many things would have to happen for me to ever believe the WM3 were not guilty of this crime.

 

[Nova]

Yes, Jessie confessed, and of great significance is that he confessed to his own father. People can claim that his confessions to LE were coerced, but what about his confession to his father?

I wouldn't buy for a single second the suggestion that he was just parroting to his father what he told LE.

I watched Paradise Lost again last night, and despite the intended slant, it actually supports the guilt of the WM3.

We have Jessie's father saying that Jessie told him he was guilty, Jason basically claiming he couldn't hurt a fly, yet shooting daggers with his eyes at Carson in court, and later in his lawyer's office tossing Damien to the vultures by telling his own lawyer, he couldn't say whether Damien was innocent.

That Jason Baldwin is a sly one for sure, and as a side note, he tries to do a great snow job on those who might believe his lies in the video of him on YouTube, released a few months ago. I'm sure he'd like nothing better than for everyone to believe he's Mother Teresa incarnate.

Then we have Damien, who doesn't give a flying flip about his trial, not because he's a stupid teenager, but because he doesn't give a carp about anything, and who mouths off to his own lawyer about "no more beer." That wasn't sarcasm, that was Damien cutting loose with the truth, IMO.

And just as Baldwin would sell Damien up the river to save his own neck, Damien goes on record as saying most of the stupid things they do are at Jason's lead, throwing the blame his way.

Too many things would have to happen for me to ever believe the WM3 were not guilty of this crime.

Of course, Jessie Misskelley couldn't tell his own lawyers whether Damien Echols was guilty! JM wasn't there when the crimes occurred!

As for Jason Baldwin, what is the basis for your opinion? To my knowledge, JB has none of the psychiatric or criminal history that some find so damning with regards to DE. Do you think he is a "sly one" because he seems innocent? Maybe he's just innocent.

 

[Nova]

1. All three defendants confessed, in fact DE had his next victim(s) already picked out

2. Fibers found at Jason's and Damien's homes matched the fibers from some of the children's clothing.

3. Jason & Stevie Branch's blood type were found on the necklace that Jason was wearing

4. Jessie's T-shirt had blood on it that matched his & MM's blood type.

I guess all of these are just pure coincidences.

Jessie confessed THREE times, if he truly is innocent than why did his lawyers tell him to shut up and why did one grab a Bible?

I think they could not believe what they were hearing.

Jessie isn't as stupid as people want to believe he is. He's just slow.

JM had his own-type blood on his own shirt? Why would that even surprise us? LE has had the T-shirt for almost 19 years: where are the DNA results on that T-shirt?

DE's necklace--which JB commonly wore--had JB's blood type on it? The most logical assumption is that the blood belongs to JB. So, again, where are the DNA results proving the blood belongs to one or more victims?

As I'm sure you know, the fibers were of a common type used in WalMart products and could have been found in nearly every home in West Memphis.

As I'm sure you also know, the alleged confessions of DE and JB are highly suspect and not really corroborated, and the confession of JM has been called coercive by every expert who has looked at it. If you want to call him "slow" rather than "retarded", fine. That doesn't actually change his susceptibility to coerced testimony.

To conclude that the WM3 are guilty, it seems one has to "help" the prosecution quite a bit by assuming the few pieces of forensic evidence are "matches" rather than merely similar to the victims.

 

[Melanie]

1. All three defendants confessed, in fact DE had his next victim(s) already picked out

2. Fibers found at Jason's and Damien's homes matched the fibers from some of the children's clothing.

3. Jason & Stevie Branch's blood type were found on the necklace that Jason was wearing

4. Jessie's T-shirt had blood on it that matched his & MM's blood type.

I guess all of these are just pure coincidences.

Jessie confessed THREE times, if he truly is innocent than why did his lawyers tell him to shut up and why did one grab a Bible?

I think they could not believe what they were hearing.

Jessie isn't as stupid as people want to believe he is. He's just slow.

I must have missed it. Where is it that DE had his next victim picked out? Who?

Thanks much!

Mel

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm only going to briefly address iluvmua's recent list. Previous posters have spoken the truth about most of the issues raised. There were no real confessions; the fibers prove nothing (unless more sophisticated testing can be done, which the defense sought and Burnett originally denied); there is nothing unusual about your own blood type being on your shirt or necklace. The blood types of two of the defendants happen to match the blood types of two of the victims. Until further testing of the blood can be done that reveals more than just its type, these blood results prove nothing.

justthinkin' raised the issue of Jessie "confessing" to his father. I believe what Jessie, Sr. said is that, if his son's confession to LE were true, then his son would have to serve his time. He went on to say that he hadn't talked to Jessie, Jr. yet. When he did, Jessie, Sr. immediately defended his son and professed his innocence.

Contrary to justthinkin's observations, in Jason, during the trial I saw a frightened teen who knew he was innocent, but who didn't know what to believe about Damien because of the hatchet job that the prosecution was doing on him. He didn't actually say that Damien was guilty; he said that the State sure tried to make him look guilty. This was in connection with a discussion with his attorneys about why they didn't want him to take the stand at the trial when he had originally wanted to take the stand and profess his innocence to the jury.

I don't see anything in Jason's newest interview to lead me to believe that he is trying to snow anyone. To me, he still appeared to be the same shy guy he was during the trials. He has never thrown Damien under the bus, nor has Damien thrown him under the bus. Again, they were teens at the time of the original trials, and sometimes teens say foolish things and react in foolish ways at inappropriate times.

As to iluvmua's statement about Jessie not really being as stupid as people believe but that he's just slow, what distinction is being made between stupid and slow and what experience with people of lower IQs allows such a statement to be made? Jessie was classified as "borderline mentally retarded" which means that he is slow for sure and as such, he strives to please people that he perceives to be authority figures in his life, like policemen. I know this from 25 years of teaching teens, many of whom, like Jessie, were of lower-than-normal IQs. That's how people of lower IQ's deal with their disability. They try to say/do whatever they believe will please those in authority, even to the point of lying if they think it will stop the questioning. Often, they are trying to cover up their disability because they don't want to stand out or be singled out of the crowd.

To Mel, in the infamous "softball girls" statements, one of the little ninnies stated that she heard Damien say that he killed these boys and he was going to kill two more before he turned himself in and that he already had the next victim picked out. (Sound anything like the girls at the Salem witch trials?) The next victim was never identified, however. Obviously, again this was Damien's defense mechanism. The town had already convicted him of these murders because he was just so weird. Foolishly, he played into their assessment of him by saying weird things.

 

[justthinkin]

Of course, Jessie Misskelley couldn't tell his own lawyers whether Damien Echols was guilty! JM wasn't there when the crimes occurred!

As for Jason Baldwin, what is the basis for your opinion? To my knowledge, JB has none of the psychiatric or criminal history that some find so damning with regards to DE. Do you think he is a "sly one" because he seems innocent? Maybe he's just innocent.

Your first reference is incorrect. I said Baldwin couldn't tell his lawyer that Damien was innocent when his lawyer asked him.

Sorry, but I think Jason's innocent act is just that, an act, and I'll tell you why I think that. I do not believe an innocent person can be locked up for 17 years, and not feel at least some bitterness at some level for the system that put him there.

I think he was being dishonest in that interview. Not only that, in Paradise Lost when his own attorney was questioning him, Jason pauses indicate that he was weighing what he was going to say or reveal.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

justthinkin'

There are people in this world who, like Anne Frank, believe that people are really pure at heart. IMO, Jason Baldwin is one of them. Of course, I realize that others are entitled to their opinion; however, to me, the fact that Jason is not bitter after 17+ years in prison is a testimony to his Christian faith and his innocence.

He showed his sweet spirit and shy nature at his sentencing when he stated, when asked if he had anything to say before sentence was passed, "Yeah, I'm innocent." He didn't yell it or break down into uncontrollable sobbing. He stated the truth simply and purely.

We've discussed emotions or lack thereof as it relates to defendants before, and this is just another example of the axiom that we are all individuals. Jason may not deal with his unjust incarceration in the same way you or I would, but that doesn't make him disingenuous. I think his attitude is refreshing.

 

[iluvmua]

One of the letter I've read that Damien wrote he signed it with "Forever Here". If he was innocent why would he write that?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One of the letter I've read that Damien wrote he signed it with "Forever Here". If he was innocent why would he write that?

If you had spent more than half of your life in a place like Arkansas' Death Row, wouldn't you feel that way, too? He's merely creatively expressing his frustration with his false imprisonment. It has nothing to do with his true innocence of these crimes.

 

[Tricia]

A few of you are getting personal. Please stop.

If someone insults a religion DO NOT POST ABOUT IT. Please hit the alert button.

Do not accuse someone of saying something when they did not.

I'll be honest. I am not in a good mood so this is the last thing I need here.

Do not get personal, keep religion out of it unless it is directly related to the case.

This will be the last warning.

Thank you.

 

[J. Brannagh]

There was an episode of Beverly Hills 90210 Aired on May 5, 1993

A Night to Remember Episode 37 | Season 3 (1992-1993)
(Airdate May 5, 1993)
Not all goes well at the West Beverly High prom; Brandon is Andrea's last-minute date and they are carried away by the romance of the evening.

http://www.fancast.com/tv/Beverly-Hills-90210/62607/episodes/A-Night-to-Remember/227530

 

[iluvmua]

In the upcoming hearings I assume the Defense will present evidence as to why the WM3 deserve new trials?

 

[iluvmua]

And if Jessie is mentally handicapped like the supporters and Stidham's claim that he is operating at the level of a five year old child, then how the heck can he end up having a ninth grade education?