Summary? Guilty or wrongful conviction

[Compassionate Reader]

Anyone who remembers the "Satanic panic" of the early 90's should realize that this phenomenon played a crucial part in the conviction of the West Memphis Three. Damien, especially, and Jason by association as Damien's best friend, were really judged guilty in the eyes of the populace at the time at least partly because of this issue. Jessie's coerced confession just brought him into the mix. I hope that, since enough time has passed that the emotional baggage originally associated with this case has lessened, the evidentiary hearing will produce enough evidence to make a "reasonable juror" doubt the guilt of the convicted. It would be nice if the hearing also produced enough evidence to point LE to the guilty party. However, that is only a side effect of what the hearing is supposed to do, provide information and/or evidence that will make a reasonable juror question the guilt of the convicted to the point where an acquittal would be the probable outcome of a new trial. As I understand it, that is the standard to be met by the defense. IMO, they won't have any trouble meeting the standard and the hearing will conclude with an order for a new trial. Then the ball will be in the State of Arkansas' court.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

justthinkin',

We have witnesses (not family members) who state that they saw the boys with TH about 6:30 pm on May 5th, making him the last person to have seen the boys alive. We have mtDNA from TH at the discovery ditch plus mtDNA from his friend, a friend who testifies to close contact with TH within the time frame in question. We have a deposition from a former neighbor of TH who states that he was violent to her after she reported his beating of his then-wife and child. We have a former girlfriend of TH claiming that he told her that he found the bodies before the police did, which if true begs the question, why didn't he notify the police? We have the manner in which the boys were tied which is consistent with how pig bodies were tied for transport in the slaughterhouse where TH worked before. Plus, we have statements from the Hicks family as to the mistreatment and downright abuse that Stevie suffered at the hands of TH. Even if you discount the statements of the Hicks family (after all, TH shot Jackie, Jr. who later died of complications from the gunshot wound so they might want to cast him in a bad light), you've still got a helluva lot more evidence than the WMPD ever had on the West Memphis Three. So, if Nova is right and you're looking for someone "more guilty" than the WM3, IMO we have a winner.

 

[ziggy]

(Emphasis added.) Just to clarify: the testimony of the two girls was apparently ruled an exception to the hearsay rule, but not just because they "heard it directly." Reporting what one was told directly is what hearsay usually is; however, there are exceptions.

A common one is called "declarations against interest" (or words to that effect) and includes statements by the defendant himself that incriminate him. I'm not certain, but I suspect the girls' testimony was allowed on this basis.

****

I appreciate your point about the limits of DNA, but it is odd that half of Arkansas left its DNA on the victims--everyone EXCEPT the defendants. As more and more non-incriminating DNA is accumulated, I think a rational jury will have to go "Hmmm...."

Good job Nova. I'm taking a damn midterm in damn evididence including damn hearsay :0 It's complicated but you are correct. It is a statement made out of court, by someone other than the witness testifying at the current trial offered for the truth of the matter stated. So here, the girls are testifying to what Damon said - he's the out of court statement maker. Depending upon what he said yes, statements against interest is an exception, but Damon was available as a witness to testify so likely it would have been an exception for a party admission. Hearsay is inherently unreliable - no one could cross examine Damon whether he was joking, or what the circumstances were because he was not going to take the stand. Either way, what the girls heard seems unreliable to me. but OK for the jury to hear I guess.

 

[justthinkin]

Why do you exclude families? I saw a statistic somewhere (can't recall offhand) that over 60% of child murders are committed by a family member or a friend of the family. Why not in this case?

I exclude families because I don't think anyone from any of the families is responsible. Statistically speaking, most children are killed by their families, but we have 3 boys from 3 different families, and that casts a whole other light on the murders than to say this was done by a family member.

And if we go by older injuries that would put the Byer boy's stepfather at the top of the list, not the Branch boy's stepfather. It's just logical.

 

[justthinkin]

That's a truly scary thought! I hope that's just your low opinion of the Arkansas judicial system (which I can understand).

What a change though! From "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" to "guilty until LE finds somebody who looks even guiltier."

Yes, it is a scary thought, but we're talking about a state where there are no active cases being pursued by the Innocence Project. I looked at their website. They have zero cases they've handled from Arkansas. That says something about the state, huh? So yes, I believe the state will hang onto the 3 they've got as opposed to letting them go with no replacements. I do believe it's a hearing they will get, and not a new trial. Don't think Arkansas is going to be willing to risk a new trial or spare the expense due to present economy.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6SSUDBrzNo[/ame]

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The way I think it went down involves a man who went into a rage, killed his stepson accidentally, and then had to kill the witnesses. If you believe the deposition of Pam's sister, JoLynn, Stevie was afraid of "Daddy Terry" who had been known to place the child in a closet as punishment for soiling his clothes. Stevie's penis had injuries on it that could possibly indicate previous sexual abuse. The Mildred French deposition from the Pasdar case also indicates that TH was violent with his son by his first marriage. JMB, on the other hand, spanked Chris occasionally. This is not abuse. The degloving of Chris (he was not actually emasculated as some people say, because the shaft of the penis was not totally severed) made everyone believe that he was the primary target of the killer. Now that several experts have stated that the injuries to Stevie's penis were from post mortem animal predation, it puts things in a different light. Also, in the Pasdar case, JMB made a statement that outlined the many lies TH has told him since the convictions. Of especial interest is paragraph 26 of his deposition on page 117 in the following link: http://www.wm3blackboard.com/board/pdfs/HvsP/19199298-exhibits4348.pdf To me, TH has just made too many false statements and statements that are, at best, outrageous. Although JMB's actions on the videos of Paradise Lost and Paradise Lost 2 made him a suspicious character at the time, when you realize that he was under medication for a brain tumor at the time, the statements are more understandable. Since then, I have seen interviews where he (JMB), like Damien, admits that he wishes he had acted differently at the time. Although he does have a checkered past, most of the incidents he was involved with were non-violent. TH has killed his brother-in-law and has attacked a neighbor (Mildred French). These actions are undeniable. If you believe the depositions of the Hicks family, TH also abused Stevie and sexually molested both him and Amanda. He's not your ordinary family member. At the time of the crimes, he tried to blend into the background, even to the point of disappearing from the house so the police wouldn't question him. Again, I repeat what I've said before, there is much more credible evidence linking him to the crime than the WM3. I just hope that some of the new evidence that will come forth in the hearing will make this crystal clear to the WMPD and others.

 

[Nova]

Good job Nova. I'm taking a damn midterm in damn evididence including damn hearsay :0 It's complicated but you are correct. It is a statement made out of court, by someone other than the witness testifying at the current trial offered for the truth of the matter stated. So here, the girls are testifying to what Damon said - he's the out of court statement maker. Depending upon what he said yes, statements against interest is an exception, but Damon was available as a witness to testify so likely it would have been an exception for a party admission. Hearsay is inherently unreliable - no one could cross examine Damon whether he was joking, or what the circumstances were because he was not going to take the stand. Either way, what the girls heard seems unreliable to me. but OK for the jury to hear I guess.

Thanks, ziggy. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule, even some of my lawyer friends can't list them all off the top of their heads. (Good luck with that test! I'm sure you'll do well.)

It seems to me that another judge might have just as easily ruled that the girls were too distant at the time of the alleged statement and their recollections too vague to overcome the hearsay prohibition. But this is just my guess and I don't know if the girls' testimony has ever been challenged on appeal. (I know I don't put much stock in it. Even if true, I think Damien tried to appear "bad *advertiser censored*." It probably helped keep him from getting bullied by the cool boys.)

 

[Nova]

I exclude families because I don't think anyone from any of the families is responsible. Statistically speaking, most children are killed by their families, but we have 3 boys from 3 different families, and that casts a whole other light on the murders than to say this was done by a family member.

And if we go by older injuries that would put the Byer boy's stepfather at the top of the list, not the Branch boy's stepfather. It's just logical.

Fair point about 3 victims from 3 different families. But they clearly weren't killed at different times and places. If a relative committed the murders, once s/he'd lashed out at his/her own child, s/he didn't have much choice but to dispose of the others.

 

[Nova]

Yes, it is a scary thought, but we're talking about a state where there are no active cases being pursued by the Innocence Project. I looked at their website. They have zero cases they've handled from Arkansas. That says something about the state, huh? So yes, I believe the state will hang onto the 3 they've got as opposed to letting them go with no replacements. I do believe it's a hearing they will get, and not a new trial. Don't think Arkansas is going to be willing to risk a new trial or spare the expense due to present economy.

I very much fear time will prove you right.

 

[Nova]

RE CR's post #47, I hope a conviction of whoever is guilty here (TH or anyone else) doesn't depend on the testimony of JMB. Med side effects or no, JMB will not make a good witness. He's said too much, whatever his reasons.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

RE: Nova's post #47: That was basically Damien's defense mechanism. He acted "scary" or "weird" or "badass" to try to cope with his surroundings. He says as much today himself (as does JMB). The fact is that he's not a murderer, no matter how he acted when he was an immature teenager. BTW, have you seen any recent interviews/appearances by JMB? He's totally different now than he was in PL1 & 2.

 

[justthinkin]

The way I think it went down involves a man who went into a rage, killed his stepson accidentally, and then had to kill the witnesses. If you believe the deposition of Pam's sister, JoLynn, Stevie was afraid of "Daddy Terry" who had been known to place the child in a closet as punishment for soiling his clothes. Stevie's penis had injuries on it that could possibly indicate previous sexual abuse. The Mildred French deposition from the Pasdar case also indicates that TH was violent with his son by his first marriage. JMB, on the other hand, spanked Chris occasionally. This is not abuse. The degloving of Chris (he was not actually emasculated as some people say, because the shaft of the penis was not totally severed) made everyone believe that he was the primary target of the killer. Now that several experts have stated that the injuries to Stevie's penis were from post mortem animal predation, it puts things in a different light. Also, in the Pasdar case, JMB made a statement that outlined the many lies TH has told him since the convictions. Of especial interest is paragraph 26 of his deposition on page 117 in the following link: http://www.wm3blackboard.com/board/pdfs/HvsP/19199298-exhibits4348.pdf To me, TH has just made too many false statements and statements that are, at best, outrageous. Although JMB's actions on the videos of Paradise Lost and Paradise Lost 2 made him a suspicious character at the time, when you realize that he was under medication for a brain tumor at the time, the statements are more understandable. Since then, I have seen interviews where he (JMB), like Damien, admits that he wishes he had acted differently at the time. Although he does have a checkered past, most of the incidents he was involved with were non-violent. TH has killed his brother-in-law and has attacked a neighbor (Mildred French). These actions are undeniable. If you believe the depositions of the Hicks family, TH also abused Stevie and sexually molested both him and Amanda. He's not your ordinary family member. At the time of the crimes, he tried to blend into the background, even to the point of disappearing from the house so the police wouldn't question him. Again, I repeat what I've said before, there is much more credible evidence linking him to the crime than the WM3. I just hope that some of the new evidence that will come forth in the hearing will make this crystal clear to the WMPD and others.

Compassionate Reader,

Terry's daughter does not think he did the crime. Also, Terry did not kill his BIL, the man survived. He died years later from complications associated with his injuries. I can't stand TH, but I don't think he did this crime.

Also, Christopher Byers had old bruising to his inner thighs, and according to the autopsy report was suggestive of prior abuse. I don't believe there was any evidence to support prior abuse to Stevie Branch's body. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Note to Nova: This whole case is riddled with people who are poor witnesses.

 

[justthinkin]

justthinkin',

We have witnesses (not family members) who state that they saw the boys with TH about 6:30 pm on May 5th, making him the last person to have seen the boys alive. We have mtDNA from TH at the discovery ditch plus mtDNA from his friend, a friend who testifies to close contact with TH within the time frame in question. We have a deposition from a former neighbor of TH who states that he was violent to her after she reported his beating of his then-wife and child. We have a former girlfriend of TH claiming that he told her that he found the bodies before the police did, which if true begs the question, why didn't he notify the police? We have the manner in which the boys were tied which is consistent with how pig bodies were tied for transport in the slaughterhouse where TH worked before. Plus, we have statements from the Hicks family as to the mistreatment and downright abuse that Stevie suffered at the hands of TH. Even if you discount the statements of the Hicks family (after all, TH shot Jackie, Jr. who later died of complications from the gunshot wound so they might want to cast him in a bad light), you've still got a helluva lot more evidence than the WMPD ever had on the West Memphis Three. So, if Nova is right and you're looking for someone "more guilty" than the WM3, IMO we have a winner.

Well now that is another lie by the defense. Those witnesses do not state they saw TH "WITH" the boys. What they do state is that they saw TH call to the boys from his driveway. Big difference! With would tend to imply possession. The reality is less than that, yet supporters continue to claim TH was WITH the boys.

 

[justthinkin]

I didn't complete my thought on the last post as I had errands to run. What I meant to say was that Supporters of the WM3 would like people to believe that WITH in this case implies some sort of possession, and it does not. The defense is responsible for putting this erroneous wording out there just as they are for saying that the Hobbs and Jacoby DNA exonerates the WM3. They say those things to get people on the bandwagon, and to increase the number of voices calling for an acquittal.

Today it dawned on me that what the state of Arkansas really wants to do is to execute Damien Echols, but with all the hype raised by Echol's defense, the state is unwilling to go forward without this evidentiary hearing which they hope once and for all will confirm the right parties are in jail. I believe they have no intention of giving the WM3 a new trial. Once they have the evidentiary hearing sewn up, then Echols will be executed, and the state of Arkansas will say, "End of story!"

 

[Nova]

RE: Nova's post #47: That was basically Damien's defense mechanism. He acted "scary" or "weird" or "badass" to try to cope with his surroundings. He says as much today himself (as does JMB). The fact is that he's not a murderer, no matter how he acted when he was an immature teenager. BTW, have you seen any recent interviews/appearances by JMB? He's totally different now than he was in PL1 & 2.

That is certainly my sense of Damien, though I try to keep in mind that I don't know any of the principals in this case.

I haven't seen recent interviews with JMB, but I certainly take your word and that of others that he is more coherent. Nevertheless, if JMB testifies for the defense, a prosecutor is going to use all the crazy things JMB has ever said against him. Maybe the jury won't fall for it, but jurors may take the easy way out and ignore JMB's testimony entirely.

 

[Nova]

Well now that is another lie by the defense. Those witnesses do not state they saw TH "WITH" the boys. What they do state is that they saw TH call to the boys from his driveway. Big difference! With would tend to imply possession. The reality is less than that, yet supporters continue to claim TH was WITH the boys.

With respect, that a rather small distinction for a big word like "lie."

I think it's fine for you to point out that nobody saw the boys actually go to TH; no doubt the prosecution will make that point as well. But if TH was within calling distance of the boys, then as fas I understand the language, he might be said to be "with" them.

That is the testimony, isn't it? The witnesses saw the boys and heard TH calling them, but did not see the boys actually reach TH's house. It's not like TH was simply calling into empty air.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

justthinkin',

TH's daughter, Amanda, was only four at the time. That's just too young to be a credible witness. She made some very disturbing journal entries some years after the crime. Also, IIRC, a doctor has stated that there are signs of penetration on Amanda. As to whether or not TH was actually with the boys or just calling after them, the gaps in his alibi since Jacoby's Pasdar deposition would allow time for him to follow the boys, find them and attack them. My opinion is that he became enraged at Stevie when he returned home after playing guitars and found that Stevie had soiled his jeans. (Pam dressed him in jeans that morning, but sightings of him by neighbors said he was wearing red shorts.) TH came home from the Jacobys, Stevie is not there, but soiled jeans are. He becomes angry and goes after the boys. He knows where their "secret hideout" is (as the boys like to pretend that they are Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles who live in the sewers) and goes there. He has all three trapped in a confined space. He is disciplining Stevie, and it goes too far. He must eliminate the witnesses. Then, he has to move the bodies because there could be evidence in the manhole. This scenario makes much more sense than three teenagers stumbling upon the boys in the RHH woods and killing them in some sort of a ritualistic satanic worship ceremony without leaving one shred of evidence. The WM3 simply have no motive for killing the boys. They had alibis, whether you choose to believe them or not. It is much easier to establish a motive for a step father known to have had violent outbursts. And, it doesn't matter if Jackie, Jr. died immediately, the next day or years later. The fact is that the gunshot wounds inflicted by TH (excuse me, by the gun TH was holding) were the cause of his ultimate death. In my book, that makes TH a killer. As to why TH got off so lightly (ten years' probation, I think), I'm not sure why that happened. Maybe he knows some secrets about someone on the WMPD. I don't know. The point is that murder is murder, and Jackie, Jr. was murdered by TH.

 

[justthinkin]

With respect, that a rather small distinction for a big word like "lie."

I think it's fine for you to point out that nobody saw the boys actually go to TH; no doubt the prosecution will make that point as well. But if TH was within calling distance of the boys, then as fas I understand the language, he might be said to be "with" them.

That is the testimony, isn't it? The witnesses saw the boys and heard TH calling them, but did not see the boys actually reach TH's house. It's not like TH was simply calling into empty air.

The boys were no more with TH than they were with the 3 witnesses who didn't come forward back in 1993. Based on what you just said, perhaps a case could be made that the mother and her two daughters were with the boys.

Well if a statement by the defense is not truthful then what is it if not a lie?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think the main thrust of the witnesses is that TH has maintained that he didn't see the boys at all on May 5th. The witnesses didn't come forward until they learned that TH was claiming that he had not seen the boys on May 5th. Unfortunately, since the WMPD didn't interview TH until 2007, this information didn't come to light until then. Whether he was seen to have physical contact with the boys by the witnesses or not, the fact remains that he did see the boys on May 5th. This is important because it goes to the veracity of his other statements as well. If he was not totally truthful about "seeing" the boys on May 5th, then it is entirely within the realm of possibility that there are other statements that he made regarding his actions on May 5th that are not entirely truthful. In fact, DJ has stated that, contrary to what TH said, he (DJ) was not with TH during the entire time that TH has maintained they were together. TH has stated that he and DJ searched for the boys all night long. DJ stated that, at one point early in the evening (before Pam got off work), TH left Amanda at DJ's house and went back to search alone. This would be before any of the boys were reported missing. Another time, DJ thought that TH was coming back to get him to help search, but TH didn't come back until much later. It's just more proof of the inconsistency of TH's statements regarding his whereabouts on May 5th.

 

[Nova]

The boys were no more with TH than they were with the 3 witnesses who didn't come forward back in 1993. Based on what you just said, perhaps a case could be made that the mother and her two daughters were with the boys.

Well if a statement by the defense is not truthful then what is it if not a lie?

It can be an error, a misstatement, a different interpretation of the known facts, or, as in this case, simply a somewhat different use of the words.

A "lie" is a deliberate and knowing distortion of the truth.

You are using a very narrow definition of "with" that requires immediate proximity. And that's fair. But others may use a somewhat broader definition.

As far as I'm concerned, the boys WERE "with" the three witnesses, if only briefly as they ran past. But I'm certainly not going to call you a liar because you use the word "with" differently than I.