West of Memphis

[inthedark14]

If the evidence was so strong, why hasn't it been released by the defense team for the public to view?

Seems they are they ones saying they had evidence good enough to go to trial with, so where is it?

Mrs. G, I love your posts and respect the heck out of you. I still stand by my question of why the state, since DE was granted a new trial and the fact the the burden of evidence is on them, hasn't shown that they agreed to let a man off of death row for no reason. This is what makes my head spin about this case. Does anyone know why the State's Attorney's Office of Arkansas agreed to release a man on DEATH ROW into the general public? If they had a case they would have tried it and won, as they did previously in the 90's. That is what bugs me to no end. Why would a State's Attorney allow this to happen if they didn't feel they couldn't prove their case. They wouldn't. Not ever, not in a million years would they allow a death row inmate to go free if they could prove, within a reasonable doubt they they had actually perpetrated the crime they were imprisoned for.

:truce:

ALWAYS MOO

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Mrs. G, I love your posts and respect the heck out of you. I still stand by my question of why the state, since DE was granted a new trial and the fact the the burden of evidence is on them, hasn't shown that they agreed to let a man off of death row for no reason. This is what makes my head spin about this case. Does anyone know why the State's Attorney's Office of Arkansas agreed to release a man on DEATH ROW into the general public? If they had a case they would have tried it and won, as they did previously in the 90's. That is what bugs me to no end. Why would a State's Attorney allow this to happen if they didn't feel they couldn't prove their case. They wouldn't. Not ever, not in a million years would they allow a death row inmate to go free if they could prove, within a reasonable doubt they they had actually perpetrated the crime they were imprisoned for.

:truce:

ALWAYS MOO

Well here is one Debra Milke. She could either go to trial or plead guilty at this point. If she pleads guilty then she will also be entitled to credit for time served.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/07/arizona-death-row-inmate-debra-milke


Here is another one:


Paula Cooper
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/paula-cooper-16-year-old-death-row-inmate-to-be-released

Gaile Owens
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-death-row-inmate-gaile-owens-released-on-parole/

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I know what you mean, the resolution of this case was no resolution at all and leaves so many open questions .. we are basically right where we were before their release. I personally would like to see all files opened right up once and for all so everyone could see everything, including whatever arguments the state has for releasing 3 guilty men, and one right from death row as you said.

Also, I guess we are separating legal guilt from actual guilt in this case, legally they are guilty unless there is a pardon. That may or may not have any connection to actual guilt.

 

[Ausgirl]

Is there any charges on those accusations or is it just hearsay?

Yup, charges. Lots, in general, and pertaining to violence against kids and women.

And yup - a bit of 'hearsay', if you wish to count court doc's from victim's mother as hearsay.

Oh, and the testimony regarding Hobbs putting his fists on his wife right before he shot his brother in law.. Broke her jaw.

I am pretty sure the violent nature of these men is well documented enough for anyone to see WHY they'd be good suspects.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Even if people really think the WM3 are innocent, do they really also believe that TH is the guy who did it? It just seems so silly to me, and it seems like the exact same strategy the WM3 defense has used since the beginning to blame someone else for this crime, that I can just not take the accusations seriously. The fact he may or may not have been the kind of guy to get violent with adults does not make him a child killer in my mind, they are such different kinds of crimes.

To me it is the same exact kind of scapegoating that went on with JMB and I'm surprised they even went there again. I mean really, if they really wanted to blame someone else for the murders, why didn't they look at local pedophiles or other known child killers who may have been in the area, if they had it may have seemed somewhat credible to me.

There was a disturbing sexual element to this crime, Christopher Byers' penis was de-gloved for want of a better term, now that is something that is rather specific to me, to go that extra step into mutilation. You'd be looking for someone who had some kind of deeper disturbance than the kind of guy who gets violent with other adults when drunk.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I am very bothered that the directors felt comfortable doing this too, it's so incredibly irresponsible, and it seems to me that the arguments put forth in the film, are the same ones being presented here .. to the letter. Has anyone thought that maybe they have been fed a narrative by people with a vested interest to point the finger of blame somewhere else.

It really bothers me, I do not believe TH had anything to do with this crime at all, yet his name has been dragged through the mud.

 

[Ausgirl]

Mrs. G - I appreciate your POV on the documentaries, I really do - it's NOT their place to be accusing people left and right, not in THIS case, not for their own benefit, and IMO they should have focussed on proving and presenting innocence, since they didn't pretend to be impartial (or at least, not very well, however one chooses to see it). Should have left the evidence and accusations to the lawyers and the court, where warranted.

I can't minimise the kind of men Hobbs and Byers are, though. I just cannot. I see it as a very, very short step indeed from feeling it's just fine to beat a woman down and hold a gun on neighbour kids, to actually killing a child in rage. We all have our pov's on it, sure, but these WERE (and likely still are) violent, angry men with little self control. No-one can tell me they are not.

Their violence is NOT a 'narrative' - it's on record. For all to see. It's evident in the words out of the mouths of their victims.

I am not here saying I think either is guilty, just that they made good suspects. And if there's further reason for either to be investigated, I hope the cops explore it. Same as any of the other really good suspects out there (and there's a few of those).

 

[Mrs G Norris]

To me they seem like a lot of men who you see in low socio economic environments .. I would never apologise or condone such violence, but it is a very different kind of violence than sexual mutilation.

They may have been worth looking at, but the so called 'evidence' against both of them in relation to this crime is not the kind of evidence which would even get them arrested, let alone make it into a court of law. The filmmakers know this, they are not that naive, they also know full well that they do not need to meet the same standards required of the police or a court of law, so they recklessly created a narrative for the general public in order to sway the court of public opinion in favour of the convicted, and if that meant painting TH as a suspect then away they went.

It's manipulative and irresponsible.

 

[Ausgirl]

Well, I can't argue with any with that, re the docos. I might see it differently if that was my *advertiser censored* on death row, but from here, I do think the people supporting the 3 did wrong, there.

We may have to continue to disagree on the violence thing, though. You know, I actually am not all about dismissing a sexual element of -some- sort to this crime (it bothers me that it's so dismissed these days.. it really does)... But I can also see where if anyone caved the head of one child in, in rage, and the others witnessed it.. Well, you can see where I'm going there.

I don't see MB or TH as men --incapable-- of that sort of violence. I can't see Mark Byers as having a sexual motive.

As the product of a violent home, and a violent environment, I don't need to be swayed by -anyone- to know just how far and fast violence can escalate with people like that. Against ANYone - kids, wife, the family dog, the best mate...

They are all too familiar to me.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I wonder why if the innocence of the three convicted didn't stand on it's own two feet why the filmmakers involved in the documentaries supporting them didn't simply put forth that case, and then say the murders were done by person or persons unknown (and perhaps even included a credible profile of possible suspect/s), if they had they may have made a stronger argument without having to damage the lives of innocent people. Everybody knows now for instance, that JMB did not commit this crime, yet for many years he was treated as a killer based on the PL2 movie, and it seems to me that the same recklessness is being displayed towards TH now.

 

[gheckso]

Mrs. G, I love your posts and respect the heck out of you. I still stand by my question of why the state, since DE was granted a new trial and the fact the the burden of evidence is on them, hasn't shown that they agreed to let a man off of death row for no reason.

Respectfully snipped.

Maybe I am mistaken but as far as I'm aware DE was not granted a new trial and if he had been the burden of proof still less with the prosecution. After all it is essentially a new trial.

Or maybe I misinterpreted your post?

 

[Ausgirl]

I wonder why if the innocence of the three convicted didn't stand on it's own two feet why the filmmakers involved in the documentaries supporting them didn't simply put forth that case, and then say the murders were done by person or persons unknown (and perhaps even included a credible profile of possible suspect/s)

rsbm


Yup, like I said, I agree with you here --- I don't think was the doco makers' place in this particular case to take family members of the victims to the 'court' of public media. If they had evidence -- take it to the police. If they didn't think the police would help (and face it, they probably wouldn't) then it would be better to sit on it and wait for a change of guard than what they did do, if integrity was an issue for them at all.

(eta - and the 'persons unknown' thing would have been a decent alternative, for sure)

I'm cautious about commenting on how it is -now- but MB and TH were both, IMO, brilliant candidates for investigation back in the day. And that has nothing to with the doco - it's to do with their own behaviour.

I don't see TH as being exonerated from suspicion, as he should not have been the moment his DNA at the crime scene and that of his real good buddy was brought to light. MB just pushes my buttons as a violent jerk, so I tend to avoid commenting on him until I find an objective place from which to do so.

But it's one thing to say "he is suspicious, I hope they investigate him properly" and quite another to say "he IS a murderer". That is for the courts to decide.

 

[reedus23]

Even if people really think the WM3 are innocent, do they really also believe that TH is the guy who did it? It just seems so silly to me, and it seems like the exact same strategy the WM3 defense has used since the beginning to blame someone else for this crime, that I can just not take the accusations seriously. The fact he may or may not have been the kind of guy to get violent with adults does not make him a child killer in my mind, they are such different kinds of crimes.

To me it is the same exact kind of scapegoating that went on with JMB and I'm surprised they even went there again. I mean really, if they really wanted to blame someone else for the murders, why didn't they look at local pedophiles or other known child killers who may have been in the area, if they had it may have seemed somewhat credible to me.

There was a disturbing sexual element to this crime, Christopher Byers' penis was de-gloved for want of a better term, now that is something that is rather specific to me, to go that extra step into mutilation. You'd be looking for someone who had some kind of deeper disturbance than the kind of guy who gets violent with other adults when drunk.

I have no idea if TH did it or not. I've been pretty clear in I think he needs to be investigated as much because he never was initially as due to the recent information. And for the record, I don't know that the WM3 are innocent either. Again, I've made it clear that I don't think there was enough to convict them and I haven't seen enough to convince me they did it, but that's different than saying they're innocent. There may very well be more information/evidence whether discovered or undiscovered that would convince me they did it. Bottom line is, I haven't seen enough to convince me of any one person's guilt. I think there are things that point to various people, including TH, WM3, Martin(or whatever his name is), LG, JMB, Lucas and a whole lot more but not enough to throw out as a statement of fact that any one person actually did it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It's no secret that I believe Damien, Jason and Jessie are innocent. It's also no secret that I believe TH deserves further investigation. As to JMB, I believe he was thoroughly investigated at the time, was interrogated (as opposed to the questioning that TH faced which was soft when compared to what JMB endured) and was eventually cleared of suspicion. I'm not saying that he was a saint, even he has admitted (as has Damien) that his actions at the time of the murders were suspicious.

As the whole Alford plea scenario is again being discussed, I will say that, IMO, one reason that Damien, Jason and Jessie agreed to it is precisely because they weren't being promised a new trial by the ASSC - only an evidentiary hearing. Given their experience with the Arkansas Judicial System, IMO, it's little wonder that they chose not to "roll the dice" when promised freedom in return for the Alford plea.

As to why the State accepted the plea, IMO, Ellington made that clear in his his December, 2011 interview with Gentleman's Quarterly. In this interview, he mentions the weakness of the case against Damien, Jason and Jessie (because of the passage of time, the changing of testimony of some witnesses and the death of other witnesses) and the cost of prosecution. So, I think it's safe to say that he was less concerned about guilt than he was about his political future, which is certainly horrible.

Additionally, I think it's important to point out that during the August 19, 2011 hearing which included the Alford plea, the new judge, David Laser, thanked the supporters for what they had done to further the cause of justice. Although subtle, I see that as at least a tacit admission on the part of the State of Arkansas (in the person of Judge Laser) that Damien, Jason and Jessie are, in fact, innocent men who were railroaded by an unscrupulous prosecution and found guilty by two compromised juries - one by judicial misconduct and the other by juror misconduct. But I digress.

Finally, since this thread is about the documentary, West of Memphis, I'd like to point out that it is showing this month on Starz, if anyone has those channels and hasn't yet seen this excellent film.

 

[JaneyBGood]

To me they seem like a lot of men who you see in low socio economic environments .. I would never apologise or condone such violence, but it is a very different kind of violence than sexual mutilation.

They may have been worth looking at, but the so called 'evidence' against both of them in relation to this crime is not the kind of evidence which would even get them arrested, let alone make it into a court of law. The filmmakers know this, they are not that naive, they also know full well that they do not need to meet the same standards required of the police or a court of law, so they recklessly created a narrative for the general public in order to sway the court of public opinion in favour of the convicted, and if that meant painting TH as a suspect then away they went.

It's manipulative and irresponsible.

Respectfully disagree with this statement! I have read everything I can get my hands on regarding WM3, have seen all 3 documentaries of Paradise Lost, and have watched West of Memphis numerous times---hesitant to add that I also read Damien's memoir Life After Death Row and found that his story had a profound impact on my life and way of thinking, he is a true inspiration, but that is my opinion. FACTUALLY there was NO evidence--direct or circumstantial-----found on the bodies of the boys or at the crime scene that links the murders to WM3. Experts studied autopsy photos of the bodies and determined it was NOT a sexual mutilation but bites from snapping turtles that caused those injuries------POST MORTEM. Thank God WM3 are free!!! What the State of Arkansas LE and Judiciary System did to WM3 scares the living day lights out of me.

 

[Ausgirl]

It scares me too, Janey.

Not because I am particularly convinced of innocence. But because the system via which they were arrested and convicted was rotten to the core, and it shows. Corruption, occult hysteria, the tainted jury.. all of it is the reason the WM3 went to prison, and why they are now free.

But did they do it? That I don't know. I have some pretty serious doubts that Baldwin was involved, personally. The other two - yeah. Dunno. The reality of them is that they were violent and unstable, and well known for it. No point painting them rosy, IMO.

I think those two boys were good suspects. But I think there were also as-good and better ones around at the time.

 

[kyleb]

Respectfully disagree with this statement!

You didn't even actually address anything Mrs G said in what you quoted from her, which isn't a respectful way to disagree by any stretch.

*my bad, you did touch on the matter of sexual mutilation with mention of "Experts studied autopsy photos of the bodies and determined it was NOT a sexual mutilation but bites from snapping turtles that caused those injuries------POST MORTEM", but in reality the experts hired by Echols' lawyers never actually went so far as to claim the mutilation was done by snapping turtles, others have taken it upon themselves to do that, and none of them have presented any notable evidence to substantiate those claims.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Respectfully disagree with this statement! I have read everything I can get my hands on regarding WM3, have seen all 3 documentaries of Paradise Lost, and have watched West of Memphis numerous times---hesitant to add that I also read Damien's memoir Life After Death Row and found that his story had a profound impact on my life and way of thinking, he is a true inspiration, but that is my opinion. FACTUALLY there was NO evidence--direct or circumstantial-----found on the bodies of the boys or at the crime scene that links the murders to WM3. Experts studied autopsy photos of the bodies and determined it was NOT a sexual mutilation but bites from snapping turtles that caused those injuries------POST MORTEM. Thank God WM3 are free!!! What the State of Arkansas LE and Judiciary System did to WM3 scares the living day lights out of me.

This is the thing, if you watch all three PL movies, and WOM, and read 99.9% of the media of this case, then yes you will absolutely think that, I am not surprised most people have a different opinion from mine at all considering all the time, effort, and money invested in the narrative the defence wanted the public to buy into.

 

[Miranda!]

Are you suggesting that those who have seen all the documentaries and read a lot of the media reports are, de fact, supporters? Have you not seen any of them, Mrs Norris?

Those three teens were guilty from the moment of their arrest, let alone entering the courtroom. In theory, the US still subscribes to the presumption of innocence, but in practice it never actualy had it. Especially in cases which grab the headlines and get the full focus of the tabloids and the TV shows. If that does not worry you, then how come you are worried when a reasoned argument presents another 'person of interest', with more evidence to back it up, than was ever presented against the wmFree during their trials?

Ideally, when discussing any previous trials we would only ever consider the prosecution's case, as formed by all the evidence collated by the police and then the defence's counter arguments; Including all the evidence witnesses
gave in court. In effect, all the trial transcripts. Then, from there, only consider materials collected by the police and not used, be it statements of people not called, evidece not presented etc. In effect, everything that is on Cally's.

The fact that a confession (in this particular case) was leaked to the media, would hopefully be in the materials gathered by the defence team.

I tend to think, though, that most of us are more than capable of using our critical faculties when reading or watching and media cover.

Step one, however, wuld have to be just considering what was actually presented in court to the jury! Then, if there were even no vestige of doubt, we would reach a verdict. If that agreed with the findings of the jury then further consideration is not needed. Why do I somehow get the feeling that Americans ony think that their justice system works just fine when it yields the verdicts that they would support? If there is any conflict then further reading of appeals and other materials would be called for in order for us to reach our conclusion of what is fair and just. Just disliking the verdict is not, on its own, enough to have a debate!

It was inevitable that the West of Memphis documentary would use the approach most easily grasped by the people in the State of Arkansas and that, of necessity, has to be in the format which the TV companies use to present their opinions on a case. Most peope watch TV. Very few attend complete trials just out of curiousity.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Trial by media is a problem in the USA. Just look at the Casey Anthony case, that was a disaster because the police got the media involved so much that it became a soap opera before it even went to trial. Same goes for the JBR case actually .. Once the reporters find a narrative that sells objectivity can fly out the window which I certainly think has happened with the PL movies and WOM .. that's why people need to look beyond MSM.

The judges in Florida weren't surprised at the CA verdict. Why? Because they weren't reading the media reports as if they had the answer, they were looking at the motions and evidence.