West of Memphis

[KMouse]

Watched the movie over the weekend.

Heartbreaking. I really wish there could have been a new trial.

It's so obvious the Alford plea was done to save the prosecution and the state from lawsuits. 3 people x 18 years each said it all.

 

[reedus23]

Watched the movie over the weekend.

Heartbreaking. I really wish there could have been a new trial.

It's so obvious the Alford plea was done to save the prosecution and the state from lawsuits. 3 people x 18 years each said it all.

Yep, if the state would have flat out released them or if they otherwise outright won their release, I would not be surprised to see dollar figures upward of $100 million being discussed.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Echols' attorney, Val Price, was at the necklace meeting, as can be seen in starting at around 3:15 in the video.

No, that is Robin Wadley, Jason's second attorney. He is identified earlier in the clip.

 

[kyleb]

Ah, sure enough. My bad.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Don't feel too bad! IMO, Robin Wadley and Val Price bear a striking similarity.

 

[ceecee30]

I finally got round to watching this tonight, with my partner who isn't in the slightest aware of any of the WM3 story

30 minutes in and he's said it's the stepfather... In reference to Terry Hobbs, watching Hobbs demeanor in old court footage where he is entirely emotionless when photos of the boys bodies are shown when everyone else around him is visibly upset... Refusing DNA voluntarily... His own daughter saying he beat her and Stevie...

And then you have Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh willing to Financially back the defense and try free the WM3, and I can say that the limited knowledge the Aussies and New zeal endears got on this case at the time would have probably been at most a 15-20 second news blurb.. I can only see someone of that stature and wealth sticking up for innocence and not just being led astray..

 

[dougie]

Im not convinced either of the WM3's guilt or innocence.Its probabley something we will really never know for sure.

 

[kyleb]

30 minutes in and he's said it's the stepfather...

Wow, his reasoning abilities are nearly as astounding as those of the many who had the murders pegged on Mark Byers after watching part of either of the first two movies.

I can only see someone of that stature and wealth sticking up for innocence and not just being led astray..

Sure, they're practically gods, and who are we to question them, eh? I mean look what some heretic made:

It's like that story of that idiot who was too blind to see the emperor's cloths. /s

 

[ceecee30]

I wonder how long it would've taken him to pin the murders on Mark Byers if you'd shown him one of the first two movies instead.


Sure, they're practically gods, and who are we to question them, eh? I mean look what some heretic made:

It's like that story of that idiot who was too blind to see the emperor's cloths. /s

I do enjoy you quoting me, and only quoting what you can come back with some witty comment at..

For your information he was making his assumption based on media "main stream medias" original news footage as shown in west of Memphis. He was judging on the lack of emotion, oh and the way Hobbs acted like picking Pam Hobbs up as normal from work because really who carries on like that when their child is missing... excuse me but if my son or stepson was missing I'd be calling or picking my partner up early...

 

[kyleb]

It seems you also enjoy quoting my whole post only to completely ignore the substance of it. As for how your man came to his conclusion, you really didn't have to spell that out for me as I've seen the movie and can put two and two together just fine. Anyway, it's rather absurd how so many people who insist Echols was wrongly suspected simply for his peculiarity have no qualms with citing peculiarities as reason to sink their teeth into parents of the victims.

 

[ceecee30]

It seems you also enjoy quoting my whole post only to completely ignore the substance of it. As for how your man came to his conclusion, you really didn't have to spell that out for me as I've seen the movie and can put two and two together just fine. Anyway, it's rather absurd how so many people who insist Echols was wrongly suspected simply for his peculiarity have no qualms with citing peculiarities as reason to sink their teeth into parents of the victims.

I never said Echols was wrongly suspected, I merely pointed out in my original post that

a. Someone with no prior information on the case made and assumption as to who he believed may have been responsible after watching the documentary

b. pointed out that there was no reason for Peter Jackson to merely just be on board when he has/had spent considerable amounts of his money to INVESTIGATE his belief that Echols was innocent, I also pointed out there was / is a lack of MSM in Australia & New Zealand on this case.

 

[reedus23]

Wow, his reasoning abilities are nearly as astounding as those of the many who had the murders pegged on Mark Byers after watching part of either of the first two movies.

Really wish you would learn to respect other people's rights to their own opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but they should be afforded the respect due them. I also think ceecee made it quite clear what that opinion was based on and that her friend was not trying to reach a conclusion based on an exhaustive review of all the evidence as you like to say. Are you saying they are not entitled to any opinion unless it agrees with you? Are you saying they are not entitled to voice an opinion on a documentary unless they first review all the evidence? Take it for what it is, one person's opinion after watching a documentary, and relax a little bit.

 

[kyleb]

I'm quite calm, and I do respect the fact that everyone has the right to their own opinions. Perhaps if you relax for a while and ponder on what I've said you'll be able to deduce why the answer to both your questions is no. I won't be holding my breath, but would be happy to have you surprise me.


By the way, regarding how WoM shows Bearden selectively quoting a summery of her interview with police to give the impression it substantiates Echols; claims of alibi while the checking the transcript itself shows it actually contradicts both Baldwin and Echols' claims of alibis: am I to take it nobody here cares about such facts?

 

[reedus23]

I'm quite calm, and I do respect the fact that everyone has the right to their own opinions. Perhaps if you relax for a while and ponder on what I've said you'll be able to deduce why the answer to both your questions is no. I won't be holding my breath, but would be happy to have you surprise me.

Ok, I have pondered and I got nothing. I have tried to make sense of it but can't. Sorry.

 

[reedus23]

By the way, was she even interviewed before the arrests to even determine if there was a legitimate alibi in the first place?

 

[kyleb]

Not that I know of, but then neither do I know of any evidence to suggest Echols claimed he'd been on the phone with Bearden until after he was arrested. Have you found any such evidence, our are you of the opinion that police should've been able to psychically derive that Echols would later claim Bearden as an alibi?

 

[reedus23]

Not that I know of, but then neither do I know of any evidence to suggest Echols claimed he'd been on the phone with Bearden until after he was arrested. Have you found any such evidence, our are you of the opinion that police should've been able to psychically derive that Echols would later claim Bearden as an alibi?

It is called an investigation isn't it? That is unless you want to put blinders on and have DamienVision.

 

[kyleb]

Expecting police to have investigated claims and a time when you've no evidence they were even aware of those claims is called absurd, and it takes some rather massive blinders to imagine otherwise.

 

[reedus23]

Expecting police to have investigated claims and a time when you've no evidence they were even aware of those claims is called absurd, and it takes some rather massive blinders to imagine otherwise.

So in your estimation, LE shouldn't or doesn't need to investigate a POI other than to establish their guilt? They should only dig up evidence that would lead to a conviction? They don't need to dig up the truth? Or are you saying LE was never told Damien was on the phone that evening?

 

[kyleb]

You're way off base on all counts.