Why did the WM3 do it?

[Aura]

No I did not forget that the 500 was not evidence in the trial. I also put that I did not think he was a murderer for it. It is a look at what his teenage years were like. I have worked in the mental health field for many years, and have also dealt with these kinds of teenagers. I was no saint either. But I didnt take things this out of hand either. I dont know how it is in different states, just here in Arizona, but I have never seen a medical professional over exaggerate claims to get the person disability. If anything, here, they keep it simple in order to make it a major thing to get on disability. The Social Security here want and make you see their own docs to be determined if you are really that mentally disabled.

I also dont think that just because you or anyone else was that crazy with what they said as a teenager, means you know what was going on in the mind of Damien at this time. I sure as hell dont. He couldve made things more crazier then what they really were. Still doesnt make him look any better in the 500.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'm not enamored with Damien or what he said. I was simply pointing out that I have heard worse from my students in parent/teacher conferences. None of those students (to my knowledge) ever killed anyone.

Do I think Damien had problems as a teenager? Yes, I do. I also believe that he was given incorrect medication which could account for some of his actions during the trial.

Do I think that some of the information in Exhibit 500 is "scary" to use your word? Yes, some of it is scary. However, as you pointed out, nothing in Exhibit 500 makes Damien guilty of the murders of those three little boys.

What usually upsets me whenever Exhibit 500 is discussed is the insistence of so many people that Damien's mental health issues is evidence that he was capable of murdering the little boys when it wasn't introduced in the trial but only in the penalty phase and then by the defense. Further, no matter how much information is presented to imply that someone is capable of murder, in order to be found guilty of murder, generally there needs to be means, motive and opportunity - and some evidence of such. IMO, in this case, that hasn't been proven.

Damien had mental health issues as a teenager (he may still have them), but that doesn't prove he is a murderer. IMO, he had an alibi for the night. Also, I don't believe Jessie's yarns as they don't match the forensics of the case. So, IMO, it is counterproductive and misleading to continue to discuss Damien's mental health issues especially since they weren't introduced in the trial as evidence of his guilt.

ETA: As to mental health professionals not lying in order to "help" someone get SSDI, maybe it doesn't happen in Arizona, but it did where I taught (TX). I know because the kids would often brag about how the social worker or psychologist "helped" them out. IMO, no profession, including my own, is without its "bad apples."

 

[hello people]

Nothing motivated them because they didn't.

Yes they did. They are guilty as sin.

 

[Cappuccino]

Yes they did. They are guilty as sin.

Coming from a person that doesn't even know the basic crime scene details, that is rubbish. You have to ask how deep the drainage ditch was, and what were the initial crime scene photos? And you pretend to know anything about guilt or innocence?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Cazzie]

Re: the topic. They didn't. Ask Terry. JMO.

 

[hello people]

Coming from a person that doesn't even know the basic crime scene details, that is rubbish. You have to ask how deep the drainage ditch was, and what were the initial crime scene photos? And you pretend to know anything about guilt or innocence?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

It's 50/50

There's great cud for either side to chew on

 

[Nova]

None of us can guess what motivated this crime. That's why prosecutors are never required to prove a motive. Since there is no physical evidence to follow, they had to believe the motive was satanism as that's what they were being told and there was proof at least from Damien. We all know others can be coerced into a crime.

Satanists usually kill babies as sacrifices and they mark the body with symbols so we let that motive go.

Seems thrill kill might be the only motive left. I don't think it was planned, it was spur of the moment but I beleive it's something Damien fantasized about.

There is no evidence that Satanists exist, much less kill babies.

Just as there is no evidence that Jason Baldwin is "evil" or that Jason and Damian ever let Jessie Misskelley "hang out" with them.

This must be the "fan fiction" thread.

 

[hello people]

Well like everything with this case...it's one big grey area

 

[HastingsChi]

Well like everything with this case...it's one big grey area

If one closely examines all of the evidence (including Dennis Riordan's findings and known evidence the defense was preparing to use if a retrial was granted), examines the local media coverage from the arrests through the trials and looks at the facts that came out about witnesses and others directly involved in the initial trials; then I think it is crystal clear that it is not a grey area..

 

[hello people]

Well the evidence points squarely at the convicted

 

[HastingsChi]

Well the evidence points squarely at the convicted

Noting that I have not shared my position, I'm curious to understand what specifically led you to arrive at your position?

 

[hello people]

http://callahan.8k.com/

 

[CHERIE.T]

Yes they did. They are guilty as sin.

No, no they are not guilty. There is no forensic or physical proof.

 

[kyleb]

If determining guilt required physical proof, forensic or otherwise, all but the dumbest of criminals would walk free.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If determining guilt required physical proof, forensic or otherwise, all but the dumbest of criminals would walk free.

You do realize that two chief prosecution witnesses (Carson and Hutcheson) have recanted, right? The only evidence against the WM3 presented at trial was Jessie's hare-brained, coerced story, the 'tweens' hearsay, fiber evidence (which has since been disproved), Vicki Hutcheson's testimony about the esbat (which she has since recanted) and Michael Carson's testimony about Jason "confessing" to him (which he has since recanted. Maybe there can't always be forensic evidence, but there must be some evidence. Where is it?

 

[kyleb]

There was more evidence presented at trial than what you mention, and more evidence which has come out since then through document releases and hearings. Before getting into any of that though, where is evidence that any of Misskelley's many confessions were coerced, or anything to disprove the fiber evidence?

As for Carson and Hutcheson, I first heard of them through West of Memphis, so I never had time to actually consider their testimony before I heard the recantations. I doubt I ever would have put any stock in what they said anyway though, as neither seem like individuals of notable character, which leaves me to consider their recantations just as dubious as their previous claims.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If you have seen West of Memphis, then you also heard Joyce Cureton's statement. From what I've been told, that is a powerful statement, indeed. She points to some pretty interesting corruption within the justice system in Arkansas, at least at the time of the murders. What reason is there to disbelieve her statement? Remember, she was told not to be available for the trials.

The fibers were retested and the findings indicated that they did not come from the garments collected from the defendants' homes (http://www.kait8.com/link/583753/pdf-forensic-scientists-claim-wm3-fiber-evidence-is-wrong) So, the fibers are useless as a "proof" of guilt for the wrongfully-convicted men.

I've read the trial transcripts on Callahan's and don't recall any proof of guilt. Remember, at an initial trial, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I know that "two juries found them guilty" but that doesn't make it true. That's why we have an appeals process in this country. When you consider that the E/B jury was most probably tainted by the jury foreman and the Misskelley jury heard a false confession that they believed (plus they may have been influenced by a bit of judicial misconduct), I simply put no store in the jury verdicts.

The 'tweens are almost as unbelievable as Michael Carson and Jessie Misskelley! They claimed to have overheard Damien "confess." Remember, they were eavesdropping. They were quite young and, IMO, probably wouldn't have recognized sarcasm if it reached up and bit them on the butt. If Damien "confessed," and I don't concede that he did, it was said sarcastically, not seriously.

Now there is evidence just as strong as the 'tweens' statements against TH - the three witnesses (especially Witness #3) who were friends of Michael Hobbs, Jr. who were interviewed in West of Memphis Unlike the 'tweens who supposedly overheard Damien's "confession" at the softball game, these three witnesses were older and have passed polygraph tests on their sworn statements.

So, please tell me what "proof" of guilt for Damien, Jason and Jessie remains to be refuted.

 

[kyleb]

Before responding to your post most recent post, I'm still curious regarding the assertion in your previous post that Misskelley was coerced: do you have any actual evidence to support that claim?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I answered that question in another thread. Basically, look at the "corrected" statement of June 3, 1993. The coercion (you called it "coaching") was evident. It may be legal for police interrogators to use this tactic, but IMO it's unethical, especially on an mentally-challenged suspect. I'm sure you disagree, but, as JMB often says, everyone's entitled to be wrong.

 

[kyleb]

I asked in this thread before you answered in the other thread. However, in response to your reply here: please check however many dictionaries it takes for you to come to terms with the fact that you are using the term coercion wrong. Of course you are entitled to keep using it wrong, but you can't rightly expect anyone to take you seriously as long as you do fail to respect such simple facts.