Why do you think some of the parents have changed their mind?

[Dirty larry]

What was the defining piece of evidence that convinced you of their guilt?

The convictions.

It's not easy getting arrest warrants, it's even more difficult getting indictments, then you have to convince the jurors - when it's hard to get twelve people to agree on pizza toppings.

And keep in mind, the cards are stacked in favor of the defendant every step of the way.

In our system, once convicted, the presumption rightly becomes guilty, and it's then up to the Defendant to prove actual innocence.

These defendants have had a parade of high profile attorneys, thousands of active supporters, and virtually unlimited financial resources, Yet in 15 years, they haven't managed a shred of evidence to indicate their innocence.

 

[Nova]

The convictions.

It's not easy getting arrest warrants, it's even more difficult getting indictments, then you have to convince the jurors - when it's hard to get twelve people to agree on pizza toppings.

And keep in mind, the cards are stacked in favor of the defendant every step of the way.

In our system, once convicted, the presumption rightly becomes guilty, and it's then up to the Defendant to prove actual innocence.

These defendants have had a parade of high profile attorneys, thousands of active supporters, and virtually unlimited financial resources, Yet in 15 years, they haven't managed a shred of evidence to indicate their innocence.

Odd that you find convictions irrefutable when thanks to the Innocence Project and other organizations, we know of hundreds of false convictions in this country.

I have heard it claimed that the odds are stacked in favor of the perp from the time the crime is committed until an arrest is made.

At that point, however, in most if not all jurisdictions, the odds quickly shift in favor of the prosecution.

For cases that go to trial in the U.S., the conviction rate is nearly 90%:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/fall05/MLEA/EricRasmussenandRaghav-Prosecutors.pdf



Must not be too hard to get juries to convict.

(Note: One of your points above was that the rules continue to favor the defendant, and I'm not disagreeing with that, but part of the reason the rules favor the defendant is that the system itself (except in the case of very rich defendants) and the available resources favor the People.)

 

[Dirty larry]

Odd that you find convictions irrefutable

What's not so odd is the fact that you are being deliberately dishonest about what I actually said.

when thanks to the Innocence Project and other organizations, we know of hundreds of false convictions in this country.

That's incredible!

I mean that's like .0032% of all convictions, isn't it?

I have heard it claimed that the odds are stacked in favor of the perp from the time the crime is committed until an arrest is made.

You probably meant suspect, right?

At that point, however, in most if not all jurisdictions, the odds quickly shift in favor of the prosecution.

That's absolutely laughable.

One of your points above was that the rules continue to favor the defendant, and I'm not disagreeing with that

It sure seems like you are?

For cases that go to trial in the U.S. the conviction rate is nearly 90%

I think you should probably read your source a little more carefully.

But a look at the conviction rate for contested cases shows that the difference is not in the uncertainty of American trials. In 1994, Japanese defendants contested 3,648 cases and were acquitted in 45, a contested conviction rate of 98.8 percent. In 1995, U.S. federal defendants pleaded innocent in 11,877 cases. Courts acquitted or dismissed the charges in 8,207, a contested conviction rate of 30.9 percent. In state courts, the contested conviction rate apparently is even lower.

You see, your "nearly 90%" that the Prosecution wins includes plea bargains.

So what percentage of indited defendants actually contest their cases in court?

Well, according to your source:

in 1994 Japanese defendants contested prosecution in only 7.3 percent of cases, compared to innocent plea percentages of 11 percent in U.S. state and 22 percent in U.S. federal courts.

Amazing, isn't it?

Of the only 11% of defendants who actually plea innocent in state court, less than 30% are convicted.

It's almost as if guilty verdicts aren't all that easy to come by.

 

[Nova]

Larry, you were asked what convinced you of the WM3's guilt and you said their "convictions."

If I went too far in inferring you have a strong belief in the validity of convictions (or if my use of the word "irrefutable" went too far), I apologize. You are right to correct me, but there was nothing "deliberately dishonest" in my inference.

People make mistakes all the time. Every error isn't a conscious effort to mislead.

As for the rest of your discussion on the success rate of convictions, I need to look at the math. (To make sure I understand it; not because I think you distorted it.) I certainly appreciate the explanation.

 

[Dirty larry]

Larry, you were asked what convinced you of the WM3's guilt and you said their "convictions."

No, I was asked what initially convinced me.

Again, the fact is that once convicted, the presumption becomes guilt.

People make mistakes all the time. Every error isn't a conscious effort to mislead.

Perhaps not, but when errors are repeated again and again even after being corrected, then there's little question that it's intentional.

As for the rest of your discussion on the success rate of convictions, I need to look at the math.

You probably should have done that BEFORE "correcting" me.

Either way, just as I said - convictions in a jury trial ARE difficult to obtain, and as such, these convictions - which have been upheld challenge after challenge for a decade and a half in three seperate courts - are stronger evidence of guilt than any evidence to the contrary yet presented.

It's just as simple as that.

 

[ziggy]

I call hogwash DL.

There have been cases that lost repeatedly on appeal and then DNA was allowed to be introduced and resulted in exhonerating the defendant only after years of prison time.

To say the conviction is the strongest evidence so far because they have lost on appeal is like saying those guys who were exhonerated are still guilty because, after all, they WERE convicted and that presumes guilt in your world regardless of a fresh look, the evolving use of profiling, and DNA evidence.

If new evidence comes forward that could exhonerate the defendants - then how should AK handle that under their statute? What do you think is the proper legislative interpretation?

 

[Dirty larry]

I call hogwash DL.

Since you are oblivious to the chronology of Echol's case, I couldn't possibly care less what you call.

There have been cases that lost repeatedly on appeal and then DNA was allowed to be introduced and resulted in exhonerating the defendant only after years of prison time.

There have been people who were struck by lightning as well.

And here's another little tidbit for you.

Peter Nuefeld, co-founder of the innocence project reports that in the incredibly few cases which were compelling enough for them to get involved, DNA testing further confirmed guilt 50% of the time.

To say the conviction is the strongest evidence so far because they have lost on appeal is like saying those guys who were exhonerated are still guilty because, after all, they WERE convicted and that presumes guilt in your world regardless of a fresh look, the evolving use of profiling, and DNA evidence.

No, it's nothing like that at all.

You know why?

Because those who were exhonerated proved actual innocence, and are NOT still presumed guilty.

See how simple it is?

If new evidence comes forward that could exhonerate the defendants - then how should AK handle that under their statute?

You mean the scientific evidence statute?

I think AK should look at the scientific evidence to see if it proves actual innocence.

They have, and it doesn't.

What do you think is the proper legislative interpretation?

Well, call me crazy, but I suspect that a statute allowing scientific testing to prove actual innocence should be interpreted as a statute which allows scientific testing to prove actual innocence.

You know,... like those exhonerations you mentioned.

 

[Paige SC]

why was dirty larry banned? altho not a popular POV, I enjoyed some of his posts on the WM3 case?...

 

[Compassionate Reader]

why was dirty larry banned? altho not a popular POV, I enjoyed some of his posts on the WM3 case?...

Not being an administrator I don't know for certain, but IMO it was his constant attacks on others. IMO, he didn't simply disagree with people, he attacked them, not their views. An administrator would be better able to answer your query, however.

ETA: BTW, on the topic of this thread, IMO, the parents who changed their minds did so because, unlike some of the other parents, they were willing to look at the information uncovered by the defense, and they felt that this information pointed away from the WMFree. The parents who have not changed their minds appeared unwilling to listen to the additional information uncovered by the defense and therefore IMO are partially uninformed about the case. They still cling to the prosecution's theory because it gives them peace. I hope and pray that, when all of the information the defense has collected becomes public, these unconvinced parents will realize that they were wrong in continuing to believe the prosecution. A more pertinent question IMO is why didn't the WMPD investigate all of the parents?

 

[Paige SC]

Most of these parents seem impoverished and/or poor.. drug problems, a life of struggle post murder of their children. Some were bought off by the defense fund, no? Seems I read that in this (or another supporting thread).

 

[Wishbone]

Most of these parents seem impoverished and/or poor.. drug problems, a life of struggle post murder of their children. Some were bought off by the defense fund, no? Seems I read that in this (or another supporting thread).

Is there a link to support their being paid to change their view?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No one was "bought off" by the defense. That is an unsubstantiated statement made by someone who believes that the WMFree are guilty. There is absolutely no proof of that statement.

HBO paid all participant families for the first documentary an equal amount. Supporters of the WMFree have from time to time collected money and offered it to the families of the victims as well as to the families of the falsely-convicted. IIRC, one family has refused to accept this money.

More importantly, this money is not a substantial sum. Most of the money collected by the supporters has gone for testing, for transportation of expert witnesses to testify and things like that. No one has gotten rich off of this fund.

 

[Saddoll]

No one was "bought off" by the defense. That is an unsubstantiated statement made by someone who believes that the WMFree are guilty. There is absolutely no proof of that statement.

This statement is not true, I am personnal friends with Todd Moore and Terry Hobbs. Amanda Hobbs was given money and I seen the signed check by Lorri Davis for a car, so she could be hypnotized for the Amy Berg documentry. Amy was given money by Peter Jackson, infact she is the one who took the cigerette butts from Terry Hobbs, she also offered Amanda 3 thousand dollars to steal Terry Hobbs Journals, Amanda could not find them so she gave Amy one of the songs Terrys was writing. Soon Terry Hobbs Journals will be published, hes hoping this month The book will be titled Things the Media would not let me say. Also the Ballards were paid off by Lorri, think about it who could remember 18 years back that they saw someone at the exact time, and the exact date.


HBO paid all participant families for the first documentary an equal amount. Supporters of the WMFree have from time to time collected money and offered it to the families of the victims as well as to the families of the falsely-convicted. IIRC, one family has refused to accept this money.

This is partially true but not too the families, at one time Jessie's account was empty, and his father had to ask them for money so Jessie could buy food or whatever was needed.

More importantly, this money is not a substantial sum. Most of the money collected by the supporters has gone for testing, for transportation of expert witnesses to testify and things like that. No one has gotten rich off of this fund.

Since I have asked many times for an audit, even Mara Leverit at one time thought something was not right, and got shut up by Lorri when Damien responded with a letter saying he would not take money from that fund.
The testing was paid for by Henry Rollins. Peter Jackson gave 10 million, yet the wm3.org a few years back was asking people to give up their lunch money.

This whole case is about money.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The whole case is about justice. Obviously you are friends with Terry Hobbs and he is going to place his slant on things. Please be patient and wait until all of the information the defense has is made public. You may be surprised at what it revealed. Have you been in recent contact with Amanda? You might ask her how she feels now.

As the the neighbors not being able to remember that far back, I respectfully disagree. I remember vividly the day JFK was assassinated. I was in the tenth grade. That, if you don't remember, was in 1963. I can tell you all kinds of details about that day.

The reason that the neighbors have vivid memories is because they were doing an habitual activity - waiting to be picked up to go to church. That made them remember that it was Wednesday. The next day, when the announcement about the bodies being found was made, I'm sure that they remembered seeing the boys the night before in their backyard.

Have you ever heard that someone that you had just seen died suddenly? Because you had just seen them, the memory is emblazoned into your mind. IMO, in a small town like West Memphis, a triple homicide would be a memorable event, especially if you had just seen the victims the night before they were found.

I will be watching for Terry's book.

 

[Cappuccino]

Also the Ballards were paid off by Lorri, think about it who could remember 18 years back that they saw someone at the exact time, and the exact date.

You have no evidence of this, its merely your opinion. The Ballards gave those statements under oath, so you are accusing the Ballards of a crime, (perjury), with no evidence.

As for remembering 18 years later, those murders sent shock waves through West Memphis and beyond. Definitely the next door neighbours would remember forever about the last time they saw those three boys alive. It must have come as a shock to Terry Hobbs that they remembered, but normal people tend to have their last sighting of a murder victim burnt into their memory.

 

[Daisy1975]

ETA: BTW, on the topic of this thread, IMO, the parents who changed their minds did so because, unlike some of the other parents, they were willing to look at the information uncovered by the defense, and they felt that this information pointed away from the WMFree. The parents who have not changed their minds appeared unwilling to listen to the additional information uncovered by the defense and therefore IMO are partially uninformed about the case. They still cling to the prosecution's theory because it gives them peace. I hope and pray that, when all of the information the defense has collected becomes public, these unconvinced parents will realize that they were wrong in continuing to believe the prosecution. A more pertinent question IMO is why didn't the WMPD investigate all of the parents?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Dysthymia]

You have no evidence of this, its merely your opinion. The Ballards gave those statements under oath, so you are accusing the Ballards of a crime, (perjury), with no evidence.

As for remembering 18 years later, those murders sent shock waves through West Memphis and beyond. Definitely the next door neighbours would remember forever about the last time they saw those three boys alive. It must have come as a shock to Terry Hobbs that they remembered, but normal people tend to have their last sighting of a murder victim burnt into their memory.

Hi, Cappuccino. By the way, I was jumping into this conversation. I didn't make the disputed remark about the neighbors or anything. I'm not sure who did. I just wanted to say something about memory and what people remember, or in some cases believe they do. When 9/11 happened, I always remember being at my home computer that day and turning around to see the tv and seeing the second plane and the aftermath. But, none of that is true. My sister was going to work, had the tv on, saw the attack begin and came to the bathroom door (I was in the bathtub) to tell me something had happened. Her version has to be right because she was called out to work early that day and I had a Dr. appointment that morning and was getting ready to go to it.

Sorry that was so long. But the reason I wanted to include it was that people do sometimes innocently and without realizing it "fill in" memories that didn't really happen at all.

Peace, friend.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Everyone is different. I have distinct and vivid memories of three things that have happened in my lifetime: the assassination of JFK, the Challenger disaster and 9/11. Some people may not be able to remember accurately, but some can. In this case, we're not relying on the testimony of one person, but three. I don't think that all three are wrong.

 

[Cappuccino]

That's a valid point, Dysthymia. Memory isn't like a tape recorder which stores everything as it happened, our brains are more complex than that, and false memories are a real phenomenon. OTOH, the phenomenon which CR describes of having certain events burnt vividly and accurately on your brain years later is also a real phenomenon. Which is the case here would be for a court to decide if it ever came to court proceedings, they would have to question all the witnesses and examine their evidence the same way they do with any other witness.

I'm not objecting to that at all, but I do object strongly to the wild, unsubstantiated accusation that the Ballards deliberately perjured themselves in return for money. That strikes me as so slanderous that IMO readers would be well advised to consider the source.

 

[Daisy1975]

I am by no means an expert on this case and I don't know any of the people involved personally, but I find it hard to believe that Pam Hobbs would sell out the memory of a son that she loved more than anything for money. Some of these conspiracy theories get a little out of control. As if all of these people, supporters, defense attorneys, celebrities and now victim's parents would just jump on board to support three young men they thought were guilty for an extra buck. Maybe I am just not that jaded yet, but I don't buy it.