How did the 3 teens know/meet the 3 little boys?

[Sunnyone]

Well I can say for certain that there are other things just like the WM3 that happen in Arkansas and seriously make you doubt our system.....read about the boys on the tracks which involved many many police/attorneys/etc.

In rereading the transcripts-I feel they were gonna be found guilty from the get go thanks to Det. Ridge who when answering a question on the stand mentioned Jessie's confession....while testifying in Damien and Jason's trial. This was not supposed to be mentioned at all-yet it was and was allowed after much argument from the defense.

Det. Ridge did not say confession, he said statement, which was in response to Damien's attorney's question. All that aside, during voir dire the subject of the confession was asked to each and every potential juror, the confession by this time was not a secret, it had already been in the media.

 

[ziggy]

I was referring to Jesse's taped confession after hours of interrogation when he was a minor with no parent or guardian present and only the last 45 minutes of it taped. We don't know what happened prior to his confession; and under the law it must be taken into consideration the age, education level and intelligence level of the individual. His due process rights were violated in that taped confession.

Once again I agree with Nova - I do not think they want to overturn this for any reason; it's a good 'ole boy system still AND there are egos and a lot of legacies at stake regardless what level of the judicial system you're talking about. Supreme Courts are loathe to overturn and anything that is the judges discretion is untouched and not even questioned. I don't trust that they are seeking the truth because I believe there is a lot of covering going on.

Although I don't have a dog in the hunt and have not made up my mind whether I think they are innocent or not - if there is evidence that the jury discussed the confession in the Echols/Baldwin trial it's clear misconduct and with the weak evidence the prosecution actually presented it could have swayed a reasonable juror into a guilty vote - which is misconduct - which is wholly unfair and calls for a new trial.

Also, when the defense is supposed to object to evidence being admitted and they do not - that is grounds for malpractice and I would think if it is then it would also be classified as ineffectiveness of counsel.

A new trial would mean new motions in limone and perhaps more inculpatory evidence admitted that was not admitted in the first trial. It would also examine the constitutionality of Jesse's confession (s) and allow the defense to bring in the SODDI because of the reports of the bloody, muddy guy and the new hair evidence discovered.

I have not read all the court documents - but could you all direct me to the reports of the luminol results at the scene and why it was not admissible?

I've also never heard about blood on a pentagram so links for that if you have time. I'm kind of new to this case too and am looking at it from simply the legal aspect in an attempt to learn more while I'm in law school presently. There's nothing like a real life legal conundrum to apply and understand the law.

 

[nephers]

Ziggy, you can find the luminol photos on Callahans site under the photos tab. I'm sure the oral court transcripts are there too but I haven't found them yet. I was planning on looking tonight. I'll link when I find it.

I'm not sure if we can link to callahans site (I know there are banned sites here, I can't see why this would be one but just in case) you can find it by googling "west memphis three callahan"

 

[nephers]

I should have looked first. It took me all of 30 seconds to located the hearing on luminol. I'm going to read it now.... here is the link, I hope it's ok http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/luminolhearing.html

 

[Sunnyone]

I was referring to Jesse's taped confession after hours of interrogation when he was a minor with no parent or guardian present and only the last 45 minutes of it taped. We don't know what happened prior to his confession; and under the law it must be taken into consideration the age, education level and intelligence level of the individual. His due process rights were violated in that taped confession.

Once again I agree with Nova - I do not think they want to overturn this for any reason; it's a good 'ole boy system still AND there are egos and a lot of legacies at stake regardless what level of the judicial system you're talking about. Supreme Courts are loathe to overturn and anything that is the judges discretion is untouched and not even questioned. I don't trust that they are seeking the truth because I believe there is a lot of covering going on.

Although I don't have a dog in the hunt and have not made up my mind whether I think they are innocent or not - if there is evidence that the jury discussed the confession in the Echols/Baldwin trial it's clear misconduct and with the weak evidence the prosecution actually presented it could have swayed a reasonable juror into a guilty vote - which is misconduct - which is wholly unfair and calls for a new trial.

Also, when the defense is supposed to object to evidence being admitted and they do not - that is grounds for malpractice and I would think if it is then it would also be classified as ineffectiveness of counsel.

A new trial would mean new motions in limone and perhaps more inculpatory evidence admitted that was not admitted in the first trial. It would also examine the constitutionality of Jesse's confession (s) and allow the defense to bring in the SODDI because of the reports of the bloody, muddy guy and the new hair evidence discovered.

I have not read all the court documents - but could you all direct me to the reports of the luminol results at the scene and why it was not admissible?

I've also never heard about blood on a pentagram so links for that if you have time. I'm kind of new to this case too and am looking at it from simply the legal aspect in an attempt to learn more while I'm in law school presently. There's nothing like a real life legal conundrum to apply and understand the law.

Three of the four of Jessie's confessions are documented at Callahan's, (I count the first two as actually one since they were on the same day and within an hour or so apart), the fourth one was taped by his own attorney and the prosecution was not present.
That first confession:
Jessie's own father at the request of the police went and brought Jessie Jr to be interviewed. So there was parental consent. He also was brought to the station at approx 10am. He confessed at 2:40pm. Now during this time, he was asked to do a polygraph, the police went back to Jessie Sr and got his permission to do the polygraph, the polygraph was performed. At the time the WMPD did not tape potential witness statements, and since that is all they believed Jessie was (until he confessed ) they did not begin taping until after he implicated himself. So I'm curious what due process rights were violated.

So this conspiracy runs all the way to the ASSC? I'm baffled, because if I remember correctly the ASSC remanded Judge Burnett's ruling on Damien's rule 37 hearing. I guess Damien getting more chances of appeal than most means the good ol' boy system is in place still. I don't believe Supreme Court are loathe to overturn, I think they just need a valid legal reason, not just conspiracy theories and conjecture.

As for the jury misconduct, no one knows for sure what the affidavit says, it's sealed and will remain that way from what I understand. It's a moot point though, the ASSC has ruled on it. So no matter what is said by the defense, we will never know the whole story. So you either trust the defense or the ASSC. (for me since I've seen the defense give out misinformation time and time again, I will go with the ASSC, whose rulings are public). Even if they were granted a new trial, this is not evidence, so they have to find a legitimate legal reason to be granted a new trial. So far they haven't been able to find one. Even the latest oral arguments is about the DNA, the results of which were inconclusive to proof of innocence.

Ineffective counsel was dealt with in the rule 37 hearing.. denied.


I'm not sure what limone means? Unless you are referring to Peter Limone, but as far as I know it isn't a legal term for motions. Please feel free to educate me on this term.
A new trial for Damien will have nothing to do with Jessie's confessions unless the defense brings them in. Damien would have to waiver his rights with the confessions. The constitutionality of Jessie's confession, I'm confused on what would make it unconstitutional. Jessie clearly states in each one that the police were not mean to him. They had his father's permission, and Jessie signed the miranda. If you mean that it was coerced, that would have to be proven and it hasn't to date. Kinda hard to prove that with Jessie confessing to his lawyers for months even when the police or prosecution weren't even there. The reports of the Bojangles man were introduced in the first trial, so I'm not sure that would even have an effect on getting a new trial, or even within a new trial.

The blood was not on a pentagram, but on a pendant that was being worn by Damien at the time of his arrest. It's in the trial transcripts, the march 17 hearing.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

^ All hail...

:gold_crown: