My view has done a complete 180

[iluvmua]

Does anyone know what kind of hairs they found? Pubic hairs? Hairs from head, Arm hairs?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Does anyone know what kind of hairs they found? Pubic hairs? Hairs from head, Arm hairs?

The TH hair (found in MM's ligature) was a facial (beard) hair, reddish in color. I have not seen where the type of hair has been identified for the tree stump hair.

 

[justthinkin]

I don't believe being scared was reason enough for him to let down his mask, which is what "persona" means. He had tried to appear tough throughout this ordeal because he knew he was innocent and he wanted to be left alone. As I said before, a mature person knows better than to act the way he did, but he was an immature teen who was being persecuted because of his beliefs, his taste in clothes and music and a community's desire to punish someone for these heinous crimes. To the community, even if he wasn't guilty, he was weird. Jessie and Jason were collateral damage; they just picked the wrong friend. So, "Hang 'em; hang 'em high" was their attitude, one fostered by the police and the media at the time. Although the media is definitely coming around (at least part of it), the police are still sticking to their original ideas of the guilt of the guys. The only reason (and it's certainly a lame one IMO) that I can think of for this action on their part is that careers were made on this case, and changing now would make them look like the fools that they are. However, when the guys are freed, I look for a monster of a tap dance by the AG and several other people.

Also, looking back on what sindydee said about the deposition, I just realized that TH was saying that the hairs weren't found at the crime scene. He's right about that, you know. They were found at the dump site. IMO, the crime scene was a nearby manhole that has never been found/investigated.

And if someone were truly innocent, and faking being a bad-azz, then that would explain what a great acting feat it was to create the look of, "Oh well, when they were pronounced guilty.

Clap, clap, clap. Damien and Jason should have won oscars for their performance.

Sorry, but that is taking it too far--them covering up their dismay at being found guilty. Innocent people would have protested or cried or looked downcast, downhearted, but no, not these innocents. Sorry, their nonchalance is just more evidence of their guilt. JMO

 

[Nova]

And if someone were truly innocent, and faking being a bad-azz, then that would explain what a great acting feat it was to create the look of, "Oh well, when they were pronounced guilty.

Clap, clap, clap. Damien and Jason should have won oscars for their performance.

Sorry, but that is taking it too far--them covering up their dismay at being found guilty. Innocent people would have protested or cried or looked downcast, downhearted, but no, not these innocents. Sorry, their nonchalance is just more evidence of their guilt. JMO

BBM: What is the source for your assertions as to how innocent defendants react to verdicts?

Because I've watched far too many trials on TV to count and it's a rare defendant, guilty or innocent, who reacts much at all. Yes, a few faint or burst into tears, but most simply blink a few times.

If the WM3 defendants didn't react to the verdicts, it probably means nothing except that they expected to be found guilty. And the way the trials were conducted, no wonder.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Let's not forget Jason's reaction at the sentencing. When asked if there was anything that he wanted to say before sentence was pronounced, his reply was, "Yeah, I'm innocent." The fact that they showed little emotion when pronounced guilty IMO could easily be a result of total exhaustion after the ordeal of being on trial. These are teens, not hardened criminals or even adults. Like Nova said, in watching various feeds of trials, I have seen a wide variety of reactions and non reactions. Usually, in my experience at least, the defendants who show the most emotion when pronounced guilty are usually guilty. For example, Clara Harris, who ran over her husband multiple times (with her husband's daughter in the car with her) when she had heard that he was in the hotel with his mistress. She wept and professed her innocence, even though the daughter was a witness. Being guilty doesn't result in an unemotional response to a guilty verdict, and being innocent doesn't mean that the defendant reacts emotionally to a guilty verdict. People are different, and different people will react in different ways. No one should judge a person's innocence or guilt on his/her reaction to the verdict or to the events in the trial. Guilt or innocence should not be determined by how a person acts or reacts. Guilt or innocence should be determined by evidence, and there was no evidence against these three young men.

 

[justthinkin]

That was my own opinion based on real trials I've seen. I have seen defendants shake their heads in disbelief, cry, practically pass out, etc. Usually, IMO, it's the guilty ones who just sit there like bumps on a log.

This is all my own opinion based on my observations alone. I believe I am entitled to my opinons just as you are yours.

I believe the two preteens who testified in court as to Damien bragging about the murders.

I believe the Hollingsworths when they said they saw him with muddy clothes.

I believe Misskelley's confession. Heck, even his own father said he thought his son was guilty of the crime, until he changed his tune.

I believe the fiber evidence, and I believe Damien wanted to go where the monsters go. Now, he's there, and he's been there for 17 years, and I think he's where he belongs.

He's exactly what he wanted to be, someone infamous, the boogie man from West Memphis. Now he's the dreaded clone he hated, but instead of society's clone, he's a clone of the state in his white prison clothes.

 

[tapu]

Let's not forget Jason's reaction at the sentencing. When asked if there was anything that he wanted to say before sentence was pronounced, his reply was, "Yeah, I'm innocent." The fact that they showed little emotion when pronounced guilty IMO could easily be a result of total exhaustion after the ordeal of being on trial. These are teens, not hardened criminals or even adults. Like Nova said, in watching various feeds of trials, I have seen a wide variety of reactions and non reactions. Usually, in my experience at least, the defendants who show the most emotion when pronounced guilty are usually guilty. For example, Clara Harris, who ran over her husband multiple times (with her husband's daughter in the car with her) when she had heard that he was in the hotel with his mistress. She wept and professed her innocence, even though the daughter was a witness. Being guilty doesn't result in an unemotional response to a guilty verdict, and being innocent doesn't mean that the defendant reacts emotionally to a guilty verdict. People are different, and different people will react in different ways. No one should judge a person's innocence or guilt on his/her reaction to the verdict or to the events in the trial. Guilt or innocence should not be determined by how a person acts or reacts. Guilt or innocence should be determined by evidence, and there was no evidence against these three young men.

Compassionate Reader! Compassionate Reader!

I love the content and presentation of logic in your posts but please break it all into shorter paragraphs, if you will. It's not that I can't get it--like, I can read long sentences, haha--but it's so hard to track through large blocks of text that I sometimes move on to responses. Anyway, just a friendly request. From an editor, sure, but....

 

[iluvmua]

Let's not forget Jason's reaction at the sentencing. When asked if there was anything that he wanted to say before sentence was pronounced, his reply was, "Yeah, I'm innocent." The fact that they showed little emotion when pronounced guilty IMO could easily be a result of total exhaustion after the ordeal of being on trial. These are teens, not hardened criminals or even adults. Like Nova said, in watching various feeds of trials, I have seen a wide variety of reactions and non reactions. Usually, in my experience at least, the defendants who show the most emotion when pronounced guilty are usually guilty. For example, Clara Harris, who ran over her husband multiple times (with her husband's daughter in the car with her) when she had heard that he was in the hotel with his mistress. She wept and professed her innocence, even though the daughter was a witness. Being guilty doesn't result in an unemotional response to a guilty verdict, and being innocent doesn't mean that the defendant reacts emotionally to a guilty verdict. People are different, and different people will react in different ways. No one should judge a person's innocence or guilt on his/her reaction to the verdict or to the events in the trial. Guilt or innocence should not be determined by how a person acts or reacts. Guilt or innocence should be determined by evidence, and there was no evidence against these three young men.

In order for me to go back to "Not Guilty" I'd have to see ALL the evidence they included and excluded. I'd like Jessie's Shirt & the Necklace tested.

going to read @ Callahan's.

 

[Nova]

That was my own opinion based on real trials I've seen. I have seen defendants shake their heads in disbelief, cry, practically pass out, etc. Usually, IMO, it's the guilty ones who just sit there like bumps on a log.

This is all my own opinion based on my observations alone. I believe I am entitled to my opinons just as you are yours....

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. Is there any reason why *I* should think it is valid. To which trials are you referring?

 

[Nova]

Compassionate Reader! Compassionate Reader!

I love the content and presentation of logic in your posts but please break it all into shorter paragraphs, if you will. It's not that I can't get it--like, I can read long sentences, haha--but it's so hard to track through large blocks of text that I sometimes move on to responses. Anyway, just a friendly request. From an editor, sure, but....

I'm assuming it's obvious I am CR's biggest fan! So I'm hoping she won't take offense if I say I agree: it would really help us read her posts if she would break the text into paragraphs.

This is only true because what she says has so much useful info!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Point taken, guys! Remember, I'm a retired math teacher, so I'm not so good with the English thing. However, in the face of "overwhelming" evidence, I'll try. I'm not insulted at all, and I hope that at least some of my posts are helpful.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

justthinkin',

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone. However, many times when I have expressed an opinion, someone (I'm not saying you) has asked for verification.

I guess the biggest problem here is that this case evokes so much passion that people tend to "convert" others to their point of view. I myself am very guilty of that, because I am convinced that I am right and a life depends on it.

I do appreciate hearing the "other side" in a non-threatening way, however. On other sites, when the pro-guilty crowd expresses opinions, they are often vulgar and sarcastic. I don't think that there's any reason for that, and I'm thankful that the admins here quickly ban those people (on either side) that make these obnoxious posts.

Let me state right now unequivocally that I am never offended by someone who believes differently than I believe, but I will probably present my side of things because I do feel very passionately about this case. Therefore, I am very thankful for this site which allows both sides to be presented but which refuses to allow abusive language.

(Was that better?)

 

[Nova]

justthinkin',

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone. However, many times when I have expressed an opinion, someone (I'm not saying you) has asked for verification.

I guess the biggest problem here is that this case evokes so much passion that people tend to "convert" others to their point of view. I myself am very guilty of that, because I am convinced that I am right and a life depends on it.

I do appreciate hearing the "other side" in a non-threatening way, however. On other sites, when the pro-guilty crowd expresses opinions, they are often vulgar and sarcastic. I don't think that there's any reason for that, and I'm thankful that the admins here quickly ban those people (on either side) that make these obnoxious posts.

Let me state right now unequivocally that I am never offended by someone who believes differently than I believe, but I will probably present my side of things because I do feel very passionately about this case. Therefore, I am very thankful for this site which allows both sides to be presented but which refuses to allow abusive language.

(Was that better?)

Perfect!

 

[cami]

Damien Echols has also said that there is additional evidence that will come out at the evidentiary hearing. There are only a handful of blood types in the world. Blood types can only prove innocence, not guilt. DNA is stronger than blood types, and there was DNA found with the bodies which doesn't match any of the three in prison.

It could be artifact dna like in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Doesn't necessarily mean it belongs to the "real killers." I believe the real killers are already convicted and imprisoned. Guilty, guilty, guilty as charged.

The defence will have to do better than one hair matching Hobb's dna at the crime scene.

 

[cami]

BBM: What is the source for your assertions as to how innocent defendants react to verdicts?

Because I've watched far too many trials on TV to count and it's a rare defendant, guilty or innocent, who reacts much at all. Yes, a few faint or burst into tears, but most simply blink a few times.

If the WM3 defendants didn't react to the verdicts, it probably means nothing except that they expected to be found guilty. And the way the trials were conducted, no wonder.

Oh they always know beforehand don't you think? I don't think the verdict is ever a surprise to the defendant.

Damien made sure he was found guilty by his arrogant behaviour...just like Scott Peterson.

 

[Fishmonger Dave]

I've read all the pro material and once was. I had never bothered to read the actual transcripts and facts. Then watching the docs again, I remember beinf creeped out by Damien and amazed at some of the things he said - but I put that aside. I see him differently now.

What do the pro WM3's have to say about Damien's failed lie detector test and the passing of Michael Carson's? They blow it off as not being credible.

However, if Damien had passed and Carson failed, they'd be singing it from the rooftops.

The facts speak for themselves.

Grynch ... ONE SIDE (the WM3 / defense) is fighting to have the remaining 100+ pieces of evidence DNA tested. ONE SIDE (the State / prosecution) is fighting AGAINST that. Nothing could speak louder. If they were guilty, the last thing the WM3's attorneys would want is to have the evidence tested. Conversely, if the State believed they were guilty, they'd be chomping at the bit for testing .... not fighting it.


Keep in mind - the fact that the WM3 are innocent means a child killer, probably Terry Hobbs, is walking free, unpunished.

Lie detector tests - if you're really asking -- the WMPD claimed that they "lost" the original tracing on Damien's test. Huh. Convenient. That way, the FBI specialist who said they mis-read Jessie's couldn't sound in on it. Come on, my man.... read up on the case. They're innocent and a killer is walking free. There's not ONE SPECK - not ONE - of physical evidence to the contrary.

 

[pufnstuf]

In order for me to go back to "Not Guilty" I'd have to see ALL the evidence they included and excluded. I'd like Jessie's Shirt & the Necklace tested.

going to read @ Callahan's.

Yep! I'm sure the defense is testing those.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I don't know if the shirt and necklace are included or not, but I do know that the defense would have no objection to having them tested. As Dave said earlier, it is the State that is wanting to curtail all testing. That speaks volumes.

 

[pufnstuf]

I don't know if the shirt and necklace are included or not, but I do know that the defense would have no objection to having them tested. As Dave said earlier, it is the State that is wanting to curtail all testing. That speaks volumes.

I doubt that the defense wants to test the blood and pendant, because both are potentially inculpatory. But if you have a link showing otherwise, I'd like to see it.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

pufnstuf,

I have lots of friends. One of them just happens to work closely with the defense team. When I posed your query to him, this was his response to you:

Puff:

Links, sure:

The pendant and t-shirt, as I'm sure you know, have been tested (relatively crudely), and the tests indicated blood traces found on them were similar to both the defendants, who owned them, and one of the victims. And an almost infinite number of other people too. Your blood type may be similar to mine. If I wind up murdered, you might want to hope that nobody discovers a shirt of yours with your blood on it. (For anybody reading along that may be unaware, you can study the most recent disclosed DNA results along with all of their implications here: http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_DNA_part_one.html (That's part one of a 4-part treatise on the subject by a very bright man, the pharmacologist Dr. Martin David Hill.)

After getting up to speed there, why don't you study--closely--the arguments put forward by David Raupp, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Arkansas, and Dennis Riordan, counsel for Damien, this past September 30 in the oral arguments at the Arkansas State Supreme Court? You can read the transcript or just sit back and watch them here: http://callahan.8k.com/pleadings.html

Regarding those arguments: is it really easy to doubt that Riordan didn't mean "everything" when he argued, repeatedly that "all [evidence] means all [evidence]," inculpatory or otherwise? Because, otherwise, you'll need to assume, in order to maintain your doubt, that what Riordan really meant was "all means all--except that pendant and t-shirt: don't test those!"

And don't miss Raupp's main point when he attempts to restrict the meaning of "all" to only "evidence of guilt:" here, let's quote him, because it's priceless:

"Well it says it – it says it by the clause that's set off: when considered with all the evidence in the case regardless of whether the evidence was introduced at trial. That clause separates the operative grammatical elements of the sentence which are a new trial if the DNA test results establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in acquittal. I think – I think that's not an uncommon grammatical construction to say we have a DNA testing statute animated by letting people prove they're innocence, and you'll get a hearing if your DNA test results establish by compelling evidence that the trial would result in acquittal. And then you set off a clause that is effectively and oppositional clause, what is it you consider in opposition. And I understand that it doesn't expressly say that, but you have to interpret the statute in light of um its animating purpose. And you have to interpret in light of rules of grammar. I mean I think that's a very fair construction uh to say that a statute that says your results must compel that you wouldn't be found guilty when considered against other evidence. What other evidence would a legislature expect people to consider when it's creating a remedy that lets you get a new trial without any demonstration of error in the way you were convicted. Right?"

Nothing doubtful about that logic, right?

It's "operative grammatical elements?...it's "um" animating principle?...interpreted in light of the rules of grammar"?

There's no doubt that it's absurd and that's the exact word the ASSC used to sum up the state's "animating principle:" http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/de_assc_order.pdf (see page 10).

Here's a link to the statutes in question (they are not poorly written and their meaning is clear): http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/A.C.A._16-112-201.pdf)

As I said, Raupp is just trying to restrict the statute to all evidence of guilt. Riordan had just said--exculpatory, inculpatory: all means all--bring it on--all of it.

The defense has called for the testing for a multitude of things; the state has tested some things--most have been alleged to be incriminating; in fact the hairs found at the scene are the only things I can think of off the top of my head that are said to be exculpatory (for D, J & J).

If the blood tracings on the pendant and t-shirt still exist in quantity enough to be tested with the latest science, they will be tested, unless the state wins it plea not to test them: for every item tested just further erodes their wrongful convictions--and they know it.

Though, I doubt you'll ever acknowledge that, Puff.