New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[Cappuccino]

Would you please quote the statute you are alluding to here?

The statute under which the testing was ordered, which iirc, was the Arkansas DNA statute of 2002.

 

[kyleb]

Well I believe I've found the relevant statues, but I'm not finding anything in them to support your claim that the convicted being conclusively excluded as the source of some what little DNA was recovered from the murder scene entitles them to relief. Besides, the fact remains that Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report.

 

[Cappuccino]

Well I believe I've found the relevant statues, but I'm not finding anything in them to support your claim that the convicted being conclusively excluded as the source of some what little DNA was recovered from the murder scene entitles them to relief. Besides, the fact remains that Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report.

Its not my claim, the ASCC has already ruled on it, and ruled unanimously too. So maybe you personally cannot find anything in the statute which entitled the wm3 to an evidentiary hearing, but seven judges disagree.

Who is more qualified to interpret the laws of Arkansas - KyleB who doesn't understand procedural law, or seven judges?

 

[kyleb]

Well any one of those judges alone certainly has far more qualifications regarding such matters than me, but surely you're not attempting to argue that it's impossible for them to have made a mistake?

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't think its unreasonable to ask for more than a bald assertion from you before I take your word over that of the collective wisdom of the ASCC, do you? Perhaps you could tell us which parts of their ruling you think were mistaken, and why.

Btw, I think you may have misread that lab report you linked to. I can't double check this because when I clicked on that PDF it froze my computer screen, but the report you linked to said that all three had been excluded as the source of all the biological material listed in Table 2. I do believe the hair you referred to was in Table 2, so therefore Baldwin was indeed excluded as the source. Sorry if I'm wrong, but as I said I can't double check it.

 

[kyleb]

I didn't ask you to take my word on anything, but rather I asked you "Would please quote the statute you are alluding to here?", and when you didn't I went looking for myself and came back to note the fact that I didn't find anything in the statues to support your claim.

As for the Bode report, it does say what you noted, but apparently standard reporting practices weren't followed when saying as much, since this subsequent Bode report states "in standard reporting practices three differences are required for an exclusion" while "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" only show two differences compared to the swab from Baldwin.

 

[Cappuccino]

I didn't ask you to take my word on anything, but rather I asked you "Would please quote the statute you are alluding to here?", and when you didn't I went looking for myself and came back to note the fact that I didn't find anything in the statues to support your claim.

But its not my claim. All I'm doing is describing what way the Arkansas State Supreme Court ruled on the issue, so if you want to dispute the wm3's entitlement to an evidentiary hearing you should probably start by reading their ruling.

I'm not clicking on any more links to PDFs tonight, they're causing me computer issues. I'll get back to you about the scout cap hair when I can take a look at the report.

 

[Miranda!]

Well any one of those judges alone certainly has far more qualifications regarding such matters than me . . .

One moment you have a problem with recognising the common root of a group of words and now you actually think that the Supreme Court Justices of the state 'might' have made a mistake in the interpretation of a law and that a regular judge like Judge Burnett could have been correct?

I think I will go with a unanimous decision by the Supreme Justices over a now retired Judge who has decided to spend his later years in politics. You are more than welcome to align yourself with Burnett if you are that confident in the way he has handled this case since the very start and feel that his legal prowess is greater than the combined mind and experiences of the Supreme Court Justices. It is what it is.

Of course, anything in this case is possible. Over the years most of us have come to realise that, which is why we are still prepared to debate it until the powers that be in the state of Arkansas realise, for once and for all, that we are not going to just let this case 'go away'.

If the authorities really believe in the guilt of the three then it is astounding that they were happy to treat with them and release them back in to society. If they actually think a travesty of justice occurred back in '94 and they are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge it, then that too, is just as bad. Which ever way you look at it, justice has never been served for those three young lads. Surely every reasonable person can see that? Surely no reasonable person can be happy with the way things are?

 

[reedus23]

Well I believe I've found the relevant statues, but I'm not finding anything in them to support your claim that the convicted being conclusively excluded as the source of some what little DNA was recovered from the murder scene entitles them to relief. Besides, the fact remains that Baldwin cannot be excluded as the source of a hair identified as "2S04-114-23 Hair from scout cap" in this report.

Quick answer now and I'll try to put a more comprehensive answer together if needed. The DNA tests coming back with conclusive results that it was not the WM3's meant that they were entitled to file a Motion for New Trial. The statute then provides that, with regard to that Motion for New Trial, they are entitled to a hearing on it, unless the record CONCLUSIVELY shows that the defendants would not be entitled to relief. In determining that they are entitled to a hearing and at the hearing itself, obviously we know that the Court was to consider not just evidence of guilt, not just evidence at trial, but all evidence(including animal predation, including juror misconduct, etc.).

So the "relief", if you want to call it that, to which the defendants were entitled to once the results came back, was the right to file a Motion for New Trial. It didn't mean they automatically got a new trial, but they did get the right to a hearing as to whether or not they were entitled to a new trial.

Again, that's why I say Burnett is kicking himself. Had he just had the hearing. Had he just let them put on animal predation and juror misconduct. He would have met the strictures of the statute and I am certain he would have given no weight to the new evidence and would have denied the motion for new trial and that ruling would have been upheld. Instead, he was so hell bent on ruling against the defense at every turn, that he finally went to far by denying even a hearing. That allowed for a reversal. That allowed for a new Judge. That allowed for the Alford Pleas.

 

[reedus23]

Well any one of those judges alone certainly has far more qualifications regarding such matters than me, but surely you're not attempting to argue that it's impossible for them to have made a mistake?

But they didn't. Again, they didn't say the WM3 were entitled to a new trial. They said they were entitled to a hearing. The statute is pretty clear about that:

According to section 16-112-205:
(a) Unless the petition and the files and records of the proceedings conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court
shall promptly set an early hearing on the petition and response, promptly determine the issues, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and either deny the petition or enter an order granting the appropriate relief.
Id.
§ 16-112-205(a) (emphasis added

 

[twall]

Who exactly was going to be the trial lawyer for Echols? Dennis Riordan is appellate attorney, and Stephen Braga is a DC-fixer who represents sucmbags like Michael Scanlon, a guy who scammed Native America tribes out of at least $20 million and has since been trying to weasel out of paying it back. Surely Echols shopped around for a lawyer with notable murder trial experience given all those millionaire supporters' money, but he was apparently unable to come up with one, and rather settled for Braga to do the string pulling which he specializes in.


Well nothing along the lines of a video by any stretch. That said, the witness statements for Baldwin's cousin and girlfriend alone are more evidence than Echols and many of his supporters ever had to justify pointing their finger at Mark Byers and Terry Hobbs, so I don't rightly expect any evidence to meany anything to such people other than what they want it to.

BBM-Patrick Benca as stated so in the articles I linked below. They are both interesting to read if you have not done so already.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-big-ask/Content?oid=1888389

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/new...three-trial-story-sean-flynn-gq-december-2011

 

[kyleb]

One moment you have a problem with recognising the common root of a group of words

Are you blaming your taking of my reference to matters of procedural law wildly out of context on me, or where exactly are you suggesting I've done what you are so vaguely accusing me of here?

The DNA tests coming back with conclusive results that it was not the WM3's meant that they were entitled to file a Motion for New Trial. The statute then provides that, with regard to that Motion for New Trial, they are entitled to a hearing on it, unless the record CONCLUSIVELY shows that the defendants would not be entitled to relief.

Can you give a real world or hypothetical example of a record conclusively demonstrating as much? I'm scratching my head trying to come up with one.

 

[Miranda!]

. . . but you claiming that "Any evidence pointing to the tying being for restraint is spurious and has been misinterpreted" doesn't make it true either, or even prove you actually know what the evidence you're dismissing is for that matter.

What is the 'evidence' you keep referencing that the boys were tied to restrain them?

Another point. The affidavits do not claim that all four were actively involved in the actual slaughter of the boys. Only that the two teens had admitted that they were there. Also that they were told to catch the boys and then to hold the boys or one of the boys down.

At the very least, enough questions are raised by these new possible revelations, to suggest that it would be wise that the case be closely looked at after all this time. I hesitate to use the word 'again' as I never felt that much confidence in the original investigation!!

 

[kyleb]

I'd prefer to know what "evidence pointing to the tying being for restraint" CR is dismissing as "spurious and has been misinterpreted", and one what basis she has dismissed it as such, before citing the evidence of such which I'm quite sure is neither spurious nor misinterpreted. In the mean time, I don't suppose you can provide any evidence to support your claim that I "have a problem with recognising the common root of a group of words", can you?

 

[reedus23]

Are you blaming your taking of my reference to matters of procedural law wildly out of context on me, or where exactly are you suggesting I've done what you are so vaguely accusing me of here?


Can you give a real world or hypothetical example of a record conclusively demonstrating as much? I'm scratching my head trying to come up with one.

Had a long, drawn out answer typed up and decided to keep it short. Bottom line is I would guess that most Judges would error on the side of giving a defendant a hearing under these statutes. If DNA tests come back showing that it was not from the defendant(s), I would suggest that that alone would mean that it's a near impossible argument to say that the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief.

 

[kyleb]

So, for an extreme hypothetical: say someone is convicted of a murder where DNA testing shows only one hair recovered from the scene isn't from the victims, and that testing proves it's not from the convicted either. That would give the convicted the right to a evidentiary hearing where they can spitball whatever they want to call evidence to dispute their prior conviction? Surely not?

 

[reedus23]

So, for an extreme hypothetical: say someone is convicted of a murder where DNA testing shows only one hair recovered from the scene isn't from the victims, and that testing proves it's not from the convicted either. That would give the convicted the right to a evidentiary hearing where they can spitball whatever they want to call evidence to dispute their prior conviction? Surely not?

There's 2 ways of looking at it as I see. One is technically interpreting the statute. Doing so, there could be instances under your hypothetical where a Judge would deny a hearing. Lets say there was ZERO additional evidence for the defendant to put on. I suppose a Judge, in that instance, could find that the record conclusively establishes that the defendant is not entitled to relief. The other approach as I see it is that wouldn't the fact that the DNA results came back showing it wasn't the defendant's hair be enough alone to prevent a Judge from saying the record conclusively establishes the defendant is not entitled to relief.

It's an interesting question kyle and without doing a ton of research on the statute and the cases interpreting the statute, I don't know that I have a quick answer to it.

 

[Venom]

That's like saying there was no blood found by dismissing the evidence that there was (in an even if there was blood found, there wasn't kind of way) .. And honestly do you think the boys weren't killed there? They bled, there was even blood on their faces in images of them lying on the bank post mortem .. So why deny the blood? I don't really think that helps the supporters argument anyway?

Where are those images? Curious, I've never seen them before.

 

[kyleb]

I suspect the photos here are what you are after.

 

[Miranda!]

Are you blaming your taking of my reference to matters of procedural law wildly out of context on me, or where exactly are you suggesting I've done what you are so vaguely accusing me of here?

I am sure that if you pick up a good dictionary and look up the words: proceed, Procedure, Procedural, Proceedings - and more! You might have a better understanding of what I was expressing!

Words do not suddenly mean something totally different when used in a legal context. However, there does tend to be a bit more precision in the use of words in order to minimise the chances of ambiguity!

One minute you claim ignorance in matters of legal 'procedures' and then claim that one Judge is quite possibly right and that the Supreme Justices of the State might be wrong! On an unanimous ruling no less.