UTMC

Is anybody else a supporter? Or familiar with the cause?

I've been following and supporting them for years.
It is an absolute horror to me that they are still in prison and I would love to put together some kind of ride to raise awareness.

Not a "Rock, Flag, Eagle" kind of ride, more like a bunch of like minded individuals riding to Jonesboro Arkansas to show support and perhaps raise a little awareness on the way.

A big dream I know but I feel more and more like I'm not doing enough just sending money while the judges that carried out this travesty of justice make their way up the ranks to the Senate.

Anybody interested?

For those unfamiliar go to WM3.org to read about the case, or PM me and I'll send you the documentary to watch.

Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3

Pretty creepy stuff, but I notice the focus is mainly on exonerating the three that have been convicted.

While the wiki article explains all the wierd details and so on, if the 3 hadn't had anything to do with the crime there's still a very serious monster on the loose.
From what limited knowlege I have of the case, and my equally limited experience of such crimes, it appears the victims knew their murderer(s). And it aint the guys they have now.

Of special interest to me in particular was Henry Rollins' support for the cause. Hank's alright.

Saw the Paradise Lost documentary some years ago. Sad sad story.

Lydia Lunch told me about this years ago. I've never seen the documentary, but think I'll rent it now. From what she told me this is one of the more fucked up cases of the system just failing completely.

piccini9 wrote:Lydia Lunch told me about this years ago. I've never seen the documentary, but think I'll rent it now. From what she told me this is one of the more fucked up cases of the system just failing completely.

Name dropper.

Did these kids kill those other kids? Perhaps yes. Was there reasonable doubt, that is the province of the jury. Was there justice? I'm no longer sure what that is.

There is sufficient evidence to convict these guys. Really, there is. Additionally, there are a ton of holes in this case - there almost always are! To me, there are so many holes that there was reasonable doubt. I however, was not on the jury. Every juror, every one of them weighed the evidence and convicted these kids of brutally murdering 3 eight year old boys.

I can tell you the "guilt by association" statement made by the defense attorney in the second trial was pure folly. Allowing Damien to testify was also a tactical mistake - he is a spooky kid. Confessions are a real bitch. The initial 2 hours of interrogation without a single note or recording is hard to believe. The fucked up Mr. Bojangles (the man who was witnessed at the Bojangles restaraunt covered in blood and mud) investigation is insane. Police wasting a day to investigate and then lose the blood samples. wow.

This is one of those cases that is not about guilt or innocence, but about the system and evidentiary proceedures we employ. That is little consolitation for the families of the victims.

MotorCityN8 wrote:

piccini9 wrote:Lydia Lunch told me about this years ago. I've never seen the documentary, but think I'll rent it now. From what she told me this is one of the more fucked up cases of the system just failing completely.

Name dropper.

Well, someone else mentioned Rollins, and I think that's how she learned of it. Besides that, what's the point of knowing people if you can't mention their names?



Oh, I was working at Bjorks house today.

goose wrote:Did these kids kill those other kids? Perhaps yes.

I don't think it's that clean cut. And neither do you; with all due respect you clearly point out that it is the province of the jury, and further divest yourself of your own belief that there's some doubt by putting the responsibility of the conviction on that jury.

Yes, the system has failed these people. Clearly. But I don't see how, considering the convicted persons are in the clink, one can consider that as a pertinent fact and just say, "perhaps yes."

Something is seriously wrong with this whole thing here. It doesn't make sense. I'd like to know who determined that these guys were capable of attacking and killing three cognizant eight-year old boys successfully, and then finding the time and wherewithal to destroy any evidence by turning the victims' clothes inside out in a stream of moving water and also being able to tie them up with their own shoelaces. This shows a good deal of resourcefulness on the part of the accused, one of whom was "borderline retarded". I don't know if the accused were ever demonstrated to be capable of making good use of the immediate environment to commit and then cover up their crime.
I might add that it takes some effort to succesfully tie somebody up if you don't know what you're doing. Not that I tie people up, but I do tie knots for a living. To tie someone up with a shoelace you have to be pretty cunning, particularly if they're struggling. If the same person tied the three up, you'd be able to tell by looking at what method they used. If even two different people did it, you'd be able to tell. Three, it'd be obvious. Of course, if the person being tied up is already dead, then why bother?

Whatever. Something stinks about the whole deal. I don't think even a "perhaps" cuts it.

And Goose, please don't take any of this as an attack on your person or statements. I don't mean it that way.

Sisyphus wrote:

goose wrote:Did these kids kill those other kids? Perhaps yes.

I don't think it's that clean cut. And neither do you; with all due respect you clearly point out that it is the province of the jury, and further divest yourself of your own belief that there's some doubt by putting the responsibility of the conviction on that jury.

Yes, the system has failed these people. Clearly. But I don't see how, considering the convicted persons are in the clink, one can consider that as a pertinent fact and just say, "perhaps yes."

Something is seriously wrong with this whole thing here. It doesn't make sense. I'd like to know who determined that these guys were capable of attacking and killing three cognizant eight-year old boys successfully, and then finding the time and wherewithal to destroy any evidence by turning the victims' clothes inside out in a stream of moving water and also being able to tie them up with their own shoelaces. This shows a good deal of resourcefulness on the part of the accused, one of whom was "borderline retarded". I don't know if the accused were ever demonstrated to be capable of making good use of the immediate environment to commit and then cover up their crime.
I might add that it takes some effort to succesfully tie somebody up if you don't know what you're doing. Not that I tie people up, but I do tie knots for a living. To tie someone up with a shoelace you have to be pretty cunning, particularly if they're struggling. If the same person tied the three up, you'd be able to tell by looking at what method they used. If even two different people did it, you'd be able to tell. Three, it'd be obvious. Of course, if the person being tied up is already dead, then why bother?

Whatever. Something stinks about the whole deal. I don't think even a "perhaps" cuts it.

And Goose, please don't take any of this as an attack on your person or statements. I don't mean it that way.

Not taking it personally at all. I simply disagree with you. I am not divesting myself of my belief by putting the responsibility on the jury - it simply is their province and not mine. Neither you nor I sat in that trial, and if you did, well, then you were a juror that convicted them.

Second, I disagree with your premise that they were not capable of the killing. It's amazing how depraved we can be when caught up in our own fervor. Three teenagers with knives and bloodlust can certainly cut down 3 eight year olds pretty fast. Where did the blood go? I dont know. Were they killed in the river and did it rain? no idea.

A person with a 77 iq can both read and write and knows the difference between right and wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to believe a confession from this person and disregard an expert(?) opinion that the confession was coerced. Further, there was significant testimony that more than one confession was made by more than one of the accused.

The tragedy to me is simply that today's technology could have been useful had the evidence been properly ascertained and preserved. It wasn't. The failure of the defense to properly employ experts at the outset was dangerous. No Independent pathology will lead to depending on the prosecution's witness, is that ever a good idea? The jury was never presented with a supported alternate theory, just some unsubstantiated attempts to create doubt.

These kids (now 17 years later) will die in prison or by the needle - pity given that no evidence which can exonerate them is left to examine. Perhaps because of defense mis-steps and spoiliation of evidence, or perhaps because they did it.

My query is, how would you do it differently? Who would get to decide? Who would pay for qualified defense experts? When is enough enough?

My personal favorite moments in the case are:

Judge Burnett saying in open court, "I've never heard of Forensic Odontology so I will not allow this testimony in my courtroom."
Yet he upheld the prosecutions claims that the marks on the body were human bite marks.

"The judge also rejected Baldwin’s claims that animals — likely turtles
— caused multiple injuries to the boys’ bodies. Burnett noted that the
medical examiner who performed the autopsies was a turtle expert who
said the injuries were caused by a knife."

When probed about his credentials as a "turtle expert" neither Burnett nor the Doctor could produce any documentation to back up such a claim.

piccini9 wrote:

MotorCityN8 wrote:

piccini9 wrote:Lydia Lunch told me about this years ago. I've never seen the documentary, but think I'll rent it now. From what she told me this is one of the more fucked up cases of the system just failing completely.

Name dropper.

Well, someone else mentioned Rollins, and I think that's how she learned of it. Besides that, what's the point of knowing people if you can't mention their names?



Oh, I was working at Bjorks house today.

you're right, and i'm just fuckin' with ya.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the Request for a New Trial. Because of the need to maintain the integrity and validity of the system, GREAT weight is afforded the decision of the jury. Our system prides itself on the impartial decision of the jury so it is necessary to give such a decision more than mere deference.

When requesting a new trial, the moving party has to identify a mistake that WOULD have affected the outcome of the case. The mistake is almost always a procedural one. An erroneous ruling on a motion to include or exclude evidence is often the primary culprit. Also, there is the motion to consider new evidence that was not available at the time of trial (not that it wasn't thought of or presented - but actually unavailable because it did not exist). Well, guess who you get to present this mistake to or the new evidence to. The very judge that made the alleged mistake. Since the jury is gone, now the judge has the deference to determine whether the mistake/new evidence would have changed the outcome. I've never seen it happen. I've only seen it successful with juror misconduct.

my problem with this case is not the evidence, but what is missing. Where is all the damn hair from these boys in those woods? Echols hair is long and dyed, he's going to lose a lot of it travelling through the underbrush and during an altercation. The others had mullets. No blood, no hair, a violent beating and kids not well versed on hiding forensic evidence. All kinds of shit doesn't add up, BUT, our system requires that they defend themselves. They didn't do such a hot job.

Echols' preening and hard stares were odd in the face of the accusations. Appearing disaffected when your life is on the line is not a typical response of an innocent person. He made himself look callous. Enough to convict him? Not alone, but with a co-conspirator confession, you sure aren't doing yourself any fucking favors!

Perhaps it was answered at trial, but nobody has stated where the convicted claimed to be on the night of the murders. 3 guys with no alibis . odd. Both sides of this case are fucked up. The defense's theories are as scrambled as the prosecution's. Knives belonging to the various stepdads involved, to no knives ever used. First it was the crazy fat dad with the brain tumor - now it's the other stepdad with a history of violence. And, not to forget, Mr. Bojangles. Each new theory undermines the credibility of the claims. I know it is not for the defense to solve the crime, but, you do have to be credible.

By failing to adequately defend this matter by having their own experts examine the bodies and the causes of the wounds, the defense now has to unring the bell of a jury verdict. With our SCOTUS, I doubt there will be a grant of Cert., and these men will garner no relief. just ask leonard peltier

The whole thing's a shit-show.

From personal experience I can tell you that judges are more concerned with covering their asses than with justice. I doubt there are a lot of judges presiding today that have the moral integrity to admit they made a mistake and issued a bad verdict simply because that makes them look bad. It's made even easier when the excuse of "The JURY reached a verdict, not me. I'm just upholding that verdict!" is applied.
I've been witness to instances of one persons word being all the evidence a judge needed and the factual evidence presented be damned!
This probably won't be overturned and will need to be appealed to a higher court where, if pattern serves, the same self-interests will preside over facts and the dance will go on.

no kidding. It reminds me a great deal of the Duke lacrosse rape case. Nancy Gray and her ilk had them convicted in the media before any evidence came out. Hell, the DA in that case threw away his entire career rather than admit he was wrong. It's a mentality I've never been able to figure out. If it weren't for the vast sums of money spent by very privileged families, those boys would be in jail too. Once you have the weight of the state on your shoulders, you are going to have a helluva fight to get it off.

The capital nature of this case makes the issue more difficult to digest. Justice vs. law vs. just what kind of beings are we?

I'd be up for that ride Motopsycho.

48hrs is going to air a docudrama on feb 27! worth a lookie-loo. Echols is slated for execution on may 5. write your representatives please. this is simply wrong.

Wrong and depressing. So sad for the victims and their families, as well as the West Memphis Three. Our world can be very sad and ugly.

<embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews ... r-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashpl ... ed><br/><a href='http://www.cbsnews.com'></a>

48 hours is doing a piece on them tonight on CBS.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/29/e ... death-row/

For those of you with cable. Frankly, I find Damien Echols the least compelling of the three. Still, he's articulate and, while I'm sure there's not a whole lot of new ground here, it is a good example of how the system is hard pressed to fix itself or even examine itself when there are so many questions to be answered. Worth a look.

Gauging from the Ak Supreme's responses and questions related to the arguments given, I believe Echols is going to get, at a minimum, an evidentiary review, and perhaps even a new trial.

you can watch the oral arguments (recorded) here:

http://arkansas-sc.granicus.com/ViewPub ... ?view_id=2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02532.html

New hearing ordered for 3 in Ark. scout deaths



By JILL ZEMAN BLEED
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 4, 2010; 12:49 PM
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a judge to consider whether newly analyzed DNA evidence might exonerate three men convicted in the 1993 murders of three West Memphis Cub Scouts.

The justices also said a lower court must examine claims of misconduct by the jurors who sentenced Damien Echols to death and Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin to life in prison. The eastern Arkansas murder case has drawn the attention of Hollywood celebrities and civil rights activists.

At a hearing in September, lawyers for Echols said Circuit Judge David Burnett should have considered DNA test results in deciding whether to grant him a new trial. In 2008, Burnett rejected Echols' request for a new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing.

"While there is a significant dispute in this case, as to the legal effects of the DNA test results, it is undisputed that the results conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested," the court wrote Thursday.



The justices also directed new hearings for Misskelley and Baldwin. The Arkansas Supreme Court has previously affirmed all three convictions.

Prosecutors maintained that the absence of their DNA wasn't enough to prove the three men are innocent and that a jury convicted the men on other evidence.

The court also said defense claims of juror misconduct must be addressed - Misskelley's confession was not introduced at Echols' trial but defense lawyers believe jurors considered it anyway. The state argued any new hearing should address only the DNA.

Echols has been on Arkansas' death row since 1994, when he was 20, after being convicted in the deaths of 8-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. He's maintained his innocence since his arrest and argues that he would be acquitted if retried on the charges.

The state Supreme Court upheld Echols' conviction in 1996, and he filed his most recent appeal after the justices gave him permission to test DNA evidence from the crime scene - where the boys were found beaten, nude and hog-tied. DNA testing was not available at Echols' trial because of technical limitations. Scientific advances have led to several cases being reopened nationwide.

The state argued Echols was merely trying to re-argue a case that he already lost before a jury.

Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office said it would review the order before commenting.

The men's supporters, who call them the West Memphis Three, said they hoped a new hearing would come soon.

"These young men were convicted of a brutal crime someone else committed, and we hope the state moves quickly to overturn their convictions and seek to prosecute those responsible," said Capi Peck of Arkansas Take Action, a group that has been working to free the three men.

The new hearings will be heard by a different judge because Burnett has been elected to the state Senate and will take office in January. The high court ordered Thursday that the cases be reassigned.

The case has drawn interest far beyond Arkansas. In August, a rally in Little Rock to support Echols' legal fund featured Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder, actor Johnny Depp and Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines and drew more than 2,000 people.