Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West Memphis Three

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • West Memphis Three

    Ok..For those of you who have seen paradise lost I would like to know what you think of it?

  • #2
    Heres some info

    Heres the website:

    Heres the first movie:
    Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.


    The reason I would like opinions is because the way it was portrayed in the movie is so incredibly biased its sick.

    My opinion on the case is that these were typical confessions from typical suspects and that they are as guilty as many 10s of thousands of typical confession convictions.

    There is nothing special here. There is no intentional tampering with the evidence by police its typical of what happens.

    There is no new evidence just a bunch of smoke screens.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Mitch,

      I've been through West Memphis numerous times and seen Paradise Lost once several years ago. The film did raise some doubts but I don't remember it being biased to the degree that it declared the convicts innocent. Was the movie made by their families or defense team? If not, what would the motive be? I can't imagine anyone wanting a band of child killers to go free without some cause.
      This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

      Stan Reid

      Comment


      • #4
        I thought the movie was okay, but in retrospect they went after the wrong father, since new DNA evidence now links one of the other fathers to the crime.

        I think that at the time it was too early to say if they were innocent or guilty, but it was fair to say that the trial was a joke.

        Over the years, it's become clear that there simply was no prosecution case at all. Satanic panic and small-town smallmindedness about anyone who doesn't conform was the entire basis for the "case" against the WM3
        “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mitch Rowe View Post


          My opinion on the case is that these were typical confessions from typical suspects and that they are as guilty as many 10s of thousands of typical confession convictions.
          My understanding was that only one of the kids confessed, and that was the retard who was grilled for several hours straight without counsel or parents present and got so many facts about the crimes wrong that the police had to "help" him with the details.
          “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Magpie View Post
            I thought the movie was okay, but in retrospect they went after the wrong father, since new DNA evidence now links one of the other fathers to the crime.

            I think that at the time it was too early to say if they were innocent or guilty, but it was fair to say that the trial was a joke.

            Over the years, it's become clear that there simply was no prosecution case at all. Satanic panic and small-town smallmindedness about anyone who doesn't conform was the entire basis for the "case" against the WM3
            The DNA evidence does nothing of the sort! It identifies a person who is connected to the victims! I know..But its two people you say. Yes and the hairs or whatever else could have been a secondary transfer. In addition.. Many people searched those woods before the bodies were found. The bodies were pulled from the water before the coroner arrived.

            This means the crimescene was compromised. The DNA evidence is meaningless. Its the same crap they are pulling in the ramsey case.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Magpie View Post
              My understanding was that only one of the kids confessed, and that was the retard who was grilled for several hours straight without counsel or parents present and got so many facts about the crimes wrong that the police had to "help" him with the details.
              Incorrect. Damien essentially confessed. The questions investigators asked Damien are standard questions. you ask the suspect what he would have done and why. Damien described the crime!! His confession is typical.

              There are also other witnesses who claim to have heard the boys confess! Thats admissable in court!

              People seem to think it takes physical evidence to convict when thats not always the case. in fact its not even rare. And they are convicting the guilty.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sdreid View Post
                Hi Mitch,

                I've been through West Memphis numerous times and seen Paradise Lost once several years ago. The film did raise some doubts but I don't remember it being biased to the degree that it declared the convicts innocent. Was the movie made by their families or defense team? If not, what would the motive be? I can't imagine anyone wanting a band of child killers to go free without some cause.
                I guess in a way you are right. But most people dont seem to see the true facts. They accuse Byers because he acts crazy. There is always a whacko in the case that is innocent but looks guilty to the inexperienced. People see Byers doing stupid stuff like giving a knife but things like that happen.

                If because a bunch of people with no experience in homicide cases actually cause these three to get new trials Im confident they have enough to nail them again.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mitch Rowe View Post
                  Incorrect. Damien essentially confessed. The questions investigators asked Damien are standard questions. you ask the suspect what he would have done and why. Damien described the crime!! His confession is typical.
                  He didn't "essentially" confess--he told police what he'd heard about the murder from the gossip around town. There was nothing I saw in his statement that suggested any knowledge that only the killer could have known

                  There are also other witnesses who claim to have heard the boys confess!
                  And they admitted under cross-examination that they overheard this "confession" at a noisy baseball game, but didn't hear anything else that Nichols said. One of the two has since sworn out an affadavit that she no longer believes Echols confessed to the crime.

                  Thats admissable in court!
                  Sorry, but the mother testifying that her daughter told her she'd overheard Echols bragging about the crime should never have been admitted into evidene. That's about as close to textbook hearsay as you can get.
                  Last edited by Magpie; 04-22-2009, 11:16 AM.
                  “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mitch Rowe View Post
                    The DNA evidence does nothing of the sort! It identifies a person who is connected to the victims! I know..But its two people you say. Yes and the hairs or whatever else could have been a secondary transfer. In addition.. Many people searched those woods before the bodies were found. The bodies were pulled from the water before the coroner arrived.

                    This means the crimescene was compromised. The DNA evidence is meaningless. Its the same crap they are pulling in the ramsey case.
                    This is not "secondary transfer":

                    "DNA test results showing that a hair found in the ligature of one of the victims (not Terry Hobbs stepson) matches Terry Hobbs, the step-father of another one of the victims."

                    This is not meaningless either:

                    "DNA test results showing foreign DNA – from someone other than Echols or the two other men who were convicted – on the penises of two of the victims." Unless you're suggesting that the searchers dragged the victims out of the water by their penises....


                    Also, Terry Hobb's son carried a pocket knife with him that was missing from his personal effects after the murder--the assumption was the killer took it as a trophy. The knife later turned up among Terry Hobb's possession.


                    I'm not saying that the WM3 are innocent, or that Terry Hobbs is guilty, but on a prima facie basis there is far more evidence against Hobbs at this point than the prosecution ever presented against Echols.

                    If Terry Hobbs was the one wearing the Metallica T-shirts and reading Levay and Damian Echols was the good ol' boy redneck with the pickup truck and the John Deere baseball cap, which one to you think would be sitting on death row right now?
                    “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A new trial should be ordered on the basis of Dale Griffis's testimony alone. The guy is a complete kook and utter moron--how the court could recognize him as an "expert witness" is beyond a joke.

                      The fact that the prosecution relied entirely on this charlataan to prove motive is grounds enough for appeal.
                      “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Magpie View Post
                        He didn't "essentially" confess--he told police what he'd heard about the murder from the gossip around town. There was nothing I saw in his statement that suggested any knowledge that only the killer could have known
                        I think he is going to have to prove he read that stuff in the paper. What damns him the most is where he said who ever killed them enjoyed it. If that is ever brought up in trial again he is sunk.

                        What he did WAS a confession! You see thats how criminals think. Its like OJ. They dont even realize what they are saying. They want to confess. What Damien did was say I didnt do it but if I did heres how i would have.

                        You see.. Thats where people dont get it. Thats why they wont get a new trial and if this massive sno job does happen to cause a new trial they are gonna get cooked again.

                        What we have in the justice system is people who have worked with criminals their whole lives. Punk asses like these three cant hide from that.

                        Oh.. And dont worry. Im sure there are a whole bunch of new witnesses who heard them confess.

                        They have been in prison almost 20 years. And you all are right. There isnt much if any physical evidence. So what! There are thousands of cases just the same. The confessions sunk them for 20 years of their lives forever lost.

                        The confessions are way more than enough to keep them. Dont believe me? Lets see if they get a new trial.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Magpie View Post
                          A new trial should be ordered on the basis of Dale Griffis's testimony alone. The guy is a complete kook and utter moron--how the court could recognize him as an "expert witness" is beyond a joke.

                          The fact that the prosecution relied entirely on this charlataan to prove motive is grounds enough for appeal.

                          Thats right. They should bring up the fact that Damien and his former girlfriend claimed they were going to have a baby and sacrifice it to the devil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Actually I completely disagree with your first sentence and I know nothing about the case. If the details of the case were widely reported in the newspapers, then it's up to the prosecution to prove he had knowledge that wasn't in the papers, not for him to prove he read it in the papers.

                            And if they didn't do that, they failed in their job and the defendants should get a new trial.

                            Let all Oz be agreed;
                            I need a better class of flying monkeys.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Sorry Ally.. That seems perfectly logical I know. But thats not how the system works. Damien said who ever done it enjoyed it. The innocent dont say that. The innocent dont even think that far.

                              When experienced investigators and Judges look a Damiens confession they see the guilty party not because of any of the facts. Its because Damiens mind is the mind of a criminal.

                              Here is an example. Jason Baldwin was supposed to be Damiens best friend. When his lawyer asked him if Damien could have done it Jason had no words. Even he wouldnt defend Damien.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X