OT- West Memphis 3

[Luke Matheson]

Now, before I post this, let me say two things.

1: The way they tested evidence back in the 90's is obviously WAY different from the way it is done now.

2: This is a copy and paste from an email I received from a lawyer friend who has quite a bit of knowledge about the case. I give him full credit for the following post.


There were a total of 10 fibers found in this case. 5 fibers were found on the clothing belonging to Michael Moore. 1 fiber was found Chris Byers's shirt. 3 fibers were found on a knife recovered during the course of the investigation.

Below is a summary of the number and types of fibers:

2 green polyester
1 red rayon
3 red cotton
1 green cotton
2 black polyester
1 blue polyester

Below is a summary of the specific locations of each fiber found:

2 green polyester ? E-5 (Michael's cap) and E-3 (Michael's blue pants)
1 red rayon ? E-2 (Christopher's shirt white/black shirt)
1 green cotton ? E-3 (Michael's blue pants)
3 red cotton ? E-3 (Michael's blue pants), E-1 (Michael's Cub Scout shirt) and BR-1 (bag at crime scene)
2 black polyester - E-134 (knife)
1 blue polyester - E-134 (knife)

All of these fibers were linked to Echols and Baldwin. The results were exclusive in the sense that only a single matching garment was found similar to the green polyester and green cotton fibers and a single garment was found similar to the red rayon fiber. These findings were also to the exclusion of other suspects (Miskelley, Domini Teer, John Winters - E1B, Gary Ray Chadwick - E1C and Steve Menard - E50)

Relevant Links:

Trace Evidence Report, June 29, 1993: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3[/B]/ img/ascl629.html

Lab Submission Index: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3[/B]/ lablist.html

Alabama Department of Forensic Science Report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3[/B]/ img/phyevi.html

Corrected page 10: http://callahan.8k.com/images/ crimelab/correct2.jpg

The Trace Evidence ? Fibers

E-134: One (1) knife with a black leather sheath

A single black polyester fiber microscopically similar to those used in the construction of E78 (BLACK T-SHIRT TRACE EVIDENCE D-7) was recovered from E134 (KNIFE TRACE EVIDENCE). Also recovered from E134 was a single blue polyester fiber microscopically similar to those used in the construction of E109 (BLUE TOILET SEAT COVER TRACE EVIDENCE J-15).

(p. 9, Report of Laboratory Analysis, 06/29/1993)

This was confirmed by an independent examination performed at the Alabama Department of Forensic Science.

Evidence Listing:

Q11 ? One microscope slide bearing two fibers and labeled "93-05716 E134 QF Black Polyester match w/E 78." (p. 3, Alabama Dept of Forensic Sciences Report)

K66 ? "93-05716 E78 std". (p. 6, Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences Report)

E-78 ? Black T-Shirt (D-7) ? Echols' trailer, June 3, 1993 (WMPD Evidence List)

E-134 ? Knife ? location and date unknown (WMPD Evidence List)

Q11 consisted of two black polyester fibers. One of these were flattened and identified by Criminalist Sakevicus as having been done during her analysis. These polyester fibers were found to be consistent with the known polyester fibers from K66. (p. 10, Alabama Department of Forensic Science, January 5, 1994)

* * *

Evidence Listing:

Q12 ? One microscope slide bearing a fibers and labeled "93-05716 E134 QF Blue Polyester Match w/E109A" (p. 3 Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences report)

K27 ? J15 Toilet covers E109 (p. 5, Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences report)

E-109 ? Blue toilet seat cover (J-15) ? Baldwin's trailer, June 3, 1993 (WMPD Evidence List)

E-134 ? Knife ? location and date unknown (WMPD Evidence List)

Q12 was determined to be a blue polyester fiber and to be consistent with the known fibers in item K37. (p. 10, Alabama Department of Forensic Science, January 5, 1994)

Summary: Two black fibers (Q-11), found on a knife seized during the course of the investigation, were compared by both the Arkansas State Crime Lab and the Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences and were found to be similar to a black t-shirt seized from Echols' trailer (K66/E-78/D-7). A blue polyester fiber (Q12), found on that same knife was compared by the both the Arkansas State Crime Lab and the Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences and was found to be similar to a blue toilet seat cover seized from Baldwin's trailer (E-109/J-15). This evidence links E-134 to Echols and Baldwin through the black polyester and blue polyester fibers.

Michael Moore

A single green cotton fiber microscopically similar to those used in the construction of E79 (BLUE SHIRT TRACE EVIDENCE D-8 was recovered from E3 (PAIR BLUE PANTS). Two (2) green polyester fibers microscopically similar to those used in the construction of E79 (BLUE SHIRT TRACE EVIDENCE D-8 were recovered from E3 (PAIR BLUE PANTS)and E5 (CUB SCOUT BLUE/YELLOW CAP).

This was confirmed, in part, by an independent examination performed at the Alabama Department of Forensic Science.

Evidence Listing:

Q13 ? One microscope slide bearing two fibers and labeled "93-05716 E5 QF green polyester Match w/E97". (p. 3, Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences report)

K22 ? "D8 blue green shirt closet E79" (p. 4, Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences report)

E-5 ? Cub Scout Blue/Yellow Cap ? Michael Moore, May 5, 1993 (WMPD Evidence List)

E-79 ? Blue Shirt (D-8 - Echols' trailer, June 3, 1993 (WMPD Evidence List)

Q13 was determined to be a green polyester fibers. The fiber had been partially flattened. The fiber was found to be consistent with the known fibers in item K22. (p. 10, Alabama Department of Forensic Science, January 5, 1994)

Summary: A green polyester fiber (Q-13) found on Michael's Cub Scout cap, was compared by both the Arkansas State Crime Lab and the Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences and was found to be similar to a shirt seized from Echols' trailer (K22/E-79/D-8. The green cotton fibers were not examined by the ADFS. This fiber was one of the original fibers testified to by Lisa Sakevicius which inculpated Echols.

Three (3) red cotton fibers microscopically similar to those used in the construction of E92 (RED SHIRT TRACE EVIDENCE D-22) were recovered from E1 (BOY SCOUT SHIRT), E3 (PAIR BLUE PANTS) and BR1 (p. 2, Trace Evidence Report, 06/29/1993,http://callahan.8k.com/images/ ascl/ASCL_Trace_0629_02.JPG).

The red cotton fibers were not examined by the ADFS. Additionally, the results are essentially negated by a subsequent fiber search and examination conducted by the ASCL. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3[/B]/ img/ascljan2.html

Christopher Byers

A single red rayon fiber microscopically similar to those used in the construction of E99 was recovered from E2.

This was confirmed by an independent examination performed at the Alabama Department of Forensic Science.

Evidence Listing:

Q14 ? One microscope slide bearing a fiber and labeled "93-05716 E2 QK red rayon match w/E99". (p. 4, Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences report)

K42 ? "J5 Red garment". (p. 5, Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences report)

E-2 ? White Polkadot Shirt - Chris Byers, May 5, 1993 (WMPD Evidence List)

E-99 ? Red House Coat (J-5) ? Baldwin's trailer, June 3, 1993 (WMPD Evidence List)[/i]

Q14 consisted of a red rayon fiber which had been partially flattened. The fiber was found to be consistent with the known fibers in item K42.

Summary: A red rayon fiber (Q-14), found on Chris' shirt, was compared by both the Arkansas State Crime Lab and the Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences and was found to be similar to a red robe seized from Baldwin's trailer (K42/E-99/J-5). This was one of the original fibers testified to by Lisa Sakevicius which inculpated Baldwin.

 

[Hogswell Hogs]

lol, ten years in solitary... no big deal...

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by Hogswell Hogs:

lol, ten years in solitary... no big deal...

I never claimed it wasn't a big deal, I'm just saying that when Echols says he was in solitary for 18 years, he is lying.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Proving innocence is not how it works before you are convicted. It is how it works once you are convicted and in prison. There are too many other cases out there where people were wrongfully incarcerated, and they went through the court dates, proved their innocence, and got paid. The WM3 failed to do so.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Once convicted & having the conviction affirmed on appeal, a person has a burden to prove certain things to get a new trial. The Sup Court ordered a hearing for a new trial after the original trial judge denied it. A new judge was about to hear evidence on the question of whether new evidence, along with all the other evidence, might exonerate them. They didn't have to prove they'd win. If the court decided that the new evidence was important enough that they should get a new trial to determine guilt or innocence then the state would face the same burden it always faces--proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the Sup Ct's ruling on the DNA there was little doubt (although some) that the new judge would order a new trial.

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Proving innocence is not how it works before you are convicted. It is how it works once you are convicted and in prison. There are too many other cases out there where people were wrongfully incarcerated, and they went through the court dates, proved their innocence, and got paid. The WM3 failed to do so.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Once convicted & having the conviction affirmed on appeal, a person has a burden to prove certain things to get a new trial. The Sup Court ordered a hearing for a new trial after the original trial judge denied it. A new judge was about to hear evidence on the question of whether new evidence, along with all the other evidence, might exonerate them. They didn't have to prove they'd win. If the court decided that the new evidence was important enough that they should get a new trial to determine guilt or innocence then the state would face the same burden it always faces--proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the Sup Ct's ruling on the DNA there was little doubt (although some) that the new judge would order a new trial.

So why did they not take the trial and use the alleged DNA to get off? Instead they plead guilty. They would have gotten PAID if the State of Arkansas was wrong. They had a chance to prove that but said forget it.

Here's something else on the alleged DNA that would get them off. The majority of the items that were tested in this case were hairs. That means that the DNA is mitochondrial, NOT[/B] nuclear. Mitochondrial DNA is passed through the female line and remains unchanged over generations. That means that testing on your hair and a hair saved from your great-great-great-great-great grandmother would be identical.

The DNA results DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY ELIMINATE[/B] Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley as the perpetrators. In fact, there are numerous items of evidence that the defense DID NOT[/B] seek testing on, including two items, which during the initial investigation,T were found to have blood that may have belonged to Michael and Steve on them (Miskelley's T-shirt and Echols' necklace). Those initial results were inconclusive because Miskelley and Baldwin shared the same HLA-DQ Alpha genotype with Michael and Steve. For some reason, the defense (and supporters) don't believe that ELIMINATING[/B] the victims as the SOURCES[/B] of the blood on one or both of these items would be EXCULPATORY[/B]. Go figure.

Of the evidence items that were tested, some yielded NO[/B] DNA and others yielded incomplete results (only one allele or two alleles).

Finding mitochondrial DNA that matches Terry Hobbs does NOT[/B] have the same weight as finding nuclear DNA from Terry Hobbs. The defense experts pointed this out during the press conference, but Echols' attorneys and supporters continue to ignore their OWN[/B] experts' opinions regarding this. Likewise, finding mitochondrial DNA that matches David Jacoby is also NOT[/B] the same as finding nuclear DNA from David Jacoby. Finding David Jacoby's DNA at the crime scene does NOT[/B] implicate Terry Hobbs in the murders, despite the claims and assertions made by supporters, especially in light of the fact that the hair from which the DNA was extracted was not collected from the crime scene UNTIL June 3, 1993[/B].

Placing the bodies in water destroyed the majority of the DNA that would have been left behind by the perpetrators of the murders. One would expect someone in law school to know this basic fact, rendering the assertion that "it is extremely unlikely that the murders could have been conducted without leaving any detectable genetic material" to appear somewhat naive.

 

[Insowniac]

NEA do you mind saying what type of law you practice?

 

[MemphisHogs]

Luke is straight clowning in this thread

 

[UTRIP UMP]

Originally posted by MemphisHogs:
Luke is straight clowning in this thread

The first hen to cackle laid the egg..........

 

[DMitch3520]

Originally posted by MemphisHogs:
Luke is straight clowning in this thread

I typed out a long response to your post to me that your or an admin deleted. Not going to do it again, but long story short, I know more about this case than you could imagine. And none of what I know is from the media.

 

[SouthPork1]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Proving innocence is not how it works before you are convicted. It is how it works once you are convicted and in prison. There are too many other cases out there where people were wrongfully incarcerated, and they went through the court dates, proved their innocence, and got paid. The WM3 failed to do so.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Once convicted & having the conviction affirmed on appeal, a person has a burden to prove certain things to get a new trial. The Sup Court ordered a hearing for a new trial after the original trial judge denied it. A new judge was about to hear evidence on the question of whether new evidence, along with all the other evidence, might exonerate them. They didn't have to prove they'd win. If the court decided that the new evidence was important enough that they should get a new trial to determine guilt or innocence then the state would face the same burden it always faces--proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the Sup Ct's ruling on the DNA there was little doubt (although some) that the new judge would order a new trial.

So why did they not take the trial and use the alleged DNA to get off? Instead they plead guilty. They would have gotten PAID if the State of Arkansas was wrong. They had a chance to prove that but said forget it.

Here's something else on the alleged DNA that would get them off. The majority of the items that were tested in this case were hairs. That means that the DNA is mitochondrial, NOT[/B] nuclear. Mitochondrial DNA is passed through the female line and remains unchanged over generations. That means that testing on your hair and a hair saved from your great-great-great-great-great grandmother would be identical.

The DNA results DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY ELIMINATE[/B] Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley as the perpetrators. In fact, there are numerous items of evidence that the defense DID NOT[/B] seek testing on, including two items, which during the initial investigation,T were found to have blood that may have belonged to Michael and Steve on them (Miskelley's T-shirt and Echols' necklace). Those initial results were inconclusive because Miskelley and Baldwin shared the same HLA-DQ Alpha genotype with Michael and Steve. For some reason, the defense (and supporters) don't believe that ELIMINATING[/B] the victims as the SOURCES[/B] of the blood on one or both of these items would be EXCULPATORY[/B]. Go figure.

Of the evidence items that were tested, some yielded NO[/B] DNA and others yielded incomplete results (only one allele or two alleles).

Finding mitochondrial DNA that matches Terry Hobbs does NOT[/B] have the same weight as finding nuclear DNA from Terry Hobbs. The defense experts pointed this out during the press conference, but Echols' attorneys and supporters continue to ignore their OWN[/B] experts' opinions regarding this. Likewise, finding mitochondrial DNA that matches David Jacoby is also NOT[/B] the same as finding nuclear DNA from David Jacoby. Finding David Jacoby's DNA at the crime scene does NOT[/B] implicate Terry Hobbs in the murders, despite the claims and assertions made by supporters, especially in light of the fact that the hair from which the DNA was extracted was not collected from the crime scene UNTIL June 3, 1993[/B].

Placing the bodies in water destroyed the majority of the DNA that would have been left behind by the perpetrators of the murders. One would expect someone in law school to know this basic fact, rendering the assertion that "it is extremely unlikely that the murders could have been conducted without leaving any detectable genetic material" to appear somewhat naive.

Luke ,

NE Arkie is an attorney and knows exactly what he is talking about.

The new trial hearing is exactly as NEA describes it.

It has nothing to do with innocence or guilt only the weight (in the Judge's legal view) of the evidence being considered.

I'd advise listening to him.

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by SouthPork1:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Proving innocence is not how it works before you are convicted. It is how it works once you are convicted and in prison. There are too many other cases out there where people were wrongfully incarcerated, and they went through the court dates, proved their innocence, and got paid. The WM3 failed to do so.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Once convicted & having the conviction affirmed on appeal, a person has a burden to prove certain things to get a new trial. The Sup Court ordered a hearing for a new trial after the original trial judge denied it. A new judge was about to hear evidence on the question of whether new evidence, along with all the other evidence, might exonerate them. They didn't have to prove they'd win. If the court decided that the new evidence was important enough that they should get a new trial to determine guilt or innocence then the state would face the same burden it always faces--proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the Sup Ct's ruling on the DNA there was little doubt (although some) that the new judge would order a new trial.

So why did they not take the trial and use the alleged DNA to get off? Instead they plead guilty. They would have gotten PAID if the State of Arkansas was wrong. They had a chance to prove that but said forget it.

Here's something else on the alleged DNA that would get them off. The majority of the items that were tested in this case were hairs. That means that the DNA is mitochondrial, NOT[/B] nuclear. Mitochondrial DNA is passed through the female line and remains unchanged over generations. That means that testing on your hair and a hair saved from your great-great-great-great-great grandmother would be identical.

The DNA results DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY ELIMINATE[/B] Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley as the perpetrators. In fact, there are numerous items of evidence that the defense DID NOT[/B] seek testing on, including two items, which during the initial investigation,T were found to have blood that may have belonged to Michael and Steve on them (Miskelley's T-shirt and Echols' necklace). Those initial results were inconclusive because Miskelley and Baldwin shared the same HLA-DQ Alpha genotype with Michael and Steve. For some reason, the defense (and supporters) don't believe that ELIMINATING[/B] the victims as the SOURCES[/B] of the blood on one or both of these items would be EXCULPATORY[/B]. Go figure.

Of the evidence items that were tested, some yielded NO[/B] DNA and others yielded incomplete results (only one allele or two alleles).

Finding mitochondrial DNA that matches Terry Hobbs does NOT[/B] have the same weight as finding nuclear DNA from Terry Hobbs. The defense experts pointed this out during the press conference, but Echols' attorneys and supporters continue to ignore their OWN[/B] experts' opinions regarding this. Likewise, finding mitochondrial DNA that matches David Jacoby is also NOT[/B] the same as finding nuclear DNA from David Jacoby. Finding David Jacoby's DNA at the crime scene does NOT[/B] implicate Terry Hobbs in the murders, despite the claims and assertions made by supporters, especially in light of the fact that the hair from which the DNA was extracted was not collected from the crime scene UNTIL June 3, 1993[/B].

Placing the bodies in water destroyed the majority of the DNA that would have been left behind by the perpetrators of the murders. One would expect someone in law school to know this basic fact, rendering the assertion that "it is extremely unlikely that the murders could have been conducted without leaving any detectable genetic material" to appear somewhat naive.

Luke ,

NE Arkie is an attorney and knows exactly what he is talking about.

The new trial hearing is exactly as NEA describes it.

It has nothing to do with innocence or guilt only the weight (in the Judge's legal view) of the evidence being considered.

I'd advise listening to him.

I know he is a lawyer, I'm just pointing out that the DNA did not rule them out either. It didn't show it wasn't them, but they didn't have anything ruling them out either. They refused to test the shirt and necklace that were found on two of the WM3 that had blood on them. THIS comes from a lawyer also.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
I know he is a lawyer, I'm just pointing out that the DNA did not rule them out either. It didn't show it wasn't them, but they didn't have anything ruling them out either. They refused to test the shirt and necklace that were found on two of the WM3 that had blood on them. THIS comes from a lawyer also.

I already made it clear in several places that DNA didn't rule them out. What I said was that the absence of their DNA anywhere tends to show they were nowhere on the scene. "Tends to show" isn't the same as "proves." I don't know what you mean that "they refused to test the shirt & necklace." If there was any question about those items the state has as much right to test them as the defendants. The problem with your whole premise is that you somehow expect these boys to prove their innocence. More often than not that's an impossible task. Chances are good a lot of the people you know couldn't prove their innocence in this case, either. Anyone in the WM area that day without an ironclad alibi wouldn't be able to prove they were innocent. Thank God that's not the standard. All it takes is an arrest of somebody who is a "freak" or has some sort of criminal history & too many people believe this must be the guy. Add in some strong arm tactics to get a mentally retarded teenager to "confess" & whammo, you've "solved" the case.


This post was edited on 5/8 2:46 PM by NEastArkie

 

[ArkansasNole]

So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
I know he is a lawyer, I'm just pointing out that the DNA did not rule them out either. It didn't show it wasn't them, but they didn't have anything ruling them out either. They refused to test the shirt and necklace that were found on two of the WM3 that had blood on them. THIS comes from a lawyer also.

I already made it clear in several places that DNA didn't rule them out. What I said was that the absence of their DNA anywhere tends to show they were nowhere on the scene. "Tends to show" isn't the same as "proves." I don't know what you mean that "they refused to test the shirt & necklace." If there was any question about those items the state has as much right to test them as the defendants. The problem with your whole premise is that you somehow expect these boys to prove their innocence. More often than not that's an impossible task. Chances are good a lot of the people you know couldn't prove their innocence in this case, either. Anyone in the WM area that day without an ironclad alibi wouldn't be able to prove they were innocent. Thank God that's not the standard. All it takes is an arrest of somebody who is a "freak" or has some sort of criminal history & too many people believe this must be the guy. Add in some strong arm tactics to get a mentally retarded teenager to "confess" & whammo, you've "solved" the case.


This post was edited on 5/8 2:46 PM by NEastArkie

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. I also know it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in America, but let's be honest, it is truly guilty until proven innocent. IMHO that is why they can keep you locked up until you are proven innocent if you can't afford bail. With that being said, not everyone needs to be let out on bail, and I understand the multiple reasons why.

 

[ArkansasNole]

Originally posted by MemphisHogs:
Luke is straight clowning in this thread

Must be reading a very different thread.

 

[jollyboyz]

Originally posted by MemphisHogs:
Luke brings up a good point

If they were REALLY innocent then why not wait for a new trial?????

Why would they admit they are guilty by taking the Alfrod plea. If I know for a 100% fact that if I was innocent I would wait for a new trial to show the world Im not guilty then sue the state of Arkansas.

Im not saying the step father wasnt around during the murder but those 3 clowns were at the scene when it happened. There is plenty of evidence that links them to the case

Because they didn't want to wait another year or more waiting on a new trial when the justice system boned them the first time. I'm sorry but I am taking the deal that gets me out now not a year from now which also includes proving my innocence. I am not putting my faith in the justice system that failed me miserably before. Now I am not saying they are innocent, but no one can say they didn't get a raw deal at trial.

Not to mention Everyone knows they took the deal and plead guilty just to get their freedom. No one with an IQ higher than their shoe size is going to say "well they plead guilty they did it."

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

 

[ArkansasNole]

Originally posted by MemphisHogs:
so by me talking about the prosecuting attorney who ACTUALLY SAW EVERYTHING THAT WAS USED IN COURT WHEN THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY BUY A JUDGE/JURY means Im biased (that same man is a big time judge now and has been for a while).

but

when people read books, watch shows ect that ARE FAR MORE BIASED THAN ANYTHING ELSE they are right and the kids didnt do it?

GOT it

"that same man is a big time judge now and has been for a while"

Terrifying but not surprising that he actually gained from his utter failure. If someone who screwed up this bad is actually a judge is pretty scary. That area of the state is loco.

 

[ArkansasNole]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

Holy. Hell. I. Think. He. Is. Serious.

Haha, definitely owning this thread.

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

Holy. Hell. I. Think. He. Is. Serious.

Haha, definitely owning this thread.

It is dead serious. Ask ANYONE who works for the ADC as an officer, and they will tell you how laid back it is. The inmates have more rights than the officers. They teach you this very thing when you go through the academy. As far as the Pine Bluff thing, I've got a former detective you can call who will verify if you'd like. I'd be more than happy to give his contact information via email.

 

[DMitch3520]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

The ADC may not be as bad as the Georgia Penal System, which has a reputation for being one of the toughest in the country, but it is definitely hell.

I can't believe you are saying that solitary confinement "isn't that bad." Are you kidding me? People lose their mind in solitary. 23 hours a day in an 8 x 5 (or something like that) room? Sounds like a cake walk, yea right.

I've been to Cummins, and from what I saw, it would be 100% hell to be in there. Sure, inmates become institutionalized and learn to make prison their home, but that does not mean that it is a pleasant place.

 

[down SouF HawG]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

lol, wtf is this sh*t?

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by DMitch3520:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

The ADC may not be as bad as the Georgia Penal System, which has a reputation for being one of the toughest in the country, but it is definitely hell.

I can't believe you are saying that solitary confinement "isn't that bad." Are you kidding me? People lose their mind in solitary. 23 hours a day in an 8 x 5 (or something like that) room? Sounds like a cake walk, yea right.

I've been to Cummins, and from what I saw, it would be 100% hell to be in there. Sure, inmates become institutionalized and learn to make prison their home, but that does not mean that it is a pleasant place.

I'll give you that. Cummins is the one unit that you do NOT want to go to. It is rough in there, but Varner? No, It is so laid back it's crazy. And I'm not saying being in solitary isn't hell, I'm just saying that Echols made his stay out to be worse than what it really was. He was simply trying to play on peoples emotions.

 

[ArkansasNole]

Originally posted by down SouF HawG:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

lol, wtf is this sh*t?

DUDE!
It is a cake walk in there!
You can even ask his buddies. Are they actual inmates you ask? Well no, they work there and get to do whatever they want when not working, get to see their family, don't have to worry about getting dude raped, get to be with a woman whenever they please, eat where they want, go on vacation, breath fresh air whenever they please BUT they def know whats up.

At first I thought no way he is serious, but sure enough, this board has surprised me again. He believes this.

 

[down SouF HawG]

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:

Originally posted by down SouF HawG:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

lol, wtf is this sh*t?

DUDE!
It is a cake walk in there!
You can even ask his buddies. Are they actual inmates you ask? Well no, they work there and get to do whatever they want when not working, get to see their family, don't have to worry about getting dude raped, get to be with a woman whenever they please, eat where they want, go on vacation, breath fresh air whenever they please BUT they def know whats up.

At first I thought no way he is serious, but sure enough, this board has surprised me again. He believes this.

lol, no kidding...only 18 years in prison? How about another 18 years? Cant wait!

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

This post was edited on 5/8 2:46 PM by NEastArkie

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. I also know it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in America, but let's be honest, it is truly guilty until proven innocent. IMHO that is why they can keep you locked up until you are proven innocent if you can't afford bail. With that being said, not everyone needs to be let out on bail, and I understand the multiple reasons why.

Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. It's an unfortunate fact that people presume an accused person is guilty until proven innocent, but the law presumes innocence. If there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime the system presumes there's enough evidence to restrict their freedom up to a point. Sometimes that can mean high bail, no bail, or low bail. But once the trial starts every effort is made to make the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is told that's what the state must do. It's at that point the real presumption of innocence goes into effect. Yeah, defense lawyers have to deal with the reality that most jurors come in with the idea that the person sitting in the dock is guilty. However, enough of them listen to the court's instructions & the evidence & will often acquit when the evidence is bad. A lot of safeguards are built into the system, but too often they don't work. This WM case seems to me to be a perfect example of that failure. But just because it doesn't always work doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to make damned sure it does.

 

[ScruffMcGruff]

There are lots of facts and legal opinions being thrown around in this thread. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there are few people who know more about this case than Dmitch. His factual knowledge and legal opinion should be given deference. The guy knows his stuff.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

You're crazy. There are probably worse prisons, but they all suck. The Arkansas prison system has a horrible, sordid history. The federal courts cleaned them up so they no longer violate the 8th Amendment--at least as far as I know they don't--but that's a far cry from being less than a hell hole. Sheesh. This is prison we're talking about.

 

[hogaluia]

How bout them hogs!

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

This post was edited on 5/8 2:46 PM by NEastArkie

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. I also know it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in America, but let's be honest, it is truly guilty until proven innocent. IMHO that is why they can keep you locked up until you are proven innocent if you can't afford bail. With that being said, not everyone needs to be let out on bail, and I understand the multiple reasons why.

Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. It's an unfortunate fact that people presume an accused person is guilty until proven innocent, but the law presumes innocence. If there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime the system presumes there's enough evidence to restrict their freedom up to a point. Sometimes that can mean high bail, no bail, or low bail. But once the trial starts every effort is made to make the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is told that's what the state must do. It's at that point the real presumption of innocence goes into effect. Yeah, defense lawyers have to deal with the reality that most jurors come in with the idea that the person sitting in the dock is guilty. However, enough of them listen to the court's instructions & the evidence & will often acquit when the evidence is bad. A lot of safeguards are built into the system, but too often they don't work. This WM case seems to me to be a perfect example of that failure. But just because it doesn't always work doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to make damned sure it does.

The part in bold, that is exactly what I mean. It seems like anytime someone is arrested and it's put in the paper or on T.V., everyone automatically assumes guilt. I am 100% against the media circus that gets around a lot of trials because of this. Especially major trials like the Travon Martin case, the girl down in Florida that Nancy Grace swore was guilty but she was found not guilty, and the case that is about to have the verdict read today on every major news outlet. Stuff like that is why I'm not sure that everyone truly gets a fair trial.

If they are guilty, so be it. If they are innocent, so be it, but a lot of people these days have their mind made up before a trial ever starts.

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

Originally posted by ArkansasNole:
So easy to say "why not wait for a new trial if you are innocent" when you havent spent 18 years in hell and have (in your mind) already been screwed over by the justice system.

The Arkansas Department of Corrections is far from hell. There are inmates in other states calling to try to confess to murders so they can be brought to Arkansas. One tried that recently with a murder in Pine Bluff. He didn't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case and finally admitted that he just wanted to get out of a Georgia prison and come to an Arkansas prison because they are so laid back.

When you go through the training academy for the ADC, they brag about how after the Brubaker incident (incidents that brought the movie along) and some other incidents, the ADC was investigated and changed many of their ways and lightened up on inmates. When I worked there, we would have guys who were getting released that would tell us they would be back because it is so easy and they didn't have to work in there like the would in the real world. (Yes, they have jobs behind bars, but they are not worried about rent, food, cable tv, etc.)

I worked the unit that Echols was housed in. Yeah, it would suck to be in there for 23 hours per day in a cell all alone, but it's not as bad as Echols made it out to be or you would hear of other inmates raising hell. Half the time they were telling him to STFU because he would brag about all of the publicity he was receiving, and how it was going to get him out of there eventually.

I know multiple people who worked directly with him, from nurses to officers, who swear on the Bible that he confessed multiple times while behind bars. There were inmates from Tucker that said the same. I often wondered if this case went to trial again if they would have any of these inmates, nurses, and officers testify that they heard his confession.

You're crazy. There are probably worse prisons, but they all suck. The Arkansas prison system has a horrible, sordid history. The federal courts cleaned them up so they no longer violate the 8th Amendment--at least as far as I know they don't--but that's a far cry from being less than a hell hole. Sheesh. This is prison we're talking about.

I know they were cleaned up, all I'm saying is that when I went through the academy, there were instructors who bragged about how laid back the ADC was. They bragged that Arkansas has the most laid back prison system in America in regards to how inmates are treated and punished. Some instructors hated it, and you could tell they did, while others bragged about it.

 

[UTRIP UMP]

Gentlemen...I'm moving this to the Grim Bottom........

gotta learn to debate without calling each other stupid and crazy............and learn to keep it on the subject of the OP and not individual posters.......

 

[Luke Matheson]

Back to the subject, people have been trying to pin the blame on someone else other than the WM3 from the beginning.

In July of 2001, two supporters worked together to create a scenario in which a drug addict from Clarksville, Tennesse, was the "real killer" based on the fact that the victim of the murder Griffin committed 3 weeks later was hogtied. To ensure that their scenario would be believed, the invented numerous facts, including shrinking the distance between Lehi (where the later murder occurred) and West Memphis, claiming that the same detectives and the same prosecutor handled both cases and failed to make a connection, placing Griffin in the J.W. Rich ball field at the time Echols confessed to the murders and providing an identification of Anthony Wayne Griffin by Mr. Byers based on a picture taken at Flash Market on May 5, 1993.

At other times, they alleged that Griffin was the person who took a cab from West Memphis to central Tennessee on May 5, 1993. This, too, was untrue, as the cab ride originated in Memphis on May 6, 1993 and the fare was to Centerville, Tennessee, not Clarksville.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/metrocab.html

Below is a link to the Crittenden County Sheriff's office investigation file.

http://callahan.8k.com/ awgriffin.html

The murder, contrary to supporter claims, was investigated by the Crittendent County Sheriff, since Lehi is outside the jurisdiction of the West Memphis Police Department. Griffin's case was also handled by two attorneys from the local prosecutor's office and neither John Fogleman, nor Brent Davis, took part in the prosecution, probably since the trial occurred in April, 1994, close to the conclusion of the West Memphis case.

Additionally, although the records aren't public, Griffin was involved in a local crime spree in Clarksville in the first week of May, 1993, and was placed in jail shortly thereafter, making it impossible for him to have been in West Memphis on May 5, 1993.

 

[Luke Matheson]

There are also some who say that the place the bodies were found was not the crime scene.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/casesummary.html

Contrary to the assertions of some WM3 supporters, the above report merely demonstrates that the WMPD weren't jumping to conclusions. It also demonstrates that they weren't attempting to pin the murders on Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley from the beginning, as has been so often alleged.

The theory that the murders didn't occur in the woods was based on the knowledge at the time the report was generated, due to the lack of visible evidence of blood at the crime scene on May 6, 1993. Given the subsequent Luminol reports, it's a safe bet that this report was generated some time between May 6, 1993 and May 12, 1993.

Luminol testing was conducted at the crime scene on the nights of May 12 and May 13, 1993. The results of those tests indicated that there were two areas of blood detected that were not accounted for by body recovery operations.

Three reports were generated in connection with the Luminol testing.

Donald Smith, Arkansas State Police:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_dsmith.html
http://callahan.8k.com/images/luminol/lum12.jpg

Bryn Ridge, WMPD:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/lumbryn1.html
http://callahan.8k.com/images/luminol/lum02.jpg

Tony Anderson, WMPD:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/lumtonya1.html
http://callahan.8k.com/images/luminol/lum06.jpg

Some species of plants and some metals, as well as photo processing chemicals can cause a false reaction with Luminol, there's never been any evidence that the types of plants or metals, or photo processing chemicals were present in the woods. The latter two are unlikely to have been there naturally and the former would have been mentioned in Smith's report if they were present in the woods.

Supporters also make a big deal of the fact that the control samples did not react in the lab as an indication that the reactions in the woods were "false positives." However, the samples tested in the lab were controls, taken prior to the start of testing and, therefore, their failure to react doesn't change the fact that the areas identified in the reports did react to Luminol.

Given the absence of evidence that the bodies were dumped in the woods (no tire tracks in the field, no footprints from the field into the woods, no vehicles reported in the parking lot by the Blue Beacon employees, no blood trails through the woods, etc.) and given the Luminol reaction in two unaccounted for areas in the woods, the only logical conclusion is that the woods were the sole crime scene.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
Back to the subject, people have been trying to pin the blame on someone else other than the WM3 from the beginning.

In July of 2001, two supporters worked together to create a scenario in which a drug addict from Clarksville, Tennesse, was the "real killer" based on the fact that the victim of the murder Griffin committed 3 weeks later was hogtied. To ensure that their scenario would be believed, the invented numerous facts, including shrinking the distance between Lehi (where the later murder occurred) and West Memphis, claiming that the same detectives and the same prosecutor handled both cases and failed to make a connection, placing Griffin in the J.W. Rich ball field at the time Echols confessed to the murders and providing an identification of Anthony Wayne Griffin by Mr. Byers based on a picture taken at Flash Market on May 5, 1993.

At other times, they alleged that Griffin was the person who took a cab from West Memphis to central Tennessee on May 5, 1993. This, too, was untrue, as the cab ride originated in Memphis on May 6, 1993 and the fare was to Centerville, Tennessee, not Clarksville.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/metrocab.html

Below is a link to the Crittenden County Sheriff's office investigation file.

http://callahan.8k.com/ awgriffin.html

The murder, contrary to supporter claims, was investigated by the Crittendent County Sheriff, since Lehi is outside the jurisdiction of the West Memphis Police Department. Griffin's case was also handled by two attorneys from the local prosecutor's office and neither John Fogleman, nor Brent Davis, took part in the prosecution, probably since the trial occurred in April, 1994, close to the conclusion of the West Memphis case.

Additionally, although the records aren't public, Griffin was involved in a local crime spree in Clarksville in the first week of May, 1993, and was placed in jail shortly thereafter, making it impossible for him to have been in West Memphis on May 5, 1993.

I have no idea who killed those boys. Perhaps it was that stepdad, perhaps someone else, but the evidence against those boys who were convicted is questionable enough that they shouldn't have been convicted.

Part of the problem of focusing too much on particular suspects is that it's too easy to overlook evidence that points elsewhere. And too often the police & prosecutors get tunnel vision, convince themselves they know who is guilty & start trying to make evidence fit their theories rather than letting the evidence fall where it should. That not only leads to the innocent being convicted, it leads to the guilty going free.

 

[LaHoggaNostra]

I'm pretty sure Damien Echols is no more guilty of killing those 3 boys than OJ Simpson was of killing his ex and Ron Goldman

 

[1-1-Six Hog]

lol at the simpleness of some of the deleted posts... my gracious guys

 

[Luke Matheson]

Here's one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Echols, from the Blink on Crime investigation, final five paragraphs of the article:

Frank J. Peretti, MD preformed all three autopsies on May 7, 1993, and filed reports on May 10th for cause of death only. Those causes of death btw, were all listed as homicide by multiple injuries, period. Nobody knew that two boys died from drowning, and not all three. This is particularly concerning because the first conversation that Steve Jones and Det Sudbury had with Damien Echols was on May 7th prior to autopsy and in his subsequent interview with Det Bryn Ridge on May 10, when asked by Ridge how he knew about that, Echols told Ridge that Jones told HIM that whoever did this "urinated" in the mouths of the boys.

Urine was found in the stomachs of 2 of the victims, but that information was given by phone only to Gitchell, and not before May 16th, 1993. There is no possible way Damien Echols could have had case- specific information unless he was there or knew someone that was that told him what occurred, as the detective interviewing him at the time was clueless to that fact during the interview.

There are certainly many statements by both Echols and Miskelley prior to arrest that indicate they had prior knowledge of the murders, but I have been able to ride the see saw on those for the most part, like many.

The fact that Echols knew that there was urine in the stomachs of two victims, when it was intentionally ommitted from the report can only mean he was there, or knew someone who was, and in my opinion, both.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/09/02/the-west-memphis-series-part-ii-guilty-by-plea-and-have-been-set-free/

 

[LaHoggaNostra]

Luke-the Dixies Chicks said they were innocent and that has to be true doesn't it?

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
Here's one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Echols, from the Blink on Crime investigation, final five paragraphs of the article:

Frank J. Peretti, MD preformed all three autopsies on May 7, 1993, and filed reports on May 10th for cause of death only. Those causes of death btw, were all listed as homicide by multiple injuries, period. Nobody knew that two boys died from drowning, and not all three. This is particularly concerning because the first conversation that Steve Jones and Det Sudbury had with Damien Echols was on May 7th prior to autopsy and in his subsequent interview with Det Bryn Ridge on May 10, when asked by Ridge how he knew about that, Echols told Ridge that Jones told HIM that whoever did this "urinated" in the mouths of the boys.

Urine was found in the stomachs of 2 of the victims, but that information was given by phone only to Gitchell, and not before May 16th, 1993. There is no possible way Damien Echols could have had case- specific information unless he was there or knew someone that was that told him what occurred, as the detective interviewing him at the time was clueless to that fact during the interview.

There are certainly many statements by both Echols and Miskelley prior to arrest that indicate they had prior knowledge of the murders, but I have been able to ride the see saw on those for the most part, like many.

The fact that Echols knew that there was urine in the stomachs of two victims, when it was intentionally ommitted from the report can only mean he was there, or knew someone who was, and in my opinion, both.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/09/02/the-west-memphis-series-part-ii-guilty-by-plea-and-have-been-set-free/

I have not followed the details of this case, but as a general proposition I'm skeptical of stories from places like "blink on crime" investigation. Their "facts" are often wrong. However, if there was urine in the stomachs of any of the victims, that urine would contain DNA. At least I'm pretty sure it would.