OT- West Memphis 3

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by 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.

There might be a few cells shed into the urine but I don't think you would be able to round up enough of them to make a useful sample as far as DNA testing.

Back in 1993 is before they had the DNA amplifying technique which allows to take a very small sample and replicate it until they have a sufficient sample to test.

I just don't see that as a viable option. But, I'm not an expert.... just trained in anatomony etc.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by original hambone:

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

There might be a few cells shed into the urine but I don't think you would be able to round up enough of them to make a useful sample as far as DNA testing.

Back in 1993 is before they had the DNA amplifying technique which allows to take a very small sample and replicate it until they have a sufficient sample to test.

I just don't see that as a viable option. But, I'm not an expert.... just trained in anatomony etc.

I'll defer to you on this. It seemed to me that it would, but I am sure this is something you'd more likely be right about than I would. I've never been terribly clear what sources of DNA would exist in this case anyway. I know they had some hair samples, but unless there were some skin scrapings under fingernails, I never really thought there was much chance of there being much of the perp's DNA. This was the first time I'd ever heard of urine being present & the thought occurred to me that might be a good source--especially if it contained any semen.

But now that I think about what you say, that makes perfect sense. They have to have some sort of body tissue to get DNA & it's unlikely urine would contain much, if any.
This post was edited on 5/9 2:33 PM by NEastArkie

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by 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.

Blink on Crime was hired by Johnny Depp and other WM3 supporters hoping she would find evidence showing someone else did it. She came back with what I linked above. They were not happy.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
Blink on Crime was hired by Johnny Depp and other WM3 supporters hoping she would find evidence showing someone else did it. She came back with what I linked above. They were not happy.

Doesn't change my skepticism. I've just seen too many of these types of investigators who are very selective with their facts. Some just fabricate things. It's easy to make a case either way in the media. Yes, that includes the media who'd be helping the WM3, too. My whole issue with this case comes down to the way it was handled by the police, prosecutors & trial court. It wasn't done well. The problem with sensational cases is that there's so much pressure to find the culprit that too often any culprit will do. The cases are chock full of people wrongfully targeted. In cases like this it usually takes some time to pass before passions die down & evidence can be looked at a bit more coolly & thoughtfully. Unfortunately, people get married to their own positions & beliefs. The evidence can be overwhelming that they're wrong & they'll cling to their old position. I've seen this happen a lot. Usually trials can ferret out the passions & mistakes of witnesses, but it's harder to do in high profile cases where jurors come in with pre-formed opinions.

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
Blink on Crime was hired by Johnny Depp and other WM3 supporters hoping she would find evidence showing someone else did it. She came back with what I linked above. They were not happy.

Doesn't change my skepticism. I've just seen too many of these types of investigators who are very selective with their facts. Some just fabricate things. It's easy to make a case either way in the media. Yes, that includes the media who'd be helping the WM3, too. My whole issue with this case comes down to the way it was handled by the police, prosecutors & trial court. It wasn't done well. The problem with sensational cases is that there's so much pressure to find the culprit that too often any culprit will do. The cases are chock full of people wrongfully targeted. In cases like this it usually takes some time to pass before passions die down & evidence can be looked at a bit more coolly & thoughtfully. Unfortunately, people get married to their own positions & beliefs. The evidence can be overwhelming that they're wrong & they'll cling to their old position. I've seen this happen a lot. Usually trials can ferret out the passions & mistakes of witnesses, but it's harder to do in high profile cases where jurors come in with pre-formed opinions.

I can agree to that. The Casey Anthony case is a prime example. The media painted her as guilty, but the evidence just wasn't there. Did someone in that house kill that poor baby? Yes, but who was it? Does she know? Yes. Was it her? Probably, but reasonable doubt wasn't there. I hate that that baby hasn't received justice, but I had to snicker at Nancy Grace who should have known better painting her as guilty when the evidence just wasn't there.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
I can agree to that. The Casey Anthony case is a prime example. The media painted her as guilty, but the evidence just wasn't there. Did someone in that house kill that poor baby? Yes, but who was it? Does she know? Yes. Was it her? Probably, but reasonable doubt wasn't there. I hate that that baby hasn't received justice, but I had to snicker at Nancy Grace who should have known better painting her as guilty when the evidence just wasn't there.

I don't like second guessing juries, but I know there have been a lot of bad verdicts. Usually they err on the side of conviction. I think they were wrong on Casey Anthony, but I'd rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent one convicted. I'm convinced O.J. Simpson was guilty, too, but the prosecutors screwed that up. Of course, Simpson is now in jail for an unrelated crime, but whether the judge will admit it or not he received a harsher sentence for that crime because he got away with the murder of his wife et al.

Nancy Grace is a dis-grace. Her coverage of the Anthony matter was awful.

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:

I can agree to that. The Casey Anthony case is a prime example. The media painted her as guilty, but the evidence just wasn't there. Did someone in that house kill that poor baby? Yes, but who was it? Does she know? Yes. Was it her? Probably, but reasonable doubt wasn't there. I hate that that baby hasn't received justice, but I had to snicker at Nancy Grace who should have known better painting her as guilty when the evidence just wasn't there.

I don't like second guessing juries, but I know there have been a lot of bad verdicts. Usually they err on the side of conviction. I think they were wrong on Casey Anthony, but I'd rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent one convicted. I'm convinced O.J. Simpson was guilty, too, but the prosecutors screwed that up. Of course, Simpson is now in jail for an unrelated crime, but whether the judge will admit it or not he received a harsher sentence for that crime because he got away with the murder of his wife et al.

Nancy Grace is a dis-grace. Her coverage of the Anthony matter was awful.

I read a compelling article that convinced me that Casey Anthony's father did it.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by original hambone:
I read a compelling article that convinced me that Casey Anthony's father did it.

Really? I hadn't heard that one. I suppose he had opportunity.

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by original hambone:

I read a compelling article that convinced me that Casey Anthony's father did it.

Really? I hadn't heard that one. I suppose he had opportunity.

Forget the source. Read the article...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/19/what-casey-anthonys-psychiatry-records-tell-us-did-casey-really-kill-caylee/

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by original hambone:
Forget the source. Read the article...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/19/what-casey-anthonys-psychiatry-records-tell-us-did-casey-really-kill-caylee/

Damn. That's chilling. Since this isn't a political issue, I don't question the credibility of Fox News. If this doctor is giving us well documented evidence, I share your belief that daddy did it. What a sicko.

 

[japierce]

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
I've always thought that at least Echols was involved. He knew things before the detectives knew things, like one of the boys having urine in their stomachs. He told a detective he would piss down their throats before the autopsy was done and showed that one of the boys had urine in their stomach.

He always talks about people labeling him as a devil worshiper, but shortly before the three boys were killed, he tried killing his step father, and told police and mental health people that he was a white witch and a vampire. But, the Paradise Lost documentary says that no one knows where that came from, so people take that at face value. However, below you will see it in his case files:

http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/3/374.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/3/375.jpg

Also, Blink on Crime did a investigation that was funded by WM3 supporters, and came back with enough evidence to find them guilty.

NEW PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TIED TO ECHOLS AND BALDWIN
[/B]
Exclusively on www.blinkoncrime.com, during the course of our investigation of the case file, new and additional evidence has been uncovered linking Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin to the murders.

The INFAMOUS BR1

A plastic bag with the Road Runner Petro logo found at the scene containing inter alia a black thermal t shirt size Medium, a khaki short sleeve button down shirt size L, men's size 33-34 Jordache jeans, a pair of white socks recovered from the pipe near the scene. A red fiber found on Michael Moore 's boyscout shirt, which was microscopically similar to a red and white pullover shirt of Echols, was also found in this bag.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/08/15/the-west-memphis-three-series-part-i-set-free-or-where-they-should-be/

Add the fact that they claimed to have DNA evidence that would clear them, but they decide to plead guilty just three months before their court date, that seems fishy to me. They have been out nearly two years and havent even attempted to show their DNA evidence yet. If I had the evidence, even though I was walking free, I'd do everything I could to get it tested and to clear my name. They have failed to do so. They just want to offer up some bogus reward when the State of Arkansas has made it perfectly clear that they have three guilty pleas and are not looking for anyone else and will not until the WM3 prove they have their DNA evidence that they claim to have.




This post was edited on 5/8 10:10 AM by Luke Matheson

So you think the State of Arkansas would release three "convicted child murders" one from death row, if they believed they were guilty, or had a case that could remotely stand up in a court of law? You're a smart guy, and I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you here.

 

[Luke Matheson]

Originally posted by japierce:

Originally posted by Luke Matheson:
I've always thought that at least Echols was involved. He knew things before the detectives knew things, like one of the boys having urine in their stomachs. He told a detective he would piss down their throats before the autopsy was done and showed that one of the boys had urine in their stomach.

He always talks about people labeling him as a devil worshiper, but shortly before the three boys were killed, he tried killing his step father, and told police and mental health people that he was a white witch and a vampire. But, the Paradise Lost documentary says that no one knows where that came from, so people take that at face value. However, below you will see it in his case files:

http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/3/374.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/3/375.jpg

Also, Blink on Crime did a investigation that was funded by WM3 supporters, and came back with enough evidence to find them guilty.

NEW PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TIED TO ECHOLS AND BALDWIN
[/B]
Exclusively on www.blinkoncrime.com, during the course of our investigation of the case file, new and additional evidence has been uncovered linking Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin to the murders.

The INFAMOUS BR1

A plastic bag with the Road Runner Petro logo found at the scene containing inter alia a black thermal t shirt size Medium, a khaki short sleeve button down shirt size L, men's size 33-34 Jordache jeans, a pair of white socks recovered from the pipe near the scene. A red fiber found on Michael Moore 's boyscout shirt, which was microscopically similar to a red and white pullover shirt of Echols, was also found in this bag.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/08/15/the-west-memphis-three-series-part-i-set-free-or-where-they-should-be/

Add the fact that they claimed to have DNA evidence that would clear them, but they decide to plead guilty just three months before their court date, that seems fishy to me. They have been out nearly two years and havent even attempted to show their DNA evidence yet. If I had the evidence, even though I was walking free, I'd do everything I could to get it tested and to clear my name. They have failed to do so. They just want to offer up some bogus reward when the State of Arkansas has made it perfectly clear that they have three guilty pleas and are not looking for anyone else and will not until the WM3 prove they have their DNA evidence that they claim to have.




This post was edited on 5/8 10:10 AM by Luke Matheson

So you think the State of Arkansas would release three "convicted child murders" one from death row, if they believed they were guilty, or had a case that could remotely stand up in a court of law? You're a smart guy, and I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you here.

Why would they claim to have DNA evidence that completely cleared their name, then approach the prosecution with a guilty plea when they could allegedly clear their names, sue the state, and make millions?

DNA doesn't lie. If they truly have it as they claim, why have they still failed to present it after being out of prison for nearly three years?

Also, how did Echols know about the urine in the stomachs of two of the boys before the autopsies were performed?

Here's an excerpt from Blink on Crime's investigation:


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/

Now, look at this:




Urine was found in the stomachs of two of the boys. See Appendix B (Letter from Inspector Gary Gitchell to Kermit Channel at Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, dated 5-26-93; item (9) "Dr. Peretti mentioned finding urine in the stomach of two boys").Scroll down to the third paragraph below the section that says "end of page five".
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

 

[ksmathis]

So because the cab ride originated 5 miles from west Memphis the day after the murders and the cab stopped in centerville, tn which is less than 1.5 hours from Clarksville, TN means that guy didn't do it? That is skeptical at best.