But you know you are.

But then, you have found The Truth. Say Hallelujah!!

I can't argue the facts with you because I have admittedly not read or seen everything that you have, but you have some issues:

For someone preaching about a "PR machine," this is either just as bad or shows a total misunderstanding of why they did what they did. While they technically admitted that there was enough evidence to prove guilt, what they meant was we aren't going to take our chances with a butt-****ing-Egypt Arkansas jury who is going to hear about satanism.


This is so fundamentally flawed that it brings everything you say into question, or at least the legal stuff. Who would they appeal to?

That's just silly, unless you have more evidence that you haven't talked about in this thread.

One thing I carried away from my reading on this case over the weekend is that the division between 'supporters' and 'nons' in the forums is intense and vocal. Politards got nothing on the wm3 posters.


No profanity filters either.

If you look at in a legal sense this convicted child killers should not be out of prison due to the ASSC error.

Further, if you look at the body of the evidence yes you they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lastly, if you look at the body of evidence as an outside observer there is even further indication of guilt by virtue of what was presented during the appeal process. Primarily, Misskelley's lawyer at the time testiftying that he maintained his guilt privatly to them for a four month period prior to the trial. Misskelly confessed on a bible (not that the bible means much) in a one on one private meeting with his lawyer after the trial. Misskelly confessed to the transport cops which led to Misskelley confessed againing (commonly called the post-conviction confession) to prosecutors in a taped statement against the advice of his lawyers.

If you truly look at the body of evidence presented and not the interpretation the defense support fund has laid out for everyone then reach a conclusion of reasonable doubt, I can accept your opinion. But, you have to do your own research on the evidence and not argue the defense slanted version of it.


You have to ask your self what reasonable doubt exist and can that be answered. By including the word absolutely into your reasonable doubt you've changed the standard to an almost impossible burden for most murder cases.



I do not disagree with this however, this does not stop people like my friends and I pointing out the load of BS the defense has produced. Whats more, the defense are not the ones "muddying the waters" its the people pay them. Which has resulted in a large scale misrepresentation of the facts and evidence of this case.

[QUOTE=Hey_Porter;28296014]I can't argue the facts with you because I have admittedly not read or seen everything that you have, but you have some issues:


So you think I'm spinning? The did it to get out jail. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. You are the one who spinning why they did it when in reality in the eyes of the law they admitted their was sufficient evidence to convict them .

That is what their plea represents no matter what you, I or they claim.

In the eyes of the law they said all this evidence of which they contested for 18 years as being insufficient for these verdicts was now sufficient.

That is not spin sir. That is legal definition of what happened.. Anyone suggesting "why" they did it or that their motives some how absolves or removes the legal standing of them accepting the sufficient evidence via the Alfred plea is nothing more than spin.

No I'm spot on about the legal stuff.

The SAG would appeal to the ASSC about the claim that "new" non-cumulative DNA exist that does not implicate the convicted.

Keep in mind because DNA does not implicate the convicted, it does not mean they are convulsively excluded from committing the crime. This is the burden they had to prove at the hearing.


During the trial the defense presented evidence and stated during closing arguments none of the DNA implicated any of the defendants.

The burden is for the defense to produce non cumulative evidence not presented at trial that conclusively proves the defendants did not commit this crime.

At this hearing they were going to suggest no DNA evidence was connected to the defendants. Further, no amount of DNA evidence can convulsively exclude the three from committing the murder.

In simpler words they can not make the same argument they made at trial. At trial they said no DNA evidence connected he defendants.

The SAG lawyer who made the argument was not aware this was made at trial and the ASSC was unaware it was made at trial which led to the ASSC error in sending it back to the lower court for an evidentiary hearing. Once it was sent back to the lower court that gave this DA the the jurisdiction to make the plea deal. If the appeal is successful its as if the court never gained jurisdiction and the plea deal is null and void, the three child killers are sent back to their rightful homes.




And you would be one to make that determination based on an admitted lack of knowledge?

....now that is silly.

and there is tons more just go look here http://callahan.8k.com/

You got that buddy.

However, the main "supporter" forum bans any "non" on site. The main "non" forum on the other hand, wont ban you but simply cuss you out. As long as you can handle the attacks and be respectful that one of the boys fathers post there, you can post and defend your position as much as you like. As in between the attacks the people will argue the reason they disagree with you.

Let this be a warning though. You come in with the PR driven BS it almost certainly going to result in some harsh words directed your way.

Sadly a new development was learned about.

The SAG orchestrated the meeting between DA and the defense lawyers. It seems this indicates there is little chance of an appeal to be made to the ASSC.

A new defense lawyer for Damien Echols who joined within the past year had lunch or breakfast with McDaniels (SAG) which led to the meeting with the DA. It should be noted that both are long time college buddies and have remained in contact for several years.

The black and white legalities of this case is clear. The statutes are clear, the law is clear. The SAG sold out to politics and money further demonstrating anyone directly involved in this case will jump at the first chance to profit off of it consequently profiting off of
three murdered little boys.

Further, there is indication based on the judges comments that he was favorable to the defense. It is truly sicking how a small group of people can pervert the entire legal and political system by using a massive distortion of facts.

As I said before the black and white legalities of this case are clear, however the distorted PR created public opinion that seems to have won over the judge, SAG, and media. It became unpopular to believe the WM3 were guilty. There is talk of the SAG running governor of Arkansas.

Riddle me this.....


It is the judge's responsibility in accepting an "Alford Plea" to determine if in fact there was sufficient evidence to convict the three. If he thinks there is the deal can go through which it did.

If he felt their was sufficient evidence to convict the three, how in the hell can any logical person assume the defense would of been successful in getting this judge to grant a new trial at the hearing as the DA purposed?

You can say that, but you either: 1) Don't understand it; 2) Are getting BAD legal information; or 3) are doing what you are damning (i.e., slanting information and leaving a hell of a lot of stuff out).

You are either not explaining yourself well, or don't understand. The bolded sentence, plain meaning, states that you believe that the SAG can appeal the ASSC decision to remand the case back. No, they can't. ASSC is the supreme legal "decider" on this issue, there is no one else to appeal to. Do you mean that if the lower court finds in favor of the defendants, the State could appeal again to the ASSC? Because that's NOT what you said, and also doesn't make much sense in the context of your argument.

I just read the ASSC's opinion, and all of this is so far off it's not even funny. Plain and simple, the ASSC remanded because the trial judge applied the wrong standard. ASSC didn't look at the evidence at all, but simply the standard that was applied. Multiple steps along the way, the trial court applied the wrong standard.

Your also totally misconstruing the "new evidence" bit, along with the standards. This....

"The argument the defense was going to make at the hearing is "the DNA does not implicate their client". This was presented at trail and the jury still found them guilty. So providing evidence that DNA does not implicate their client is not new evidence"

....is incredibly oversimplified and incorrect. First of all, the "new" defense argument isn't just that "the DNA does not implicate their client." It's this:


"The results of the testing established that neither Echols, Baldwin, nor Misskelley was the source of any of the biological material tested, which included a foreign allele from a penile swab of victim Steven Branch; a hair from the ligature used to bind victim Michael Moore; and a hair recovered from a tree stump, near where the bodies were recovered. In addition, the DNA material from the hair found in the ligature used to bind Moore was found
to be consistent with Terry Hobbs, Branch’s stepfather. The hair found on the tree stump was consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby, a friend of Terry Hobbs." [From ASSC opinion.]

That's a hell of a lot more than "our guys' DNA wasn't there." That's a solid alternative theory of the case, which the defense has every right to put on, and is NOT cumulative by any legal definition. The legal standard that you keep arguing, i.e., that the evidence has to show that the defendants "conclusively" did not commit the offenses, is the one that the ASSC explicitly rejected. Instead, defendants have to show "compelling evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal," i.e., whether a new jury with the new evidence would find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, that's straight from the ASSC opinion.

You're being really disingenuous when you compare what was found to "Ronald MacDonald's" DNA. You can't sit their and tell me that the DNA of the stepfather and the stepfather's friend, plus UNKNOWN DNA from a penile swab of one of the victims, wouldn't have SOME weight with a jury. Since you're going to bring it up, keep in mind that at this stage we're not talking about the State's explanation (which I know you think exists). We're simply talking about whether this is cumulative or not.


For what it's worth, I definitely agree with you about the new trial being a far cry from a sure thing. While the trial court applied the wrong standard initially (and therefore HAS to be reversed), it's not like the correct standard is easy. It does seem a little fishy.

Of course I left stuff out or my post would be enormous and confusing for the laymen.


The SAG can appeal the ASSC ruling to the ASSC allowing the evidentiary hearing and yes they can.





No, it is not.

Tell us all what the standard is.

What is the standard?

What is the standard?

No I'm not.

The defense argued and presented evidence that NONE of the DNA evidence implicated their clients at the '94 trial.

Also, it might be helpful to understand cumulative and non-cumulative.





"The argument the defense was going to make at the hearing is "the DNA does not implicate their client". This was presented at trial and the jury still found them guilty. So providing evidence that DNA does not implicate their client is not new evidence"

No its not, and if you knew the standard, you would agree.


First of all, the "new" defense argument isn't just that "the DNA does not implicate their client." It's this:


First, this is not fact, this is the defense contention. Further, this does nothing to change the fact that NONE of the DNA evidence implicates the convicted just as it was argued at trial. Check the standard. Check the definition of culuative and non cumulative.


That's a hell of a lot more than "our guys' DNA wasn't there."

No it is not.

Do the research on the odds of that hair being Hobbs. You have one hair and allele from one of the fathers friends.

Do research on secondary transfer. While reading that you need to remember the compelling part of the standard.




Read the statue on what constitutes new evidence and learn the standard. Then you will fully understand where the ASSC errd.



compelling evidence that new trial would result in an acquittal.

there it is. The judge in accepting the "Alford plea" indicated just this when he allowed the plea to deal to happen. If the judge accepted that the evidence was sufficient why would the prosecutor have any doubt as to the success he would have at the evidentiary hearing?

Now read up on "non-cumulative" and its effect on the standard.


SOME is not compelling. You just made my argument. Further.....do the research via callahans and exactly what the odds of that hair belonging to Hobbs.

It is cumulative. No DNA evidence currently exist (not all of the samples have been tested) implicates the convicted. How can you argue that DNA evidence now does not implicate the defendant is any different than what was argued back then.

No matter if you believe in guilt or innocence this decision by the SAG and DA was made for reasons other than what they said after the hearing last week.

Bottom line I'm not a lawyer and I probably oversimplified things for clear understanding. However, if a lawyer who was familiar or became familiar with this case would agree with me.


The Arkansas standard is huge. they have to provide non-cumulative, compelling evidence that would result in an acquittal. The Hobbs and Jacoby DNA, if you do the research, anything but compelling. Further, they've argued already that DNA did not implicate them.

Wait, you're trying to tell me that the SAG can appeal the ASSC ruling TO THE ASSC?!?!?!? Either Arkansas is completely bass-ackwards from EVERY WHERE ELSE or you have no idea what's going on.


You tell me what you think the standard is, because it's pretty clear that you have no idea. You keep arguing facts, when ALL the ASSC did was say that the trial court applied the wrong standard. That has nothing to do with the facts. Supreme Court simply said, "hey, trial court, you might be right in the long run, but you did it the wrong way, and defendants have a right for you to do it the right way." The cumulative evidence that you love (and apparently only just discovered today) has jack **** to do with this standard.

You keep saying "the ASSC erred" and "if you look at the evidence blah blah blah you will see where the ASSC erred." Spell it out, simply: HOW did the ASSC err? If you do that, I'll tell you plainly why you are wrong. Right now, you are all over the place and it's too difficult to figure out what you are actually arguing, other than spewing a few talking points.

walloftext.doc

cliffs? I assume it's some load of baloney?

Sounds like one of those shills who showed up in the Amanda Knox OOT thread. They spout all of this information and it looks impressive until someone with actual knowledge shows up and tears down the wall of text.

I could be wrong in this case but I doubt it.

ur not wrong, that's pretty much what's going on here.

That is exactly the way it is in Arkansas. For crying out loud if, you do not believe look for it your self. Its exactly the reason I have not spelled it out. You obviously will not believe me at face value. Which you should not and the reason I'm doing it. Enough people get interested and actually study the case, the more people who will say "what the hell just happened in Arkansas"

You can tell me I'm wrong based on very little knowledge of the case?


You will not believe me. Its why I was leading you to the answers.

Q: What is the appeal based on to the ASSC?

A: DNA evidence

What is the standard for "new" evidence to be acceptable for an appeal?

A: non-cumulative, compelling evidence that would lead a jury to blah blah blah


Q: What are they applying or failed to apply the standard too?

A: DNA evidence.

Q: Does the DNA evidence meet the standard for an appeal to the ASSC?

A: No, its cumulative.....stop right there (the compelling does not matter), the defense had no grounds to file an appeal with the ASSC as the evidence they presented was cumulative. The ASSC did not know this, niether did the states lawyer until after the hearing.


In other words you can not apply the standard or assess the standard to evidence that has already been presented at trial. The evidence they were going to present was already presented at trail. They were asking for an evidentiary hearing on cumulative evidence. That is a no go, the standard they did or did not apply doesn't matter.

Besides that the three were not convicted on DNA evidence. Which means it was irrelevant in the Juries decision. Hence the Ronald McDonald analogy. Short of his sperm being found inside one of the victims, DNA evidence can not clear them ever, nor can be used for an appeal.

I bet you can not prove it.

There is mention in this thread of confessions to lawyers that are public. I always assumed conversations between lawyers and clients were confidential. Is this not the case?

Stidham (Misskelleys lawyer for the trial which was separate from Echols/Baldwins) testified at a rule 37 hearing a few years ago. How that happened I'm not sure, but the transcripts from that hearing are available and he did in fact testify to the four month insistence of guilt before the trial and his "bible" confession.

As far as I know, no legal challenge from the defense ever came from his testimony so it was on the up and up what ever it was.

Need to add something but too late to edit:

Basically what happened was the defense screwed them selves when they said NONE of the DNA evidence implicated their client to the crime or the scene. The jury deliberated already considering that the DNA belonged someone else with no name and still convicted. What difference does it make when you attempt to give that DNA a name or person associated with it? That is why its cumulative and has no basis for an appeal. No need to apply the standard to evidence that has no standing to be reviewed anyways.


The Jury considered DNA and found them guilty DESPITE that DNA obviously belonging to someone else. Because it has a name is associated with it makes it "new" evidence? Well the jury already determined that the lack of DNA evidence connecting to the defendants, or other peoples DNA being present, was not enough reasonable doubt and other things led them to a guilty verdict.

Hope that clears it up and you can show me where I'm wrong......

(excuse my grammar, I'm obviously not very good with words)

let me guess - you know some cops? you and your kind have a much deserved ZERO credibility with enlightened people.

No I do not know cops. Problem with your premise is the "enlightened" people is, they do not use fact or evidence they research for themselves, instead rely upon other peoples word. Almost all my information comes entirely from the source (facts and evidence from case file) and Arkansas law.

The only exception to this is my opinion of guilt, which has been supported by 24 jurors, several appellate decisions, and now a judge who found sufficient evidence to find them guilty.

What I do find odd is your questioning my source with out identifying where I'm wrong. But its okay, I assume you are one of the "enlightened" one who relies on other methods than the facts and evidence to form your opinion.

If that it what it means to be "enlighten" I'll pass.

What is sad is people do not give a hoot about three murdered child killers walking free to do the research and find that a real travesty of justice was commit ed last week. Much easier to go with the flow and accept the "enlightened" opinion.

Disagree. The knowledge being spouted does not look very impressive at all. He does know how to say "pr machine" a heckuva lot though.

What am I wrong about? Please point it out......please tell me you have something.....otherwise STFU.

Oh I forgot the media told you what to believe. We should believe them over the facts and evidence. You make me sick.

Here is what happened last week.

The state of Arkansas last week agreed to a deal in which the "Alford Plea" was used. The state supposedly felt it stood little chance in proving to the judge that the evidence it had was sufficient to uphold the verdicts and or win a hypothetical retrial yet had to prove sufficient evidence existed to find the convicted guilty again in order to convince the same judge to accept an "Aflord Plea".

Its a non sequitur.

For those interested check these sources out:


Most of them are people showing why they think the WM3 are guilty. Take it with a grain of salt until you do your own research outside of the
"non"/"supporter" opinions.


The official statement of Mr. Todd Moore, father of victim Michael Moore:
http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax...c,10443.0.html

Professional crime profiler Patricia Brown's analysis of the case:
http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/...his-three.html

Blink On Crime's detailed look into the case, started with a conviction that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were innocent:
http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/08/15/t...hey-should-be/

A thorough analysis of the case, by independent researcher Joseph, based on lengthy logical dissection and study of the known facts and available evidence:
http://www.findadeath.com/forum/show...t=3326&page=29

A deep look into the case from the Crime Spree:
http://crime-spree.blogspot.com/2005...re-guilty.html

Concise summary of the case, the facts and the evidence, along with analysis of some of the most common myths:
http://www.wm3truth.com/

Factual discussion boards devoted to analysis of the crime. (NOTE: emotions, and, consequently, language, can currently be strong on forums):
http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php
http://westmemphishomicidesdiscussio....com/directory

Blog devoted to the case, following the scandalous events of August 2011:
http://wm3guilty.wordpress.com/

Extensive archive of the case, from the initial discoveries, to the collected evidence, to the confessions and the criminal and psychiatric history of the convicted:
http://callahan.8k.com/