- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: West Memphis three
Posted on 6/21/21 at 2:00 pm to ConfusedHawgInMO
Posted on 6/21/21 at 2:00 pm to ConfusedHawgInMO
quote:
Miskelly went into great detail about what they did to those boys.
Problem being - the physical evidence didn't fully support what he said happened.
Look - I get it - Echols was beyond weird and Miskelley was intellectually disabled. The wild card in this is Baldwin who, by all appearances, was just a reasonably normal kid in that "West Memphis" environment (no offense).
I have not conclusively ruled out that Echols or Miskelley were involved in some way, but a conviction just can't be supported by Miskelley's statements. Way too many questions surrounding them. If Baldwin was involved, it was because he was pure follower. And being the most "normal" of the three, why didn't he flip to save himself? That would have been an easy sell by his attorney.
The state's theory of the case was poor and the police probably focused on Echols way too early. They didn't understand the evidence they did have and didn't use it properly. They got convictions but left too many questions, long-term, IMHO.
2
Posted on 6/21/21 at 4:48 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Problem being - the physical evidence didn't fully support what he said happened.
Look - I get it - Echols was beyond weird and Miskelley was intellectually disabled. The wild card in this is Baldwin who, by all appearances, was just a reasonably normal kid in that "West Memphis" environment (no offense).
I have not conclusively ruled out that Echols or Miskelley were involved in some way, but a conviction just can't be supported by Miskelley's statements. Way too many questions surrounding them. If Baldwin was involved, it was because he was pure follower. And being the most "normal" of the three, why didn't he flip to save himself? That would have been an easy sell by his attorney.
The state's theory of the case was poor and the police probably focused on Echols way too early. They didn't understand the evidence they did have and didn't use it properly. They got convictions but left too many questions, long-term, IMHO.
That is a very fair point. The killers cleaned up after the murders, but there was virtually no physical evidence. If they had all kept their mouths shut, then likely no one ever would have been convicted.
In terms of Baldwin, he definitely was the beta to Echols' alpha. But not sure there is any deal where one killer of a young child get's a sentence that would make it worth not rolling the dice with the jury. I am not even sure 50 years would have passed the public opinion test for a child killer.
Just to be clear - Echols was not focused on early. Two people were interviewed as initial suspects before he was considered. The only reason he was considered was because he bragged about doing it and fit the psychological profile. Maybe that's still bad form but he was not picked on because he listened to Metallica and wore black.
Posted on 6/22/21 at 8:30 pm to Baylor Kyle
I love a good WM3 thread……
Posted on 6/22/21 at 9:39 pm to Ace Midnight
The State's theory of the case was not poor. Neither was the police work or the investigation. The State had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It did that, as found by two separate juries in two separate counties, and then affirmed by multiple courts of review spanning years. All those judges and jurors were equally corrupted and biased?
Come on. And the State is not required to 100% conclusively prove its case nor exclude every other possible theory, as the liberal entertainment personalities would have you believe. Reasonable doubt. That is the burden, which the State definitely satisfied. If people don't like it, then amend the Constitution.
Maybe Damien and his boys shouldn't have been such dirtbags? They even acknowledge this issue. At the end of Casablanca is the famous line "round up the usual suspects."
Misskelley's post conviction confession (he confessed many times) was the only account of the murders ever offered by anyone that contained actual guilty knowledge -- the whiskey bottle, as Baylor Kyle has noted. Add that to the bloody necklace, and you've got even more proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's a travesty that a new judge and DA consented to the defense's slick Alford plea gambit. The "new" DNA evidence was two strands of hair that could have belonged to any number of millions of people.
The WM3 remain convicted murderers to this day, rightfully so. Wonder why they never tried to clear their names with a new trial based on all their "new evidence?" Hmm...
Come on. And the State is not required to 100% conclusively prove its case nor exclude every other possible theory, as the liberal entertainment personalities would have you believe. Reasonable doubt. That is the burden, which the State definitely satisfied. If people don't like it, then amend the Constitution.
Maybe Damien and his boys shouldn't have been such dirtbags? They even acknowledge this issue. At the end of Casablanca is the famous line "round up the usual suspects."
Misskelley's post conviction confession (he confessed many times) was the only account of the murders ever offered by anyone that contained actual guilty knowledge -- the whiskey bottle, as Baylor Kyle has noted. Add that to the bloody necklace, and you've got even more proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's a travesty that a new judge and DA consented to the defense's slick Alford plea gambit. The "new" DNA evidence was two strands of hair that could have belonged to any number of millions of people.
The WM3 remain convicted murderers to this day, rightfully so. Wonder why they never tried to clear their names with a new trial based on all their "new evidence?" Hmm...
Posted on 6/22/21 at 11:00 pm to Tall Tiger
Damien is the biggest piece of shite of the three.
Mental illness was a crutch used to excuse his behavior. I knew people with mental illness but never acted like a low life such as Damien.
Mental illness was a crutch used to excuse his behavior. I knew people with mental illness but never acted like a low life such as Damien.
Posted on 6/22/21 at 11:08 pm to davyjones
quote:
And no, they didn't plead guilty, they entered Alford pleas
What are you talking about?
quote:
In United States law, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence. In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted on 6/22/21 at 11:30 pm to davyjones
quote:
that the detectives were highly motivated
Forget the detectives. Misskelly confessed the next morning after the killings. The confession that seals the deal was the one to Buddy Lucas. If Misskelly wasnt involved, how in the hell did he know 3 boys were hurt, before the bodies were even found. The police looked for the bodies until 3 pm, and Misskelly had confessed that morning
quote:
according to Lucas, that he revealed to police, that on May 6th, the day after the murders, he and Jessie were hanging out at Jessie’s trailer, and it was during this time that Jessie gave Lucas a pair of shoes to wear, saying he did not want to see them again. Jessie had also broken down crying and confessed to the murders, stating that he, Jason, and Damien had hurt some boys and were in trouble. Accordingly, Jessie told Buddy that he wanted to tell the police about the crime, and thus turn his friends in, but didn’t know how to do so without also going to jail for his part in the murders.
quote:
LUCAS – I SAID WAS YOU INVOLVED? HE SAID YEA, I SAID WHAT DID YOU DO? I FINALLY GOT IT TALKED OUT OF HIM WHAT DID HE DO, HE SAID I HIT UH, A COUPLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD AND EVERYTHING TO KEEP THEM FROM RUNNING AND EVERYTHING
RIDGE – AND THIS IS ON THURSDAY MORNING?
LUCAS – UH-HUH
Posted on 6/22/21 at 11:37 pm to dchog
quote:
Hollywood loves to push an agenda and say the three couldn't have committed those crimes.
Maybe now, but then it was the Satanism and sacrifice stuff the media was pushing on why they did it.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 12:05 am to Baylor Kyle
quote:
I just cannot fathom a scenario where he would continue to claim his guilt. It just gives me confidence in his original confession.
He wanted it to be over and was told it would if he confessed because he is a mental midget. It's easy to see why people confess to things they don't do.
We have people claim they are a female with a gonads and no uterus
They probably did it. But again, the investigation was shite.
quote:
DNA evidence was two strands of hair that could have belonged to any number of millions of people.
That killed them rt? So reasonable doubt?
A few of yall have provided a bunch of information that has made this thread a good read.
But I find fault in some of your arguments too. Which is probably why this is a debated subject.
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 12:12 am
Posted on 6/23/21 at 12:12 am to dgnx6
quote:
He wanted it to be over and was told it would if he confessed because he is a mental midget. It's easy to see why people confess to things they don't do.
We have people claim they are a female with a gonads and no uterus
They probably did it. But again, the investigation was shite.
Sweetie ... he confessed after 2 hours. The subsequent confessions were later, so there was nothing "to be over" unless it was the guilt of killing three boys.
Do you have any evidence that supports the claim that "the investigation was shite?" That's always the thing I love about these discussions ... they demand like absolute proof to affirm the convicted but alternative suspects or shoddy police work is supported by ... nada.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:40 am to Baylor Kyle
Thanks for all the info guys.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:46 am to Tall Tiger
quote:
They had no alibis and there was way too much to explain to blame anyone else. If you disagree you are basically an OJ juror
no
the state has to PROVE beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that they committed these crimes. some circumstantial evidence, a coerced confession, and hearsay isn't enough to do it. there was plenty of reasonable doubt
OJ? not so much. they actually had the DNA evidence there.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:03 am to Baylor Kyle
quote:
Do you have any evidence that supports the claim that "the investigation was shite?"
the fact that they never recovered any real evidence against the WM3 is indicative of that fact
hell it took them a while to find something that could be the murder weapon (so lucky there, and not a hint of anything improper), but, even then, they couldn't establish that was the murder weapon, right? it COULD be, but there is no physical evidence to say that it was
they focused on their targets and created a Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy. they were easy targets in terms of coercion and public opinion. that case should have never been tried in that locality because of the unfairness of the jury pool. the judge was also terrible and completely pro-prosecution (again, likely due to public pressure and personal biases)
i bet you are a big believer in other mythos like occult child abuse and organized satanism. i imagine you'd be the first ones to say the children in the McMartin preschool trial should be believed and are credible
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i bet you are a big believer in other mythos like occult child abuse and organized satanism.
In this case, Echols is an actual, literal witch. That certainly didn't play well in rural Arkansas.
quote:
they focused on their targets and created a Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
And this doesn't mean the WM3 are completely innocent, but it certainly shows how/why the investigation was lazy and lackluster - they felt the WM3 were too easy to miss.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:28 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Echols is an actual, literal witch. That certainly didn't play well in rural Arkansas.
yeah he's a fricking idiot. he defined edge lord
i would have probably fought him if i was forced to defend him at that time
quote:
And this doesn't mean the WM3 are completely innocent
correct. i'm not arguing that it's impossible that they did it. i'm just talking about the investigation/prosecution
quote:
they felt the WM3 were too easy to miss.
and too easy to coerce/display as freaks for the town
if cops can't get an immediate lead, it's logical to focus on the freak shows. b/c even without a strong case, they have a shot (as seen by the initial convictions in these trials)
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:36 am to Ace Midnight
Always find the case interesting. In my opinion, the state even considering much less actually accepting an Alford plea is a tacit admission of a frick up. It allowed the state to save face because technically the 3 are still guilty and have no future recourse to re-establish innocence.
Were the completely innocent? We may never truly know. Were they guilty based on the evidence presented in court? Absolutely not... the case was textbook reasonable doubt.
Were the completely innocent? We may never truly know. Were they guilty based on the evidence presented in court? Absolutely not... the case was textbook reasonable doubt.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 8:47 am to jdd48
quote:
It allowed the state to save face because technically the 3 are still guilty and have no future recourse to re-establish innocence.
More importantly, in taking the Alford deal, the WM3 gave up their right to sue for unlawful imprisonment.
That was incredibly important for the State at the time.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 10:20 am to Ace Midnight
no prosecutor willingly lets out people he think committed child murder...especially after fighting for 10+ years to keep them in jail
Posted on 6/23/21 at 11:11 am to Ace Midnight
They are still convicted felons and one mistake will send them to prison.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 11:30 am to dchog
quote:
They are still convicted felons and one mistake will send them to prison.
Meh - Miskelley has done a bunch of little shite since and nobody wants the bad press. They would have to do something in the "serious" category to get into real trouble.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News