WM3-Parents write Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in reguards to Paradise Lost 3

reply to post by JoshF




OK great, thanks very much.

Don't think this got much attention in the UK.


Cheers

reply to post by Reaper2137

My next prediction is that once the new factor of being free wears off for those boys, they are going to turn around and demand the retrial. They will win, and than sue the state for false imprisonment and win.

No, and they know in court all the other things that could not be used in the first trials could be used in a new trial. The only new thing the defense has is new fourth hand confession (he told me that he was told by his uncle who was told by his father...) and DNA "evidence" that the DA and defense agree is not strong enough to incriminate anyone.

Its not a lie that witnesses have changed sides that was from the D.A office
Are you saying that the D.A is liar now?

You said "most witnesses" which is made up, the only witness i can think of that changed sides was Vicki Hutcheson but she never testified making the point moot.

2. That the state has acknowledged, that most of the "evidence" has either gone missing or has become corrupted, and thus are not seeking a retrial because they know they will lose.

All the records are still preserved by the state and defense, failed alibis and confessions do not degrade over time.

IMO, after looking at the evidence, it shows to me that the prosecution did not do their job in the original trial and did not provide a reasonable amount of proof that any of these 3 young men committed this crime. This leaves only one reason for the conviction, IMO, the community was driven by fear of the unknown monster among them. A feeling of fear so strong that people were probably looking at friends/family/neighbors they had known their whole lives with suspicion. The arrests and convictions of the WM3 gave the monster a face, one that was easy to accept. They were weird kids from the wrong side of the tracks who dressed in all black, listened to heavy metal, dabbled in the occult and were outcasts.

IMO, regarding the evidence that was used to convict the WM3.

By the prosecutions own admission, the reliability of the findings as presented to the jury regarding the fiber evidence in this case is weak. Each of the fibers found could have come from many items since the fibers were used to make many items, not just one specific item. Not one was matched conclusively to any piece of clothing that the WM3 owned. All were listed as could have come from a specific garment, but the fibers could have come from many other garments, especially considering at least one had a potential source within one of the victims home.

The two blood spots on the necklace owned by Damien was only type matched because the samples were to small. One spot matched the blood type of Damien, the owner, the second spot matched the type of Jason, his co-defendant. As shown in pictures, the necklace was worn by Jason also. The second spot also matched the type of one of the victims, Steven Branch as well as 11% of the population.

The knife found in the lake has never been tied to the crime or the WM3. It is irrelevant.

The time of death has not been clearly established.

The confessions by Misskelley are suspect. Leading questions by the interrogators, only portions of the interview being taped combined with the fact that he was young, and slow, makes it hard for anything he said to be used as proof without sufficient evidence to back it up.

Witness testimony is questionable. Each one is riddled with inconsistent statements and people with credibility issues. I can list each, but it is rather long for a post here. Research can show what I mean.

The 500 page report regarding Damien Echols shows nothing more than a kid who was a rebellious, mistrusting of others, angry with authoritative figures in his life and a creative introvert. It makes sense that he dabbled with alternative religions during that time in his life. He was reaching for something to cling to, a belief system that gave him more control over his own life.

The juvenile officer who played a large part in the Satanic Cult angle has a shady past of his own and had no business being in any role of authority.

So basically, there is not a single piece of solid evidence linking any of the WM3 to this crime. Heck, there is not a single piece of solid evidence to link anyone to this crime.

Sad to say, I doubt that the truth of what happened to those three little boys will ever be known.

reply to post by lynn112

By the prosecutions own admission, the reliability of the findings as presented to the jury regarding the fiber evidence in this case is weak. Each of the fibers found could have come from many items since the fibers were used to make many items, not just one specific item. Not one was matched conclusively to any piece of clothing that the WM3 owned.

Yes the fiber evidence is weak but you are taking liberties with the terms here and injecting your own lies. The fiber did match Damien's coat
callahan.8k.com...

One spot matched the blood type of Damien, the owner, the second spot matched the type of Jason, his co-defendant. As shown in pictures, the necklace was worn by Jason also. The second spot also matched the type of one of the victims, Steven Branch as well as 11% of the population.

And you get this 11% number from where? I have all the evidence documents and I can find nothing saying that it is an 11% match of the population. I think you are thinking about the stump DNA but that was about 7%

The confessions by Misskelley are suspect. Leading questions by the interrogators, only portions of the interview being taped combined with the fact that he was young, and slow, makes it hard for anything he said to be used as proof without sufficient evidence to back it up.

What confession are you talking about? There were many, this one was my favorite.
callahan.8k.com...

STIDHAM: And I told you that this new evidence may ..ah.. that I plan on filing a motion for a new trial and that the Court could possibly grant you a new trial based on this evidence.
MISSKELLEY: That's what you said.

STIDHAM: Ok, I also told you that giving a statement was against my advise and wishes.

MISSKELLEY: That's what you said.
...
STIDHAM: And you also understand that again it's my advise that you not talk or give any kind of statement here tonight ..ah.. until we have a chance to file a motion for a new trial and get your Psychiatric Evaluations complete. Do you understand that ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, I do.

STIDHAM: And it is your decision to go ahead and make this statement anyway ?

MISSKELLEY: Yes.

STIDHAM: You still want to give a statement despite my advise and counsel?

MISSKELLEY: Yes, cause I want something done about it.

So here you have right before his next confession his own lawyers telling him to not do it.

DAVIS: Ok. Now you said before when the police asked you in their statement and asked you what they were tied up with. And you said they were tied up with rope. Ah..

MISSKELLEY: I made that up.

DAVIS: Why?

MISSKELLEY: Tied to get off, you know get'm off track.

Him admitting to trying to throw them off.

DAVIS: Ok. What'd you do with your bottle?

MISSKELLEY: I busted it.

DAVIS: Ok. Where at?

MISSKELLEY: On the side of a ..ah.. like a slope going down over the overpass.

And evidence to back that up

www.prodeathpenalty.com...
Misskelley left before Echols and Baldwin, carrying with him a bottle of whiskey, which he busted under a highway overpass close to the woods. Prosecutors and defense counsel went to the overpass and found a broken bottle at the indicated location. The broken bottle neck matched a bottle of Evan Williams Kentucky Bourbon, the kind Misskelley said he drank the day of the murders.

So do false confessions make broken whiskey bottles magically appear from the crime scene?

Witness testimony is questionable. Each one is riddled with inconsistent statements and people with credibility issues.

Right... so why not name 3 instead of all of them or any of them?

The 500 page report regarding Damien Echols shows nothing more than a kid who was a rebellious, mistrusting of others, angry with authoritative figures in his life and a creative introvert.

Let me guess, you did not actually read Exhibit 500 did you? In it you will find Echols;
*threatening to mutilate classmates
*Admitting to having homicidal urges
*admitting he has made plans to kill others
*claiming he was going to kill and eat his parents
* was feared by his mother and she was afraid to have him live with her
*killed animals (grate dane and cats) for fun, this was backed up by animal skulls found in his room and is also a common trait found with most serial killers

He also says in a May 10th interview that whoever did this urinated in their mouths.
blinkoncrime.com...
but the big problem with this is that it was not put in a report until may 16th

Originally posted by JoshF
reply to post by lynn112

 

By the prosecutions own admission, the reliability of the findings as presented to the jury regarding the fiber evidence in this case is weak. Each of the fibers found could have come from many items since the fibers were used to make many items, not just one specific item. Not one was matched conclusively to any piece of clothing that the WM3 owned.

Yes the fiber evidence is weak but you are taking liberties with the terms here and injecting your own lies. The fiber did match Damien's coat
callahan.8k.com...

The one fiber could have come from Damiens' mothers bathrobe, but it also could have come from a number of other sources so it was not conclusive, it was consistent. They mean different things.

One spot matched the blood type of Damien, the owner, the second spot matched the type of Jason, his co-defendant. As shown in pictures, the necklace was worn by Jason also. The second spot also matched the type of one of the victims, Steven Branch as well as 11% of the population.

And you get this 11% number from where? I have all the evidence documents and I can find nothing saying that it is an 11% match of the population. I think you are thinking about the stump DNA but that was about 7%

No, I am not speaking of the DNA found on the stump. I am speaking of the DNA found on a necklace owned by Echols. The source for the 11% stat is: www.trutv.com...

continued in next post..............

The confessions by Misskelley are suspect. Leading questions by the interrogators, only portions of the interview being taped combined with the fact that he was young, and slow, makes it hard for anything he said to be used as proof without sufficient evidence to back it up.

What confession are you talking about? There were many, this one was my favorite.
callahan.8k.com...

I removed the extended quote because of post limits. As for the confessions made by Misskelley, the first one is the most important and since it was not recorded in its entirety, we'll never know for sure what information was fed to Misskelley and what came out of his own thoughts. This fact alone makes each of his confessions questionable.

Witness testimony is questionable. Each one is riddled with inconsistent statements and people with credibility issues.

Right... so why not name 3 instead of all of them or any of them?

How about the one who recanted, Vicki Hutcheson.

How about Jerry Driver, the guy who got busted for stealing money, got probation for the crime and was ordered to pay restitution?

How about Narlene Hollingsworth and her son Anthony, the convicted sex offender. You know the ones in a car of seven people, 4 who said they saw Echols with Domini. The same testimony the prosecution questioned themselves?

How about the two teens who claimed they heard a confession, but couldn't remember any other detail of who was there for the discussion nor anything about what else was discussed.

The 500 page report regarding Damien Echols shows nothing more than a kid who was a rebellious, mistrusting of others, angry with authoritative figures in his life and a creative introvert.

Let me guess, you did not actually read Exhibit 500 did you? In it you will find Echols;
*threatening to mutilate classmates
*Admitting to having homicidal urges
*admitting he has made plans to kill others
*claiming he was going to kill and eat his parents
* was feared by his mother and she was afraid to have him live with her
*killed animals (grate dane and cats) for fun, this was backed up by animal skulls found in his room and is also a common trait found with most serial killers

He also says in a May 10th interview that whoever did this urinated in their mouths.
blinkoncrime.com...
but the big problem with this is that it was not put in a report until may 16th

Yes, I did read a good chunk of that 500 pages. I saw a lot of his parents saying he was a lot of things, but I also saw a lot that contradicted what they claimed.

Echols gave the source of where he got the urine in the mouth information . callahan.8k.com... It came from Steve Jones, a memeber of law enforcement and Jerry Drivers buddy.

As for the killing of the dog, Blain Hodge got his information second hand.
Joe Bartoush claimed to have witnessed it, but apparently did not come forward or inform police of this until after Echols was arrested.
And then you have Amanda Lancaster, Jennifer Harrison and Heather Cliett, Joni Brown, Whitney Nix, Toni Cissell, Nicol Bumbaugh, Jennifer Ashley and Crystal Hensley . Teenage girls running the rumor mill full force as every teen girl in America does. Heck, Harrison claimed Echols walked down the street with dog intestines wrapped around his neck, yet not a single call to the police. One has to wonder how he could be so bold to do such a thing and NO ONE called the police.

Regardless of all that, this case was mishandled from day 1. The three little boys who died that day deserve justice and because of the mess this case has become, I doubt that will happen. You have made it clear that you feel the WM# are guilty and that is your right. I also have the right to question whether justice was served in this case and I frankly do not believe that has happened.

reply to post by lynn112

How about the one who recanted, Vicki Hutcheson.

Right so we have one person that changed her story.

How about Jerry Driver, the guy who got busted for stealing money, got probation for the crime and was ordered to pay restitution?

What about him? He was not a witness so i do not see how he could have recanted. He did report what he thought were animal sacrifices going on in west memphis and what do you know? Animal skulls in Damien's Bedroom.

How about Narlene Hollingsworth and her son Anthony, the convicted sex offender. You know the ones in a car of seven people, 4 who said they saw Echols with Domini. The same testimony the prosecution questioned themselves?

I was not aware she recanted anything as i have no documents stating anything like that.

How about the two teens who claimed they heard a confession, but couldn't remember any other detail of who was there for the discussion nor anything about what else was discussed.

Yes the softball confession, im not sure where you get that they could not remember anything, Jason and Damien both remember saying it.
www.freewestmemphis3.org...
wm3org.typepad.com...

Two girls, Jodee Medford and Christy Van Vickle, testified they heard Echols admit at a softball game weeks after the murders that he killed the boys. Echols said their testimony was key for the prosecution.

“I might have said it, but it wasn’t because I did it,” he said. “I was a teen-ager. People were saying a lot of stuff about me. But I might have said it joking around.”

You have the killers backing them up on this one, so who is the liar?

Echols gave the source of where he got the urine in the mouth information . callahan.8k.com... It came from Steve Jones, a memeber of law enforcement and Jerry Drivers buddy.

Steve Jones would not have known about that, it was left out of the autopsy report at the time.

Yes, I did read a good chunk of that 500 pages. I saw a lot of his parents saying he was a lot of things, but I also saw a lot that contradicted what they claimed.

Contradicted? How so? The only contradiction i saw were the reports to the doctors by his parents saying they are affraid of him then the parents telling the cops he was a good boy and not much trouble.

As for the killing of the dog, Blain Hodge got his information second hand.
Joe Bartoush claimed to have witnessed it, but apparently did not come forward or inform police of this until after Echols was arrested.

Yes but did that make the animal skulls magically appear in his Damien's room? I don't think so.

And then you have Amanda Lancaster, Jennifer Harrison and Heather Cliett, Joni Brown, Whitney Nix, Toni Cissell, Nicol Bumbaugh, Jennifer Ashley and Crystal Hensley . Teenage girls running the rumor mill full force as every teen girl in America does. Heck, Harrison claimed Echols walked down the street with dog intestines wrapped around his neck, yet not a single call to the police. One has to wonder how he could be so bold to do such a thing and NO ONE called the police.

And the rumors were seen as rumors and were not used in court, which ones recanted? Brandy Wilson was the only one who said she actually heard Damien say anything and the rest were "he said she said and told me that..."
So if these people did not recant/never testified in the first place than your claim of "most witnesses" changing sides is not really true now is it?

Look, I'm trying to be respectful to you, and your opinion, but now I will be blunt. What you have posted is your opinion. Your entitled to it just as much as I am to mine. Stomping in here as a new member and acting like your opinion is more valuable than others is not going to make you many friends on this board.

The simple truth is you don't know who committed this crime anymore than I do and thanks to the inept investigation, there is little chance of justice ever happening. That is a sad thing, but it is the truth of the situation.

BTW, the point of a healthy debate is to open yourself up to information presented by an opposing view. You have made it crystal clear that your very set in your opinion of this case and you are not open to to anything that opposes it so debating further with you would be a waste of my time.

My point is this, you are new here, you have started two threads, both about the same topic and I'm going to play a little guessing game regarding your intent here.

I'm going to guess you joined ATS for the sole purpose of ramming your opinion of this case down the members throats.

I'm going to guess you have done this before. (Yes, your posts are fairly easy to spot elsewhere)

I'm going to guess that the minute you meet any resistance, you'll breeze out of here never to log in again.

And I'm going to guess that your going to be ticked off when you realize that the members here are not push overs.

With that said, I'm going to exit this thread because I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to guarantee I will remain pleasant.

reply to post by lynn112

Stomping in here as a new member and acting like your opinion is more valuable than others is not going to make you many friends on this board.

Classic... address the length of time someone has been posting instead of a coherent argument.

BTW, the point of a healthy debate is to open yourself up to information presented by an opposing view.

Did you make this one up or did someone tell you this? According to you a "healthy debate" would be me just believing in the stuff you either made up yourself or made up by others. If this was a debate you would be losing, made up "facts" and ad hominem have no place in any debate.

You have made it crystal clear that your very set in your opinion of this case and you are not open to to anything that opposes it so debating further with you would be a waste of my time.

No this is what happened, i make valid points with documentation to back them up and you make wild assertions and choose to go after my registration date as opposed to backing up your claim of most witnesses changing their story.

I'm going to guess you joined ATS for the sole purpose of ramming your opinion of this case down the members throats.

See: Ad hominem

I'm going to guess you have done this before. (Yes, your posts are fairly easy to spot elsewhere)

I'm going to guess that you think all the posters that have the same opinion as me are secretly me. Do you have anything to back this up or is this another one of those facts you made up which you are just going to respond to with another personal attack?

I'm going to guess that the minute you meet any resistance, you'll breeze out of here never to log in again.

lol you are delusional. Let me ask, why am I still here? Is this not resistant?

And I'm going to guess that your going to be ticked off when you realize that the members here are not push overs.

While I have not talked with a lot, many of them are far from being push-overs. But, many of them do tend to share this "lets make up stuff and use ad hominem to back it up instead of anything close to a reference" method of "debate". So the only thing that has had me ticked off is the ignorance displayed here.

Okay, one more time since you seem a bit dense on how to debate without getting cocky. I tried to keep my answers civil while you continued with the arrogant laced responses. I backed up my opinion with information that apparently you were not aware of. (Jerry Driver did testify at the trial & I pointed to source for his testimony, I also provided a source for the 11% statistic regarding the blood on the necklace) You ignored any of the "new to you" information I posted that contradicted with your opinion while I actually took the time to weigh yours.

So I'm going to follow the motto of this site and deny ignorance by not pandering to your arrogance any longer. Besides, I'm sure the mod's will come on by soon enough to close it since you have degraded it to nothing more than you pouting like a child because someone dared to have a differing opinion.

And FYI, I'm not a WM3 supporter, I don't consider the Paradise Lost documentary series a good place to get information on this case. I happen to have a good understanding of forensics and procedures and I'm not so closed off that I'm not willing to see the difference between fact and conjecture.

reply to post by lynn112

Okay, one more time since you seem a bit dense on how to debate without getting cocky. I tried to keep my answers civil while you continued with the arrogant laced responses.

You really leave me no choice, you can't replace logic with your ad hominem attacks and get mad at the results.

I also provided a source for the 11% statistic regarding the blood on the necklace)

I would hardly call trutv a reliable source especially when you have all the case files at your fingertips. I have yet to see any official report or transcript that says anything like that..

You ignored any of the "new to you" information I posted that contradicted with your opinion while I actually took the time to weigh yours.

I ignored nothing

So I'm going to follow the motto of this site and deny ignorance by not pandering to your arrogance any longer

See Ad hominem

Besides, I'm sure the mod's will come on by soon enough to close it since you have degraded it to nothing more than you pouting like a child because someone dared to have a differing opinion.

The only one pouting is you. While I have gone after the posts you have written you have gone after me due to your lack of a coherent argument. While i have posted facts and police records you have posted "cocky" and "arrogant". I have tried to keep this on topic but you continue to go after me personally and I am sure right about now you are hitting that alert button because I have a different opinion than you.

I will agree that Josh presents his answers in a cocky manner, but the guy has his info in order.

He gets admonished by those who disagree with him with insinuations of fake posts, calling him a noob, and personal attacks. He responds to these with documented facts about the crime and investigation, and with a desire to stick with said known facts. For this he gets ridiculed.

Keep up the good work Josh.