A most heinous crime

icisicqd · #1 03-30-2007, 07:26 AM

My buddy ryan, a some what respected attorney for a small firm called me the other day eager to get our fantasy baseball gig on. One way or another as we're making our hopeful picks I said; "Bonds can't murder the ball any longer" and that led us to the West Memphis Three. A converstation followed and I proceeded to do some research. As I looked more and more into this case I felt myself being torn. I want to make the correct choice but I am flat-out undecided. Like so many poker decision's I am not going to be right everytime but I try to gather the correct info and apply it the best I can for +EV for life. I want to give an informative stance on what I think about this case and impress my lawyer friend. LOL, I need 2+2 intelligent feedback, if anyone wants to chuck some time away checking this out I think you might find it interesting. www.crimelibrary.com look up west memphis three in the search area. It's a long read but it reminds me of trying to figure out what villan has in some of these posts. Drunkencowboy/wipedoutcowpoke what ever you go by I don't care for your response.

icisicqd · #2 03-30-2007, 07:35 AM

www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/index_1.html

mpethybridge · #3 03-30-2007, 08:45 AM

I didn't read the entire long report. Interesting and troubling case. FWIW, the site was quite obviously compiled by a believer in the innocence of the three men convicted.

As a former prosecutorand as a former defense attorney, I would say that the confession is the most troubling piece of evidence. Without it, the cops have no serious case at all. Confessions are usually reliable, but this guy got a lot of the basic facts wrong. Criminals, for the most part, are stupid, and getting facts wrong in their confessions is not unheard of. But the combination of a factually inaccurate confession coupled with leading questions from the interrogators is highly suggestive of a false confession.

Also--the negroid hair on the victim and the report of the blood covered black man is highly exculpatory. But note that it does not fit with the after the fact criminal profile that the defense commissioned.

There's lots more to say about the case obviously. But to impress your lawyer friend, you should have three opinions:

1. Did they actually do it? This is actually the least important question.
2. Did they receive a fair trial, meaning, was all relevant evidence available admitted and was all irrelevant evidence or character-smearing type evidence excluded?
3. Given the evidence that they heard, was the jury correct to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

My answers to the questions:
1. Like I said, I didn't read the whole site. But if the guy who confessed knew the kid that was castrated, I would say he is probably guilty. Maybe 51% to 49%. Close call. If he didn't know the kid that was castrated, then I would say he is almost certainly innocent.
2. Did they get a fair trial? Not even close. The confession sounds admissible, but all of the stanism stuff should have been excluded. There seemed to be other glaring errors, but this was by far the worst. This killing was clearly sexual, not ritualistic, even if the kids were not raped. Bite marks on the thighs? Jesus, this is a sex attack, not satanism.
3. Was the jury verdict correct basedon the evidence they heard? No. Not close. This jury pooed the scrooch. To convict, a jury has to believe that the prosecutors established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case is rife with doubt, even after you hear the confession. In a case where the confession is the only thing that ties the defendant to the crime, and the confession contains the same facts and factual errors as the news reports, and no other unreported facts, as was the case here, you have to believe there is doubt about the truthfulness of the confession.

drunkencowboy · #4 03-30-2007, 01:40 PM

not sure why my handle was put in the OP. i gotta go now but ill think about it. i read the article but its likely i wont have a response...

i think its funny that in the post above the lawyer says
that "Did they actually do it?" is the least important question to ask... i understand what you mean, sort of, but its still funny...

eviljeff · #5 03-30-2007, 04:21 PM

interesting read, but a little gruesome.

I certainly can't comment on their guilt given that the case seems like a mess and I only spent about 20 min skimming everything, but one thing I did think was that it would be hard as a juror to think about this case in a vacuum. I think I'd find myself wondering what the conviction rate is in cases with a similar amount of evidence. I might even be worried about being criticized for my verdict. kinda scary to think about outside influences like that.

CaryDarling · #6 03-31-2007, 01:35 AM

rent the documentares... paradise lost and I think it's paradise revisited...very frustrating case...I feel these boys are innocent.
One of the victim's stepfathers as shown in part 2 actually has a knife with the boy's blood still on it...and then the boy's mother mysteriously dies later on....just rent them if you want to see more injustice in this world than you care for.

icisicqd · #7 03-31-2007, 02:05 AM

Thanks CaryDarling, I just heard about those documentries not 30 minutes ago before I read your post. I am going to go out and rent them soon. I think I know what I am in for. I probably will be pretty pissed off at legal process before this is done.

Manpriest · #8 03-31-2007, 02:36 PM

The documentaries are very much worth watching, if a little skewed toward the defense. I've followed this case closely for some time now and it's I agree with pretty much everything mpethybridge said. Once you see the videos and hear some expert discussion on the bite marks and such you will realize just how skewed this case is.

Check out www.wm3.org for more information from the support group and various ways to assist if you're interested.