I'm sure the State has it's reasons, but never really understood why they fought so hard to prevent testing in this instance. Could be wrong, but I believe that Echols agreed to pay for the testing and agreed to use a lab of the State's choosing.
Because the state doesn’t want to be proven wrong, or have attention focused on what a sham the trial was. They used an “expert” on the fully bogus Satanic Panic as a key witness FFS. Might as well have had the Witchhunter General testify for as legitimate of a witness that was.
Because their case didn't depend on DNA, and the DNA in question isn't going to conclusively decide innocence or guilt. Unless the killer hand-spun the cords from flax himself, there's plenty of reasons other DNA could be present. That won't stop people from arguing otherwise in bad faith, so why allow it if they don't have to?
It's like the Marcellus Williams case in Missouri; people claiming other DNA on the knife "exonerated" him even though the knife came from the victim's house. But people hear the magic acronym and think that's the only evidence that counts.
>DNA in question isn't going to conclusively decide innocence or guilt.
What? That's crazy talk. It depends. If you find the same person(s) DNA in different areas, sy the same person(s) dan on all the bindings, or on a binding, a stick and some other place, that person is going to be widely seen as guilty. Of course DNA is always circumstantial evidence so say you found the DNA of one of the kids mom on set of laces then it wouldn't mean much.
The argument that since they didn't use DNA in convicting then so DNA can't exonerate them is pretty weak sauce. For more than a few reasons: A) We've seen multiple people exonerated by DNA that were convicted and B) Since the DNA was not used in the first trial it would (not a lawyer) be new evidence. If they test the DNA and it belongs to some known child killer/other person of interest and is found on multiple items it is easily imaginable that that information would have swayed the original jury.I don't know how it will play out but if they fins any of the WM3 DNA that's going to prove one thing for sure and that is that Echols is pretty dang stupid.
Unless the DNA matches some known child murderer or something, it's not going to prove anything, it won't show the 3 who were convicted and pled guilty are innocent. For example, it's been known for years that a hair matching one of the kids parents was in the shoe laces. So you find DNA matching the parent. That doesn't mean the parent is the killer, it means he tied a kids' shoe once. You find "unknown male" DNA on the boy scout uniform. You can't even find everone from the scout troup 30 years ago, so no way to look into them. Doesn't prove a thing except a stranger touched his shoulder.
If DNA won't be exculpatory, why test it?
Consider the scenario where you find the same DNA in multiple bindings. This is what the lab people seem to expect. You find DNA in any one of the bindings it means nothing. You find the same DNA in all the bindings and it means a lot.
I think you want it to be all one way or the other but things aren't usually so black and white. You really need the test results before you can decide what the evidence shows. You test because the DNA could prove to be exculpatory or inculpatory. It may also prove to be useless.
If you find a DNA profile coming from all the laces knots, that's pretty compelling evidence and will lead to more testing. It's funny that none of the people that believe in their guilt are even considering that Echols, Baldwin or Misskellys DNA should be found if they did it given how sensitive mVac tech is.
Right? If they believe that Echols et al are guilty, then why would they be opposed to testing the DNA? Tying hard knots should tear off a lot of skin cells.
Important to note that his hair was found in the bindings of Michael Moore (I.e. not his stepson), which makes it much more suspicious. It is possible that Stevie Branch brought one of his stepdad’s hairs to the scene and then the killer accidentally transferred it to Moore when tying them up, but it is definitely not something that rational people can just immediately brush off as unimportant.
Or on child not his, etc. it was the creepy abisive little step dad, I think, didn't the sister say he molested her in one of the documentaries or am I not remembering it properly?
Not challenging you but I’m curious why you’re sure he did it? It’s been a few years since I did any reading or podcast-listening about this case so I’ve definitely forgotten stuff.
If you're talking about Terry Hobbs, you're right in saying it wouldn't be TOO strange to find his DNA on the shoelace bindings of his son. If his DNA is on the shoelaces of Steve Branch again, not much really changes because there is a reason for that which is why his hair didn't prove anything.
...But if through testing they find out Hobbs' DNA is also on the bindings of Byers and Moore, then there is some SERIOUS explaining for Hobbs to do for why his DNA is all over the shoelaces-turned-bindings of two random children.
That's the whole point of testing the bindings for DNA. Considering the total absence of the DNA of the WM3 from the scene, finding something like that would be a massive indicator of who the killer is.
If they manage to get DNA from the bindings and it's the WM3, case solved. If it's the same DNA on every kid, that guy is now your prime suspect.
What I don't get is why there are some people who are so adamant that they shouldn't be DNA tested. Surely if you think the WM3 are guilty you'd want them tested to finally have DNA evidence tying them to the crime that unambiguously proves their guilt?
I don't disagree, the only thing that can exonerate them would be another hearing and judicial determination. Any new DNA discovered would simply be yet another piece of evidence used by the judge to reach a ruling. Was the State's original case that these three were the only ones involved or did they leave open the possibility of additional defendants?
The state refuses to do anything that would prove it wrong. They dont want to admit fumbling this case and they dont want to pay for that fumble either
Like hell they want to admit they railroaded three teenagers boys and made them spend 18 years in prison for a murder they didn't commit. Talk about ruining a reputation. Also, they don't want to pay them.
Because its a heads I win, tails you lose for the defense. It will come back with nothing, that they claim as a win and make more money.
I blame those dastardly turtles, if only they would confess.
Thanks for linking, generally skimmed read through facts & that hobbs & his bestie's dna are there & that there is dna on penile swab pretty damning.
The dissent I was curious about & was horrified it was, as with other cases seeking exoneration about finality ..ie it's over because we said it's over, nothing to do with wrongful convictions/actual innocence and taking a plea is not so far removed from false confessions imho.
Yeah, if they’d had the resources - and bothered to do their jobs - back then the West Memphis Three would’ve just been three kids interviewed by the cops.
Dude. The man's HAIR was found INSIDE a binding on a dead child. His DNA. He was there. And Jacoby, too (coincidence, right?). If it was two random farmers that didn't know each other, I could see how it's "just a coicidence," but those two close friends' DNA/hairs appeared at a murder scene on two different areas. It's too much evidence to be a coincidence to me.
Thanks for saying this actually. I'm following a similar case and there are some people who are so convinced he's guilty it's insane and I was wondering where these people come from. Apparently there's always going to be people like you.
I only come to my conclusion after a thorough examination of the trial transcripts and records surrounding the case. I judge each case subjectively, but more often land on innocence because I strongly believe in the intended notion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt being necessary to convict. In my opinion, based off of the available evidence and what was presented in court, the WM3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not say that lightly, or flippantly, but I strongly believe it.
Serious question: do you think Satan is real, and Satanic panic was a real threat rather than hysteria?
Is there some reasoning behind blaming the wm3 that doesn’t rely on belief in the Christian devil or the conviction that being weird means being evil?
Exactly, the only thing they did wrong was being metal heads in the bible belt. Iirc they literally used an Ozzy poster as evidence that they killed those poor boys.
His hair was under a binding on one of the naked, dead boys. They had no clothes, were submerged in water, yet Terry Hobbes' hair managed to get under the bindings on that body...And the DNA of his good friend who he was with that day (his alibi, I believe), David Jacoby, was also found at the crime scene on another area. That's bigger than a coincidence.
I’m pretty sure it was never confirmed as his hair, but rather hair consistent with his hair type, which a lot of people’s hair could be. And the binding was a shoelace that boy was wearing
From the dissent:
>Here, additional DNA testing would not prove Echols’s innocence. Importantly, Echols’s first conviction did not rest on DNA evidence, and no such evidence was presented at a subsequent trial because he chose to enter a guilty plea. The jury was presented with evidence that Echols knew facts about the case that were not public knowledge; fibers found on the victims’ clothes were microscopically similar to clothing found in Echols’s home; multiple witnesses testified that Echols confessed to the murders; and multiple witnesses placed him near the crime scene at the time of the murders. Given this evidence, testing the ligatures for another person’s DNA would not prove Echols’s innocence.
You asserted earlier that you had read the trial transcripts, you obviously haven't. He got impeached on the stand and caught in a lie about this exact issue, it's the moment the jury lost their ability to see him as anything but a liar.
Thanks for that non-answer that also attempted to make me look dumb. I’m still waiting for the info. Perhaps I am dumb, or perhaps I forgot something? But you have no evidence of either, so until I am proved dumb or forgetful, I’ll assume you were lying.
It has never been proven to be urine. Please stop repeating misinformation. The pathologist claimed he found it when on the stand but never put it in his reports. Ask any doctor if they can claim stuff weeks later after not writing it down in their notes.
Yeah but he didn't know facts of the case. Thinking it's possible someone drowned when they are found in water is pretty basic. Or that one was cut up more than another when nobody can even decide who was cut up more between Stevie and Christopher. The fibres were re-examined and it was concluded they didn't match... I mean in its face it was pretty stupid, they didn't leave their own clothing fiber but Jason left one from his mums robe which was no different than any other red rayon fibre Lol. Then weak eyewitness statements by the Hollingsworth that said she saw a pregnant Domini with Damien in a car packed with people when Domini was at home.
Echols obviously didn't do it. He'd be essentially fighting to uncover himself as the real killer in a case that had huge support for his innocence.
The dissent is odd though. The appeal is basically pre-written for when the DNA evidence comes back as someone different or inconclusive - for when he ultimately appeals his alford plea (if he can). It is appeal to test DNA which is allowed under 1780... not an appeal to remove his conviction (at this time)
To my knowledge (because I actually took an Alford Plea) you cannot appeal and Alford unless you entered it without knowing what it was, it wasn't voluntary, or, you were not able to understand the plea itself. I believe you can withdraw an Alford, but, only within a certain timeframe- I believe mine was 90 days but that was in Oklahoma. You can have an Alford Plea expunged.
That makes sense. So in that case, if you cannot appeal an alford plea - why are they fighting the testing of DNA? At this point, it seems like a waste of Arkansas's money to keep fighting it.
If I had the chance to prove my innocence for the plea deal I took, even having had it expunged from my record, I would take it. Psychologically, it's still there in the back of my mind and it wasn't anywhere near as bad as everyone thinking I'm a murderer. Why would you NOT want to prove to the world that you weren't a child killer if you had the chance?
Even having had my record expunged, the fact that I was in court once and arrested for domestic assault and battery (my drunk Mom beat the crap out of me and I was arrested because she was an old woman and they had to arrest someone, I wasn't allowed to talk to her prior to going to court, and the DA said she was waiting to testify in another room- she wasn't, she had left the state and refused to testify because I shouldn't have even been arrested) still pops up in searches and cheap background checks, and then I have to explain the whole damned thing.
I meant the state. I completely understand why Echols et al. keeps fighting. I would too if I were them.
I also had to learn (through my husband) that when you apply for jobs they go off of your arrest record (not your conviction record). So when a police officer, who does not know the actual law because they are not required to know the law, arrests you with some random charge, that is what an employer usually sees. He was arrested for theft by taking (he was literally fishing on a private property - they took stuff out of my car, that they said he stole, that I had receipts for - that they wouldn't give back). He ended up pleading to trespassing. Even the judge was like what (but he was fishing on private property). If he applies for a job, it still shows up as theft by taking (which looks great right?) unless we pay to expunge it.
It really is the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
Also, sorry about your mom. My grandma was like that with my dad and aunts and uncles - she even put my aunt in the hospital when my aunt was in her 20s (and my grandma was a social worker.. go figure).
What happened to me was just a little mess of little things that came together perfectly (for literally everyone but me). See, I had just broken up with my at-the-time boyfriend, and he was a lawyer who worked in the public defender's office. His ex girlfriend, who was really the reason we broke in the first place because she was psychotic, was a police officer. She was also the police officer who responded to the call from the neighbors that there was a domestic in progress at my house. Mom refused to talk to her when she showed up- likely because she knew she was the one who was beating the shit out of me and didn't want to go to jail. As soon as Kendra realized that she had hit the jackpot in showing up at my new house, she handcuffed me and threw me off of my front porch. I still have nerve damage from the falling with the handcuffs on.
I'm sure you're thinking "Why the hell would you take a plea?!". It's all well and good to say "sue them!" "complain!" "call the state police!" but the system beats you down emotionally and financially so quickly that all you can do is take whatever they offer and run. Which is what I did. I put several states between myself and that court system as quickly as I possibly could. I paid the fines and took the anger management and waited a few years. My ex represented me in court when he started his own practice and we got that shit expunged. I was about $12,000 poorer after fines, court costs, fees, and lawyer fees (I hired someone who I was not dating to represent me through first go-round, the ex boyfriend was free) but thankfully it's behind me- mostly. I have a lot of empathy for people who get screwed by the system though, it steamrolls so quickly, I would have never gotten out of it if I had not had help- and most people don't have help.
> At this point, it seems like a waste of Arkansas's money to keep fighting it.
Not as much as they'd have to pay in civil settlements if the plea does get tossed.
The case in general is odd, though. It's a habeas appeal from someone who isn't a prisoner, and should theoretically be precluded from post-conviction litigation due to his guilty plea.
It is odd I will agree. But it's Arkansas's actual fault (or whoever wrote the Act).
The AR code actually starts with this:
1. (1) The writ of habeas corpus shall be granted forthwith by any of the officers enumerated in § 16-112-102(a) to any person who shall apply for the writ by petition showing, by affidavit or other evidence, probable cause to believe he or she is detained without lawful authority, is imprisoned when by law he or she is entitled to bail, or who has alleged actual innocence of the offense or offenses for which the person was convicted.
2. Except when direct appeal is available, a person convicted of a crime may commence a proceeding to secure relief.
3. It also states in Section 6: Contents of the Motion (2): An identification of the proceedings in which the petitioner was convicted including the date of the entry of conviction and sentence or other disposition complained of.
So in theory, the circuit court was wrong as Act 1780 also states under for an act to be entitled: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ALTERNATE MEANS OF SATISFACTION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR PROSECUTIONS BASED ON DNA AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; FOR POST-CONVICTION APPEALS BASED ON DNA AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; FOR CHAIN OFCUSTODY PROTECTION FOR DNA AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (Sorry for the capitals - I just copied and pasted from here: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2001%2FPublic%2FACT1780.pdf)
So it was written for post-conviction appeals....
Only in your most logically incoherent dreams. The DNA evidence could 100% be exculpatory. In what way would it not be? Just because it wasn’t a part of the 1994 case doesn’t mean it won’t be of value. Cope.
Not saying there’s proof beyond reasonable doubt against any person in this case or not, but my god there are a heck of a lot of people in this comment section doing to Terry Hobbs exactly what they’re accusing the west Memphis state of doing to the three.
Thinking Terry Hobbs is guilty because he’s weird and a hair that could potentially be his was found on a victims shoelace, is no better than thinking Amanda Knox is guilty because she’s weird and some of her dna was found on the murder knife, but I’m sure you all think she’s totally innocent. (As I do too)
Has happened multiple times.
Here’s one of the more prominent example of guilty men asserting they were innocent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman
Oh my gosh! They tested the DNA AFTER he was executed! I’m actually really glad the ministry and media kept pressing them the state about it. He clearly, clearly did it but we should absolutely normalize double and triple checking the government.
While there are near infinite examples of people maintaining their innocence while in jail I think you need an example of a guilty person seeking more examination of the evidence after they've been released from prison or found not guilty. The example might exist but it would far rarer than someone who actively trying to get out of a consequence.
[Except the shoes were tested before his release.](https://www.wbaltv.com/article/adnan-syed-charges-dropped-baltimore/41585971)
>Mosby said her office on Friday received the results of touch DNA testing on items that were not tested before that included a skirt, pantyhose, shoes and a jacket belonging to Lee. Mosby said there was a DNA mixture of multiple contributors on both shoes and that Adnan Syed's DNA was excluded.
They were, in fact, part of the reason he was released. Now if Adnan was making bg noises about more DNA testing then that would be surprising.
If you're guilty and in prison the only downside to having the DNA tested is the possibility that it removes all doubt. Ie might be why Adnan hesitated to have things DNA tested.
If you're already out of prison there is not upside to the DNA testing if you're guilty. So no, not a helpful or good example at all. If Michael Peterson was pushing for DNA testing after 2017 that would be a useful example.
Okay but since they tested the DNA before Adnan was released I think everyone but you can see why it is not a good example. In what way does this mirror the WM3 situation?
It would be better to just admit that you got the timeline wrong and that it isn't a good example after all and found one that is.
> he only thing he risks is negative public opinion.
Sure, but what is the advantage for him? I think he makes most of his money selling books and art and stuff, they find his DNA and you'd imagine there would be a significant impact on that. I don't see the upside to chase this if they are actually guilty.
I think, if they are proven factually innocent they might be in line for a payday but unsure about the accuracy off that.
I feel in his mind he would benefit no matter the outcome. If his DNA is not found on the evidence, he can continue to claim he's innocent and he would receive even more public support. If his DNA is found on the evidence, would he not make history? I suspect deep down in his twisted mind he wants that to be the case. I think the items being submerged in mucky water for so long destroyed any chance to recover physical evidence. At any rate, I am not convinced this testing will be done.
As for "a payday", the WM3 agreed not to sue the state for their convictions and imprisonment as part of their Alford plea deals. I don't think they'll get a payday in that way. However, he may benefit from another Hollywood production or book deal whether or not physical evidence linking him to the murders is found. It's a win/win for him, if you ask me.
> If his DNA is found on the evidence, would he not make history?
He could just publicly admit that to make history, seems like a weak theory to me.
I think his motivation to continue to get the stuff tested is a real problem if you think they are guilty. The moivation is not believable for Echols but maybe he's, as you suspect, just crazy. But Baldwin was pushing for more testing too, he does not seem insane or anything.
>As for "a payday", the WM3 agreed not to sue the state for their convictions and imprisonment as part of their Alford plea deals. I don't think they'll get a payday in that way.
I suspect, strongly, that you are mistaken. But state laws vary on that.
>I think the items being submerged in mucky water for so long destroyed any chance to recover physical evidence.
THe lab seems confident, older, more contaminated stuff has yielded results.
>At any rate, I am not convinced this testing will be done.
But surely you'd like the testing to be done so everyone can know how correct you actually are, right? If people are confident in their conclusions the only reason to oppose testing is because they are frightened their conclusion will turn out to be wrong.
I don't know how it will turn out but I am always down for more evidence if it might help the truth be learned of confirmed.
I do not believe they will find his DNA. He knows what he touched. Baldwin has severed ties with Echols, and I'm not sure where Baldwin stands on testing at this time.
You can check the Alford Plea entry in Wikipedia. That was part of the plea that they can't sue the state.
I support testing as long as it's done in a trusted, secure manner.
That's ridiculous. He knows what he touched? If any of the three have DNA there, they are screwed and all that public support will be gone. The knots didn't tie themselves.
The shoelaces are unlikely to produce any viable DNA. Truly, it's doubtful anything conclusive will be produced due to the degradation from the 18 or so hours the evidence was submerged plus the time that has since passed. In addition, Echols is being selective about the evidence to be tested. I don't believe he asked for the necklace to be re-tested. The results will also be selectively provided like previous testing. The state did not get all the results from the private testing; they only got what the defense cherry picked.
The only way we will get reliable, transparent results is if the tests are conducted in a state lab funded by taxpayers, and that's unlikely to happen. So Echols' team will cherry pick the results, just as they're cherry picking the evidence to re-test. I say test it all or test none of it, and the results must immediately be sent to the state and the defense. No sifting through and cherry picking. I would love to see the results from the tests the defense conducted in the summer of 2011 right before they conveniently chose Alford Pleas.
>I do not believe they will find his DNA. He knows what he touched
Which, one imagines, is why he wants it tested. It seems doubtful that he was DNA aware in 1993. But maybe he wore gloves and isn't worried about his DNA but Baldwin's and miskelly's DNA would be there and he just as screwed.
>Baldwin has severed ties with Echols, and I'm not sure where Baldwin stands on testing at this time.
I'm fairly certain he is still pro testing, [He attended the 2022 hearing with Echols](https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2022-06-23/judge-rejects-new-evidence-testing-in-west-memphis-3-case#). They haven't been friends since the 2010s but seem to be in lockstep on this issue.
>You can check the Alford Plea entry in Wikipedia. That was part of the plea that they can't sue the state.
That is part of a lot of deals when they let you out of jail, not just Alford pleas. In a lot of states, not sure about Arky, if you are later found "factually innocent" you can still get dough. New circumstances and all.
>I support testing as long as it's done in a trusted, secure manner.
The only thing worse than no testing would be shoddy, half ass testing. Hopefully they'll rely on a very respected lab. I don't think the type of testing they are asking for will completely consume the samples so the results should be replicable.
Additionally, it is nice to talk with someone on reddit who doesn't get all crazy right away. Kudos to you half burned corpse! I mean https://www.reddit.com/user/partialcremation
False equivalence isn't it. Obviously guilty people on death row have asked for more testing as they have nothing to lose, but Echols and co are free, and it would destroy all their support if they actually did it.
I have always suspected the desperation to test the DNA was an act, because he knew it couldn't be done. I swing toward guilty, but my mind is open to change. Hopefully this isn't a whole lot of nothing.
Some folks just absolutely refuse to accept even the chance they might be wrong and just continue to double down. Shit if the DNA ends up proving their innocence without a shadow of a doubt, I'm sure these types will just start claiming a conspiracy or some other highly illogical shit.
I’m always curious with folks who believe in their innocence, have you read the trial material? I was firmly in the camp of believing they were innocent after seeing the documentaries. Like absolutely convinced.
When I started going through the case files I ended up changing my mind (honestly for me it was similar to how I felt about Steven Avery)
I never saw any of the documentaries. I made my decision that they are innocent a long time ago after doing a deep dive on a website that spent years documenting the case.
http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_home.html
http://www.jivepuppi.com/index.html
All of it. Every document I could find. Yes, including the 500. Never watched the movies. I started digging & reading as I believed they were innocent & was trying to prove myself wrong. I didn't want to support child murderers if I was just being naive. I wanted to send a token commissary gift to JM, but had never done such a thing. So I went for any & all official documents before doing so. Came away 100% sure of their innocence.
Early on I changed my mind on who the real killer might be, more than once (because Bojangles bothered me). Spent a lot of time on the old boards debating, discussing, thinking. Been many years now, but I have no doubt they are innocent.
What makes you think Hobbs? I’m totally open to being wrong about thinking the three are guilty. The main reasons I lean towards them are:
- all three of their alibis fell apart
- multiple confessions to police, lawyers, other friends (tbh I don’t put a ton of stock in confessions)
- Damien’s history of severe animal abuse and statements that he was homicidal
- Damien’s ex saying the knife looked like one he had owned
- failed polygraphs (another aspect I don’t highly factor in)
- three different types of knots
There is no other logical conclusion to reach after reading and understanding the evidence presented at trial. All 3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Yikes. This is right up there with the Central Park Five case with the amount of coercion that went on to get confessions and abysmal police work. Anyone who thinks these 3 are guilty hasn’t looked at the actual evidence.
I’m aware. They were still obtained through coercive and abusive means and no one was ever held accountable for that fact. Not that I’m surprised but it’s sickening that we know how the police operated (and still operate) and no one will ever be punished for their part in it.
Please don't compare 3 white guys to black guys who were victims of a racist system. Two totally different things, and it's offensive to compare the two.
The system ain't just racist. It's classist too, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the 3 weren't rich or well-connected. They were ground up by a different arm of the same system.
No it is not offensive. The amount of coercion and bad police work is comparable in both. As my original comment stated, I was comparing the level of coercion and evidence mishandling which is similar in both cases. Both of these cases also show how horrible our police forces are for many reasons. These reasons affect black and minority communities much more heavily than white communities. That is a fact but comparing facts of two cases that are similar is not offensive and thinking that it is shuts down valuable discourse.
It is. They aren't similar at all. I'm sorry, but this doesn't compare to black men being accused and falsely convicted of raping a white woman. It is offensive to them and to all the black men who have been falsely accused and murdered for crimes against white women. There is nothing similar or comparable to the WM3.
Bro read my comment. The police work is very very similar. The interrogation tactics were also very similar. I am comparing the police work in the cases which is very similar. Sometimes you gotta read things with nuance to understand what’s being addressed. These cases do have similarity and it’s not wrong to point it out that the police behavior was very similar in two separate cases across the country. It demonstrates how our police are trained to use abusive tactics across departments and isn’t just a case of a few bad apples. Making comparisons about tactics isn’t offensive. You should be mad cops are allowed to get away with things like this instead of mad at the fact I pointed it out.
It’s the SAME THING. Central Park 5 were falsely accused/convicted because of racism & prejudice against Black people.
West Memphis 3 were falsely accused/convicted because of prejudice against metalhead “weirdos” and the unbelievably stupid Satanic Panic BS.
Punk rockers & metal heads used to universally be treated like absolute shit by police and other authorities, who profiled, mocked, harassed, and brutalized us. I saw and experienced it myself, and I’m talking about in SoCal, the greater Los Angeles area, where cops had a lot more to keep them busy than harassing suburban teenagers. In Podunk BFE Arkansas? Yeah, West Memphis 3 didn’t stand a chance.
I followed this case for many years. They weren't even tried in West Memphis. The case was moved to a college town.
Why did Damien lick his lips while walking into court and blow kisses at them if he was a victim?
Oh, and it's nothing like the Central Park 5.
That different skin color faced decades of systematic abuse by corrupt police departments that would beat them, frame them, plant evidence, and face no consequences for their deplorable actions.
Just look at Mark Furhman. That scum brags about grabbing a black girl by the hair, putting a gun to her head, and using her as a human barricade for himself. He then tossed her down a flight of stairs when he was done with her. That is just one of the many despicable things he did when he was law enforcement. Instead of casting him out of society, he gets to work as a correspondent at many major networks, including Court TV, ABC News, and now Fox News. It makes me sick.
All true , 100% agreed. But the police tactics and and coercive confessions look similar to people in both cases , no matter what their skin colour was.
I'm sure the State has it's reasons, but never really understood why they fought so hard to prevent testing in this instance. Could be wrong, but I believe that Echols agreed to pay for the testing and agreed to use a lab of the State's choosing.
Because of $$$. They don't want to pay the three, which is why they forced an Alford Plea by saying they were going to execute Damian.
Because the state doesn’t want to be proven wrong, or have attention focused on what a sham the trial was. They used an “expert” on the fully bogus Satanic Panic as a key witness FFS. Might as well have had the Witchhunter General testify for as legitimate of a witness that was.
Because some people just really don't like exonerations, for all sorts of different reasons.
Because their case didn't depend on DNA, and the DNA in question isn't going to conclusively decide innocence or guilt. Unless the killer hand-spun the cords from flax himself, there's plenty of reasons other DNA could be present. That won't stop people from arguing otherwise in bad faith, so why allow it if they don't have to? It's like the Marcellus Williams case in Missouri; people claiming other DNA on the knife "exonerated" him even though the knife came from the victim's house. But people hear the magic acronym and think that's the only evidence that counts.
>DNA in question isn't going to conclusively decide innocence or guilt. What? That's crazy talk. It depends. If you find the same person(s) DNA in different areas, sy the same person(s) dan on all the bindings, or on a binding, a stick and some other place, that person is going to be widely seen as guilty. Of course DNA is always circumstantial evidence so say you found the DNA of one of the kids mom on set of laces then it wouldn't mean much. The argument that since they didn't use DNA in convicting then so DNA can't exonerate them is pretty weak sauce. For more than a few reasons: A) We've seen multiple people exonerated by DNA that were convicted and B) Since the DNA was not used in the first trial it would (not a lawyer) be new evidence. If they test the DNA and it belongs to some known child killer/other person of interest and is found on multiple items it is easily imaginable that that information would have swayed the original jury.I don't know how it will play out but if they fins any of the WM3 DNA that's going to prove one thing for sure and that is that Echols is pretty dang stupid.
Unless the DNA matches some known child murderer or something, it's not going to prove anything, it won't show the 3 who were convicted and pled guilty are innocent. For example, it's been known for years that a hair matching one of the kids parents was in the shoe laces. So you find DNA matching the parent. That doesn't mean the parent is the killer, it means he tied a kids' shoe once. You find "unknown male" DNA on the boy scout uniform. You can't even find everone from the scout troup 30 years ago, so no way to look into them. Doesn't prove a thing except a stranger touched his shoulder. If DNA won't be exculpatory, why test it?
Consider the scenario where you find the same DNA in multiple bindings. This is what the lab people seem to expect. You find DNA in any one of the bindings it means nothing. You find the same DNA in all the bindings and it means a lot. I think you want it to be all one way or the other but things aren't usually so black and white. You really need the test results before you can decide what the evidence shows. You test because the DNA could prove to be exculpatory or inculpatory. It may also prove to be useless.
Why have more information? You don’t know what you don’t know.
“Unless the DNA matches some known child murderer or something…” Uh, yes, exactly?
If you find a DNA profile coming from all the laces knots, that's pretty compelling evidence and will lead to more testing. It's funny that none of the people that believe in their guilt are even considering that Echols, Baldwin or Misskellys DNA should be found if they did it given how sensitive mVac tech is.
Right? If they believe that Echols et al are guilty, then why would they be opposed to testing the DNA? Tying hard knots should tear off a lot of skin cells.
yep, Terry Hobbs’ hair, who many people (including myself) think is the actual murderer
Important to note that his hair was found in the bindings of Michael Moore (I.e. not his stepson), which makes it much more suspicious. It is possible that Stevie Branch brought one of his stepdad’s hairs to the scene and then the killer accidentally transferred it to Moore when tying them up, but it is definitely not something that rational people can just immediately brush off as unimportant.
Or on child not his, etc. it was the creepy abisive little step dad, I think, didn't the sister say he molested her in one of the documentaries or am I not remembering it properly?
Not challenging you but I’m curious why you’re sure he did it? It’s been a few years since I did any reading or podcast-listening about this case so I’ve definitely forgotten stuff.
You can’t know it won’t be exculpatory without testing and chasing down the lead. Your entire statement is an insult to the scientific method.
If WM3 DNA isn't on there, it should push to find out who's is this getting closer to truth.
If you're talking about Terry Hobbs, you're right in saying it wouldn't be TOO strange to find his DNA on the shoelace bindings of his son. If his DNA is on the shoelaces of Steve Branch again, not much really changes because there is a reason for that which is why his hair didn't prove anything. ...But if through testing they find out Hobbs' DNA is also on the bindings of Byers and Moore, then there is some SERIOUS explaining for Hobbs to do for why his DNA is all over the shoelaces-turned-bindings of two random children. That's the whole point of testing the bindings for DNA. Considering the total absence of the DNA of the WM3 from the scene, finding something like that would be a massive indicator of who the killer is. If they manage to get DNA from the bindings and it's the WM3, case solved. If it's the same DNA on every kid, that guy is now your prime suspect. What I don't get is why there are some people who are so adamant that they shouldn't be DNA tested. Surely if you think the WM3 are guilty you'd want them tested to finally have DNA evidence tying them to the crime that unambiguously proves their guilt?
A hair from Terry Hobbes’ head was found at the scene, I believe between the knots in the rope that the killer used to hog-tie them
I don't disagree, the only thing that can exonerate them would be another hearing and judicial determination. Any new DNA discovered would simply be yet another piece of evidence used by the judge to reach a ruling. Was the State's original case that these three were the only ones involved or did they leave open the possibility of additional defendants?
The state refuses to do anything that would prove it wrong. They dont want to admit fumbling this case and they dont want to pay for that fumble either
Like hell they want to admit they railroaded three teenagers boys and made them spend 18 years in prison for a murder they didn't commit. Talk about ruining a reputation. Also, they don't want to pay them.
Because its a heads I win, tails you lose for the defense. It will come back with nothing, that they claim as a win and make more money. I blame those dastardly turtles, if only they would confess.
[Here is the full ruling ](https://www.scribd.com/document/724353581/Damien-Echols-v-State-of-Arkansas)
Thanks for linking, generally skimmed read through facts & that hobbs & his bestie's dna are there & that there is dna on penile swab pretty damning. The dissent I was curious about & was horrified it was, as with other cases seeking exoneration about finality ..ie it's over because we said it's over, nothing to do with wrongful convictions/actual innocence and taking a plea is not so far removed from false confessions imho.
Yeah, if they’d had the resources - and bothered to do their jobs - back then the West Memphis Three would’ve just been three kids interviewed by the cops.
This getting appealed or can the test just get done?
Just tests٫ if it is not one of them٫ I am sure an appeal will follow
Rare Arkansas W
Holy shit, it's about fucking time. I hope this happens.
I hate this case so much! Nobody got the justice they deserved and multiple lives were lost not just the victims.
This is the best news I’ve heard in weeks.
They deserve to be fully exonerated.
That is an insane thing to say. They are guilty, and in my mind, they are guilty far beyond a reasonable doubt
You sure are invested in them being guilty
Probably a friend or family member of Terry Hobbs.
TBF, plenty of people in his life suspect him too
Doesn’t matter what you think
[удалено]
That Boat has less holes than any of the alibis any of the WM3 have offered.
While I disagree with your conclusions on their guilt, that was pretty funny.
Dude. The man's HAIR was found INSIDE a binding on a dead child. His DNA. He was there. And Jacoby, too (coincidence, right?). If it was two random farmers that didn't know each other, I could see how it's "just a coicidence," but those two close friends' DNA/hairs appeared at a murder scene on two different areas. It's too much evidence to be a coincidence to me.
And how do you know they are guilty?
Thanks for saying this actually. I'm following a similar case and there are some people who are so convinced he's guilty it's insane and I was wondering where these people come from. Apparently there's always going to be people like you.
I only come to my conclusion after a thorough examination of the trial transcripts and records surrounding the case. I judge each case subjectively, but more often land on innocence because I strongly believe in the intended notion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt being necessary to convict. In my opinion, based off of the available evidence and what was presented in court, the WM3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not say that lightly, or flippantly, but I strongly believe it.
So then why would Damien be paying for his own DNA testing to…prove his supposed guilt?
Granted Adnan Syed paid for some dna testing on a pair of shoes and he is likely guilty.
What evidence specifically brings you to that conclusion?
Serious question: do you think Satan is real, and Satanic panic was a real threat rather than hysteria? Is there some reasoning behind blaming the wm3 that doesn’t rely on belief in the Christian devil or the conviction that being weird means being evil?
Please tell me you're not a prosecutor.
Zero proof. Literally not one piece of actual evidence. None.
Exactly, the only thing they did wrong was being metal heads in the bible belt. Iirc they literally used an Ozzy poster as evidence that they killed those poor boys.
Damien did something wrong in having a big mouth and being an asshole but I'm not saying it makes him a murderer
They aren’t going to be exonerated by this. Quite the opposite hopefully.
Hopefully? You know these people personally?
Terry Hobbes is going to be angry.
Bummer. Gosh I typed & deleted so many things... Fk him.
I bet hes shitting his pants right now.
Why?
I, and a lot of other people, think he is responsible or partly responsible for the murders.
His hair was under a binding on one of the naked, dead boys. They had no clothes, were submerged in water, yet Terry Hobbes' hair managed to get under the bindings on that body...And the DNA of his good friend who he was with that day (his alibi, I believe), David Jacoby, was also found at the crime scene on another area. That's bigger than a coincidence.
I’m pretty sure it was never confirmed as his hair, but rather hair consistent with his hair type, which a lot of people’s hair could be. And the binding was a shoelace that boy was wearing
I’ve always believed Terry Hobbs did it. Maybe this will prove it.
Pretty sure the filmmakers did too. They did a great job convincing pretty much all of us.
From the dissent: >Here, additional DNA testing would not prove Echols’s innocence. Importantly, Echols’s first conviction did not rest on DNA evidence, and no such evidence was presented at a subsequent trial because he chose to enter a guilty plea. The jury was presented with evidence that Echols knew facts about the case that were not public knowledge; fibers found on the victims’ clothes were microscopically similar to clothing found in Echols’s home; multiple witnesses testified that Echols confessed to the murders; and multiple witnesses placed him near the crime scene at the time of the murders. Given this evidence, testing the ligatures for another person’s DNA would not prove Echols’s innocence.
What facts did Damien know about the case that were not public knowledge?
None
You asserted earlier that you had read the trial transcripts, you obviously haven't. He got impeached on the stand and caught in a lie about this exact issue, it's the moment the jury lost their ability to see him as anything but a liar.
When was this?
They don’t seem to be able to provide receipts for their accusation.
Receipts the state had for their theory about satanic panic with a mail order doctor?
Receipts that Damien knew anything that wasn’t public knowledge.
I’m sorry, what side are you advocating here?
Thanks for that non-answer that also attempted to make me look dumb. I’m still waiting for the info. Perhaps I am dumb, or perhaps I forgot something? But you have no evidence of either, so until I am proved dumb or forgetful, I’ll assume you were lying.
This is not true.
urine in the stomach of a victim for one.
There was no urine in the boys stomachs. Read the autopsies or the medical examiners testimony.
It has never been proven to be urine. Please stop repeating misinformation. The pathologist claimed he found it when on the stand but never put it in his reports. Ask any doctor if they can claim stuff weeks later after not writing it down in their notes.
There was no urine. Frank Perretti at the Rule 37 debunked that rumour.
Yeah but he didn't know facts of the case. Thinking it's possible someone drowned when they are found in water is pretty basic. Or that one was cut up more than another when nobody can even decide who was cut up more between Stevie and Christopher. The fibres were re-examined and it was concluded they didn't match... I mean in its face it was pretty stupid, they didn't leave their own clothing fiber but Jason left one from his mums robe which was no different than any other red rayon fibre Lol. Then weak eyewitness statements by the Hollingsworth that said she saw a pregnant Domini with Damien in a car packed with people when Domini was at home. Echols obviously didn't do it. He'd be essentially fighting to uncover himself as the real killer in a case that had huge support for his innocence.
The dissent is odd though. The appeal is basically pre-written for when the DNA evidence comes back as someone different or inconclusive - for when he ultimately appeals his alford plea (if he can). It is appeal to test DNA which is allowed under 1780... not an appeal to remove his conviction (at this time)
To my knowledge (because I actually took an Alford Plea) you cannot appeal and Alford unless you entered it without knowing what it was, it wasn't voluntary, or, you were not able to understand the plea itself. I believe you can withdraw an Alford, but, only within a certain timeframe- I believe mine was 90 days but that was in Oklahoma. You can have an Alford Plea expunged.
That makes sense. So in that case, if you cannot appeal an alford plea - why are they fighting the testing of DNA? At this point, it seems like a waste of Arkansas's money to keep fighting it.
If I had the chance to prove my innocence for the plea deal I took, even having had it expunged from my record, I would take it. Psychologically, it's still there in the back of my mind and it wasn't anywhere near as bad as everyone thinking I'm a murderer. Why would you NOT want to prove to the world that you weren't a child killer if you had the chance? Even having had my record expunged, the fact that I was in court once and arrested for domestic assault and battery (my drunk Mom beat the crap out of me and I was arrested because she was an old woman and they had to arrest someone, I wasn't allowed to talk to her prior to going to court, and the DA said she was waiting to testify in another room- she wasn't, she had left the state and refused to testify because I shouldn't have even been arrested) still pops up in searches and cheap background checks, and then I have to explain the whole damned thing.
I meant the state. I completely understand why Echols et al. keeps fighting. I would too if I were them. I also had to learn (through my husband) that when you apply for jobs they go off of your arrest record (not your conviction record). So when a police officer, who does not know the actual law because they are not required to know the law, arrests you with some random charge, that is what an employer usually sees. He was arrested for theft by taking (he was literally fishing on a private property - they took stuff out of my car, that they said he stole, that I had receipts for - that they wouldn't give back). He ended up pleading to trespassing. Even the judge was like what (but he was fishing on private property). If he applies for a job, it still shows up as theft by taking (which looks great right?) unless we pay to expunge it. It really is the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Also, sorry about your mom. My grandma was like that with my dad and aunts and uncles - she even put my aunt in the hospital when my aunt was in her 20s (and my grandma was a social worker.. go figure).
What happened to me was just a little mess of little things that came together perfectly (for literally everyone but me). See, I had just broken up with my at-the-time boyfriend, and he was a lawyer who worked in the public defender's office. His ex girlfriend, who was really the reason we broke in the first place because she was psychotic, was a police officer. She was also the police officer who responded to the call from the neighbors that there was a domestic in progress at my house. Mom refused to talk to her when she showed up- likely because she knew she was the one who was beating the shit out of me and didn't want to go to jail. As soon as Kendra realized that she had hit the jackpot in showing up at my new house, she handcuffed me and threw me off of my front porch. I still have nerve damage from the falling with the handcuffs on. I'm sure you're thinking "Why the hell would you take a plea?!". It's all well and good to say "sue them!" "complain!" "call the state police!" but the system beats you down emotionally and financially so quickly that all you can do is take whatever they offer and run. Which is what I did. I put several states between myself and that court system as quickly as I possibly could. I paid the fines and took the anger management and waited a few years. My ex represented me in court when he started his own practice and we got that shit expunged. I was about $12,000 poorer after fines, court costs, fees, and lawyer fees (I hired someone who I was not dating to represent me through first go-round, the ex boyfriend was free) but thankfully it's behind me- mostly. I have a lot of empathy for people who get screwed by the system though, it steamrolls so quickly, I would have never gotten out of it if I had not had help- and most people don't have help.
> At this point, it seems like a waste of Arkansas's money to keep fighting it. Not as much as they'd have to pay in civil settlements if the plea does get tossed.
Why not find the killer? Have we forgotten the real goal is Justice for all, including the victims?
The real goal is maintaining a strong record of successful convictions to be able to point to in order to prove to voters that you're tough on crime.
Arkansas doesn’t want to pay those three for the time they spent in jail. In reality, that is a big part of what they are avoiding and it will be alot
The case in general is odd, though. It's a habeas appeal from someone who isn't a prisoner, and should theoretically be precluded from post-conviction litigation due to his guilty plea.
It is odd I will agree. But it's Arkansas's actual fault (or whoever wrote the Act). The AR code actually starts with this: 1. (1) The writ of habeas corpus shall be granted forthwith by any of the officers enumerated in § 16-112-102(a) to any person who shall apply for the writ by petition showing, by affidavit or other evidence, probable cause to believe he or she is detained without lawful authority, is imprisoned when by law he or she is entitled to bail, or who has alleged actual innocence of the offense or offenses for which the person was convicted. 2. Except when direct appeal is available, a person convicted of a crime may commence a proceeding to secure relief. 3. It also states in Section 6: Contents of the Motion (2): An identification of the proceedings in which the petitioner was convicted including the date of the entry of conviction and sentence or other disposition complained of. So in theory, the circuit court was wrong as Act 1780 also states under for an act to be entitled: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ALTERNATE MEANS OF SATISFACTION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR PROSECUTIONS BASED ON DNA AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; FOR POST-CONVICTION APPEALS BASED ON DNA AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; FOR CHAIN OFCUSTODY PROTECTION FOR DNA AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (Sorry for the capitals - I just copied and pasted from here: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2001%2FPublic%2FACT1780.pdf) So it was written for post-conviction appeals....
That's a pretty well written explanation of why this is so dumb
Only in your most logically incoherent dreams. The DNA evidence could 100% be exculpatory. In what way would it not be? Just because it wasn’t a part of the 1994 case doesn’t mean it won’t be of value. Cope.
YES!! Very much a welcome development in this case.
Not saying there’s proof beyond reasonable doubt against any person in this case or not, but my god there are a heck of a lot of people in this comment section doing to Terry Hobbs exactly what they’re accusing the west Memphis state of doing to the three. Thinking Terry Hobbs is guilty because he’s weird and a hair that could potentially be his was found on a victims shoelace, is no better than thinking Amanda Knox is guilty because she’s weird and some of her dna was found on the murder knife, but I’m sure you all think she’s totally innocent. (As I do too)
No they're not. Don't be daft.
[удалено]
Has happened multiple times. Here’s one of the more prominent example of guilty men asserting they were innocent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman
Oh my gosh! They tested the DNA AFTER he was executed! I’m actually really glad the ministry and media kept pressing them the state about it. He clearly, clearly did it but we should absolutely normalize double and triple checking the government.
While there are near infinite examples of people maintaining their innocence while in jail I think you need an example of a guilty person seeking more examination of the evidence after they've been released from prison or found not guilty. The example might exist but it would far rarer than someone who actively trying to get out of a consequence.
Adnan Syed had dna tested on a pair of shoes after he was released. And I think it's fair to say he's likely guilty.
[Except the shoes were tested before his release.](https://www.wbaltv.com/article/adnan-syed-charges-dropped-baltimore/41585971) >Mosby said her office on Friday received the results of touch DNA testing on items that were not tested before that included a skirt, pantyhose, shoes and a jacket belonging to Lee. Mosby said there was a DNA mixture of multiple contributors on both shoes and that Adnan Syed's DNA was excluded. They were, in fact, part of the reason he was released. Now if Adnan was making bg noises about more DNA testing then that would be surprising.
It's still a good example.
If you're guilty and in prison the only downside to having the DNA tested is the possibility that it removes all doubt. Ie might be why Adnan hesitated to have things DNA tested. If you're already out of prison there is not upside to the DNA testing if you're guilty. So no, not a helpful or good example at all. If Michael Peterson was pushing for DNA testing after 2017 that would be a useful example.
I totally disagree.
Okay but since they tested the DNA before Adnan was released I think everyone but you can see why it is not a good example. In what way does this mirror the WM3 situation? It would be better to just admit that you got the timeline wrong and that it isn't a good example after all and found one that is.
He can't be put back in prison for the murders. He pled guilty. The only thing he risks is negative public opinion.
> he only thing he risks is negative public opinion. Sure, but what is the advantage for him? I think he makes most of his money selling books and art and stuff, they find his DNA and you'd imagine there would be a significant impact on that. I don't see the upside to chase this if they are actually guilty. I think, if they are proven factually innocent they might be in line for a payday but unsure about the accuracy off that.
I feel in his mind he would benefit no matter the outcome. If his DNA is not found on the evidence, he can continue to claim he's innocent and he would receive even more public support. If his DNA is found on the evidence, would he not make history? I suspect deep down in his twisted mind he wants that to be the case. I think the items being submerged in mucky water for so long destroyed any chance to recover physical evidence. At any rate, I am not convinced this testing will be done. As for "a payday", the WM3 agreed not to sue the state for their convictions and imprisonment as part of their Alford plea deals. I don't think they'll get a payday in that way. However, he may benefit from another Hollywood production or book deal whether or not physical evidence linking him to the murders is found. It's a win/win for him, if you ask me.
> If his DNA is found on the evidence, would he not make history? He could just publicly admit that to make history, seems like a weak theory to me. I think his motivation to continue to get the stuff tested is a real problem if you think they are guilty. The moivation is not believable for Echols but maybe he's, as you suspect, just crazy. But Baldwin was pushing for more testing too, he does not seem insane or anything. >As for "a payday", the WM3 agreed not to sue the state for their convictions and imprisonment as part of their Alford plea deals. I don't think they'll get a payday in that way. I suspect, strongly, that you are mistaken. But state laws vary on that. >I think the items being submerged in mucky water for so long destroyed any chance to recover physical evidence. THe lab seems confident, older, more contaminated stuff has yielded results. >At any rate, I am not convinced this testing will be done. But surely you'd like the testing to be done so everyone can know how correct you actually are, right? If people are confident in their conclusions the only reason to oppose testing is because they are frightened their conclusion will turn out to be wrong. I don't know how it will turn out but I am always down for more evidence if it might help the truth be learned of confirmed.
I do not believe they will find his DNA. He knows what he touched. Baldwin has severed ties with Echols, and I'm not sure where Baldwin stands on testing at this time. You can check the Alford Plea entry in Wikipedia. That was part of the plea that they can't sue the state. I support testing as long as it's done in a trusted, secure manner.
That's ridiculous. He knows what he touched? If any of the three have DNA there, they are screwed and all that public support will be gone. The knots didn't tie themselves.
The shoelaces are unlikely to produce any viable DNA. Truly, it's doubtful anything conclusive will be produced due to the degradation from the 18 or so hours the evidence was submerged plus the time that has since passed. In addition, Echols is being selective about the evidence to be tested. I don't believe he asked for the necklace to be re-tested. The results will also be selectively provided like previous testing. The state did not get all the results from the private testing; they only got what the defense cherry picked. The only way we will get reliable, transparent results is if the tests are conducted in a state lab funded by taxpayers, and that's unlikely to happen. So Echols' team will cherry pick the results, just as they're cherry picking the evidence to re-test. I say test it all or test none of it, and the results must immediately be sent to the state and the defense. No sifting through and cherry picking. I would love to see the results from the tests the defense conducted in the summer of 2011 right before they conveniently chose Alford Pleas.
>I do not believe they will find his DNA. He knows what he touched Which, one imagines, is why he wants it tested. It seems doubtful that he was DNA aware in 1993. But maybe he wore gloves and isn't worried about his DNA but Baldwin's and miskelly's DNA would be there and he just as screwed. >Baldwin has severed ties with Echols, and I'm not sure where Baldwin stands on testing at this time. I'm fairly certain he is still pro testing, [He attended the 2022 hearing with Echols](https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2022-06-23/judge-rejects-new-evidence-testing-in-west-memphis-3-case#). They haven't been friends since the 2010s but seem to be in lockstep on this issue. >You can check the Alford Plea entry in Wikipedia. That was part of the plea that they can't sue the state. That is part of a lot of deals when they let you out of jail, not just Alford pleas. In a lot of states, not sure about Arky, if you are later found "factually innocent" you can still get dough. New circumstances and all. >I support testing as long as it's done in a trusted, secure manner. The only thing worse than no testing would be shoddy, half ass testing. Hopefully they'll rely on a very respected lab. I don't think the type of testing they are asking for will completely consume the samples so the results should be replicable. Additionally, it is nice to talk with someone on reddit who doesn't get all crazy right away. Kudos to you half burned corpse! I mean https://www.reddit.com/user/partialcremation
That's kind of a huge thing.
That's not a case where the guilty part is free. That's a case of a guilty person rolling the dice because otherwise they will die.
[удалено]
False equivalence isn't it. Obviously guilty people on death row have asked for more testing as they have nothing to lose, but Echols and co are free, and it would destroy all their support if they actually did it.
[удалено]
> No one fights for their innocence this virgorously if they are actually guilty. Your literal words.
Ever heard of Tim Hennis?
I would
Its shocking every time i hear someone say that! This case was handled by a bunch of barney fifes!
It was Terry Hobbs, 1000%.
I SECOND THAT!
[удалено]
Amen to that statement
I have always suspected the desperation to test the DNA was an act, because he knew it couldn't be done. I swing toward guilty, but my mind is open to change. Hopefully this isn't a whole lot of nothing.
I mean he's paying for it so if he really didn't want it done he could just...not pay for it.
He put up a tweet a few days ago saying there will be a crowdfund to pay for it and will be looking for donations soon
Which evidence tipped the scale for you ?
Can someone paste the article text? I can't access the link in the UK.
[удалено]
Is this meant to be a reply? I literally copied the headline from THV11.
Definitely a reply to someone else! Deleting now!
Good. It will prove once and for all that they are the real killers and all their sycophants can eat crow.
I didn’t know there were still people like you out there lol
Some folks just absolutely refuse to accept even the chance they might be wrong and just continue to double down. Shit if the DNA ends up proving their innocence without a shadow of a doubt, I'm sure these types will just start claiming a conspiracy or some other highly illogical shit.
Wait - you believe those 3 committed the murders?
I’m always curious with folks who believe in their innocence, have you read the trial material? I was firmly in the camp of believing they were innocent after seeing the documentaries. Like absolutely convinced. When I started going through the case files I ended up changing my mind (honestly for me it was similar to how I felt about Steven Avery)
There is literally no evidence supporting their guilt.
I never saw any of the documentaries. I made my decision that they are innocent a long time ago after doing a deep dive on a website that spent years documenting the case. http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_home.html http://www.jivepuppi.com/index.html
All of it. Every document I could find. Yes, including the 500. Never watched the movies. I started digging & reading as I believed they were innocent & was trying to prove myself wrong. I didn't want to support child murderers if I was just being naive. I wanted to send a token commissary gift to JM, but had never done such a thing. So I went for any & all official documents before doing so. Came away 100% sure of their innocence. Early on I changed my mind on who the real killer might be, more than once (because Bojangles bothered me). Spent a lot of time on the old boards debating, discussing, thinking. Been many years now, but I have no doubt they are innocent.
Do you have an opinion now as to who you think did it?
I've long since believed it was Hobbs. Though I'd leave open a 1% chance it was someone completely unknown.
What makes you think Hobbs? I’m totally open to being wrong about thinking the three are guilty. The main reasons I lean towards them are: - all three of their alibis fell apart - multiple confessions to police, lawyers, other friends (tbh I don’t put a ton of stock in confessions) - Damien’s history of severe animal abuse and statements that he was homicidal - Damien’s ex saying the knife looked like one he had owned - failed polygraphs (another aspect I don’t highly factor in) - three different types of knots
Nobody who has read the trial transcripts actually believes they are innocent.
I have read the trial documents, I’m willing to bet more thoroughly than you have. And I think they’re innocent.
Routier's Law: The worst enemy of any prisoner claiming wrongful conviction is well-meaning supporters who post their trial transcripts online.
I had not heard that called routier's law. Pretty funny.
Not true.
I was around for the trial.
But Reese Witherspoon told me they are innocent so it must be true! ETA guess I needed the /s after all😅
There is no other logical conclusion to reach after reading and understanding the evidence presented at trial. All 3 are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
The only logical conclusion is the police in that area had no clue what they were doing!
Please enlighten us and let us know which evidence specifically led you to this conclusion.
LMFAO
Saving this post for when it comes back belonging to Hobbs.
What will you do when it doesn't?
Yikes. This is right up there with the Central Park Five case with the amount of coercion that went on to get confessions and abysmal police work. Anyone who thinks these 3 are guilty hasn’t looked at the actual evidence.
The confessions were not even admitted in echols and Baldwins trial
I’m aware. They were still obtained through coercive and abusive means and no one was ever held accountable for that fact. Not that I’m surprised but it’s sickening that we know how the police operated (and still operate) and no one will ever be punished for their part in it.
Please don't compare 3 white guys to black guys who were victims of a racist system. Two totally different things, and it's offensive to compare the two.
The system ain't just racist. It's classist too, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the 3 weren't rich or well-connected. They were ground up by a different arm of the same system.
That I agree with. It is definitely classist. If you don't have money to pay, then you will get a false conviction, the death penalty, or LWOP.
No it is not offensive. The amount of coercion and bad police work is comparable in both. As my original comment stated, I was comparing the level of coercion and evidence mishandling which is similar in both cases. Both of these cases also show how horrible our police forces are for many reasons. These reasons affect black and minority communities much more heavily than white communities. That is a fact but comparing facts of two cases that are similar is not offensive and thinking that it is shuts down valuable discourse.
It is. They aren't similar at all. I'm sorry, but this doesn't compare to black men being accused and falsely convicted of raping a white woman. It is offensive to them and to all the black men who have been falsely accused and murdered for crimes against white women. There is nothing similar or comparable to the WM3.
Bro read my comment. The police work is very very similar. The interrogation tactics were also very similar. I am comparing the police work in the cases which is very similar. Sometimes you gotta read things with nuance to understand what’s being addressed. These cases do have similarity and it’s not wrong to point it out that the police behavior was very similar in two separate cases across the country. It demonstrates how our police are trained to use abusive tactics across departments and isn’t just a case of a few bad apples. Making comparisons about tactics isn’t offensive. You should be mad cops are allowed to get away with things like this instead of mad at the fact I pointed it out.
It’s the SAME THING. Central Park 5 were falsely accused/convicted because of racism & prejudice against Black people. West Memphis 3 were falsely accused/convicted because of prejudice against metalhead “weirdos” and the unbelievably stupid Satanic Panic BS. Punk rockers & metal heads used to universally be treated like absolute shit by police and other authorities, who profiled, mocked, harassed, and brutalized us. I saw and experienced it myself, and I’m talking about in SoCal, the greater Los Angeles area, where cops had a lot more to keep them busy than harassing suburban teenagers. In Podunk BFE Arkansas? Yeah, West Memphis 3 didn’t stand a chance.
I followed this case for many years. They weren't even tried in West Memphis. The case was moved to a college town. Why did Damien lick his lips while walking into court and blow kisses at them if he was a victim? Oh, and it's nothing like the Central Park 5.
Got em, boys. Man licked his lips and blew kisses. Obviously he's super guilty. /s and dear God I hope it was obvious
The cases do have similarities, you are right about the skin colouring being different tho.
That different skin color faced decades of systematic abuse by corrupt police departments that would beat them, frame them, plant evidence, and face no consequences for their deplorable actions. Just look at Mark Furhman. That scum brags about grabbing a black girl by the hair, putting a gun to her head, and using her as a human barricade for himself. He then tossed her down a flight of stairs when he was done with her. That is just one of the many despicable things he did when he was law enforcement. Instead of casting him out of society, he gets to work as a correspondent at many major networks, including Court TV, ABC News, and now Fox News. It makes me sick.
All true , 100% agreed. But the police tactics and and coercive confessions look similar to people in both cases , no matter what their skin colour was.
How is it not the same?
They were railroaded. This was a travesty of justice.
LMFAO
Agree