The West Memphis Series Part II: Guilty By Plea And Have Been Set Free
Jonesboro, AR- In a shocking development, four days following the first installment of the West Memphis Three on www.blinkoncrime.com, on August 19, 2011 Damien Echols, Charles Jason Baldwin and Jessie Miskelley, through an Alford plea, were convicted of three counts of first degree murder following an agreement made by Prosecutor Scott Ellington and their respective defense attorneys for the murders of eight year old boys James Michael Moore, Christopher Byers ( Murray) and Stevie Branch.
Judge David N. Laser agreed to and imposed suspended sentences for time served to Echols, Miskelley and Baldwin; all were released and immediately declared their innocence during the ensuing press conference.
In Part I of our series, we touched briefly on the development of new evidence and possible murder weapon, the blue handled- mountain ice axe, which inexplicably was never presented at trial. It had been admitted into evidence after being retrieved from its owner, following it’s return by Jason Baldwin’s, younger brother Mathew.
Requests to confirm whether or not the ice axe was maintained in evidence at West Memphis Police Department were non-responsive at the time of this publication. Part II continues first with what the jury never heard. A podcast of my interview on the case following the release of the WM3 can be found here.
Premature Illumination
One of the larger points of contention in the murders was the lack of blood evidence at the scene. The lack of blood or blood spatter at the scene with such gruesome injuries spawned the defense theory the ditch was a dump site or secondary crime scene. This was largely due to the fact that the jury would never hear about the results of luminol tests; it was suppressed by motion of the defense In both trials.
Luminol enhanced chemiluminesence (LCL) technology in 1993 was geared toward examining items of evidence in a lab under black light for optimum photographic results, or its secondary application for use in an enclosed environment which can be manually darkened and a portable black light ( we now call this an alternative light source or ALS) brought to the scene.
LCL when sprayed onto a surface containing remnants of blood, or more specifically the iron in blood, will create a glowing reaction when iron, invisible to the naked eye, is present.
In 1993 under Arkansas law, Luminol testing was considered new, novel, and not accepted as scientific evidence.
While the methods for collection, testing and controls have advanced significantly since 1993 and LCL testing is widely used in criminal case work, analysis of the findings in the instant case flatly dispute the notion that there was no blood associated with the crime scene along the ditch bank of Robin Hood Hills.
Contrary to the misconception that there was no evidence of blood at the scene, the results of two consecutive days of luminol tests at the scene were enlightening.
As Kermit Channell and Donald Smith, from the Arkansas crime lab could not bring the “outside in” they were forced to set up shop in the woods along the banks of the ditch. Also present for testing both days were WMPD Detectives Mike Allen, Tony Anderson and Bryn Ridge.
Donald Smith’s report below in it’s entirety below, The other reports can be found here.
STATE CRIME LABORATORY
P.O. Box 5274
Number 3 Natural Resources Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72215
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Investigating Officer / Agency / Address
Sgt. Mike Allen
West Memphis Police Department
100 Court Street
West Memphis, AR 72301
Laboratory Case Number: 93-05717
Date Received in Lab: 05/07/93
How Evidence Received: M E / Matthew Elliott
Agency Case Number:
Suspect (s):
Victim (s):
Steve Edward Branch
Date of Report; 06/10/93
FIELD INVESTIGATION. WEST MEMPHIS TRIPLE HOMICIDE. MAY 12 and
MAY 13. 1993 LUMINOL:
This analyst and Kermit Channell, Serologist responded to request to perform luminol on
a potential crime scene area on May 12, 1993. We left that afternoon, arriving in West
Memphis at approximately 6:30 P.M., proceeding to the Police Department.
Officers Tony Anderson, Brian Ridge, and Mike Allen accompanied Kermit and myself
to a swampy area in the northern edge of West Memphis where the victims were found.
A general survey of the area in the daylight hours was conducted. Approaching darkness
fresh solutions of luminol reagent were prepared. When the area became dark, using
flashlights for light support, the part returned to the area and proceeded to spray and
locate areas of luminol light emission activity, a presumptive test for the presence of
trace quantities of blood. The following observations were noted:
(1) At a trail along a stream bed an approximately 11 foot high bluff overlooking the
stream positive reactions were noted on either side of a tree with more reaction noted to
the right side of the tree, facing the stream bed.
(2) An Area with used plastic sheeting west of the trail and the bluff gave more positive
reactions were noted.
(3) At the west bank of the stream bed, to the right of some trees, an area gave positive
reaction. It was explained by the Police Department that this was where two of the
victims were placed when they were recovered from the stream bed.
(4) In the stream bed, below the described (at one time) water line, positive luminol tests
indicated where one of the victims was found in the water as related by the West
Memphis Police Department.
(5) On the east bank of the stream bed were a pile of sticks and a depression in the soil
where luminol tests showed a concentrated area of positive reaction.
[PAGE 2]
(6) North of this point luminol tests gave positive reaction to a large area of
concentration (described by West Memphis Police Department where the third victims
was placed upon recovery from the water).
(7) North of the point #6 near some tree roots, another large area of concentration of the
luminol reaction was noted.
(8) Trace amounts of positive luminol reaction was noted on the slope west of the area
where two of the victims were recovered and placed. (reference area #3). The areas north
and south of where the third victims had been placed (5) and (6) were unaccountable
known activity by the Memphis Police Department or rescue / recovery operations.
From these areas of noted luminol reactions for the presumptive presence of trace
amounts of blood the following opinion is rendered:
The traces of presumed blood detected along the trail (2), and at the bluff (1), and one the
slope (8) appear to be transfer of blood by the rescue and recovery teams.
Reaction in the areas where the recovered victims were placed is the apparent result of
trace blood transfer from the victims (3) and (6).
The area below the water level on the west side of the stream was accounted as where
trace amounts of the victimís blood diffused into the mud in the stream bed.
The areas (5) and (7) indicate activity prior to recovery of the victims and relate to
activity to the victims when perhaps they were being attacked.
It should be noted that the luminol testing was performed some days after the discovery
of the victims and at least one rainfall had occurred. There were no visible signs or
indication of blood at any of the locations that we investigated.
[PAGE 3]
Upon the group returning that night to the police headquarters Inspector Gitchell and his
staff were advised of our findings. It is our opinion the crime had taken place where the
bodies of the victims were recovered. Inspector Gitchell was further advised of the
inability to document the luminol reaction of the evening because of the light leaks from
stars and the back scattered light from West Memphis. To document the luminescence
Inspector Gitchell was advised that we would have to place tenting over the areas of
interest and to block out all stray light possible.
The luminescence requires near total darkness to document luminol reactions in the open
field.
It was decided that Kermit and I should stay over the next day perform the tests again
and photograph them.
The morning of May 13, Inspector Gitchell provided us with equipment, supplies and
manpower needed to document the areas of positive luminol reaction. A test with plastic
covering over the canvas was erected and photographs were taken of the positive areas
noted of the previous evening again with fresh luminol application.
Because of the limitations due to some light leakage, physical activity in the area
destroying some of the reaction, the weather conditions of some light rain the night
before and the originally low concentration levels in the areas on the bluff (area #1), along
the trail (area #2), where the victims were placed (area #3), and the area in the stream bed
where the body was recovered (area #4) and the area above the recovery area (area #8)
we were not able to document photography as we observed these areas the evening of
May 12.
The tented area over the areas where the victim’s body was placed (#6) and the
questioned area (#5), subdued the light to a degree that a less than perfect photograph
could be obtained. These photographs still documented the areas of interest, showing
luminol reaction in respective areas. These photographs were without the benefit of flash
painting application to reference the areas photographed. A still photo of the questioned
area from the original camera tripod location does reference the questioned area. The
photographs were processed revealing the luminol reaction at areas where the victim was
place (#6) and the questioned area (#5)
[PAGE 4]
The tent was moved and photographs were taken of the questioned area by the tree root (#7). Photographs of the areas (#4, #5 and #6) with surveyor flags mounted were taken to reference those areas tested and photographed. All photographs were left with Inspector Gitchell.
[signed] Donald E. Smith, Criminalist
Soil samples were submitted on May 14, 1993, but for unknown reasons not tested until 4 months later, and did not react to the luminol.
The result was considered inconclusive as it was not likely to detect blood from a four month old soil sample in the first place.
Although the luminol reaction results were not admissible in the trials, for analysis purposes, it tells an irrefutable story. The obvious counter-argument could only be that investigators were new to the technique, some of the initial testing was unable to be photographed, or to any conspiracies, that detectives simply made up results for some purpose.
However, as none of the investigators present had the autopsy results prior to the testing, and most certainly did not have Jessie Miskelley’s “account” to draw from, outside of the known injuries and other more circumstantial evidence in this case, these findings certainly further support there were multiple perpetrators in this crime- and that it all went down right there.
In 1998, Damien Echols filed a Rule 37 hearing for causes of incompetent counsel and due to his “actual innocence.” Jessie Miskelley lost his appeal to overturn his conviction also in 1998, but It was not until 2008 that Baldwin and Miskelley filed their Rule 37 petitions. For purposes of evaluation, I am including affidavits , exhibits and testimony excerpts from some of the expert witnesses at all three hearings and subsequent related appearance spanning from 1998- 2008.
Brent Turvey, of Knowledge Solutions, LLC trained under renowned blood spatter expert Dr. Henry Lee, did not consider any of the luminal reports when hired by Dan Stidham in 1998 for his expert opinion in his representation of Jessie Miskelley requesting a new trial. Turvey’s report found (here) was largely the impetus for future defense experts for all three defendants to “weigh in”.
While Turvey’s work was largely unsupported once his infamous “bitemark” was debunked and he bought into the “Baldwin knife” which has since been abandoned by all subsequent defense experts, as the first guy up at bat so to speak, his testimony demonstrated the burgeoning direction to the CSI Effect the West Memphis Three would take toward their ultimate freedom.
I explore Turvey’s initial observations taken directly from his report, in the beginning of each unique victim’s autopsy segment, followed by updated relevant expert information and my subsequent analysis.
Autopsy By Coroner- Autopsy By Proxy
In the interest of brevity, I intend to focus on the dissenting views of the experts, and I stipulate that in no report that I have reviewed, was there evidence of sodomy or object penetration of any of the boys.
While I believe Dr. Perretti’s prior experience with cases that involved same did form his opinion on the possibility as it relates to some of the injuries, I do not believe that such testimony should have been permitted at trial, nor would it be permitted today.
Memphis Triple Homicide May 5, 1993
James M. Moore #ME-329-93
Steve E. Branch #ME-330-93
Chris M. Byers #ME-331-93
LOCATION: On May 6th, 1993, all three victims were found, bound wrist to ankle with shoe laces, in the water of a drainage ditch, in a heavily wooded area called the Robin Hood hills, behind the Blue Beacon Truck Wash in West Memphis, Arkansas. An equivocal forensic examination of all available crime scene and autopsy photos, crime scene video, investigator’s reports, witness statements, family statements, autopsy reports and numerous other sources to be listed as referenced in the endnote section of this report. The purpose of this preliminary examination was to competently assess the nature of the interactions between the victims and their environments as it contributed to their deaths as indicated by available forensic evidence, and the documentation regarding that evidence.
James M. Moore
James Michael Moore autopsy found here.
The following forensic information is taken directly from the official autopsy report filed by Dr. Frank J. Peretti of the Arkansas State Crime Lab, Medical Examiner Division, dated 5-7-93, Case No. ME-329-93 and/ or from The official coroner’s report filed by Kent Hale, Crittenden County Coroner, dated 5-6-97.
The purpose of this section is not to present an all inclusive, detailed account and explanation of every piece of information in these reports, but rather to explore these reports, with the corresponding photos, for consistency, possible omissions, and to review injuries or patterns that this examiner deemed to be significant to the case.
Wound Pattern Analysis
This victim received more traumatic head injuries than any of the other victims in this case. Dr. Peretti states that defense wounds were present on the victim’s hands. These wounds were very few, indicating that victim was incapacitated quickly after the attack began. So the nature of these head injuries, and the limited defensive type wounds, combine to indicate sudden, forceful, and repeated blows that resulted in abraded contusions, multiple lacerations, and multiple skull fractures.
There is an unexplained directional pattern abrasion just below the victim’s right anterior shoulder area.
This unexplained injury does not correspond with any of the physical evidence collected at the location that victim was discovered. It is furthermore inconsistent with any of the naturally occurring elements that exist in that environment. The best conclusion that this examiner can reach is that this pattern abrasion was created by forceful, directional contact with something that was not found at that crime scene, whether it be a weapon, a surface or something else capable of creating that pattern.
The shoelace ligatures used to restrain this victim did not leave deep furrows, and also did not leave abrasions. This indicates that the victim was not struggling while the ligatures were in place. This indicates further that the victim was very much unconscious when the ligatures were affixed to his wrists and ankles.
We know that the victim drowned, that is to say that hemorrhagic edema fluid was present in the victim’s lungs, indicating that the victim was breathing when he was placed into the 2ft of water in the drainage ditch at Robin Hood Hills.
Together, these facts suggest that the purpose of the ligatures in this victim’s case was to keep the victim from moving around or being able to swim should he regain consciousness once he had been thrown into the water. It is this examiners opinion that the assailant in this case demonstrated all manner of awareness and cognizance at this location. The assailant knew that this victim was not dead when they threw this victim into the water, and that the ligatures would assist to complete the act of deliberate homicide should the victim become conscious.
Lack Of Injuries
When compared to the other two victims in this case, who were found at the same location, bound nude with shoelace ligatures in the same fashion, the most striking discrepancy is the lack of injuries suffered by this victim. In the crime scene and autopsy photos made available to this examiner, there were no readily discernible bite marks visible, the genitals have not been visibly disturbed or molested, and there are no discernible stab wounds. This lack of attention is very telling, and will be discussed in the Offender Characteristics section of this report. There is also, again, a lack of mosquito bites to this victim, which, as mentioned earlier, suggests that he received his injuries elsewhere first. This because the injuries took time to inflict, time during which many mosquito bites would have been received, even after death.
Analysis: I find the statement that he had the least amount of injuries, yet the most severe head injuries in dire conflict, as he died from multiple injuries, and drowning. The fractures to his head and lacerations to his left and front right skull were enough to cause his death within minutes on their own, and there can be no doubt that he received them while he was already unconscious because of the lack of injury at the ligature sites. There is very little hemorrhage involvement with the open lacerations, and all lacerations were abraded; one with a dovetail and upside down L producing an ovid fracture. In Jesse Miskelley’s confessions, he says one of them was moving as he was put in the water while he was leaving. I believe the reason he never mentioned that Michael Moore was beat about the head with an instrument of some kind is because he never saw that. Michael was located in the ditch just below the oak with the exposed root that had the luminol result “shaped like a V”, which would be consistent with him struggling to get out of that water, on that bank, with a cast off or blood spatter pattern consistent with someone beating him toward the bank and in front of that tree.
Mosquito bites: Only females take a blood meal, so that potentially reduces the population by 50%, and at no time will they bite a deceased person. They are attracted mostly by carbon dioxide, released from a breathing person. Both Dr. Haskell and Dr. Goff agreed to this ultimately.
What is further curious to me, is that while Turvey was hired by Miskelley, who confessed at least three times by the date of the generation of this report, does he not note the obvious discrepancy for the placement of Mike Moore upstream, or that he was found on his right side with the left side surfacing when in effect dislodged by Det. Mike Allen. Moore was also hogtied differently, with different knots than the other 2 victims, with ONE black shoelace. There is a reason that Turvey was not given Miskelley’s updated confession following his conviction, and instructed to disprove it; he would not have been able to.
Steven Edward Branch
Stevie Branch autopsy found here.
Wound Pattern Analysis
There are numerous violent, traumatic injuries to this victim’s face and head, as well as numerous superficial scratches, abrasions, and contusions noted throughout the rest of his body. Dr. Peretti, however, does not note the presence of extensive defensive wounds.
This indicates a violent, overpowering attack on this victim that he was unable to put up resistance against. The constellation of wounds are very similar to those inflicted on James Moore, however they are much more intense and include the victim’s face.
This level of attention paid to the victim’s face, in terms of depersonalization and rage, is indicative of familiarity and that will be explored later on in this report.
Furthermore, there is the existence of patterned injuries all over this victim’s face that could be bite marks. Since the ME may have missed this crucial evidence, other areas of his body may show bite mark evidence as well. The autopsy photos of this victim supplied to this examiner were not of sufficient quality to make an absolute determination of any kind, and would require a thorough examination by a qualified forensic odontologist for an informed, conclusive analysis. [note: Dr. Thomas David, board certified forensic odontologist, has confirmed the wound as a human adult bitemark and excluded Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley as the offender using bite impressions obtained from the men in prison] Bite mark evidence is very important in any criminal case because it demonstrates behavior and lends itself to individuation. It can reveal to an examiner who committed the act, because bite marks can be as unique as fingerprints. And, once established, it also reveals the act itself; biting.
Another unidentified pattern compression abrasion can be found on the back of Steve Branch’s head. The source of this injury caused a 3? inch fracture at the base of the skull with multiple extension fractures that terminate in the foramen magnum (that’s the hole at the base of the skull where the spinal cord connects to the brain). Upon close examination, this pattern injury is consistent with compression made from footwear. Again, without better photos supplied to the examiner showing a variety of angles, it’s very difficult to make a positive identification of any kind. But the pattern is consistent with a footwear impression, and would require a footwear impression expert to analyze and make an informed, competent determination.
The shoelace ligatures used to restrain this victim did leave deep furrows, and also did leave patterned abrasions on both the wrists and ankles. This indicates that the victim was struggling while the ligatures were in place. This indicates further that the victim was very much conscious before or after the ligatures were affixed to his wrists and ankles. We know that the victim drowned, that is to say that hemorrhagic edema fluid was present in the victim’s lungs, as well as in the victim’s mouth, indicating that the victim was breathing when he was placed into the 2ft of water in the drainage ditch at Robin Hood Hills.
Together, these facts, again, suggest that the purpose of the ligatures in this victim’s case was to keep the victim from moving around or being able to swim should he regain consciousness once he had been thrown into the water. It is this examiner’s opinion that the assailant in this case demonstrated all manner of awareness and cognizance at this location. The assailant knew that this victim was not dead when they threw this victim into the water, and that the ligatures would assist to complete the act of deliberate homicide should the victim become conscious.
Lack Of Injuries
There is again a lack of evidence to support any sort of strangulation. Dr. Peretti states that his examination of the neck of this victim revealed no injuries, and the photos that this examiner has seen support that conclusion.
Analysis: He missed the wound to Stevie Branch’s penis entirely. While not contained in his formal autopsy report, it was proven during the trial that Dr. Peretti’s colleague was called into evaluate what Turvey was calling “bite marks” and was ruled out. The fact that bite impressions did not match Echols, Baldwin or Miskelley was in no way exculpatory, and I will save you the bite by some animal with a rough tounge report nonsense I had to read .
The 3” fracture at the base of the skull, which “spiderwebbed” into subsequent fractures, also very likely severed his spinal cord, so one must assume this injury was also quite perimortem.
Steve ‘s left face was found to be abraded on the entire left side, and is consistent with someone either stomping on right side of his neck and fracturing it, with an obvious boot print, if the left side of the face was on the ground.
The gouging wounds- likely had to be inflicted following the fracture due to the lack of hemorrhage in comparison to the severity of the wound, and all experts agreed the injury was likely perimortem. So the question becomes- why?
Seems like a very important question, second only to what caused the trauma, based on the constellation of terminal injuries already inflicted on him. Wouldn’t the only thing left to do at that point be to submerge him?
It is my theory- therein lies the problem. Byers was put in the ditch first, and we know he was already deceased, therefore, he sinks. Stevie Branch is placed in the water next to him, and he either begins moving or floats and the suspects thinks he is still alive, and uses an implement to force him into the ditch bottom until he succumbs and stays submerged. I will leave out the specifics of the gouging wound as to why I think that resulted in the usage of the other end of the ice axe on Michael Moore. The luminol result, found in the ditch bed itself, after it was drained, slightly downstream from Byers and Branch, but still upstream from Moore could also support this theory. We know that Byers had already bled out, but Branch was still alive when he was put into the water and the only significant bleeding wound on his person capable of leaving blood evidence in the bottom of the ditch to survive it simply being washed away in the creek, there is a high degree of probability he bled directly into the dirt. He was found face down.
Christopher Byers
Christopher Byers autopsy found here.
It should be noted that this victim’s injuries were the most extensive, most violent, and most overtly sexual of the all the victims in this case. The nature and extent of this victim’s wounds indicate that the assailant spent the most time with this victim.
Additionally, this victim’s toxicology report revealed non-therapeutic levels of carbamazepine in the blood. All of these differences are very important, and will be explored in the later sections of this report.
Wound Pattern Analysis
There are numerous violent, traumatic injuries to this victim’s head, specifically to the base of the skull. There was also evidence of the violent emasculation of the victim’s sex organs, extensive lacerations and bruising to the victim’s buttocks, as well as numerous superficial scratches, abrasions, and contusions noted throughout the rest of his body. Dr. Peretti also noted that there were numerous healed injuries of varying nature on this victim. Dr. Peretti, however, did not note the presence of defensive wounds.
Again, this indicates a violent, overpowering attack on this victim that he was unable to put up resistance against. The general constellation of wounds to this victim is more advanced, more extensive, more overtly sexually oriented and includes the use of a knife.
This knife was used not only to inflict multiple stabbing and cutting injuries to the victim’s inner thighs and genital area, it was used in the emasculation process. There is, unmentioned in either the ME’s or Coroner’s reports, what appears to be a clear impression of the knife handle on the right side of the large gaping defect left behind after the removal of the victims penis, scrotal sac, and testes. This was impression was created when the knife was thrust full length into the victim by the assailant, during the process of emasculation. This indicates forceful, violent thrusts. The nature of this emasculation, as indicated by these wounds, is neither skilled nor practiced. It was a rageful, careless, but purposeful act carried out in anger.
It is the opinion of this examiner that this injury would have resulted in massive, uncontrollable blood-loss, from which the victim could not have survived without immediate medical attention.
It should also be pointed out that the nature of the stab wounds inflicted on the victim’s genital area, separate from those received during the emasculation process, show marked irregular configuration and pulling of the skin. This indicates that either the knife was being twisted as the assailant stabbed the victim, or that the victim was moving as the blade was withdrawn.
The second set of injuries is described as five superficial cutting wounds on the left buttock (pictured on the left in this photo at the right). It should be noted that these injuries are actually lacerations, as indicated by the bridging between the open tissue, and the irregular edges. Both indicators are apparent upon close examination of the photographs. It is the opinion of this examiner that this set of injuries is most consistent with the parental whipping given to Chris Byers by Mark Byers. It is further the opinion of this examiner that after having received this set of injuries, which tore open the skin and would have resulted in some severe bleeding, the victim would have been unable to walk or ride a bicycle without incredible pain and discomfort.
The third set of injuries is the multiple linear superficial interrupted cuts on the right buttock region (pictured in the photo above on the right). These injuries are not consistent with having been made by a belt as they are cuts. The edges are not irregular, and the cuts are interrupted, again indicating movement by the victim or the assailant during the attack.
Furthermore, there is the existence of bruised ovoid compression injuries all over this victim’s inner thigh that could be suction type bite marks. Since the ME may have missed this crucial evidence, other areas of his body may show bite mark evidence as well. The autopsy photos of this victim supplied to this examiner were not of sufficient quality to make an absolute determination of any kind, and would require a thorough examination by a qualified forensic odontologist for an informed, conclusive analysis.
Bite mark evidence is very important in any criminal case because it demonstrates behavior and lends itself to individuation. It can reveal to an examiner who committed the act, because bite marks can be as unique as fingerprints and positively identify a suspect. And, once established, it also reveals the act itself; biting. The shoelace ligatures used to restrain this victim did leave deep furrows, and also did leave patterned abrasions on both the wrists and ankles. This indicates that the victim was struggling while the ligatures were in place. This indicates further that the victim was very much conscious before or after the ligatures were affixed to his wrists and ankles.
We know that this victim did not drown, that is to say that no hemorrhagic edema fluid was present in the victim’s lungs, or well in the victim’s mouth. This indicates that the victim was already dead when he was placed into the 2? ft of water in the drainage ditch at Robin Hood Hills. This is, again, very different from the other two victims in this case.
Dr. Richard Souviron forensic odontologist: all mutilation is peri and post mortem, no knife was used.
On a final note, Mr. Hale states in his supplemental report on Chris Byers that there is a stab wound on his head. This is actually incorrect, and rectified by Dr. Peretti who states in his autopsy report of Chris Byers that the same injury is a 1¼-inch laceration to the left parietal scalp.
There is also, again, a lack of mosquito bites to this victim, which, as mentioned earlier, suggests that he received his injuries elsewhere first. This because the injuries took time to inflict, time during which many mosquito bites would have been received, even after death.
Additionally, unlike Steve Branch, there is no overkill present in this victim’s face. That is to say that this is another of the marked differences between the killings of Steve Branch and Chris Byers which is very important to note, and which will be explored more thoroughly in this report.
Recommendations
It is apparent from the physical evidence in this case that Chris M. Byers was attacked with sudden, violent force from which he defended himself in only a limited fashion. It appears as though this attack took place, at least in part, while his cloths were off and while the shoelace ligatures restrained him. He was sexually assaulted (an assault of a sexual nature, to areas of the body considered to be sexual, that does not include sexual penetration), and associated stab wounds indicate that he may have been conscious during several phases of the attack.
Analysis: How does he miss that the dosage of (car) was sub therapeutic, meaning below the level at which he was described and confuse it as non-therapeutic, in his estimation, as a possible means to subdue him. He completely missed the fact that it is likely that the level, found in his blood, was greatly reduced because there was very little blood volume left in his body. AND, it was a prescribed medication. Turvey does not mention the other factors that support Byers died first, and he died quickly and violently. While he did have stomach contents, he did not have any urine in his blatter and there was substantative evidence his bowels had evacuated at the scene, commonly a result of an immediate violent death.
Consensus or Conundrum- Depends Who You Ask
Regardless of which expert one believes, within the confines of each report, is the absence of the belief with any certainty that the “Baldwin” serrated knife was used. What they all agree on, is that the gouging injuries to Branch and Byers were very similar. They all agree that there was evidence of blunt force trauma, significant curvilinear fractures, what is commonly referred to in Forensic Pathology today as “chop wounds”, other sharp force trauma.
Thoughts onPost Mortem Animal Predation
I agree it is possible that snapping turtles could have caused what looks to be possible claw marks and at least one possible bite mark. I am emphasizing possible because I don’t think one can rule out animal predation 100%
Bryn Ridge himself testified he has seen snapping turtles in that area, some time ago. That said, there was not so much as a crawfish found in that creek as it was being pumped out, and that included a screen.
Dr. Spitz went as far as to suggest that somehow a carnivore of some kind was the cause of the animal predation although all oter evidence suggests that the boys were completely submerged, as well as their clothing, and there was obviously no animal tracks or other artifacts at the scene that would make that theory sound anything remotely believable. Thankfully, he stopped short of suggesting that a new breed of homicidal carnivores with a cleaner crew who could walk upright was responsible.
Fortunately I Dressed For Bushwhacking
Starting with one of the most important parts of the autopsy evidence, is the very fact that detectives knew VERY LITTLE about it outside of the cause of death, until late May at the earliest. So little in fact, that Gary Gitchell, Lead Investigator, wrote a list of follow up questions to the crime lab on May 26. (need link here)
Frank J. Peretti, MD preformed all three autopsies on May 7, 1993, and filed reports on May 10th for cause of death only. Those causes of death btw, were all listed as homicide by multiple injuries, period. Nobody knew that two boys died from drowning, and not all three. This is particularly concerning because the first conversation that Steve Jones and Det Sudbury had with Damien Echols was on May 7th prior to autopsy and in his subsequent interview with Det Bryn Ridge on May 10, when asked by Ridge how he knew about that, Echols told Ridge that Jones told HIM that whoever did this “urinated” in the mouths of the boys.
Urine was found in the stomachs of 2 of the victims, but that information was given by phone only to Gitchell, and not before May 16th, 1993. There is no possible way Damien Echols could have had case- specific information unless he was there or knew someone that was that told him what occurred, as the detective interviewing him at the time was clueless to that fact during the interview.
There are certainly many statements by both Echols and Miskelley prior to arrest that indicate they had prior knowledge of the murders, but I have been able to ride the see saw on those for the most part, like many.
The fact that Echols knew that there was urine in the stomachs of two victims, when it was intentionally ommitted from the report can only mean he was there, or knew someone who was, and in my opinion, both.
To be continued, West Memphis Three Part III
Sources:
Crime lab Index: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/crimelab.html
Chris Byers autopsy:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autcb.html
Michael Moore:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html
Stevie Branch:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autsb.html
Turvey Report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/b_turvey_profile.html
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,388 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
HOTDOGG Blink, a civil trail. Now that would be extremely interesting. I would have to catch it all, from deposition to decision hehe
@Mom 3.0 Because you directly addressed me i took the time to read all that you wrote. I will do my best to address your question etc although due to my short attention span my reply will not be as substantial as you own posts
“I was wondering if you or someone, could link me to the evidence showing the two hairs found which were said to match DE? TIA”
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/crimelab.html
I believe the information under the heading ‘Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences’ at the above site, will most easily break down and explain the information you seek. Just pay attention to how the items are labeled and you will be able to follow along effortlessly.
Before i respond to the rest i must make one crucial observation about our differing view points. You have what looks like to me, chosen to do your research in a broad manner. I chose to work from the trial, after all that is where the convictions in these cases were made. Only evidence entered into them and statements/testimonies given during them were used to convict these 3 on the charges they recently and finally plead guilty to.
You stated
“Respectfully Canadian girl- nothing is OBVIOUS in this case, we are all speculating on the reasons why JM would lie- we all agree he lied- but we all can not be sure of the whys, can we?”
Sure he could have lied for any number of reasons but the plausible and probable reason is to down play his part and receive a lighter sentence. This is one of the most common lies among criminals. Therefore I can comfortably deduce this is why he did it, makes more sense then him being coerced all 6 times, wanting to put 2/3 innocent people in jail or that he just wanted cheese burgers lol
You stated
“CG- just because this kid passed a poly doesnt mean he was telling the truth- there is a reason why polys are not allowed in as evidence they are notoriously faulty and as I pointed out- whether or not he passed the poly it is a FACT that he had MAJOR details wrong- he claimed that all the victims were dismembered and that all the penis/scrotums were cut off, and he claimed JB had all the them all in his mouth.Which the evidence clearly does not support.”
1st polygraphs are not notoriously faulty, in actuality the success of finding the truth lies with the examiner. 2ndly as it relates to reliability of polygraphs, the widely held baseline is that in studies where the success rate was below 80% the polygraph examiners were woefully under-trained and inexperienced. The American Polygraph Association found that in real life crimes a qualified examiner has a 92% to 98% overall accuracy. In mock crimes they have a 80% to 81% overall accuracy.
http://www.polygraph.org/
Lastly my decision to take the confession by JB via inmate into consideration is as follows – he passed – JB refused to take one – DE failed. All law enforcement related poly’s are given by trained examiners. Therefore the possibility that both poly’s are wrong is so remote its not worth even considering. Even i concede that one could be wrong, no matter which way you would slice it, DE or JB would be involved. Since they are besties and were inseparable at the time, i would still then have to conclude that the other would have ether participated, or at the very least had knowledge of the crime and its coverup. <<< Even in the most mild sense it still points to culpability on both their parts, with one being an accessory after the fact.
You stated
"Respectfully, CG, Jesse did not point LE in any direction, they were already going in the direction of DE, as shown through SJ’s statements- The fact is, LE was already investigating DE (as well as others) and I could debate you all day long over whether or not LE’s investigation was “effective” and whether or not it was the “right direction” As for LE basing their case on a false confession an uncovering evidence that would seem to support it, IT HAPPENS"
Admittedly we have different views, you see his confession as false, i see it as less then truthful and self-serving. No matter how one views the investigation/trial etc you cannot ignore the sheer number of coincidences that would have had to occur in order for the main evidence found to erroneously convict them by decision of a unanimous jury.
You stated
"I havent watched it, although I agree they made millions and if I may be so bold to point out, that EVERYONE, including you and I, are borrowing from the facts and we are all “spinning them” to fit any given theory…
You can believe there wasnt a conspiracy of injustice CG, but it is a fact, many people in this case- provided false testimony and rumor driven “facts” and conspire to do so-Vicki and others-"
This is not entirely accurate as i have no theories, i have no clue in which sequence the events occurred nor do i know the specific roles of the 3 involved. I have borrowed from nothing other then the evidence presented and the context from which it was discovered and substantiated. To the second paragraph i offer only this, without lay witnesses their conviction still would have happened due to the forensic specialists findings. It really was the neat little string that tied them all together in it.
You stated
"I am sorry CG, you are again entitled to your opinion, but to say that LE wasnt incompetent is bogus IMO they lost evidence, and didnt follow up with witnesses and logically ask follow up questions of witnesses and persons of interest ect."
By loss of evidence i assume u mean the blood from the infamous Mr Bojangles. This was the best red herring their defense was able to muster (till the more recent addition of TH) the police did them a favor. I can plausibly rule out Mr Bojangles for a couple pertinent reasons. He was described as disoriented not cold and calculating. He was alone. He was cut on the forearm which accounted for all the blood. To make him a probable suspect you would have to concede that one victim wrestled the knife away briefly, causing a defensive wound. Or that he in his homicidal frenzy cut his own arm. Both scenarios are obviously ridiculous. The only injuries one could expect the/any perpetrator(s) to have would be at best some cuts on the hand due to slippage of a knife or w/e sharp object was used in the crime and possibly some bruised shins and/or scratches from defensive kicking/striking by the victims. You surely are not trying to say it was the victims blood he could have left in the bathroom are you?
You stated
"How can you say they arrived at there presented case through logic CG? They presented a case in which devil worshiping/ misguided Wiccans perpetrated this crime, because they had “no soul” – "
I believe the body of this testimony and its purpose are overlooked because of the eccentricities of the person who delivered it. I agree that he is a quack but i do not agree with the relevance of the intended body of his testimony. He was meant to show DE as a self styled dabbler i.e. borrowing from all different off-brand religions and calling it demonisn, accounting for the ritualistic elements of the crime.
You stated
"A strong case, even one based on circumstantial evidence, does THIS not make-
In fact all the evidence they presented could easily be used to prove at least 1 % of the population of WM did it-"
Sure it could fit 1% of WM population but how many of that 1% could it fit who where also fingered as being involved?
I personally feel i can whittle the 1% down to the 3 that were charged, convicted and plead guilty to it. Simply by seeing that the probability of any other team (be it 2 or 3) of suspects who fit the fiber findings would not also have the extensive and notable background/past of the 3 convicted. i.e. The extensive and scarey mental history of DE, the ability to assault someone smaller who is defenseless as JM did to a 14yr old girl just months before the murders, JB a loyal follower to the bitter end.
You stated
"If its alright, I would like to discuss Narlene Hollingsworth in Part 2 To be cont-"
I did read your post on it and don't feel the need to compare all her statements as you have for 2 reasons. I only hold her court testimony as legit because she was sworn in for it and its what the jury who convicted them heard. 2nd reason, i know eyewitnesses are actually 'notoriously faulty' in their accounts and i can reasonably see the same trial outcomes without her testimony being introduced at all.
I find it difficult to debate your opinions because we see this so differently, you see a mystery where i don't. I accept the courts ruling where you don't. We just see this in 2 separate lights. I tried my best to answer you from my perspective while still relating it to yours. I hope i cleared some of my previous post up for you
Hi, having not waded my way through all the Callahan material,I wondered if someone could clarify a couple of points for me. First, is there any evidence of the urine in the stomachs aside from Glitchell’s notes? I saw a subsequent DNA-related request from the defence that referred to the urine but that also cited Glitchell’s notes. Second, if Jessie’s confessions were not false, and were prompted by guilt and remorse, why would he not go the whole hog and testify against the others? I can’t follow the logic. As an aside, I just read an article online saying that Damien is coming here (New Zealand) for a couple of months to stay with Peter Jackson, cheers, Cindy
Lisa Allen says:
October 12, 2011 at 10:44 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa, thank you. Although we may not always agree, I truly enjoy reading everyone’s posts and points of view. I very much look forward to hearing more of your thoughts!
@ Graceinthehills
Re:
Sakevicius: (reading) Even though the questioned hairs may be similar in all respects to a person’s hair, and dissimilar to most other hair, the forensic examiner can never say with certainty that there might not be another individual who possesses similar hair.
Price: Alright. Now essentially the – although this specific paragraph deals with hair, the same uh – the same general information applies to fiber evidence as well?
Sakevicius: That’s correct.
Fiber and hair (unless the root is attached or a mtDNA profile is extracted, neither of which i believe was possible in 1994) evidence still to this day has the same disclaimer. It is said about hair because a examiner is unable to test the hair against everyone else in the world, therefore they cannot say it belongs to one source at the exclusion of all others. The same type of principle applies to fibers, being that they are mass produced in the form of clothing, carpet etc. The strength in this type of forensic evidence (minus the DNA profiles which can now be extracted from hair) comes down to probability. When you view it in terms of how many other suspects could fit all this trace evidence the field of who could have perpetrated the crime is significantly narrowed. BTW one hair from DE was an exclusive match, essentially meaning no other hairs collected from any of the children’s home nor other suspects could have attributed to the hair found and matched to him (which was collected directly off a victim). This evidence is meaningful and should not be overlooked because the probability of any other suspects matching all the trace evidence in the same way is highly unlikely.
Re: mountains of circumstantial evidence
I’ll give you a couple examples and you can always read through the callahans website and pick out more
1 DE’s extensive mental history (speaks to his homicidal tendencies and his need for control)
2 JB trading back the knife and ice pick he bought from a friend for T-shirts because he thought someone was gonna say he used them (innocent people don’t think nor behave in this manner)
3 JM hitting a 14yr old girl a few months prior (it points to his ability to assault someone smaller, younger and defenseless)
There are in fact ‘mountains’ more of this kind of circumstantial evidence, i wont ruin your fun ill let you read the site and find others on your own.
Cindy,could you point me to the website please? I am also in NZ and interested as to when he will be here. yuk – perhaps he will rub shoulders with the other “Innocent” David Bain.
@ Mom3.0 says:
October 12, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Lil lady, you have a heart the size of Texas then some! I appreciate YOUR kind words and encouragement.
I’ve needed to step aside in commenting for a while. I don’t know how y’all do it, but I feel emotionally depleted from Caylee’s trial, to our wee cubs, to Morgan….to all our departed kindred spirits. I had to finally acknowledge my limits.
I read here all the time (most threads) b/c I can’t go too long w/o connecting with my BOC family on some level. I’m just so stinking proud of all of you! I have you all in my prayers to sustain, persevere and expose the truth once and for all.
I believe in YOU!
Only love…til I think of something to post which Blink needs to ‘WHOOOAA there Ragdoll!’ You have no idea how hard it was for me to not dish it to ‘the voice’.
*waving @ Canadian girl….from Alberta*
CanadianGirl says:
October 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm
@ Graceinthehills
CanadianGirl, I have reviewed both of the trials, the various filings, the Rule 37 hearings, and all of the documents at Callahan, and have yet to see these mountains. Regarding your analysis of the hair and fiber evidence, I would respectfully disagree. Similarities are not “matches” by any stretch, and probability, as I am sure you must know, cuts both ways. Regarding polygraphs: that they are inadmissable in almost all U.S. courts speaks louder than any study in the literature regarding their reliability, and, IMHO, effectively renders that argument moot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CanadianGirl says, “There are in fact ‘mountains’ more of this kind of circumstantial evidence, i wont ruin your fun ill let you read the site and find others on your own.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With all due respect, CG, I would hope you were being facetious when you said you didn’t want to ruin my “fun”. I have worked in the forensic field for over twenty years, and have come across too many horrific cases to count. I would never characterize my review of any murder case as “fun” even when I am doing it in my down time.
Canadian Girl, Hi thanks so much for taking the time read / respond- and for the link on the hair. Much appreciated.
I appreciate your response, and I will try to answer each of your points and concerns
I apologize for the length-
** my responses
You wrote:
Before i respond to the rest i must make one crucial observation about our differing view points. You have what looks like to me, chosen to do your research in a broad manner.
*Thats true CG I have- because without looking at everything- how could I hope to know the whole story?
Witnesses lie on the stand or they omit crucial details that were in previous statements or they suddenly ”recall” with great detail more “helpful” details THINK Cindy Anthony…
Speaking of which, For someone that followed the Casey Anthony case, I am shocked that you are limiting the search for the Truth about these murders to only the trials- as we all watched- Cindy Anthony LIED as did GA and Lee and they suddenly “remembered” important details and “forgot” others…,and had we not had the benefit of pretrial statements ect- we would never have known “the truth” and afterall, arent we here, now, searching for the truth- no matter what the court ruled?
You wrote:
I chose to work from the trial, after all that is where the convictions in these cases were made. Only evidence entered into them and statements/testimonies given during them were used to convict these 3 on the charges they recently and finally plead guilty to.
*Excuse me CanadianGirl, but the trials never included the bible confession nor the subsequent “confessions” certainly not 6 of them….
* For someone who feels “duped” by the Paradise Lost films- “until recently” and said “After completing a lengthy dive into the C. Anthony case (narcissist void of conscience)I some how came across callahans 8k “ and immediately thought “What an amazing collection” and who “wanted to see how it all went wrong” and
believed this was a case of “ The tragic tale of 6 kids, 3 murdered and 3 wrongfully convicted, which will eventually be righted, 3 innocent people will be freed and a new investigation into the real perpetrators will be ignited…..”
*You sure seem to have no problem in limiting yourself, or Callahans vast archives, or the “evidence” to only what was contained in the trials…. Which seems rather strange, considering again, your interest in the CA case, and your, at one time, avid belief in the3′s innocence ( although from watching the docs)
You :
- HBO can see the obvious miscarriage of justice during those trials then i most certainly could too and eventually a court of law would have to address it.
-
- *Well CG- inorder to begin to even look for a miscarriage of justice – I would think one must start with the investigation and then end up with the jury tampering ect…
You wrote:
I was eager to read the trials and learn 1st hand all the details and missteps that lead to the 2nd “tragedy”.
*Again CG, if you want to learn all the details and missteps, much of it wasnt limited to the trial
You wrote;
1st polygraphs are not notoriously faulty, in actuality the success of finding the truth lies with the examiner. 2ndly as it relates to reliability of polygraphs Lastly my decision to take the confession by JB via inmate into consideration is as follows – he passed – JB refused to take one – DE failed. All law enforcement related poly’s are given by trained examiners. Therefore the possibility that both poly’s are wrong is so remote its not worth even considering. Even i concede that one could be wrong,
*CG- you can put your faith in a polygraph and trust whether or not the examiner is an expert or not, but I will not, and it seems, the US justice system agrees with me, as they are not allowed in as evidence…. And if you concede that they could be wrong, then how can you be so certain that in this case, they were not?
*In truth polygraphs are faulty for MANY reasons:
>whether or not the machine is in good running order, also depending upon the questions and # of questions, and type of questions asked
>the mental health of the subject – (I would think Casey Anthony would have had little problem passing a polygraph- she actually believed her lies AND she was devoid of feelings- she was not intimidated by LE or anyone)-
>lets not forget drug intake- ect- Was Carson given a drug test before taking this polygraph? And was he on any other meds?
I could go on but you get my point.
*”All law enforcement related poly’s are given by trained examiners.” LE officers are also trained in crime scene investigation- and they surely are taught whether or not the year was 1993 or 2003
that they should not trample a crime scene……
nor remove bodies…..
and they should defer to the medical examiner…..
nor leave the bodies open to the elements…..,
nor let a juvenile officer contaminate the scene…..
nor let non LE people into the scene…..,
LE should take copious notes….
and wear protective gear, like gloves ect, especially when handling clothing of victims ect
and the items of evidence should not be put on sticks nor on the banks, and they should be separated, they should immediately be placed into evidence bags-
LE should TAKE COPIOUS PHOTOS from every conceivable angle, and with measurements clearly labeled,-
LE should know to ask pertinent follow-up questions,
and actually go inside an establishment which called in a bleeding scary weirdo-
LE are also taught to retrieve any and all evidence- not decide they dont need it- like the blood soaked tp roll or sunglasses ect-
Even the best of the best some times make mistakes, trained experts or not
AJMO
Cont part 2-
Cont part 2
Hello again CG
You wrote:
no matter which way you would slice it, DE or JB would be involved. Since they are besties and were inseparable at the time, I would still then have to conclude that the other would have ether participated, or at the very least had knowledge of the crime and its coverup. <<< Even in the most mild sense it still points to culpability on both their parts, with one being an accessory after the fact.
*Really?! Inseparable? JB attended school, DE did not, Damian was going to be a daddy- JB was not…
Just how many of us, during our teenage years had a best friend that went out and did things without us from time to time? And especially things they knew we wouldnt want to be a part of?
*How many of us had a wild and free, no inhibitions, no holds barred kinda friend, who we loved, but would never conceive of joining in at the party or what have you? If they got pregnant or herpes, were we right there participating? … By default were we also infected and pregnant? How many of us had a friend, best or otherwise, that kept secrets from us? Whether it was that they had a crush, or liked a boy we were dating, or that they were pregnant and sexually active or that their parent was abusive, or they were bulimic or anorexic ect ect ect?
You wrote:
Admittedly we have different views, you see his confession as false, i see it as less then truthful and self-serving.
*Actually I said that we ALL agree that his “confessions” are full of lies and we are all giving our thoughts on why that is- and I also said because JM did lie and he did omit details and because he did get others completely wrong, I therefore can not, & do not include his confessions in as evidence- nor should the jury have IMO
You wrote:
No matter how one views the investigation/trial etc you cannot ignore the sheer number of coincidences that would have had to occur in order for the main evidence found to erroneously convict them by decision of a unanimous jury.
* You followed the Casey case right? Then you should know without a doubt that a jury can, and do falter in their duties, and most of them are easily blinded by anything but the truth. And we do have HUGE amounts of erroneous evidence and testimony- the lake knife, the occult guy- Sj and JD assertions, Vicki and others highly questionable yet “truthful testimony”ect ect ect
You wrote in part:
i have no theories
*ummm yes you do- your theory is that JM lied because it was “self serving”, and your theory is that JB/DE did it, or at least told DE/JB that he did it -and therefore, someone is definitely the murderer and one is at least an accessory after the fact- and you seem to subscribe to the theory that there was no injustice in this case- as it pertains to LE’s handling, and mishandling, &the jury, the foreman, and all the rest.
You wrote:
i have no clue in which sequence the events occurred nor do i know the specific roles of the 3 involved.
*But yet you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these three committed these murders? And you know that the sentences handed down were just?
*How can you say that DE deserved the death penalty and JB and JM deserved life if you admit to not knowing much of anything as a “fact” IRT the actual murders? Shouldn't the actual killer serve the most time or forfeit his life?
You wrote:
I have borrowed from nothing other then the evidence presented and the context from which it was discovered and substantiated.
*CG- if you are basing your thoughts on only the evidence presented during the trials, then how can you say “in the context of which it was discovered” and add to that, substantiated?
*How was Narlenes or Vickis testimony substantiated? How was any witnesses claims substantiated? LE did not even retrieve DE’s phone records or any phone records-
*How is any of it substantiated? The luminol testing was handled improperly, evidence was handled improperly, witnesses were questioned improperly, the search and the discovery and the examinations were handled improperly.
*Next to nothing was substantiated. Do you recall the Urine? Not substantiated- see what I mean?
You wrote:
without lay witnesses their conviction still would have happened due to the forensic specialists findings. It really was the neat little string that tied them all together in it.
*If the evidence and the scene and the victims were handled improperly then unfortunately, that makes the forensics come into question.
*All the experts were wrong, on several key factors- cross contamination does exist, and can not be ruled out, “matches", could be due to the commonality of the items tested, and blood types, and improper lab procedures/contamination ect can not be ruled out-
AJMO
Cont part 3
cont Part 3
Me again CG, and all
CG-
You stated
By loss of evidence i assume u mean the blood from the infamous Mr Bojangles.
*No…. I was referring to loss of evidence due to IMPROPER collection and procedures and contamination- and all the rest- poor documentation, poor questioning- not questioning every available witness, not getting or taping every single POI or witness or poly- ect
You wrote:
.I can plausibly rule out Mr Bojangles for a couple pertinent reasons. He was described as disoriented not cold and calculating.
*Okay- loss of blood will do that to you- cause disorientation. It will also cause one to defecate themselves, due to loss of blood pressure. It will also cause one to feel sick and to vomit.
He wasnt described as cold and calculating? Well golly gee wilikers, most persons stumbling in to use a public restroom wouldnt be described as cold and calculating LOL-
* But what of his trying to flush the sunglasses? Seems like a calculated thought…and what of his decision to go in the ladies room? That could be considered a cold and calculated thought- if one thinks that a lady is less likely to bang on the door and demand entry or ask questions, or confront someone, and if one is bleeding, a man , a criminal, which bathroom would he reason is the most likely to have blood in it, for “innocent” biological reasons? Which would you choose a mans or a womans? And what of his disappearance and total lack of coming forward? That could be considered cold and calculating could it not?
You wrote:
He was alone. He was cut on the forearm which accounted for all the blood. To make him a probable suspect you would have to concede that one victim wrestled the knife away briefly, causing a defensive wound. Or that he in his homicidal frenzy cut his own arm. Both scenarios are obviously ridiculous.
* CG, I agree, He was alone when he came in, true… but where did he go?.. And who brought him there or who might have been with him in the hours before his trip to the ladys bathroom?
*It was said he had a cut on his for arm that was dripping profusely- true, but what of the areas that were covered by clothing? Might he have had other contusions , abrasions and wounds not so easily viewable? – He was said to have his head down and between his legs, while he was on the commode- might he have had wounds that would have been hidden from the observer based upon this positioning?
*Those are not my “ ridiculous” theories, they are yours- and I disagree that these would be the only possible scenarios- The victim did not have to wrestle the knife away- to cause such an injury nor would Bojangles have had to cut his arm in a “homicidal frenzy”
*In fact, he could have slipped and fallen, many times- in his effort to traverse the area – or he could have accidentally cut himself when cutting through that long black shoestring- imagine- pulling the knife toward you as you try to cut through it- oops I just sliced my forearm…..
*or he might have accidentally cut himself when cutting little Chris in much the same way I just described the shoestring- what an awful thought… but sadly, we cant be sure, can we? OR He might have been one of the perps that suddenly started freaking out or suddenly got a conscience so his “bestie” cut him to warn him to shut up- and chill….. WE CANT KNOW
*The fact is, there are many different plausible scenarios for the whys of Bojangles- one of which is- he may have been a witness- and the sad fact is, we will never be able to rule out any of them – as the Bojangles evidence was mishandled , lost, or never collected – and you may be all right with that, but I am not.
You wrote:
The only injuries one could expect the/any perpetrator(s) to have would be at best some cuts on the hand due to slippage of a knife or w/e sharp object was used in the crime and possibly some bruised shins and/or scratches from defensive kicking/striking by the victims.
*Are you kidding me? The perp might have had some other injuries -you dont know. Chris may have got one good one in with his slingshot or with his feet- Mike may have bit the sicko hard- or Stevie may have gouged him with a stick- or hit him with a rock-
*HE may have been cut up from tree limbs- he may have cut himself while throwing the bikes or even more sad a thought, while throwing the boys, He may have had severe cuts on his knuckles, from beating the boys- ANY # of injuries are possible.
You wrote:
You surely are not trying to say it was the victims blood he could have left in the bathroom are you?
*You surely dont deny that his blood may have been only some of the blood in the bathroom? Afterall if he was the perp- the victims blood could most definitely have mixed with that of his own-
We just cant know-
AJMO
Cont part 4
i finally get the peter jackson connection,i knew of course he did lotr but having done lovely bones ,i didnt get his involement, but i looked up his bio and he wrote a nightmare on elm street and appears to be a horror buff ,he wrote dead alive ,the frightners.his birthday is halloween ,so it now makes sense ,what to get the millionaire who has everything, his own freddie.the lord of the rings and the alleged ring leader,bet its going to be a scary halloween /birthday party.having directed lovely bones ,maybe he wants to help damien find his true character or feels a bit of guilt for the influence.
Cont part 4
Hope everyone is still with me- I warned you it would be long-
I apologize again for the length.
CG
You stated:
I believe the body of this testimony and its purpose are overlooked because of the eccentricities of the person who delivered it. I agree that he is a quack but i do not agree with the relevance of the intended body of his testimony. He was meant to show DE as a self styled dabbler i.e. borrowing from all different off-brand religions and calling it demonisn, accounting for the ritualistic elements of the crime.
*Eccentricities? Try total lack of expertize- hell, anyone watching that old movie, “Burn, Witch, Burn!” or “Charmed” or “Warlock” or “Evilspeak” or Ozzys acting dabut,“Trick or Treat” would have been more of an expert-
*There were NO RITUALISTIC ELEMENTS to these murders- *The prosecution and the defense and most of the free world now understand this.
*DE was not a “dabbler”- he was an avid reader, with a voracious intellectual curiosity, mostly in the areas of theology/religions/belief systems-
*DE was looking for answers and he went to the library and CHURCH to find them-
my Gosh-
*He didnt perform sacrifices, and he wasnt a witch, any more than he was a vampire, or a priest, or devil worshiper- Try horny teen who was trying to find himself, and get laid, at the same time playing the role of “scary” Damien- all while listening to Floyd and Metallica and Pearl jam- and reading Steven King and writing poetry and drawing pics…
You wrote:
Sure it could fit 1% of WM population but how many of that 1% could it fit who where also fingered as being involved?
*WEll there is LG, and several others- and it matters not who is “fingered”…. anyone can point the finger at any # of innocent people or likely suspects
You wrote:
I personally feel i can whittle the 1% down to the 3 that were charged, convicted and plead guilty to it. Simply by seeing that the probability of any other team (be it 2 or 3) of suspects who fit the fiber findings would not also have the extensive and notable background/past of the 3 convicted. i.e. The extensive and scarey mental history of DE, the ability to assault someone smaller who is defenseless as JM did to a 14yr old girl just months before the murders, JB a loyal follower to the bitter end.
*Huh? Pardon me, but I think you should read the rest of the docs at callahans-it is full of people who have loyalty issues, and historys and criminal backgrounds ect- and KIM these are only the persons called in, what of the other people that were never called in because someone didnt “finger” them-? While your at it, please be sure to read up on killers and their extensive backgrounds- and KIM that not all murderers would even begin to fit the molds you described, but they are, in fact, murderers, and some even serial killers.
You stated:
“I did read your post on it and don’t feel the need to compare all her statements as you have for 2 reasons. I only hold her court testimony as legit because she was sworn in for it and its what the jury who convicted them heard.
*I appreciate your reading it CG, thank you for the courtesy-
*But, why in the world would you only take her word on the stand- into consideration?
*People lie on the stand every day- and IF you would consider each of her statements you would have to concede she is lying-
*she didnt simply “remember” everything about that day- as she testified to at trial,- Her facts changed- you dont suddenly and conveniently remember details that you clearly said you dont know – or didnt see-
*Well golly gee, isnt it convenient that Narlenes recall only gets better with time???and Isnt it convenient, that her assurances are backed up with little details that make it hard to disbelieve she had ever given any other contradictory statements??? Like the added detail of knowing the time, because she and her whole family were wearing watches….. she kinda of reminds me of Cindy Anthony….
*No one in their right mind can actually believe Narlene saw the victims and CONVERSED with the victims right? Even though her testimony is that she did, and that she “remembered” so much more, the testimony is much more detailed then her earlier statements IRT the boys,- but again she clearly did not see them
* NO ONE believes she actually saw Jesse that night- and could have provided him with an alibi, right? heck even Narlene says she was mistaken about that sighting…
* But despite all these lies, or inconsistencies, or mis-remembrances or exaggerations- she claims she is certain about that day because its a day you dont forget- except she did forget, MANY TIMES OVER or she was JUST LYING
you wrote:
2nd reason, i know eyewitnesses are actually ‘notoriously faulty’ in their accounts and i can reasonably see the same trial outcomes without her testimony being introduced at all.
-* So much in this case is notoriously faulty isnt?
You wrote:
I find it difficult to debate your opinions because we see this so differently,
* LOL- I find it hard to debate people who see things in the same way I do- we tend to agree too much, go figure?
*Canandian Girl, dont worry, youre doing fine- and adding much to the conversation, as well as continuing to make me think, so thanks.
You wrote: You see a mystery where i don’t.
*I dont see a mystery- I see unanswered questions and unreliable witnesses and three little murdered boys and their families who never got justice or the answers they deserved, and I see reasonable doubt- mostly due to LE mishandling, and a trial based on rumors and a messed up motive ect.
* I can not say these 3 are innocent- but I do believe they should have been afforded new trials
You wrote: I accept the courts ruling where you don’t.
*Even the Alford plea?
There is nothing wrong in questioning the courts CG- thats how we make justice better-
Thank you very much for sharing your opinions with me, I really enjoy the conversation/debate.
Peace
AJMO
The End
Ragdoll, Dont worry i understand- I had to take a break from Cayles threads too, and Morgans threads- it all became to much to bear-
Grace, I just want to tell you that you are a very kind and smart lady. Thankyou for posting- again I learn so much from your posts- and i marvel at your ability to say exactly what I want to say, but you do it so succinctly- I find myself agreeing with you often-
Thanks for sticking around.
mjh- Hi I am sorry I feel Like I didnt give your well-thought out post enough attention, when I get an extra moment, I would like to comment on it further.
To everyone, thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinions with us.
AJMO
@Graceinthehills
you are correct, i was being facetious. I could have given you more circumstantial evidence eg’s but when it comes down to it, if you want to know then reading and making your own opinions is the only way to go. As you said you already have then i am sure u have been able to pick out others on your own and if didn’t see anything then i guess some info is just open to interpretation.
You have worked in the forensic field for over 20yrs? that is very admirable of you and sounds very interesting. since you are able can you please tell me how one makes an exact match of hair and fibers in 1994? i would love to see how my interpretation of the trace evidence was apparently misunderstood in your professional opinion. As i did my best to try to fully understand the findings (btw when trying to understand it i came across this little tidbit, canada used mtDNA for the 1st time in a BC case in late 1994, it was given with somewhat of a disclaimer too. the jury was told it was new and they could put as much or as little weight into it as they felt appropriate. i found that very interesting. I am sure you were aware of that already though, do you know when mtDNA came to be as acceptable as it is today? i find forensic science very interesting but admittedly i have no science back ground beyond chem, bio and physics 12, my undergrad studies are in SW)
@graceinthehills
I forgot one thing, the polygraph issue. My understanding is that the reason they are not accepted in a trail is because the the 10%ish margin of error. This obv is to great of a risk when someones life/reputation etc are on the line. However i do believe it is a great tool for investigators, it would appear this is how they see it as well, @least in Canada
*waving at ragdoll …. BC
*
Tammy, Huffington Post and Hollywood Reporter both reported that Damien is already here in New Zealand and has a bit part in Peter Jackson’s Hobbit film. If it’s true, I’d expect at some stage that he might be seen around Wellington (where I am) although he will likely get lost in the crowds of tourists here for the rugby world cup. I am with you on David Bain. Blink, I tried a couple of times previously to post a response to Tammy along these lines so if the earlier responses have now arrived, just post one of the three, thanks.
@CG in BC re 10/13 @ 237 am. I found your explanations very helpful. You take an appellate perspective: giving that level of deference to the actual triers of fact (in the trials), which imo the Alford prosecutor did not.
Mom3.0
Once again you have produced a very meaningful list with all the things that the LE people should have done, but didn’t.
How these guys could pass a detective exame is beyond me. They may have been somewhat compentent in investigating a robbery or burglery, but not a crime as they found.
As I read the list, I thought what if all their notebooks were printed with a list of things to be done in a homicide. These poor guys IMO were too shocked by what they saw to follow a mental list. A written list may have enabled them to get back on track.
Your first item in the list. The crime scence should not be trampled could be reworded to be Secure the Crime Scene and clear everyone out of the area.
The second would be to Not move anything.
Third would be to call the ME or CST’s as soon a the scene is secured.
You can see where I am going with the rest of the list.
Grace
You work in an area that is different from what I guessed. You mentioned that your husband was an attorney and I had you as doing something in the legal arena. Well, you really are in the legal arena.
I would think that no matter how many times you see a crime scene and those that are the victums, it is hard to control your emotions. We need people to do this work for the benifit of society.
You are a professional and the work requires all the skills that one can bring to bear to get the proper results. Any fun would be the satisifacton of a job well done.
Thank you for the work you do.
Thanks Cindy, Could be true, makes sense he would be with his new bestie, Peter J. There are few people that know about him down here so I hope he doesnt want to stay. I am in Auckland BTW.
@Mom 3.0
Due to a long day at school and work i will have to summarize my response as best as i can
Bojangles … was a vagrant and most likely suffering from some form of substance abuse which more then explains why he has never come forth etc, he represents nothing more then a red-herring to me.
By saying i looked back to substantiate evidence i was referring to evidence (trace and forensic mostly) which was presented at court. I didn’t include reading previous statements by all witnesses for 2 reasons. 1st it is my opinion that a trial is the ultimate pursuit of truth as it relates criminal convictions/acquittals and sentences. 2nd i did not wish to allow myself to be lead in a million different directions, my goal was to understand the trial which convicted them. I Believe i achieved that goal. The reason i choose to look further at JM’s confession (where i then discovered the multiple others) was because the defense claimed it was coerced and my view of them is still as i previously stated.
Re: polygraphs and eyewitness testimony
Please my post to Graceinthehills regarding polygraphs and i still contend eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
While i do not deny there are many aspects of peoples lives we are unaware of even with people we consider BFF’s. I also have to point out that as an adolescent i had many friends who were unruly. Most times i was able to keep a level head and walk away from the situation That being said i must also admit that at times i got caught up in the rush and went along with it. This mob mentality is very catching among teens and often drives them to do things they would never think of doing on their own.
DE was a self styled dabbler. This is evident in his art he pulled from all over (pagan, Wicca, satanic) and incorporated it together. Changing what they mean to his own definitions. The murders did in fact have ritualistic properties eg binding, torture and mutilation.
It’s not that i don’t think the justice system should be questioned, i just think there is proper time/place/way of reviewing that doesn’t undermined decisions made by juries. I know it’s a very important part of keeping it relevant. I only mean to say that decisions made by a jury in a court of law should be respected.
In regards to the Alford my thoughts are as follows. When it is offered and accepted i see it as (for lack of a better metaphor) both sides playing a proverbial game of chicken. When the plea is accepted it means both sides blinked and pulled out, therefore avoiding going head to head (ie a trial). I understand the prosecutions reasoning behind going with the plea as they already convicted them once and the plea has them admit to guilt in an open court, all while saving tax payer $$. What i fail to understand is, if the investigation, evidence and jury misconduct etc was so egregious then why take a plea that legally marks you as a child killer? Why not clear your name?
Not even DE getting the DP the first time should stop him from clearing his name if he is in fact innocent. If convicted the 2nd time all processes/appeals would start all over again, so his life was in no immediate danger. Personally i would rather go down swinging in a court room then admit (as an innocent person) to doing something so heinous even in an alford plea type situation. Furthermore I would not obstruct justice for the victims or myself by agreeing to it.
Re: The CA case, i watched the whole trial, even jury selection. Although in my view i believe what she did to her daughter was criminal and malicious, the fact remains there is no physical/forensic evidence to definitively prove it. The prosecution was unable to to prove manner of death. Knowing this i was fairly sure she would walk on the 1st degree murder charges. When the verdict was in i wasn’t surprised, only sad for the little girl who will never get justice. I watched the trial for educational purposes (i hope to move onto LS after my undergrad is complete) and learned a lot, the single most important lesson i learned was that the justice system needs to be respected. Just because i don’t agree with a particular out come doesn’t mean it wasn’t the correct legal outcome. The decision made in her case by the jury was a just decision based on the case presented to them. I don’t have to like it but i do have to respect it.
@Rose , thank you very much
Four of my most favorite people:
A Texas Grandfather says:
October 14, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Mom3.0 says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:29 am (parts 1-4) kudos to you!
GraceintheHills says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:21 pm
It no doubt goes without saying perhaps that WM LE had not ever seen, nor dealt with a crime so horrific as this.
What could possibly be worse than finding three wee boys so brutally slaughtered, hog tied, and sunk in the mud?
I tend to believe that despite the many years of experience of some, nothing could have prepared any one of them for what they found, so I find it somewhat difficult to fault them should they have stumbled all over one another or trampled the crime scene, or negated to collect all relative pieces of evidence.
Emotions, certainly, must have been running high and because before these law enforcement professionals were cops, they were mere men.
Just how much of a man’s humanity does a badge cover? Does it protect him from horror, dread, disbelief, the surreal sense that this can’t really be happening or the adrenaline that sends him into a near mindless rush of activity that would make near any man prone to making a mistake or two? Grace, you would know better than I do about such things.
These were not mere cops, but men from the community, some of whom may have personally known the boys, in particular Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. These were their boys, so horrifically murdered in their own community, the likes of which none had ever before experienced, and I find it difficult to hold their feet to the fire when it comes to what haphazard mistakes may have been made. All things considered, I believe they did the best they could with what they they were faced with, especially during those first few hours.
Can any one of us possibly imagine what our immediate reactions would be to stumbling upon the sunken body of a hog tied little boy in a ditch? Reaching down and pulling his bitty being out of the murky water? Can we imagine the horror, the shock, the disbelief that would influence our every movement from that moment on?
_______________
And last but certainly not least:
Ragdoll says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Ragdoll, you are a wonder of wonders! You have my utmost respect and absolute admiration. You care for so many though you’ve so much of your own. I heart you so.
RE:
mjh says:
October 12, 2011 at 7:39 am
Hi mjh, I went back and read your post. Very interesting observations
My comments follow yours and begin with –
I agree that Jessie just picked out a shirt that he remembered JB wearing before. Just like in his confession when he described Jason showing him the knife. I think Jason did show him a knife at one time, but not at the murder scene. Jessie also changed the description of clothing in his confessions, including his own clothing. I believe Jessie is taking things he remembered from the past and incorporating them into his story.
–YES! Mjh, i believe that this is exactly what JM is doing- I unfortunately can not remember the name of the gitl , right now, if you recall please tell me…but she was a friend of Jesse’s and gave an account in the newspaper that Jesse went to Stonhenge to party and they were all talking about DE and the devil-and all the rest and I believe this is when JM got all that scary info…
I also wanted to point out that it appears that Damien and Jason were not really friends with Jessie.
–I agree, that they certainly were not close enough to invite Jesse with them to “go get some girls” nor would they have waited around for him to show up sometime Wedneday to begin their trek
I also agree that DE and JB would have never included JM in any plot- they certainly would not have trusted him enough-
One of the young girls mentioned that Jessie had stolen something at the rink and tried to blame it on Damien, and because of this, Damien and Jason did not want to have anything to do with him. It also seems that people who knew Damien and Jason didn’t really know Jessie, and people who knew Jessie well didn’t really know Damien and Jason.
–I just read this statement by Jennifer Bearden- and you are right- she did say that, and I found her to be truthful in her testimony in the Rule 37 hearings
Thanks for bringing our attention to this statement
In one of Domini’s statements, she said that Jessie hadn’t been around for a long time (I think she said about a year), and then he just suddenly came by one day to get Damien to go with him to return movies or something. (I’m assuming this is when he was introducing Damien to Vicky, Aaron’s mom, who was trying to trick Damien into saying something incriminating on tape for police – which, he never did).
–Jesse is certainly the wildcard in this whole case—he just does not seem to fit, and for the life of me I cant understand why so many seem to put such stock in his tales
If you look at Damien’s interview with LE, and they ask him who he thinks would commit such a crime, Damien says that he thinks whoever did this would have acted alone, for fear that if someone else was there, they might tell.
If this is the way Damien thought, why would he commit a horrible murder like this with Jessie; somebody he did not like and did not trust?
–Agreed-
–Mjh- I am no where near finished reading at callahans, so if there are other statements ect that you can point out that give you pause, or that you find interesting for one reason or another- I would appreciate you pointing me towards them-
AJMO
TGF-
Hello
Thanks for giving your thoughts and pointers on my post- most appreciated.
I am in agreement with your thoughts.
I agree that LE in this case were shocked and trying their best, but they failed miserably all around, and that is sad, because they obviously cared, and wanted to do their best for the victims and their families- but what they ended up doing is ruining any chance of knowing without a doubt what happened to these boys, when it happened, where it happened, why it happened, and who did it.
AJMO
Hi ! My DH and I are on holiday in New England so I probably won’t be posting as much over the next few day. We are in lovely Boston for the next few days visiting my wonderful (step)son and his lovely fiancee (another beautiful Jersey Girl!!).
CG, perhaps we can just agree to respectfully disagree. I always feel I can learn something from all the posters here, and you are certainly included.
Keep posting, and I will keep reading! I will try to answer your questions later, I promise.
I just wanted to say thank you to Mom3.0 for sending her sympathy for the loss of my uncle. MOM3.0, what a sweetheart you are, and such an excellent thinker. His murder changed the dynamics of our entire family forever, and is one of the reasons I chose my particular career. He is forever in my heart.
Morgan, thank you, dear. You are so kind! ATG, we are practically neighbors, you know! Sending good wishes to Blink and all the Blinksters as well.
Thinking of these three little victims today, and their surviving family and friends. God be with them.
susanm, you know I love your posts and your humor, and I look forward to reading each, but I cant help but take issue with your post regarding Mr. Jackson.
susanm says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:56 am
Wondering if Mr. Jacksons body of work on Horror films is the reason he is an advocate for the WM3 (DE’s )innocence is alarming to me-
Are you suggesting that his tastes are in-line with someone that would sympathizes with a child murderer?
Seems to me his body of work proves the exact opposite-
Nightmare on Elm Street was afterall- about a child molester/murder that faces the vigilante justice of his victims families- it is not sympathetic to child murderers.
Frighteners, again was not sympathetic to young, deranged murderers
It is the story of stopping these killers once and for all.
I havent seen Dead Alive
Lovely Bones was DEFINITELY not sympathetic to child-murderers in any way
And Mr. Jacksons Halloween birthday- come on susanm, that is just silly- it may explain his like of the horror genre, but certainly does not point to Mr. Jackson advocating for killers.
I realize that you believe that DE and JB and JM are the killers of these boys, but Mr. Jackson clearly does not- he feels that they are innocent, and is willing to put his money where his mouth is.
You can certainly disagree with him, but to say he has his own “Freddie” is over the top IMO.
Lastly susanm- to insinuate that Mr. Jackson may feel guilty for the influence is cruel and asinine. All but one movie you mentioned, Dead Alive, is from after DE’s incarceration.
The comment over influence IMO, is clearly wrong, as I and many others, enjoy horror films, especially around Halloween, and we are not killers and we are staunch supporters of victims rights ect.
Does Duran Duran share in someof the responsibility over Diane Downes case? Does Stephen King bear some of the responsibility for Columbine or for DE? Of course not.
Being a music performer or horror writer, director, producer, reader or watcher does not make you evil-
Just needed to give a different perspective, thanks
AJMO
CanadianGirl says:
October 15, 2011 at 2:06 am
Hello cg- sorry about your rough day- thanks for your response.
Heres mine:
Again I apologize for the length.
@ you wrote ** my responses
–
@Bojangles … was a vagrant and most likely suffering from some form of substance abuse which more then explains why he has never come forth etc, he represents nothing more then a red-herring to me.
**Cg- you do not know if Bojangles was a vagrant or not- this was a poor area- and most poor people do not have the best of clothing. Secondly, as the JFK case showed us, not every vagrant is your typical hobo with the stick and the bandanna bag….
And It isonly your theory that Bojangles was a drug user/abuser and therefore it is most likely the reason he never came forward-
@By saying i looked back to substantiate evidence i was referring to evidence (trace and forensic mostly) which was presented at court.
**Well, CG, I did follow the CA case extensively, and I can tell you without a doubt, there was so much more than what was presented at trial– forensic and scientific evidence that never made it into trial- and in this case, the WM3 forensics ect is questionable at best
@I didn’t include reading previous statements by all witnesses for 2 reasons. 1st it is my opinion that a trial is the ultimate pursuit of truth as it relates criminal convictions/acquittals and sentences.
**So much is left out- if you want to know the truth you must delve deeper.
CG, a trial may be the pursuit of finding the truth and presenting it, but we both know that this simply does not always happen-
** There was no truth in the case that the defense ran with at the CA trial- and as I said before witnesses lie… Equating their testimony as truthful, simply because they swear on the Bible, is no different than accepting a kid,is telling the truth when they swear to stick a needle in their eye.
** It is a fact that both the prosecution and the defense in any case must choose what witnesses to present- so, in limiting themselves, they risk not showing the complete story-
In the CA case there were many witnesses that the prosecution did not call that may have shared some light on the truth- caseys grandma- caseys best friend Ryan P- any # of lees friends ect ect
**The same is true in this case.
@ 2nd i did not wish to allow myself to be lead in a million different directions,
**CG, I think You only wanted to be led in the direction you wished to go…..because if you looked further than the trials – you would have to concur that there are a million different plausible directions the docs/evidence may lead you…
@My goal was to understand the trial which convicted them. I Believe i achieved that goal.
**I am glad that you achieved what you set out to CG, but again the trials do not even begin to tell the story- and it wasnt just evidence presented that convicted them it was the questionable nature of that evidence- (forensics questionable) or (experts questionable) and (motive questionable)
**It was also the rumors and the witness testimony which is again HIGHLY questionable- but which the jurors believed- Narlene was seen as honest for example-it was also, the accused appearances, and their musical tastes and their clothing, and their behaviors-
**along with the presentation of the lake knife and of the mistaken testimony that the victims were raped, and that these murders were satanic in nature, or cult based or ritualistic WHICH THEY WERE NOT and ofcourse the confession of JM which should never have been considered.
@The reason i choose to look further at JM’s confession (where i then discovered the multiple others) was because the defense claimed it was coerced and my view of them is still as i previously stated.
** if this was the case, why dont you would feel compelled to look deeper into all aspects of this case- as the defense claimed so much more – and inorder to eliminate the claims as possible, one must investigate each claim thoroughly.
@Re: polygraphs and eyewitness testimony
Please my post to Graceinthehills regarding polygraphs and i still contend eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
**I did read it- CG, and you have your opinion and I have mine- Which one is supported by the justice system you respect so highly? LOL
**I agree with you about witnesses being unreliable- but we are talking more than just a simple case of getting a detail or two wrong- we are talking about witnesses LYING OUTRIGHT- Narlene and Vicki and others.
@While i do not deny there are many aspects of peoples lives we are unaware of even with people we consider BFF’s. I also have to point out that as an adolescent i had many friends who were unruly. Most times i was able to keep a level head and walk away from the situation That being said i must also admit that at times i got caught up in the rush and went along with it. This mob mentality is very catching among teens and often drives them to do things they would never think of doing on their own.
**Which is the case with most teens CG- but understanding this as human nature, does not point towards EVIDENCE of their committing THESE murders OR in their participation OR their covering it up and knowing about it….
@This mob mentality is very catching among teens and often drives them to do things they would never think of doing on their own.
**I agree with mob mentality- and not just where teens are concerned- but in adults as well. Such as those adults who are scared and determined to find a killer, and who may be blinded by biases or their own theories or their grief, who accept LE’s assurances on the strength of a case.
AJMO
Cont part 2
Cont part 2
me again
@ your thoughts ** mine
@DE was a self styled dabbler. This is evident in his art he pulled from all over (pagan, Wicca, satanic) and incorporated it together. Changing what they mean to his own definitions. The murders did in fact have ritualistic properties eg binding, torture and mutilation.
*UMMM please excuse me, but it is NOT evident DE’s art was “pulled” from pagan and wiccan and satanic art work or beliefs- There is much more evidence to support his art being a compilation of designs & ideas ect from cover art- you know, from his taste in music, same as the lyrics, same as the poetry- which the prosecution WRONGLY held up as evidence-
See here:
http://www.tvcoast.com/year_albums.php?year=1993
**And-He may have based his answers on his own thoughts and research -which have nothing to do with who committed these crimes or why and do not go toward showing his guilt.
@It’s not that i don’t think the justice system should be questioned, i just think there is proper time/place/way of reviewing that doesn’t undermined decisions made by juries.
**CG- If a jury is supplied with faulty evidence based upon rumors and lying witnesses, and contaminated crime scenes, and mistaken expert testimony, along with questionable forensic findings and bogus murder weapons along with idiotic motives and corrupt foremen ect ect- then their decisions were already doomed from the start- so then how can we not look toward questioning the verdict as just?
@ I know it’s a very important part of keeping it relevant.
**How can the verdict be relevant and just if it is not based on factual evidence ? IF the evidence presented is based on nothing but lies or mistakes, or pure speculation, how can it be relevant and true?
@ I only mean to say that decisions made by a jury in a court of law should be respected.
**Jurors are human same as any person doing a job- some jobs make us want to offer our respect more than others- like LE or teachers, or Dr. Or Firefighters or Presidents-
**Just because we respect the job and the person for doing the job, does not mean that we can not question their work- especially when that work is less than up to par- or based upon faulty info/intelligence ect
@In regards to the Alford my thoughts are as follows. When it is offered and accepted i see it as (for lack of a better metaphor) both sides playing a proverbial game of chicken. When the plea is accepted it means both sides blinked and pulled out, therefore avoiding going head to head (ie a trial).
**Perhaps it is likely that both sides realized that mistakes were made, and could not be righted- given the # of years gone by- as well as missing evidence or dead witnesses ect ect ect
@I understand the prosecutions reasoning behind going with the plea as they already convicted them once and the plea has them admit to guilt in an open court, all while saving tax payer $$.
**THE 3 DID NOT admit guilt- They PROFESSED their INNOCENCE while agreeing to the fact that the State had enough info/evidence info to convict them of the crime-
**Well duh – the state had already convicted them- so obviously there was enough …- but that does NOT mean that the jury or the prosecution had it right- it only means that is the way the jury INTERPRETED the case-
@ What i fail to understand is, if the investigation, evidence and jury misconduct etc was so egregious then why take a plea that legally marks you as a child killer? Why not clear your name?
**IIRC,They are still trying to clear their names, they chose to agree to a plea so they could go home- and again, there was no guarantee that a different jury wouldnt see the case the same way the 1st did- and that fact has little to nothing to do with whether or not the 3 were guilty.
@Not even DE getting the DP the first time should stop him from clearing his name if he is in fact innocent. If convicted the 2nd time all processes/appeals would start all over again, so his life was in no immediate danger.
**True, CG- but all that time would be spent in prison behind bars-for possibly YEARS upon years-
@Personally i would rather go down swinging in a court room then admit (as an innocent person) to doing something so heinous even in an alford plea type situation.
**CG, you can not say what you would do, or how you would handle the situation, when innocent,you can say you would hope that you would to A B or C but you dont know.
@Furthermore I would not obstruct justice for the victims or myself by agreeing to it.
**Obstruct justice? Seems to me, sitting in jail fighting was not obstructing justice- nor was accepting the Alford Plea- IF they are innocent, JUSTICE WAS NEVER SERVED
AJMO
Cont part 3
part 3 The end
@ you ** me
@Re: The CA case, i watched the whole trial, even jury selection.
**Respectfully CG- that does not even beginn to scratch the survice of the CA case-
@Although in my view i believe what she did to her daughter was criminal and malicious,
**What she did?, Was criminal and maliscious? THATS ALL???!
@the fact remains there is no physical/forensic evidence to definitively prove it.
**CG, that is only your opinion, and it is not based on the facts.
@The prosecution was unable to to prove manner of death.
**I agree they made some big mistakes, but had the jury followed the instructions and the letter of the law- they and you, would have realized that this does not go towards proving the prosecutions case,
**See the thing about a trial is, that the lawyers, on both sides must widdle down their case to the bare minimum- as to not turn off the jurors- sad but true- and they mosty also choose what case to present- the prosecution decided to go with a murder that was done with chloroform BIG mistake IMO-
**The defense used subterfuge and LIES and drama based on BS to blind the jurors from the truth- and Caylees family helped them by bolstering the lies and NOT by telling the truth.
@Knowing this i was fairly sure she would walk on the 1st degree murder charges. When the verdict was in i wasn’t surprised, only sad for the little girl who will never get justice.
**CG, Im sorry, but it seems to me, that you were just as blinded as the jury was, and that you also did not take the time to look at the evidence or ask questions or read the 20+ pages of juror instructions.
**You watched the trial, but you did not read the documents or research on your own- I DID- and I am SURE BLINK will tell you, I know that Casey and her defense team lied- she was responsible
@I watched the trial for educational purposes (i hope to move onto LS after my undergrad is complete) and learned a lot, the single most important lesson i learned was that the justice system needs to be respected.
**CG- congrats, CG
**The most important thing you learned from that trial is that the justice system must be respected? Seriously?
** Casey and her defense made a mockery out of the justice system at every turn- and one would hope that the most important lesson learned would be to support Caylees law-
@Just because i don’t agree with a particular out come doesn’t mean it wasn’t the correct legal outcome.
**As I stated, if the jury had read the instructions, they would have known that each burden set forth was proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt
@The decision made in her case by the jury was a just decision based on the case presented to them.
I don’t have to like it but i do have to respect it.
**That is COMPLETELY UNTRUE- they did not base their verdict on the case/evidence presented to them – they based it on the opening statements, and on who waved at them each day- and they couldnt decide who Caylee was with at the time- George or Casey based on the opening statements -which was NOT LEGALLY right-
**You have to respect it? It was legally just? You are completely misinformed on the case and the evidence and the jury ect-
**Those who do not question can not hope to understand or learn- Respect is earned -not given away blindly.
**CG- I must say I hope you go back and educate yourself on little Caylees case- and I hope you will take it upon yourself to research deeper- so as never to fall into the trap of being “duped” again whether by a dishonest defense, or an overzealous prosecution, and certainly not by media/propaganda ect-
Again I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and opinions with me,CG, and I also appreciate the debate- I hope it will help us all figure some things out
AJMO
Grace
Please have a good time in Boston with your family. It should be beautiful there with the follage turning to its fall colors.
Be careful of the protesters if you have to go in that area.
Yes, we could be called neighbors. In Texas a neighbor is one that lives less than a hundred miles away. LOL
For those who may not know, Grace and I are residents in the Texas “Hill Country” region. It is an area about 250 miles long and 60 to 70 miles wide. It has an entry in the Wikipedia.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was not intending to cast aspersions on Peter Jackson. I just mentioned the Damien visit to NZ as an aside to a couple of questions I posed. The reference to Texas above reminds me how gutted I was to learn that the Friday Night Lights series has finished. Love that show.
I loved it as well, if your a Connie Britton fan, and you don’t ever want to sleep again without lights on, I recommend American Horror Story. OH MUH GAWD.
As an aside, I do no think Damien is in NZ, I believe he is intending to be in New Orleans.
B
@Mom3.0
**THE 3 DID NOT admit guilt- They PROFESSED their INNOCENCE while agreeing to the fact that the State had enough info/evidence info to convict them of the crime-
^^ emphasis on “agreeing to the fact that the State had enough info/evidence info to convict them of the crime … with the following added, an alford plea means they plead GUILTY !! professing your innocence outside of court room after you plead guilty is what almost all criminals do. It means nothing
That pretty much wraps up the WM3 for me
As for CA, of course she did it but how is anyone’s guess. The jury decided it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Respect it or not it IS the verdict.
Other then that all i can say is i guess you should be the one explaining the instructions to to juries, checking their verdicts are correct when they have reached a decision (or do away with them altogether?), overseeing investigations, screening witnesses, deciding how cases should be prosecuted and deciding what defenses defendants are allowed to have. Do you think you could also handle the judgements and sentences? or should we leave that part up to judges still? … I am joking, this is too much work, you should probably just write a manual.
You must forgive me for my tongue and cheek
You’re criticism of every level of the justice system is very apparent, i hope you’re active in legislature otherwise YOU will see many more investigations, trials and verdicts you disagree with.
Till next time Mom3.0
Lol, she will get a kick out of your post, as smart as she is, she also has a great sense of humor and I would only have added, ” Mom 3.0.. We meet again, My NEMESIS..”
On a serious note, I am about ready to lobby to abolish the Alford plea, it is a freaking cop out.
B
ATG, Grace, any where near Kingsland? We spent 6 years in Kingsland. My parents will be retiring there once their property here sells. What beautiful country!
Mom3, I hope you don’t mind but I will be borrowing your @ and **. What a novel idea! Thank you! Don’t worry. I won’t be posting any long comment any time soon. I’m still working on salt and pepper colored hair (portrait) as well as trying to make my way through all of the emails that have been released regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement. What do you make of all of that ATG?
Grace, have a safe and enjoyable trip!
Morgan says:
October 16, 2011 at 6:30 am
Morgan, we live in the Hill Country, at least for now. We are having a great time in Boston, but are not used to the cool weather so early in the season. LOL!
CanadianGirl, juries are so interesting. You can never tell which way they will vote by looking at their faces. I’ve always thought many of them would make great poker players.
Btw, you are correct about eye witness testimony. It can be quite unreliable.
mom3.0 ,you say:Lovely Bones was DEFINITELY not sympathetic to child-murderers in any way—–http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100113/REVIEWS/100119992
Canadian Girl,
Gee I guess we are done debating- LOL
CG- We are here discussing a case that has already been decided- so all we have left is the figuring out if we agree or disagree with it- So the only way to do that JUSTLY is to research and discuss every aspect of the case-
Implying I disrespect or criticize every aspect of the justice system iS COMPLETELY wrong.
I value my justice system, all aspects of it- but I am not willing to stick my head in the sand and “respect” instances of abuse ect or miscarriages of justice. I will speak out when I feel I must.
Those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
There is a big difference between CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and just belly-aching-
You can sit back and have your information spoon fed to you, and then complain about being duped but I will NOT.
I am not the only one that feels that there are major flaws in the justice system. The best defenses are ALWAYS bought and THAT is wrong-
No matter the size of a persons wallet, or the appetite of the media ect- each and every person should receive the BEST defense- with the best experts ect.
And perhaps there DOES need to be a class for jury service if time and time again juries come out and say- they didnt understand the laws ect.
The fact of the matter is WHEN juries Follow the letter of the LAW then they HAVE done their duty -when they disregard those instructions- then yes, they have failed in their duties.
A verdict can not be just if the evidence set before the jury is garbage.
Canadian Girl, it seems you would only disregard a manual (as they tend to be lengthy and boring)- and would instead opt for the cliff notes, then when and IF you discover there is more to the “story”- youll inevitably cry DUPED!
CA case- again, it was never the prosecutions burden to prove how she did it- only that she did…
As for the Alford Plea- most innocent people put in prison would agree to anything to be free.
It is you who had better brace for further disappointments, CG-
AS you seem only to research until you can feel your perspective is just….and you only “respect” the law when you are in agreement with it, werent you the one that felt/hoped that double jeopardy rules shouldnt apply to this case….. seems like you question certain aspects of the justice system as well- and I would never claim that was disrespectful.
Blink, I do have a great sense of humor- but when someone uses “humor” to spew meanness- then it is not funny, its just wrong, and it matters not how many
they include.
AJMO
Mom 3.0, I read that entirely differently than you apparently, so I apologize for that, I took it as a facetious sort of mea culpa about non-agreement. I read it like a marvel comic strip amongst friends, I would never sponsor anyone being mean or rude, as you know. Again , my appollies.
I am jamming on deadline for Morgan’s new piece so my head was only partially out of my what what.
B
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100113/REVIEWS/100119992
Grace you are welcome. Thank you for the compliment. I hope you have the best vacation- PLEASE hurry back-
Morgan, keep up the good work- thanks for the encouragement.
Kathy- if you are out there reading…I hope you and your mother are well.
Cindy Blair, re Peter Jackson- I hope I didnt scare you or susanm for that matter, you all have a right to your own opinions ect- I just wanted to make sure everyone had a different perspective.
TGF- thanks for explaining the region ect.
AJMO
http://io9.com/5407040/lovely-bones-audiences-demand-more-pain-and-suffering i love(not) the spin on this . the point is that the audience want the child murderer to suffer and be punished ,the filmmaker was remiss on this note and had to reshoot and still didnt achieve the affect that many needed as a conclusion.
blink ,did the posts with qoutes make it to you ?
Blink, thank you very much for the apology- I appreciate it- and I am eagerly awaiting your piece on Dear Morgan.
susanm- thanks for those reviews- I dont blame the audience for wanting that pig to suffer more- but that wasnt the point of the story—
Seems to me that Roger ebert missed the whole point of the movie- it was told from the perspective of the murdered girl who was taken from her life just as she was blossoming as a teen- She had just met the boy of her dreams and was rushing home to bask in the beauty of young love.
So, ofcourse, little Susy would look back on her life with a wishful heart- full of hope and dreams. She was young- she loved her family, but she was caught up in love- Her head and heart, was in the clouds both in life and in death- her character whether dead or alive kept true to her “spirit”
It was not sympathetic to the killer, it was sympathetic to a young girl whose life was cut short by a sicko- She in death, was trying to come to grips with the things she would never have, and at the same time learning to accept she was dead- but she was not hopeless, as Heaven awaited her.
It was also the story of the family left behind, and there slow acceptance of the horror of Susy’s disappearance and of her death- and also the horror of never finding her, and never getting justice.
It is a story that seems to give some comfort to grieving families that are surviving the same tragedies- like Morgans Momma Gil Harrington, it seems to give them hope that no matter what the bad person/s that took their children from them, will receive justice in one form or another- and most certainly from above. It helps them to see that nomatter the circumstances of their loved one disappearance/murder/case ect that Susy was okay and watching over her family…
So clearly Peter Jackson is not sympathetic to child killers neither is Roger Ebert, nor is Alice Sebold, nor is Gil Harrington nor the audiences as a whole-
AJMO
15 years aftre the murders, Jason Baldwin finally gave his alibi for the day of the murders. It’s in this link along with some other interesting stuff regarding Jason’s version of events surrounding the trials.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_baldwin.html
But even in this alibi that he had 15 years to construct, Jason still places himself alone shortly before the murders walking less than one mile from the crime scene. By his own account no one saw him until he got home.
His mother’s boyfriend Dink, whom Jason refers to in this statement, gave the police a statement that say Jason didn’t get home until after dark, and maybe as late as 9:00-9:30pm.
This statement made 15 years aftre the crimes does not jive with accounts Jason, Damien and others gave police withing days and weeks of the murders.
So, do you think Jason got home at 7pm or 9pm?
Morgan
I’ll try this again. Having trouble staying connected to the site.
I live about 30 miles from Kingsland. I cannot tell you where Grace is located. My guess is somewhere close to San Antonio.
I don’t know how long ago you lived in Kingsland. Yes, it is beautiful country. A good place for retirement.
Our community band plays at the Kingsland Community Center two or three times each year for the Lions Club fund raiser. If you have ever attended one of these events, you have seen me play or conduct.
Morgan
I didn’t answer your question about the OWB in NY. Since this is not a political site I will point you to the Scared Monkeys site where you will find my opinion.
Mom3.0
I have to agree with your take on our criminal justice system and the jurors who are selected for cases. The defense and prosecution always play a game with the jury selection process. Each wants to have people on the jury that may lean toward their point of view. Some are selected for juries that IMO should never be allowed to serve. They just are not capable of making decisions based on the evidence presented.
My oldest daughter worked for the Texas agency that certified LE in the state. She was instrumental in finding funds and trainers to help bring the level of training for many of the smaller agencies. The stories she has of some of these agencies is not pretty. Their training was a long way from being sufficient.
This is exactly what happened in WM, Arkansas. The people in LE wanted to do the right thing, but they lacked the necessary skills to make it happen.
The case as presented to the jury was IMO a beginners exercise. They did the best they could, but their best was simply not good enough. It left very large holes that could not be closed.
I too read CG as a facetious mea culpa about nonagreement & thought it a charming understatement to put the conversation to rest. Didn’t see it as personal at all. Shake hands & make up, 3.0?
@ Mom 3.0
“Blink, I do have a great sense of humor- but when someone uses “humor” to spew meanness- then it is not funny, its just wrong, and it matters not how many
they include.”
I am very sorry you seen it as meanness
my only intent was to bring a light and funny end to our circular conversation. I sometimes forget that context get’s lost in text.
“We are here discussing a case that has already been decided- so all we have left is the figuring out if we agree or disagree with it- So the only way to do that JUSTLY is to research and discuss every aspect of the case- ”
I agree that this is body of our conversations. I also understand that you disagree with the verdict, where i did not. I feel to understand a legal decision you must look at the trial, you feel you must look at all aspects of the investigation that led up to the trial. Neither are wrong, they are just different.
“Implying I disrespect or criticize every aspect of the justice system iS COMPLETELY wrong.”
As i said, a lot can get lost in translation when using text. You came across very critical of it to me and i do apologize if i misunderstood you.
“I value my justice system, all aspects of it- but I am not willing to stick my head in the sand and “respect” instances of abuse ect or miscarriages of justice. I will speak out when I feel I must.”
As you should, this is the core reason i suggested being active in legislature. I only wish you to understand that what you may see as miscarriage of justice or abuse etc may not be viewed this way by others including those in the justice system on a professional level.
“You can sit back and have your information spoon fed to you, and then complain about being duped but I will NOT.”
Spoon fed? because i watched a documentary about a trial that made me think 3 people were innocent. Then decided to look at the trial and figure out why it happened. With the end result being that i thought the documentary was pure propaganda made by 2 Dbags who choose to exploit ALL involved for their own personal financial gain. I guess even our definitions of spoon fed differ lol
“I am not the only one that feels that there are major flaws in the justice system. The best defenses are ALWAYS bought and THAT is wrong-
No matter the size of a persons wallet, or the appetite of the media ect- each and every person should receive the BEST defense- with the best experts ect.”
I agree, not all defendants are on a level playing field and i also recognize the justice systems substantial efforts to keep it in balance. Things like paying for defense costs for specialists, investigative costs etc when a defendant is indigent. I also see the reality of the situation which is that things cost money. Tax payers cannot afford to pay for all indigent defendants defenses to the same level a single person with substantial savings who is only responsible for themselves can. This is not a justice system flaw, this is a class flaw for which the justice system did not cause but does try it’s best to make up for.
“And perhaps there DOES need to be a class for jury service if time and time again juries come out and say- they didnt understand the laws ect.
The fact of the matter is WHEN juries Follow the letter of the LAW then they HAVE done their duty -when they disregard those instructions- then yes, they have failed in their duties.”
Again i put forth a legislative path, a passionate individual is able to affect a lot of change with dedication. I only wish to add that jury instructions are in as lay of terms as possible and the judge is available to answer questions and clarify any confusion.
“A verdict can not be just if the evidence set before the jury is garbage.”
This is your personal opinion …. I will add that a lawyer with their extensive education is in a better position to decide what is garbage evidence and what is not, then you or i are.
“Canadian Girl, it seems you would only disregard a manual (as they tend to be lengthy and boring)- and would instead opt for the cliff notes, then when and IF you discover there is more to the “story”- youll inevitably cry DUPED!”
I fully see your intent here and i find it to be in poor taste especially in light of the fact you have totally missed the mark on a correct comparison. You are suggesting i took the easy way out and only read the ‘cliff’ notes then cried foul/duped because they didn’t give me all the facts.
The reality is (as i have stated many times now to you but your narrow minded vision of me for some reason will not allow you to hear it) i watched a documentary which made 3 people appear to be wrongfully convicted. Now IF i had stopped there then the intended insult and comparison in your statement would be on the mark. BUT i didn’t stop there, i went on to look at the ACTUAL FACTS of their convictions via their trials. Which is the ONLY place that needs to be looked to understand the convictions since anything not presented at the trials is irrelevant to the trials outcomes. I can not break it down any further then that for you. I care not if you see that as a lazy etc approach as you insinuated, it was an efficient approach.
I don’t have the time to read irrelevant information when i am seeking specific information. As a full-time student in a very challenging bachelor’s degree program (not to mention attending the top university in my province which is 2nd over all in my country and earning and maintaining a 4.0 GPA) who is also employed full-time in a senior position with strict deadlines and copious responsibility, i must make efficient use as of time. Specifically when it comes to the very small amount of free time i am left with. Lazy is not in my fiber.
I will agree though that if you wrote the manual in the same circular and drawn out style you use here then YES i most definitely would look for the ‘cliff’ notes or comfy chair to snooze in.
“It is you who had better brace for further disappointments, CG-
AS you seem only to research until you can feel your perspective is just….and you only “respect” the law when you are in agreement with it, werent you the one that felt/hoped that double jeopardy rules shouldnt apply to this case….. seems like you question certain aspects of the justice system as well- and I would never claim that was disrespectful.”
This is totally in direct conflict with my statements and actions. I didn’t research till my perspective was justified since my perspective before reading the trials was that they were innocent.
I respect the law in all aspects, even verdicts i do not agree with i still respect. I have said this a few times now. Once again you have chosen to have a narrow vision of me and transfer it onto something i said, which caused you to not understand it. My question about double jeopardy was about if it would be applied to the original more serious charges or the alford plea lesser charges. This is/was a question of curiosity and a pondering of ‘If’s', NOT a hypocritical stance as you have insinuated.
With all that being said i leave you with the reminder that my previous post had no cruel intent nor does this one. I was only trying to lighten the conversation and bring it to a humorous end. I suspect our air is cleared now and we can move past it.
Till next time Mom 3.0 TC
*************** BLINK BLINK BLINK *************
Things are done slightly different in Canada so i am extremely interested in the approach and process, please keep us posted and updated on the steps you are taking
Will do CG, I hope that since you and Mom 3.0 have both waxed the deck ( don’t mind me, an ole family reference of My Mom if my sisters and I were arguing) the air is cleared for landing.
I had a boss who used to make me practice my presentations for him in advance if he was attending a client meeting and if I would run on, or spend too much time on something minute in his opinion, he used to cup his hands around is mouth and fake like an air traffic control impression.. ” Cessna 1298 is cleared for landing, commence landing gear..”
He was an ahole but I learned more from him than any other VP, and I worked to impress him, so at least he had that going for him, lol
B
44. Rose says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:44 pm
I too read CG as a facetious mea culpa about nonagreement & thought it a charming understatement to put the conversation to rest. Didn’t see it as personal at all. Shake hands & make up, 3.0?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I read it the same way Mom3.0 did. I thought the tone was inappropriately sarcastic and personal. Hopefully, we can all move past this.
A Texas Grandfather says:
October 16, 2011 at 9:14 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are about an hour outside of San Antonio. Sometimes I really miss life in the city.
I agree with your opinion about the LE in Arkansas. I think they wanted to do the right thing, but somehow got blinded by the idea of satanic cult sacrifice. From that point forward, the investigation and trial became even bigger in the media. That being said, no investigation is perfect, IMO.
Well, ironically, I am off to Salem today to tour a witch museum.
Hello everyone-
Rose, thank you for weighing in, and trying to smooth things over-
I do agree with you that CG was done with the conversation and may have been trying to figure a way out of the debate- but I did not find it charming… although I do agree there are two different ways her comments could have been taken.
I am more than willing to shake hands and move on Rose, although it is a shame, as I think we were all benefiting from the debate, but the thing is- CG hasnt offered her hand…
Grace, thank you for speaking up. I would very much like to move on from this,as I think we were all making great strides in our discussions and in evaluating the case.
My feelings were hurt but then the wise and kind Blink acknowledged my feelings and made it all better- so all is right in the world.
Regardless of CG’s possible attempt at humor or my possible misinterpretation of meanness.
Its all good-
AJMO
She has friend, just had a bunch of long posts that I have learned not to read on my droid so I do not miss anything, all up shortly.
B
AJMONoLongerOnTheFence,
thank you for bringing over that link- I have recently started reviewing the rule 37 hearings- so I cant really give an informed opinion yet- although I will say your question is great-
if 15 years had gone by, and if the 30 something Jason was going to lie- wouldnt he and his lawyers have come up with something better? IDK just a thought-
I look forward to more of your thoughts and to more links as well.
TGF- thank you for voicing your agreement, and I agree with your points too. I found the information you shared regarding your sister very informative, and disappointing.
We have to be able to better fund/educate our police forces, regardless of the size of the town, horrible crimes do happen everywhere-
TGF you are right, There are huge holes in this case, which can not be filled , and that is one of the biggest reasons I am unable to get off the fence- the fact is these 3 could have done it- and the fact is they also could be innocent.
I am waiting for Blinks 3 and Iam also still pouring through Callahans…
Grace- I agree that LE were doing there best, And I do think they were blinded by the “darkness” and unfortunately took the word of imbeciles who attributed that darkness asbeing Satanic, or cult driven..
PS grace, OOOOOO you better not go there, especially so close to Halloween LOL- dont you realize how it could look! Witches? are you insane child? Enjoy the day Grace
AJMO
Mom3.0 says:
October 15, 2011 at 11:40 am
Hi Mom3.0…. Thank you for responding to my earlier comments. I don’t know the name of the girl you are referring to regarding Jessie and the scary stuff/devil worshipping, but I do agree with you. These kids were obviously talking about this kind of stuff, and LE were fishing for exactly this type of information. This is what they were pushing for, and that’s why Jessie added it to his story. He was telling them what they wanted to hear, IMO.
Unfortunately, I haven’t had much time to research lately. I do have a few things I have been looking at, and a few questions/comments, but they will have to wait until I have more time.
hi ATG…
Sorry I am responding so late to your comments on the phone records. I believe you were correct in that the phone company was unable to get that data at that time.
I have since read on Callahan about the police receiving harrassing phone calls regarding this case, and the phone company was unable to tell them who the calls were coming from. There is a recording of a phone call made to LE, which is a man saying that he killed the 3 boys, and what were they going to do about it. I’m not sure if it was this same person making all of the calls, or if it was different people, but they were apparently unable to find out where the calls were coming from.
mom3.0 ,when i said ,i cant care anymore,i mean that i’d rather not focus on the set free convicted,i really rather listen to sinead oconnor sing “these three babies”,and plan to plant three oak trees .i believe art can help heal,and i was being nice to pj,insinuating that he has noble reasons for taking an interest in damien,to help him heal,and i hope i am right. i posted a mush of various quotes from all over the internet,regarding various films by pj to back up my comment,but got lost. i can tell you that, my own personal expirience shuffling out of the theatre after viewing “Heavenly Creatures” was uneasiness ,the first remark i had was that the message was wrong,it was not alright to kill the mother ,i said “i dont like julia,she is a monster (kate winslet was sublime,and julia was amazingly talented),and this film is saying to me that it was alright for them to kill the mother.and it wasnt ,it isnt alright” here is an excerpt from an interview: If this sounds like a disclaimer, it may be because early reviews of the film have taken Jackson to task for playing down the horror and trauma of the book, expunging any hint of Susie’s rape.
He says he didn’t want to make a sentimental tear-jerker, but at the same time he wanted to secure a PG-13 rating. ‘It’s a film about how love never really dies and how time heals,’ Jackson says.
‘It’s not a murder film and I wanted kids to be able to go and see it. Film is such a powerful medium. It’s like a weapon and I think you have a duty to self-censor.
‘There are some people who might enjoy watching a 14-year-old girl getting killed, a small minority maybe, but how could you live with yourself in providing that titillation? I wouldn’t want the movie defined by that.’
At this point, people familiar with Jackson’s oeuvre may be finding their eyebrows disappearing into their hairline.
is this the same director who once declared: ‘I didn’t want to make movies, I wanted to make monsters’? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/7018208/Peter-Jackson-interview.html
artist can make mistakes(bad art), grow ,develope, have children,mature,and their art with them,or not ,i am not directing this arc at pj ,just any artist in general. film is a powerful medium,and i like how leonard cohen says he is a culturalist.