The West Memphis Three.... Will Be Freed

[ChicksterJo]

mom'sfolly :

I read it in the paper today. I'll see if I can find a link.

from this article: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/19/nation/la-na-west-memphis-3-20110820

Attorneys for Echols, in a February filing, said that DNA testing of a hair on a cord used to bind one of the victims was consistent with the DNA of Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of victim Steven Branch.

Hobbs has denied seeing the three victims on the day of their disappearance, but Echols' attorneys said they had found three eyewitnesses who said Hobbs was "the last adult seen with the victims" on the night they disappeared.

I watched 'Paradise Lost' last night and I remember the defense attorney presenting the hunting knife that the stepfather gave the filmmakers (who turned it in). They found a little bit of blood within the part where the blade folds back, and the blood type matched both Branch's and his stepfather's blood type (apparently they had the same blood type). So that hair on the cord seems to add to the case against Hobbs. I saw many things wrong done during the trial, especially using religion as the main 'motivator' and not having any other credible evidence to link the boys except for the 'witnesses' (who also called Damien 'weird' just because he wore black). Well, that's all I have to say about it. I'm glad they are free but that is just a shame they had to plead guilty to do so.​

 

[KristyHall]

This is one of the reasons why prisoners should be treated humanely. Even if the most hardened criminal can handle abuse what about the many innocent people sent to jail? (I don't think any prisoners should be abused though.)

 

[Ferrret]

Quote:
Look at the Casey Anthony Trial, or OJ Simpsons trial. Juries are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, it all depends on what information they are given and with what spin that information has. Plenty of people get away with their crimes, petty or serious, based on crap factors. Pretty people are less likely to be jailed, people with money can hire the best lawyers and even bribe officials, improper collection of evidence can severely impact a trial if the evidence that proves guilt cannot be shown in court.

 

[SarahFair]

I just watched a thing on Amanda Knox.. with such shoddy facts and evidence id hate to be a jurer

 

[Mattemma]

Sad not only for them,but the fact that the killer(s) of those boys is free to do it again. If these boys did do the crime I prayer they won't kill again.

 

[Spookwriter]

I have no ideal as to the guilt or innocence of these three men,
other than what I've seen online. In a murder trial, it isn't our
personal opinion that should count.

Judge on the facts, as they are presented, according to the law.

Sometimes the law can be wrong. But that does not make it less
the law. Sometimes even, the way we do things can change, new
discoverys in science lets us understand the evidence in a different
way.

But this is no longer 1994.

Based only on what I've read online, I have to assume there was a
trial. A fair trial, based on the evidence of the time. How dna is looked
at now should have no bearing on how dna was looked at in 1994 as
far as granting a new trial, or to overrule a conviction.

Shall we now begin to retry every case?

And what of the twelve jurors who found these men guilty? Do we now
back up and tell them that jurys really don't matter? I've never been a
juror in a murder case, but if I ever am I hope I do my best to find justice.
Based on the evidence, as it is presented, and as I understand it.

To repeat myself, I have no knowledge either way of guilt or innocence.

But once you are tried and convicted, I feel the verdict needs to stand.
One appeal perhaps. After that, the verdict needs to stand.

Yes, there are no doubt innocent people in prison today. That is sad. But
it is also true that even those innocent people had a trial.

Due process.

The law doesn't work right every time. But it's the only law we've got, until
we change it and make another law.

Now, as an individual I'm in favor of the death penalty. Probably not the majority
vote here, judging by the comments. I would hope that no innocent person is
ever found guilty. But that final decision needs to be in the hand of the those
actually on the jury.

Inmates sentenced to a death row where no one is excuted, or given a life
sentence that results in many years of inprisonment become an expense on the
innocent. I wonder the annual cost per prisoner on the taxpayer?

No, I'm not saying or implying that we as nation excute all prisoners. But all prisoners
aren't serving life or setting on death row.

Even as this one single case is set aside, not on guilt or innocence, but on how the
evidence was presented eighteen years ago. Shall we, in another eighteen years, retry
the cases of today?

Spook


*I've got a friend in prison. Soon be twenty years, and he's doing life. There was a time
in my life when we were as close as brothers. He was a nice guy, but one night he broke
the law. He killed a sheriff. Shot him. He was tried and found guilty.

He's my friend. But he doesn't deserve life. I'd send him to his death. I'd feel bad. But I
would still do it.

The law needs to stand for something.

 

[cupman]

Quote:
I couldn't disagree more. I mean come on, if DNA can clear someone you don't think it should because shoddy work in 1994 found them guilty?

 

[redhen]

Death row is a joke anyways... they sit on "death row" for 50 flippin years and die of old age...

We need to speed up the process like Texas..

 

[RandyChickens]

Quote:
Do you know the definition of pretentious? I'm sure you'll say you do in 10 paragraphs, but you clearly don't understand it.

 

[redhen]

Quote:
Do you know the definition of pretentious? I'm sure you'll say you do in 10 paragraphs, but you clearly don't understand it.

Heeeeey there buddy. No need to be so rude to our friend Spook there... You can disagree and be respectful also.