You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- emcitymisfit
- Rep: 28
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
And if the death penalty deterred crime, Texas would be the safest place in the world. I live here, and parts of Houston are called "Little Somalia" for a reason.
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
Nope. Wrong
As it exists, yes. In theory, not a chance. Humanity has cost us FAR too much money. (try THAT ON for an American capitalist statement, YEAH)
The Death Penalty as it exists is far too pricey. And it's only that pricey because of either A) ethics, or B) image.
A bullet in the brain is DIRT CHEAP. That's how it should been from day one. Ironically, it's also the most humane and quickest of them all. I don't know why we don't do it more. If okay for an American soldier to bleed to death on the field of battle, but a prisoner deserves lethal injection.
The appeals process can be blamed for the majority of the price too. There's no way around that in our Democracy, death penalty or not.
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
killingvector wrote:James Lofton wrote:Wow. You're in for an eye opening story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3
I HIGHLY recommend the documentary called Paradise Lost. One of the best documentaries I've ever watched. It might still be on youtube. If not, rent/download it ASAP.
And if you read the court transcripts you will realize why the documentary presented a slanted view of the entire case.
Jesse Misskelly has been represented as a 'retard' by his own defense team and the Echols/Baldwin attorneys. However, on the stage, the defense's own expert admitted that Misskelly was not retarded and was aware of the difference between right and wrong.
This is important because the crux of the case comes down to Misskelly's confessions (plural) which, in the determination of actual guilt or innocence, condemns Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelly.
The first confession was delivered without any warning after Misskelly made it clear he wanted to clear his conscience. Although he made mistakes as to the timing of the crime, which were corrected in a second tape recorded interview, he knew aspects of the crime that only the police knew, i.e. that the Byers boy was the only victim who had his genitals mutilated, that two of the boys were sodomized, that black 'rope' (in reality shoestrings) was used to hogtie the victims, and that two of the boys were drowned while the other was killed in a different manner.
Misskelly went on to confess AFTER his conviction while being transported to the county jail. He told the escorting officers that the appeals process was not going to save him because he was involved in the killings. The officers informed the DA and Jesse's lawyer who tried vehemently to stop Jesse from making another statement to the prosecution. Remember this was post conviction and there was nothing Jesse could gain from making such a statement. Stidham, jesse's lawyer, was exasperated and had to listen to jesse lay out the act of murder to the DA. He told the authorities he had held one of the boys and even ran down one after he tried to escape. To corroborate this story, Jesse told the DA that he threw an empty Evan Williams whiskey bottle under the highway underpass in the Robin Hood Hills woods. As the sun was setting , the DA, the police, and Stidham went out to the crime scene, recovered a broken bottle top which was immediately matched to the Evan Williams whiskey bottle. It was found in the exact place Jesse had said it was located and offered a piece of evidence that the police were not even aware.
The Paradise Lost documentaries are very well made and I do encourage watching them. But the director Joe Berlinger admitted that he was convinced of the 3's innocence after only a five minute conversation with Echols. The teleplay is decidedly one sided as it did not truly capture details of the trial and the appeals which were commonly known to those covering it.
1. During Misskelly's trial, the defendant sat with his head down the entire trial. The jurors could see into the holding area at times and noticed Misskelly joking around and smiling with his attorneys before the proceedings started
2. Echols was decimated on the stand; this point was brought up by Jason's lawyer in the documentary. Echols hedged on his involvement in some form of satanic rituals; Misskelly gave police a detailed description of the meetings which included orgies and animal sacrifice. Echols hedged on his knowledge of Aleister Crowley; the DA produced a legal pad that Echols had scribbled on in which the defendant had been writing the names of various people, one of which was Crowley.
When Melissa Byers took the stand and told the jury that her deceased son was frightened one day (before the murders) by a man with long black hair and wearing all black clothes who drove up to their house, jumped out of a green car, and taken his picture, the connection with Echols was established. All the elements of the description fit Echols. Misskelly had mentioned in his confession that Damien had pictures of the three boys in a briefcase he brought to these night meetings. Echols, according to Misskelly, had selected these victims some time before the crimes.
3. The DNA and fiber evidence could not exonerate the 3; fiber evidence could not eliminate Echols and Baldwin as the source of fibers found at the crime scene. DNA evidence could not eliminate Echols and Baldwin as being source of DNA found at the crime scene.
I strongly suggest, if you are interested in the case, to probe deeper because the documentaries promote the wm3.org agenda and not the true facts of the case.
Weren't these kids interrogated for long periods without an attorney? If so, it destroys every point in that post.
When you get down to brass tacks, there's no concrete evidence linking them to this crime. Evidence(and its an insult to evidence to call it that) such as the Byers chick saying a devil worshiper with long hair took a pic of her son just doesn't cut the mustard.
The ONLY thing troubling is the confession(s), but we both know how easy it is to get someone to confess to something they did not do.
Misskelly had mentioned in his confession that Damien had pictures of the three boys in a briefcase he brought to these night meetings. Echols, according to Misskelly, had selected these victims some time before the crimes.
Please. The cops were on them like flies on shit and would have found these pictures. Not buying that garbage for a second and that's pretty much proof it was a coerced confession and he was willing to say anything and agree to anything just to try and be set loose.
Thanks for posting this info as other than the documentary I haven't followed the case in years, but none of that points to guilt.
What everyone seems to forget is the attack was mainly aimed at the Branch kid, and as we all know that's what you look for when investigating a multiple homicide. Some random satanic ritual would not have revolved around mutilating that one boy. Whoever committed the crime knew that kid, and his killer is probably the person who had all their teeth pulled out so no tests could be done on the bite marks.
To those unfamiliar with the case, none of the three teens in prison had their teeth pulled out after the murder. Branch's stepfather did.
see thats what i'm talking about. i remember seeing that about the teeth being removed. originally i thought they were innocent. then i read or hear something else and i waffle. maybe i waffle because of the horrific nature of the crime and wish to god real justice could happen. i don't mean this to be rude to you james but a question i wanted to ask some of these celebrities is "would you bet your childrens life they were innocent?" i feel for a celebrity to come out like this in light of the poor victims they have to be 100% sure. so, assuming they are, would they then bet a loved ones life on it. so i'm asking you james. or anyone else for that matter. would you bet a loved ones life on their innocence. i definately would not. with that said, i lean towards innocence.
- emcitymisfit
- Rep: 28
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
emcitymisfit wrote:Nope. Wrong
As it exists, yes. In theory, not a chance. Humanity has cost us FAR too much money. (try THAT ON for an American capitalist statement, YEAH)
The Death Penalty as it exists is far too pricey. And it's only that pricey because of either A) ethics, or B) image.
A bullet in the brain is DIRT CHEAP. That's how it should been from day one. Ironically, it's also the most humane and quickest of them all. I don't know why we don't do it more. If okay for an American soldier to bleed to death on the field of battle, but a prisoner deserves lethal injection.
The appeals process can be blamed for the majority of the price too. There's no way around that in our Democracy, death penalty or not.
Ethics and image have nothing to do with it. Unless you want to make executing innocent people less of a priority than it already is, then the bulk of the dollars are always going to go to the appeals process.
Even still, innocent people are executed. There is no way around that in a criminal justice system subject to human error, bias, and ignorance.
Moving from lethal injection to firing squad is a drop in the ocean in terms of costs, so its irrelevant. Its a false choice. Both are ineffective at the ultimate goal of reducing crime, and ultimately far too inefficient in terms of costs to justify.
So if capital punishment doesn't deter crime (if someone is going to commit a capital crime, I doubt they're thinking of the consequences. They aren't making a rational choice), and costs more, AND kills innocent people, why keep it at all?
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
Well, I'm not gonna bet the life of a loved one on a stranger's guilt or innocence.....
While things point towards the stepfather, I do have one issue with that theory:
Not one of the boys was able to escape this savage attack. While someone can kill multiple people, in this situation its hard to fathom not one of them getting away. When I was their age I could run very fast. As long as I wasn't the first to get attacked, there's a pretty good chance I'd get away or at least get out of the 'kill zone'.
So IF this stepfather did it, I would lean towards an accomplice.
However, the crime scene may have been the dump site and not where the actual murders took place. If they were killed in a small area(room, in a car/van,etc.) then one person killing them is more feasible.
Either way we slice this, the crime happened in Mayberry, and Andy and Barney didn't do a good job investigating. Once they stumbled upon the long haired teens wearing Metallica shirts, they were burned at the stake without looking at anyone else.
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
Axlin08 wrote:emcitymisfit wrote:Nope. Wrong
As it exists, yes. In theory, not a chance. Humanity has cost us FAR too much money. (try THAT ON for an American capitalist statement, YEAH)
The Death Penalty as it exists is far too pricey. And it's only that pricey because of either A) ethics, or B) image.
A bullet in the brain is DIRT CHEAP. That's how it should been from day one. Ironically, it's also the most humane and quickest of them all. I don't know why we don't do it more. If okay for an American soldier to bleed to death on the field of battle, but a prisoner deserves lethal injection.
The appeals process can be blamed for the majority of the price too. There's no way around that in our Democracy, death penalty or not.
Ethics and image have nothing to do with it. Unless you want to make executing innocent people less of a priority than it already is, then the bulk of the dollars are always going to go to the appeals process.
Even still, innocent people are executed. There is no way around that in a criminal justice system subject to human error, bias, and ignorance.
Moving from lethal injection to firing squad is a drop in the ocean in terms of costs, so its irrelevant. Its a false choice. Both are ineffective at the ultimate goal of reducing crime, and ultimately far too inefficient in terms of costs to justify.
So if capital punishment doesn't deter crime (if someone is going to commit a capital crime, I doubt they're thinking of the consequences. They aren't making a rational choice), and costs more, AND kills innocent people, why keep it at all?
Because like Hobbes before them, a society who fears is a society who obeys, because we're violent by nature.
It doesn't deter crime... it just keeps us all homostatic.
- emcitymisfit
- Rep: 28
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
It doesn't deter crime... it just keeps us all homostatic.
Again, I ask for a correlation between your assertion and states/societies that use capital punishment.
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
Who's to say life in prison works? Our crime rates aren't down.
As long as we keep the drug trade alive, and stay gun totin' Westerners our crime rates will be what they've always been.
I still say the Death Penalty is about maintaining social order. It's about containment. It's not about lowering anything, or saving money, despite other, cheaper, less human alternatives.
What happened to public hangin's?
- emcitymisfit
- Rep: 28
Re: Damien Echols from the West Memphis Three Interview
life in prison doesn't kill innocent people. innocent people die in prison, but the state isn't actively executing them. that's whats important.
Have to say its put enough doubt in my mind as to whether they're guilty.