Lawyers return to court over 1993 West Memphis slayings

wormrunner wrote:

<quoted text> You're mistaken that there was no evidence. Instead of driving by the courthouse, I walked past the circus and sat in the courtroom to see and hear for myself. I particularly remember the fibers found on one or more of the victims that matched fibers taken from one of the criminals home carpets. There was other evidence, but that was the most interesting. You cannot say that there was no evidence, there was enough to convict, and that's what happened.

Explain why the jury foreman himself said the state presented a weak case and they better come up with something big because some jurors weren't convinced.

You do know that there are 3 affidavits under seal at this very moment from jurors, and the jury foreman's attorney?

I think they beg to differ with your interpretation of the strength of the case and evidence.

It's doubtful the three (or anyone) would be convicted today based on the way the state prosecuted, and the developing evidence that puts someone else entirely at the scene of the crime. EXCEPT ONE PERSON! The dna owner.

What ever your interest or motivation for spreading your lies, it's very transparent that you are spreading lies. Or bulls.hit. One of the two.

During post-conviction case review, Petitioner Baldwin has had the fiber evidence at issue reviewed by Max Houck, former Physical Scientist in the Trace Evidence Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who now runs the Forensic Science Initiative (see attached resume). Mr. Houck's 2004 letter about the case and CV are appended here as Exhibits A and B.

The State was served with the Houck letter in 2004. Mr. Houck reports that one of the difficulties here (which will likely be a basis of one of the ineffectiveness claims in the upcoming amended Baldwin Rule 37 petition) is that the documentation produced by the State to evidence what work was actually done on the fibers does not substantiate the opinions on fiber evidence stated at trial, in part because the documentation was incomplete and insufficient as a matter of accepted laboratory practice to serve as the foundation for an expert's opinion. Mr. Houck notes as well that Ms. Sakevicius (see Houck letter at p.2) used other than an accepted practice in conducting her analysis of the colors of the textiles involved. Since it was a combination of color and weave patterns that provided the foundation for Ms. Sakevicius' testimony that the crime scene fibers were consistent with fibers found in the Echols and Baldwin households, this error in the analysis is significant.

-8-

The State has been in possession of the Houck letter since 2004, and while prosecutor Brent Davis was kind enough to verbally relay some verbal disagreements of Arkansas State Crime Laboratory criminalists who were involved in the investigation of this case (Kermit and Lisa Chanell), it is not clear that the Chanells would qualify as proficient technical reviewers of expert evidence on fiber analysis conducted by their own laboratory. Further, and more significantly, it is not clear that there is any scientifically valid basis on which to rebut Mr. Houck's statements.

Since the trial of this case systematized protocols for fiber analysis have been developed as have new analysis techniques pertinent to fibers - further, existing techniques cannot be said to have been reliably applied in this case, such as to have produced scientifically accepted, valid and reliable results.

As noted above, the concern expressed by Mr. Houck in his review of the pertinent evidence, based in part on his tenure with the FBI's Trace Analysis Section, is that the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory's fiber-related documentation in this case does not provide a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that at the time of the analysis of the fibers in this case, or at the time of trial, a qualified analyst used accepted methods and protocols to obtain valid and reliable scientific evidence, and thus testified on the basis of a reliable and valid scientific foundation on the issue of fibers. This set of observations, however, does not seem to be the basis for the State's objections to the defense's petition/motion/requests for the release of fiber evidence for analysis. Rather,

-9-

the objection offered by the State has been that the techniques for analysis of fibers have not changed since the time of trial.
********

In other words, the state isn't denying the fiber testing and testimony was full of s.hit, what the state is saying is because todays testing methods aren't any more advanced, the judge should not allow retesting.

The state is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Fiber testing methods have technologically advanced beyond reproach from 15 years ago. Sorry, but your evidence was a crock of poo then, and now.

im just goin to keep this simple i agree with the people to say the three are innocent because they are..and the ones who believe other wise must not be able to see fact from fiction and realize the truth.

they are innocent wrote:

im just goin to keep this simple i agree with the people to say the three are innocent because they are..and the ones who believe other wise must not be able to see fact from fiction and realize the truth.

Nice of you to judge those of us who believe that they're guilty with such keen insight. Just like you, I believe that those who disagree with me are, in fact, seeing fiction from fact. Keeping it simple, per your example, your wrong, I'm right, they're guilty. I'm glad we got that settled. Thanks.

no actually im not wrong i did my research and still actually doin it to be honestly..i was 7 just a year younger than those boys when it happened and yes its a horrible thing and as i grew up and heard people talk about this horrific event i was made to thinnk and believe they were guilty without knowing the facts..dont get me wrong im not sayin that anybody commenting on here doesnt know facts so please dont twist my words..but as i have done research i have not once came across any evidence that points to the three in prison to be the ones who committed the crimes 100%..if they did it why wasnt there any of their dna at the scene or any accountable evidence pointing to them 100%? there wasnt but there was dna in hair found on of the boys..who did the hairs belong to? hobbs the step dad of one of the boys...but what is so strange is that it wasnt hobbs step son that the hairs were found on..hmm thats interesting is it not? back to the facts that everybody has percived to be true are the facts 100% logical and accountable towards the three in jail doing it or is it stating that they are innocent? im not here to judge anybody because everybody has their own idea on something and not everybody will agree with it. but what i dont understand is how can you not agree with the facts. not only did the jury foreman say that the state didnt have a strong case but also the parents of two of the boys murdered believe that the wrongfully accused are behind bars. are you sayin they are wrong? they want to see the people who killed their babies behind bars and if that is the wm3 then so be it if not let them be..let them be free if they didnt commit such a crime and most importantly let it be off their record if they are innocent. and also behind every fact is some fiction rather its seen or not. just thougth i would make myself more clear...this was for you wormrunner

to correct my typos it should be think not thinnk, perceived not percived, and let them be..let them be free....etc should be leave them be..let them be free....etc. if i missed any other ones i do apologize

wormrunner wrote:

<quoted text>Nice of you to judge those of us who believe that they're guilty with such keen insight. Just like you, I believe that those who disagree with me are, in fact, seeing fiction from fact. Keeping it simple, per your example, your wrong, I'm right, they're guilty. I'm glad we got that settled. Thanks.

Is that your answer to my startling revelation that the fiber evidence was bulls.hit, too?

Do you think the real reason the state doesn't want the judge to release it for re-testing is because they are scared of what the results are?

I do.

Voir Dire wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that your answer to my startling revelation that the fiber evidence was bulls.hit, too?
Do you think the real reason the state doesn't want the judge to release it for re-testing is because they are scared of what the results are?
I do.

i completely agree with you

I just don't understand all the people who are like...
"They were convicted, the jury said they were guilty, there was evidence so lets just leave it at that."
I'm with you. What is everyone so afraid of? If they really are guilty then a new trial with up-to-date evidence and investigations would prove it more sufficiently today that it would have in 1993-1994. They will not be set free unless they're innocent. And if their guilty they'll stay in prison. As long as the new trial is 100% fair, it's a win-win situation.

xgrayson7 wrote:

I just don't understand all the people who are like...
"They were convicted, the jury said they were guilty, there was evidence so lets just leave it at that."
I'm with you. What is everyone so afraid of? If they really are guilty then a new trial with up-to-date evidence and investigations would prove it more sufficiently today that it would have in 1993-1994. They will not be set free unless they're innocent. And if their guilty they'll stay in prison. As long as the new trial is 100% fair, it's a win-win situation.

the only evidence that was found wasnt connecting them but another person

xgrayson7 wrote:

I just don't understand all the people who are like...
"They were convicted, the jury said they were guilty, there was evidence so lets just leave it at that."
I'm with you. What is everyone so afraid of? If they really are guilty then a new trial with up-to-date evidence and investigations would prove it more sufficiently today that it would have in 1993-1994. They will not be set free unless they're innocent. And if their guilty they'll stay in prison. As long as the new trial is 100% fair, it's a win-win situation.

ABSOLUTELY!!

If you really want to know the nuts and bolts of it, the fibers were probably picked up at the police station where the evidence was laid out and photographed in a most unprofessional manner.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...

Some chain of custody, eh?

Think carpet and sofa fibers would be a more likely match if tested with today's technology?

I do.

Voir Dire wrote:

<quoted text>
ABSOLUTELY!!
If you really want to know the nuts and bolts of it, the fibers were probably picked up at the police station where the evidence was laid out and photographed in a most unprofessional manner.
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/cloth...
Some chain of custody, eh?
Think carpet and sofa fibers would be a more likely match if tested with today's technology?
I do.

We must not forget this gem. The investigator up in the tree at the crime scene discovery site was wearing none other than what? A red shirt?

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/crime_scene_ar...

If I recall correctly, was it not a red fiber that allegedly made the case?

Give me a break.

How many people do NOT have red fibers in their home?

I'll bet if the criminalist would have searched every home in West Memphis, she could have walked out with red cotton fibers out of 98% of them.

The trouble is, they searched very few homes, and I tend to think they overlooked what was present in most of the ones they did search.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/lsakeviciu...
""The Court: Did you say "questioned hair"?

Price: Excuse me, questioned fiber, my mistake. Alright, in addition the - did you also find three red cotton fibers?

Sakevicius: Yes, I did.

Price: Ok, you can go ahead and refer to your report on that.

Sakevicius: Three red, cotton fibers microscopically similar to those used in the construction of E-92, recovered from E-1, E-3, and BR-1.

Price: Alright. E-92, that would have been a t-shirt found at Damien Echols' house?

Sakevicius: Uh - correct.

Price: Ok. And then you mentioned, one of those hairs was found on E-1. That would have been the boy scout shirt?

Sakevicius: Yes.

Price: Alright. And another of the three red cotton fibers was recovered from E-3, that's the same pair of pants that we talked about earlier?

Sakevicius: Correct.""

Guess what? Hairs don't match. I'll bet the fibers really don't either.

God wrote:

<quoted text>
What you're referring to was indeed squashed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. However, there has been a Constitutional error made with regard to jury tampering. In addition, Damien's lawyers have long since file a Habeas Corpus Petition for the case to be heard in federal court...that is currently being held in abeyance by the federal court until the DNA situation is exhausted in state court.
Even if Burnett screws Damien over with the DNA situation(which is very likely...the man is totally inept, and a total screw up)then the Habeas Corpus Petition for the case to be heard in federal court will move forward, and will most likely be heard. Jury tampering of this magnitude is not taken lightly in federal court.

well,well,well looks like ol burnett might just be caught by the short hairs.

If they didn't do it, who did? I've always thought the WM3 were guilty. I hope that the truth, either way, is finally determined so that the victims get justice and the families get some sense of closure. It's been dragging on way too long.

The N wrote:

If they didn't do it, who did? I've always thought the WM3 were guilty. I hope that the truth, either way, is finally determined so that the victims get justice and the families get some sense of closure. It's been dragging on way too long.

from the research i did they only traces of evidence they found was that belong to mr hobbs and some said it was there because his step son was one of the boys killed but the hair strands they found that belongs to mr hobbs wasnt on his step son but on another victim..i believe he had a friend helpin him also but i could be wrong on both parts but i do know that there was no evidence of any kind linking the ones convicted to the murders

typo sorry instead of they only traces it should be the only traces

wormrunner wrote:

I was in Marion, regularly, for five days a week, and in Jonesboro on weekends when this crime occurred, and I sat in that courtroom and watched a good bit of the trial. But, I was not on the ditchbank at "Robin Hood Hills" when the little boys were so brutally murdered. None of you posting to this site were there, either, were you ? Just because Damien Echols has attracted an army of "supporters" does not mean that he is innocent of the crimes he was convicted of. He's been found guilty, and most anyone who had any contact with those involved with the investigation and trial of this case would agree. They all three are guilty. They had a fair trial and many competent lawyers representing them. These lawyers did not miss many, if any, opportunities to defend their clients, and they had to operate under a mignifying glass because of the publicity. The sadistic criminals were convicted based upon a substantial accumulation of evidence. The bloated expectation that there is DNA that will clear them is unrealistic, given the tenuous connection it has to the case. These three criminals were not just rounded up as the "usual suspects".
That goofy stepfather was the immediate suspect in the case, and was positively ruled out as the perpetrator. His antics were ridiculous, and essentially made all Arkansans look like ignorant hicks to anyone who was watching. He was later involved in some criminal shenanigans in Cherokee Village, but that involved theft, I believe, without any suggestion of violent conduct.
The California film crew that came in to make the mock ..., I mean "documentary" came in with the intention to make fools of everyone in volved in the case, and to glorify the criminals. They would not have sold a single video if they had slanted their production in favor of the law enforcement community, so they went the other way. They did a good job of that, which made them a lot of money. They exploited the parents of the murdered children when they were most vulnerable. They spent more time making that stepfather look dangerously stupid, than they did in investigating and developing the pre-crime story of the lives of the criminals.
I doubt very seriously that anyone likely to post on this thread has now or ever had access to any real evidence, but is rather watching that hyped video and looking at old newspaper articles. I'm fairly certain that the real evidence is locked away, and has always been retained, pending the day that Damien Echols gets his final medication.
If someone out there really has seen and handled the genuine evidence of this crime, tell us how, if you expect to be believed. Otherwise, quit claiming that you know more about what happened than the people who were involved in the investigation and trial. If you were not a cop on the scene, or a prosecuting attorney, or a defense attorney, or a member of their staff, you cannot possibly know enough to proclaim that Echols, Bladwin or Misskelly is innocent, or unless you actually were there, on the ditchbank in Robin Hood HIlls. Accept the fact that justice has been and will soon be well served.

Well stated!

JFK wrote:

<quoted text>
Well stated!

Why is it well stated?

The evadunce used to convict has either been scientifically disproven or out and out exposed for the absurdity that it is.

Do you know how many people that provided testimony has changed their stance and said they were pressured and intimidated by police?

Burny's long fledging career is going to go out on a judicial high note and he will FINALLY administer justice, or he will go into the history books as a complete bafoon that left it up to the high courts to tidy up his mess.

Now THAT was well stated!!

if they didn't do it,you would think it would have happened againif the so called real murder is out loose..since them three boys are locked up,it hasnt happened any more.