AWESOME!!!!!!

keep those murdering pieces of shit in prison.....

right where they belong...............

the story:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6y2 ... QD93496000

Judge: No new trial in 1993 Ark. boys' slayings

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A judge on Wednesday rejected claims that DNA evidence clears three men convicted of killing three 8-year-old boys in 1993 and denied their requests for a new trial.

Lawyers for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley — known to supporters as the "West Memphis Three" — had argued that new DNA tests would prove their clients' innocence.

Both Baldwin and Misskelley claimed their lawyers failed to adequately represent them during trial. Their lawyers said DNA evidence provided by Echols' defense team showed that the men did not kill Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

"The court finds that (Echols's) DNA-testing results are inconclusive because they do not raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offenses; that is, they are inconclusive as to his claim of actual innocence," Circuit Court Judge David wrote in a 10-page order denying the men's requests for a new trial.

In his appeal, Echols argued that newly analyzed DNA found no trace of the defendants at the crime scene. But Burnett said he agreed with prosecutors that the absence of DNA didn't equal innocence.

"Proof of actual innocence requires more than his exclusion as the source of a handful of biological material that is not dispositive of the identity of a killer," the judge wrote.

Burnett also said that even if he agreed that the new DNA evidence should be heard in court, he would still deny Echols' request for a new trial because there was "not compelling evidence that he would be acquitted."

Police found the three boys' bodies in a drainage ditch a day after their May 5, 1993, disappearance from West Memphis. A month passed before police arrested the three defendants, who were teens at the time. Misskelley told investigators he watched Baldwin and Echols sexually assault and beat two of the boys as he ran down another trying to escape.

A jury sentenced Misskelley to life in prison plus 40 years. Baldwin got life without parole and Echols was sentenced to die. The Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld their convictions.

if we are lucky....

maybe Mr. Vedder will stop taking a % of the money he makes, from the tickets WE purchase.......

and stop giving it to these fucking murdering pieces of shit............

so if there's DNA evidence proving their innocence, according to you, they're still murdering pieces of shit? holy shit, are you the one who did it?

if there was DNA evidence proving their innocence im pretty damned sure the judge would have freed them, or at least given them another trial...

but the FACT is.....they are guilty .......................

ok, I've heard about this case for ages but never actually had looked at what that was about.
I've just spend an hour reading on it and frankly, I can't see how you can be so positive about their guilt.

there's nothing but vaguely circumstantial evidence there, apart form the IQ 72 kid's 'confession', which was not even admissible at the trial.
NO material evidence, like DNA, fingerprints, footprints, nothing concrete.
just witnesses saying they saw them 'around' that time or place.

I can't begin to understand how they could have been convicted just based on these non-evidences.

Am I missing something?

go do a few hours of research on Damien Echols.....

and find out what a swell guy he has been his entire life.....

If someone delivered presents to every child in the world on Christmas Eve, according to you, there's still no such thing as Santa Claus?

if there was DNA evidence proving their innocence im pretty damned sure the judge would have freed them, or at least given them another trial...

but the FACT is.....they are guilty .......................[/quote]

exactly.

denying a new trial seems pretty conclusive to me.

those who prey on children are the lowest form
of human beings. despicable.

You'd make an awesome lawyer.

That's not what happened, despite what the WM3 and their lawyers have been propagating.
Echols has played Vedder like a Stradivarius since day one.

Mr. Speedy, while being a bit hyperbolic, is right about one thing: The more you look into this case, the more you realize the right people are behind bars.

although some of you don't like using wikipedia as a resource...you should check it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

there is a plethora of knowledge in the article

one excerpt:

well, for a start he was only 18 at the time of the crime, so entire life doesn't mean much.

and if you refer to his mental illness, PLENTY of people have some and don't go on committing gruesome crimes, let alone managing to enrol 2 people to do them as well...and I work in mental health hospitals all the time, so although not a clinician, I know a little bit about the subject.
Reading on it, he was a troubled kid, but nothing particularly remarkable or scary.

regardless, you're basing, apparently like the police and prosecution, your verdict of guilt solely on hearsay and character judgements, rather than on any hard evidence.
I have yet to see mentioned any EVIDENCE relating to this case.
I find troubling sending a kid to death row based on speculations.

Wow, that is completely not the same thing.

You sir, fail at analogies.

It's not an analogy. It's simply the same logic is all.

Consider the proposition p -> q (p implies q).

In the first case, p is "there's DNA evidence proving their innocence", and q is "they're not murdering pieces of shit."
In the second case, p is "someone delivered presents to every child in the world on Christmas Eve", and q is "Santa Claus exists."
In both cases, it's probably reasonable to accept the proposition p -> q. mastaflatch's mistake in reasoning, however, is the assumption that because p -> q is true, q is true. That's false, because p -> q is the same as ^p (not p) or q, which means that if p is false, we can't make any conclusions as to the truth of q. Mastaflatch made the assumption, as did I, that because we can safely assume the proposition p -> q is true, we can then assume the proposition q is true.

Essentially, you don't have to believe that the WM3 are not murderers until after DNA evidence clears them.

The truth is they are innocent, and the government will do anything to deny that. And whoever the joke account who keeps claiming they deserve to be jailed is, shut the fuck up and eat shit you mindless idiot. Keep believing everything the government says, sheep.

I don't think anyone was trying to refute that. What you typed above is pretty much unnecessary and a thinly veiled attempt to flex your intellectual muscles (we know you're smart S_D, K? ) It is not difficult to interpret what mastaflatch was saying without all that crap.

I disagree with your santa scenario logic, to say the least.

If DNA proves they are innocent, then they clearly are not murders.
If presents are delivered to every child, how does that prove the existence of santa?

You have to assume that it was santa that delivered those presents. Hell, it may have even be the Easter bunny or the toothfairy cutting in on the action.
I suppose you could counter that one would need to assume that DNA testing is accurate for the first statement to be true, but lets step back into the real world and out of the realm of logic problems. Most people aren't going to argue with DNA evidence (or at least sane, unbiased ones)

And most people aren't going to argue that someone else delivered presents to all the kids in the world. It's absurd to think the condition is true, but yet equally absurd to think that if it were true, the result is not.



Nope. I was simply arguing that you can't invoke DNA as evidence of their innocence until you actually find the DNA. I don't think it was unnecessary, since someone made the argument.

Ah, to be a kid again. I remember when I was a freshman in college and decided to do a paper on the west memphis three. I read a few articles on it and said, "Nothing to see here. Let's do gun control instead."