Check out video

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112888]

112888 Posts in 8615 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[BlackAngel]

Damien Echols Pleads Case on Larry King Live
Play Media
Reported by: Betsey Martin, KARK 4-News

Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 @09:55pm CST

He was convicted of killing three West Memphis boys more than a decade ago... Wednesday night Damien Echols sat down and talks to Larry King Live.

Echols was asked about many topics including why he thinks he's still behind bars.

"A lot of people think if you have some sort of definitive proof of innocence something like a DNA test that you're automatically released. That's not actually true. A lot of this in cases like this it's about politics more than about justice," Damien Echols said.


http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/?cid=63418

Jan

[Kimbo]

Liar, liar, pants on fire, Echols.

Test all the DNA, ya' know, like attorney Dave says.

What - that would prove - what? - definitive proof?

LOL, bust your balls out on that DNA angle.

Kimbo

[ABnineteen89]

DNA Evidence is not always definitive or probative. Just because someone's DNA is found on a body doesn't mean that the DNA belonged to the murderer.  There is a theory in forensics that states that every object that comes into contact with an object living or otherwise, will have a transfer on it. I don't believe Echols one bit. Because he is trying to stand evidence that could be somewhat antiquated- because DNA deteriorates over time. So the likelyhood that a judge is going to find a favorable verdict is slim to none.

[MachaSidhe]

He knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on with the DNA they were able to recover so far. He also knows damn well what evidence he was convicted on and it had nothing to do with DNA , he doesn't care to address those issues does he?

Macha

[DogIsYourName]

Well, this is all set up and planned in my opinion.

They are going to do another round of testing on the allele found on the penis.  Why do you think Riordan mentioned the allele in response to recent comments by the DA?

No need to do that additional testing until they are forced to do so.

Just my .02

[BlackAngel]

Dog

They are going to do another round of testing on the allele found on the penis.  Why do you think Riordan mentioned the allele in response to recent comments by the DA?

He's stalling for time, and Damien doesn't have a chance in hell.

[Farm]

Well, this is all set up and planned in my opinion.

Bullshit.

Riordan never had any intentions of filing a State claim, He doesn't have one.

22. Petitioners collateral attack on his convictions under Arkansas Code section 16-112-201, et seq., remains pending in State court, but it is his intention to proceed with this Federal habeas corpus action at this time rather than hold it in abeyance until the section 16-112-201 is completed.

The DNA results never could have generated a valid claim of actual innocence in this case no matter what they would have been.

[DogIsYourName]

Farm

The DNA results never could have generated a valid claim of actual innocence in this case no matter what they would have been.

This is untrue.  If it were true, then the State would not even allow Echols to present the evidence, because it would be a certain waste of time. 

[Farm]

Bullshit.

Under the statute, the claimant has a right to scientific testing.

The Judge has to hear the evidence to rule on it.

Now, we've waited over a year for you to produce an example of how the results in this case could have possibly met the burden, any ETA on this?

[DogIsYourName]

Bullshit.

Under the statute, the claimant has a right to scientific testing.

The Judge has to hear the evidence to rule on it.

Gee, maybe that is because there is a chance the DNA could exonerate the prisoner, depending what is found.

Now, we've waited over a year for you to produce an example of how the results in this case could have possibly met the burden, any ETA on this?

I've produced examples many times before.  For example, if the allele belongs to person X, and person X is interviewed and gives an obviously false accounting of their time, such as saying they searched the Blue Beacon woods between 6-6:30.  Or maybe person X breaks down under the pressure and confesses.  Or, if there had been multiple pieces of DNA matching someone unrelated to the victims, this would be compelling.  The DNA evidence can cast doubt on all the other circumstantial evidence in the case.

SUBSTANTIALLY MORE LIKELY THAN NOT NO REASONABLE JUROR WOULD HAVE FOUND ECHOLS GUILTY.  That's all you need to focus on Farm.

Do I think Echols will win his State claim?  No.  Do I think it is possible that he could have won it with better DNA results?  Yes.

[Farm]

Gee, maybe that is because there is a chance the DNA could exonerate the prisoner, depending what is found.

No, it's just as I said.... they have a right do to testing.

I've produced examples many times before. 

But never a valid one.

For example, if the allele belongs to person X, and person X is interviewed and gives an obviously false accounting of their time
See what I mean?


How many more invitations do you need to show us how ANYTHING about some "Mr. X" would even be considered under the statute?

if there had been multiple pieces of DNA matching someone unrelated to the victims, this would be compelling.

But it's not relevant, simple as that.

DNA exhonnerations aren't rocket science, Dog.

They occur when biological evidence used at trial to prove a transfer between the defendant and the crime is later proven through advanced scientific testing to be unrelated.

Your ridiculous notion that the statute somehow opens the door for the Defense to present statements or timelines or any other evidence implicating an alternate suspect is just flat out stupidity on your part.
 

[DogIsYourName]

Farm,

I've tried to explain this to you for over a year, and you just won't believe it.  So we will have to agree to disagree on this.

-dog

[Farm]

I've tried to explain this to you for over a year, and you just won't believe it.

No Dog, you haven't.

For over a year I have shown you what constitutes evidence relevant to a scientific claim under the Arkansas statute, and for over a year you have insisted that the Defense could still admit other evidence under that statute.

You are flat out wrong, it's as simple as that.

This additional "evidence" you cite isn't even relevant in federal court unless it meets the Schlup/House standard, and in this case it clearly doesn't.

Wouldn't it be less embarassing at this point if you simply admitted that you had no idea what you were talking about?

It's not like it isn't obvious.

[DogIsYourName]

Farm,

I have told you repeatedly what the standard is.  Clear and Convincing Evidence (Substantially more likely than not) that no reasonable juror would find Echols guilty. 

For the last time, that does not mean Echols has to prove himself 100% innocent, without a doubt.

The allowed evidence includes evidence not available at the time of trial.  The DNA evidence satisfies that.  The new evidence explaining the significance of the new DNA evidence also satisfies that.  The animal predation stuff, I kind of doubt will be considered.

If you disagree, that's fine.  I know you're wrong.  It isn't the first time and it won't be the last.  According to you, no DNA testing was taking place, Echols was no longer represented by Riordan, the lawyers don't get paid, and "clear and convincing" does not mean "substantially more likely than not."

I like your drive and determination, but you need to learn where to focus it.

-dog

[Farm]

I have told you repeatedly what the standard is.

Pull your head out of your ass, Dog.

We aren't talking about any old actual innocence claim we are talking about a scientific evidence claim.

The allowed evidence includes evidence not available at the time of trial.  

No it doesn't you fucking moron.

A claim under the Ark. statute is not a broad appeal, it's a specific claim based on SCIENTIFIC TESTING that wasn't available at the time of trial, And that's it.

The DNA evidence satisfies that.

Yes, but your silly shit about alibis and statements from other possible perps does not.

The new evidence explaining the significance of the new DNA evidence also satisfies that.

No it doesn't.

It's not relevant to a claim under the statute in any way shape or form.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Again.

According to you, no DNA testing was taking place,

According to Riordan, the testing was still in progress two years after he had the results.

Echols was no longer represented by Riordan

How's that State claim coming?

the lawyers don't get paid

How many more of them need to tell you this?

You're a fucking idiot, Dog.... you always have been.