Echols' Sealed Brief

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

[Mary7875]

http://www.dpdlaw.com/echolsassc.pdf

The defense has gone (or still is) off its' rocker.  Practically the entire Brief is a rehashing of the 1994 trial, and they didn't even get that right.

They have Narlene Hollingsworth going to the police on March 10, 1993, two months before the murders:

When on March 10, 1993, Narlene first told authorities that she had seen Echols and Domini on the night of May 5th...

As if their desperation couldn't be any more pathetic, they go on to say:

Both Narlene and Anthony had substantial motivation to provide the prosecution with testimony that would aid its case against Echols, including the fact that after [Narlene] pled no contest to a traffic citation charge, subsequent to Echols' arrest, the fine was suspended.

Tell me this is a joke.  They're not actually suggesting that Narlene lied about seeing D & D that night so she didn't have to pay a traffic fine, are they?

Never mind, it was a rhetorical question.  That's exactly what the defense is doing.  OMG, if you ever had a nagging fear that D, J & J would some day be free, you can relax.  It's never going to happen.

[Mary7875]

I posted the above message on the borg as well as here, and there hasn't been a single reply.

Did I get something wrong, or is it just a slow weekend?

[kerriew]

Slow weekend Mary

[Mary7875]

Slow weekend Mary

Whew!  I thought maybe I screwed something up.  If that's the case, I'd want someone to tell me.  I try to be so careful before posting, but shit happens, ya know   

[flexj]

March 1993?

[Mary7875]

March 1993?

Yep, you have to read this Brief, flex!  Apparently, it's what the judges will be considering at the 9/30/10 hearing.

The vast majority of it is the defense's efforts to rewrite history, instead of concentrating on the DNA-testing statute.  Of course, they don't have a prayer regarding DNA, so they're doing the proverbial "throw it against the wall and hope something sticks."

It shows how desperate Echols' defense is.  When you start with guilty clients, there's no way to go but down.

[Mary7875]

The State's response to the Brief.

http://freewestmemphis3.org/download/AGbriefonappeal.pdf


That the appellant was excluded as the source of the biological material tested from the crime scene is inconclusive as to his claim of innocence, because his exclusion as a source does not prove that he was not at the crime scene or not a killer, particularly as it was apparent there was an effort to conceal the crimes.


In other words, the absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence.

[Farm]

the absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence.

Not to mention the fact that the lack of biological evidence was presented at trial, and the DNA statute is crystal clear that the evidence must be noncumulative - meaning evidence not previously presented.

Riordan doesn't have a prayer and he knows it.