When were the boys' clothes removed?

[Justice]

Boy! Tank is right on with his parody of them being the three stooges! Just look at how they handled this case. The script writers for the Stooges couldn't of done better!

[The Wolf]

"I don't know if there is one. She said that what she puts in her report is when there are matches. She claimed that didn't match anything." So say this shit during a bench conference without jurors to hear, and then, claim differently during trial! Freakin amazing. 

I don't think Lisa S testified the blue wax on Ex. 44 was a match to anything.  Nobody asked.  I don't think Lisa S testified that the blue wax was not in a report.  Nobody asked.  I don't think Lisa S testified that the defense lawyers were unaware of her wax discovery until she testified.  Nobody asked.  It's not Burnett's fault.  Nobody objected; nobody claimed surprise; nobody requested that Lisa S return to the stand to ask her questions; nobody requested an instruction to the jury.  

[Paid]

  Can I still add names to my "worthless list"?

  Val Price

  Robin Wadley

  Paul Ford


   ....Monday morning quarterbacking aside.

[The Wolf]

As long as you don't call them "numbnuts."  No reason to get WG worked-up this morning.  She's already on a roll.

[Paid]

  To be fair to the attorneys, I will say that they were woefully inexperienced and thrown into a high-profile situation while being filmed by HBO.

  I'm sure the pressure-cooker had an effect on their judgment.


       Nice guys, well educated, honest, respected,......just worthless in the situation that was presented to them.

[Tank]

Boy! Tank is right on with his parody of them being the three stooges! Just look at how they handled this case. The script writers for the Stooges couldn't of done better!

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

[Justice]

Boy! Tank is right on with his parody of them being the three stooges! Just look at how they handled this case. The script writers for the Stooges couldn't of done better!

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

[whitegoddess]

Quote from: whitegoddess on Today at 05:45:39 AM
"I don't know if there is one. She said that what she puts in her report is when there are matches. She claimed that didn't match anything." So say this shit during a bench conference without jurors to hear, and then, claim differently during trial! Freakin amazing.  stare


I don't think Lisa S testified the blue wax on Ex. 44 was a match to anything.  Nobody asked.  I don't think Lisa S testified that the blue wax was not in a report.  Nobody asked.  I don't think Lisa S testified that the defense lawyers were unaware of her wax discovery until she testified.  Nobody asked.  It's not Burnett's fault.  Nobody objected; nobody claimed surprise; nobody requested that Lisa S return to the stand to ask her questions; nobody requested an instruction to the jury.

 
Theer i go again, should have worded things far better. "Claim differently during trial" meaning, to be allowed to raise it in front of the jury knowing a discovery of blue wax was not contained in any Report. L.S was admitted as an Expert Witness - a trace evidence Witness. It was kind of significant to be able to assure that magical discovery was noted in writing some freakin where - right? And not just a memory? How downright sneaky of Fogelman to discuss it in front of the jury, in spite of claiming during his bench conference he didn't know if this discovery of blue candle was was even in a report to begin with. Fogelman clearly had the knowledge that her magical discovery wasn't in any report somewhere because he had her reports, and, knew that it didn't match anything so it wouldn't be in any report anyway.

So just throw it out there, milk it for all it's worth even in closing arguements, and leave it to the Jurors to make the connection. Jeese, talk about throwing your clients under the bus 

[The Wolf]

WG, your wording was just fine.  I knew exactly what you meant.  I just wanted to put the blame in the right direction.  Lisa is not around to defend herself.  From what I gather, if she had been asked she would have answered truthfully.  But somebody had to ask her, and that was the defense lawyer's job.  By the way, thanks for finding that bench conference and posting it.  Excellent work.

[whitegoddess]

As long as you don't call them "numbnuts."  No reason to get WG worked-up this morning.  She's already on a roll.

Ha, thanks Wolf.

WG, your wording was just fine.  I knew exactly what you meant.  I just wanted to put the blame in the right direction.  Lisa is not around to defend herself.  From what I gather, if she had been asked she would have answered truthfully.  But somebody had to ask her, and that was the defense lawyer's job.  By the way, thanks for finding that bench conference and posting it.  Excellent work.

I gather that had she also been asked she would have answered. And i guess i am guilty of speculating against someone that has passed, and cannot defend herself, but how was it she was able to determin it was even wax, and from a candle at that? Where was the stain that she allegedly observed? Was it on the inside, or the outside of that shirt? What was the size of alleged wax stain? There's nothing documented, and as a layperson, i feel it should have been. It'd certainly be benifical, considering it was used at trial, and, as most know, trial are subject to the appeals process and nothing ought be 'put to memory'.

The Defense did a crappy job and they didn't even need an expert of their own to be able to discredit and cause doubt, in this regard. The red fibre was used to connect Jason to the E-2, States Exhibit 44 (Stevies alleged shirt), and the blue candle wax comments were used to connect Damien to the same piece of evidence, by way of reminding the jurors a witchcraft book found at Damiens had blue candle wax on it. The Defense should never discredit or dismiss something presented at trial, as they don't know during deliberations just how much weight may be placed on something, by the Jurors.





I'll add here that the Juror that wrote this^^^ got the shirt wrong - ie: Wax on E-1 W.shirt (E-1 was the Cub Scout shirt)





Yup, never underestimate what Jurors will rely on to convict, as shown above ^^^on their chart. "Wax on book, shirt, mention."

[The Wolf]

WG, it looks like Sakevicius was looking for blue candle wax when she assisted in the search of Damien's residence.  The evidence list submitted by Ridge reflects that Sakevicius made a slide, labeled DT-3, of the blue wax candle trace evidence either at the residence or before she left West Memphis.  http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/lablist.html.  Also a slide of "white rope trace evidence" labeled DT-4 was made.  Since Sakevicius was tasked to look for possible trace evidence match, the logical conclusion is she already had something to compare the samples to.  The blue wax was to compare with the wax on Stevie's shirt (E-2) and the white rope was to compare to the rope found at the crime scene (E-19).  Neither sample matched, so, as Fogelman explained, it was not mentioned in the report.

Sakevicius' personal observation of the wax on Stevie's shirt (E-2) was not hearsay.  She saw it, examined it, determined it was wax, determined it was not a match to the blue candle recovered from Damien's residence, and determined it was consistent with candle wax.  The fact that she did not mention this in a report does not make it inadmissible, especially when no objection was made by either Echols or Baldwin.  She was not asked if the wax on E-2 matched anything, nor whether the wax could have been on the shirt for a long time, was also consistent with crayon wax, might have come from a candle used in a cub scout ceremony (blue candles used in some of their ceremonies), or a candle from a birthday cake (two of my younger brothers decided to play birthday under their bed and set the mattress on fire - kids play with candles).  She answered the questions asked and left the witness stand after defendants said they had no questions and the judge told her she could go.  The evidence came in and it was proper for the jury to consider.

Bad lawyering by defense counsel.  The jury was told the evidence was relevant to its decision by the State in closing argument.  Whether it was the determining factor for any juror is unlikely, but it mattered enough for a couple of them to write it down. 

[whitegoddess]

Good find Wolf!

That list of evidence http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/lablist.html.  submitted by Ridge was dated June 1993
<snip>
E-123 BRIEF CASE CONTENTS TRACE EVIDENCE DT-2

E-124 BLUE WAX CANDLE TRACE EVIDENCE DT-3

E-125 WHITE ROPE TRACE EVIDENCE DT-4


Would it be too bold of me to ponder the posibility that the chicken came before the egg? I don't understand how to determine such things. Clearly by the DT there were slides taken as you say. Does this mean that DT-3 means there was certainly a slide of trace that was not a fibre, taken from E-2? Or, does this mean that DT-3 is a slide taken from the item E-124? I enjoy learning about such new things.


Terrible lawyering by their Defense, and very clever by the Prosecution, especially them knowing it was no match anyways...

[The Wolf]

Would it be too bold of me to ponder the posibility that the chicken came before the egg? I don't understand how to determine such things. Clearly by the DT there were slides taken as you say. Does this mean that DT-3 means there was certainly a slide of trace that was not a fibre, taken from E-2? Or, does this mean that DT-3 is a slide taken from the item E-124? I enjoy learning about such new things.

DT-3 is a slide taken from E-124.  I do not know whether a slide was made from the wax on E-2, or the comparison was made in another way. 

[whitegoddess]

Thanks Wolf, it's apreciated.

I do not know whether a slide was made from the wax on E-2, or the comparison was made in another way.

 Thats what i was pondering. This submission list by Ridge was sent in June, and the items on it, some of which came from the homes of the convicted. Guess they scored real big when they found not only a scary book on witchcraft but that it had on it candle wax 

[jackibyers]

This is my first time coming across this topic, please forgive me if this has been covered allready.  Back to the first few pages reminded me of a conversation I had with John Douglas.  He posed this question to me,"Why were the boy's clothes removed and why were they tied?  These were unnecisary acts."  I know why they were put under the water, to buy time to blend back into the "concerned parent" and the search.  Some have said that tying them up made it easier to carry the bodies,,,,I disagree, a limp body is hard to carry and handle in that manner,,,,,,My first thought was to dehumanize them, however I think the reason was so that a limb could not float up from were the boy's were placed to give THe perp more time.  So that explains to me plausable reason for tying.
     
I still can not come up with a real good reason to undress the children and or to replace clothing,,,,,,,why hide it so close to the scene of the found bodies?  Why not totally destroy them?  I do know that TH has told a few about a treasure box he has hidden in Arkansas somewhere....never told what was in it.   

Next question...Why place the bodies so close to home????  The area is surrounded by outlets and inlets to the Mississippi River and the river itself just few miles away?  My theoretical answer is to make sure the boys were found to inflict the most pain possible because if put in or around the MS river the bodies may have never been found.

So if THe perp got injured in some fashion why not totally dispose of the clothes?

What do you all think?
thanks
jacki

[Tags:]

WM3 Blackboard > WM3 > The West Memphis Three > Topic: When were the boys' clothes removed?