Talk:West Memphis Three/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

First sentence, double meaning?

Find the first sentence; "Three men, subsequently referred to as the West Memphis Three, were tried and convicted of the murders of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas on May 5, 1993", a bit misleading. At first read, I interpreted it as May 5, 1993 was the date of conviction, not the murders. Something to do with my non-native English tongue? Lebaramebara (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it was confusing. I fixed it. Valfontis (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

References formatting problem

References 61 and 62 are spilling out of the column and are over the far right of the page (scroll to the right to see these). I cannot see what the problem is, does someone know how to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.195 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Must be something glitching in your browser. Not happening on this end. NJZombie (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Chrome 13.0.782.112 on Mac. Not an issue in Firefox 5.0.1.

Section about families and law enforcement

"The families of the three victims are divided in their opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the West Memphis Three." This is a lousy sentence. If it's true, then the section is willfully ignoring any statement of any family member regarding their guilt. If it is not true, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Article major revision

I hate to be rude, but this article is a mess. I came here to get a run-down of this case, but the article is almost totally incomprehensible. While not the only problem, too much of the article is spent talking about the flaws in the original case and conviction. Of course, the poor nature of the prosecution is what makes the case notable, but before we can offer the critiques, the article needs to state in plain facts what happened during the original trial. Can I propose that the lede gives a full, brief rundown of the whole thing from 1993 to today, but the main article proceeds in chronological order? Ashmoo (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is poorly written. I haven't had time to address this, but feel free to be bold and fix the article as you see fit. Valfontis (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm not sure why my comment on here was removed but I added the date of release to the introduction because it was missing before. - Russell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.10.35 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Exonerated defined

Exonerated means to clear from accusation or blame. When your talking about crime and punishment, it is irresponsible to use the term with such a sloppy literary license as is taken here. I have tried to edit the inaccurate use of this term in the introduction only to see it edited back to an inaccurate use. While I personally believe in the innocence of the WM3, I don't support wild emotion trumping accurate reporting and confusing opinion for facts. Its misinformation at best. DNA evidence cannot exonerate anyone, only the court system can based on evidence (including DNA evidence). I hope the statement that they were "technically exonerated" is removed, because technically and actually, they certainly were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.89.87 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rape evidence

Re: " Police had initially suspected that the boys were raped due to their dilated anuses, but forensic evidence later proved conclusively that the murdered boys had not been raped at all, and dilated anuses were a normal post-mortem condition.[10]"

I did try to improve this but someone has changed it back. "Proved conclusively" - does the reference cited actually use these words and is it an impartial reference? I think it might be more correct to say "there was no evidence of anal rape", which there wasn't - better would be to quote the exact words from expert witnesses detailing the absence of possible signs of anal rape. However: does no evidence mean it didn't happen? Probably but we should only cite experts on this, not guess, and not use populist book sources on such important details. Refutations (if any) should also be mentioned. I should point out here that Echol's defense team *strongly supported* the sexual killing theory in their submission requesting DNA testing, referring to the semen traces on the boy's pants and the possibility that mouth injuries on one of the victims were suggestive of oral rape.199.127.252.195 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed

Misquoting

Article says:

"According to the prosecutors, the DNA results would most certainly allow the men the right to a new trial and be subsequently acquitted."

This is not accurate. That's not what was said according to the reference given. It says:

'.. the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that there was enough evidence to call a hearing to determine whether to have a new trial. The hearing was scheduled for this December." blah

"The prosecuting attorney, Scott Ellington, said in an interview that the state still considered the men guilty and that, new DNA findings notwithstanding, he knew of no current suspects.

“We don’t think that there is anybody else,” Mr. Ellington said, declaring the case closed.

Asked how he could free murderers if he believed they were guilty, he acknowledged that the three would likely be acquitted if a new trial were held, given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses."

So the article should say instead something like:

"Prosecutor Scott Ellington said that, although the state still considered the men guilty, the three would most likely be acquitted if a new trial were held "given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses." He also said that he knew of no other current suspects."

No way is this guy giving the DNA evidence any credence - at least not yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

***Aghhhh!**** Someone has half-corrected this. People please understand this: quotes must be VERIFIABLE. You can't just make stuff up. Accuracy to the source is critical. Don't you actually look at the source? Now it says:

Prosecutor Scott Ellington said that although he still considered the men guilty, he admitted that it would be difficult to retry them if a new trial were held "given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses."

Wrong. He did NOT say it would be "difficult to retry them". He said (word for word):

" ...,.he acknowledged that the three would likely be acquitted if a new trial were held, given the prominent lawyers now representing them, the fact that evidence has decayed or disappeared over time and the death or change of heart of several witnesses."

I am correcting this and also fixing the order of sentences in this section.199.127.252.195 (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you actually look at the source? Yes, I did, and my response is "Don't you actually look at THE SOURCES?" That's sources, plural. Other sources make it clear that he believes it would be difficult to retry them. You are missing the forest for the trees by demanding some sort of word for word fidelity to a particular source, especially when this particular source is itself paraphrasing instead of directly quoting. According to this source your "word for word" reading is not, in fact, word for word what the prosecutor said. If a Wikipedia reading is not INCONSISTENT with the source, the more informative and accurate reading based on the totality of sources should be chosen. Sure, you can say, "well then provide additional citations" but my response would be that we have limited amounts of time and footnoting every turn of phrase is, well, a demand that does not accomplish much in the end if the reading is is not going to change. In other words your blanket statement "He did NOT say it would be 'difficult to retry them'" is essentially false, since he is on record in other sources saying "practically impossible" to retry them. Wikipedia is ultimately responsible to the SOURCES not a particular source, which might not provide the full picture.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Description of bindings wrong?

"They were stripped naked and had been hogtied with their own shoelaces: their right ankles tied to their right wrists behind their backs, the same with their left arms and legs .."

But the victims' arms and ankles were not behind their backs, were they? They don't look to be in Paradise Lost. From http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/topic,2983.0.html :

"They were not tied in the way that you are thinking. They were tied ankle to corresponding wrist. If you sit in a chair and drop your arms down, then tie a shoestring from your left wrist to your left ankle and do the same with the right, that will give you an idea of how they were tied."

It also appears (but I'm not certain) from Paradise Lost that the victims' wrists were tied to their thighs as well as ankles. This positions the arms at the sides not behind the back.199.127.252.195 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone pls clarify/reference this? 199.127.252.195 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible teeth imprints

Besides Byers, Terry Hobbs also had his teeth removed sometime after the murders. When I stumble across the reference again I will add this or someone else can. As I recall forensic experts for the defense didn't think that there were any human bite marks on the victims.199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Byers Teeth Extraction

Having worked with disabled adults receiving State Medicaid(Medicaid the insurance of last resort) I can attest that the only dental benefit provided was teeth extraction. My understanding is that if a person has severely infected or decayed teeth the collective bad bacteria can cause systemic sepsis, a blood poisoning. http://www.advertisingcrossing.com/article/170042/Left-untreated-tooth-decay-can-take-a-life/

Thereby, if Mr Byers had decayed teeth, was receiving AK “Medicaid” due to low income or disability his only option to control his dental disease and save his health may have been extraction. Even with Company insurance most likely there was no dental plan, again, leaving extraction as the least costly and most viable option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.110.235.223 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

More misquotes and wrong citations

"Supporters petitioned the Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe to pardon Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley based on the DNA. Beebe denied the request but promised to reconsider once the DNA testing is complete and points to another suspect[citation needed]."

Where the **** is this from? Please don't add crap unless you can cite where it is from.

What I found was this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/west-memphis-three-pardon_n_934437.html Here the Governor says he won't consider a pardon until the sentences are served (meaning another 10 years of probation) by which time he will be gone, and that he won't consider a pardon unless evidence clearly points at another perp.199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"He said that if the DNA points to another suspect, he will fully exonerate them and pursue the other suspect." Where did he say that? Not cited. Nothing of the sort in the Associated Press article 8/25/2011. What he *did* say, which is in no way the same thing, was:

Ellington said he does not plan to reopen the case, but was willing to consider any compelling evidence that was presented and screened by defense attorneys.

"I believe that these three men are guilty, but I will receive evidence that is presented by the defense team once they go through that," Ellington said.

199.127.252.195 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also

"As part of the plea deal, they can not pursue civil litigation against any of the police officers or prosecutors involved in their case and they can not make money off their story.[not in citation given][56]"

I suspect this comes from somewhere else. The reference given (http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/08/articles/attorney/civil-rights-1/west-memphis-three-wrongful-imprisonment/) is a legal discussion that suggests they *can* sue though it could be very difficult. 199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)