Talk:West Memphis Three

Australian Supporters

I added the australian supporters group, is this okay? --Coheed56 (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the POV issues

The article only has a very minor mention - toward the end - that DNA testing was essentially concluded in July, 2007. DNA from the victims was found, as was DNA from an unknown person. There was no DNA from Damien, Jason, Jessie nor from John Mark Byers. It is beyond absurd to suggest that the perpetrators of this crime left no DNA. The only ones who are now fighting the tide are WMPD flunkies who built their careers on the backs of Damien, Jason and Jessie. Dpd esq 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)DpDEsq

Of course, only a small amount of DNA was even recovered since the bodies had been submerged, of that only a small portion was tested, and of that only a small portion yeilded usable results.

To claim the WM3 were eliminated as donors is absolutely ludicris.

The Defemse themselves acknowledged years ago that the DNA results couldn't possibly exclude the convicted in this case, they just used it to buy time for the condemned.

Under Documentaries and Studies..."In 2006, Josh van der Meulen, a stone mason from Grimsby, Ontario, began an email campaign to persuade state officials to reopen the case. Mr. van der Meulen has advocated that some of the case evidence is contradictory and the forensic evidence excludes the convicted as suspects." Has anyone heard of this campaign or person? An email campaign?--Mikala Arteaga 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What's happened to this article? It was an excellent, concise summary of the case 3 months ago; now it's completely incoherent.

I encourage EVERYONE with an interest in this case to read the crime library article. It presents the fullest available account on the net and is reasonably unbiased. I don't think anyone who looks at the case in detail can come away believing that justice was done. Yes, they were convicted, but they were convicted by a conservative jury during a time when satanic panic was rampant. The prosecution relied on a 'satanic expert' who it turns out got his degree by mail order.

Better yet, read the actual trial transcripts as they are available online.

I don't see how this page can list such outright fabrication without anyone opposing it. For example, the page states outright that "bite marks" were found on one of the bodies, but this is a lie- the pathology report stated that the ragged wound was caused by a serated knife. But hey, let's not let facts interfer with our blind defense of three convicted child-murderers, shall we? |It's not a fabrication, it was a post-trial determination by pathologists, and it was enough to get court orders for dental records.

yeah, well done!! Care to revise your statement now in light of teh new findings??

There ARE no "new findings".

The POV of this page includes much material drawn from the "Free the West Memphis Three" website. It does not present a balanced view with phrases like "the police mishandled the crime scene" when that has not been established. Rmhermen 03:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the phrase "critics charge" is present immediately before the phrase "police mishandled the crime scene". Several critics are named (documentarians, writers, lawyers), so noting whether they're "pro" or "anti" seems like an ad hominem attack. Perhaps we could improve the article's wording and citations so they're less like weasel words.

The question is, does being "pro" or "anti" alter the substance of their arguments? Is their research sloppy? Has anyone rebutted the various critics? Some of the article's wording does seem to have a bias against the police, so maybe we could work on that. Also, I certainly wouldn't object to a fuller examination of the case, including citing those who think the convicts are guilty.

Anon, 05 April 2005, 19:56 UTC

To be fair, the controversy surrounding the West Memphis case is the supposed mishandling of evidence and unethical actions taken by the local authorities and courts. I read The Devil's Knot some time ago and it would certainly seem a fair assessment to make. I don't know of any organizations that are actively trying to keep the three in prison as there rarely are any such groups for convicts. --Quid 18:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph (see last part of "Aftermath" section), which mentions that many people are content with the official court ruling, in an effort to address the imbalance of the article. As Quid pointed out, the people who are satisfied with the case as it stands have not set about trying to reinforce the evidence which came to trial, as they believe it to be accurate and sufficient. As a result there are few relevant anti-'free the WM3' sources from which to quote or refer to, which explains the bias of the article. Anonymous 15.08, 8 June 2005

"They took his little manhood before he even knew what it wuz." Eyeon 12:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to all this, so I'm not willing to jump in and start hacking away, but this article stinks of bias. Here is a short list of some of the things that ought to be added/changed. I'm using this page of court documents for reference: http://callahan.8k.com/index.html

Jessie Miskelly may have been questioned for twelve hours, but he confessed after three. Check the timeline on above page. Of course they kept questioning him after he confessed, the way it is worded now makes it sound like he was browbeaten for twleve hours.

Jessie Miskelly confessed again, with is lawyer present, after his trial.

He also maintained his guilt to his own attorney for months after his arrest.

Of course, Misskelley maintained his guilt because he didn't know Stidham was there in his defense. He thought Stidham was with the police, and kept right on admitting to something he knew wasn't right. This is well-documented in "The Devil's Knot." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.29.175.2 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's insane to think he was coerced into a false conferession.

Damien Echols was hospitalized multiple times for mental illness, not just "Hospitalized for observation" or however the article puts it now. His mental illness was severe enough to get him total disability (see exhibit 500 link above).

The mishandling of the crime scene and most of the other issues identified in the article are readily acknowledged even by neutral commentators. See the article at crimelibrary.com for example. If the article doesn't quote any anti-wm3 sources this is probably because they simply don't exist.

I think this page needs a neutrality disagreement statement. Beyers stepfather DID have his teeth removed and had dentures fitted .... I JUST Finished the documentary, that statement is pure BULLSHIT...\\\ \\\

The second documentary has an interview with the dentist and all the dental records, it's quite factual. Sean Bonner 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of this case and have no opinion on it. I came to this site from a link on a recent story. From a bystanders point-of-view, the WM3 section is totally incoherent and very leading. The story drifts from, pro to com, sometimes in midsentance, but mostly pro WM3. It seems written by a hundred authors with varying points of view. This is one of the problems with impassioned Wikipedia pages, everyone has to get their 2¢ in. As for a storyline, I would like to hear more from the prosecutors side and less of what the defenses says is the prosecutors evidence.

NPOV Cleanup attempted

I tried to inject some opposing views into the article to bring down the bias. There is a whole lot more to be done before this article is worthwhile, but I got started. A quick summary:

1). Added some info on Misskelly's second confession in the second about his first one. I also removed the quotation marks around "confession" (is there anything more POV than snide quotation marks? You might feel that the confession is disputed, but it's been upheld in multiple courts, so it cannot just be dismissed (not that it can just be assumed to be true).

2). I added some info on Damien Echols' mental problems, which are far, far more extensive than the article would have you believe. A lot more work needs to be done to paint an accurate picture of the man.

3). I also noted that while there are many people who would like to see this case reopened and examined, many of these issues have been dealt with on appeal, with the courts deciding for the prosecution.

Please discuss. I'd really like to see this article get a little less biased. Jordoh 20:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My discussion: this is literally a witch hunt. And being fucked in the head doesn't make you a murderer. 220.236.48.13 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A conviction makes you a murderer. A death sentence carried out makes you a dead murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasishigh (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, ever heard of a false-conviction? Ever heard of convicted murderers being exonerated from their crimes for various reasons such as evidence-tampering, new DNA evidence, false testimonies, etc.? If you read a newspaper, and I mean a REAL, non-biased, non-religious newspaper, you'd know that there is quite a bit of controversy going on in THIS COUNTRY (USA) about how many people have been wrongly convicted due to mishandled evidence and lack of DNA testing, and about how many of those people are already dead because of the death penalty. So just because someone is convicted of a crime does not make them guilty, you see. In an ideal world, it would, but in reality, it is not that easy. And because of that and the existence of the death penalty in this country, there have been people who have been convicted AND legally executed that WERE NOT GUILTY. I'm not necessarily opposed to the death penalty, but it certainly cannot exist the way it does now with all the corruption and incompetence in our legal system and the existence of numbskulls who seem to be entirely ignorant of the fact that not everyone in prison is guilty. Hint, hint. Fermentor (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A conviction doesn't make you a murderer, killing someone makes you a murderer. Wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.119.96 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people?

The statement "Today, many people still believe that the right people were arrested for the murders of the three little boys, particularly in Arkansas." seems a bit weaselly. Who are these many people? Was their any surveys done among Arkansas residents or nationally? --Cab88

Yes and they totally remove any non-supporting links. If it does not flow like the movies then it is edited. Well I got lots of time to continue putting them in there. And everytime they delete relevant and counter information I will put the links back and remove the for profit organizations link.

There are just as many weasel words for and against this case without any citations at all, but the films are not fiction, they are documentaries. I have a hard time believing that these polls you're talking about exist, since you don't have links to any and you didn't even sign your comment. Post them up if they are real. Fermentor (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Now it says: "Today, although a small cadre of zealots (consisting primarily of West Memphis police personnel who built careers around the convictions) continue to insist the West Memphis Three are guilty in spite of the evidence", which is not remotely NPOV. 170.141.68.2 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have gone through and removed the extensive editorialising, both pro- and anti-, on this page, as well as placing requests for citations in a few places. I am likely to remove anything so marked that isn't cited.--Apeloverage 07:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sentences from the article which are reproduced below.

All of them are relevant to the article. However, they are unsourced, and I had put a request for sources (above) which wasn't done. Since this article has been the subject of biased rewrites (from both sides), I thought it was appropriate to remove them. Please feel free to add them in again, with references.

i) For example, once the bodies were discovered, the area was taped off and a list of those who had immediate access to the area the bodies were located was maintained by Detective Diane Hester. An alternate path was made through the woods to avoid the primary routes [citation needed].

ii) However she viewed only a duplicate of the records made available to the public some ten years after they had been examined by newspaper writers and others [citation needed].

iii) However vagrants were frequently reported fighting in back for discarded food [citation needed].

iv) although in this area there are more black people than white [citation needed].

v) She [Vicki Hutcheson] also alleges a widespread conspiracy to keep her quiet [citation needed].

vi) Although in light of his actual age (17 years old) this [Miskelly's parents not being present at his interview] is not unusual [citation needed].

vii) which again is not unusual [only a small part of his interview being recorded] since he confessed after less than four hours and twenty-seven minutes.

In the case of vi and vii, the facts that need citing are whether this is indeed normal police procedure, rather than whether Miskelly's parents were present or whether he confessed.

--Apeloverage 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to add...

"Misskelley's videotaped confession was played for the jury." His confession was not videotaped, it was recorded on audio and that is what was played for the jury.

In addition, the article is not clear which trial heard the recorded confession. To my knowledge it was the Misskelly trial. The tape was not admitted to the Baldwin and Echols trial.

Put it in, but with references. --Apeloverage 08:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"No one can deny that the case was wrongly handled...no one can deny that there is no "concrete evidence" that links Damien, Jason and Jessie to these murders....More importantly though, NO-ONE can deny that after watching Paradise Lost, there is an underlying reason (and I dont mean the black clothes worn by the offenders) why the majority of West Memphis agreed that these boys were guilty. Ive never seen 3 boys with less conviction, ever. If a killer doesnt leave behind sufficient evidence to link him to it, does that make him innocent of the crime? NO. I find the article to be informative but, so far, nothing gives more evidence against these boys than their visible and unmistakebly guilty body language. 80% of the way we communicate with people is not by our words, but by our body language. Maybe the supporters of the W/M/Three should put aside technicalities for a second and take a look at the bigger picture. 26/10/2006 CP

The "bigger picture" is that they LOOK guilty? "Guilty body language" is not sufficient evidence to convict someone of a felony, nor should it be. I hope to God you are just a troll, because this is nothing short of lunacy.128.194.86.217 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Jason

A "troll"? Wow, you sound mature!! I hope to God that YOU'RE not one of those people who just believe someone because they say so......that's all we need in the world, more vulnerable fools walking around. Did you watch 'Paradise Lost'? I think Damien and Jason were as proud as punch of what they'd done, and it wasn't until they found themselves in prison that they realised playing with peoples lives isnt just a game. It was then, and only then, that we started to hear protests of "we're innocent", from these boys. Why did Damien lie on the stand? The reason people lie is to hide something from another party or to cover up the truth. But hang on, I forgot, they ARE innocent because they SAY so. Give me a break!! 04/11/2006 CP

Are you familiar with the concept of the burden of proof? They may very well be guilty, I can't claim that I know for sure one way or another, but I don't see any concrete evidence. Whether or not they actually committed the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and saying that they "look guilty" doesn't even come close to satisfying that burden.128.194.86.217 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Jason

I don't see how Jason showed anything to anyone in Paradise Lost. He didn't really say anything to anyone and mostly kept to himself.

What their body language said is open for interpretation. While many people take Damien's body language to indicate he didn't care and was amused and proud, others see the amusement . . . but see it in more of a mocking, 'is this circus really happening' kind of way. You know, there is a reason why nobody brings up body language in a trial . . . there is no precise science to it, merely human interpretation. Jessie. 28/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.177.68 (talk) 04:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

CP - So we should look past the fact that there is not a shred of evidence connecting the WM3 to the murders? How about this - next time theres a serious crime committed in your locality, we should have you arrested, and sentence you to death, claiming your body language was "shifty" or "guilty".

Presumably you would not complain or demand your rights, as that would make you a hypocrite - Jonathan H, 08/April/2008

More Requests for References

I have put in several more 'citation needed's, and am likely to remove anything which isn't referenced in a reasonable time, for example two weeks, unless I can find a reference myself.

I think this is a reasonable thing to do, given that this page has been the subject of several very partisan re-writes. Even if it results in a much sparser article, that's better than what it is now, chock full of 'might-be facts'. --Apeloverage 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some citations, and I changed the section about Echols refusing to answer during the polygraph because he was afraid of the chair. *After* the test, he was asked what he was afraid of, and he said "The electric chair" 68.8.110.219 02:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Trials" section needs some serious citation and re-wording. I honestly think that the section should be broken up to talk about the two separate trials. If no one else does it first, I will do it myself when I am not sick in bed.150.208.206.242 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Appeal Process

I have decided to send a DOD MEMORANDUM to the FBI as soon as the community of West Memphis contact me back via e-mail for the FBI to investigate the case, reopen it and appeal it to the Federal Courts of Appeal. I hope that I am not to late for the one on death row. Please help with any comments you have.

My point of contact is whitetigerofgod@hotmail.com.

DOD? That is about the silliest thing I have read on this case yet. The one on death row is right where he belongs according to the courts. FBI has no power over courts.

wanker.220.236.48.13 10:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well lets pray that you or one close to you is never wrongly convicted because as we all know the courts must be definitively correct in all things. Love the way that right wing fundies hate the govt in so many aspects, yet accept this judgement of the courts 100% uncritically.

Because the courts who found that boxer Ruben Carter Guilty, but let OJ and Michael Jackson off, would never make a mistake. Guilty or not Guilty (because a court does not find people innocent) mistakes were made, and this will never be settled, until it is placed back in the courts, with a jury of peers. I almost hate the fact I was asigned this case to do reports on for a Law class last year.

Unbalanced and misleading

The artical reads like most things in this case. Onesided and misleading. The entire page is bias and reads like a advertisement for the movies and the for profit support groups.

"Dr. Dale Griffis, an expert in occult killings[5]"

If he's an expert, consider me a Nobel Prize Winner.

He paid for his degree, and didn't do even one hour of study to obtain it. Want proof? Write to Columbia Pacific (a degree mill) and ask for a copy of his PhD thesis.

TWISTED INFORMATION=

"Echols admitted that he has delved deeply into the occult and was familiar with its practices. Various items were found in his room, including a funeral register upon which he had drawn a pentagram and upside-down crosses and had a copied spell." This statement taken from the article is inncorrect, Echols did not admit that he was in the occult, he admitted he was wicker, 2 completely different things. Also, Echols has already established while on oath, that he did not draw the pentagram or the upside down crosses on the register, he bought it second hand, and these were already drawn on it upon purchase. If something is going to be written male sure it is true. I dont say innocent or guilty, I just say dont give up on the case, there is obviously someone out there who was involved but not caught.

i::t's called Wicca, not wicker, and it IS a form of occultism in that it's "knowledge hidden from view" by stupid people who are afraid of it and think it's satanic. Wiccans are, by and large, kind and hippie-like people who care about the earth and the people on it. as opposed to christians who seem to love to point the finger and scream "SATANISM!"

" Wiccans are, by and large, kind... people who care about the earth and the people on it. as opposed to christians"

So Christians are OPPOSED to caring about the earth and the people in it? What about the Jews? I guess you think they drink the blood of gentile babies, right? Sheesh. This asylum is run by inmates...

That's incredible - you actually managed to twist the content of a statement right in front of you while you were writing - "as opposed to christians who seem to love to point the finger and scream "SATANISM!", as in, "that type of Christian". You don't just leave half the quote out. Now, if you'd like to dispute the intentions of things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the KKK and so on and so forth (many of which indeed propagated, and continue to propagate, the "Jews drink baby blood" theme), then go ahead. That said, the worst Wiccans I've heard of are mostly (read - "MOSTLY") guilty of being doped, delusional and/or lazy - as opposed with the casual hunting down and killing of said Jews, or for chasing "happy-go-lucky niggers" by horseback with an iron chain in hand, and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.73.62 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

"having had the skin of his penis removed with surgical precision."

This is yet another example of an opinion. It was argued in court, but isn't a fact. Stidham never used this, and he is the only lawyer to still be working on the case since 1993; his profiler seen in Paradise Lost 2 clearly refutes this claim saying it was anger not precision.

"On the night of the murders, workers in the Bojangles' restaurant near the crime scene in Robin Hood Woods reported seeing an African-American male "dazed and covered with blood and mud" inside the women's restroom of the restaurant. ... This apparent neglect of an important lead was especially criticized after a hair identified as belonging to an African-American was recovered from a sheet, which had been used to wrap one of the victims.[citation needed]"

Not a drop of blood at the organized crime scene, and a man covered in blood is an "important lead"? Give me a break! I like balls!

"Human bite marks" - Again, this is disputed, and is not fact. It was based on photographic evidence, and the defence failed to convince the judge in court it was a bite mark - ergo calling it a bite mark is unbalanced, biased opinion.

A judge who, according to various articles, doesn't put too much credibility into "expert witnesses" for whatever reason. I can't say with absolute certainty, but there is a good chance he wasn't going to believe the guy on the stand, no matter what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.29.175.2 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not a drop of blood at the organized crime scene..." First of all, WTF is an "organized crime scene"? I had no idea that the three boys were killed by organized crime. Second, as the WP entry states, "The original autopsies were inconclusive as to time of death, but stated that Byers died of blood loss". Did you notice how he died? "Blood loss". Where did that blood go? Was it drunk by vampires? Finally, note that the 3 boys were found in "a creek that led to a major drainage canal". Where do you suppose blood would go, as it leaves bodies in a creek/canal? AWAY, downstream. Bricology (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

Given the tremendous amount of support these young men have, I was surprised to see all the weasel words employed in the article and the vague references to a profiler etc. etc. The "profiler" is Brent Turvey whose career got quite a boost from his very public involvement with the WM3 movement. I was also suprised not to see any comment about Dale griffiths, the self-described "Cult Cop". In addition, the article is just a big mess and suffers from a lack of a coherent narrative. I marked up what i could and I encourage those who follow this case more closely than I to avail themselves of th voluminous sources available at their supporters sites. Virtually every fact or alleged fact can be supported or refuted via their sources. Of course, if you want to verify a fact that suggests guilt, you'll have to look elsewhereLiPollis 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tribute & Support Section getting over large

I would note that this section is getting to be waaay too long. It may be time to split this off into it's own article entitled Celebrity Support for The West Memphis 3 and tributes. A few of the most notable examples could be left in the main article with a direction to " see main article Celebrity Support for The West Memphis 3 and tributes". Please discuss.LiPollis 15:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree this has become a way people try to further their careers. The money that is needed for legal expenses is pocket change for a few of them. Let them get their time in the limelight for paying out that money. If they truly believe these boys are innocent would they not be morally bound, as some claim to be, to put up a small fraction of their millions up front?

Also a few of the web links are links that are asking for money and are being used as a reference. They have been removed.--Gasishigh 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Misc. Cleanup

Whilst reading the article, I cleaned it up a bit by fixing many grammar mistakes. I clarified some confusing sentences. I also fix inconsistencies within the article. I also made it ever-so-slightly more acceptable by Wikipedia formatting standards. BlueJ774 08:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. if you have time, another pass through for grammar and formnatting would be helpful. I am reluctant to do it myself since I might be tempted to town down some of the language in support of the men and cut some of the repetative and farily meaningless stuff written about Dale Griffiths testimony. His testimony was laughable and fairly meaningless in terms of facts. The West memphis 3 support site goes over every silly claim he made in incredible detail so I think it's not necessary to repeat them all here. I'd be happy with a statment that just said a self-styled cult-cop testified and made a number of generalized claims that could apply to almost any homicide such as and then just enumerate the most important claims.LiPollis 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting used to the system here, but I removed some deliberately inflammatory material posted at the bottom of the talk page. CharlieAngel 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

References need to be made consistant

Because of the DNA testing, there has been some edits to this article that use a form of referencing that is inconsistant with current wikipedia standards and clashes with the inline citations used in the rest of the article. If someone has the time and the knowledge, it would be best if you could tease out inline cites from those offsite references in the section titled Aftermath. As they stand now, the numbers of the offsite cites do not match with the numbered inline citations and could cause an editor just delete all that new material as not matching the numbered references properly.LiPollis 04:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

After seeing both films and reading this article I still don't see that there is any "evidence" other than the confession of the retarded boy (police be SO proud of yourselves) and the inevitable post-arrest "he confessed" statements from unreliable people. Am I missing something? That stepfather always looked like the most likely to cut someone to me.John celona 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" tag

Though the "POV" and "Cleanup" tags at the top are probably appropriate for an article on a highly controversial subject like this, the "Unreferenced" tag is clearly inappropriate on an article that (as of today) contains 106 references. I am removing the "Unreferenced" tag for this reason. --RBBrittain 22:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Misskelley's confession

The facts presented on this page are incorrect. He was not interrogated for 12 hours. The following page presents what happens more clearly: [url]http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html[/url]

۝ ۞ ░ 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Terry Hobbs as a suspect

Can you really say that he IS a major suspect? The Echols defense team says he isn't, and his own lawyer hasn't gotten that impression, either.

User:Kruegerrands213.115.12.30 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

POV: Animal predation as a proven fact

There are several references in the article to the "fact" that animal predation is the cause of the genital mutilation of one of the victims. It is my understanding that this is an assertion of a defense expert which came to light only in 2007. Given the time that has passed, it hardly seems likely that this has been proved in any meaningful sense. Until either the prosecution/police stipulate this or a court issues a finding of fact to this effect, the article shouldn't assume uncritically that this is true.

There is a similar issue with the claims of rape. It seems that the prosecution does not maintain that the boys were anally raped, but this isn't clear in the introduction, where it was previously stated that the lack of certain types of wounds "proved" that the boys weren't raped. Clconway (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tributes and Support: Assuming good faith

User Gasishigh and I have gone back and forth editing the following sentence in the article. The original wording is

The case has seen significant interest from musicians and celebrities, who have popularized the case and staged fund-raisers.

Gasishigh would prefer it to read

The case has seen significant interest from musicians and celebrities, who have promoted themselves by popularizing the case and staging fund-raisers.

This seems to me a clear cut violation of WP:NPOV, but the language has been reinserted at least 4 times. Can we try to reach a consensus here about whether the original wording is problematic and whether the proposed revision is reasonable? Clconway (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Article reads: "Metallica composed music for the Paradise Lost documentaries, and former bassist Jason Newsted supports the West Memphis Three's right to obtain a retrial and has been seen with a 'Free the West Memphis Three' T-Shirt during their 1993 world tour" ... Er, really? They weren't, as I understand it, even all convicted until 1994, the following year. Can someone more familiar with Metallica check the date on this statement, please?71.63.15.156 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right: according to the article they were tried in 1994. The bit about the t-shirt is uncited and probably unverifiable (unless he was wearing it in a video or something), so I suggest you just cut it. Metallica's general support is pretty well established, considering they allowed their music to be used in Paradise Lost for free (see here). Actually, in that same article the filmmaker claims the band hadn't heard of the case before 1995. I'm going to fix the article now. Clconway (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a Metallica fan since the mid-to-late 80's, I can say that I do not recall ever seeing Jason Newsted wear a "Free the WM3" shirt or similar. That's not to say I've seen every picture ever published of them, but I've not seen a picture of Jason wearing that shirt. Additionally, Jason Newsted is no longer with Metallica. One final note, the Metallica music used in PL was not composed for the documentary - as stated previously, Metallica allowed them to use the music for free, but they had previously released all of the music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeeling (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A thought on POV

I think an issue in this article—which some of the anti-WM3 editors may be reacting to—is that while facts and details are not inherently POV, the accumulation of facts and details in the article weight heavily on the pro-WM3 side. There are many sentences of the form, "Police initially thought X, but experts say they were wrong for reasons A, B, and C." There's enough wiggle room there to convince yourself this is neutral, if that's what you want to do, but the clear implication is the the police were wrong, because the experts have reasons and the police don't. Also note the subtle tilt of the word "initially," which implies maybe even the police have changed their minds.

Consider the following passages:

It was originally assumed that deep lacerations to Chris Byers and what appeared to be emasculation (his scrotum and injuries to the head of his penis) were the result of knife wounds, however forensics conducted in 2007 indicated that the injuries may have been the result of animal predation.

The boys' anuses were all dilated, and police initially suspected the boys had been raped or sodomized. Later expert testimony confirmed anal dilation, but discovered none of the bruising, tearing or other damage that are typical of rape, suggesting that the boys were not raped.

Police believed the boys were assaulted and killed at the location they were found, but critics argued the assault, at least, was unlikely to have occurred at the creek, due to the lack of mosquito bites on any of the boys and the minuscule amount of blood at the scene; Byers' injuries alone would have bled copiously.

I have edited this into the following, which I think is far more balanced:

The interpretation of the crime scene forensics remain controversial. Prosecution experts claim Chris Byers' wounds were the results of a knife attack and that he had been purposefully emasculated by the murderer; defense experts claim the injuries may have been the result of animal predation. Police suspected the boys had been raped or sodomized; later expert testimony disputed this finding. Police believed the boys were assaulted and killed at the location they were found; critics argued the assault, at least, was unlikely to have occurred at the creek.

Note that I'm not trying to suppress "the facts" here, but it's hardly fair to give the critics reasons without also giving the police's reasons. If anybody wants to dig through the sources and produce a more details, balanced treatment, please do. Clconway (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the need for more balance in the writing, but I believe these defense claims are crucial for this page. It seems to me obvious what the initial investigators reasons were: The boys' anuses were dilated, there were lacerations on Bryers' head and genitals, and the boys were found at the creek. However if we need these explicitly stated I am sure we can do that too.

This article has some serious POV problems in some other sections, but I think presenting the defenses reasons for doubting the prosecution's findings is highly informative and should be included. However, the defenses findings must not be presented as fact, but as possibilites.

Mahasanti (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious POV issues with the Trial section

There are several statements like this in the Trial section that need editing:

Misskelley then went into further detail about the sexual molestation of the victims. At least one of the boys had been held by the head and ears while being accosted. Both the Byers boy and the Branch boy had been raped. (Forensic evidence later conclusively demonstrated that none of the boys had in fact been raped.)

The forensic evidence did not conclusively demostrate this, and it is still contested. According to the Medical Examiners testimony, although bruising, lacerations, and semen were not found on examination, there were abrasions to the buttocks. In the testimony it was also mentioned that there is medical literature that suggests that on young victimes sodomy may not cause the types of lacerations and trauma as would normally be suggested. Thus, the ME could not rule out sexual assault, but could not find any evidence that a sodomy occured.

I am changing this to:

Misskelley claimed that both the Byers boy and the Branch boy had been raped, and that all the boys were tied up with brown rope. These statements, among others, cast doubt on the validity of Misskelley's confession. Although the medical examiner could not absolutely rule out sexual assault, he could not find any conclusive evidence to suggest that the boys were raped. [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasanti (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, what about the knife?

Operating under the now disproven assumption that the wounds to the boys were caused by a knife and not animal predation

For one, there is no way to prove that a knife wasn't used (unless maybe there was a witness that saw an animal attack the bodies...) Recent motions filed does contain expert witness testimony claiming that these wounds were animal in orign, however this does not "prove" the statement. This at least needs to be changed so soften the "disproven," but considering this is part of the section is strictly talking about the ME testimonty, I am removing it.

Also, this statement is innacurate:

This part of the statement is biologically inconsistent; semen is produced in the seminal vesicles and prostate, not the testes, and the three victims were pre-pubescent.

Semen consists of sperm (from the testes) along with seminal fluids (from the seminal vesicles and prostate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasanti (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that all of these claims about the veracity of the evidence in the initial trial should be moved to a new section, or possibly included in the "New Evidence" section. That way we can at least present the trail (both defense and prosecution) with a neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasanti (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. It makes sense because it would follow the natural progression of events in a better way. Editors doing the "Crossfire" nonsense in the trial section are usually seekign to either tip the POV of of the article in one direction or, tip it back towards the middle after another editor came in and unbalanced it again. Simply presenting the case in chronological order and not bringing up the completely new evidence specifics until you get to a new evidence sections makes sense to me and I think actually helps boths sides of this issue. The trial was what it was and it's not wrong to include info about evidenbce that was disputed at the time. There was plenty of of it. Then, in the new evidence section, all the facts and opinions being asserted by their supporters can be listed with citations and any refutations by the State can be be listed as well, with the proper cites. I like the idea.LiPollis (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

References

At the moment, this article is poorly referenced. Every single claim in this article needs to be referenced or it needs to be pulled per WP:PROVEIT - it's not helping anyone to have any speculation or unfounded claims here. I've reformatted the article and done a bit of minor rewording and will do some further polishing later but a good start would be for users who regularly edit this article to go through and tag every claim made with their source for it. I think the article subject mattered is easily featured article material - it's a shame it's not in better shape! :bloodofox: (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)