(Close Window)
Topic: Freeing the West Memphis 3
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 19, 2011 01:53PM)
Finally!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/us/20arkansas.html

Interesting circumstances...
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Aug 19, 2011 02:10PM)
Twenty years too late. They had to cop a plea so the truth about will never come out.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 19, 2011 02:19PM)
Poor ***s. Sad this went out with a plea. What will they get for the near 20 years of their lives they had take?
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 19, 2011 02:24PM)
It's a different kind of plea than we usually hear about. I can't really give my opinion on the deal publically but I definitely have one.
I'm choosing to focus on the most positive side, which is the kid that was freed from death row.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 19, 2011 02:28PM)
Why can't you give your opinion publicly?
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 19, 2011 02:44PM)
Because it's related too directly to my future work. It's a potential conflict that I'd rather avoid.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 19, 2011 02:57PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-19 15:44, critter wrote:
Because it's related too directly to my future work. It's a potential conflict that I'd rather avoid.
[/quote]

Ah, also, nicely tying current threads together.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 19, 2011 03:00PM)
Synchronicity.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Aug 19, 2011 05:24PM)
Wow, I never thought this would happen. After watching the first doc, I thought they did it-then the second added some doubt. Both the main guy of the "three" and the crazy father dude were some odd characters.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 21, 2011 01:09AM)
I signed a petition and sent a letter to the governor a few years back so this has been long awaited good news. Not nearly as long as it was for the three and their friends and families though.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 21, 2011 01:42AM)
I hope they get book or film deals...

At least the money will help. Millions I hope.

But nothing will give back the years taken... :(
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 30, 2011 06:08PM)
I actually hadn't seen the documentaries until yesterday and today. Only knew what I'd read through research.
I have to say, until today I had no idea just how completely off that Byers guy was. Wow. I mean, wow.

Edit* Okay it gets weirder. Apparently Mark Byers is now saying that he believes the 3 are innocent and that he believes it's Terry Wayne Hobbs.
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Aug 31, 2011 11:32AM)
Don't confess to something you didn't do.


Any bets on how long it will be before 1 or 2 of these guys is in trouble again?
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 31, 2011 11:50AM)
The kid who 'confessed' was mentally retarded. Seriously. His IQ was 72, which places him well within the error range for mental retardation according to the DSM.
Not saying you're wrong or right, just something to consider when you make your judgements.
Also, his 'confession' was not admissable when the other two were tried.

*supplemental*
In fairness, I will add the counter arguement. There is a site that claims to settle 'myths' about the WM3 which falsely states that the boy does not fit "any accepted" definition of retardation, but only a low IQ.
That's completely wrong.
Jessie's IQ tested 72 at the time of the trial. Allegedly, it had measured 73 and 74 in the past.
The cut-off for mental retardation is 70 [b]with a 4 point margin of error.[/b]
So he certainly does fit the standard definition.
This criteria is from the DSM, which is the legal and professional standard for this subject.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 31, 2011 12:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-31 12:32, Big Jeff wrote:

Any bets on how long it will be before 1 or 2 of these guys is in trouble again?
[/quote]
Formative years spent in prison will probably do that to you (i.e., make it more likely that you will get into trouble). Whether you were innocent or not.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 31, 2011 12:18PM)
This is shocking to me: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/24/prison-subdues-echols-defiance/
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Aug 31, 2011 01:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-31 13:02, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-31 12:32, Big Jeff wrote:

Any bets on how long it will be before 1 or 2 of these guys is in trouble again?
[/quote]
Formative years spent in prison will probably do that to you (i.e., make it more likely that you will get into trouble). Whether you were innocent or not.
[/quote]

I was comparing them to OJ, and other high profile people who have been let go and ended up in prison within a couple of years. I hope they take the chance they have and make something of their lives.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 31, 2011 01:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-31 12:50, critter wrote:
The kid who 'confessed' was mentally retarded. Seriously. His IQ was 72, which places him well within the error range for mental retardation according to the DSM.
Not saying you're wrong or right, just something to consider when you make your judgements.
Also, his 'confession' was not admissable when the other two were tried.

*supplemental*
In fairness, I will add the counter arguement. There is a site that claims to settle 'myths' about the WM3 which falsely states that the boy does not fit "any accepted" definition of retardation, but only a low IQ.
That's completely wrong.
Jessie's IQ tested 72 at the time of the trial. Allegedly, it had measured 73 and 74 in the past.
The cut-off for mental retardation is 70 [b]with a 4 point margin of error.[/b]
So he certainly does fit the standard definition.
This criteria is from the DSM, which is the legal and professional standard for this subject.
[/quote]

He doesn't fit the definition, as his IQ had never been measured below 70; however, there is a statistical recognition that it's reasonably possible that is IQ is below 70. It's also reasonably possible that it's over 75. You're not defined as retarded because the error rate says maybe your IQ is wrong. [i]Moreover[/i], even an IQ below 70 doesn't qualify an individual as mentally retarded per the DSM4; he would also have to display significant limitations in multiple areas of adaptive behavior. (Don't know if he did or not)
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 31, 2011 02:12PM)
Regarding IQ; The exact word used in the DSM-IV-TR is "Approximately." [i]Approximately[/i] 70 or below. That's why the 4 point margin of error is there. As a guideline.
So, yes, his IQ fits that guideline. It's +/- 4 points, btw. So 66 to 74 IQ means 95%.

You're right about the concurrent adaptive functioning, but I haven't seen any records discussing this in his case. It is my understanding that the defense's psychologist did diagnose him with mild retardation though, which leads me to believe that he found something along these lines. I didn't diagnose him, the expert in the trial did.

[b]The site I mentioned based their criteria primarily upon the IQ standard as listed on Wikipedia(!) So my quoted rebuttal is to their false interpretation of this IQ requirement.[/b]

Here's a good book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Evaluations-Courts-Third-Professionals/dp/1572309660
It was one of the few textbooks I kept.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 31, 2011 02:49PM)
I want to make it very clear that the mental retardation is not my diagnosis. I am repeating what I recall from the trial records, which was the diagnosis given by an expert.

My [i]only[/i] intent was to clarify a poor definition from another site.
I haven't given my suspected diagnoses or competency opinions for Casey Anthony, the WM3, or any other courtroom defendant.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have mentioned it because I have no intention of discussing my personal opinion of any defendant's mental state.



BTW, here's another interesting document about the 'confession' and how it's (alleged) abuse (may have) influenced the other trial:
http://cwcy.org/resources/107_attach_FINAL%20AMICUS%20BRIEF%20(SIGNED).pdf