West Memphis Three Revisited

[Project Willow]

^Yes you are. You're denying the definition of sexual assault. You're stating defense interpretation of testimony as if it's fact. You're twisting the actual record in your summations to fit your view of the case. I invite people to read the record. Please tell me on what planet an injury to the penis is not sexual assault. On What Freakin Planet????

This is like arguing with the OJ defense team, and anal winks. It's insane.

[compared2what?]

^Yes you are. You're denying the definition of sexual assault. You're stating defense interpretation of testimony as if it's fact. You're twisting the actual record in your summations to fit your view of the case.

No. His findings did not include sexual assault. He summarizes them right here::

The head injuries consisted of multiple facial abrasions or scrapes and contusions or bruises. We had multiple abrasions and contusions of the lips. We had multiple scalp lacerations and contusions or bruising of the scalp, multi-focal subgaleal contusions and edema of the subgaleal. That's when we do the autopsy, we make an incision and reflect the scalp back, that's the underlying surface of the scalp as seen from the inside out. There we had edema and swelling and we saw multiple contusions or bruising. We also had multiple fractures of the calvarium and base of the skull. A calvarium is the top of the skull and the base of skull or bottom of the skull, are multiple fractures there. Associated with these fractures and injuries--impact sites, we have subarachnoid hemorrhages, that's hemorrhage involving the brain. We had contusions or bruises involving the brain. Those were the head injuries. Then the other injuries, we had the bindings of the wrists and ankles in a hog-tied fashion. We had multiple contusions, abrasions and lacerations of the torso and extremities. We had defense-type injuries to the hands. We had anal dilatation with hyperemia of the anal/rectum mucosa. We had evidence of drowning, which consisted of the washer-woman wrinkling of the hands and feet. We had petechial hemorrhages, small punctate hemorrhages that we normally see on the heart, the lungs and thymus. We had pulmonary edema and congestion, the lungs get full of water and we had water in the sphenoid sinus. There was no evidence of disease present and we found evidence of terminal aspiration of the gastric contents.

Notice in that bolded portion how he says he found evidence of drowning and defensive injuries, rather than just describing the condition of the lungs and hands? Notice how he doesn't do the same thing with the anal dilatation with hyperemis of the anal/rectum mucosa?

That's because it wasn't his opinion that those injuries were evidence of sexual assault. You can tell because he doesn't give that explanation as his opinion.

But I should have said that there was no evidence of the sexual assault that Miskelley's ostensibly incredibly accurate confession described. That was really my point.

I invite people to read the record.

I do too. I've got nothing to hide. They'll see that after Peretti evaded the question with non-direct responses a number of times, he said that he found no evidence of sodomy...

Stidham: So does it appear be any--does there appear to be any evidence of sodomy or choking on any of these victims?

Peretti: Um, no.

...which prompted Brent Davis to recall him for the following exchange:

RETURN TO OPEN COURT

The Court: You're back again?

Peretti: Back again.

Davis: Judge, I just have one additional question.

The Court: You want to wait for Fogleman or you wanna go ahead?

Davis: [unintelligible]

The Court: Here he is anyway. Go ahead.

Re-Direct of Dr. Frank Peretti by Brent Davis (cont.)

Davis: Dr. Peretti, I've just got one additional question for you. Are you familiar with medical literature that indicates there can be sodomy to young children without evidence of tears or lacerations?

Peretti: There is published medical literature on that--on those facts, yes.

Davis: Okay. Thank you very much.

Re-Cross of Dr. Peretti by Dan Stidham

Stidham: Dr. Peretti, more times than not, there will be trauma if that occurred?

Peretti: Well, in my experience and the cases that I've dealt with, I've always seen trauma.

Stidham: Always seen trauma?

Peretti: The cases that I've previously autopsied.

Stidham: No further questions, your Honor.

The Court: Anything else?

Davis: No, sir.

The Court: Is he free to go?

Davis: Yes, sir.

The Court: You're free to go.

Peretti: Thank you.

The Court: This time. Call your next witness.

Fogleman: Call Mike Allen.

He states no opinion on what caused the genital injuries. And he says that there was some evidence consistent with Stevie Branch having oral sex performed on him, though unconclusive.

None of that validates the confession Miskelley made before having access to information about the crimes via discovery. It contradicts it, in fact.

It's your contention that Miskelley's confession must be genuine because his knowledge of the children's injuries is too detailed and accurate for any other explanation to be possible.

Please tell me on what planet an injury to the penis is not sexual assault. On What Freakin Planet????

On every planet where an injury is an injury and an assault is an assault. On what freakin planet is that not the case?

[compared2what?]

This is like arguing with the OJ defense team, and anal winks. It's insane.

That's not a very substantive defense of your position. So I'd still like to know what medical literature you've read that says eight-year-olds can be anally raped without evidence of tears and lacerations. And if you know of any that includes the odds for it happening to three eight-year-olds with different histories during a violent assault, I'd like to see that too.

Because otherwise, this would be like arguing with someone who just takes the prosecution's word for it that the accused did what he's charged with doing, case closed.

And I'd also like to know how obscene the fees of those highly-paid experts were, as well as whatever it is you presumably know about their propensity for saying any damn bullshit they're paid to say that leads you to believe they were cherry-picked.

Because otherwise, this would be like arguing with someone who says she's considering the evidence while peremptorily dismissing everything supporting the defense for whatever reason's handy and accepting everything the prosecution says as gospel whether they present any evidence for it or not.

Especially if you're going to say stuff like this:

You're twisting the actual record in your summations to fit your view of the case.

Because I'm not doing that.

I guess I'd also like to see all the persuasive testimony and other compelling evidence that convinced you to argue knife over snapping turtle, as long as we're on the subject of not twisting what's in the actual record to suit your preexisting beliefs and conclusions.

[compared2what?]

For the record, here's a transcript of Peretti's conversation with one of Baldwin's attorneys, with all statements relevant to whether it was his finding that the sexual assault described by Miskelley had occurred highlighted:

GRW: I was talking with Pau ...

DR: The speaker is loud.

GRW: Yeah I'm on the speaker phone. I'm taking some notes and I thought I could just talk to you better if that's okay. Paul Ford and I, you remember Paul from the other day,

DR: Right

GRW: We were visiting well yesterday afternoon and again today, Paul bold me that he had talked with John Fogelman, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in Crittenden County.

DR: That's right he called me yesterday.

GRW: Okay. John, Paul was, we were discussing some things in the case and of course I wasn't there Doctor so I can't tell you exactly was said, but my understanding is that Fogelman told Paul Ford that your testimony at trial would be that these boys were sodomized.

DR: I .. no. I did not say that. I did not say that. I told him that he asked me about anuses. I told him that anuses on two of the kids were dilated and it could happen one of three ways; probably due to the bodies being in the water, it could be done by certain foreign objects into the rectum or a small penis. He asked me if there were any injuries. I said there were no injuries surrounding the anus. That's what I told him.

GRW: It was my understanding from us talking the other day that ...

DR: That's what I told you the other day, didn't I?

GRW: Yeah. What I was going to say - the other day I thought you told us that there was no evidence of sodomy.

DR: Well, there is no evidence of - the anus is dilated. How could that happen. I said there was three ways. I told him and I told you there is no evidence of any lacerations or tears, no spermatozoa was found.

GRW: And I thought you told us that you would expect to find trauma to the anus if there had been sodomy.

DR: If someone, especially in a young child, I think if they're penetrated, okay, with a penis I would expect to find injuries.

GRW: Okay.

DR: That what I told him.

GRW: Okay because it is my understanding Doctor that John Fogelman told another attorney on his word of honor that these boys were sodomized.

DR: I don't know how he can say they were sodomized. I mean I told him that. I told him there are no tears and lacerations as I told you and I told him the explanation why the anuses may be dilated.

GRW: Doctor, do you think the Prosecutor in this case can stand in front of a jury and in good faith tell the jury that they expected to - that the proof would be that these boys were sodomized.

DR: I would say not in good faith. That's his decision not mine.

GRW: Absolutely, yes sir.

DR: I mean I told him what I told you I don't want to be in the middle of this.

GRW: I'm not - no sir, and I'm not putting you there either. I got concerned because I thought that we took some fairly copious notes the other day and I thought we had fully understood what you had told us and I wanted to make sure that I had not recorded something on paper incorrectly concerning this issue of the boys being sodomized.

DR: No. There is no evidence of anal rectal trauma. Okay. I mean could they have put a finger there? Yes. Could they have put a dildo there and not leave an injury? Yes. Could they have been penetrated after death and not have any injuries? That's a possibility. But, I would expect to see some tearing. See what I’m saying?

GRW: Yes sir. Okay.

DR: But I never said that they were sodomized. I never said that. You know, you read my report - it is clearly - read the opinions in there.

GRW: And the issues in there concerning dilation and that - you're not in any way attempting to make an inference that there was sodomy.

DR: No. It is a possibility? Sure. Anything is possible. But there is no evidence of trauma.

GRW: Correct.

DR: See what I'm saying.

GRW: You would be, as a medical doctor, you would be surprised or it is more probable that there was no sodomy based on the evidence.

DR: There are no injuries there and I told him that yesterday. I spelled that out to him.

GRW: Based upon that it would he more probable that there was not sodomy. Would it?

DR: I mean the whole thing stands from when the police went and told him that they were sodomized - the Prosecutor - you see what I'm saying? This is before, when I first did the autopsy. You see what I'm saying. I haven't talked in detail with the Prosecutors. They have been down here once but we haven't really talked in detail.

GRW: You could not say or testify or give an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these boys were sodomized. Could you?

DR: I can't exclude it but there is no injuries to substantiate that. You see what I'm saying. I can't say to you there was no evidence whatsoever of sodomy.

GRW: And there are no facts to substantiate that opinion are there?

DR: That's right. I'm telling you. That's a possibility. You know I gave you three possibilities.

GRW: Yeah. Listen I know and I'm not fussing with you and I appreciate you talking to me the other day and like I say the only reason I'm calling you is that I had heard that the Prosecutor was maintaining that this was something that was a fact and it was something that you had told him and like I said before you were - and as we told you the other day we were very pleased that you were so open and happy to talk with us.

DR: I'm telling you, I mean, I keep my word.

GRW: I believe that and that's just why I wanted to touch base with you real quickly just to clear that up in my mind.

DR: I have to ask you a question. They told me, maybe we're misinformed, but the Prosecutor told us that you did not have a Court Order to come and talk to us? Is that correct?

GRW: I - that we don't have a Court Order?

DR: Apparently, what I understood - it makes no difference to me, but what I understood was that you were coming down and people were coming down and you had a written Court Order.

GRW: My understanding Doctor is that the State all along has given us no objection to us talking with ya'll and also my recollection is that at the very first hearing in this case when the Defendant's were arraigned that the court allowed us to come talk to ya'll.

DR: Okay - I have no problem with this.

GRW: Sure, I don't have to have a Court Order to come down there and talk to you about this.

DR: I know, I know. But you know they asked me why we talked and I said well I normally talk to attorneys. I have an open door policy and second of all there was a Court Order.

So there you have it. When it comes to the claim that Miskelley's confession is credible, it's his expert opinion that anything's possible but that he saw no signs of it and told the prosecutors as much.

You might want to consider that before the next time you suggest that there's no evidence anywhere that anyone treated Miskelley (and Echols, and Baldwin) with anything but a scrupulously impartial devotion to seeing justice done.

[compared2what?]

So let's review:

Proceeding from the assumption that they were investigating an exceptionally sadistic rape-torture-murder case, police focused on Damien Echols, whom there was otherwise no reason to associate with the victims, location or events.

That led them to pick up Miskelley and interrogate him, resulting in the confession that believers in WM3 guilt maintain was too accurate a reflection of the evidence not to be genuine.

And that's what led to the charges against Miskelley, Baldwin and Echols. As you say:

If Misskelley hadn't supplied details that were not public knowledge at the time, there wouldn't be a case.

But wait. As the WM3truth website says:

Paradise Lost is an outstanding piece of propaganda — turning thugs who raped, tortured and killed second-graders into beloved folk heroes is no mean feat — but it’s not an accurate account of the case. The “Free the West Memphis 3″ movement is a massive fraud. The evidence is overwhelming that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were guilty as charged.

So either there's evidence of sadistic-sexual thrill-killing by Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley that's more overwhelming than the medical examiner not being able to rule out the possibility that they were sex crimes committed by someone, although he didn't find the injuries he'd expect in support of that conclusion.

Or they're just saying that without backing it up or acknowledging that there's overwhelming evidence that the prosecution ignored all other suspects, motives and theories in favor of their initial assumptions despite rather than because of what their own experts told them.

Or the overwhelming evidence they're referring to is Miskelley's confession, the accuracy of which is supported by the overwhelming evidence of itself, via circular logic.

_______________

Nobody disputes that there was anal dilation, or that Chris Byers had gruesome genital injuries.

The question is whether those things constitute overwhelming evidence that Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley raped, tortured and murdered three children,

You seem to be pretty sure that they do. So what's the evidence that doesn't just consist of asserting that the injuries found were inflicted by the suspects in the course of a rape-torture-murder because they must have been?

That Echols had a psychiatric record and once got in a fight with his ex-girlfriend's new guy?

Or are you just contending that genital injuries are overwhelming evidence of rape and torture by Damien Echols, axiomatically, whether or not anyone bothers offering any testimony or proof that's what and who caused them and how?

Because I don't know why taxpayers have to pay for investigations or trials if it's that straightforward. And I also don't know why you're bothering to review the record. You already know in what condition the bodies were found, if that's all you need.

[compared2what?]

Or are you just contending that genital injuries are overwhelming evidence of rape and torture by Damien Echols, axiomatically, whether or not anyone bothers offering any testimony or proof that's what and who caused them and how?

And yes, I already know that he testified that it was possible for them to be caused by a knife similar to the one that was found in a lake by Baldwin's house, which might have belonged to anyone at any point in time.

That's not overwhelming evidence.

[compared2what?]

Let's review some more.

Jessie Miskelley said that Branch and Byers had been repeatedly anally and orally raped, but that nobody performed oral sex on any of the three children.

He also said that they were conscious and capable of speaking (and, presumably, shouting or screaming) throughout the attacks, and refers to Damien hollering. (That location's within earshot of a truck-wash and cafe, both of which had people at them that night, to say nothing of John Mark Byers's occasional presence nearby while looking for his child.)

He says they were tied up before the rapes in one place and afterwards in another.

He didn't say they'd drowned, didn't mention water until prompted, and didn't say that they'd been thrown into it until after cops rephrased his answer for him.

He said they were tied with rope.

He said one of them had been choked with a stick.

He said the crimes had occurred in the middle of the day.

He suggested that the purpose of the killings was to eat meat from the corpse's legs.

He was never able to describe the position and location of the bodies, even after his trial.

He described the weapon used to cut them as a regular old folding hunting knife, which usually looks like this...



...and is not serrated.

And that's not an exhaustive list of the things he said that didn't demonstrate an otherwise inexplicable familiarity with the facts. Far from it. So when you ask...

As to autopsy reports, how did Misskelley know which boy had been cut and where?

...you're literally focusing on two out of a maximum number of three ostensibly non-public details about the attack in his confession that unambiguously suggest specific knowledge of the attacks, while ignoring an exponentially greater number that don't match the evidence at all or (at best) can't conclusively be ruled out as possible. Emphatically not excluding their having been committed by Damien Echols.

And that would be these two:

Misskelley confessed that the Byers boy was cut on his penis; the Byers boy was the only boy found with severe genital mutilations.

Misskelley confessed that one of the boys was cut on the face; one of the boys had facial lacerations.

.

So let's look at that part of his statement:

DETECTIVE RIDGE: Okay, now when it's going on, when it's taking place, you under. . . you saw somebody with a knife. Who had a knife?
*A60 MISSKELLEY: Jason
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Jason had a knife. What did he cut with the knife? What did you see him cut or who did you see him cut?
*A61 MISSKELLEY: I saw him cut one of the little boys
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright, where did he cut him at?
*A62 MISSKELLEY: He was cutting him in the face.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Cutting in the face. Alright, another boy was cut I understand, where was he cut at?
*A63 MISSKELLEY: At the bottom
DETECTIVE RIDGE: On his bottom? Was he face down when he was cutting on him, or
*A64 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Now you're talking about bottom, do you mean right here?
*A65 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: In his groin area?
*A66 MISSKELLEY: (No audio register)
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Okay
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Do you know what his penis is?
*A67 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm, that's where he was cut at.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: That's where he was cut.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Which boy was that?
*A68 MISSKELLEY: That right there.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: You're talking about the Byers boy again?
*A69 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Okay
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Are you sure that he was the one that was cut?
*A70 MISSKELLEY: That's the one that I seen them cutting on.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright, you know what penis is?
*A71 MISSKELLEY: Mm-hmm.
DETECTIVE RIDGE: Alright, is that where he was cutting?
*A72 MISSKELLEY: That's where I seen them going down at, and he was on his back. I seen them going down right there real close to his penis and stuff and I saw some blood and that's when I took off.

So you could say that after being informed that he'd seen someone with a knife shortly after having been shown an autopsy photograph of Michael Moore with facial lacerations, he volunteered the information that one (not two) of them had been cut with it, adding in response to questions that it had been on his face, but didn't specify which child at any point. And that after being informed that another child had been cut, after several prompts, he eventually said that the wounds had been to his penis and then agreed with Gitchell that he was talking about Byers after (presumably) pointing at this:



There's no way of knowing how specifically. Maybe he was totally right.

But since he'd been totally wrong in his identification of Byers as Moore only moments before, it would be a little random to conclude that he conclusively demonstrated actually knowing who they were and what happened to them with too much accuracy for there to be any question about his having been there.

Or you could ask how he knew which child had been cut and where as if he'd just sat down out of the blue at some point before being questioned in detail about aspects of the crime and said, "I saw Chris Byers get his penis cut off and Stevie Branch get cut on his face," wholly on his own initiative.

But the problem with that second one is that if you consult the record, you can see that it's not what happened..
_________________

ON EDIT: I forgot to mention that his incredibly accurate recall of what he witnessed includes the cuts to Byers occurring both while he was lying face down and on his back.

[Jerky]

In other words, you have an axe to grind... therefore, the WM3 are guilty?

You know, that really upset me, as it ignores basically everything else I've posted in this thread. I took some time to think it about however, and examine whether my outrage at societal denial of my own personal experiences was clouding my judgement in this case. ...

I'm sorry I upset you, and I appreciate and admire the fact that you stopped and thought about it before responding in a knee-jerk manner. I actually respect your mind and your experiences to such an extent that it was my intent to shake you up (just a little) and get you thinking along the lines that you have.

I, too, worry about the ease with which false narratives can be promoted and bolstered in the wider culture at large by disingenuous Powers That Be seeking to cover up their crimes. I do NOT share your fear that the WM3 case is one such case - in fact, I believe it to be pretty much the opposite, and everything I've read from the anti-WM3 perspective has the noxious whiff of the witch-burnings to it, to greater and lesser degrees. But it's always there... in a poor choice of words, in a sly inuendo... always. There's hate elevated above justice... vengeance above truth.

I hope your journey eventually leads you back to the same side as I'm on, because, frankly, I would prefer to have you by my side (intellectually speaking).

Sincerely,
Jerky

[Project Willow]

Please tell me on what planet an injury to the penis is not sexual assault. On What Freakin Planet????

On every planet where an injury is an injury and an assault is an assault. On what freakin planet is that not the case?

So all injuries reported by the ME in this case are part of the case except the genital injuries, which were what, accidents, self-inflicted?
Did Stevie Branch bruise and scrape his own penis before he was murdered?

Peretti: Okay, um. Exhibits number 64B and 65B are photographs of the penis. 65B shows the midshaft of the penis and the head of the penis with contusion, bruising and overlying scratches. This injury is--you can see there's a well--area of demarcation between the involved area and the uninvolved area. This is--all this discoloration here is bruising. There are fine scratches overlying the head of the penis along with other focal areas of bruising. Also, State's Exhibit 64B is the back of the penis showing the similar injuries and the line of demarcation between the uninvolved and non-involved area.

Did the DNA expert who found trace evidence of seminal fluid make that up?

I've been careful to back up and qualify my own statements, and did so in my first response to you on this issue. I noted the contention over sodomy which you then repeated back to me as if I'd never seen it. I have no problem arguing over whether certain evidence is believable or solid or connects to any of the convicted. I do have a problem with misleading or false blanket statements.

You made similar statements about Echols' history up thread. These denials do not serve your arguments well, and suggests that any prolonged discussion is going to be rather difficult to say the least.

That's not a very substantive defense of your position. So I'd still like to know what medical literature you've read that says eight-year-olds can be anally raped without evidence of tears and lacerations. And if you know of any that includes the odds for it happening to three eight-year-olds with different histories during a violent assault, I'd like to see that too.

I was well aware when I made the statement that I was engaging in exactly what supporters do when they offer any and all possible alternatives to what was presented by the prosecution, as a means of denying it. I really wanted to refrain from that and in the beginning of this thread present items from the record that I found that contradict what most people believe about the case. I went ahead and made the statement because, I know it to be true from the literature, and I know it to be true from personal experience.

This study provides additional data that the majority of children with legally confirmed sexual abuse will have normal or nonspecific genital findings.
Adams, J. A., Harper, K., Knudson, S., & Revilla, J. (1994). Examination findings in legally confirmed child sexual abuse: It's normal to be normal. Pediatrics, 94 (3), 310-7.

A small number of children who give a history of sexual abuse have an abnormal ano-genital examination. Only 4% of children referred for a medical examination for sexual abuse have a physical finding that is abnormal and highly suggestive of sexual abuse (Heger, Ticson, Velasquez, & Bernier, 2002). The number of children with abnormal ano-genital examinations increases to 5.5% when you only consider children who give a history of more invasive abuse such as vaginal or anal penetration. By far the majority of children who have been sexually abused, including penetration of the vagina or anus, have normal ano-genital examinations.
Kellogg, N. D., Menard, S. W., & Santos , A. (2004). Genital anatomy in pregnant adolescents: " Normal " does not mean "nothing happened". Pediatrics, 113 (1 Pt 1), 67-9.

Misskelley did not say that all three boys had been sodomized. Attempted rape is also sexual assault, and the pattern of injuries on the children, most especially the bruising and cuts on the genitals, buttocks, between the thighs, and around the anus are evidence for sexual assault. I'm not even including the mutilation of Byers because I know your opinion on that already.

It's your contention that Miskelley's confession must be genuine because his knowledge of the children's injuries is too detailed and accurate for any other explanation to be possible.

No, that is not my contention. My contention is that it is not completely insane that detectives and prosecutors proceeded the way they did based on the revelation of those details, that in reading the records, their actions were understandable, in whatever way they may have been imperfect or worse.

....
The question is whether those things constitute overwhelming evidence that Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley raped, tortured and murdered three children,
....
You seem to be pretty sure that they do. So what's the evidence that doesn't just consist of asserting that the injuries found were inflicted by the suspects in the course of a rape-torture-murder because they must have been?

I've said over and over again this is process for me. I have yet to review all of the evidence, so I would appreciate it if you would stop arguing with me as if you actually knew my opinion on various bits of evidence beyond what I've stated in this thread. When I feel I've exposed myself to a majority of the evidence as advanced by both sides, including all the legal documentation, I'll state my own opinion. I was going to document what I found along the way, but that seems impossible at this point.

But wait. As the WM3truth website says:

I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop addressing your arguments with the WM3Truth site to me. I am neither they nor their proxy. Thanks.

[compared2what?]

Please tell me on what planet an injury to the penis is not sexual assault. On What Freakin Planet????

On every planet where an injury is an injury and an assault is an assault. On what freakin planet is that not the case?

So all injuries reported by the ME in this case are part of the case except the genital injuries, which were what, accidents, self-inflicted?

What is the confusion about here?

All of the injuries, without exception, including the genital injuries, are a part of the case.

The question wrt any and each of them is:

Who or what caused it, how, when and with what?

For all anybody knows, per Peretti's testimony, the answer to that wrt to the genital injuries in particular may or may not be:

"They were caused by a person with a knife in the course of a sexual assault."

But it's an open question. BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FIND THAT THEY WERE CAUSED BY SEXUAL ASSAULT. That was not one of his findings.

Neither did he find that they had been removed with a knife or bladed instrument. And neither did he characterize any of the cuts or lacerations as, for example, stab wounds.

I hope that was clear.

BTW, the highly paid defense expert at whom you keep scoffing is, in fact, eight pathologists who independently, at different times, reviewed the 1500 photographs, lab results, autopsy reports, notes, testimony, etcetera at the request of one or another of the attorneys representing either Baldwin, Miskelley or Echols on one or another of their appeals. And they are:

Drs. Richard Souviron, Terri Haddix, Janice Ophoven, Werner Spitz, Michael Baden, Robert Wood, Vincent Di Maio, and Michael Tabor.

They don't all agree with each other about everything in their reports and affidavits, most of which can be found among the exhibits submitted with Echols's second amended Habeas petition.. But every single one of them found that most of the injuries on each child were post-mortem wounds caused by animal predation.

As a number of them point out, Peretti himself said that the genital injuries were post-mortem.. .

For those keeping score in the Jessie Misskelley Incredible Accuracy Challenge at home.

Most of their various reports can be read in PDF as exhibits submitted with Baldwin's Rule 37/Habeas filings here or with Echols's 2nd amended Habeas petition (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/img/de_sap_exhibits_aa_zz.html]here..

Possibly all of them risked their careers and reputations writing pages and pages of serious, detailed but absurd forensic analyses complete with citations and then putting them in sworn affidavits just for the one-time fee. But it's usually a good idea to know what you're scorning well enough to be able to heap contempt on it without repeatedly mischaracterizing its contents. So it can't hurt to check it out.
.

Did Stevie Branch bruise and scrape his own penis before he was murdered?

His autopsy report doesn't mention any injuries to the genital/anal area apart from "superficial scratches." And it definitely doesn't mention bruising. But presumably his injuries were incurred before, during or after the murder.

Incidentially, wrt this:

How do these experts account for postmortem hemorrhaging as it's generally a sign of antemortem injury?

I don't know about the experts -- including Peretti, in this case -- but contusions can be post-mortem injuries. And I don't think there is a "generally" about it. It's specific to the case.

Peretti: Okay, um. Exhibits number 64B and 65B are photographs of the penis. 65B shows the midshaft of the penis and the head of the penis with contusion, bruising and overlying scratches.

That's not what he found in his autopsy report.

What a sad travesty that trial was.

Did the DNA expert who found trace evidence of seminal fluid make that up?

No. But it was found on Stevie Branch's pants and wasn't enough to conclude that they'd been sexually assaulted. So moot point.

I've been careful to back up and qualify my own statements, and did so in my first response to you on this issue. I noted the contention over sodomy which you then repeated back to me as if I'd never seen it. I have no problem arguing over whether certain evidence is believable or solid or connects to any of the convicted. I do have a problem with misleading or false blanket statements.

Please tell me where I repeated it back to you in terms that suggested that you hadn't said that. Because I remembered perfectly well that you had and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

My point was that you appeared to be defending the possibility of it having occurred by reflexively citing Brent Davis's assertion that there was medical literature reporting that the anal rape of eight-year-olds didn't cause tears and lacerations.

As far as I know, that's not true.

You made similar statements about Echols' history up thread.

I don't even know what statement those statements are supposed to be similar to. But if you tell me what they are and what the problem with them was, I'll try to amend it.

The only blanket statement about that that I can recall making off the top of my head was that he did not have a history of hurting people. You responded that he did, but didn't reply when I asked what people he had a history of hurting.

So what would you call that? A blanket statement by me? Or a carefully qualified and backed-up statement by you?

These denials do not serve your arguments well, and suggests that any prolonged discussion is going to be rather difficult to say the least.

I apologize.

That's not a very substantive defense of your position. So I'd still like to know what medical literature you've read that says eight-year-olds can be anally raped without evidence of tears and lacerations. And if you know of any that includes the odds for it happening to three eight-year-olds with different histories during a violent assault, I'd like to see that too.

I was well aware when I made the statement that I was engaging in exactly what supporters do when they offer any and all possible alternatives to what was presented by the prosecution, as a means of denying it. I really wanted to refrain from that and in the beginning of this thread present items from the record that I found that contradict what most people believe about the case. I went ahead and made the statement because, I know it to be true from the literature, and I know it to be true from personal experience.

This study provides additional data that the majority of children with legally confirmed sexual abuse will have normal or nonspecific genital findings.
Adams, J. A., Harper, K., Knudson, S., & Revilla, J. (1994). Examination findings in legally confirmed child sexual abuse: It's normal to be normal. Pediatrics, 94 (3), 310-7.

A small number of children who give a history of sexual abuse have an abnormal ano-genital examination. Only 4% of children referred for a medical examination for sexual abuse have a physical finding that is abnormal and highly suggestive of sexual abuse (Heger, Ticson, Velasquez, & Bernier, 2002). The number of children with abnormal ano-genital examinations increases to 5.5% when you only consider children who give a history of more invasive abuse such as vaginal or anal penetration. By far the majority of children who have been sexually abused, including penetration of the vagina or anus, have normal ano-genital examinations.
Kellogg, N. D., Menard, S. W., & Santos , A. (2004). Genital anatomy in pregnant adolescents: " Normal " does not mean "nothing happened". Pediatrics, 113 (1 Pt 1), 67-9.

Willow, come on. Of course it's possible (and even common) for there to be no anal tears or lacerations in living children who are referred for medical examination for sexual abuse. I wasn't asking about that. Because it's not what we're discussing.

The issue is whether or not three eight-year-olds who have been anally raped in a violent assault and murdered shortly afterwards to have no anal tears or lacerations on post-mortem examination.

That's a significantly different question.

[compared2what?]

Misskelley did not say that all three boys had been sodomized. Attempted rape is also sexual assault,

He said that two of them had been screwed by Baldwin and Echols repeatedly. And that either is or is not borne out by the evidence.

and the pattern of injuries on the children, most especially the bruising and cuts on the genitals, buttocks, between the thighs, and around the anus are evidence for sexual assault.

According to whom?

Peretti testified about three potential signs of sexual assault:

(1) Bruises to the ears and mouth as a sign of being forced to perform oral sex in children, which he evidently improvised on the spot since there's no reference to it anywhere; (b) nobody agrees with him; and (c) mouths and ears can self-evidently be injured in any number of ways that don't involve penises.

(2) The banding on Stevie Branch's penis, which he said was a sign of oral sex having been performed and Jessie Miskelley says didn't happen.

(3) Scratches and marks on the thighs of one child that he said were like those seen on female rape victims, which it's difficult to even know how to understand in the first place since the anatomical differences between adult females and eight-year-old boys are significant enough to make the rape of each a very different act, in terms of where marks of impact and contact are likely to be left.

I'm not even including the mutilation of Byers because I know your opinion on that already.

There's no scientist on the record attributing those wounds to sexual assault or saying with certainty what caused them. And that's the only point I've made about your insistence that they are, a priori, evidence of it. So no. You don't know my opinion, which is that it's an open question.

However, fwiw, in the full context of the other evidence and/or lack of it:

Since they're unanimously said to be irregular, ragged post-mortem wounds with very little bleeding that are only 1/4 to 1/2 an inch deep, I do find the explanation of the pathologists who said it was animal predation more credible than I did Peretti's half-hearted testimony about their maybe being caused by an enormous knife (or other object).

I also find it notable that (unless I'm missing one) none of the wounds on any of them were a lot deeper and most were more superficial.

Because in view of how shallow, non-linear and non-continuous those cuts are, it would have to have been one very, very gentle and tentative knife attack, assuming a weapon like the one Peretti said might have been used.

But I don't really have a strong opinion about what happened, other than that there's not enough evidence to say how or why they were killed and none that Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley committed the crimes in the manner described by Miskelley.

Anything's possible.

It's your contention that Miskelley's confession must be genuine because his knowledge of the children's injuries is too detailed and accurate for any other explanation to be possible.

No, that is not my contention.

I apologize. What exactly did saying Miskelley would have to have had predictive abilities to know about the wounds to Byers's genitals mean, if that wasn't it?

BTW, as long as we're on the subject, did you notice that his unaided display of knowledge of Byers's injuries consisted of responding to being told that a second child had been cut with the words "At the bottom"?

Which Gitchell changed to "On his bottom...?" and followed up with "Do you mean right here?" "In his groin area?" and "Do you know what his penis is?" before those predictive abilities kicked in?

Because you've actually made a number of other references to his having known undisclosed details of the crime that I understood to be in support of its having been genuine. And you've also said repeatedly that there's no evidence of false/coerced confession.

As if it were perfectly normal for police to give people making witness reports polygraph examinations.

Do you know what the only other time I've even heard of cops doing that is? That study Stephen Morgan liked to cite about fifty percent of rape allegations being false. The cops gave all the women reporting rape polygraph exams. That's how they got so many of them to take it back.

....
The question is whether those things constitute overwhelming evidence that Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley raped, tortured and murdered three children,
....
You seem to be pretty sure that they do. So what's the evidence that doesn't just consist of asserting that the injuries found were inflicted by the suspects in the course of a rape-torture-murder because they must have been?

I've said over and over again this is process for me. I have yet to review all of the evidence, so I would appreciate it if you would stop arguing with me as if you actually knew my opinion on various bits of evidence beyond what I've stated in this thread.

I don't think I've challenged any opinion you didn't state, except by accident if you don't think Miskelley's confession is credible because of its accuracy

When I feel I've exposed myself to a majority of the evidence as advanced by both sides, including all the legal documentation, I'll state my own opinion. I was going to document what I found along the way, but that seems impossible at this point.

It's totally possible, unless you demand agreement. I do guarantee respect, affection and sympathy, right or wrong, though.

But wait. As the WM3truth website says:

I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop addressing your arguments with the WM3Truth site to me. I am neither they nor their proxy. Thanks.

I'm sorry. I won't do it again.

[compared2what?]

I was well aware when I made the statement that I was engaging in exactly what supporters do when they offer any and all possible alternatives to what was presented by the prosecution, as a means of denying it. I really wanted to refrain from that and in the beginning of this thread present items from the record that I found that contradict what most people believe about the case. I went ahead and made the statement because, I know it to be true from the literature, and I know it to be true from personal experience.

This study provides additional data that the majority of children with legally confirmed sexual abuse will have normal or nonspecific genital findings.
Adams, J. A., Harper, K., Knudson, S., & Revilla, J. (1994). Examination findings in legally confirmed child sexual abuse: It's normal to be normal. Pediatrics, 94 (3), 310-7.

A small number of children who give a history of sexual abuse have an abnormal ano-genital examination. Only 4% of children referred for a medical examination for sexual abuse have a physical finding that is abnormal and highly suggestive of sexual abuse (Heger, Ticson, Velasquez, & Bernier, 2002). The number of children with abnormal ano-genital examinations increases to 5.5% when you only consider children who give a history of more invasive abuse such as vaginal or anal penetration. By far the majority of children who have been sexually abused, including penetration of the vagina or anus, have normal ano-genital examinations.
Kellogg, N. D., Menard, S. W., & Santos , A. (2004). Genital anatomy in pregnant adolescents: " Normal " does not mean "nothing happened". Pediatrics, 113 (1 Pt 1), 67-9.

[/list]

Willow, come on. Of course it's possible (and even common) for there to be no anal tears or lacerations in living children who are referred for medical examination for sexual abuse. I wasn't asking about that.

I just wanted to add that I'm very sorry there was a misunderstanding about that.

It wasn't what I meant. But I can totally understand why you'd feel aggrieved if you thought that was what I was choosing to take a stand on. And you were being very forebearing, considering. Thank you.

[compared2what?]

I noted the contention over sodomy which you then repeated back to me as if I'd never seen it.

If you mean this:

But I should have said that there was no evidence of the sexual assault that Miskelley's ostensibly incredibly accurate confession described. That was really my point.

I invite people to read the record.

I do too. I've got nothing to hide. They'll see that after Peretti evaded the question with non-direct responses a number of times, he said that he found no evidence of sodomy...

I didn't mean they'd see you were saying something that wasn't there. I meant that they'd see that there wasn't evidence of the sexual assault described in Misskelley's confession, to which I'd just referred as the thing I was really disputing.

Because without that, there's no case against any of them.

And (in my opinion) none of any kind against anyone in particular. Even granting that Byers's injuries were inflicted by the killer, the physical evidence by itself isn't actually less compatible with their having been killed in anger by someone they knew as a punishment for something perceived as sexual misbehavior than it is with a sadistic-sex killing. Because there aren't really any signs of torture, never mind rape. They appear to have been attacked and knocked unconscious, then stripped, tied up and dumped in a creek. It's not even entirely clear that Byers didn't drown.

As to this:

My contention is that it is not completely insane that detectives and prosecutors proceeded the way they did based on the revelation of those details, that in reading the records, their actions were understandable, in whatever way they may have been imperfect or worse.

I don't think it was even a little insane for detectives to form the suspicions that they did or to investigate them. And since I haven't made that argument, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I do have problems with the way they proceeded, though.

Their interrogation of Jessie Misskelley and the route they took to get to it was not only actively dirty, abusive, and dishonest by itself but also effectively a display of contemptuous disregard for the victims and what happened to them.

They had theoretical grounds for suspicion. That's not a license to focus the entirety of an investigative effort on setting up elaborate sting operations designed to gin up some form of evidence against one suspect while ignoring all other possibilities and evidence, whether the theory is that it was a satanic ritual murder or domestic violence.

The prosecution proceeded in a wittingly corrupt manner from start to finish. It's really never okay for the state to put a witness on the stand who's going to "accidentally" mention a confession that's the only real evidence of the defendant's involvement with the crime when it can't be introduced through legitimate means. To cite just one example.

...

That's all, I guess. I just wanted to make it clear that the grounds on which I object to their actions isn't that I think they were insane.

[Project Willow]

What is the confusion about here?

Because an intentional infliction of injury to the genitals IS A SEXUAL ASSAULT. By definition. Why are you intent on denying that?

Neither did he find that they had been removed with a knife or bladed instrument. And neither did he characterize any of the cuts or lacerations as, for example, stab wounds.

I hope that was clear.

It's clear that you keep replacing "consistent with" with "neither, not and no", when referring to the record, over and over again. If I spend all my time refuting your distortions of the record I will never get anywhere in my own research.

The ME testified that some of the cuts appeared to have been caused by a knife or a piece of glass, and some of the cuts (on the head and other body parts) appear to have been caused by a blunt instrument such as a broom stick or a 2 by 4.

On Byers:

Davis: And there were signs of physical trauma as far as abrasions and lacerations to the buttocks area and the area immediately surrounding the anus? Is that correct?

Peretti: There's cutting wounds and abrasions, yes. And State's Exhibit 70C is a close-up of the genital mutilation. Here, we have multiple gouging type injuries where the skin has just been pulled out. The skin overlying the shaft of the penis was carved off. What you see here, the part--this red part that's in the photograph, that's the shaft of the penis after the skin has been removed and you can see above the scrotal sac and testes are all missing. The whole genital area is missing except for the internal aspects of the shaft of the penis and around this area you can see the multiple gouging type wounds, stab wounds and cutting wounds.

Davis: Doctor, the gouge wounds and cutting wounds you referred to around the genital area, how did those, in your opinion, how would those wounds have been inflicted? What type of manner would those have been inflicted in?

Peretti: Well, it could be when you see these type of irregular cutting wounds, gouging wounds, not knowing the instrument, you can get these type of wounds from a knife, piece of glass, usually the knife or the object is being twisted and the victim is moving to get those irregular edges. State's Exhibit 69C is a photograph showing the legs, the area of genital mutilation and you can also see the binding injuries of the left wrist but also here, we can note in the um, on the thighs, on the top of the thighs and inner aspects of the thighs, we have multiple contusions or bruising inside the thighs and you can see that here.

They don't all agree with each other about everything in their reports and affidavits, most of which can be found among the exhibits submitted with Echols's second amended Habeas petition.. But every single one of them found that most of the injuries on each child were post-mortem wounds caused by animal predation.

As a number of them point out, Peretti himself said that the genital injuries were post-mortem.. .

No, he didn't. He said he couldn't determine whether SOME OF THEM were or weren't. Please stop distorting the record.

Davis Doctor, in these autopies, are you able to tell the difference between a wound that was inflicted before death and a wound that was inflicted after death?
Peretti: Some of the injuries we're able to tell.
Davis: Okay. And could you tell, in regard to any of these three children, whether wounds were--there were some wounds that were inflicted even after death?
Peretti: There, there--some wounds have the appearance of being inflicted perimortem, around the time of death and postmortem, after death.

Did Stevie Branch bruise and scrape his own penis before he was murdered?

His autopsy report doesn't mention any injuries to the genital/anal area apart from "superficial scratches." And it definitely doesn't mention bruising. But presumably his injuries were incurred before, during or after the murder.

I quoted what the ME testified to, in court! Yet here you're seeking ways to deny his testimony. So because the ME testified to the injury in court rather than writing it down in the brief summary of injuries in his report, then it didn't happen? Or you're contending that when the ME reviewed and explained his findings on the injuries in court, he lied?

---

I don't know about the experts -- including Peretti, in this case -- but contusions can be post-mortem injuries. And I don't think there is a "generally" about it. It's specific to the case.

It's RARE. There's little to no blood flow postmortem, so bruising and hemorrhaging, outside of areas of lividity which is pooling of the blood, is RARE.

Did the DNA expert who found trace evidence of seminal fluid make that up?

No. But it was found on Stevie Branch's pants and wasn't enough to conclude that they'd been sexually assaulted. So moot point.

NO, it isn't a moot point. The bodies were submerged in water. The clothing was submerged in water held down with sticks. That they found any evidence of semen at all is quite telling, and taken together with the ME's description of the injuries to Branch's penis, it's a damn good argument for sexual assault.

---

My point was that you appeared to be defending the possibility of it having occurred by reflexively citing Brent Davis's assertion that there was medical literature reporting that the anal rape of eight-year-olds didn't cause tears and lacerations.

As far as I know, that's not true.

...

Willow, come on. Of course it's possible (and even common) for there to be no anal tears or lacerations in living children who are referred for medical examination for sexual abuse. I wasn't asking about that. Because it's not what we're discussing.

The issue is whether or not three eight-year-olds who have been anally raped in a violent assault and murdered shortly afterwards to have no anal tears or lacerations on post-mortem examination.

That's a significantly different question

NO, it isn't. Read the literature which includes these distinctions. There is no study anywhere that says 100% of child rape victims show tears and lacerations even if you're going to quote pedophile defender extraordinaire Ralph Underwager.

Forensic evidence findings in prepubertal victims of sexual assault.
Some form of forensic evidence was identified in 24.9% of children, all of whom were examined within 44 hours of their assault.
A minority of children (23%) had genital injuries.
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/evaluation-of-sexual-abuse-in-children-and-adolescents/abstract/48

[Genital Injury from Sexual Assault] Goodyear-Smith (1989) found that 19.5% of children and 40% of adults had genital trauma (bruising, inflammation, tenderness, abrasions, or lacerations), and 3.5% of children and 6% of adults had anal injury.

---

You made similar statements about Echols' history up thread.

I don't even know what statement those statements are supposed to be similar to. But if you tell me what they are and what the problem with them was, I'll try to amend it.

The only blanket statement about that that I can recall making off the top of my head was that he did not have a history of hurting people. You responded that he did, but didn't reply when I asked what people he had a history of hurting.

So what would you call that? A blanket statement by me? Or a carefully qualified and backed-up statement by you?

You said repeatedly "He never hurt anyone," even after I pointed out very clearly that he had indeed hurt someone, according the record. I gave up after that. I'm very used to you being precise in your word choices. I can't argue with denial.

I appreciate that you are very passionate about this case, but I've never seen you make these sorts of statements and distortions. It is truly maddening.

[Col. Quisp]

PW: Stop being drawn in to the endless nonsensical "arguments." As you pointed out, it is distracting you from your own research. There's no point trying to "win" against C2W, who often resorts to profanity when frustrated. You are wasting your time. This is a pattern I've noticed in other threads, and that is why I used the "ignore" button on this person.

I doubt we willl ever know the truth in this case, unfortunately. But they took an Alford plea, right? Instead of having a new trial? What does that say to you?