Re: West Memphis 3: Police Chief Takes On Celebrity Defenders

On Mar 2, 3:04 pm, "bella" <tinydancer...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Marianna" <nomiddleinitia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


<ritualabuseli...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Chief Bob Paudert Says Celebrities Haven't Presented Any New Evidence
In The West Memphis Three Case Alex Coleman March 1, 2010,0,7376855.story
pneuma wrote:
I don't understand why some celebrity is all of a sudden an authority on
the guilt or innocence of a person when they have most likely not looked
at trial transcripts or evidence in the case, but just a hand out from a
PR agent.

That sort of thing always reminds me of that scene from "The Jerk"
where the slimy-looking guy shows Navin a grainy film of cat juggling
to get him all fired up and willing to contribute to the cause. I know
the cops aren't always right, but when I hear that some celeb is
championing some felon I tend to assume the guy *is* guilty on that
basis alone.


Many more than simply 'celebrities' have long thought justice wasn't served.

According to the Police cheif of West memphis, the 48 Hours show that
convinced a lot of folks of teh kids innocence did not interview the
police. When I hear stuff like that, I'm very suspicious about
whether folks are looking at the totality of the what happened.

Of course, if someone reputable interviewed the 48 hours people and
they presented a convincing case that the chief wouldn't talk with
them - and then claimed they never tried, I might think otherwise.

It's fairly easy to present one side and have a ton of facts that
support your position, but then it's a bit harder if someone presents
the other side. Particularly in a case like this where it makes no
sense at all that the WM3 killed the kids, but no sense for anyone
else either.

I don't know one way or the other. There is a fashionable media trend
to present the WM3 as innocent. I haven'e seena treatment that I felt
was balance - although I haven't looked for one.