1421 users online (207 members and 1214 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 120
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    110

    Question for supporters

    Why?

    What is it that prevents you from even considering the possibility that these convicts are guilty?

    You demand Misskelley was coerced into a false confession without so much as an accusation from Misskelley himself in 15 years.

    Your knee-jerk reaction to every single witness against the convicts is a blanket dismissal of every single one of them with no rational explaination what so ever.

    What is it that makes you need to believe these convicts are innocent?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    18

    Smile

    I don't feel a "need" to find these 3 innocent. I have read all the documents and looked at the forensic evidece presented..these men are innocent.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    49
    i think the youth of the convicts is a component of their appeal, also Damien being the quintessential misfit, the misunderstood teenager that so many easily identify with. Ironically, when you delve a little deeper and read all available information objectively, I believe there would be very few people who could honestly say they see any of themselves in him. He was alot more than merely misunderstood. The documentaries were deliberately emotive and biased and served to make Damien a celebrity of sorts. You add the support of real celebrities to the mix, and it's fairly hard to resist jumping on the bandwagon.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    I'm gonna reply although I don't really fit in the category of 'screaming their innocence' although I will admit at times-it may seem that way. Believe me when I say I would love nothing more than to just make up my mind one way or the other. I honestly don't know why this case caught my attention other than an interest in true crime and the fact that it happened in my own state.

    Here are my reasons for doubt:

    *It was getting or right at dark in the woods....which would make the crime scene very hard to see thus making it impossible to clean up so well....not to mention making sure they had every piece of clothing etc hidden in the water unless of course they had flashlights or whatever on them. This is completely off the top of my head-they were last seen at or around 6? and we all know wooded areas get darker before non-wooded areas. Either way the things that were done to these little boys -factual/allegedly would have taken time either way it had to have been pretty dark by the time it was done.

    *The lack of evidence at the crime scene. I know luminol was used and blood showed up but I cannot wrap my mind around 2 things----------1-this horrific crime would have had way more blood and 2-the prosecution for damien and jason really didn't have just a ton of proof-why not use the luminol results?

    *Most child murders like this (especially with Christopher being worse than the other 2) is usually done by someone close to them.

    *I simply did not see the proof against Jason Baldwin. I know about the cellmate/roommate later after he was arrested saying jb confessed but nothing before he was arrested other than Jessie's confession which was not allowed in Jason's trial.

    *there was no proof of it being a cult/satanic killing yet it was all in the trial

    *the testimony of the ballpark girls----after reading the transcript----just not believable in my opinion only

    *one witness testified she had seen damien with domini near rhh the same night.....she was actually related to domini so i would think she would know if she saw her.....yet domini wasn't really anywhere in this case at all

    *jerry driver-----he could use his own topic

    *vicki hutchenson admitting she made her entire testimony up

    *I still and maybe will always feel Jessie's first confession was led and corrected way too many times......and I've yet to read where he told the story of what happened without being interrupted repeatedly

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    Now with that said and I know you didn't ask this-but it's kinda for me my reasons for guilt:

    *damien's psychological history---pretty dang scary

    *the fact that Jessie did confess 4 different times or 5 some say???

    things I've learned by reading everything over again------------

    *the three teenage boys were often seen together (i previously was under the impression they did not hang out with jessie)

    *the three knew the area well

    *the fact that damien was a complete idiot in his answers to le when he was first picked up and questioned.......he knew things that were not public knowledge (however the other side of my brain says the rumors were abundant)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    now I, of course, welcome your help on these I have listed!!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Larry,

    I can't speak for anyone else, but i honestly don't know if they are innocent.

    I just find the quality of the evidence against them very poor and not enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That being said, we do know the three were out later than they were supposed to be and their parents were alarmed. Alarmed parents are often angry parents. This isn't to say I think there's clear proof that any parent was involved, just that I wish there had been a better investigation. We do know that statistically speaking, children are at great risk from their own parents than they are from random "Satanists."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SoCal LB area
    Posts
    4,748
    I have not been able to read everything yet; I'm on the fence but definitely think LE behvior re: Jessie's confession was inappropriate and possibly brought forth a false confession. I don't doubt Damien was troubled - but like Nova; there is not enough evidence as it was presented at trial for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that he and Jason were involved in the killing. Luminol showing some blood in the area still does not point to the three specifically. The evidence to put someone to death or in prison for life is just thin. I know the police were not well trained in this type of crime so it was bungled and I know how things can be in the South and in the justice system where prosecutors would never dream of EVER admitting they put the wrong person on trial and the appeals process which doesn't re-try the case but only looks for reversible errors by the judge or attorneys. It's easy for me to imagine this both ways; but it's harder to imagine how this happened with the three of them, careless, possibly drunk and them leaving no evidence. They were not that bright. I tend to think the crime happened elsewhere and the bodies dumped.
    __________________
    Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    laurensmom, I think if you've read Damien's psychological history, and watch the interview he gave on the Larry King Show, you'll find numerous lies that Damien told Larry King. It seems to me, if Damien was innocent, he wouldn't need to lie about his personal history, but he did. I would suggest his reasoning was because the real Damien Echols doesn't match the Damien Echols his supporters envision.

    The crime happened May 4th or 5th. Daylight Savings Time would have been in place. At the earliest, I would think dark would occur around 7:30 give or take 15 minutes. If this is wrong, I stand corrected.

    I don't know whether or not Domini's cousin saw what she thought was Domini and Damien after dark from the front or a rear view of the two in question. Maybe someone does know. I do know that both Domini and Jason Baldwin were wearing black shirts that day, and both had similar hair color, length, and texture. Since eyewitnesses are often wrong, the best I would give the cousin is to say she had a 50% chance of being right.

    Ziggy, the luminol testing wasn't done until 5 or 6 days after the crime so that would have been at issue had it come up during the trial. Simple reason it wasn't admitted into evidence. The prosecution didn't want to have to explain the delay.

    Whoever Bojangles had a run in with, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the 3 eight year olds or he wouldn't have been bleeding so badly. Sounds more like someone knifed him to me.

    Yes, while it's true that children most often die at the hands of people they know, that would not apply in this case since we have 3 boys from 3 different families. For that reason alone, to me common sense dictates that this wasn't a familial killing at all.

    I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Jessie Misskelley stated he was trying to throw the police off the track when he said the boys were tied with rope. It then follows that he may well have been trying to do the same when he gave a time line that was at odds with the known facts.
    Last edited by justthinkin; 10-25-2010 at 08:44 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    I have not been able to read everything yet; I'm on the fence but definitely think LE behvior re: Jessie's confession was inappropriate and possibly brought forth a false confession. I don't doubt Damien was troubled - but like Nova; there is not enough evidence as it was presented at trial for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that he and Jason were involved in the killing. Luminol showing some blood in the area still does not point to the three specifically. The evidence to put someone to death or in prison for life is just thin. I know the police were not well trained in this type of crime so it was bungled and I know how things can be in the South and in the justice system where prosecutors would never dream of EVER admitting they put the wrong person on trial and the appeals process which doesn't re-try the case but only looks for reversible errors by the judge or attorneys. It's easy for me to imagine this both ways; but it's harder to imagine how this happened with the three of them, careless, possibly drunk and them leaving no evidence. They were not that bright. I tend to think the crime happened elsewhere and the bodies dumped.

    How was the LE behavior regarding Jessie's first confession inappropriate (there were five so far that we can prove, with rumors that he still is), the LE had parental consent, even for the polygraph, they had Jessie sign a miranda waiver, according to Jessie himself they were not mean to him. So how did they bring forth a false confession, especially since in that confession Jessie knew things that no one else knew? How did Jessie know for a fact that Christopher was the one mutilated in the groin area? How did he know that one was cut in the face? How did he know that Michael was not with the other two (since he stated Michael ran and he had to bring him back farther away from the others?)
    Or how about what Damien told police 4 days after the bodies were found (you can find this in the link below)
    On May 10, four days after the bodies were found, the police had not solved the cases. When Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, he asked him how he thought the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols's answer is abstracted as follows:
    • He stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.

    At the time Echols made the statement, there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others.


    Let's just say for the sake of argument here that Jessie's first confession was coerced (although this is not a fact by any means, and one I can't phantom why people insinuate) what about the confession to his own attorney's? The one with just him and his attorney's, no police, no prosecution. It makes no sense unless his own attorney's were coercing him or leading him to confess. (if you believe this, look up law ethics, a lawyer could be barred for it).

    What would it take to convince supporters of guilt? There is more circumstantial and physical evidence in this case, than was in the Scott Peterson case, Charles Manson, etc... Take a look through criminal history and see what kind of cases truly convicts people versus what is found on tv.

    Then we see the conspiracy coming through, of course the WMPD bungled or screwed up the investigation, how else could the WM3 be innocent? Of course the prosecution and the judge can't admit they made a mistake, they were so good at it they convinced 24 jurors to convict just to send three innocent teenagers to prison. The top of the cake (so far, federal court is next to be included in this) is the ASSC, of course the state supreme court is going to continue to cover everyone's butt. The ASSC was not just looking for judicial errors, they denied the first appeal due to preponderance of the evidence of guilt.
    http://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/...c/cr94-928.wpd


    Does anyone truly believe this? I mean this is almost as bad as the conspiracy of JFK, or the landing on the moon, or the terrorist bombing of the pentagon. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe this many individuals with careers and reputations on the line would continue to cover for someone else.

    The reason there is no physical evidence, or very little that has been tested is because the bodies were submerged in water, do a little research about murder victims submerged in water and what happens to evidence. As for the scene being a dump site, well the defense even disagrees with you. But then they need it to be the crime scene more than the prosecution, as that is how they explained the injuries... animal predation. I still love the canine type animal that swung the victims up against a hard object (possibly a tree according to the report) and that is how all three had basilar skull fractures. Of course, the report doesn't explain how this canine pulled all three out of the water, did the injuries and then somehow without opposing thumbs put the boys back in the water, and even pushed them so hard that they didn't surface.

    I could take any murder case in history and state the very things supporters say, I would just take each piece of evidence one by one (you can't use them as a whole, because then guilt is evident) and tear them down by any means available. I would blame corrupt cops, no blood (even if there was some) any confessions (even if out of three accused all three confessed in one form or another) and make them false anyway I could. I would state the scene had to be a dumping site, even when by all evidence it was the crime scene. I would shift the blame to someone else, and then when it became clear that person was innocent, I would just shift again to someone else. Even if they had alibi's, when the accused didn't.
    I would convince anyone that would listen that they were convicted in a satanic panic, just because they listened to metallica and wore black and read Stephen King. I would ignore or say it wasn't important if one of the accused had been hospitalized numerous times for mental issues, with diagnosis of psychotic and violent tendencies. Even with a past history of violent outbursts, including killing a dog (but hey it's not conclusively proven that cruelty to animals means they will escalate and kill, it's such a uncommon occurrence with killers, right?)
    Last edited by Sunnyone; 10-25-2010 at 09:39 PM. Reason: added Echols information


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunnyone View Post
    How was the LE behavior regarding Jessie's first confession inappropriate (there were five so far that we can prove, with rumors that he still is), the LE had parental consent, even for the polygraph, they had Jessie sign a miranda waiver, according to Jessie himself they were not mean to him. So how did they bring forth a false confession, especially since in that confession Jessie knew things that no one else knew? How did Jessie know for a fact that Christopher was the one mutilated in the groin area? How did he know that one was cut in the face? How did he know that Michael was not with the other two (since he stated Michael ran and he had to bring him back farther away from the others?)


    I'm still deciphering.....however, I have a problem with the confessions. As I said above-I've yet to read where Jessie told a story of events without constant interruption or correcting.



    Or how about what Damien told police 4 days after the bodies were found (you can find this in the link below)
    On May 10, four days after the bodies werhe found, the police had not solved the cases. When Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, he asked him how he thought the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols's answer is abstracted as follows:
    • He stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.

    At the time Echols made the statement, there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others.

    Your last statement cannot be proven therefore is simply not a fact. No matter how you word it or how many times you say it-it is not a fact.
    Think about how many people came and went from that scene. Think about how friendly JMB was with wmpd. They even apologized to him for bringing him in for questioning.
    That's one way you and I differ looking at this case-you believe there's no way anyone heard anything-I believe the rumors were flying.




    Let's just say for the sake of argument here that Jessie's first confession was coerced (although this is not a fact by any means, and one I can't phantom why people insinuate) what about the confession to his own attorney's? The one with just him and his attorney's, no police, no prosecution. It makes no sense unless his own attorney's were coercing him or leading him to confess. (if you believe this, look up law ethics, a lawyer could be barred for it).


    I've mentioned before Jessie may have simply enjoyed the attention. One could also ask why he refused to testify against the other two?



    What would it take to convince supporters of guilt? There is more circumstantial and physical evidence in this case, than was in the Scott Peterson case, Charles Manson, etc... Take a look through criminal history and see what kind of cases truly convicts people versus what is found on tv.

    Please list this physical evidence....I'm completely serious. I'm not talking about a knife that may/may not have caused the wounds consistent with the victims...I'm talking hardcore physical evidence.

    Then we see the conspiracy coming through, of course the WMPD bungled or screwed up the investigation, how else could the WM3 be innocent? Of course the prosecution and the judge can't admit they made a mistake, they were so good at it they convinced 24 jurors to convict just to send three innocent teenagers to prison. The top of the cake (so far, federal court is next to be included in this) is the ASSC, of course the state supreme court is going to continue to cover everyone's butt. The ASSC was not just looking for judicial errors, they denied the first appeal due to preponderance of the evidence of guilt.
    http://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/...c/cr94-928.wpd


    Does anyone truly believe this? I mean this is almost as bad as the conspiracy of JFK, or the landing on the moon, or the terrorist bombing of the pentagon. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe this many individuals with careers and reputations on the line would continue to cover for someone else.

    I do believe it can and does happen.

    The reason there is no physical evidence, or very little that has been tested is because the bodies were submerged in water, do a little research about murder victims submerged in water and what happens to evidence. As for the scene being a dump site, well the defense even disagrees with you. But then they need it to be the crime scene more than the prosecution, as that is how they explained the injuries... animal predation. I still love the canine type animal that swung the victims up against a hard object (possibly a tree according to the report) and that is how all three had basilar skull fractures. Of course, the report doesn't explain how this canine pulled all three out of the water, did the injuries and then somehow without opposing thumbs put the boys back in the water, and even pushed them so hard that they didn't surface.

    I could take any murder case in history and state the very things supporters say, I would just take each piece of evidence one by one (you can't use them as a whole, because then guilt is evident) and tear them down by any means available. I would blame corrupt cops, no blood (even if there was some) any confessions (even if out of three accused all three confessed in one form or another) and make them false anyway I could. I would state the scene had to be a dumping site, even when by all evidence it was the crime scene. I would shift the blame to someone else, and then when it became clear that person was innocent, I would just shift again to someone else. Even if they had alibi's, when the accused didn't.
    I would convince anyone that would listen that they were convicted in a satanic panic, just because they listened to metallica and wore black and read Stephen King. I would ignore or say it wasn't important if one of the accused had been hospitalized numerous times for mental issues, with diagnosis of psychotic and violent tendencies. Even with a past history of violent outbursts, including killing a dog (but hey it's not conclusively proven that cruelty to animals means they will escalate and kill, it's such a uncommon occurrence with killers, right?)
    I have not seen absolute proof that Damien or Jason confessed. And of course you could or anyone could tear apart a case and look at it in a million different ways. However, I have yet to ever hear of another case where there were so many people on each side of the fence.
    Last edited by laurensmom; 10-25-2010 at 10:20 PM. Reason: spelling :)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    laurensmom, I think if you've read Damien's psychological history, and watch the interview he gave on the Larry King Show, you'll find numerous lies that Damien told Larry King. It seems to me, if Damien was innocent, he wouldn't need to lie about his personal history, but he did. I would suggest his reasoning was because the real Damien Echols doesn't match the Damien Echols his supporters envision.

    Honestly haven't watched it yet....I've done more reading than watching but I bet it would offer some insight!

    The crime happened May 4th or 5th. Daylight Savings Time would have been in place. At the earliest, I would think dark would occur around 7:30 give or take 15 minutes. If this is wrong, I stand corrected.

    Yes more than likely it was however having grown up in the deep country surrounded by woods-I know that they get dark way before everything else.

    I don't know whether or not Domini's cousin saw what she thought was Domini and Damien after dark from the front or a rear view of the two in question. Maybe someone does know. I do know that both Domini and Jason Baldwin were wearing black shirts that day, and both had similar hair color, length, and texture. Since eyewitnesses are often wrong, the best I would give the cousin is to say she had a 50% chance of being right.

    Ziggy, the luminol testing wasn't done until 5 or 6 days after the crime so that would have been at issue had it come up during the trial. Simple reason it wasn't admitted into evidence. The prosecution didn't want to have to explain the delay.

    Whoever Bojangles had a run in with, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the 3 eight year olds or he wouldn't have been bleeding so badly. Sounds more like someone knifed him to me.

    Yes, while it's true that children most often die at the hands of people they know, that would not apply in this case since we have 3 boys from 3 different families. For that reason alone, to me common sense dictates that this wasn't a familial killing at all.

    I'm not saying it was butttt not saying there is no way it wasn't...not just yet

    I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Jessie Misskelley stated he was trying to throw the police off the track when he said the boys were tied with rope. It then follows that he may well have been trying to do the same when he gave a time line that was at odds with the known facts.
    I am wanting more to think about so keep throwing it at me!!!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    110
    Whoever Bojangles had a run in with, I think it's safe to say it wasn't the 3 eight year olds or he wouldn't have been bleeding so badly.
    Not to mention the fact that he couldn't even control his bowels, much less three victims.
    It then follows that he may well have been trying to do the same when he gave a time line that was at odds with the known facts.
    Which is what he told the deputies who transported him to prison.

    There are two possible explainations for Misskelley's inconsistencies.

    Either he wasn't there, or he was trying to lessen his own involvement.

    First, He has never said he wasn't there, yet he HAS said he was trying to lessen his own involvement.

    Second, It's painfully obvious when listening to his initial statement that he's trying desperately to distance himself from the actual murders by insisting he left before "They done it".

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    65
    Originally Posted by Sunnyone
    How was the LE behavior regarding Jessie's first confession inappropriate (there were five so far that we can prove, with rumors that he still is), the LE had parental consent, even for the polygraph, they had Jessie sign a miranda waiver, according to Jessie himself they were not mean to him. So how did they bring forth a false confession, especially since in that confession Jessie knew things that no one else knew? How did Jessie know for a fact that Christopher was the one mutilated in the groin area? How did he know that one was cut in the face? How did he know that Michael was not with the other two (since he stated Michael ran and he had to bring him back farther away from the others?)


    I'm still deciphering.....however, I have a problem with the confessions. As I said above-I've yet to read where Jessie told a story of events without constant interruption or correcting.
    How many confessions is needed, at the time of the trial there were a total of 7 confessions or admissions. Did anyone correct the information that Jessie shouldn't have known?



    Or how about what Damien told police 4 days after the bodies were found (you can find this in the link below)
    On May 10, four days after the bodies werhe found, the police had not solved the cases. When Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, he asked him how he thought the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols's answer is abstracted as follows:
    • He stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.

    At the time Echols made the statement, there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others.

    Your last statement cannot be proven therefore is simply not a fact. No matter how you word it or how many times you say it-it is not a fact.
    Think about how many people came and went from that scene. Think about how friendly JMB was with wmpd. They even apologized to him for bringing him in for questioning.
    That's one way you and I differ looking at this case-you believe there's no way anyone heard anything-I believe the rumors were flying.
    Although I would love to take credit for the information, it was actually in the ASSC ruling that I linked to. This statement was made 4 days after the bodies were found, before JMB was questioned by the police. While I will admit that it was rumored that the boys were mutilated, it was never stipulated that only one was, nor which one. As a matter of fact, if you read JMB statement he states that Todd Moore still believed his son was mutilated as well. I guess Damien and Jessie were more knowledgeable than the actual parents.



    Let's just say for the sake of argument here that Jessie's first confession was coerced (although this is not a fact by any means, and one I can't phantom why people insinuate) what about the confession to his own attorney's? The one with just him and his attorney's, no police, no prosecution. It makes no sense unless his own attorney's were coercing him or leading him to confess. (if you believe this, look up law ethics, a lawyer could be barred for it).


    I've mentioned before Jessie may have simply enjoyed the attention. One could also ask why he refused to testify against the other two?
    Enjoyed the attention? I can't imagine anyone enjoying the attention enough to confess to the murder of three boys. The answer to your question is this, the special attorney appointed on this matter, advised Jessie not to testify unless he received a deal. Burnett stated he would not say one way or the other, therefore Jessie didn't testify.


    What would it take to convince supporters of guilt? There is more circumstantial and physical evidence in this case, than was in the Scott Peterson case, Charles Manson, etc... Take a look through criminal history and see what kind of cases truly convicts people versus what is found on tv.

    Please list this physical evidence....I'm completely serious. I'm not talking about a knife that may/may not have caused the wounds consistent with the victims...I'm talking hardcore physical evidence.
    Let me first correct a error, I meant circumstantial, physical and direct evidence. It's all in the documents, transcripts, etc... on Callahan's.
    If someone else wants to give you a comprehensive list, feel free.

    Then we see the conspiracy coming through, of course the WMPD bungled or screwed up the investigation, how else could the WM3 be innocent? Of course the prosecution and the judge can't admit they made a mistake, they were so good at it they convinced 24 jurors to convict just to send three innocent teenagers to prison. The top of the cake (so far, federal court is next to be included in this) is the ASSC, of course the state supreme court is going to continue to cover everyone's butt. The ASSC was not just looking for judicial errors, they denied the first appeal due to preponderance of the evidence of guilt.
    http://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/...c/cr94-928.wpd


    Does anyone truly believe this? I mean this is almost as bad as the conspiracy of JFK, or the landing on the moon, or the terrorist bombing of the pentagon. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe this many individuals with careers and reputations on the line would continue to cover for someone else.

    I do believe it can and does happen.
    Can you give me examples please? As I find it very hard to phantom that the WMPD, prosecution office, two juries, Judge Burnett, and the ASSC are all out to cover for each other.


    The reason there is no physical evidence, or very little that has been tested is because the bodies were submerged in water, do a little research about murder victims submerged in water and what happens to evidence. As for the scene being a dump site, well the defense even disagrees with you. But then they need it to be the crime scene more than the prosecution, as that is how they explained the injuries... animal predation. I still love the canine type animal that swung the victims up against a hard object (possibly a tree according to the report) and that is how all three had basilar skull fractures. Of course, the report doesn't explain how this canine pulled all three out of the water, did the injuries and then somehow without opposing thumbs put the boys back in the water, and even pushed them so hard that they didn't surface.

    I could take any murder case in history and state the very things supporters say, I would just take each piece of evidence one by one (you can't use them as a whole, because then guilt is evident) and tear them down by any means available. I would blame corrupt cops, no blood (even if there was some) any confessions (even if out of three accused all three confessed in one form or another) and make them false anyway I could. I would state the scene had to be a dumping site, even when by all evidence it was the crime scene. I would shift the blame to someone else, and then when it became clear that person was innocent, I would just shift again to someone else. Even if they had alibi's, when the accused didn't.
    I would convince anyone that would listen that they were convicted in a satanic panic, just because they listened to metallica and wore black and read Stephen King. I would ignore or say it wasn't important if one of the accused had been hospitalized numerous times for mental issues, with diagnosis of psychotic and violent tendencies. Even with a past history of violent outbursts, including killing a dog (but hey it's not conclusively proven that cruelty to animals means they will escalate and kill, it's such a uncommon occurrence with killers, right?)


    I have not seen absolute proof that Damien or Jason confessed. And of course you could or anyone could tear apart a case and look at it in a million different ways. However, I have yet to ever hear of another case where there were so many people on each side of the fence.
    Just because you choose not to believe all the witness's doesn't mean it isn't proof. For the witness's to be lying about this means that 7 individuals came forth with no obvious reason and lied about what they said. Yet Damien has been caught lying time and time again, but when he says he was just joking at the ballpark (at least he finally admitted to saying it and being there) he is automatically believed no matter what he says. It blows my mind.
    How about Jon Benet Ramsey, although it's never gone to court, there are supporters of the intruder theory and supporters of it being the parents and even some that support it was Burke. Scott Peterson has supporters and non supporters as well. OJ Simpson same thing. Believe it or not Charles Manson has supporters, they even have a name Masonites.
    Mumia Abu-Jamal, Amanda Knox. Let me know if more are required.
    Last edited by OkieGranny; 02-24-2016 at 03:24 PM. Reason: broken link

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunnyone View Post
    Originally Posted by Sunnyone
    How was the LE behavior regarding Jessie's first confession inappropriate (there were five so far that we can prove, with rumors that he still is), the LE had parental consent, even for the polygraph, they had Jessie sign a miranda waiver, according to Jessie himself they were not mean to him. So how did they bring forth a false confession, especially since in that confession Jessie knew things that no one else knew? How did Jessie know for a fact that Christopher was the one mutilated in the groin area? How did he know that one was cut in the face? How did he know that Michael was not with the other two (since he stated Michael ran and he had to bring him back farther away from the others?)


    How many confessions is needed, at the time of the trial there were a total of 7 confessions or admissions. Did anyone correct the information that Jessie shouldn't have known?

    Yes Sunnyone there were numerous times he was interrupted with questions such as -you mean this or that- or -you mean this way-. I mean come on it's right there in black and white. I haven't said he was or wasn't there. It's my opinion his confession was not a straight out open confession of events. He was constantly interrupted....
    I'm not asking you to try and wrap your mind around why some supporters don't see things the way you do. And, I'm not even a supporter-I put myself back on the fence, and started all over. Before I decide with 100% certainty that I believe they did it-I have questions.


    Or how about what Damien told police 4 days after the bodies were found (you can find this in the link below)
    On May 10, four days after the bodies werhe found, the police had not solved the cases. When Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, he asked him how he thought the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols's answer is abstracted as follows:
    • He stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.

    At the time Echols made the statement, there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others.

    Although I would love to take credit for the information, it was actually in the ASSC ruling that I linked to. This statement was made 4 days after the bodies were found, before JMB was questioned by the police. While I will admit that it was rumored that the boys were mutilated, it was never stipulated that only one was, nor which one. As a matter of fact, if you read JMB statement he states that Todd Moore still believed his son was mutilated as well. I guess Damien and Jessie were more knowledgeable than the actual parents.

    That still doesn't make it a fact. There's not a single person on the ASSC that can prove rumors weren't rampant. And, I'll have to go back and read-I don't remember Damien stating which of the boys were mutilated.

    Let's just say for the sake of argument here that Jessie's first confession was coerced (although this is not a fact by any means, and one I can't phantom why people insinuate) what about the confession to his own attorney's? The one with just him and his attorney's, no police, no prosecution. It makes no sense unless his own attorney's were coercing him or leading him to confess. (if you believe this, look up law ethics, a lawyer could be barred for it).


    Enjoyed the attention? I can't imagine anyone enjoying the attention enough to confess to the murder of three boys. The answer to your question is this, the special attorney appointed on this matter, advised Jessie not to testify unless he received a deal. Burnett stated he would not say one way or the other, therefore Jessie didn't testify.

    I can't imagine it either-doesn't make it impossible.


    What would it take to convince supporters of guilt? There is more circumstantial and physical evidence in this case, than was in the Scott Peterson case, Charles Manson, etc... Take a look through criminal history and see what kind of cases truly convicts people versus what is found on tv.

    Let me first correct a error, I meant circumstantial, physical and direct evidence. It's all in the documents, transcripts, etc... on Callahan's.
    If someone else wants to give you a comprehensive list, feel free.


    That's not what you stated before-that's why I asked. And, we'll have to agree to disagree on there being more evidence in this case than the two you mention above.

    Then we see the conspiracy coming through, of course the WMPD bungled or screwed up the investigation, how else could the WM3 be innocent? Of course the prosecution and the judge can't admit they made a mistake, they were so good at it they convinced 24 jurors to convict just to send three innocent teenagers to prison. The top of the cake (so far, federal court is next to be included in this) is the ASSC, of course the state supreme court is going to continue to cover everyone's butt. The ASSC was not just looking for judicial errors, they denied the first appeal due to preponderance of the evidence of guilt.
    http://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/...c/cr94-928.wpd


    Does anyone truly believe this? I mean this is almost as bad as the conspiracy of JFK, or the landing on the moon, or the terrorist bombing of the pentagon. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe this many individuals with careers and reputations on the line would continue to cover for someone else.

    Can you give me examples please? As I find it very hard to phantom that the WMPD, prosecution office, two juries, Judge Burnett, and the ASSC are all out to cover for each other.

    Look at the top of the front page of the forums--Susan Murphy-Milano--or read about Kevin Ives and Don Henry and the Mena, AR, airport.


    The reason there is no physical evidence, or very little that has been tested is because the bodies were submerged in water, do a little research about murder victims submerged in water and what happens to evidence. As for the scene being a dump site, well the defense even disagrees with you. But then they need it to be the crime scene more than the prosecution, as that is how they explained the injuries... animal predation. I still love the canine type animal that swung the victims up against a hard object (possibly a tree according to the report) and that is how all three had basilar skull fractures. Of course, the report doesn't explain how this canine pulled all three out of the water, did the injuries and then somehow without opposing thumbs put the boys back in the water, and even pushed them so hard that they didn't surface.

    I could take any murder case in history and state the very things supporters say, I would just take each piece of evidence one by one (you can't use them as a whole, because then guilt is evident) and tear them down by any means available. I would blame corrupt cops, no blood (even if there was some) any confessions (even if out of three accused all three confessed in one form or another) and make them false anyway I could. I would state the scene had to be a dumping site, even when by all evidence it was the crime scene. I would shift the blame to someone else, and then when it became clear that person was innocent, I would just shift again to someone else. Even if they had alibi's, when the accused didn't.
    I would convince anyone that would listen that they were convicted in a satanic panic, just because they listened to metallica and wore black and read Stephen King. I would ignore or say it wasn't important if one of the accused had been hospitalized numerous times for mental issues, with diagnosis of psychotic and violent tendencies. Even with a past history of violent outbursts, including killing a dog (but hey it's not conclusively proven that cruelty to animals means they will escalate and kill, it's such a uncommon occurrence with killers, right?)


    Just because you choose not to believe all the witness's doesn't mean it isn't proof. For the witness's to be lying about this means that 7 individuals came forth with no obvious reason and lied about what they said. Yet Damien has been caught lying time and time again, but when he says he was just joking at the ballpark (at least he finally admitted to saying it and being there) he is automatically believed no matter what he says. It blows my mind.

    Never said I believe him above everyone else. I said in my opinion those 3 I mentioned were not believable. So-if all witnesses are indeed proof-how do you feel about Vicki Hutchenson coming out and saying she was forced/threatened to make up her testimony? What about the two women that have come forth and stated they saw Terry Hobbs with the 3 little boys when he stated he had not seen them that day?

    How about Jon Benet Ramsey, although it's never gone to court, there are supporters of the intruder theory and supporters of it being the parents and even some that support it was Burke. Scott Peterson has supporters and non supporters as well. OJ Simpson same thing. Believe it or not Charles Manson has supporters, they even have a name Masonites.
    Mumia Abu-Jamal, Amanda Knox. Let me know if more are required.
    [B]I can't even comment without looking further into your last paragraph. As far as I have read....I have never seen nor heard of any case that had the celebrites/fundraisers/etc. that this one has had. Doesn't prove anything I know and it doesn't sway my opinion-not that I really have one yet.

    And Sunnyone believe me when I say I want to hear what you think-even tho I will question it-you, Larry, and a couple others have made me re-look/re-think at or about so many aspects of this case; and, I do appreciate it very much.
    [/B

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Any Supporters who crossed over?
    By dasgal in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 06-10-2014, 12:09 PM
  2. To ALL RDI supporters! Please gather here!!!
    By redeemed in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-17-2009, 06:39 PM

Tags for this Thread