Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 120

Hybrid View

  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. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to luvsleuthing2 For This Useful Post:


  4. #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.


  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to aussiesleuth For This Useful Post:


  6. #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


  7. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:


  8. #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)


  9. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    177
    now I, of course, welcome your help on these I have listed!!!!


  11. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,988
    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."


  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  13. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,699
    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.


  14. The Following User Says Thank You to ziggy For This Useful Post:


  15. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,221
    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.


  16. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to justthinkin For This Useful Post:


  17. #10
    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!!!!!


  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:


  19. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    168
    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.

    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.
    BBM
    Mr. Hobbs was the stepfather (familial reltationship) of one of the boys who were killed... as someone posted previously, Hobbs may have killed his stepson first, and then killed the others to get rid of any witnesses.
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect." Steven Wright


  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DIXIECAT For This Useful Post:


  21. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by DIXIECAT View Post
    BBM
    Mr. Hobbs was the stepfather (familial reltationship) of one of the boys who were killed... as someone posted previously, Hobbs may have killed his stepson first, and then killed the others to get rid of any witnesses.
    Except that the autopsy reports invalidate that speculation as Stevie and Michael both drowned. Christopher Byers was already dead when placed in the water.


  22. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    Except that the autopsy reports invalidate that speculation as Stevie and Michael both drowned. Christopher Byers was already dead when placed in the water.
    I don't believe that the boys died in the initial attack. I believe that they succumbed to their injuries later in shallow water. There was not really that much fluid in the lungs and stomachs to give drowning as the COD, which is why the official COD statements list "multiple injuries" for all three boys. The order in which they died is not necessarily the order in which they were struck down.


  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:


  24. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tupelo, MS
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    Except that the autopsy reports invalidate that speculation as Stevie and Michael both drowned. Christopher Byers was already dead when placed in the water.
    Huh? That's like saying "I didn't really kill him when I threw him in the water, chained to a concrete block. The water actually killed him." Which might actually be a viable defense in some states....


  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SheBoss For This Useful Post:


  26. #15
    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


  27. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Sunnyone For This Useful Post:


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. Ramsey Campaign Thanks Their Supporters
    By VespaElf in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2004, 11:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •