1208 users online (218 members and 990 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 26 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 383
  1. #1

    New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

    http://wreg.com/2013/04/02/judge-den...phis-evidence/


    This is the first I heard of the letter written by Bennie Guy and the new witness !!! Has this been discussed anywhere on the threads yet?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    6,915
    IMO, this is all just hearsay and until they have some HARD evidence against TH or whoever this case is closed in my book.

    let the three boys rest in piece and all the others move on with their lives.

    JMO

    plus, BL and LG Hollingsworth were look at at the beginning of this case right?

    (someone correct me if i'm wrong)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    It's not all hearsay, some is witness accounts. However, they're accounts of things which purportedly happened nearly two decades ago, with nothing to substantiate them, and which come from guys in prison on rape convictions. Put simply, hearsay from a person of notable character would be more credible than the stories these people are selling.

    As for Buddy Lucas and L.G. Hollingsworth, one can find considerable information regarding both at the Callahan archives. There's also a video from the 10/14/93 police interview of Lucas on YouTube:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw65cozYetM"]buddy lucas 101493 - YouTube[/ame]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in TX from ARKANSAS
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by iluvmua View Post
    IMO, this is all just hearsay and until they have some HARD evidence against TH or whoever this case is closed in my book.

    let the three boys rest in piece and all the others move on with their lives.

    JMO

    plus, BL and LG Hollingsworth were look at at the beginning of this case right?

    (someone correct me if i'm wrong)
    I don't think anyone was SERIOUSLY looked at other than WM3, and respectfully I would like to think that if it was someone else (which I think it was) they just don't get to walk away from murdering 3 children!!!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland were seriously considered as suspects, as was John Mark Byers, and at least a few other people were looked into to lesser extents.

    As for the notion that it was someone else: the evidence points towards multiple perpetrators, a single someone is rather unlikely. Specifically, the luminol testing suggests the attacks took place on the right on bank of the creek in which the bodies were found, an environment in which it would be rather difficult for any one person to subdue, hog-tie, mutilate, and drown three individuals, even small children. Then there the fact that different styles of knots were used to hog-tie the boys, suggesting at least two people took part in tying those knots.

    The rest of the evidence points squarely towards the three who were convicted, or at least Echols and Misskelley. The evidence against Baldwin actually having taken part in the murders is isn't particularly strong, but it's enough to be reasonably certain that he at least knows a lot more than what he's let on. There's also a few witness statements which implicate Domini Teer too, but not nearly enough to make a case against her.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    103
    Wow! this is HUGE.

    The judge didn't allow the families in on this evidence in case it would be needed in a FUTURE TRIAL. Doesn't sound like hearsay to me.

    I had been thoroughly convinced TH acted alone and was using DJ as an alibi, because the phone call between them on West on Memphis really made DJ sound innocent , like he had been used and set up by TH.

    So apparently they have more on DJ now (than that possible hair) to consider him a suspect.

    And the other two...I wonder what they have other than one of then being slow and confessing to someone (similar to Misskelley situation)

    BUT if this evidence is strong enough to charge another party, the WM3 would have to first be exonerated, right? Or could they convict someone else with the WM3 Alford Plea in place?

    I would like to believe they would not withhold this into from the parents, and not DO anything with it????

    Guess we will see if PH goes on anymore 'family picnics' with TH now....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by iluvmua View Post
    IMO, this is all just hearsay and until they have some HARD evidence against TH or whoever this case is closed in my book.

    let the three boys rest in piece and all the others move on with their lives.

    JMO

    plus, BL and LG Hollingsworth were look at at the beginning of this case right?

    (someone correct me if i'm wrong)

    Let who move on with their lives? The families and victims still seek and deserve justice. It will never be 'closed in my book' until they get it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bruce, Jon, Whitney, and I have something in common
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by kyleb View Post
    Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland were seriously considered as suspects, as was John Mark Byers, and at least a few other people were looked into to lesser extents.

    As for the notion that it was someone else: the evidence points towards multiple perpetrators, a single someone is rather unlikely. Specifically, the luminol testing suggests the attacks took place on the right on bank of the creek in which the bodies were found, an environment in which it would be rather difficult for any one person to subdue, hog-tie, mutilate, and drown three individuals, even small children. Then there the fact that different styles of knots were used to hog-tie the boys, suggesting at least two people took part in tying those knots.

    The rest of the evidence points squarely towards the three who were convicted, or at least Echols and Misskelley. The evidence against Baldwin actually having taken part in the murders is isn't particularly strong, but it's enough to be reasonably certain that he at least knows a lot more than what he's let on. There's also a few witness statements which implicate Domini Teer too, but not nearly enough to make a case against her.
    What evidence pointed at the WM3? It's important to note that the "expert" on the occult that testified in the trial got his degree in the mail when he sent away for it a year or two prior. There's only one reason that TH's hair was in the actual knot used to hog tie one of the boys.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    The best summery of the evidence against the convicted I've found is the "The Case Against the WM3" section on WM3 Truth, the collection of pages linked under that heading in the navigation bar on the left side of each page. As for Dale Griffis, his testimony was absurdly underwhelming regardless of where he got his degrees from. As for the hair found in the shoe string, it isn't even necessarily Terry Hobb's, but rather is simply consistent with his DNA along with a few million other people, and there's a multitude of ways it could have wound up where it was found.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Not new to WS but definitely new to this case. Someone had mentioned it in another thread and got me to reading. All I have read so far are all the documents on the callahan.8k.com website consisting of various reports, interviews, etc...Can any that have followed this case more in depth let me know if that is a fully complete set of documents that have been released (not looking for news articles, tv shows, news broadcasts or movies yet)? My next task is to get through the trial transcripts but before I do, I want to read all the investigatory reports.

    A couple of observations of my own from just reading the investigatory reports. It certainly seemed LE had focused almost immediately on Damien. In fact, his name was discussed as being a likely perpetrator before ANY people were interviewed and before Damien himself was interviewed. It also seems that many of the reports focus on doing two things: 1. Developing any information that points at Damien; and 2. Discrediting any leads that point away from Damien. For example, 1. Individuals providing an alibi for Damien were ignored and/or discredited; while 2. When individuals who were supposed alibis for other potential suspects denied such suspect's claims, their statements were apparently ignored.

    My take on Jessie's confession is that the initial confession was bogus. Everything "confessed" to was spoon fed by LE. LE's manipulation during the questioning was glaring. When provided with statements that clearly did not fit the known facts, LE should have thrown out false information about the crime scene to test the witness to see if they were fabricating their story by confirming such false information. In this instance, however, instead of testing the witnesses true knowledge, LE attempted on numerous occasions get the witness to correct those statements that didn't fit the known facts and when that failed, they went "off the record" only to come back "on the record" and immediately correct those statements to make them consistent with the known facts. It is pretty obvious what happened "off the record". On the flip side, the fact that Jessie regurgitates the same statements, even in interviews with his own attorneys, is pretty damning.

    If anyone can let me know if there is a more exhaustive list of investigatory reports, it would be much appreciated. I also apologize if this isn't the best thread to ask this question, but I didn't want to read a lot of threads at this point to determine if there was a more apt thread to ask. Many thanks in advance.


  11. #11
    Thank you so much for your input reedus23.That's exactly how I feel reading the callahan documents and I just don't see how some people read the same thing and come to the conclusion the WM3 were guilty.I think it's so obvious they were railroaded.

    Like Jason said this "new witness" statement does not sound anymore credible than the rest of statements that we already knew of.It just seems to me the only people in that town with a brain were Jason and Damian.
    It also seems like pretty much half of the town was addicted to meth and that horrible crime has meth written all over it IMO

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    It certainly seemed LE had focused almost immediately on Damien.
    Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland were also focused on at first, as was John Mark Byers and at least a few others to lesser extents. As for the focus on Echols, given his criminal and psychological history LE would've been fools to do otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    For example, 1. Individuals providing an alibi for Damien were ignored and/or discredited; while 2. When individuals who were supposed alibis for other potential suspects denied such suspect's claims, their statements were apparently ignored.
    Any chance you'd cite an actual example for each?

    As for more documents beyond what's at the Callahan archives, all I've found is a few autopsy photos which are easily located through a Google image search. Granted, I'm new to the case too, having only started looking into it about a month ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by claudicici View Post
    That's exactly how I feel reading the callahan documents and I just don't see how some people read the same thing and come to the conclusion the WM3 were guilty.
    Have you ever read a thoroughly detailed argument from someone who's concluded that they are guilty? If so, what is the best argument you've seen, and why does it fall short for you? In the same regard, what do you consider the most thoroughly detailed argument for their innocence for me to consider?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland[/URL] were also focused on at first, as was John Mark Byers and at least a few others to lesser extents. As for the focus on Echols, given his criminal and psychological history LE would've been fools to do otherwise.
    I don't disagree with the fact that other people were also looked at, to varying degrees, at various stages DURING the investigation. What had jumped out at me was the conversation between Sudbury and Steve Jones BEFORE any interviews were even conducted where they were already mentioning Damien as a suspect before having even talked to him or anyone else. I can understand putting a list together of people you would want to talk to to rule them in or out, like sex offenders, those with a violent history etc...but his was the ONLY name mentioned.



    Any chance you'd cite an actual example for each?
    I will try to remember to do this this evening to actually link the documents when I have more time to go back and pull up the statements, but off the top of my head, the Sanders accounts were dismissed, the statements concerning the various telephone conversations were dismissed while the fact that I believe it was Buddy Lucas' alibi denies Buddy being with him was glossed over to some extent (I will double check the names tonight because I'm going off the top of my head and could have the wrong name in mind, but think the alibi was supposed to be Ricky Simpson and he said Buddy wasn't with him. I'll have to double check and will provide cites to the statements.)

    As for more documents beyond what's at the Callahan archives, all I've found is a few autopsy photos which are easily located through a Google image search. Granted, I'm new to the case too, having only started looking into it about a month ago.
    It had seemed pretty exhaustive as for the actual investigative reports. Enough to fill up 2 pads of paper while taking brief notes of each statement. Thanks. Not sure the pictures will provide more information than was already in the documents.

    Have you ever read a thoroughly detailed argument from someone who's concluded that they are guilty? If so, what is the best argument you've seen, and why does it fall short for you? In the same regard, what do you consider the most thoroughly detailed argument for their innocence for me to consider?
    I have purposefully NOT read any arguments for or against. I was more interested in first getting an understanding of what actually happened, as free as possible of other opinions or biases. Personally, I still don't have an opinion as to their guilt or innocence, those were just things that jumped out at me right off the bat from reading only the reports. Just because it stuck out to me that LE determined who did it before starting their investigation doesn't mean that that person ultimately wasn't guilty. LE could have just had a really good grasp on the pulse of the city. After I get through the trial transcripts, I will read more articles and eventually arguments for and against. Just starting out on this case though, I didn't want to be influenced early on by any arguments.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    From what I've seen, Jones mentioned Echols as his best guess, so Sudbury asked Jones to go interview him together. If you haven't read that profile page I linked because you are avoiding persuasive arguments before evaluating the evidence for yourself: I respect that, but I hope you will at least take the time to look at some the documents cited on that page. Specifically:


    1. this page from a Charter admission report
    2. this page from the aforementioned Charter admission report
    3. this page from a Charter discharge report
    4. this page from Echols' St. Vincent Hospital case file
    5. this report from Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center
    6. this page from a Social Security counseling session
    7. this page from a Social Security disability report


    Also note that last page is Echols own words, in his own handwriting, just a few months before the murders. Plenty more such information can be found in Exhibit 500 and elsewhere, and of course only bits and pieces were available to Sudbury when he named Echols as his best guess, but I it seems to me that even just the examples I listed above suggest Sudbury likely knew enough about Echols to reasonably justify that guess.

    As for the Sanderses, Echols apparently never mentioned them when giving his first alibi, and the next day he said he was at the Sanders's from around 3:00 to 5:00 PM, but then two days later his mom said they they got to Sanders's around 6:00-6:30 PM and only stayed about one hour. Given that, what are you finding in the Sanderses accounts which to suggest they were wrongly disregarded? Also, what have you found to support Echols' claims of having been on the telephone during the hours in question?

    Regarding autopsy photos, I've been looking for the ones which were argued at trial to show wounds consistent with the knife found in the lake behind Baldwin's home, and ones which purportedly show evidence of animal predation according to more recent defense experts, but have only come up with a few of mostly poor quality. That said, I recommend comparing the Lake Knife to these wounds on Stevie Branch's head.

    Also, I'm looking forward to hearing more about what you are referring to regarding Buddy Lucas and Richard Simpson.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamReporter View Post
    What evidence pointed at the WM3? It's important to note that the "expert" on the occult that testified in the trial got his degree in the mail when he sent away for it a year or two prior. There's only one reason that TH's hair was in the actual knot used to hog tie one of the boys.
    But it's not proven that it is TH's hair.

Page 1 of 26 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast