918 users online (171 members and 747 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    13,613

    West Memphis Three - Geraldo Special Report 1994

    Two separate shows, first show between the two trials and once after all were convicted.

    1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PskDNX9qRr4
    2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU6oApKMyrM
    3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A23cGFdftxQ
    4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAPUvJmqqTs
    5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTsYjBQIMRQ
    6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlSPT73NSX8

    Seeing Jack Levin is a highlight .. it is interesting to see Pam and Terry Hobbs together as well as the media reaction to the crime at the time of the trials.

    This program was aired between the two trials, and there is talk of the show about whether or not Jessie will testify against Jason and Damien, and what kind of discount in years Jessie could expect if he made a deal with the prosecutors in return for that testimony. The reduction was described as Jessie Snr as ‘substantial’, but more than 20 years.

    ‘They were discussing about telling the truth’. Jessie Snr. However he maintains he was not there.

    In part two you can see Terry Hobbs directly confront Jessie Misskelley Snr. ‘He came out of your home.’ Interesting to see a show produced before the PL movies. Even though sensationalist Geraldo goes right into the satanist theories, the experts on the show point to disturbed teenagers, with ’satanism’ being the ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ of the crime.

    Marginal kids, dropouts, not doing well at home, who felt powerless.

    The final comments is that Satanism is used by sadists to glamourise and justify their actions, so the person attributing their behaviour to a ritual cult may or may not believe in so called 'satanism' but uses that to avoid responsibility in a way for their actions, it's not them, it's their 'religion'. Interesting.
    You don't get a medal for switching alliances just before the result, as it becomes apparent the other team is set to win.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    192
    The 'tabloid' of TV shows! How to whip up a storm of hatred and reduce the chances of a fair trial!

    Trial by media whilst events in the court room seem to all be directed towards increasing the number of votes for the next time around.

    The mass hysteria back then, which also reached its tentacles across to Europe, was based on ignorance and fear. A potent brew!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,350
    Imagine they allowed that programme to be aired before two of the defendants had even been tried! Un-frickin-believable.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    192
    TV ratings and 'entertainment' both trump justice!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    The first show was obviously recorded between the two trials, but at least according to the transcript on Callahan it wasn't aired until 3/16/1994, which is a couple of days after both sides rested in the Baldwin/Echols trial, the day before the jury rendered their verdict. Anyway, Susie Brewer apparently didn't have much confidence in the claims of Misskelley's having an alibi when she was interviewed there, as she argued "I don't think he did it" rather than insisting he was off wrestling at the time like his shifty-eyed father did. That said, Pam's father was the highlight of the show for me with lines like this one:

    Yes, Mr. Misskelley, I didn't get a chance to say anything to you after the trial. But what I say--and I'm talking personally to you. I see a re--repeat--a repeat of a beer-drinking--all I see is--it--what I'm trying to say is it's his raising. I feel sorrier for him than I do for you. You've never done nothing for him. And that's all he ever knew is what he was done. And brother, that's your fault as much as it's his.
    And this response to claims that Misskelley is retarded:

    Well, he can think fast enough to do and get out and do what he was doing down there at Mem--West Memphis; drinking his beer and carrying on with the other people. So, you know, it's just like Paul said, in the state of Arkansas, mental retardation starts at an IQ of 65. Seventy-two? We've all got some mental ability, you know? If you want to holler that, then I'm a little bit nuts, too.
    Also, Misskelley Sr. reference to the prosecution's attempt to get his son to testify as "they was talking about telling the truth" mirrors Misskelley Jr.'s comments to his lawyer around the same time:

    MISSKELLEY: They told me yesterday, the prosecutors told me, they said if it ain't true, Jessie, don't say it. You know, that's what he told me. He said if it ain't true about you, Damien, or Jason, don't say it.

    CROW: Okay.

    MISSKELLEY: He said we need to know the truth. That's all we're asking, just to know the truth.
    The Master said, "In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself." — Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean, James Legge translation

    Failure is an opportunity. If you blame someone else, there is no end to the blame. Therefore the Master fulfills her own obligations and corrects her own mistakes. She does what she needs to do and demands nothing of others. — Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    6,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs G Norris View Post
    Even though sensationalist Geraldo goes right into the satanist theories, the experts on the show point to disturbed teenagers, with ’satanism’ being the ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ of the crime.

    Marginal kids, dropouts, not doing well at home, who felt powerless.

    The final comments is that Satanism is used by sadists to glamourise and justify their actions, so the person attributing their behaviour to a ritual cult may or may not believe in so called 'satanism' but uses that to avoid responsibility in a way for their actions, it's not them, it's their 'religion'. Interesting.
    rsbm

    ^ This actually is quite a sensible observation. I am suitably stunned that it derives from a show hosted by Geraldo.

    If there was a potential 'occult motive' for Echols, this would be it.

    And it's one of the reasons I do not wholly subscribe to innocence, in his case. (I say Echols alone, as it's him who was all about the 'occult', not that he'd have known occultism if it up and slapped him 'round the earhole, back in '93).

    I do see Echols as precisely the sort of kid described. I also see him using other means than his interest in the occult to make himself seem intimidating, all of them rather misguided self-protection mechanisms.

    Which is probably why Jerry Driver threw his name out in ten seconds flat as a possible suspect.

    The issue of his guilt or innocence is, of course, incredibly more complex than this single issue, but it IS a good point to consider.
    _____________
    Everything I have posted at this website, past or present, represents my opinion or my understanding of events based on facts that are publicly available.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    6,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Cappuccino View Post
    Imagine they allowed that programme to be aired before two of the defendants had even been tried! Un-frickin-believable.
    Yeah, it is pretty disgusting.
    _____________
    Everything I have posted at this website, past or present, represents my opinion or my understanding of events based on facts that are publicly available.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausgirl View Post
    If there was a potential 'occult motive' for Echols, this would be it.
    That's exactly it. Echols feelings of being powerless motivates him to imagine he empowered himself by through nonsense like drinking blood, being possessed, and communicating with demons as documented in his mental heath records less than five months before he committed the murders. Echols had a rough life and it lead him down a very dark path, and that is how murderers are made regardless of if they take any interest in the occult or otherwise.

    My own father wound up killing many children himself in his quest to overcome his feelings of powerlessness from a similarly rough life in a small town. His chosen path was through the establishment though, participating in the slaughter of villages full of people in Vietnam as he eventually confessed to me just around five years ago, though I'd figured as much long before that. Granted, people like to imagine that doing such things in war is completely different, but the underlying motive of empowering oneself is the same, both for the solders who do the murdering and the war profiteers who instigate such conflicts.
    The Master said, "In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself." — Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean, James Legge translation

    Failure is an opportunity. If you blame someone else, there is no end to the blame. Therefore the Master fulfills her own obligations and corrects her own mistakes. She does what she needs to do and demands nothing of others. — Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    In my very humble opinion, more cogent arguments as to what would have impelled Echols to commit these crimes in this thread than in the other threads combined. Though I can see how and why "Satanism" or "Occult" motives get thrown into the mix, I think it hurts more than helps the arguments against Echols. It would be much more complex than saying the good book of Satanism says to do it. For me, Echols would be no different than Hobbs or Martin or most others...it is a desire to exert complete control and power over someone and that exists regardless of whether they believe Jesus is our savior or if they believe drinking blood gives power.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    13,613
    I avoided the so called 'satanism' aspect of this case for a long time because I thought the argument was inflammatory and off base, but to put it in the context of an image or a cloak a disempowered individual would wear to give themselves cache makes a lot of sense for me, I thought Jack Levin made a lot of sense, he is still alive and commenting on the case it seems, so I'll see what I can dig up: http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2011/08/memphisthree/
    You don't get a medal for switching alliances just before the result, as it becomes apparent the other team is set to win.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Canada "A"
    Posts
    12,175
    Other than Jesse's "confession" there is not one shred of evidence to link these 3 to this crime. There was an 'occult' factor here. It was a witch hunt IMO. I'm sure it's clear I have and still am a huge supporter of WM3. I have also indicated in earlier posts I am huge supporter of Damien. I certainly know back then. In the day. In the South. Poor. He did nothing at that time to help his case.
    All posts are my opinion only unless supported by a link
    Keep calm and carry on
    "Your out of your tree" "It's not my tree"
    #finddani

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    6,481
    I can't see any good in ignoring the more obvious facts of the case and the accused themselves, no matter which side you are on.

    To elaborate on that.. I think it odd that people can't see or admit why Echols was a very good suspect. Whether guilty or innocent, he really was up there as a suspect. I am not sure he was the -best- suspect, but he was a good one. Enough so that, if it finally comes out in the wash that he IS guilty, I wouldn't swoon with shock about it.

    But Echols made himself a good suspect, so he - quite rightly - was one. If not the best one.
    Last edited by Ausgirl; 12-01-2013 at 09:38 PM.
    _____________
    Everything I have posted at this website, past or present, represents my opinion or my understanding of events based on facts that are publicly available.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausgirl View Post
    I can't see any good in ignoring the more obvious facts of the case and the accused themselves, no matter which side you are on.

    To elaborate on that.. I think it odd that people can't see or admit why Echols was a very good suspect. Whether guilty or innocent, he really was up there as a suspect. I am not sure he was the -best- suspect, but he was a good one. Enough so that, if it finally comes out in the wash that he IS guilty, I wouldn't swoon with shock about it.

    But Echols made himself a good suspect, so he - quite rightly - was one. If not the best one.
    Likewise, JMB made himself suspect with his behavior, especially as recorded in the second movie. And, as has been stated before, both men now readily admit that their actions made them seem suspicious. Again, however, I am at a loss as to why people can't see that TH should have been considered as a suspect as well.

    How many famous murderers have remained free men for extended periods of time simply because they don't look like murderers? So, just because someone's behavior is bizarre doesn't make them a murderer any more than should someone who has exemplary behavior on the surface be dismissed as a suspect based solely on behavior. Crimes require evidence, and so should convictions, especially for murder!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    13,613
    JMB would not have become a suspect AFTER being cleared by LE if the directors of PL hadn't made him one.
    You don't get a medal for switching alliances just before the result, as it becomes apparent the other team is set to win.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    6,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    So, just because someone's behavior is bizarre doesn't make them a murderer any more than should someone who has exemplary behavior on the surface be dismissed as a suspect based solely on behavior. Crimes require evidence, and so should convictions, especially for murder!
    rsbm

    While I agree with you here, mostly, I think there's a difference between 'bizarre' and 'violent' - previous acts of violence are to me an entirely relevant thing to consider.

    Mind you, I do think Echols' attacks are a tad girly, aren't they. Fingernails? If he'd done that in MY high school, he'd never have lived down the scorn from the other lads.

    My question at this point, I suppose, is not -whether- Echols was prone to violence, but whether the acts he was prone to are on par with the injuries the victims received.

    Can Damien be seen, when we look at his previous violent acts, to be capable of inflicting those brutal head injuries?

    They are horrific, and it took some force to create them (I am presently looking at those ghastly X and Y scalp lacerations, no mere slap upside the head caused those, that's brute, blunt force - bam! Repeated, hard blows, on more than one victim). And that's just one set of injuries..

    It's a bit beyond fingernails.. but on par with the dead dog story (though I am not sure this isn't just a legend, probably started by Echols himself ) so I am not sure, at this point.
    _____________
    Everything I have posted at this website, past or present, represents my opinion or my understanding of events based on facts that are publicly available.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast