Where can I find an unbiased site to read up on the case?

First of all, so sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I couldn't find a place that seemed more suitable...

Where can I find a WM3 site where I can read facts about the case that are unbiased? Most sites seem to be posting the facts that either make them look guilty or innocent.

I know there's a site with full transcripts and documents from the case, but I think it'd be a bit overwhelming for me right now, so if there's a site that just post the cold hard facts without trying to sway me to either side, I'd love to read it!

TIA.

hopeandglory said:

First of all, so sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I couldn't find a place that seemed more suitable...

Where can I find a WM3 site where I can read facts about the case that are unbiased? Most sites seem to be posting the facts that either make them look guilty or innocent.

I know there's a site with full transcripts and documents from the case, but I think it'd be a bit overwhelming for me right now, so if there's a site that just post the cold hard facts without trying to sway me to either side, I'd love to read it!

TIA.

Click to expand...

http://callahan.8k.com/index.html is the site that has all the case documents and pretty much every shred of information that is available for public consumption. It IS overwhelming, but off the top of my head, it is the only site I can think of that provides the case information in an unbiased fashion. I like this site as well: http://www.jivepuppi.com/ but it's more biased toward WM3 innocence. Although, if I'm not wrong, I think i heard that it's operated by people on both sides of the fence.

Is there certain information in particular that you're looking for? Maybe that could help people here point you in the right direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Callahan's is operated by people on "both sides of the fence," but it can be overwhelming. It offers no opinions. The other site linked (jivepuppi) tries very hard to be unbiased, but I do agree that it does lean a bit toward innocence. In the beginning, I believe jivepuppi was a "layman's" attempt to put forth the facts of the case. The problem with this case is that people tend to form opinions and stick to them. However, jivepuppi doesn't allow discussion. It's a "just the facts" site with a slight bias toward innocence. Really, the only unbiased site that I know of is Callahan's.

There are also several Facebook pages about the case if that sort of thing appeals to you. Most of the ones I've seen (except the ones whose title gives away their bias) allow (and encourage) posters from both sides. The WM3 Civil page gets quite raunchy at times, however. Just a caution. You can also read the two books, Devil's Knot, which leans toward innocence, and Blood of the Innocents, which leans toward guilt.

If you decide to tackle Callahan's, I'd suggest starting with the trial transcripts, being sure to read the pre-trial hearings, too. Then, proceed to the Rule 37 hearing transcripts. You can also read some of the wmpd logs and other wmpd documents there as well, along with media coverage at the time (in the Pasdar documents). I'd say that the best course of action would be to read the documents chronologically.

ETA: I just read the Wikipedia article, and IMO it's pretty accurate and non biased, if you haven't already read it.

Compassionate Reader said:

There are also several Facebook pages about the case if that sort of thing appeals to you. Most of the ones I've seen (except the ones whose title gives away their bias) allow (and encourage) posters from both sides. The WM3 Civil page gets quite raunchy at times, however. Just a caution. .

Click to expand...

Also, regardless of what any of you believe, I advise you to avoid both the "Terry Hobbs did it" and the "Terry Hobbs did not do it" Facebook pages. Nothing but rude, redundant windbags there. They even insult and argue with people who agree with them. Both pages are an embarrassment and painful to read.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are there any neutral WM3 documentaries? It appears they are all slanted toward innocence.

Thanks for the links! I'll start with jivepuppi and wikipedia, and then I'll see if I need clarification on things.

Very little is unbiased about this case. They best thing you can do is read up on as much as you can manage. Go through all of the different websites and make your own mind up. Callahans is the best place, as it's just the facts, but it can also be rather overwhelming. Like CompassionateReader said, it's best to start with the trial transcripts.
I think this is the route that most of us, who weren't there at the beginning, took. That's what I did.

As for neutral documentaries, the main four (PL triology and WoM) are not. They are more (WoM) or less (PL) biased towards innocence. There have been some television coverage done on the case, but I haven't watched any of it in full.

hopeandglory said:

Thanks for the links! I'll start with jivepuppi and wikipedia, and then I'll see if I need clarification on things.

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, once you get past callahans, everything has some bias or slant one way or the other. Websleuths you at least find both sides of the arguments. Sometimes more civil than other times, but it can have some decent discussion at times. I'd be afraid to point you anywhere else if you're looking to avoid bias. There are tons of threads here that should get you caught up for the most part.

Start and end here. Everything else is biased.
http://callahan.8k.com/index.html

Out of the documentaries - I'd say that West of Memphis was EXTREMELY biased towards innocence, while the Paradise Lost series was SLIGHTLY biased towards innocence.
The problem with this case is that it produces very fervent opinions on both sides and it is hard to find truly unbiased analysis.
I think that the best that can be done is the book Devil's Knot - which is about as unbiased an account as can be had (though it leans a bit towards innocence)

mubblefubbles said:

I think that the best that can be done is the book Devil's Knot - which is about as unbiased an account as can be had (though it leans a bit towards innocence)

Click to expand...

However it is now very out of date.

Also the trial transcripts are not exactly 'unbiased' given the stance of the Judge and the 'arguments' presented by the state! Unless there is an innate belief in satanic ritual, manaical teens etc.. Oh, and furthermore, a belief that(maybe) drunk teens, after an orgy of violence, are seemingly capable of making a crime scene, or even a mere dump site, sterile!

Miranda! said:

However it is now very out of date.

Also the trial transcripts are not exactly 'unbiased' given the stance of the Judge and the 'arguments' presented by the state! Unless there is an innate belief in satanic ritual, manaical teens etc.. Oh, and furthermore, a belief that(maybe) drunk teens, after an orgy of violence, are seemingly capable of making a crime scene, or even a mere dump site, sterile!

Click to expand...

the trial transcripts exposed those 3 thugs for being the child-murderers they were

mubblefubbles said:

the trial transcripts exposed those 3 thugs for being the child-murderers they were

Click to expand...

It's a funny thing, but I believe that the transcripts, especially the pre-trial hearings and the out-of-the-presence-of-the-jury conferences during the trials, expose the injustice perpetrated by our justice system on three innocent teenagers, now men. I just watched a 48 Hours program about another injustice - the murder of Michelle Lawless for which Joshua Kezer was falsely convicted and served almost 16 years in prison. One interesting thing about the Kezer case is that, when the new sheriff reopened the case, the investigator said that, upon reading the trial transcripts, he first believed Josh to be guilty. However, upon a closer and more probing examination of the evidence, he realized his mistake. So, a cursory reading of a trial transcript might make one believe in the verdict. That's why it's important to read and study all of the information available about a case. Accepting the verdict of a jury is sometimes the easy way out!