Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Crimes and Trials > West Memphis III

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-22-2010, 11:34 PM
Dirty larry Dirty larry is offline
Banned
 
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-23-2010, 01:56 AM
luvsleuthing2 luvsleuthing2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 19
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to luvsleuthing2 For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old 10-23-2010, 04:05 AM
aussiesleuth aussiesleuth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 51
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to aussiesleuth For This Useful Post:
  #4  
Old 10-23-2010, 10:21 PM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:
  #5  
Old 10-23-2010, 10:28 PM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
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)
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:
  #6  
Old 10-23-2010, 10:29 PM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
now I, of course, welcome your help on these I have listed!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-25-2010, 07:19 AM
Nova Nova is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 18,319
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."
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:
  #8  
Old 10-25-2010, 06:08 PM
ziggy's Avatar
ziggy ziggy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern Cal
Posts: 4,209
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: while I have graduated law school and hold a JD, I am not yet licensed to practice. Therefore, if I say anything which could possibly be considered legal advice, or if I explain anything related to legal matters, rules of evidence, legal procedures, or anything related to law, please be aware that I do not yet hold a bar card and we have no attorney/client relationship. Please always, always talk to a personal attorney, and follow their directions. Please also follow the TOS in regards to all unverified posters. Thank you!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ziggy For This Useful Post:
  #9  
Old 10-25-2010, 08:38 PM
justthinkin's Avatar
justthinkin justthinkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,178
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to justthinkin For This Useful Post:
  #10  
Old 10-25-2010, 10:25 PM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
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!!!!!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:
  #11  
Old 07-18-2011, 04:20 PM
DIXIECAT's Avatar
DIXIECAT DIXIECAT is offline
Registered User
 
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DIXIECAT For This Useful Post:
  #12  
Old 09-05-2011, 02:26 AM
justthinkin's Avatar
justthinkin justthinkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,178
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-05-2011, 02:38 AM
Compassionate Reader Compassionate Reader is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,818
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Compassionate Reader For This Useful Post:
  #14  
Old 09-07-2011, 03:11 PM
SheBoss SheBoss is offline
Registered User
 
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....
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SheBoss For This Useful Post:
  #15  
Old 10-25-2010, 09:35 PM
Sunnyone Sunnyone is offline
Banned
 
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Sunnyone For This Useful Post:
  #16  
Old 10-25-2010, 10:18 PM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
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 :)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-27-2010, 06:36 AM
Nova Nova is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 18,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by laurensmom View Post
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.
At least one source (I wish I had a cite, but I don't at the moment) claims the WMPD is wrong that certain information was known "only" to the PD and the perpetrators. On the contrary, numerous sources testified that gossip was rampant and the details of the crimes widely discussed before anyone was arrested or even questioned.

As for Sunnyone's vision of a hypothetical conspiracy, I don't believe it takes large numbers of police and prosecutors consciously choosing to frame innocent suspects. I very much doubt that happened. On the contrary, it isn't hard to imagine that LE decided early on that the WM3 were the killers and continue to cling to that belief. Personally, I think that's how most LE "conspiracies" work: not to frame innocent suspects (though that may be the result), but to "help" the evidence against defendants LE believes to be guilty.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:
  #18  
Old 10-27-2010, 07:28 AM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova View Post
At least one source (I wish I had a cite, but I don't at the moment) claims the WMPD is wrong that certain information was known "only" to the PD and the perpetrators. On the contrary, numerous sources testified that gossip was rampant and the details of the crimes widely discussed before anyone was arrested or even questioned.

As for Sunnyone's vision of a hypothetical conspiracy, I don't believe it takes large numbers of police and prosecutors consciously choosing to frame innocent suspects. I very much doubt that happened. On the contrary, it isn't hard to imagine that LE decided early on that the WM3 were the killers and continue to cling to that belief. Personally, I think that's how most LE "conspiracies" work: not to frame innocent suspects (though that may be the result), but to "help" the evidence against defendants LE believes to be guilty.
I'd love to get this one figured out nova. I've put off rewatching PL1 & 2 because I wanted to read everything first. Last night I went ahead and started watching pl1 and as the -hbo presents etc- started rolling an announcer was speaking either from radio or tv. I don't know if it was just for the documentary or if it really happened.
The announcer went on to say in so many words that today the wmpd announced they have found the three missing little boys in a creek etc and that rumors were they may have been sexually mutilated.
IF this was really said-there ya go......proof of what I thought before that the rumors were rampant. But, I don't know how to find out if this was a real broadcast or if it was just for the documentary.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:
  #19  
Old 08-29-2011, 04:11 PM
gitana1's Avatar
gitana1 gitana1 is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 9,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnyone View Post
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.
Respectfully snipped for space.

During this interview Damien was asked whether one of the boys was more savagely attacked than the other two, to which Damien told them that he believed one of the boys had been mutilated more than the others and had his genitals cut. Police considered that this was information that would only have been known by the killer(s), but it was, in fact, common knowledge in the community. The prosecution later used this statement to support their case that Damien had prior knowledge of the crimes that was not generally available.


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...suspect_4.html
__________________
For Travis Alexander, a human being. Justice will prevail.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gitana1 For This Useful Post:
  #20  
Old 10-25-2010, 11:39 PM
Dirty larry Dirty larry is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 110
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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".
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dirty larry For This Useful Post:
  #21  
Old 10-27-2010, 10:05 AM
Fishmonger Dave Fishmonger Dave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 18
Justice for 6 = Free the 3 & Arrest the 1

Greetings - Just came across this thread via a Google search.

I've been interested in the WM3 case since around 2000. I saw the HBO shows (I wouldn't call them documentaries; they were undeniably advocacy pieces) in 1998 and wasn't convinced by them that it was a wrongful conviction.

I'm an attorney - not a defense attorney nor a prosecutor and don't' represent the WM3. I do have significant experience in the criminal justice system.

My views have evolved since I saw the HBO shows, primarily as a result of reading Jessie's statements, reading the trial transcripts, and reading Devil's Knot - the leading (if dated at this point) book on the case. I am now an ardent supporter.

Jessie's statements can be found here - I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the case take the time to read them (and download / LISTEN TO the audio, intonation is important here): http://www.dpdlaw.com/jmstatements.htm . Before expressing an opinion on this case, TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW THESE YOURSELF.

Devil's Knot is on Amazon (used copies about $2).

Jessie did indeed make multiple statements. The problem is that he could never make one that came anywhere close to aligning with the physical evidence -- not even close to being close. Even when trying to cut a deal for a better sentence after his conviction, he had to be lead and was constantly vacillating on major details of the crime (were the boys raped? what kind of knife was involved? when did it happen). Between his mentality, the circumstances of the crime, and the content of his statements, one can only conclude that it is a classic case of a false confession. No one with a positive IQ and ANY experience with true / false statements who takes the time to read what he said can walk away with confidence that these statements have any basis in reality.

The comparisons to supports of other, truly guilty people (Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson, Charles Manson, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Amanda Knox, Melanie McGuire, etc) is just an indication that one hasn't read the record here. I'm as irked as the next person at guilty SOB's who have mindless drone supporters - this isn't the case here.

I don't want to make this post too long (too late for that?), but will briefly address some of the posts I've seen -

1 - The WM3 have consistently called for testing of evidence and retesting of evidence with better technology. In my direct experience, truly guilty people don't do this - they back out at the last minute with a statement like "uhh, let's not test it because the police might have messed with the evidence" (etc).

The State, in what can only be described as awe-inspiring bad faith, has fought many of these efforts. AR Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has commented on the "fiber evidence microscopically similar to the WM3" ... a scan 6 months after (successfully) fighting Jason Baldwin's motion to retest the fibers with modern technology (State saying the new testing methods are "new" enough - they POTENTIALLY could have been used in 1994).

Obviously, if the State were concerned with the TRUTH, they'd be the ones yelling to test evidence - not fighting it.

No physical evidence links the WM3 - not a fingerprint, hair, footprint, allele, or single strand of DNA. The closest thing is the fibers .... which the defense has tried to retest with modern, much more precise methods.

2 - A truly world-renowned panel of forensic pathology experts have determined that the wounds on the boys were the result of animal predation, not knives. I won't post the link here, but only needs to do a side-by-side comparison of known cases of animal predation to the wounds on the boys to see it -- it's obvious. (This also conflicts with and completely negates the idea that Jessie Misskelley saw the crimes committed)

3 - Other marks on the boys align 100% with rebar; impressions that even the State says were made at or around the time of death. The boys were not killed on the ditch bank (which had no blood on it in any case), they were killed very nearby at a manhole that the boys played in / around and the bodies moved later in the night (also supported by the lividity status of the boys' bodies). Again, this is forensics, not opinions, not statements or anything else subject to interpretation. (This also conflicts with and completely negates the idea that Jessie Misskelley saw the crimes committed)

3 - In 2007, long-awaited DNA results came back and excluded the WM3 as the source of ANY biological evidence connected to the crime. It also cleared Mark Byers, the adoptive father of one of the victims (Chris Byers) who some had accused of involvement. It implicated Terry Hobbs, the abusive stepfather of one of the victims (Stevie Branch) - but Terry (who IS the killer) is for another post.


Yes, LaurensMom - that was a real broadcast from the time of the murders.

Dirty Larry - there were two trials, the Misskelley statements were not supposed to be used at the Baldwin / Echols trial since Jessie refused to testify against them (and hence couldn't be cross-examined), but a juror did in fact use them (went into the trial with a brother who was facing child-rape charges, lied his way onto the jury, openly boasted that he'd get a conviction by making sure the jurors knew of Jessie's statements) and did so. You're obviously bright, but please keep an open mind and read up more on the case (reading and thinking is what makes WM3 supporters).

I'll post again later on the trial procedure and defects in that; even if one had a question (before the experts, DNA, etc) as to what happened, the trials were an utter farce.

Terry Hobbs is in fact the killer; the WM3 have been wrongly convicted.


I'm not sure if cross-posting is allowed here, so admin feel free to zap this if not -- For more info on the WM3, check out: http://www.wm3blackboard.com (run by the stepfather of one of the victims, who is an outspoken supporter of the WM3 -- all family members except the Moores support the WM3).


aussiesleuth - what "false facts" are you referring to that supporters have said? Please be specific. I agree that some supporters say stupid things that aren't accurate ("Jessie confessed once and immediately retracted it", "Jessie was questioned for 12 hours", Damien had no psych issues, etc) ... one should view the true facts and trial record.


..... As Arnold would say -- "I'll be back."

Last edited by Fishmonger Dave; 10-27-2010 at 10:09 AM. Reason: Added response to aussiesleuth
Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Fishmonger Dave For This Useful Post:
  #22  
Old 10-27-2010, 12:15 PM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
Yes, LaurensMom - that was a real broadcast from the time of the murders.

Snipped, respectfully. Well there you go. I've been saying the rumors were rampant on many posts. It is a high possibility that's how Damien and Jessie knew some of the information.

Let's not forget how close Jessie was to Vicki and Aaron Hutchinson. According to Vicki, le shared many aspects with her. It's not too far-fetched that they told her Chris was the one mutilated.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to laurensmom For This Useful Post:
  #23  
Old 10-26-2010, 12:21 AM
Sunnyone Sunnyone is offline
Banned
 
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?)


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?)


Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-26-2010, 08:54 AM
laurensmom laurensmom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 175
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
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-26-2010, 12:54 PM
Sunnyone Sunnyone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 65
Quote:
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.
The point I was making is that no matter how many times he was interrupted, doesn't mean it wasn't a confession. There were many more confessions and information that he shouldn't have known. Also, if you watch any confession it's not a straight out confession as you put it, the police or detectives always interrupt and ask for clarification or more information. This is how they reveal that specific information that someone falsely confessing wouldn't have.
I think it's great you are back on the fence, but if your looking for that smoking gun, it's not going to be found in this case (nor in a lot of cases) it's a preponderance of all the evidence. Not just physical, or direct or circumstantial but a total of all of them. It's just too many coincidences when added together.

Quote:
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.
It is more compelling that the defense nor any supporter can find a single printed or televised version that includes that Christopher was the only one mutilated, and that one of the boys was cut in the face. With all the publicity (including rumors that were not true) I can guarantee it would have been published in some media forum. Damien didn't state which of the boys was mutilated, he stated one was cut more than the others. Which he shouldn't have known even that fact, because as I stated Todd Moore didn't even know that fact, Todd Moore was still under the impression that all the boys were mutilated.


Quote:
I can't imagine it either-doesn't make it impossible.
Doesn't make it probable either. Especially since he confessed so many times.

Quote:
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.

While I appreciate the effort, Susan Murphy-Milano: this case hasn't even gone to trial so therefore saying it was a case where the police, prosecution and judge and even the state supreme court are all in it together is not true.
As for the boys on the tracks, the extent of the alleged corruption has not been proven. However, a recent ASSC ruling favored the filmmaker over the police officers, basically putting the idea that the ASSC was in on the corruption false.
My original request for examples was a case that was proven that the police, prosecution, jurors, judge and the state supreme court had all been found to be covering for each other.

Quote:
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?
I'm not sure which three you are not believing, but I'm guessing you are referring to the softball girls and Michael Carson. I have to ask what would be their motive to lie? Especially as I stated before Michael Carson passed not one but two polygraph tests. Vicki came forward to the defense all right with that information, but when it came to taking the stand she refused. So you then have to ask yourself when was she lying, on the stand originally, or when the defense asked her? Since Ron Lax (defense investigator) seemed to work miracles when it came to prosecution witness's and getting them to change their story, even after they had passed a polygraph test, you have to wonder what the defense was offering these witness's. If you read the statement by Buddy Lucas and the ensuing events, especially the adidas shoes, you might find that there are even more witness's than was brought forth in the trial.

As for the Ballard statements, to me they are a joke. They wait 17 years to come forth with this information, and they are considered more reliable than the witness's that contradict them back when the crime actually happened?

I have no problems with you questioning me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any Supporters who crossed over? dasgal Darlie Routier 89 08-17-2006 09:05 PM
Ramsey Campaign Thanks Their Supporters VespaElf JonBenet Ramsey 2 08-28-2004 11:29 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!