If you take out evidence you're engaging in a logical fallacy, and there's far more evidence against the convicted than just a single confession. Perhaps you might consider familiarizing yourself with the all evidence presented in the links under the "The Case Against the WM3" heading in the navigation bar on the left of each page at WM3 Truth. If you do bother to do that, I suspect your concerns about inconsistencies in people's statements regarding where they were nearly two decades ago and the claims from a couple of rapists will seem utterly trivial in comparison to the evidence against the convicted.If you take out all evidence of WM3 (Jessie's confession)
(If Terry didn't learn of Chris Byer's being missing until he met his father at 8:30, how did he know he was looking for three little boys at 6:30? See Jamie Ballard's deposition for Hobbs v. Pasdar on Callahan's for the answer to that!)
Just to add, JMB finds these lies very telling.
Declaration
17. In fact, I met Hobbs at my house at approximately 8:20 or 8:30 PM. I know it was 8:20 or 8:30 PM or so, because: (1) Dana Moore had last seen the boys riding their bikes around 6:00 PM; and (2) I called the police to report Christopher missing around 8:08 PM. Simply put, I did not and Dana Moore did not even think the boys were missing at 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM. At 6:00 PM I was in the West Memphis courthouse picking up my son, Ryan, who was testifying in a car wreck case. Officer Regina Meeks came over to my house to take the report after I called it in. Dana Moore, the mother of Michael Moore, saw the police car and came over to my house to report her son missing as well. As Officer Meeks was leaving, Hobbs walked up.
He also states he was in the woods searching between 6:00-6:30 with Jacoby, this is refuted by Jacoby himself. Goes on to say there were many people searching on three wheelers, on foot, bicycles etc, at 6:00:6:30. Complete and utter lies. Chris wasn't reported missing until 8:08pm, Dana just saw the boys at 6:00 so she was never under the impression anyone was missing.
I would love to hear an explanation of these inconsistencies.
Human memory is far from flawless, particularly over the course of decades.I would love to hear an explanation of these inconsistencies.
I read you your words, which referred to Misskelley as having only given a single confession, and suggested that is the totality of evidence against the convicted. While again, in fact there were many confessions from Misskelley and far more far more evidence against the three beyond that. Such evidence is documented at length in the Callahan archives and largely surmised at WM3 Truth, which is why I linked the latter. Yes, I assumed you simply hadn't taken time to familiarize yourself with the evidence as that came to mind as the most benign explanation for your claim that a single confession from Misskelley is the only evidence against the convicted. That said, if you care provide an alternative explanation for your flagrant misrepresentation of fact, I'll all ears.Read my words, do not ASSume what I mean, or what I know.
Human memory is far from flawless, particularly over the course of decades.
I read you your words, which referred to Misskelley as having only given a single confession, and suggested that is the totality of evidence against the convicted. While again, in fact there were many confessions from Misskelley and far more far more evidence against the three beyond that. Such evidence is documented at length in the Callahan archives and largely surmised at WM3 Truth, which is why I linked the latter. Yes, I assumed you simply hadn't taken time to familiarize yourself with the evidence as that came to mind as the most benign explanation for your claim that a single confession from Misskelley is the only evidence against the convicted. That said, if you care provide an alternative explanation for your flagrant misrepresentation of fact, I'll all ears.
That's exactly what I did, to which you snapped back with your "ASSume" argument, and now you've gone on to insist "Jessie Misskelly gave one confession" as if different statements to different people over the course of nearly a year, with a trial where he plead innocent in between, all count as one massive confession. Regardless, Misskelley's many confessions aren't circumstantial evidence, they are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are anyway. They're also the only direct evidence tying anyone to the murders, and there's an assortment of circumstantial evidence which is consistent with those confessions, which is why I pointed you in the direction of a website which summarizes the bulk of that evidence.If you, in fact, do see me get a fact wrong, please simply point me in the right direction.
Human memory is far from flawless, particularly over the course of decades
What events did Hobbs state that simply did not happen exactly?he has stated events that simply did not happen
What about when you're asked about something you misremember, or has that never happened to you?I know when I am ask about something I do not remember I reply "I do not remember".
That's exactly what I did, to which you snapped back with your "ASSume" argument, and now you've gone on to insist "Jessie Misskelly gave one confession" as if different statements to different people over the course of nearly a year, with a trial where he plead innocent in between, all count as one massive confession. Regardless, Misskelley's many confessions aren't circumstantial evidence, they are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are anyway. They're also the only direct evidence tying anyone to the murders, and there's an assortment of circumstantial evidence which is consistent with those confessions, which is why I pointed you in the direction of a website which summarizes the bulk of that evidence.
Granted, that's not all the evidence against the three I've seen, but it's the bulk of it and was enough to convince me that the convicted are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.Perhaps you might consider familiarizing yourself with the all evidence presented in the links under the "The Case Against the WM3" heading in the navigation bar on the left of each page at WM3 Truth.
As I suggested in my first post in this thread:
Granted, that's not all the evidence against the three I've seen, but it's the bulk of it and was enough to convince me that the convicted are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
By the way, I'm off to visit family for the next few days, so it's unlikely I'll be replying again before Sunday.
I'm still reading callahans. Instead of referring to another website, can you give a brief synopsis. I'd be curious to hear.
The site basically regurgitates the info on callahans, with the disclaimer that the author believes the three are guilty as hell. Not convincing at all.
The site basically regurgitates the info on callahans, with the disclaimer that the author believes the three are guilty as hell. Not convincing at all.