Question for supporters

oh geez...buddy lucas claims damien picked him up off the ground with his eyes....well now we know why he wasn't a witness for the prosecution

Click to expand...

So tell us,... why would the Prosecution need a witness to say Misskelley confessed to this crime, when they played a tape of Misskelley confessing to this crime?

Does anyone know if there is anyway to find out the following:

at the very beginning of PL1 a radio/tv news announcer is telling that the wmpd has reported finding the three young boys earlier today.........etc.

Is this just for the documentary or does anyone know if this was a real broadcast?

Dirty larry said:

So tell us,... why would the Prosecution need a witness to say Misskelley confessed to this crime, when they played a tape of Misskelley confessing to this crime?

Click to expand...

Well, if you'll look a little further up you'll see where Sunnyone mentioned the following:
"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."

I responded that I didn't recall Buddy Lucas but that I would read up on him and after reading his testimony I simply posted my opinion of why they wouldn't have used him.

Come on, Larry, even you should see this as a little funny

Come on, Larry, even you should see this as a little funny

Click to expand...

Not really?

William Winford Jones, Lucas, and others all admitted that they often went to the woods, sat around campfires, took acid, huffed gas, and played "devil worshipper".

The police found the remains of such get-togethers,... I don't really see anything "funny" about it?

But I'll ask again.... why would the Prosecution need a witness to say Misskelley confessed to this crime, when they played a tape of Misskelley confessing to this crime?

Dirty larry said:

Not really?

William Winford Jones, Lucas, and others all admitted that they often went to the woods, sat around campfires, took acid, huffed gas, and played "devil worshipper".

The police found the remains of such get-togethers,... I don't really see anything "funny" about it?


wow the above is what i stated was funny????? no it isn't

i shouldn't have insinuated you'd think lucas stating damien raised him from the ground by staring at him funny......i personally think it's hilarious and i have to wonder why damien simply hasn't used his powers to release himself from deathrow...

But I'll ask again.... why would the Prosecution need a witness to say Misskelley confessed to this crime, when they played a tape of Misskelley confessing to this crime?

Click to expand...

they didn't need him and i wasn't even commenting on something you had said....as I said before sunnyone mentioned him and others that were not used.....i discovered why imo

now had lucas left off the part about damien raising him I'd bet ya a dollar they would've used him....just to stress what they already had even if they didn't need it

Dirty larry
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?

Click to expand...

This is the only mystery for me regarding this case.
The question that keeps me reading these forums.
Supporters by all intents and purposes appear to be on the whole, reasonable, rational, often educated people, and yet they have such trouble interpreting the ample evidence which convicted these three ruthless child-killers !
Granted the leaders of the pack have agendas, there is obviously a lot of money and fame to be had and some of the celebs have benefited from free time to get their mugs in front of the cameras, but others like J.D have no
need for this sort of publicity.
Damien is no Manson either, that one appeared to have a sort of charismatic magnetism/(hypnotic?) capable of drawing in the weaker minded of society, unlike Damien who is a psychopathic narcissist, ugly through and through, and his two followers while not retards, simpletons certainly, representative of the families that spawned the three. ( Who can watch Paradise Lost 1 and 2 and not be struck by that )
The followers won't give a logical answer anyway so this is just musings on our behalf but it's a good study in human psychology and their posts make for amusing reading at times albeit frustrating trying to figure them out.
Maybe its just that some people have the need for a cause to fight for, as
in a cult/religion, a structured group with outspoken leaders, people who read anything the leaders write as truth coming from the mouth of the God/prophet who is usually somewhere separated so they need the leaders as go-betweens and with a trendy/rhyming name to identify them !.
That's how it appears they are, to me anyway.

Funny you should mention cults, as I have often thought that many supporters seem to have a cult like mentality about this case. They seem to be almost brainwashed and repeat their distorted facts like a mantra.

laurensmom said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

aussiesleuth said:

Funny you should mention cults, as I have often thought that many supporters seem to have a cult like mentality about this case. They seem to be almost brainwashed and repeat their distorted facts like a mantra.

Click to expand...

I suppose that helps balance the "Satanic panic" that continues to grip those who believe in the guilt of the WM3.

(I don't really believe the above; "Satanic panic" may have been a factor in the early days and original trials, but hardily seems to remain so now. I'm just trying to make a point by matching assiesleuth's statement with something equally ridiculous and insulting.)

Nova said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

aussiesleuth said:

Funny you should mention cults, as I have often thought that many supporters seem to have a cult like mentality about this case. They seem to be almost brainwashed and repeat their distorted facts like a mantra.

Click to expand...

Aussie I'm on the fence and even I am offended by this statement. If you're reading everything that's been posted lately. You'll see where I posted something that --one of the most educated on this case person-- either didn't know or had forgotten about.

Nons have made up their mind. They pretty much go by the confession alone. They don't seem to separate Jessie's trial from Damien and Jason's -- exactly like the juries.

Supporters-have made up their mind as well for whatever reason.

Fence-sitters such as myself-are looking at every aspect of the case. I find it hard to believe that everyone that knows even a little about this case cannot find a single thing wrong with how everything went down.

Proven fact-the wmpd was under investigation.

One year after the trials - was there a single officer still working at wmpd that had been involved in this case?

Whether you believe Vicki Hutchinson or not---the wmpd was involved in getting her set up to meet Damien. They came out to her home and set up the recorders. They met with her pretty much daily either for Aaron or for her. This took a lot of time......prior to the arrests. According to her it was the lead investigators in the case-Ridge/Gitchell etc. Where did they find the time to explore other leads? This was before Jessie's confession.

Nova said:

I suppose that helps balance the "Satanic panic" that continues to grip those who believe in the guilt of the WM3.

(I don't really believe the above; "Satanic panic" may have been a factor in the early days and original trials, but hardily seems to remain so now. I'm just trying to make a point by matching assiesleuth's statement with something equally ridiculous and insulting.)

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure why you seem to take umbrance to every post I make. They are not directed at you, so your prickly defensiveness is unnecessary. As to you finding me ridiculous, lets remember that I am not insisting on the innocence of three convicted child murderers, one of whom admits he is guilty, and one who is a psychotic dabbler in satanism and has a documented historyof violence and homicidal ideation. I have also not allowed myself to wallow in willful ignorance just because the cold, hard facts of this case don't suit my preferred beliefs.
.

laurensmom said:

Aussie I'm on the fence and even I am offended by this statement. If you're reading everything that's been posted lately. You'll see where I posted something that --one of the most educated on this case person-- either didn't know or had forgotten about.

Nons have made up their mind. They pretty much go by the confession alone. They don't seem to separate Jessie's trial from Damien and Jason's -- exactly like the juries.

Supporters-have made up their mind as well for whatever reason.

Fence-sitters such as myself-are looking at every aspect of the case. I find it hard to believe that everyone that knows even a little about this case cannot find a single thing wrong with how everything went down.

Proven fact-the wmpd was under investigation.

One year after the trials - was there a single officer still working at wmpd that had been involved in this case?

Whether you believe Vicki Hutchinson or not---the wmpd was involved in getting her set up to meet Damien. They came out to her home and set up the recorders. They met with her pretty much daily either for Aaron or for her. This took a lot of time......prior to the arrests. According to her it was the lead investigators in the case-Ridge/Gitchell etc. Where did they find the time to explore other leads? This was before Jessie's confession.

Click to expand...

I agree with you to an extent. I don't think the investigation or the subsequent trials were handled in the best way. I was once a supporter myself so I do understand you r point. The documents do show that many leads and possible suspects were followed up , and I know that corruption in law enforcement is more common than any of us would like to believe, but I can't imagine a brutal childkiller would be allowed to go free just so three teenage trouble makers could be framed for the crime. Some of the witnesses are certainly questionable at best and some of the police work was bumbling and inept, however that doesnt make these guys innocent. I didn't mean to offend you. My anger is directed towards those in the supporter movement who deliberately mislead people with false facts in order to sway opinion. I believed their lies myself for a while.

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."

Welcome Dave....great to have someone else here that is well read on the case!! I look forward to reading more of your posts.

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.

Dirty larry said:

I know.


Yes, you indicated they weren't used because they weren't credible.

When in actuality, they weren't used because they weren't needed.

For what?

Uhhh,... yeah right.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you just heard Misskelley confess, but here's a kid who will tell you he confessed - in case your ears may have been playing tricks on you".

Click to expand...

nevermind

Originally Posted by laurensmom
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.


Except for the fact that during that snip they don't say only one child was mutilated, and they certainly don't say one was cut on the face. Yes I've agreed rumors were rampant, but they were not the actual facts.

Show me where it was reported or someone stated they heard this actual information in a statement, otherwise this is the same old supporter BS.

Dave aren't you related or were related in some way to Lorri Davis Echols? So it's easy to say that you have an agenda in this. As for you being an attorney, while true, I don't think being a family court attorney qualifies you in this case.

Bold was snipped from your above statement. As for the announcement-you would rather me show you someone's statement that they heard it from someone else which would be hearsay? I for one find it easier to believe what I hear with my own ears. The only thing I stated from hearing that announcement was it verified my thoughts that the rumors were rampant.
It's very difficult to find proof or what I deem to be proof when it's asked for only to have it discarded by the person who asked for it. I'm not really following this type of argument here.

To Sunnyone and Dave - you're both throwing a couple of accusations out here. I for one would love to know if either or both are true.

One more thing....I've never called anything you've stated BS nor have I put you or anyone else into a group and called you mindless drones......

I thought that kind of stuff was against the rules here at websleuths.

I understand your frustration really I do.....I'm frustrated with myself because I can't make heads or tails out of 50% of what I read. One second I think yeah ok this points to guilt and not 5 seconds later I read something that points to innocence.

I ask you for something Sunnyone, you find it-I post appreciation. You on the other hand ask for something-I post it-and it's discarded.

Hey Fishmonger Dave - I'm relatively new to this case too and am a 2nd year law student. I decided to watch the docu - um - slanted documentainment pieces by HBO and then stumbled around to find more information on the internet. I've been on Websleuths like, 5 or 6 years and find this case really fascinating. I'll admit - There were enough cases to be intrigued by and I purposefully ignored this one until Johnny Depp entered stage left and then I had to see what the fuss was all about.

It's good to have another perspective here. There is so much information to read but I started with Jessie's confession(s) and then got stuck right there on wondering who could think these were valid? I took Criminal Procedure this summer and felt this should have been highlighted in our class - it just jumped out as obvious to me; the questioning style, Jessie's inability to get the story straight or give details instead of generalities - his obvious lack of education and maturity; the totality of the circumstances give weight to the possibility that his confession was false and I can't ignore that.

Given that it seems much weight was given to this confession in the jury guilty verdicts (even though as you say it was not supposed to be considered during deliberations in the J&D trial but was most certainly a factor) - it bothers me because taking all the other circumstantial evidence into account...I just do not see the state proving this beyond a reasonable doubt.

I find the lividity evidence most convincing. I'd like to take a look at some of your links.

I know you think Hobbs is the real killer; motive? Was his friend in on it? Do you think the boys were sexually assaulted? There are conflicting views on whether evidence shows the boys were penetrated anally so I'm wondering who could be so hateful to these boys without a sexually sadistic motive?

Glad you found us. It's going to make things much more interesting here.


And Nova I agree with you about the conspiracy - it's not so much they conspire to convict the wrong folks - but belief is a powerful thing, very, very powerful. When they get it in their minds that "these are the guys" they can start to make the evidence fit their theory instead of follow the evidence to the perp. It takes on a life of its own as the group think grows. It becomes their truth, their reality...they are not objective enough to be thorough.