Question for supporters

New Posts

laurensmom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Laurensmom: the mindless drone statement was not for you at all. It was in reference to what Dave was implying. I haven't discarded anything you have posted, I even thanked you in advance about the Buddy Lucas statement. What I think your referring to is the "rumors" versus the announcement that was a report in the beginning of PL. What I was trying to say is that it doesn't validate that there was a rumor specific to only one boy being mutilated and one boy cut in the face. It in fact states that there is a rumor that "the boys may have been sexually mutilated". I have fully stated and agreed with you that rumors were rampant, but what I was trying to say and continue to say is that those rumors were not even close to what Jessie and Damien knew.
 
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...
If you look at the sheer volume of statements in the document section of Callahan's, you will find that although they were looking at Damien, they were also looking elsewhere. It's not my conspiracy theory per se, it's the fact that it would take a conspiracy that large at this point. 17 years of the defense having high powered attorney's, highly funded, and have not found a single shred of evidence that actually proves any of the three innocent. It also means that in that 17 years, the ASSC has continued to turn a blind eye to evidence of either an injustice or evidence of innocence. It means that from the WMPD, to the prosecution office, the jurors, the judge and every justice on the ASSC just decided that they wouldn't do their job just so the WMPD wouldn't have to rethink their case.
Let's look at another case that was alledged to have focused on one suspect and see if this theory holds true.
Jon Benet... the focus was on Patsy... almost completely.
hmmm.. Patsy ever arrested... nope
Patsy ever convicted.. nope
did the Colorado State Supreme Court uphold for 17 years.. no

oh for fun.. let's see
Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman
Focus definitely on OJ
Was he arrested... yes
was he tried.. yes
was he convicted.. no
was his conviction upheld.. oops never convicted..

gee is there any other case where it's gone all the way to the state supreme court and upheld for so many years, only to find out the police just didn't look anywhere else? (oops.. WMPD did look elsewhere) that is was just the good ol boy system at work.
I will gladly accept examples of this if anyone can provide them.

to "help" the evidence:
hmm.. can anyone tell me where one of the defendants confessed 5 times and was just helping the LE?
oops.. wait.. can anyone tell where all three defendants confessed or admitted the crime a total of nine times and was just helping the LE?

The WMPD was not clinging to any belief until Jessie confessed. They were investigating. There are pages upon pages that relate that fact at Callahan's.
 
aussiesleuth said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

It isn't personal and I didn't say YOU were ridiculous. I was referring to your allegation that those who believe the WM3 to be innocent or at least unfairly convicted are like "cult" members.

Then you proceed to insist that anyone who disagrees with you is allowing himself or herself "to wallow in willful ignorance." But somehow you think *I* am defensive?!

Silly me, I thought I had come across a couple of very knowledgeable posters who believe in the guilt of the WM3 and from whom I could learn something. Instead, I've encountered little information but a lot of condescension and boorish behavior directed at me and others. Ah, me and my silly expectations!
 
Sunnyone said:
If you look at the sheer volume of statements in the document section of Callahan's, you will find that although they were looking at Damien, they were also looking elsewhere....
Click to expand...

And yet they somehow managed to avoid speaking at any length with Terry Hobbs.

My point was merely that it doesn't take a conscious intent to frame innocent parties for "group think" to take hold and dominate an investigation. Isn't group thinking what some accuse the WM3 supporters of doing?

As for whether there has ever been a case where state appeals were exhausted even though the defendant was innocent, I believe the Innocence Project can give you a few names. The appellate attorneys I know say appellate judges bend over backwards to avoid disagreeing with a jury verdict. Nobody likes to admit that juries can make mistakes.
 
Nova said:
And yet they somehow managed to avoid speaking at any length with Terry Hobbs.

My point was merely that it doesn't take a conscious intent to frame innocent parties for "group think" to take hold and dominate an investigation. Isn't group thinking what some accuse the WM3 supporters of doing?

As for whether there has ever been a case where state appeals were exhausted even though the defendant was innocent, I believe the Innocence Project can give you a few names. The appellate attorneys I know say appellate judges bend over backwards to avoid disagreeing with a jury verdict. Nobody likes to admit that juries can make mistakes.
Click to expand...

So from what I'm reading, you believe that the WMPD only wanted to believe that Damien, Jason and Jessie were guilty of this crime. Even though they looked at other suspects? (I won't get into the Terry Hobbs did it conversation as I find it a smoke and mirror tactic from the defense, who even admitted themselves that the one fragment of hair if it truly belongs to Terry is very weak evidence. Talk about group thinking, the supporters who believe Terry did this, do the very thing they accuse the WMPD of doing. I see the evidence the three were convicted on, I don't see anything in regards to Terry Hobbs that would even lead to an arrest at this point).
However, when you start to include the jurors, judge, prosecution and the ASSC in this group thinking I find that hard to phantom. If you think about it even among supporters or nons not everyone agrees on every piece of information. So to believe that all those involved to date just fell into the group thinking that the three were guilty, means that none of those people could have a rational thought of their own, couldn't reason what was important evidence, etc... I mean really, state supreme court justices that can't think for themselves? Or just can't be bothered to overturn a juries verdict, even if they are compelled to believe it was an unjust verdict?

I'm sure the Innocence Project does have a few names, however those were based on conclusive DNA evidence or physical evidence that PROVED THE CONVICTED INNOCENT. I would be willing to bet though that none of the police, prosecution or judge or juries convicted just because they were in a group think or were in a conspiracy to convict an innocent person. Whether conscious or unconsciously.
 
Nova said:
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...

Amen .... Amen to that 100%. I don't think anyone becomes a cop because they want to hurt innocent people, and I think 95% of these situations are a cop deciding someone is guilty and "adding a little evidence" to make sure, in his/her mind, that a guilty person doesn't get away with it. Of course, the problem is when, as here, the person they've targeted isn't in fact guilty.

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I'm not going to dig it up - I don't even think nons deny it. There were rumors all throughout the community, there were newspaper reports, and there was no knowledge that allegedly came from any of the WM3 that the PD didn't know. Anyone reading Jessie's statements and walking away thinking they're worth anything is just completely inexperienced with all criminal matters or simply doesn't care about truth. http://www.dpdlaw.com/jmstatements.htm They have to tell him every detail and even in his 1994 post-conviction statement, he' nowhere close to aligning with the evidence - not the evidence as known then, and not the evidence as known now 17 years later.

ziggy said:
Hey Fishmonger Dave - I'm relatively new to this case too and am a 2nd year law student.
Click to expand...
Cool - if there's one thing this world needs, it's more lawyers :dance:


ziggy said:
I know you think Hobbs is the real killer; motive?
Click to expand...
I can't now - it's been posted so many times. Huge motive discussion over at the wm3blackboard. Even though his history gives pretty good clues, it's speculation.

I'm more focused on the forensics. Even if one can try to explain Hobbs' hair in Michael Moore's shoelace, there simply is no reasonable way to explain Jacoby's hair at the discovery scene. Anyone who thinks the wind blew it there has wind blowing through their head (a tough feat when someone's head is buried in the sand while they yell "guilty" and refuse to look at the facts).


ziggy said:
Was his friend in on it?
Click to expand...
Not prepared to say that. I've heard all kinds of speculation. Many accused Mark Byers of involvement and I took a lot of heat for saying we couldn't responsibly say that ... telling Mark (who's now a friend) that he was "silly and ignorant, but not a child killer" on these boards. I'm not looking at theories here - if someone has evidence (forensics) that show Jacoby was involved with the crime - before or after it was committed - or knew about it - or helped move the bodies during the night of 5/5 or morning of 5/6, then I'll listen, but as of now I don't accuse him of involvement.


ziggy said:
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?
Click to expand...
No - even Peretti (state pathologist) denied it, and the more recent expert evaluations have confirmed it. This was about Hobbs exploding in rage and (1) Either Chris & Michael saw something they shouldn't have seen (Hobbs beating Steve) or (2) Hobbs wanted there to be 3 victims so as to disperse suspicion from a sadistically abusive stepfather (him). Either way, it was an explosion of rage, not a sexual crime, not a cult ritual (in spite of the State's testimony at trial that "8 is a witches' number", not a satanic sacrifice, etc.



Well, gotta go get something billable done to make the overhead .... you'll see one day :nerves:


David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
"Test everything, Test. Test. Test. I want them to test every damn thing." - Damien Echols, Jonesboro Sun interview from Death Row, August 2010
http://www.dpdlaw.com/jmstatements.htm
http://www.wm3blackboard.com
----------------------------------------------------
 
It just baffles the mind how anyone could take Jessie's confession into consideration.I don't think I have ever heard something as pathetic as that.

He had no concept of the time of day that the killings occurred .Just WOW!How could anyone base their guilt on what Jessie said?
 
Sunnyone said:
So from what I'm reading, you believe that the WMPD only wanted to believe that Damien, Jason and Jessie were guilty of this crime. Even though they looked at other suspects? (I won't get into the Terry Hobbs did it conversation as I find it a smoke and mirror tactic from the defense, who even admitted themselves that the one fragment of hair if it truly belongs to Terry is very weak evidence. Talk about group thinking, the supporters who believe Terry did this, do the very thing they accuse the WMPD of doing. I see the evidence the three were convicted on, I don't see anything in regards to Terry Hobbs that would even lead to an arrest at this point).
However, when you start to include the jurors, judge, prosecution and the ASSC in this group thinking I find that hard to phantom. If you think about it even among supporters or nons not everyone agrees on every piece of information. So to believe that all those involved to date just fell into the group thinking that the three were guilty, means that none of those people could have a rational thought of their own, couldn't reason what was important evidence, etc... I mean really, state supreme court justices that can't think for themselves? Or just can't be bothered to overturn a juries verdict, even if they are compelled to believe it was an unjust verdict?

I'm sure the Innocence Project does have a few names, however those were based on conclusive DNA evidence or physical evidence that PROVED THE CONVICTED INNOCENT. I would be willing to bet though that none of the police, prosecution or judge or juries convicted just because they were in a group think or were in a conspiracy to convict an innocent person. Whether conscious or unconsciously.
Click to expand...

It may be hard for you to imagine, but that's basically what happens in most cases of wrongful conviction. And we know those number in the hundreds, more likely the thousands.

I don't know what you think I mean by "group think," but I didn't intend to imply it was some magical process.

Cops talk all the time about trusting their gut reactions, about knowing within minutes whether a suspect is lying. Sometimes their guts are wrong.

Despite what jurors may say during voir dire, everyone wants to believe the police are right. We depend on them to protect us and it's scary to think they may be sloppy, lazy, rushing to judgment, etc., because that means admitting that bad guys go free and any one of us could be wrongfully accused. (I'm not suggesting that policemen are usually any of those things, but we all know it happens sometimes.)

Once a jury has convicted, appellate courts are reluctant to overturn because doing so makes the whole system look bad.

And so the snow ball rolls downhill.

I don't believe the WMPD, prosecutors, appellate judges and the governor all sat down in a room and voted to frame men they knew to be innocent. I doubt many who believe the trials were flawed think that sort of formal conspiracy was involved.

I do think this was a very shocking crime and there was an early assumption that somebody "very weird" must have committed it. Who more likely than the "weirdest guy" in town? And we have evidence that Echols' parole office kept bringing up his name, don't we?
 
Fishmonger Dave said:
...Either way, it was an explosion of rage, not a sexual crime, not a cult ritual (in spite of the State's testimony at trial that "8 is a witches' number", not a satanic sacrifice, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all your remarks, Dave. They are particularly needed here at the moment.

I don't see enough evidence to accuse anyone in particular, but an angry parent, furious at (a) a kid or kids who disobeyed orders to stay home or be home at a certain time, and/or (b) having to waste the evening searching, makes more sense to me as a suspect or suspects than three teenagers who suddenly invented a "satanic ritual" that culminated in the mass murder of strangers.

This was why Byers looked suspicious to me at one time, not because he liked to show off for the cameras.
 
LunaticFringe said:
It just baffles the mind how anyone could take Jessie's confession into consideration.I don't think I have ever heard something as pathetic as that.

He had no concept of the time of day that the killings occurred .Just WOW!How could anyone base their guilt on what Jessie said?
Click to expand...

Who says he had no concept of the time of day? Did he not in fact state that he was trying to throw the police off when he said the children were tied up with ropes? Could he not have been trying to do the very same thing when he said the killings took place in the morning?

And how many times did he try to distance himself from the actual murders by stating that he left the scene prior to the 3 little boys' deaths?

It sure seems to me that Jessie thought he could get off if he played down his participation, and pointed a finger at Damien and Jason as the actual killers.
He was bright enough to try to do just that so why he is not bright enough to alter the time of the killings?
 
I believe the point that Lunatic Fringe was making is that Jessie continued to change his recollection of the time of day as prompted by the interrogator. He just wanted the interrogation to be over. He thought he would get some of the reward money and could buy his daddy a truck. His limited mental ability is evident, to me, in that he implicated himself in the crimes. As a retired teacher, I have had extensive experience working with students (about Jessie's chronological age as I taught high school) with limited mental ability. They often say what they think you want to hear, often to avoid the appearance of being "slow" or "retarded" or whatever. Did you know that at one point Jessie asked, "Who is Satin?" Does this sound like a devil-worshipping child-killer to you? His continued confessions, to me, were just continuing attempts to get out of the situation. As I'm sure you know, he continued to refine his story to adapt to known facts. Also, it IMO was an attempt to keep from being punished while in prison. Someone posted this information about false confessions that you might find interesting.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/False_Confessions__Recording

I believe that points 1, 2, 4 & 5 apply to Jessie's first confession while those points and point 7 apply to his later confessions. Jessie's confession is the only real evidence in this case, and if it was coerced or is a false confession, then it should be totally investigated. Like Dave said in an earlier post, why is the State fighting the testing of fibers by more modern means? Why does the defense want that testing? If the West Memphis Three are guilty, wouldn't the testing possibly prove that? I think we should all be interested in justice, and I think everything possible should be retested by more modern means. We have a young man on Death Row and two more serving life sentences. I believe that there is reasonable doubt as to the validity of those convictions. If they are guilty, then the new testing will show that. If they are not, then let's find that out before (Heaven forbid) an innocent man is put to death for a crime that he did not commit.
 
Compassionate Reader:
Did you know that at one point Jessie asked, "Who is Satin?" Does this sound like a devil-worshipping child-killer to you?
Click to expand...

Actually that is pure hearsay.
 
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. My opinion is based on years of working with students of Jessie's age with similar IQs, and to me, the mental capacity of a five year old in many ways, especially their succeptibility to manipulation, is a good comparison for Jessie's actions.
 
Certainly a genuine confession can be wrong in some details, either because the suspect is partially lying or because s/he is simply mistaken.

But in this case, there is so little other evidence, and even so JM never really gets close to matching the existing evidence in any of his accounts of the crime.
 
justthinkin said:
It's still hearsay. And Stidham also said JM operated at the level of a 5 year old. More baloney IMO.
Click to expand...

Being hearsay may make it inadmissible in court.

It doesn't make it untrue or irrelevant in the forming of a private opinion.
 
justthinkin said:
Who says he had no concept of the time of day? Did he not in fact state that he was trying to throw the police off when he said the children were tied up with ropes? Could he not have been trying to do the very same thing when he said the killings took place in the morning?

And how many times did he try to distance himself from the actual murders by stating that he left the scene prior to the 3 little boys' deaths?

It sure seems to me that Jessie thought he could get off if he played down his participation, and pointed a finger at Damien and Jason as the actual killers.
He was bright enough to try to do just that so why he is not bright enough to alter the time of the killings?
Click to expand...

Jessie stated in his confession that the children skipped school that day.Didn't he know that this could be checked out by a simple phone call to the school?I just do not understand how he went from the morning to the evening that this all occurred.From the interview I simply read and heard (audio)that he was led into saying what he said.Just my opinion.

I didn't find his confessions consistent.Again,my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 3,030 (members: 71, guests: 2,959)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
2,959
Total visitors
3,030
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,492
Messages
17,969,828
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top