WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[MissUnderstood]

How do you think a jury would vote if this crime was tried again today? Same evidence, same confession. Would more physical type evidence have been found and tested?
would be kinda interesting to know

 

[Userid]

How do you think a jury would vote if this crime was tried again today? Same evidence, same confession. Would more physical type evidence have been found and tested?
would be kinda interesting to know

It would definitely be interesting -- I wish we got that chance, but once the defense floated the Alford Plea to the State (who was preparing to go to trial), the case essentially was lost forever. Yes, it's still technically "open," but the Alford Plea pretty much squashed it sadly. Who knows what new evidence would have been presented, by both sides.

I will say, I do think the state would have been at a huge disadvantage, considering how so many people connected to this case have died, including one of the original medical examiners in Lisa Sakevicus. And countless witnesses, including LGH. If so much time hadn't passed, I don't think the state would have accepted the Alford Plea and they would have gone to trial.

 

[ACG2x]

The debate is really over if the stance taken is the first confession was brutally coerced from poor JM & the other confessions just didn’t happen. Even if for arguments sake we say the first confession was obtained by nefarious police tactics and should be thrown out, how can the second, third and subsequent ones be literally ignored?

Also if JM was ‘borderline mentally retarded’ as claimed, how could he continually and consistently remember specific details of the crime months after it happened? Also how would he remember such vivid details, including the bottle of Evan Williams whiskey being under the freeway overpass if he was that mentally challenged?

The truth imo is WM3 supporters really can’t argue the subsequent confessions so they are ignored or glossed over. Same with Damien’s homicidal and suicidal violent mental health history as well as the necklace found at JB’s home with some of SB’s blood on it after it was too late to be admitted into trial evidence.

 

[Annem2003]

I recall reading a lot about this case years ago. I think I still sit on the fence
Was there any physical evidence linking the WM3? I seem to recall there was not, which is why I fence sit. MOO

The DNA evidence doesn’t match any of them. IMO it’s TH

 

[Annem2003]

I think you have it backwards.

Multiple people confirmed the animal torture. Also, the psychiatric records.

Terry Hobbs is a bad man...but he pales in comparison to Damien Echols.

if you watch the special with Bob Ruff you will see a medical expert explain that all of those wounds were post mortem and cause by animals.

 

[Annem2003]

He was investigated and has been cleared. There's no real evidence linking him to the crime. If there was, the WM3 and their multi-million dollar celebrity driven machine would've uncovered it and broadcasted it all over the place. The WM3 committed this crime, end of story.

There is DNA. The DAs office won’t release it for testing. It has been tested against the WM3 and the dna doesn’t match any of them.

 

[DHT1339]

The debate is really over if the stance taken is the first confession was brutally coerced from poor JM & the other confessions just didn’t happen. Even if for arguments sake we say the first confession was obtained by nefarious police tactics and should be thrown out, how can the second, third and subsequent ones be literally ignored?

Also if JM was ‘borderline mentally retarded’ as claimed, how could he continually and consistently remember specific details of the crime months after it happened? Also how would he remember such vivid details, including the bottle of Evan Williams whiskey being under the freeway overpass if he was that mentally challenged?

The truth imo is WM3 supporters really can’t argue the subsequent confessions so they are ignored or glossed over. Same with Damien’s homicidal and suicidal violent mental health history as well as the necklace found at JB’s home with some of SB’s blood on it after it was too late to be admitted into trial evidence.

JM's "confessions" were full of inaccuracies and changed several times. its not uncommon at all for innocent people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. it stems from the need to please figures of authority by telling them what they want to hear

sure, JM got some details of the crime right in his confessions. so did JKM. so did morgan and holland. why were those confessions not held in the same weight as JM's? ever wonder that maybe JM found out details of the crime through people in town? in his first confession, he said the boys were tied with rope. then later on he says he took off the shoelaces from one of the boys and used it to tie them up. but by then it had already come out that the boys were tied with shoelaces. aside from saying the boys were tied with rope, he also said they had been stabbed and raped in his original confession. again, this is all false.

speaking of that whiskey bottle, did he ever specifically mention actually meeting up with vicki hutchison to get it? i believe its his 2/14/94 statement. he says he "made arrangements" to get the bottle from her the day of 5/5. then he's asked to go over his day. he says he was at work until dinner time. then he says he met up with a group of people at the trailer park before meeting up with jason/damien. he lists names but never does hutchison's name come up. so when did he actually get the bottle? i've always found that odd. if he had actually gotten the bottle, you'd think he would've mentioned hutchison's name when he listed who he met up with at the trailer park prior to meeting up with jason/damien

as for the necklace with the blood belonging to JB, you do realize that it was only tested for blood type right? JB and SB shared the same blood type, just like millions of other people do. it was never tested for anything more than blood type because there was not enough

 

[Userid]

JM's "confessions" were full of inaccuracies and changed several times. its not uncommon at all for innocent people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. it stems from the need to please figures of authority by telling them what they want to hear

sure, JM got some details of the crime right in his confessions. so did JKM. so did morgan and holland. why were those confessions not held in the same weight as JM's? ever wonder that maybe JM found out details of the crime through people in town? in his first confession, he said the boys were tied with rope. then later on he says he took off the shoelaces from one of the boys and used it to tie them up. but by then it had already come out that the boys were tied with shoelaces. aside from saying the boys were tied with rope, he also said they had been stabbed and raped in his original confession. again, this is all false.

speaking of that whiskey bottle, did he ever specifically mention actually meeting up with vicki hutchison to get it? i believe its his 2/14/94 statement. he says he "made arrangements" to get the bottle from her the day of 5/5. then he's asked to go over his day. he says he was at work until dinner time. then he says he met up with a group of people at the trailer park before meeting up with jason/damien. he lists names but never does hutchison's name come up. so when did he actually get the bottle? i've always found that odd. if he had actually gotten the bottle, you'd think he would've mentioned hutchison's name when he listed who he met up with at the trailer park prior to meeting up with jason/damien

as for the necklace with the blood belonging to JB, you do realize that it was only tested for blood type right? JB and SB shared the same blood type, just like millions of other people do. it was never tested for anything more than blood type because there was not enough

I'm not going to get into a big argument about this anymore because it's been gone over a thousand times now, but JM confessed multiple times to police -- not just once. The narrative that Ruff and others put out there about the confessions is disingenuous. He confessed at least 3 separate times and at most six, if you include him confessing to the police officers driving him after he had just been found guilty from the courthouse. In "the bible confession," he gets 95% of it right. People say it was because he memorized everything from his trial, but that logic doesn't fly if you believe he has the mental capacity of a child (which I don't). A child and/or teen with an extremely limited attention span would not be able to memorize all of those details and repeat them verbatim at a later date. He even confessed with his lawyer Stidham present (who was begging him not to), and he explains that he purposefully got certain elements in his initial confession wrong because he wanted to throw off police, as well as limit his own involvement in the crime.

Not only that, but BL all but confirmed JM's involvement to police -- so you would have to think BL was lying too. Of course, you never hear anything about BL from people like Ruff because BL doesn't fit the innocence narrative (quite the contrary). Ruff doesn't look at all the evidence; he only focuses on pieces that will fit his narrative.

For people who are new to the case, 99% of them think they are innocent at first. I know I did, but there's more to the story and it isn't as cut and dry as the docs make it look. I still don't know if all three of them were involved, but if anyone was in my view, it was JM. Research all of the confessions, not just the initial one -- you'll notice that, they only get more and more accurate, with the bible confession being almost entirely accurate. You would think that, if he was making all this up, he would re-flub certain details, but that never happens -- at least to the best of my recollection.

 

[DHT1339]

I'm not going to get into a big argument about this anymore because it's been gone over a thousand times now, but JM confessed multiple times to police -- not just once. The narrative that Ruff and others put out there about the confessions is disingenuous. He confessed at least 3 separate times and at most six, if you include him confessing to the police officers driving him after he had just been found guilty from the courthouse. In "the bible confession," he gets 95% of it right. People say it was because he memorized everything from his trial, but that logic doesn't fly if you believe he has the mental capacity of a child (which I don't). A child and/or teen with an extremely limited attention span would not be able to memorize all of those details and repeat them verbatim at a later date. He even confessed with his lawyer Stidham present (who was begging him not to), and he explains that he purposefully got certain elements in his initial confession wrong because he wanted to throw off police, as well as limit his own involvement in the crime.

Not only that, but BL all but confirmed JM's involvement to police -- so you would have to think BL was lying too. Of course, you never hear anything about BL from people like Ruff because BL doesn't fit the innocence narrative (quite the contrary). Ruff doesn't look at all the evidence; he only focuses on pieces that will fit his narrative.

For people who are new to the case, 99% of them think they are innocent at first. I know I did, but there's more to the story and it isn't as cut and dry as the docs make it look. I still don't know if all three of them were involved, but if anyone was in my view, it was JM. Research all of the confessions, not just the initial one -- you'll notice that, they only get more and more accurate, with the bible confession being almost entirely accurate. You would think that, if he was making all this up, he would re-flub certain details, but that never happens -- at least to the best of my recollection.

first of all, i applaud bob ruff for bringing attention to the case and trying to get evidence tested but aside from that, he brings absolutely nothing to the table. the entire oxygen miniseries was just him trying to convince everyone all the victims' wounds were from animals and that there's zero chance the WM3 committed the crime

i've never been fully convinced the WM3 are innocent. i lean heavily towards that being the case because i just do not believe that three teenage boys could commit a crime of that magnitude and leave behind zero DNA evidence. but with what we know (or lack of,) there's just no way that i can say that i think they are 100% innocent.

JM is/was certainly slower than the average person. i don't buy the whole "on the borderline of mental retardation" thing but there's no doubting he's slow. i've read his "confessions" from 2/4/94 and 2/8/94 and even in those you have pretty major differences. like for example in the 2/4 confession he said that DE and JB took turns raping two of the boys and that JB had a knife and "cut it all off and threw it in the woods." in the 2/8 confession JM now isn't sure if JB threw a knife or the boy's penis into the woods. there's also nothing about DE and JB taking turns raping the boys, just a claim that DE stuck his penis into one of them. its worth noting that in his 2/17/94 statement he now claims DE didn't stick his penis into one of the boys at all. then there's the whole thing with the evan williams bottle. like i mentioned, JM never specifically mentions acquiring the bottle from VH. furthermore, the way davis claims they found it is troubling

Bible Confession – thewm3revelations

At that point we got in our vehicles, and one of the things to corroborate his client’s statement was to determine if there was an Evan Williams whiskey bottle under an overpass in West Memphis.

To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, “If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened.” At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive — ten o’clock in the evening — we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.

We then take the bottle to a local liquor store where we proceeded to spend the better part of an hour matching the bottle with certain items, and lo and behold it matches with the brand name bottle Mr. Stidham had indicated that we should be looking for in the first place.

-JM had specifically told them which overpass he broke the bottle under

MISSKELLEY: I went back the same way I came. Up – up under by Lakeshore – where I busted it was at Lakeshore, by the Lakeshore where – between Wal-Mart and Lakeshore, over that overpass. I busted it there.

Davis sure makes it seem like they searched under multiple overpasses until they came across a bottle of evan williams (which is a popular brand.) and why would it take them an hour to match the bottle when its a brand that any liquor store carries? everything about the bottle seems so off to me

I'm not gonna deny for sure that JM was in the woods when the murders happened, but its tough to be convinced when the major details of his confessions end up changing so often. i also don't believe he was purposely trying to sway the police in another direction. if that was the case, why start telling the truth eventually?

 

[Userid]

I'm not gonna deny for sure that JM was in the woods when the murders happened, but its tough to be convinced when the major details of his confessions end up changing so often. i also don't believe he was purposely trying to sway the police in another direction. if that was the case, why start telling the truth eventually?

Snipped by me to address specific question: quite simply, because he had nothing to lose at that point (the bible confession). He was already convicted, there was no need (at that point) to try and hide anything at that point.

We seem to agree on a lot of things, going by your last post. JM is slow -- yes -- but I don't believe he's as slow as the defense suggested. I'm glad you don't believe all the injuries were caused by turtles -- you're on the right track.

The broken bottle -- to me, that is relevant. Perhaps not as "significant" as the prosecution believed, but relevant all the same. That would be an incredible coincidence. Evan Williams is a popular brand, but is it as popular as Jameson, Jim Beam or especially Jack Daniels? Perhaps it varies by region, but I'd say no.

I feel like JM did break that bottle, however, who knows if he did so the night of the murders. It is relevant because, he traces out his exact path to and from the crime scene, in relation to his house -- and it matches. So we know, from his account, that he knows exactly where the crime scene is. But does it prove definitively that he broke it and was at the crime scene that night? Not necessarily.

 

[DHT1339]

Snipped by me to address specific question: quite simply, because he had nothing to lose at that point (the bible confession). He was already convicted, there was no need (at that point) to try and hide anything at that point.

We seem to agree on a lot of things, going by your last post. JM is slow -- yes -- but I don't believe he's as slow as the defense suggested. I'm glad you don't believe all the injuries were caused by turtles -- you're on the right track.

The broken bottle -- to me, that is relevant. Perhaps not as "significant" as the prosecution believed, but relevant all the same. That would be an incredible coincidence. Evan Williams is a popular brand, but is it as popular as Jameson, Jim Beam or especially Jack Daniels? Perhaps it varies by region, but I'd say no.

I feel like JM did break that bottle, however, who knows if he did so the night of the murders. It is relevant because, he traces out his exact path to and from the crime scene, in relation to his house -- and it matches. So we know, from his account, that he knows exactly where the crime scene is. But does it prove definitively that he broke it and was at the crime scene that night? Not necessarily.

yeah he could've broken it prior to the murders or it could've just been a random bottle they found. but like i said, my issue lies with the way they went about searching for it and with the lack of clarity over JM actually acquiring the bottle from hutchison (and because 17/18 year olds aren't known to drink whiskey straight from the bottle without a chaser, but maybe JM enjoyed the taste? who knows)

you'd think davis would've said straight up "we searched under the overpass JM said he had broken the bottle and there it was," instead of "we searched under the overpasses of WM and then spent an hour matching the bottle at a liquor store." EW is not as popular as those brands you mentioned but yeah it could be a regional thing. maybe it was a popular brand in that region back then. the shape of the EW bottle (at least now) is noticeably different from JD and Jameson but pretty similar to Jim Beam. so it should've been easy to rule out the first two brands right away

 

[thaddeusjames80]

I'm not going to get into a big argument about this anymore because it's been gone over a thousand times now, but JM confessed multiple times to police -- not just once. The narrative that Ruff and others put out there about the confessions is disingenuous. He confessed at least 3 separate times and at most six, if you include him confessing to the police officers driving him after he had just been found guilty from the courthouse. In "the bible confession," he gets 95% of it right. People say it was because he memorized everything from his trial, but that logic doesn't fly if you believe he has the mental capacity of a child (which I don't). A child and/or teen with an extremely limited attention span would not be able to memorize all of those details and repeat them verbatim at a later date. He even confessed with his lawyer Stidham present (who was begging him not to), and he explains that he purposefully got certain elements in his initial confession wrong because he wanted to throw off police, as well as limit his own involvement in the crime.

Not only that, but BL all but confirmed JM's involvement to police -- so you would have to think BL was lying too. Of course, you never hear anything about BL from people like Ruff because BL doesn't fit the innocence narrative (quite the contrary). Ruff doesn't look at all the evidence; he only focuses on pieces that will fit his narrative.

For people who are new to the case, 99% of them think they are innocent at first. I know I did, but there's more to the story and it isn't as cut and dry as the docs make it look. I still don't know if all three of them were involved, but if anyone was in my view, it was JM. Research all of the confessions, not just the initial one -- you'll notice that, they only get more and more accurate, with the bible confession being almost entirely accurate. You would think that, if he was making all this up, he would re-flub certain details, but that never happens -- at least to the best of my recollection.

I don't understand Bob Ruff, he seems like a smart genuine guy. But it baffles me how he's able to ignore facts, logic and common sense in this case. I believed they were innocent after watching the docs and first started looking into this case myself. After reading in between the lines, logic says they're most likely guilty, I believe they are myself. The trial and investigation was a joke. I don't believe they should have been found guilty because of the flawed investigation and trial, but nonetheless I believe they did it. There's no other viable suspects. No matter what the docs and podcasts would like you to believe. It's a circumstantial case for sure, but one of these new age prosecutors could win at trial with the evidence available. They're lucky they pleaded guilty and were given time served. No way was the state going to let them free and get sued for millions of dollars

 

[DHT1339]

I don't understand Bob Ruff, he seems like a smart genuine guy. But it baffles me how he's able to ignore facts, logic and common sense in this case. I believed they were innocent after watching the docs and first started looking into this case myself. After reading in between the lines, logic says they're most likely guilty, I believe they are myself. The trial and investigation was a joke. I don't believe they should have been found guilty because of the flawed investigation and trial, but nonetheless I believe they did it. There's no other viable suspects. No matter what the docs and podcasts would like you to believe. It's a circumstantial case for sure, but one of these new age prosecutors could win at trial with the evidence available. They're lucky they pleaded guilty and were given time served. No way was the state going to let them free and get sued for millions of dollars

JM's confessions aside, what makes the WM3 "viable suspects" in your opinion?

any circumstantial evidence against the WM3 in this case is incredibly weak at best

 

[Annem2003]

There is DNA. The DAs office won’t release it for testing. It has been tested against the WM3 and the dna doesn’t match any of them.

no he has not. They have NEVER tested the dna evidence against TH. goes to show how much you know.

 

[DHT1339]

no he has not. They have NEVER tested the dna evidence against TH. goes to show how much you know.

did you.....just disagree with your own post?

 

[Annem2003]

did you.....just disagree with your own post?

no it was supposed to be yours. They have never tested the dna against Terry Hobbs. The dna science now is much better

 

[DHT1339]

no it was supposed to be yours. They have never tested the dna against Terry Hobbs. The dna science now is much better

where did i ever mention hobbs and DNA testing?

not sure where you're getting that from. i think you're mistaking me with someone else

 

[MsBetsy]

where did i ever mention hobbs and DNA testing?

not sure where you're getting that from. i think you're mistaking me with someone else

Yes. It was Dogmatica.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

I don't understand Bob Ruff, he seems like a smart genuine guy. But it baffles me how he's able to ignore facts, logic and common sense in this case. I believed they were innocent after watching the docs and first started looking into this case myself. After reading in between the lines, logic says they're most likely guilty, I believe they are myself. The trial and investigation was a joke. I don't believe they should have been found guilty because of the flawed investigation and trial, but nonetheless I believe they did it. There's no other viable suspects. No matter what the docs and podcasts would like you to believe. It's a circumstantial case for sure, but one of these new age prosecutors could win at trial with the evidence available. They're lucky they pleaded guilty and were given time served. No way was the state going to let them free and get sued for millions of dollars

The WM3 didn't plead guilty, they put in Alford Pleas which is a plea of not guilty but an acknowledgment that the state had evidence that could convict them. It is a way for the state to try to keep from being sued when they convict an innocent person, and it's a way for an innocent person to get out of jail when the state knows they are innocent but wants to keep from being sued. I believe the unknown DNA found on the bodies is of the actual murderer. The trial was a sham from the start, they accepted a witness who couldn't remember his wife's name. The only "evidence" the state had was a false confession that had to be tweaked to be anywhere close to the actual evidence. This was nothing more than an example of the silly "Satanic Panic" of the era.

 

[DHT1339]

The WM3 didn't plead guilty, they put in Alford Pleas which is a plea of not guilty but an acknowledgment that the state had evidence that could convict them. It is a way for the state to try to keep from being sued when they convict an innocent person, and it's a way for an innocent person to get out of jail when the state knows they are innocent but wants to keep from being sued. I believe the unknown DNA found on the bodies is of the actual murderer. The trial was a sham from the start, they accepted a witness who couldn't remember his wife's name. The only "evidence" the state had was a false confession that had to be tweaked to be anywhere close to the actual evidence. This was nothing more than an example of the silly "Satanic Panic" of the era.

i believe the unknown DNA was linked to two different people and that there was also a hair linked to a third individual

the WM3 were not matches to any of this DNA but i'm not sure if they ever tested it against hobbs's DNA to see if it matched