WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[flourish]

Here's a good read regarding one of Misskelley's confessions to his own lawyer. Check out the comments - supporters try to quash it but they are debunked at every turn.

http://wm3truth.com/index.php/2012/...ys-confession-to-defense-lawyer-june-11-1993/

Why, why, why would Misskelley INSIST on confessing to his own attorney, hand on bible, when said attorney is compelling him with all his might, NOT to, and the police and DA are nowhere to be seen?

That is so very curious. I'm still at work but clocked out and waiting for my ride so rereading and thinking... Why would an innocent person confess not once but numerous times? Fear and confusion and coercion could explain away one confession, but numerous ones under a variety of circumstances is just... I'm guessing quite unheard of. Do we know of other cases with numerous confessions? I know I know go read for myself

 

[Limaes]

That is so very curious. I'm still at work but clocked out and waiting for my ride so rereading and thinking... Why would an innocent person confess not once but numerous times? Fear and confusion and coercion could explain away one confession, but numerous ones under a variety of circumstances is just... I'm guessing quite unheard of. Do we know of other cases with numerous confessions? I know I know go read for myself

Hi flourish, the injuries to the boys are valuable when it comes to theorising what happened to them and by whom. When compared to JMK's stories, they don't match imo. It's very strange how he claims the murders happened during the day at a time they were all at school.

 

[Userid]

^ Actually, JMK gets the injuries exactly right in his first confession; not only that, but with the corresponding victims to boot. He gets the immasculation to CB correct; the facial injuries to SB correct; and the beating injuries to MM correct. He also knows that the boys' ears had injuries. In addition, his confession jives with where the boys were found in the creek itself. MM was found further north down the creek compared to SB and CB, who were south -- he explains that he had to chase down MM and held him until the other two arrived. Is it a simple coincidence that he was able to all but explain why MM was found where he was found in the creek (further north, separate from the two other boys)? Did he simply guess the right victim out of the three also?

The confessions, even the first confession, all contain accurate elements to them, if you're looking at them with an unbiased eye. Not everything is accurate -- granted -- but the way certain people try to paint them as being "wholly inaccurate" is beyond false. Like much in this case, the truth (however inconvenient for one side or the other) is in the middle.

 

[flourish]

Accurate elements... Interesting phrasing there

 

[Userid]

Take for what it's worth: it should also be noted that, JMK explains in a later confession that he made up certain elements (such as, initially saying they were tied with rope when they were really tied with shoe laces, to name just one discrepancy) because he wanted to "throw off" police. It's obvious that, from the get-go, he was trying to diminish his own involvement in the crimes as much as he could. At first he says he only caught one and held one down, then he left (paraphrasing). Then he admits that he actually beat the one he was holding down. Then he admits he actually helped tie the boys up with their shoelaces. This is obvious when you read all of the confessions. This initial response to diminish his involvement refutes the notion that JMK was too mentally challenged to ever (or even eventually) understand the concept of "saving his own skin." The more he confessed, the more the truth came out. When one makes up certain things in a confession, those things (lies, inaccuracies) are harder to keep track of over time and over multiple confessions. Just something to consider.

 

[Cappuccino]

Do you honestly not recall JM's alibi changing? He also had claimed he was "roofing." And you know what else changed: who he actually said committed the crimes with him (he named 2 suspects before DE and JB). Do you honestly need me to fetch you these items? You can go on Callahan's yourself and find them, but I like to think you know them already, considering how often you've posted on the subject.

Are you still on the the semantics kick with "match" and "practice" too? yawn.

Honestly, these games are beyond old by now.

No, I honestly don't recall Jessie's alibi changing from being at a barbecue to being at a wrestling match. Perhaps you could show us the relevant documents?

The difference between a match and a practice is not semantic. A practice happened every week, a match only happened once a month or so. It was provable that a wrestling match didn't happen on the night of May 5th, but it was not provable that wrestling practice didn't happen.

And he did indeed name two suspects before Damien and Jason. Which, of course, makes his confession so much more credible.

 

[Userid]

So, it "makes his confession so much more credible" but not his alibi? Lol.

I'll ask again: so you don't recall him changing his alibi from "roofing" to "wrestling" (how's that? is that okay to just call it "wrestling"? eyeroll).

 

[flourish]

I wonder why so many threads here have civil discussion, but this section and this thread in particular seems so snarky. Can we not discuss the case without the sarcastic and rude little digs? It's so off-putting and doesn't reflect the general kind attitudes typical on WS.

 

[Userid]

Okay, honest mistake here: after trying to track down where I read that, I realized that it was BL who claimed to be at a barbecue at Highland Trailer Park (where both he and JM lived) on the night of the murders, not JM. Again, honest mistake and I apologize. Regardless, my original point still stands: he changed his alibi from what he initially said, to wrestling. In this police interview, he clearly states that he was "roofing" with Ricky Deese and makes zero mention at all about wrestling: http://callahan.mysite.com/wm3/jmin.html

I believe I got that mixed up because, JM's alibi had multiple parts to it, including being at Highland Trailer Park the night of the murders (with his girlfriend at the time, Susie Brewer). In the Geraldo Rivera special, his dad even says "he was right here in this trailer park" when asked where his son was that night (it's on youtube). It was a bad choice of words to say "barbecue," I'll admit that...but his original alibi involved roofing, then it changed to being in Highland Trailer Park (regardless of a barbecue), as stated by his own father in the following video at exactly the 4:30 mark:

[video=youtube;PskDNX9qRr4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PskDNX9qRr4[/video]

His quote: "I got 15-20 people that saw him out here in this trailer park that day up until 7:30."

His time frames for each segment of his alibi are also all over the place, exactly like his original time frames in the first confession.

The murders have always been supposed to take place around the 6 -7 pm time frame, as 6 was the last reported/confirmed sighting of the victims.

 

[dogmatica]

Hi flourish, the injuries to the boys are valuable when it comes to theorising what happened to them and by whom. When compared to JMK's stories, they don't match imo. It's very strange how he claims the murders happened during the day at a time they were all at school.

It's not strange - at all. Misskelley openly admitted he lied about details to "throw the police off" and "mess with them". Shockingly, sadistic child killers aren't always completely forthright when dealing with the authorities.

And once again - supporters want it both ways. He's so dumb, so "mentally disabled" that he can be coerced into confessing over and over to a crime he didn't commit, but he's not so dumb that he would get details of a drunken night incorrect? Cherry pickin' all over the place.

 

[dogmatica]

Which, of course, makes his confession so much more credible.

Which of the numerous confessions are you referring to?

 

[dogmatica]

I wonder why so many threads here have civil discussion, but this section and this thread in particular seems so snarky. Can we not discuss the case without the sarcastic and rude little digs? It's so off-putting and doesn't reflect the general kind attitudes typical on WS.

I've been trying to tone down my anger in here. However, to answer your question regarding people's anger, which manifests itself as "snarkiness" - those who know the WM3 are guilty of this crime are confounded, angry, frustrated and disgusted by people who relentlessly advocate for these child killers, when to us, it's utterly and glaringly obvious what the truth is. There is a sort of hero worship, celebrity fawning, sycophantic bent to many people who fight tooth and nail to defend the WM3 (not personalizing - that's a generalization based on my own experiences and the plethora of material available on the web).

 

[dogmatica]

That is so very curious. I'm still at work but clocked out and waiting for my ride so rereading and thinking... Why would an innocent person confess not once but numerous times? Fear and confusion and coercion could explain away one confession, but numerous ones under a variety of circumstances is just... I'm guessing quite unheard of. Do we know of other cases with numerous confessions? I know I know go read for myself

Exactly. And add all those confessions to all the other evidence against the WM3, and you get a glaring truth. Those 24 jurors didn't convict the WM3 because they dug Metallica and wore black. They convicted them because they were presented with evidence that proved, beyond a reasonable doubt - that these guys did it.

And again - think of the size of the conspiracy, the insanely vast amount of people who would have had to coordinate, get together, lie, purjor themselves...the massive orchestration that would have had to happen in order for all these people, from all different walks of life, all different ages, all different careers...to come together in order to "frame" these "innocent teens", simply because they liked metal and dark clothing.

It's absurd.

 

[flourish]

Argh mentally disabled is not synonymous with dumb!
Also anyone who claims to "know" these 3 are guilty are either mistaking being convinced with knowing or are witnesses who never testified.

If it was actually so glaringly obvious there wouldn't be any controversy.

I haven't been able to look through everything yet... There's so much! So I continue to withhold my opinion after having got back on the fence.

 

[zencompass]

Dear Flourish,

So good to see you on this thread.

Unfortunately many posters have left this thread because they were not able to post without having their ideas attacked. Some of the posters believed in the innocence of Damien, Jessie and Jason and some believed in their guilt. We were, at one time, able to have civil discussions and they were respectful of one another. It has not been that way for a long time, unfortunately.

It truly is unfortunate because not one of us knows for sure who did it because we were not there!

I am on numerous threads where there exists considerate and compassionate discussion, and I am aware that you are on these other threads as well. I always look forward to your posts - they are not only insightful but full of compassion and consideration of others' views.

This particular thread no longer works because there is no consideration at all for others' viewpoints. It is extremely negative and I have steered away from it because of this hostility. It no longer serves its purpose which is a disgrace to the memories of the little boys who deserve justice.

There will never be justice found or other discoveries made on this thread and sadly that can never help find justice for these three little boys, Stevie, Chris and Michael.

There is only one site which is unbiased and contains thousands of documents from court transcript to interviews, etc.

This is the only place I learned from and made my own observations. Here is the site:

http://callahan.mysite.com/

 

[flourish]

Dear Flourish,

So good to see you on this thread.

There is only one site which is unbiased and contains thousands of documents from court transcript to interviews, etc.

This is the only place I learn from and made my own observations. Here is the site:

http://callahan.mysite.com/

Thanks zencompass I've started wading through that site. I don't have Wi-Fi at my home so I have to use my phone or brief glimpses on my break at work, and some of
the pages are challenging. A lot are phone friendly which is great.

I don't remember hearing about this case when it happened but, like many, my first exposure was the first documentary. I was in the "not guilty" category after that but then read a little more after the Alford plea and climbed on the fence...I wish I could remember what exactly it was that got me on the fence but for the life of me I can't remember.

It's a fascinating case. Having been a black-wearing teenager in the late 80s and early 90s, and growing up in a small, closed minded area, I experienced people thinking I was some kind of devil worshiper, and even got sent to the office by a teacher who I apparently creeped out. And I was a really good kid! Rarely in trouble and never anything serious. So that aspect really caught me. However, just because I was wrongly accused doesn't mean these 3 were.

The amount of emotion people have about this case is also something I find curious and interesting... as evidenced here this case seems to bring out the worst in people... the cruel references to disabled people being the most challenging for me to deal with, and I worry that a lot of good information is overlooked or dismissed due to the over-the-top assertions that are made and the rudeness. I have a very difficult time respecting information from someone who speaks so unkindly about those with disabilities. I don't feel that cruelty is at all necessary to make the point, and really actually detracts from it and makes the speaker look pretty awful. I've clearly tried to educate here and there, but apparently to no avail. One can feel Miskelley doesn't have a disability without being so mean and disparaging to those who do. Half a person, dumb... It's abhorrent.

Anyway, I'll admit to never wanting to run into Damien in a dark alley... I don't get why people name their children names which have such negative connotations... Like Damien and Malachi... I get Malachi is biblical, but it will always remind me of the creepy ginger kid in children of the corn and Damien will always remind me of the creepy kid in the omen.

 

[dogmatica]

Argh mentally disabled is not synonymous with dumb!
Also anyone who claims to "know" these 3 are guilty are either mistaking being convinced with knowing or are witnesses who never testified.

If it was actually so glaringly obvious there wouldn't be any controversy.

I haven't been able to look through everything yet... There's so much! So I continue to withhold my opinion after having got back on the fence.

With that line of thinking nobody can "know" anything. So we don't "know" Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, etc etc etc committed the atrocities they were proven guilty of? Then we, as the human race, don't "know" anything. That's ridiculous. The ONLY reason there is controversy over this case is because HBO, along with Berlinger and Sinofsky made a "documentary" that was on TV and in theaters and purposely and willingly lied and left out incredibly important details to make the WM3 look like they were "railroaded". Anyone who has seen the "doc" and then has gone on to research the case independently knows damn well they left out scads of incriminating evidence, manipulated the hell out of the truth and the viewers and twisted facts to fit their agenda and their narrative - which was to make a controversial movie (it's just that - it ain't a documentary) that would garner huge attention and, more importantly, make money.

If you don't believe people can "know" the truth regarding criminal cases, then you must not believe in the Justice System, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, proof and evidence. In that case, I don't see much point in any of this.

If 24 jurors found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - and you simply dismiss this - why do we have trials at all??

Regarding "mentally disabled" not being synonymous with "dumb" - exactly. I agree 100%. Supporters waffle back and forth as to what Misskelley is to fit their narrative at any given point of the debate.

 

[dogmatica]

Dear Flourish,


It truly is unfortunate because not one of us knows for sure who did it because we were not there!

So the only things you know to be true are things you've witnessed first hand, in person. In that case - how do we even know those 3 little boys were actually murdered at all?

 

[dogmatica]

This particular thread no longer works because there is no consideration at all for others' viewpoints. It is extremely negative and I have steered away from it because of this hostility. It no longer serves its purpose which is a disgrace to the memories of the little boys who deserve justice.

And how do you respond to others' viewpoints on say, Sandy Hook? That it didn't happen. Or the Holocaust - that it didn't happen. Or 9/11? If we allow and embrace every viewpoint, the world is in even bigger trouble than it is now. How about people who have the viewpoint that all Jews or African American should be eradicated?

Not all viewpoints deserve credence or deference. And events do not have to be witnessed first hand and in person in order for them to have occurred, or for mankind to accept that they occurred. If that were the case, nobody would be convicted of any crime unless the judge and jury were there and saw it happen.

 

[dogmatica]

Thanks zencompass I've started wading through that site. I don't have Wi-Fi at my home so I have to use my phone or brief glimpses on my break at work, and some of
the pages are challenging. A lot are phone friendly which is great.

I don't remember hearing about this case when it happened but, like many, my first exposure was the first documentary. I was in the "not guilty" category after that but then read a little more after the Alford plea and climbed on the fence...I wish I could remember what exactly it was that got me on the fence but for the life of me I can't remember.

It's a fascinating case. Having been a black-wearing teenager in the late 80s and early 90s, and growing up in a small, closed minded area, I experienced people thinking I was some kind of devil worshiper, and even got sent to the office by a teacher who I apparently creeped out. And I was a really good kid! Rarely in trouble and never anything serious. So that aspect really caught me. However, just because I was wrongly accused doesn't mean these 3 were.

The amount of emotion people have about this case is also something I find curious and interesting... as evidenced here this case seems to bring out the worst in people... the cruel references to disabled people being the most challenging for me to deal with, and I worry that a lot of good information is overlooked or dismissed due to the over-the-top assertions that are made and the rudeness. I have a very difficult time respecting information from someone who speaks so unkindly about those with disabilities. I don't feel that cruelty is at all necessary to make the point, and really actually detracts from it and makes the speaker look pretty awful. I've clearly tried to educate here and there, but apparently to no avail. One can feel Miskelley doesn't have a disability without being so mean and disparaging to those who do. Half a person, dumb... It's abhorrent.

Anyway, I'll admit to never wanting to run into Damien in a dark alley... I don't get why people name their children names which have such negative connotations... Like Damien and Malachi... I get Malachi is biblical, but it will always remind me of the creepy ginger kid in children of the corn and Damien will always remind me of the creepy kid in the omen.

I don't know if you're referring to me or not in regards to disparaging remarks about mentally disabled people - but I have not done that. I am parroting supporters who claim Misskelley was "retarded" or whatever term they use. I do not believe he was/is. I believe he is not a very bright guy. I've said it several times before - he's far more bright than supporters claim. Watching him in interviews and with his family - he's not terribly articulate and yeah, a bit of a dummy. As I said before - being a little dim and being mentally disabled are NOT the same thing.