Where is the exculpatory evidence we were promised?

[Tuffgong]

The Austin Yogurt Shop Murders and this WM3 cases are very similar. In both cases, the accused were convicted and then later released. In both cases the prosecution swore they had got the right guys and knew stuff others did not know, stuff that for some reason, was never made public. In both of these cases, arrests were made based on a false story. With the yogurt shop murders, the information that led to the arrests was Pierce being picked up because he had a .22 pistol in a mall. He then spread some bull story and they went from there. But the gun in question was not the gun used in the murders, hence, his arrest was not linked to the crime, nor anything he talked about. With the WM3 it was the belief that this was a cult related murder, because of the bodies being desecrated. They ask LE in the area about who is into the occult and names are given. However, most forensic pathologists state that the damage done was done by turtles and wildlife. So, the occult angle, like the .22 angle, led to suspects by erroneous ways. Meaning that in both cases, the arrests of guilty suspects would be based on the dumbest luck ever. Then there are the coerced confessions in both cases, but that is another, very similar, story.

 

[Userid]

. With the WM3 it was the belief that this was a cult related murder, because of the bodies being desecrated. They ask LE in the area about who is into the occult and names are given. However, most forensic pathologists state that the damage done was done by turtles and wildlife. So, the occult angle, like the .22 angle, led to suspects by erroneous ways. Meaning that in both cases, the arrests of guilty suspects would be based on the dumbest luck ever. Then there are the coerced confessions in both cases, but that is another, very similar, story.

Post snipped by me to address specific points:

First, the bolded is false, more or less. "Most experts" did not come to the conclusion that the wounds were caused by turtles/wild life; only the Defense's hired experts came to that conclusion; which happens in every single case (conflicting experts). It's also vital to note here, that one of those experts (Spitz) claimed that all three the boys suffered their basilar skull fractures by being thrashed against trees by wild dogs, which is by far the stupidest theory I have ever read regarding this case (maybe the dogs undressed and tied the victims too). Spitz did the exact same thing by saying an owl was responsible for the death Point is: don't swallow all the bull-s*it spin one side (the defense) feeds you by their expensively-hired guns.

Second, the belief that this investigation was laser-focused on occult and teens is simply false. Go actually read Cally's: the police interviewed many suspects and followed any and all leads -- yes, the occult was one, but not the only one they followed up on. From child molestors (JKM), to the FBI's theory it was a vietnam veteran (by the way the boys were tied), to obtaining trucker logs from the Blue Beacon, to thoroughly honing in on JMB (the step father of one of the boys), to investigating white/black vans seen in the area, to investigating transients....I could go on -- all of these things were investigated by the police. Does that mean there weren't some areas where incompetence arose? No, but to spout the angle that this investigation solely focused on occult from the start is beyond wrong, as there is much evidence to the contrary.

I've seen a lot of people like you over the years. You hear one side -- it makes sense -- and you take it for gospel. I don't blame you; I really don't -- and you can take this or leave it in all honesty, but realize that there is an entire side of the story that you're completely in the dark about.

 

[Tuffgong]

Post snipped by me to address specific points:

First, the bolded is false, more or less. "Most experts" did not come to the conclusion that the wounds were caused by turtles/wild life; only the Defense's hired experts came to that conclusion; which happens in every single case (conflicting experts). It's also vital to note here, that one of those experts (Spitz) claimed that all three the boys suffered their basilar skull fractures by being thrashed against trees by wild dogs, which is by far the stupidest theory I have ever read regarding this case (maybe the dogs undressed and tied the victims too). Spitz did the exact same thing by saying an owl was responsible for the death Point is: don't swallow all the bull-s*it spin one side (the defense) feeds you by their expensively-hired guns.

Second, the belief that this investigation was laser-focused on occult and teens is simply false. Go actually read Cally's: the police interviewed many suspects and followed any and all leads -- yes, the occult was one, but not the only one they followed up on. From child molestors (JKM), to the FBI's theory it was a vietnam veteran (by the way the boys were tied), to obtaining trucker logs from the Blue Beacon, to thoroughly honing in on JMB (the step father of one of the boys), to investigating white/black vans seen in the area, to investigating transients....I could go on -- all of these things were investigated by the police. Does that mean there weren't some areas where incompetence arose? No, but to spout the angle that this investigation solely focused on occult from the start is beyond wrong, as there is much evidence to the contrary.

I've seen a lot of people like you over the years. You hear one side -- it makes sense -- and you take it for gospel. I don't blame you; I really don't -- and you can take this or leave it in all honesty, but realize that there is an entire side of the story that you're completely in the dark about.

So the forensic pathologist used by the DA's office was as heralded and respected as the experts employed by the WM3's appeals group? Please answer that question.

 

[Tuffgong]

People are free to have any opinion they wish, just as some armchair sleuths are free to believe that their opinions are more expert. But don't tell me the satanic angle was not a primary factor in the arrests and not a major point of contention by the DA. Also, don't even pretend that Dr. Frank Peretti had any clue what he was saying on the stand, he was there to support the state's case and few of his opinions were nothing more than speculation, not working physical evidence.

 

[Userid]

So the forensic pathologist used by the DA's office was as heralded and respected as the experts employed by the WM3's appeals group? Please answer that question.

I'll answer that question with a question: Did you not see in my previous post where I wrote: "which happens in every single case (conflicting experts)" ?

So again, there are conflicting experts in every case.

Werner Spitz (and all those experts) based their opinion on nothing but photographs, decades after the fact.

Two questions:

Do you know who the state's expert even was?

Secondly, do you agree with Spitz that the skull fractures (on all 3 boys) were caused by dogs bashing the boys against trees?

 

[Userid]

People are free to have any opinion they wish, just as some armchair sleuths are free to believe that their opinions are more expert. But don't tell me the satanic angle was not a primary factor in the arrests and not a major point of contention by the DA. Also, don't even pretend that Dr. Frank Peretti had any clue what he was saying on the stand, he was there to support the state's case and few of his opinions were nothing more than speculation, not working physical evidence.

We're all armchair sleuths. You included.

You're shifting the argument now. No one ever said it wasn't the major basis for the DA's case -- because it was. There is a difference between the "DA" and "LE." Again, there were many avenues investigated by "LE." This is undeniable. Did that one avenue gain more traction after the JM confession? Absolutely, and rightfully so. But before that, many, many avenues were being investigated. This is fact.

 

[Tuffgong]

I believe in the ability of John Douglas to create a criminal profile.

I think Dr. Frank Peretti's abilities were in question.

I believe an Alford plea is only offered when the state acknowledges a mistake and does not wish to be sued.

I believe I don't know for sure who did it.

 

[Userid]

I believe in the ability of John Douglas to create a criminal profile.

I think Dr. Frank Peretti's abilities were in question.

I believe an Alford plea is only offered when the state acknowledges a mistake and does not wish to be sued.

I believe I don't know for sure who did it.

I didn't ask about Douglas so not sure why you're bringing him up. I was asking about Spitz, his theories, and the state's ME.

You realize that, to this very day, Frank Peretti is a forensic pathologist in the Arkansas State Crime Lab. Supporters love to crap all over this guy for absolutely no reason; and he would have never lasted over 30 years in the field if he was as bad as people love to pretend. It's despicable how his name has been dragged through the mud.

The Alford Plea was actually offered by the defense; not the state.

Well, we agree on one thing: I don't know who did it either, but I don't completely rule out the theory that one, two or all of the WM3 are guilty.

 

[dogmatica]

People are free to have any opinion they wish, just as some armchair sleuths are free to believe that their opinions are more expert. But don't tell me the satanic angle was not a primary factor in the arrests and not a major point of contention by the DA. Also, don't even pretend that Dr. Frank Peretti had any clue what he was saying on the stand, he was there to support the state's case and few of his opinions were nothing more than speculation, not working physical evidence.

Oh the irony of your statements. You accuse Peretti of being clueless and a pawn for the prosecution, and yet you take Spitz "the boys were smashed against trees by wild dogs" nonsense as truth?

The satanic angle was one component of all of this. NOT the driver. And, have you forgotten - Echols was in fact messing with the occult? I'm sure you haven't forgotten him being busted lying on the stand about his affinity for the Satanist Aleister Crowley, who professed that children make the best sacrifices?

Either way, the occult stuff isn't what convicted him. And as userid said, they investigated many, many other people, who were NOT involved with he occult.

It's very evident you haven't done any research beyond watching the "documentaries" and reading WM3 fan sites. Read Cally's and the 500 - then get back to us.

 

[dogmatica]

I believe in the ability of John Douglas to create a criminal profile.

I think Dr. Frank Peretti's abilities were in question.

I believe an Alford plea is only offered when the state acknowledges a mistake and does not wish to be sued.

I believe I don't know for sure who did it.

Your opinion on Douglas means nothing, as does your opinion on Peretti.

You are incorrect re: the Alford Plea.

 

[Tuffgong]

Your opinion on Douglas means nothing, as does your opinion on Peretti.

You are incorrect re: the Alford Plea.

LOL, wow! Time for decaffeinated. For the record, I don't have to respond to every point of your narrative. An Alford plea was "agreed" to because the state, with all of this mountain of evidence you believed they had, refused to try them again. Which is comical. The state only agrees to such a plea when they know they won't convict again in a retrial, because they are not up against sub-par defense attorneys again.

 

[Userid]

LOL, wow! Time for decaffeinated. For the record, I don't have to respond to every point of your narrative. An Alford plea was "agreed" to because the state, with all of this mountain of evidence you believed they had, refused to try them again. Which is comical. The state only agrees to such a plea when they know they won't convict again in a retrial, because they are not up against sub-par defense attorneys again.

This is inaccurate. The state was ready to go to trial --until the defense came to them with the Alford plea. They would have gone to trial if the defense never came to them with the Alford plea. Word of advice: research the case better.

 

[dogmatica]

LOL, wow! Time for decaffeinated. For the record, I don't have to respond to every point of your narrative. An Alford plea was "agreed" to because the state, with all of this mountain of evidence you believed they had, refused to try them again. Which is comical. The state only agrees to such a plea when they know they won't convict again in a retrial, because they are not up against sub-par defense attorneys again.

I don't use caffeine. Nobody said you have to respond to anything. "Refused to try them again"? No, that's absolutely incorrect. See Userid's post above.

And on the contrary, the WM3 offering to plead guilty and taking the Alford Plea mean specifically that they are admitting they WOULD be convicted again if given a retrial.

 

[dogmatica]

Secondly, do you agree with Spitz that the skull fractures (on all 3 boys) were caused by dogs bashing the boys against trees?

Frankly I'm shocked he was so brazen as to present such an over the top ridiculous conclusion.

 

[Tuffgong]

We gotta get John Douglas and other profilers in here to learn from the self-professed experts behind their keyboards. I am not sure if they can stand the intensity though.

I think we all know the state's case was weak, which is why it was overturned by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

 

[Catmommy]

The question is where is the exculpatory evidence that was promised to be revealed? Not how weak was the case presented. Where is all the stuff we are supposed to see to convince us that this was a miscarriage of justice? I've seen nothing but Echols grinning like a Cheshire cat which is evidence alright but not that which would acquit the convicted murderers.

 

[Userid]

We gotta get John Douglas and other profilers in here to learn from the self-professed experts behind their keyboards. I am not sure if they can stand the intensity though.

I think we all know the state's case was weak, which is why it was overturned by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

No one professed to be an expert. This is a discussion board, so people discuss and debate. You should grow thicker skin.

 

[Userid]

Frankly I'm shocked he was so brazen as to present such an over the top ridiculous conclusion.

Yes, it was quite brazen. You would think he would never risk his reputation by putting such a ridiculous conclusion out there for all to see -- but I guess his desperation to prove animal predation (in general) demanded he do so. Sad, really.

 

[dogmatica]

We gotta get John Douglas and other profilers in here to learn from the self-professed experts behind their keyboards. I am not sure if they can stand the intensity though.

I think we all know the state's case was weak, which is why it was overturned by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

The fact that you keep mentioning Douglas as your "ah-ha! See, they're innocent!" moment says a lot.

The "state's case was overturned"? "Echols filed a petition, which was not granted, but then the decision was overturned by the Arkansas Supreme Court." Is that what you're referring to? The state's case was not overturned - the WM3 remain twice convicted child killers. And if Echols' "new DNA evidence which will point to the real killers" was so strong...well, refer back to the title of this thread.

And who here is a "self-professed expert"? Nobody. As with the WM3 case, you should read things more carefully before professing your conclusions.

 

[Tuffgong]

The state of Arkansas knew the conviction was to be overturned when the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the way they did. That meant that WM would have to bring the three to trial again. They knew they would lose the retrial because the original conviction was based on no physical evidence and relied exclusively on "those three are different." I am aware that your expertise in crime goes way beyond that of John Douglas, am sure of it. However, if the state thought these guys were guilty they would have never agreed to an Alford plea. Three boys were slaughtered and you think these three guys did it, and you agree to let them go? Get real. The Alford plea was meant to squash wrongful conviction lawsuits. But please, instead of regaling us in all that you have read, specifically layout the evidence that proved these boys did it. I do not pretend to know for sure, but I like the pretensions of some people. Lay out the case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Catmommy]

That's what this thread is about = the exculpatory evidence that lawyers for the WM3 and Echols said existed, not the mismanagement of the case in the first place. Where's the positive proof that these murderers, not only convicted but also accepting of a deal that specifically says they WOULD be found guilty if tried again, didn't murder those poor little boys?

 

[Tuffgong]

The proof is Arkansas not pursuing another trial, period.