1421 users online (285 members and 1136 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 18 26 27 28
Results 406 to 416 of 416
  1. #406
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

    Jessie got VERY LITTLE right and what little he did could have easily been gained by the rumor mill/local paper, Gitchell and Ridge's incredibly clumsy attempts to lead him on what to say, or hearing his own trial. Not only that he WAS retarded or handicapped (the state of Arkansas usually avoids putting kids in special ed classes to save money; Jessie was put in a special ed class for years so he was handicapped at the very least.) Ex 500 also cited Jerry Driver (A corrupt Piece of ****) as the source in quite a few of the incidents mentioned, and given that Driver not only had an axe to grind but was a crook he's not a reliable source.
    Completely untrue. He got a LOT right. And child murderers aren’t known to be fully truthful and accurate in their descriptions. They tend to change facts in order to mitigate their involvement. Just like Jessie did. You can keep saying he’s “retarded” and “handicapped” all you want – doesn’t make it true. If you watch him in the PL movies he’s actually FAR more articulate than supporters would have you believe. Jerry Driver – you keep using him as your scapegoat. Echols was observed by several mental health professionals. They all concluded he was dangerous, psychotic, etc. You can’t pick a couple piddly little things here and there and discredit the entire document. Well, you can, but it doesn’t change the validity of said document, or the analyses of the professionals who studied him.
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    As for the drinking.....really? He would have had to have cleaned up blood vomit beer bottles upturned grass bootprints and trace evidence like fingerprints and hair.....at night. while it was dark. while he was drunk. Hannibal Lector would have been hard pressed to pull that off and these are a bunch of drunken ass teenagers. If you're stupid enough to buy that I've got swampland
    Yes, really. First of all, there’s no proof anyone cleaned up the crime scene. Rain, water, muddy conditions…or maybe it was cleaned up. I’ve been wasted drunk and cleaned up plenty of messes. Asserting that one is incapable of cleaning anything while drunk is absurd. People can accomplish all manner of tasks while intoxicated. Like murdering 3 little boys. Your argument holds no water. Hannibal Lector is a fictional character. These 3 are real life child killers.

    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    More importantly aside from a dubious citing by Narlene Hollingsworth (who has no real credibility) NOONE saw three teenagers acting suspiciously that night all those years ago. Surely someone would have seen three teenagers walking down a service road with beer bottles.
    This is pure speculation/nonsense and isn’t even worth addressing. People do things all the time that nobody sees occurring. Every second of every day, all over the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    It's not just people who watch the movies who believe them. Most of West Memphis itself has come to believe them and that Terry Hobbs brutally murdered his son and his two friends. Hell at least TWO of the people who run Callahan believe their innocence. There are three in total so that should tell you something.
    Now you’re privy to what an entire town thinks? That’s funny. I’d love to hear how you gathered this data.


    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    At this point nons are fighting a loosing battle; most honest people have accepted that it was most likely Terry Hobbs and (possibly) David Jacoby who did this. Unfortunately a lot of people don't want to admit that the cops are often corrupt and willing to throw innocents under a bus
    A losing battle? They’re convicted child murderers. Who have NEVER come forward with the damning evidence they claimed would clear their names. NOTHING. It’s clear who lost this battle. The ones with convictions for murder who never produced evidence to the contrary, despite them yelling from the roof tops they had such evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    For me reading Callahan helped me believe their innocence (there were documents that explained exactly why Michael Carson was full of ****).
    Perhaps you should try reading it again, slower this time, and remove your admiration for Echols from your purview.

  2. #407
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by dogmatica View Post
    Completely untrue. He got a LOT right. And child murderers aren’t known to be fully truthful and accurate in their descriptions. They tend to change facts in order to mitigate their involvement. Just like Jessie did. You can keep saying he’s “retarded” and “handicapped” all you want – doesn’t make it true. If you watch him in the PL movies he’s actually FAR more articulate than supporters would have you believe. Jerry Driver – you keep using him as your scapegoat. Echols was observed by several mental health professionals. They all concluded he was dangerous, psychotic, etc. You can’t pick a couple piddly little things here and there and discredit the entire document. Well, you can, but it doesn’t change the validity of said document, or the analyses of the professionals who studied him.

    Yes, really. First of all, there’s no proof anyone cleaned up the crime scene. Rain, water, muddy conditions…or maybe it was cleaned up. I’ve been wasted drunk and cleaned up plenty of messes. Asserting that one is incapable of cleaning anything while drunk is absurd. People can accomplish all manner of tasks while intoxicated. Like murdering 3 little boys. Your argument holds no water. Hannibal Lector is a fictional character. These 3 are real life child killers.



    This is pure speculation/nonsense and isn’t even worth addressing. People do things all the time that nobody sees occurring. Every second of every day, all over the world.


    Now you’re privy to what an entire town thinks? That’s funny. I’d love to hear how you gathered this data.




    A losing battle? They’re convicted child murderers. Who have NEVER come forward with the damning evidence they claimed would clear their names. NOTHING. It’s clear who lost this battle. The ones with convictions for murder who never produced evidence to the contrary, despite them yelling from the roof tops they had such evidence.



    Perhaps you should try reading it again, slower this time, and remove your admiration for Echols from your purview.
    1.) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Jessie claimed they were raped. Even Peretti said that was unlikely (though since he tried to say they could be in public it was clear he was paid whore). He said they were beaten with sticks and strangled. Neither of those were true. He said that they wriggled in the water like eels, that there was blood flying everywhere even though luminol testing revealed only small amounts of blood (nowhere near the amount that justified Jessie's story), and that you could see certain locations (when in fact you couldn't.) He said that the water was deep enough to cover him when it was actually shallow, and that they were dropped in even though Michael's head was forced into the mud by someone wearing TENNIS SHOES (all three boys wore boots). He said michael drowned where he lay even though Michael's body was found SOUTH of the position where he would have been. He said they were forced to give oral sex when there's no evidence and that the whiskey bottle is relevant even though a.) the only part found was the head b.) FOUR brands had the same head and c.) it was found under an overpass.

    He also claimed that he entered the woods via a pipe bridge even though the only such bridge let to a completely different section of woods completely (this was in the final confession by the way). He also gets iffy about the time they arrived. He also claimed he met them in lakeshore after originally saying they met in the woods. He also claims the kids landed some blows even though when Damian was photographed shirtless less than two days later there were no bruises or injuries. He also claims he beat Michael's face extensively when Michael's face didn't have that degree of injury

    Jessie didn't know the location; he couldn't describe the weapons or the injuries. And Mitchell and Ridge's attempts to guide him weren't even close to subtle. So no he got next to nothing right. At this point you have to be an idiot to put stock in the confession (i've read the bible confession one from late February. It's one of the most incoherent pieces of rubbish I've ever read.)

    2.) Wrong actually. Jessie claimed he vomited when no vomit was found. There were no beer bottles or sources of alcohol found at the scene even though these guys were allegedly drunk out of their minds. Idiot teenagers are not going to be able to do a good job cleaning up that. They also claimed they cleaned the blood off by wiping the reeds....yet nothing happened and it would have been sticky. At this point you're making excuses to explain away your stupidity

    3.) You obviously know VERY few handicapped people. I've known plenty and even though some were perfectly eloquent they were still handicapped. Jessie was in a special eds class in a state that usually goes out of it's way to avoid putting them in special eds classes. That should tell you everything you need to know


    4.) Two problems; in general law enforcement refuse to admit a **** up unless they have no choice so unless the evidence they had was 100% accurate the state may well have told them to go to hell even if they did have information.

    In at least two cases (Madison hobley and Clarence Brandley) it's painfully obvious who the actual killer is and in both cases the state's response was "**** you we don't care, they're still guilty." I'm guessing that even if the WM3 gave the state everything the state would gleefully ignore it and since media interest died the moment they walked out the door. And another problem is that in some ways law enforcement are the only ones who can advance it

    In fact they even explained that; Michael Hobbs allegedly has knowledge but only the state has the power to compel Michael hobbs to give an answer by calling him to a grand jury. The ball's in the state's court for the most part and the state would rather pretend Terry isn't a monster who beat his son and murdered three small children. And since they've been released the media mostly lost interest so if they try to raise it people don't much care.

    The state chose to accept the alford plea because they would have gotten crushed in a new trial and they knew it. So no. The WM3 won this one in the end. Most people who follow the case and have read callahan conclude the same

    5.) Except that almost all supporters HAVE read callahan and came to the conclusion (after reading the confessions) that Jessie's words were worthless. All the big ones have anyway and I'm willing to bet even most of the celeb supporters have read it too. That they still came to that means that you aren't being honest.

  3. #408
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    154
    Hell David Perry Davis watched Paradise lost and walked away convinced they were guilty. It wasn't until he went to Callahan and saw that the confessions were a load of contradictory horseshit that he started to develop doubts about Jessie's guilt. So you can't pull the "influenced by the docs" on him.

    Davis goes into elaborate detail about what Jessie got wrong, and the whiskey bottle the nons love to trott out is a red herring (4 brands had the same head and the head was the only thing they found.) It's hardly the smoking gun nons believe it is and more importantly even leaving aside the handicap Jessie was scared shitless.

    Here's my perspective; after the conviction the state realizes that they need Jessie's testimony to put Damian and Jason away (they themselves told the victim's families that they would be hard pressed to win without it.) So they talk to some of the officers who will be transporting him and ask them if they can try to persuade Jessie to confess. Due to the horrible nature of the crime and the desire to ensure "justice" for the victims they agree and thus you get the "confession" from the transport. They plant the idea in Jessie's head that maybe he can get out of his nightmare if he confesses again (not hard since Dan seems to have failed him).

    A few days later Jessie gives the bible thing....but here the plan hits a snag. Dan and Jessie have a long talk and Jessie ultimately decides NOT to make a statement. At this point the prosecutors enter panic mode and realize that Dan will need to be limited in access if they want Jessie to play ball. So they try to transfer Jessie without telling his lawyers (Dan finds out on the news and gets Burnett to, in a rare moment of sanity, put a stop to it.) They may or may not try again but even if they don't they still have the chance.

    Come the day Jessie confesses; during the 2 hour drive they tell Jessie repeatedly that Dan can't help him, that only they can. They also tell him that he'll get the death penalty if he fails to cooperate with them. They imply that Dan isn't really his friend and doesn't have his interests at heart. They spend the entire 2 hour drive doing this. THEN when the time comes they limit the amount of time Dan has with Jessie.

    Fortunately this works and Jessie sings.....UNFORTUNATELY the "confession" is still a load of contradictory rubbish that fails to get key details right and which has inconsistencies that can't be explained away as "mitigating" (for instance Jessie claimed that they met at the woods in earlier statements but at lakeshore now.....which is inconsistent and doesn't effectively mitigate jessie and thus has no reason).

    After big jess talks to him Jessie realizes he can't lie and finally rejects the state.

    Since then he's never confessed unless you're stupid enough to believe a few rumors and an unreliable nut like true romance.

  4. #409
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    1.) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Jessie claimed they were raped. Even Peretti said that was unlikely (though since he tried to say they could be in public it was clear he was paid whore). He said they were beaten with sticks and strangled. Neither of those were true. He said that they wriggled in the water like eels, that there was blood flying everywhere even though luminol testing revealed only small amounts of blood (nowhere near the amount that justified Jessie's story), and that you could see certain locations (when in fact you couldn't.) He said that the water was deep enough to cover him when it was actually shallow, and that they were dropped in even though Michael's head was forced into the mud by someone wearing TENNIS SHOES (all three boys wore boots). He said michael drowned where he lay even though Michael's body was found SOUTH of the position where he would have been. He said they were forced to give oral sex when there's no evidence and that the whiskey bottle is relevant even though a.) the only part found was the head b.) FOUR brands had the same head and c.) it was found under an overpass.

    He also claimed that he entered the woods via a pipe bridge even though the only such bridge let to a completely different section of woods completely (this was in the final confession by the way). He also gets iffy about the time they arrived. He also claimed he met them in lakeshore after originally saying they met in the woods. He also claims the kids landed some blows even though when Damian was photographed shirtless less than two days later there were no bruises or injuries. He also claims he beat Michael's face extensively when Michael's face didn't have that degree of injury

    Jessie didn't know the location; he couldn't describe the weapons or the injuries. And Mitchell and Ridge's attempts to guide him weren't even close to subtle. So no he got next to nothing right. At this point you have to be an idiot to put stock in the confession (i've read the bible confession one from late February. It's one of the most incoherent pieces of rubbish I've ever read.)
    June 3, 1993: The first confession, to local detectives. Admittedly there are times when it seems like his answers are manipulated, but there are also times when Jessie sticks to his word regardless and times when the detectives accept his answers.

    August 19, 1993: Jessie meets with his defence attorneys. They make clear that he'll be going to prison for a long time, possibly for life, and discuss plea bargaining options. He goes over some details again and doesn't retract anything, even though he's plainly told the consequences and says he understands. Why wouldn't he use this opportunity to get his lawyers on his side, if indeed he was innocent?

    December 10, 1993: Now Jessie tells his attorneys that the confession was made up. It makes sense to me that he would change his mind at this point: he's been in prison for 5 months, he's probably realising "this sucks actually", and he knows he has a trial coming up. Interestingly, the attorneys try to shape Jessie's words in a very similar manner to the detectives - they constantly ask if he was treated badly, if they made him tell the story over and over, if they stopped and restarted the tape, etc...It's like they're getting Jessie to confirm their planned defence.

    December 15, 1993: Jessie talks with a doctor, and maintains that he wasn't in the woods and fabricated the confession by following the detectives' lead. But he certainly remembers a lot of details from his apparently fake confession 5 months earlier.

    February 5, 1994: Immediately after his trial and conviction, Jessie confesses in the police car on the drive to the prison. It's like he's realised "Okay fine, I've lost now so I may as well be honest again". Presumably he can't deal with the guilt.

    February 8, 1994: This one is the true unavoidable, for me. Jessie gives a full confession, in private, to his own defence lawyers.

    STIDHAM: Okay. Jessie, a few minutes ago I asked you about making some statements to the Officers when they transported you from Piggott to Pine Bluff. You told me that you had told them some stuff. Is that Correct?
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
    STIDHAM: And at first you told me that you were just making it up, that you were lying to them, and then you placed your hand on the Bible and told me that you were there when these boys got killed.
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
    STIDHAM: Uh, what's the truth, Jessie? I want to know the truth.
    MISSKELLEY: The truth is, me and Jason and Damien done it.
    STIDHAM: You were there when the boys were killed?
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
    STIDHAM: Now, what's going to be very important is for you to tell me why it was that you have been maintaining that you weren't there all this time?
    MISSKELLEY: I was scared.
    STIDHAM: what were you scared of?
    MISSKELLEY: I always lied and I hadn't ever put my hand on the Bible and swore. Nobody didn't tell me to do that. If they would have told me that at first, I would have done it. Nobody told me to put my hand on the Bible.
    STIDHAM: Okay. So basically, you've been lying to me and Mr. Crow for the past seven, or so months - about not being there when in fact you were there?
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.

    Why would he possibly say this if he was innocent?! What was there to gain? There's no reward money, no need to placate the police, no extra media attention...?

    February 17, 1994: Jessie confesses again, this time with the prosecuting lawyers present. His own lawyers practically beg him not to say anything but Jessie says he "wants something to be done".

    February 21, 1994: Jessie speaks to one of his lawyers on the phone. He doesn't retract anything. He says he can't decide whether or not to testify in Damien and Jason's trial because he's scared.
    Now seriously, I ask you, how can we ignore all this? Whatever else may be unclear, contradictory, or suspicious about the case...How can these later confessions be explained away? Legitimate question - does anyone feel that they can comfortably ignore these? Can you continue to suspect Terry Hobbs?

    While the confessions may not be perfectly consistent or in line with what was indicated by the autopsies, every confession has essentially the same structure, from the first to the one with his lawyers 8 months later: They were drinking in the woods, they heard the kids nearby, he and Jason hid, Damien called them over, Damien attacked one and then the other kids started hitting him, he and Jason emerged and attacked one boy each, he grabbed Michael Moore who managed to run away until he caught him (and indeed, Michael was found in a different spot), Damien had a stick that he hit them with, Jason had a knife and cut at one boy's penis, D+J performed (or simulated) sexual things, they tied the boys up and threw them in the water, then Jessie left before the others and didn't see what they did with the clothes or the bikes, and he vomited on the way home. This is always the story he tells, even if there are slight differences in detail. If he wasn't really there, would he have such a clear story in his mind?

    Any of those errors and inconsistencies seem quite explainable to me when you consider that he was drunk on whiskey, and wouldn't have been looking closely at what the other two were doing if he had to run after Michael and was then attacking him from further away. He probably had a vague idea and that's it. He also clearly has no shame embellishing his stories and just saying thing to trick people (he admits this), which yes, makes it difficult to know what to believe but...still.

    Jessie was/is pretty slow and naive, no doubt about that, but the "mental retardation" thing has been wildly overstated. Before the murders, he apparently had an IQ test with a score of 88, which is actually categorised as "average". It was only before his trial that it dropped down to 72, presumably a dumbing down to help his defence, and even that score is only below average. You can tell from videos, testimonies and transcripts that he's not an innocent, dumb child in a man's body. He also had a history of violence and crime.

    The main arguments against the WM3's guilt seems to be 1) lack of motive, and 2) lack of physical evidence. But unfortunately it's a reality that people are capable of random acts of horrific violence against children - even perpetrated by other children (you only need to look at the awful James Bulger Murder for proof that). It's feasible that this is all it was. As for the latter, there was hardly any physical evidence period. The crime scene was wet and muddy, and the initial investigation was by all accounts very poor.

    Finally, maybe if one of the three suspects had a solid alibi it would be possible to shrug-off Jessie's confessions as a bizarre bid for attention or something, but the reality is - none of them can demonstrate where they were that night to disprove his story.

    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    2.) Wrong actually. Jessie claimed he vomited when no vomit was found. There were no beer bottles or sources of alcohol found at the scene even though these guys were allegedly drunk out of their minds. Idiot teenagers are not going to be able to do a good job cleaning up that. They also claimed they cleaned the blood off by wiping the reeds....yet nothing happened and it would have been sticky. At this point you're making excuses to explain away your stupidity

    They didn’t find old vomit on the ground in swampy land with wild animals all over the place? Lol. Oh, case closed then! No beer bottles? Hmm. Can you comprehend perhaps they we’re drinking elsewhere? Or threw their bottles somewhere else? You have no idea what their “cleaning” skills were. Idiot teenagers? Supporters always claim how intelligent Echols and Baldwin are. Let’s not be silly. My “stupidity”? You know you’ve lost when you resort to petulant name calling.
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post

    3.) You obviously know VERY few handicapped people. I've known plenty and even though some were perfectly eloquent they were still handicapped. Jessie was in a special eds class in a state that usually goes out of it's way to avoid putting them in special eds classes. That should tell you everything you need to know
    Once again, profess JM was “retarded” or “handicapped” all you want. Doesn’t make it true. Your assertion I have been around “very few” handicapped people is complete speculation, and your implication you’re some sort of expert is just silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post

    4.) Two problems; in general law enforcement refuse to admit a **** up unless they have no choice so unless the evidence they had was 100% accurate the state may well have told them to go to hell even if they did have information.

    In at least two cases (Madison hobley and Clarence Brandley) it's painfully obvious who the actual killer is and in both cases the state's response was "**** you we don't care, they're still guilty." I'm guessing that even if the WM3 gave the state everything the state would gleefully ignore it and since media interest died the moment they walked out the door. And another problem is that in some ways law enforcement are the only ones who can advance it

    In fact they even explained that; Michael Hobbs allegedly has knowledge but only the state has the power to compel Michael hobbs to give an answer by calling him to a grand jury. The ball's in the state's court for the most part and the state would rather pretend Terry isn't a monster who beat his son and murdered three small children. And since they've been released the media mostly lost interest so if they try to raise it people don't much care.

    The state chose to accept the alford plea because they would have gotten crushed in a new trial and they knew it. So no. The WM3 won this one in the end. Most people who follow the case and have read callahan conclude the same
    Once again – you claim to know umbrella facts about something. “In general law enforcement…”. Your speculative opinions don’t hold any water. “in fact”, “allegedly”. Means nothing.
    If the state would’ve “gotten crushed” in a new, trial, why wouldn’t the defense go to trial, get the convictions overturned and sue the state? And where is this exculpatory evidence we were promised? So if the defense wouldn’t have presented the Alford Plea, the WM3 would’ve been exonerated and sued the state for millions, but instead, they plead guilty and just decided to not present this smoking gun that clears their names and proves someone else did it? That’s hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    5.) Except that almost all supporters HAVE read callahan and came to the conclusion (after reading the confessions) that Jessie's words were worthless. All the big ones have anyway and I'm willing to bet even most of the celeb supporters have read it too. That they still came to that means that you aren't being honest.
    Here we go again. “Almost all supporters have read Callahan”. You have zero proof of that, and even if that were true, you have no proof they understood it, which you clearly don’t. The “celeb supporters”? They’re entertainers. That’s all. Thy have absolutely zero credibility in regards to murder cases.
    Last edited by dogmatica; 12-06-2017 at 12:40 PM.

  5. #410
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    154
    1.) Yes I can because the holes are so ****ing massive AND the structure described impossible that only a complete idiot would take them seriously. The "oh Jessie was just drunk" makes no sense whatsoever, there was no way the events unfolded the way they were described. The physical evidence CONTRADICTS the basic structure Jessie described

    June 3rd: Not only are none of the details right Ridge and Mitchell aren't even subtle in their manipulations and coercions. More damningly they have to get a clarification statement.....but they conveniently manage not to record it. They also quite possibly threaten Jessie with a baseball bat during this time

    August: Again, this is why you're so desperate to pretend Jessie wasn't handicapped; handicapped kids say what they THINK authority wants them to say and often has to be told the same thing multiple times to get the hint. Notably Dan Stidham said that the thing that first made him doubt (or one of them) was the fact that Jessie consistently denied the crime to his father even as he said what the attorneys wanted. Notably after September he finally gets the hint and stops talking.

    December: AND still got a lot of details wrong and could easily have gained it from the local paper/rumor mill. Even the whiskey bottle doesn't mean **** since a.) there were four brands with the same head and b.) the head was all that was found. In all the years since there have been no fingerprints so at this point it's a red herring designed to fool sheep like you.

    Police Car: First off the only word we have for what exactly he said were the cops, and given that Arkansas has a corrupt good ol boys network the cops could be lying. Even without that, it's a horrific crime; I can easily see the prosecutors asking the officers if they can use this to try and persuade Jessie that it would be in his best interests to confess."

    February 8th: Honestly that confession is the point where I have to wonder if all nons have brain damage; first of all the basic structure is still impossible. Secondly, they could have easily threatened him or tried to bribe him. I.E "you can see daddy and susie again if you cooperate. You might get a lesser sentence if you testify." The cops themselves admitted they needed Jessie's testimony so if you REALLY think they didn't offer anything off the books you're an idiot. Also Jessie ultimately decides NOT to give a statement after Dan talks to him, but you never see the nons discuss THAT.

    February 17th: And the confession is not only riddled with holes but impossible as well. The changes that Jessie makes don't fit the "oh I just wanted to confuse people" or the "embellishment" excuse. Also they had 2 hours on the car ride to threaten him or try to turn him against his lawyer.

    Feb 21st: And ultimately this too means nothing. He was starting to have doubts about the prosecution's sincerity at this point.
    because the holes are so massive that they can't hold up and even the structure fails to hold up (there was no rape or sexual abuse to the victims, Michael's body was a different location.) Also the "Iq" argument fails to account for a.) the fact that there are TWO branches to the iq test and b.) not only was the section jessie got an 88 in street smarts but the other section (which would have covered being coerced) DID see him have a low score consistently. As said before he wouldn't have been in a special eds class unless he was handicapped. That ridge felt the need to ask him if he knew what a penis was also points to the fact that he was handicapped.

    2.) Cleaning up a messy crime scene at night in the dark WHILE YOUR DRUNK ON ALCOHOL is something even the greatest criminal mastermind would be hard pressed to do so no the "oh he was just on whiskey" is a complete load of horseshit. You yourself insulted handicapped people earlier in this thread so you lost the high ground then and more importantly you dodged that there wasn't enough blood (Jessie

    3.) And like a coward you dodge the fact that Arkansas usually doesn't put kids in special eds classes in order to save money so if Jessie was in one it was because he had such disabilities that scaffolding couldn't have helped him. Add in that Ridge asked him "what is a penis?" and you'd have to be a complete idiot to conclude that he didn't have some disabilities.

    4.) Don't be cute. If they had taken the hearings it would have taken a few years before they got out (most likely because the state would drag things out to an absurd degree (in the Clarence Brandley case it was painfully obvious that James Robinson and Gary Acremen were the ones who raped and strangled the teenage girl; it took TWO years for the conservative judges recommendation to be followed and even then many of the judges lied and omitted things like the police intimidation of witnesses or the nature of evidence implicating Robinson and Acremen as the killers; in the Madison Hobley case the cops KNOWINGLY protected the guy who actually burned 7 people alive because they wanted to protect their own reputation and felt "meh those guys were just ****ers they don't matter".))

    I'm sorry but after 17 years of ******** and the likelihood of at least 2 more....I'd chose the easy way out. It's easy to say "I'd never take a deal"....but when you already are in jail and can look forwards to much more foot dragging on the part of the state you'd probably think differently.


    More importantly law enforcement can be downright sociopathic at times.

    You also ignore that to some degree their hands are tied by the fact that the state are the only ones who can directly interview certain people. The media has lost interest as well

    5.) By that logic the guys who RUN the site don't get it since for the most part THEY are supporters too.

  6. #411
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    1.) Yes I can because the holes are so ****ing massive AND the structure described impossible that only a complete idiot would take them seriously. The "oh Jessie was just drunk" makes no sense whatsoever, there was no way the events unfolded the way they were described. The physical evidence CONTRADICTS the basic structure Jessie described

    June 3rd: Not only are none of the details right Ridge and Mitchell aren't even subtle in their manipulations and coercions. More damningly they have to get a clarification statement.....but they conveniently manage not to record it. They also quite possibly threaten Jessie with a baseball bat during this time

    August: Again, this is why you're so desperate to pretend Jessie wasn't handicapped; handicapped kids say what they THINK authority wants them to say and often has to be told the same thing multiple times to get the hint. Notably Dan Stidham said that the thing that first made him doubt (or one of them) was the fact that Jessie consistently denied the crime to his father even as he said what the attorneys wanted. Notably after September he finally gets the hint and stops talking.

    December: AND still got a lot of details wrong and could easily have gained it from the local paper/rumor mill. Even the whiskey bottle doesn't mean **** since a.) there were four brands with the same head and b.) the head was all that was found. In all the years since there have been no fingerprints so at this point it's a red herring designed to fool sheep like you.

    Police Car: First off the only word we have for what exactly he said were the cops, and given that Arkansas has a corrupt good ol boys network the cops could be lying. Even without that, it's a horrific crime; I can easily see the prosecutors asking the officers if they can use this to try and persuade Jessie that it would be in his best interests to confess."

    February 8th: Honestly that confession is the point where I have to wonder if all nons have brain damage; first of all the basic structure is still impossible. Secondly, they could have easily threatened him or tried to bribe him. I.E "you can see daddy and susie again if you cooperate. You might get a lesser sentence if you testify." The cops themselves admitted they needed Jessie's testimony so if you REALLY think they didn't offer anything off the books you're an idiot. Also Jessie ultimately decides NOT to give a statement after Dan talks to him, but you never see the nons discuss THAT.

    February 17th: And the confession is not only riddled with holes but impossible as well. The changes that Jessie makes don't fit the "oh I just wanted to confuse people" or the "embellishment" excuse. Also they had 2 hours on the car ride to threaten him or try to turn him against his lawyer.

    Feb 21st: And ultimately this too means nothing. He was starting to have doubts about the prosecution's sincerity at this point.
    because the holes are so massive that they can't hold up and even the structure fails to hold up (there was no rape or sexual abuse to the victims, Michael's body was a different location.) Also the "Iq" argument fails to account for a.) the fact that there are TWO branches to the iq test and b.) not only was the section jessie got an 88 in street smarts but the other section (which would have covered being coerced) DID see him have a low score consistently. As said before he wouldn't have been in a special eds class unless he was handicapped. That ridge felt the need to ask him if he knew what a penis was also points to the fact that he was handicapped.

    2.) Cleaning up a messy crime scene at night in the dark WHILE YOUR DRUNK ON ALCOHOL is something even the greatest criminal mastermind would be hard pressed to do so no the "oh he was just on whiskey" is a complete load of horseshit. You yourself insulted handicapped people earlier in this thread so you lost the high ground then and more importantly you dodged that there wasn't enough blood (Jessie

    3.) And like a coward you dodge the fact that Arkansas usually doesn't put kids in special eds classes in order to save money so if Jessie was in one it was because he had such disabilities that scaffolding couldn't have helped him. Add in that Ridge asked him "what is a penis?" and you'd have to be a complete idiot to conclude that he didn't have some disabilities.

    4.) Don't be cute. If they had taken the hearings it would have taken a few years before they got out (most likely because the state would drag things out to an absurd degree (in the Clarence Brandley case it was painfully obvious that James Robinson and Gary Acremen were the ones who raped and strangled the teenage girl; it took TWO years for the conservative judges recommendation to be followed and even then many of the judges lied and omitted things like the police intimidation of witnesses or the nature of evidence implicating Robinson and Acremen as the killers; in the Madison Hobley case the cops KNOWINGLY protected the guy who actually burned 7 people alive because they wanted to protect their own reputation and felt "meh those guys were just ****ers they don't matter".))

    I'm sorry but after 17 years of ******** and the likelihood of at least 2 more....I'd chose the easy way out. It's easy to say "I'd never take a deal"....but when you already are in jail and can look forwards to much more foot dragging on the part of the state you'd probably think differently.


    More importantly law enforcement can be downright sociopathic at times.

    You also ignore that to some degree their hands are tied by the fact that the state are the only ones who can directly interview certain people. The media has lost interest as well

    5.) By that logic the guys who RUN the site don't get it since for the most part THEY are supporters too.
    Not even worth breaking this down. You use speculation and your opinion as proof/facts, which they simply are not. You present yourself as some sort of insider, with intimate knowledge of what people think, and state your thoughts, which are based on emotion, as hard data, which they are not. Your personal attacks are also based on emotion and further erode your credibility.

  7. #412
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by dogmatica View Post
    Not even worth breaking this down. You use speculation and your opinion as proof/facts, which they simply are not. You present yourself as some sort of insider, with intimate knowledge of what people think, and state your thoughts, which are based on emotion, as hard data, which they are not. Your personal attacks are also based on emotion and further erode your credibility.
    Exactly, it's absolutely pointless in engaging with people like him at this point. Just save your energy.

  8. #413
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    154
    Moving on; I think a lot of the people who hate the film are law and order types. They worship the cops and see them as good and noble. As such they get rather upset if you point out that they aren't always so honest. Even if the police in question have a history they get upset

    Here are some of the many cases where people get furious if you call out misconduct

    a.) Kevin Cooper: The SBSD has a long history of racism, evidence was found under dubious circumstances, it was checked out by a guy caught lying and even after the judge rigged testing against the defense she had to lie about key details. The survivor's testimony was also influenced by the tv (he kept describing bushy hair even though the only time cooper ever had bushy hair was when he was doing the perp walk a month later.) When records proved that the state had withheld evidence proving that there was a second bloodstained shirt (which torpedoed their "one attacker" theory) the judge accepted an explanation that was clearly complete horseshit.

    2.) Eddie Elmore: The neighbor who found the body acts suspiciously, another examination proves she died when Elmore had an alibi and even though the pubic hairs on the bed are the key piece of evidence there are no photos taken of the bed (and the hairs only appear after 60 pubic hairs are taken from Elmore himself.) A three judge panel for the conservative 4th circuit rules that Elmore was framed by the police, with the sole dissenter ranting about how the judges are "slandering" the neighbor (who in all likelihood beat and raped his neighbor to death).

    3.) Madison Hobley: The defense proves that the state's star witness was an arsonist himself, and that the police commander directly intervened to keep him out of trouble which raises the possibility that the commander knowingly protected a man who burned 7 people alive. The same judge who denies Hobley's appeal concedes that he probably did this to secure testimony (which is in itself enough to render the witness's words worthless) and the state is proven to have destroyed the actual murder weapon. 5 members flat out state they would NEVER have voted to convict had they known the star witness was an arsonist. It still takes the Governor intervening for Hobley to go free; when Hobley's lawsuit results in Commander Burge finally going to jail for torturing people for decades people slander him and target him for abuse.

    Clarence Brandley: Blood on the victim's shirt is same as two white janitors, one of whom is the state's star witness. A witness identifies James Robinson (the new prime suspect) as the man she saw running from the school all those years ago, and Robinson and Acremen not only have a history of sexual violence against women but in Robinson's case had access to keys to the main building. The lead investigator admits he made up his mind immediately and says "since you're the ****er you're elected." Bradley's first execution date is set because the judge is racist and thinks it's a good birthday gift for his clerk, and even when a conservative judge rules that Brandley got railroaded it takes 3 years to clear him.

    The people who defend the convictions are just like the people defending all the other convictions that are dubious/false. They get angry if you condemn law enforcement; they ridicule the idea that police would conspire to frame people. They snort when you accuse judges and prosecutors of bias. They reject anything the defense says out of hand while believing the most absurd nonsense from the state.

  9. #414
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by LordYAM View Post
    Moving on; I think a lot of the people who hate the film are law and order types. They worship the cops and see them as good and noble. As such they get rather upset if you point out that they aren't always so honest. Even if the police in question have a history they get upset

    Here are some of the many cases where people get furious if you call out misconduct

    a.) Kevin Cooper: The SBSD has a long history of racism, evidence was found under dubious circumstances, it was checked out by a guy caught lying and even after the judge rigged testing against the defense she had to lie about key details. The survivor's testimony was also influenced by the tv (he kept describing bushy hair even though the only time cooper ever had bushy hair was when he was doing the perp walk a month later.) When records proved that the state had withheld evidence proving that there was a second bloodstained shirt (which torpedoed their "one attacker" theory) the judge accepted an explanation that was clearly complete horseshit.

    2.) Eddie Elmore: The neighbor who found the body acts suspiciously, another examination proves she died when Elmore had an alibi and even though the pubic hairs on the bed are the key piece of evidence there are no photos taken of the bed (and the hairs only appear after 60 pubic hairs are taken from Elmore himself.) A three judge panel for the conservative 4th circuit rules that Elmore was framed by the police, with the sole dissenter ranting about how the judges are "slandering" the neighbor (who in all likelihood beat and raped his neighbor to death).

    3.) Madison Hobley: The defense proves that the state's star witness was an arsonist himself, and that the police commander directly intervened to keep him out of trouble which raises the possibility that the commander knowingly protected a man who burned 7 people alive. The same judge who denies Hobley's appeal concedes that he probably did this to secure testimony (which is in itself enough to render the witness's words worthless) and the state is proven to have destroyed the actual murder weapon. 5 members flat out state they would NEVER have voted to convict had they known the star witness was an arsonist. It still takes the Governor intervening for Hobley to go free; when Hobley's lawsuit results in Commander Burge finally going to jail for torturing people for decades people slander him and target him for abuse.

    Clarence Brandley: Blood on the victim's shirt is same as two white janitors, one of whom is the state's star witness. A witness identifies James Robinson (the new prime suspect) as the man she saw running from the school all those years ago, and Robinson and Acremen not only have a history of sexual violence against women but in Robinson's case had access to keys to the main building. The lead investigator admits he made up his mind immediately and says "since you're the ****er you're elected." Bradley's first execution date is set because the judge is racist and thinks it's a good birthday gift for his clerk, and even when a conservative judge rules that Brandley got railroaded it takes 3 years to clear him.

    The people who defend the convictions are just like the people defending all the other convictions that are dubious/false. They get angry if you condemn law enforcement; they ridicule the idea that police would conspire to frame people. They snort when you accuse judges and prosecutors of bias. They reject anything the defense says out of hand while believing the most absurd nonsense from the state.
    No, the people who hate the film are people who are able to make the distinction between fact, and a Hollywood film that intentionally left out incredibly incriminating evidence that shows just how guilty the WM3 are. The people who hate the film are capable of critical thinking, and are able to see the difference between facts and fiction. We realize that not everything we see on the teevee is true. We're able to do our own resreach and objectively look at the facts and come to a conclusion based on said facts.

    "Law and order" types? In so far as we believe in law and order...well, yeah. The Law states that child murder is illegal, and the "order" is disrupted when people break that law. So, you've got us nailed there, I guess.

  10. #415
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    154
    Dogmatica, I've noticed something. You seem to be an apologist for law and order types. You don't like accusations of police being dirty

    Hell I'll go one thing further; you're stupid. Jessie's confessions hold no weight and get so much wrong it's not funny. It's entirely possible to confess to his lawyers because he STOPPED after a while and even when he started up it was only when they kept him away from them and pounded the "they can't help you" meme into his head.

    Quite frankly most people believe their innocence; there's a reason the town of west memphis believes it. There's a reason Moriarty and other journalists do and why Gary Meece is an exception. There's a reason most of the people who think them guilty are the same crackpots who believe in ritual murder.

    It's because there's no case. The state would have been crushed if they'd gone to trial, and if they knew the state wouldn't drag it out the boys would have CHEERFULLY accepted a new trial. They wouldn't get a new trial quickly so they compromised their dignity. The state accepted because they were desperate.


  11. #416
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by dogmatica View Post
    No, the people who hate the film are people who are able to make the distinction between fact, and a Hollywood film that intentionally left out incredibly incriminating evidence that shows just how guilty the WM3 are. The people who hate the film are capable of critical thinking, and are able to see the difference between facts and fiction. We realize that not everything we see on the teevee is true. We're able to do our own resreach and objectively look at the facts and come to a conclusion based on said facts.

    "Law and order" types? In so far as we believe in law and order...well, yeah. The Law states that child murder is illegal, and the "order" is disrupted when people break that law. So, you've got us nailed there, I guess.
    Oh you're adorable. The film left out far less then most and even when they were exaggerated they PALED compared to the whoppers the state and prosecution told (Davis claims Crow signed off on them talking to Jessie when Crow denies this, Jessie allegedly raping the victims even though there was no physical evidence to support this, the claim the victims were cut the way he described even though there was nowhere near the amount of blood, RITUAL MURDER.) They rely on discredited evidence and ignore that Jessie's "Confessions" are so ****ing stupid that you'd have to be a complete idiot to take them seriously (such as making up a rape that never happened or describing a beating that was physically inconsistent or failing to describe even basic locations or making up mass amounts of blood flying when the only blood found was consistent with bodies being lain there or saying the boys were castrated when the skill required would be far beyond a drunken teenager or saying or saying that they were drowned when lividity disagreed).
    The people who hate the film are the idiots who disdain critical thinking and fail to realize that multiple confessions mean jack **** if the confessions fail to contain basic info (such as making up a rape that never happened or describing a beating that was physically inconsistent or failing to describe even basic locations or making up mass amounts of blood flying when the only blood found was consistent with bodies being lain there or saying the boys were castrated when the skill required would be far beyond a drunken teenager or saying).

    They despise nuance, omitting details that contradict their beliefs (i.e. the fact that the iq test was divided into two sections and that in one section Jessie WAS consistently low, the fact that he would only be in a special ed class if he was actually handicapped, the fact that if he was scared the prosecution would be VERY able to manipulate him into confessing even if his lawyers advised him not to, or the fact that Dan DID get Jessie to stop for the most part, the fact that Jerry Driver WAS the source for a lot of Damian's mental health records and that details were proven false.) They LOATH Critical thinking, and parrot the same tired crap over and over. They believe that the tv is true when it claims cops would never do that and that things are black and white and they can't do research, angrily going apeshit when you point out holes in their story.

    You disdain true law and true order. True law is when the police and prosecutors go to jail for railroading people, and where the judge isn't a corrupt hillbilly. True order is when the police do their ****ing jobs and don't rely on a horseshit ritual murder theory and a whore of an expert.

    I'll say it again. You aren't honoring Stevie Christopher and Michael. You're shitting on their graves.

Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 18 26 27 28


Similar Threads

  1. The West Memphis Less-Than-Three?
    By Ausgirl in forum West Memphis III
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 12-10-2013, 11:03 AM
  2. West of Memphis
    By Compassionate Reader in forum West Memphis III
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-08-2012, 08:17 PM
  3. West Memphis 3
    By VespaElf in forum West Memphis III
    Replies: 240
    Last Post: 08-02-2007, 03:39 PM

Tags for this Thread