My view has done a complete 180

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by gryncher, Dec 26, 2010.

  1. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I watched the docs years ago and was completely engrossed. I was sure John Mark Byers was the killer.

    The other day I found a site that is different than all of the other sites - they were professing the guilt of the WM3.

    In this forum were tons of links to the actual court docs, testimony, etc. Damien's mental health records, the "500" doc, the great dane stuff, the THREE confessions - 2 post conviction from Misskelley (I read and listened). I re-watched the docs.

    Baldwin's jailhouse confession and the fact that the witness still to this day insists it was true...there's much more.

    It's overwhelmingly obvious to me that they are guilty.

    I related to Damien as a black wearing, Metallica fanatic outcast - but he is much more than just that.

    Damien's incriminating statements at trial - the writings with Damien's, his son's, Baldwins and Crowley's names (only) on it - and the fact that Crowley strongly professed: "It would be unwise to condemn as irrational the practice of devouring the heart and liver of an adversary while yet warm. For the highest spiritual working one must choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force; a male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory."

    Echols clearly had a deep respect and belief in this guy.

    Misskelley was calm and collected in all 3 of his confessions - the only thing that really changed was that his involvement seemed to grow with each confession (he was already convicted, so no point downplaying it any more). Nobody, not even a completely retarded person, would confess to a brutal crime they did not commit THREE times.

    I see absolutely nothing, not one thing in all of the evidence that would convince me they are innocent.

    If they are, it's a massive, MASSIVE conspiracy that countless people are in on.

    Not a chance.

    The right men are in prison.

    It's hip to jump on the "free the WM3" bandwagon - it gives people a cause.

    The WM3 are guilty as convicted.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    gryncher,

    Have you seen the letter written to Jason in 1996 where the writer reports a conversation he had with Michael Carson in which Carson admitted he lied? Here's a link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/johnny_preston_letter.html

    What experience working with "retarded" people leads you to believe that someone of limited mental capacity would not try to extricate him/herself from a disagreeable situation by saying just what the authority figure confronting him/her wants to hear? I have 25 years of experience teaching students Jessie's age at the time of the crime, many of whom had IQ's like Jessie's and, based on my experience, I can tell you that people with below normal IQ's can and will say anything to "get out of" a fix. That's what Jessie was doing, IMO, based on what I know. The reason his involvement seemed to grow with each retelling was that he was saying what he thought the authorities wanted to hear.

    Now, let's discuss Damien. Nothing in Exhibit 500 proves that he committed these murders. It may indicate that he had severe psychological problems, but that in and of itself does not mean that he is a murderer. Damien, at the time of the murders, was an alienated teenager, and I've dealt with many of that type, too. He was of above average intelligence, but he was trapped in poverty. With no real outlet for his frustration, and possibly exacerbated by his psychological problems, he "acted out" by saying shocking things. This is very typical teenage behavior for someone like Damien. Was it right to say and do the things he said and did during his trial? Of course not! However, teenagers, no matter how intelligent, often say and do very foolish things.

    Now, let's discuss the murders. Any lawyer will tell you that to convict a murderer, you need three things: motive, opportunity and evidence of some kind. The three young men now in prison had none of these elements. The "Satanic ritual" motive has never been proved. The only person to testify about this as a motive was shown on cross-examination to possess a mail-order doctorate. He admitted on the stand that he never took one class to get his doctorate. Therefore, his "testimony" has no credibility. No other motive has been put forth in connection with the WM3 for these murders. As to opportunity, all three had alibis that accounted for their time. Unfortunately, much of the time they were with family members, and some people want to discount the alibis for this reason. However, if they were with family, then they were with family. There are a few other people that support Damien's alibi, but some of their statements were suppressed by Burnett at the trial. Due to poor counsel and/or misinformation from authorities, the phone records that would further support Damien's alibi were never requested from the phone company and are now probably lost forever. Jason and Jessie have likewise been alibied by family and friends. So, none of the three now in prison had the opportunity to commit these murders. As to evidence, the Misskelley "confessions" are not credible because the first one was most likely coerced and subsequent ones were his misguided attempt to make things better. More importantly, none of his statements agree with the evidence, even in 1993 and especially not now. The only physical evidence presented at trial was fiber evidence and a knife. The fibers, as attested to even by the prosecution's own witness, could have come from a multitude of sources. These fibers were not conclusively linked to the WM3, and the State (until recently) refused to have further, more sophisticated tests run that the defense requested and that might shed more light on the fibers. The knife was never linked to the crime. Fogleman tried to use a grapefruit to show how the wounds on Christopher could have been made by the knife, but no evidence was ever introduced from the knife that proves that it was used in these crimes. Since 1994, noted forensic experts have studied autopsy photos and reports and concluded that all of the woulds originally attributed to the knife were the result of post-mortem animal predation, including the degloving (not castration) of Chris Byers. So, for the WM3, we have no motive, no opportunity and no evidence.

    You stated that you saw nothing in the trial documents to convince you that the WM3 are innocent. That's not how it works. The WM3 are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is nothing in those trial documents that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WM3 are guilty. They were convicted because they were poor and because the town needed to find the killers. If you don't believe that a "massive MASSIVE" conspiracy is possible, then you don't know much about small towns. This case has often been compared, with justification, to the Salem Witch Trials. The small-town mentality is evident in both. Hopefully, when the evidentiary hearings are held, you will thoughtfully examine the new evidence that will be presented and realize that your original feelings were correct. The WM3 are innocent.
     
  4. iluvmua

    iluvmua New Member

    Messages:
    6,985
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I too though they were innocent when I watched both Paradise Lost 1 & 2 two years ago.

    Then I researched the case for myself starting with the Callahan site and then over to a non supporter site, the people there know their stuff when it comes to the case.

    I don't think people would be trying to conspire to keep 3 innocent people behind bars if in fact they are truly innocent.

    People say they are guilty because in fact they are guilty.

    Blood on a pendant that belonged to Damien had Jason & Stevie's Blood Type on it.

    They were not convicted because they wore black, listened to heavy metal, read vampire novels, poor, etc.

    Dana Moore said that there was evidence that people did not get to see.
     
  5. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Damien Echols has also said that there is additional evidence that will come out at the evidentiary hearing. There are only a handful of blood types in the world. Blood types can only prove innocence, not guilt. DNA is stronger than blood types, and there was DNA found with the bodies which doesn't match any of the three in prison.
     
  6. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'd like to think that, too, that most people wouldn't stand by while innocent people were imprisoned and executed. And most people probably wouldn't.

    But what does happen is that opinions harden and officials have trouble admitting they made mistakes.
     
  7. ziggy

    ziggy New Member

    Messages:
    4,750
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Respectfully snipped:
    Sadly, you may mistake this type of group think that can and does happen for conspiracy. I don't believe all are conspiring, but I've known enough people on the edge of reality, who can honestly believe something that is NOT true for justification of their actions in their own heads, and that's what I see happening in this case. Warren Commission - probably the same thing. You tell yourself the lie enough times, because you want it to be true so that you are justified, and in time it becomes YOUR truth, but not necessarily THE truth.
     
  8. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've read all the pro material and once was. I had never bothered to read the actual transcripts and facts. Then watching the docs again, I remember beinf creeped out by Damien and amazed at some of the things he said - but I put that aside. I see him differently now.

    What do the pro WM3's have to say about Damien's failed lie detector test and the passing of Michael Carson's? They blow it off as not being credible.

    However, if Damien had passed and Carson failed, they'd be singing it from the rooftops.

    The facts speak for themselves.
     
  9. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have read all of that. I have compared all of that with the court docs, added common sense and come to the conclusion that the right men are in prison.
     
  10. iluvmua

    iluvmua New Member

    Messages:
    6,985
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is that New Evidence or DNA that did not link them to anything?

    I assume this is evidence that nobody know about yet.

    I admit, I am curious about what this new evidence is, if in fact there is any.
     
  11. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know exactly what the new evidence is, but I'm very curious as to what it will show, too. I was referring to the fact that no biological evidence has been found and tested to date (that we know of) that links anyone execpt TH and DJ to the discovery site. There is some biological material (one allele) that to date has not been publicly identified. I don't know, but I hope that the donor of that allele will be revealed at the hearing. During Gitchell's deposition in the Pasdar case, he refused to call anything new evidence, saying that a lot of the things tested were just tested with newer methods that now can reveal more than could be revealed in 1994. That is true. However, I believe that, among the new evidence, are things that have come to light since the original trial like the Warford affidavit and the deposition of two of the softball girls' mother, Deborah something, Medford I think. Those statements would qualify as new evidence. I'm betting that there's more that hasn't been made public. We just have to wait and see, unfortunately. However, it's totally understandable why the defense (or the prosecution, for that matter) doesn't show its hand to the public.
     
  12. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I say there's a reason lie detector tests aren't admitted in court.

    In fact, I think they serve only one purpose: they often get suspects to confess when they are told they've failed a test. Unfortunately, such suspects aren't always guilty. Often, they haven't even failed the test. See Jessie Misskelley, for example.
     
  13. justthinkin

    justthinkin New Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most likely the "new evidence" will be blown all out of proportion just as TH and DJ's DNA was, in typical defense fashion, seeing as how the defense erroneously claimed it would release the WM3 from guilt. I would suspect those DNA tests were their best shot.
     
  14. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IIRC, in true WMPD fashion, the actual tracings of Damien's polygraph were lost so they cannot be examined by another polygraph technician. As to Michael Carson passing a polygraph, as someone else said, often the results of a polygraph support the position of the authority by whom it was given. I believe that proficient liars can pass polygraphs much easier than those who are unaccustomed to such procedures. It's all about remaining calm under pressure. As to Damien, if you were being falsely accused of murder, wouldn't you be nervous, too? As Nova said, lie detectors are not admitted into evidence for a reason - they are highly unreliable. JMB also passed a polygraph. TH refuses to take one. Jessie, as was said above, passed his except when asked about drug use, but was told that he failed, thus eliciting his false confession. So, I believe that doubting the credibility of a polygraph is a very justified position.
     
  15. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If I can find Damien's polygraph charts...

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/de_polygraph_charts.html


    .

    If you haven't already, you need to read the official court docs and transcripts at http://callahan.8k.com/.

    If you already have, you should read them again,
    The circumstantial and physical evidence, the polygraphs and the THREE confessions make this a no-brainer.

    GUILTY.

    They will not get out of prison.
     
  16. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suspect you are correct.

    What do they have to lose? They have money and celebrity behind them now. He's on death row - he will obviously try anything to get out.

    This conspiracy theory is ridiculous. LOOK AT THE FACTS PEOPLE.

    Damien was a sick, twisted individual with serious mental issues. He acknowledged that during his "manic" state of manic depression he felt "invincible".
     
  17. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A great post by Pat Brown:

    What the defense often does when trying to convince a jury or the media or supporters of their client's or clients' innocence is to downplay the totality of the evidence and overemphasize one bit of evidence or information they connect to another suspect. Or they mock a piece of prosecution evidence but they crow over a similar bit of evidence on the defense's side. For example, the knife found in the lake behind Jason Baldwin's house is called meaningless but the fact Hobb's ex-wife said he had his stepson's knife is proof positive that Hobbs was at the crime scene (because supposedly the boy never went anywhere without his knife). Fibers consistent with material at the WM3' homes is laughed at but Terry Hobb's hair at the scene is considered damning. Yet Terry Hobbs DID have contact with his stepson earlier in the day so a secondary transfer makes sense but if the WM2 didn't commit the crime, it is quite coincidental that a bunch of fibers microscopically similar to clothing from their homes ended up at the scene. Likewise, blood on Damien's necklace taken off his neck when he was arrested had a blood on it that matched the blood type of James and Steven. While it may be true that Damien went somewhere else and someone with that very same blood type bled on his necklace, it is more likely that the blood came from the victims' of the crime.

    Except for seriously conclusive nuclear DNA matching a suspect to a crime in a manner that leaves no question that he did the deed, most cases are built on trace evidence (like fibers) plus lack of alibis plus circumstantial evidence plus confessions plus behavioral evidence. In other words, it is the TOTALITY of the evidence that usually convinces a jury someone is guilty. Yet the defense and the supporters of the WM3 attempt to discredit each piece of evidence as a way of convincing others not to look at the amount of evidence that adds up to guilt. And, then, they trumpet one piece of circumstantial evidence or trace evidence as the smoking gun and try to label another individual guilty because of just that! All smoke and mirrors and a fairly common defense scenario.

    I will concede that prosecutors can put people in prison on crappy evidence; I worked one case where the man was convicted because his angry ex-wife claimed he once owned a gun (a .38) LIKE the one used in the crime and she even wrote the manufacturer's name on a piece of toilet paper which she subsequently lost. I profiled that crime and I do not believe the evidence supports the guilt of that man (and he was a piece of pondscum himself). I don't have any particular liking either Mr. Hobbs or Mr. Byers and I think both of them are perfectly capable of committing criminal acts, but, in this case, I just don't find the evidence supports their involvement.
    March 10, 2010 12:33 AM
     
  18. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The conspiracy theory is not ridiculous. Just look at the Lister case in LA, and that was a big city. In a small town, things are much easier to sweep under the carpet. I was raised in a small town. I remember a few years after I married and moved away that my mother told me about a police officer who was stopping women who were alone in their cars and raping them. He went unpunished and undetected until the political winds blew another police chief into power. That's when the whole sordid story came out. And I have read court transcripts about this case. I have read books and various information on the web, on both sides. I am not blinded by celebrity. I knew that these three young men were innocent long before "celebrity" became an issue in this case. I did not simply watch the documentaries and base my opinion on them, as some people do. I have read extensively, and I have been studying this case since 1996 when the documentaries came out. And the fiber evidence? Even the prosecution admitted it was weak when speaking to the parents/grandparents between the trials. They stated that they really needed Jessie's testimony to seal the deal. Obviously, because of a jury foreman who made it a personal crusade to introduce evidence into the deliberation that was excluded even by Burnett (which was said confession), the jury falsely convicted Echols and Baldwin. The knife? It has not been linked to the crime, and I've seen some people saying that the police knew it was in the lake before the crime was committed. If proven true, that's a neat trick. Since then, forensic experts have opined that none of the wounds on the bodies were caused by the "lake" knife, in fact were not caused by a knife at all but by animal predation. Anyone who refuses to look at newly acquired testimony and expert opinions is blind IMO. I have looked at both sides, and I have concluded that the three in prison did not commit this crime. As I've stated repeatedly before, there is no way that three long-haired teens, possibly drunk, could have committed this crime in the dark without leaving any physical evidence at the discovery site. I just wish that the true crime scene could have been found. However, the WMPD, once convinced by JD and VH (who has since recanted her testimony) of the "Satanic" connection, failed to continue the search of the sewer systems that was begun early on in the investigation. If that search had been continued, I am confident that the crime scene would have been discovered and more evidence could have been found. I am not a Damien "groupie," and insinuating such is just further evidence to me of the weak nature of the case against the three falsely-imprisoned men.
     
  19. gryncher

    gryncher Former Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We must be reading completely different trial transcripts, court docs and confessions.

    I'm reading the ACTUAL documents. There isn't one thing in all the documents that points to anything but the WM3's guilt.

    You discount all of the circumstantial and physical evidence, so I won't even go there.

    Please explain to me why Misskelley would confess THREE times - twice POST conviction? Whilst his attorneys begged him not to?

    Coercion doesn't fly for the second 2 confessions. And neither does the "he's almost retarded" spin.
     
  20. luvstm

    luvstm New Member

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What a lot of us so-called "pros" have seen, that a lot of you "nons" have not, are the post-mortem pics. The wounds on those poor, innocent children DO NOT fit with what is alleged to have happened in the woods. I am not 100 % convinced of innocence, but even a layman can EASILY tell that what was said to have went down, is not at all what went down..
     
  21. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader New Member

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I base my discounting of all three of Jessie's "confessions" on my 25 years of teaching experience, much of which involved working with mentally-challenged youth like Jessie was at the time of the crimes. Those with IQ's in the range of 70 - 80 will often try to talk their way out of a sticky situation. The fact that he "confessed" twice after his initial statement does not mean that either of those statements were correct. In fact, none of the three statements agrees with the evidence. He kept trying to get it "right" to "help" the police, but he didn't. Here's Dan Stidham's take on Jessie's confessions:

    http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=817.0

    If you don't want to read the whole thing, Part F is where he talks about Jessie.

    ETA: BTW, I read documents from Callahan's site, too, not just cherry-picked sections off of other websites.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice