The Victims: Michael Moore, 8; Christopher Byers 8; Steven Branch, 8

[emmaline]

If they think this is you being insulting, I hope they don't ever stray away from this board :innocent:

 

[emmaline]

HAHAHAHAHA you guys didn't seriously delete that did you?

 

[Tricia]

If they think this is you being insulting, I hope they don't ever stray away from this board :innocent:

Emmaline,

There is a reason why Websleuths is so popular. We do not allow insults. Period. Also, we do not allow people to stray off topic.

Your post quoted is off topic. Has nothing to do with the WM3.

If you want to stay and have your side be heard then follow the rules. Maybe then you will understand why Websleuths is so popular.

It's about mature discussion.

So please venture to the other boards and enjoy the insults, vulgar language, and all around unpleasentness.

If anyone chooses to argue then you will be banned.

This has NOTHING to do with what management thinks about who is not guilty or guilty. We leave that up to the posters to discuss.

However, if you are trying to get a point across and are doing so by violating our terms of service then guess what? Your point will not get across. That is your fault.

This is the last time I will address a handful of posters on this thread. You know who you are. YOU are the ones making it so your point of view can't be heard. Not me. Stay on topic and follow the rules.

Tricia

 

[Tricia]

HAHAHAHAHA you guys didn't seriously delete that did you?

OK, this is what we do not allow and it is obvious Emmaline is here to disrupt and not discuss. Hence the ban.

I will stress again. I do not care whose "side" you are on. Just stay within our rules and you can discuss all you want.

Look we have almost 30 thousand members, over 5 million posts. I think that shows we are doing something right.

The main thing I want our members to know is we are here to make sure your posting experience is mature and pleasant. We will not allow a handful of posters to disrupt.

So stop screaming about your first amendment rights. I don't pay the bills so you can say whatever insulting and juvenile thing you want.

It's not about YOU and how YOU think YOU are being mistreated.

It is about giving everyone a chance to say what they want to without worry of trolls harassing them or disrupting the forum.

 

[aThousandYearsWide]

While looking at another case, I almost wonder if the WM3 case was a copycat killer to the 1955 murder case of 3 boys also found naked (minus being tied); John Schuessler, 13, his brother, Anton, 11, and a friend, Robert Peterson, 14.

Sent from my LG-M153 using Tapatalk

 

[dogmatica]

While looking at another case, I almost wonder if the WM3 case was a copycat killer to the 1955 murder case of 3 boys also found naked (minus being tied); John Schuessler, 13, his brother, Anton, 11, and a friend, Robert Peterson, 14.

Sent from my LG-M153 using Tapatalk

Maybe, but Echols would never admit that...he'd want everyone to think his murders were totally original.

 

[LordYAM]

It's just another diversion.

Supporters can't address the evidence against the convicts in any honest manner, so they try and direct the discussion away from them.

It failed in the courtroom, and it still fails today.

No they could. The state accepted the alford plea because they knew they'd loose badly

 

[LordYAM]

Maybe, but Echols would never admit that...he'd want everyone to think his murders were totally original.

This from the man who ignores that Jessie's confessions were a load of unadulterated horseshit. Jessie repeatedly described injruies that never happened, a location that is inconsistent and a weapon that didn't match. Even in a state that scorned putting kids in special ed classes Jessie was put in one, and the iq test that featured manipulation he consistently scored low for years. The department was a corrupt good ol boys network and would have no qualms manipulating his fears to con him into thinking his lawyers couldn't help.

At this point guilters aren't honoring the victims. They're *advertiser censored* on their graves.

 

[LordYAM]

The ASSC has already ruled on this:

http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2005a/20050120/cr94-928.html
[SIZE=+1]At the outset, it should be noted that the basis for Echols's claim - i.e., that the jury considered improper and extraneous information in its consideration of his guilt - does not fall within any of the four categories of errors for which error coram nobis constitutesappropriate relief. Although Echols maintains that his claims regarding jury-deliberation irregularities and impermissible jury bias should fall within the ambit of error coram nobis, this court has specifically declined to extend the writ to remedy a case involving allegedly misleading responses by a juror during voir dire. See Davis v. State, 325 Ark. 96, 925 S.W.2d 768 (1996). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]It has been more than ten years since Echols's conviction. This fact clearly demonstrates that Echols did not exercise due diligence in bringing his claims to light - especially in view of the fact that the point on which he relies (the jury's alleged consideration of Misskelley's confession) was known to the court, the prosecutor, and to Echols's defense team at the time of trial. In his memorandum brief, he points out that, during trial, the trial court denied his motion for mistrial when one of the police witnesses inadvertently mentioned Misskelley's statement. At that time, the court stated, "I suggest . . . that there isn't a soul up on that jury or in this courtroom that doesn't know Mr. Misskelley gave a statement." Thus, Echols should have been aware from the time of his trial and conviction of the possibility that the jury might have been aware of and considered this extraneous information.3 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]For these two reasons - coram nobis is not applicable to address and correct the errors that allegedly occurred here, and Echols failed to exercise due diligence in raisingthese claims - we decline to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider Echols's petition for writ of error coram nobis.4 [/SIZE]

That's horseshit. The claim was never supposed to be used at trial so the jurors should have disregarded it completely.

 

[aThousandYearsWide]

This from the man who ignores that Jessie's confessions were a load of unadulterated horseshit. Jessie repeatedly described injruies that never happened, a location that is inconsistent and a weapon that didn't match. Even in a state that scorned putting kids in special ed classes Jessie was put in one, and the iq test that featured manipulation he consistently scored low for years. The department was a corrupt good ol boys network and would have no qualms manipulating his fears to con him into thinking his lawyers couldn't help.

At this point guilters aren't honoring the victims. They're *advertiser censored* on their graves.

I agree about Jessie's confession. I feel the conviction, no matter even if it was the right perps or not, eased the minds of the residents that the murder(s) that could commit this terrible crime were no longer out on the streets (even if it was only in their minds). I think putting all their focus on the three teens hindered the investigation since they stopped looking at others early on and thus lost potential evidence, witnesses, etc.

Sent from my LG-M153 using Tapatalk

 

[LordYAM]

The thing about Jessie is that he WAS handicapped. He was in a special eds class even though Arkansas usually avoids doing that to save money; combined with the fact that on one section he got a low score for years and the kid DEFINITELY had handicaps. He was NOT just "a dumbass" as nons eloquently put it.

The thing that really swung me is that Jessie got injuries wrong. One thing nons don't really like to discuss is that Peretti had a phone call with Robin Wadley (one of Jessie's lesser known attorneys). During the call Wadley asked if the anal dilation was a sign of raping. Peretti said no it wasn't. During the TRIAL he said "well it could be." He said one thing in private and another in public. That means Peretti was being dishonest (or at the very least wanted to avoid stepping on the prosecution's toes and that the boys were NOT raped). He also described pounding Michael's face in when the injuries don't match that (it would have been far more damaged.) Luminol only found small amounts of blood consistent with bodies laid down. Also, even when people thought the wounds were knives it would have required precision that drunken teenagers wouldn't have. He described drowning when lividity doesn't match.

If the three are guilty it sure as **** didn't happen in any of the ways Jessie said.

Another thing that bothers me is that Byers was interviewed. That means that the cops DID consider the family angle. Yet Terry was never questioned until 2007 and that was only because his dna was found in the laces used to bind the victims. Any honest investigator would have questioned Terry back in the day and their refusal is proof that the wmpd were incompetent morons.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

While looking at another case, I almost wonder if the WM3 case was a copycat killer to the 1955 murder case of 3 boys also found naked (minus being tied); John Schuessler, 13, his brother, Anton, 11, and a friend, Robert Peterson, 14.

Interesting that you mention this case. I looked into this case a couple of years back to see if there were any similarities other than the obvious. I wouldn't think it was a copycat murder in a direct sense, but the perp /s might have had knowledge of this case through the media and it could have been in the back of his / their minds. I'll stick my notes in, in case you're interested.

I’ve been looking into the 1955 Chicago murder of three boys, the details are eerie put up against this case. Here a few things that ring bells.

Three boys, John Schuessler 13, his Brother Anton Jr. 11, and their friend Robert Peterson 13.

Quotes from http://www.prairieghosts.com/spmurders.html

Two days later, the boy’s naked and bound bodies were discovered in a shallow ditch about 100 feet east of the Des Plaines River. A salesman, who had stopped to eat his lunch at the Robinson Wood’s Indian Burial Grounds spotted them and called the police.

Bobby Peterson had been struck repeatedly and had been strangled with a rope or a necktie. The killer had used adhesive tape to cover the eyes of all three victims. They had then been thrown from a vehicle. Their clothing was never discovered.

Police officers combed the area, conducting door-to-door searches and neighborhood interrogations. Search teams combed Robinson’s Woods, looking for clues or items of clothing. The killer (or killers) had gone to great length to get rid of any signs of fingerprints or traces of evidence. By this time, various city and suburban police departments had descended on the scene, running into each other and further hampering the search for clues. There was little or no cooperation between the separate agencies and if anything had been discovered, it would have most likely been lost in the confusion.

39 years later in 1995 a self-confessed gay-paedophile Kenneth Hansen was convicted.

In a retrial in 2002, Hansen was convicted for a second time.

2004 the conviction was upheld. (Kenneth Hansen died 2007).

Hansen claimed his innocence until death.

After the arrest of Hansen in 1994, Joyce Saxon and her daughter claimed it was their ex-husband/Father Jack Reiling (died 1980) who carried out the murders. Joyce Saxon divorced Jack Reiling in 1957, after he had confesssed to the murders. She stated he was a violent man. This link goes into their story.


http://www.xlibrispublishing.co.uk/..._Book-to-Screen/The_House_That_Jack_Built.pdf

Book:
Shattered Sense of Innocence: The 1955 Murders of Three Chicago Children (Elmer H. Johnson and Carol Holmes Johnson Series in Criminology)

 

[Crime Retracer]

TIMELINE: here are the last known movements of the 3 little boys. It goes hand in hand with the reinvestigation currently underway by Truth & Justice with Bob Ruff . https://youtu.be/DMrdqVsRcsg