WM3 are guilty- Evidence.
- Thread starter Rebdot
- Start date
That's the best approach, especially if you're just starting out on the case (which you may or may not be, but nonetheless).
If the mark was nearer to his ankle/lower leg, I would think you may be on to something, but it was all the up near his upper and inner thigh, so again, his whole leg would have had to be inserted within the rung. I don't really see how that's possible, without any other markings being present anywhere else on that same leg, be it via the wall (scrapings), other rungs that followed, etc.
If memory serves and for what it's worth, the WMPD did search at least some (if not all) of the manholes in the near vicinity. This may not mean much for those who believe the police were either in on covering up the crime or were utterly incompetent, but they did search them.
flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,781
I'm not sure where else to put this comment. I find it interesting when a case is mentioned in popular culture. I got hooked on the Netflix show "Riverdale" this weekend (it's formula and over dramatic but riveting and kind of a "guilty pleasure" type of show) and there's a scene where Jughead, having been wrongly accused of murder, tells Betty, "well those 'paradise lost' kids went to jail because they wore black and listened to Metallica."
Not really important, just something I noted and thought I'd share.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using Tapatalk
Not really important, just something I noted and thought I'd share.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using Tapatalk
Yes, that "documentary" certainly did a good job of fooling people.
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,131
- Reaction score
- 40,609
WM3
My apologies for I do not have evidence to ponder. Are they guilty? A jury of their peers agreed that answer is yes.
The setting and background of these horrible crimes remind me somewhat of the film Stand By Me. There are two groups in town. The bad guys figure out where the good guys will be so they can terrorize them, overpower them, rob them, and quite possibly kill each of them. The movie has a happier ending than the WM3.
It is a tristeful day to be pondering the pros and cons of the case of which I followed on the outskirts. The bad guys did some terribly, fatal things to children who were loved by their families. Satanic worship? Mythological Gods? Thor. Who knows? Blood smearing is a pathological behavior, no? I believe the evidence indicates it is true. The brutality of the crimes display acts of rage, disdain and completely disrespectful and evil crimes inflicted upon the innocent murdered children.
Interestingly, the presence of the FBI, within a 60-mile radius area of WM, since that time to now, has been continuous and steady. There were rumors of the MS River Bridge being bombed which required that Homeland Security be sent into the area. The gang and cartel problems stretch all along the corridor deep into MS and up to Chicago, NYC, Boston. With the cartel traffick in control, safe houses are established along the routes for gun running, drug dealing, sex trafficking, and immigrant smuggling operations for hefty profits.
There are two things that won't change their history.
My apologies for I do not have evidence to ponder. Are they guilty? A jury of their peers agreed that answer is yes.
The setting and background of these horrible crimes remind me somewhat of the film Stand By Me. There are two groups in town. The bad guys figure out where the good guys will be so they can terrorize them, overpower them, rob them, and quite possibly kill each of them. The movie has a happier ending than the WM3.
It is a tristeful day to be pondering the pros and cons of the case of which I followed on the outskirts. The bad guys did some terribly, fatal things to children who were loved by their families. Satanic worship? Mythological Gods? Thor. Who knows? Blood smearing is a pathological behavior, no? I believe the evidence indicates it is true. The brutality of the crimes display acts of rage, disdain and completely disrespectful and evil crimes inflicted upon the innocent murdered children.
Interestingly, the presence of the FBI, within a 60-mile radius area of WM, since that time to now, has been continuous and steady. There were rumors of the MS River Bridge being bombed which required that Homeland Security be sent into the area. The gang and cartel problems stretch all along the corridor deep into MS and up to Chicago, NYC, Boston. With the cartel traffick in control, safe houses are established along the routes for gun running, drug dealing, sex trafficking, and immigrant smuggling operations for hefty profits.
There are two things that won't change their history.
- Since the horrific deaths of the three dead 8yo children, the FBI and HS presence in that area is permanent and quite active.
- The heinous acts against the precious, innocent, three children are being lifted up, acknowledged by the LE presence, in order to prevent future incidents, or worse, from occurring. #ProtectingTheGift
That's the problem though. The jury didn't have all the facts and the defense were inept. Add that the prosecutors were craven liars and they were doomed.
Dogmatica is typical of the guilter mentality. He ignores that the state COULD have bullied Jessie into thinking his lawyers couldn't help him and that the only way to save himself (or see his loved ones) was to confess even if it weren't true.
He claims " Regardless, supporters simply can't have it both ways. If he was "mentally disabled" or "retarded" or whatever hyperbolic description supporters dishonestly throw out there - it makes zero sense that the "conspirators" would be able to get a false confession out of him, and then CONTINUE to get false confessions out of him post conviction, when they weren't present, over and over again, HAND ON BIBLE to his OWN attorney, the police on the way to prison, etc etc etc, but he couldn't be "coerced" to STOP giving confessions by his own lawyer.
That's absolutely ridiculous. So he's only able to be manipulated and coerced by people who want to put him in prison for the rest of his life, but not by people who are trying to save him? That's utterly laughable. And anyone who's honest and has even a modicum of logic can see that."
If anything "anyone who's honest and has a modicum of logic" can see that if Jessie was convinced his lawyers were unable to help him and that the only way he could see his loved ones again (and avoid death, which he WAS threatened with) was to confess than it would actually be VERY VERY MUCH SENSE for "the "conspirators" would be able to get a false confession out of him, and then CONTINUE to get false confessions out of him post conviction, when they weren't present, over and over again, HAND ON BIBLE to his OWN attorney, the police on the way to prison, etc etc etc, but he couldn't be "coerced" to STOP giving confessions by his own lawyer." All the prosecutors and cops had to do was convince him Dan and Greg couldn't help him and he'd be like putty.
Dogmatica is typical of the guilter mentality. He ignores that the state COULD have bullied Jessie into thinking his lawyers couldn't help him and that the only way to save himself (or see his loved ones) was to confess even if it weren't true.
He claims " Regardless, supporters simply can't have it both ways. If he was "mentally disabled" or "retarded" or whatever hyperbolic description supporters dishonestly throw out there - it makes zero sense that the "conspirators" would be able to get a false confession out of him, and then CONTINUE to get false confessions out of him post conviction, when they weren't present, over and over again, HAND ON BIBLE to his OWN attorney, the police on the way to prison, etc etc etc, but he couldn't be "coerced" to STOP giving confessions by his own lawyer.
That's absolutely ridiculous. So he's only able to be manipulated and coerced by people who want to put him in prison for the rest of his life, but not by people who are trying to save him? That's utterly laughable. And anyone who's honest and has even a modicum of logic can see that."
If anything "anyone who's honest and has a modicum of logic" can see that if Jessie was convinced his lawyers were unable to help him and that the only way he could see his loved ones again (and avoid death, which he WAS threatened with) was to confess than it would actually be VERY VERY MUCH SENSE for "the "conspirators" would be able to get a false confession out of him, and then CONTINUE to get false confessions out of him post conviction, when they weren't present, over and over again, HAND ON BIBLE to his OWN attorney, the police on the way to prison, etc etc etc, but he couldn't be "coerced" to STOP giving confessions by his own lawyer." All the prosecutors and cops had to do was convince him Dan and Greg couldn't help him and he'd be like putty.
Also Dan WAS Able to get Jessie to stop confessing after September 1993. Before the confessions were him trying to please police and authority (Which he saw dan as). Once he was convicted it was easy for police and prosecutors to destroy the rapport and say "Dan can't help you we can. You do wanna see daddy and susie again right?"
That's the main reason I'm open to innocence; I've met people with disabilities. I've known kids be smart in some areas yet fail to grasp basic concepts.
Even if it wasn't 12 hours there was a lot of misconduct (they threatened jessie offscreen, and when they had to get a clearing up statement they shut off the tape for JUST the amount of time needed to get the statement.) I can easily buy them saying "okay Jessie this is what you're gonna say" or "you better remember you little ****er."
The problem with a lot of nons is that they don't really get it. Compassionate reader and larner (two of the bigger supporters) have both worked with handicapped children, and they said that Jessie reminded them of the kids they interacted with. As such they were willing to believe he got manipulated. I believe it too. Even when he heard his trial he failed to grasp key details and the "only the killer could know" was debunked (a lot of it was either in the paper or rumor mill, was fed to him or was a red herring. The whiskey bottle was useless because a.) there was nothing but the bottle head and b.) four different brands had the same head.) Unless the prosecution has Jessie's prints the bottle literally means nothing
Even if it wasn't 12 hours there was a lot of misconduct (they threatened jessie offscreen, and when they had to get a clearing up statement they shut off the tape for JUST the amount of time needed to get the statement.) I can easily buy them saying "okay Jessie this is what you're gonna say" or "you better remember you little ****er."
The problem with a lot of nons is that they don't really get it. Compassionate reader and larner (two of the bigger supporters) have both worked with handicapped children, and they said that Jessie reminded them of the kids they interacted with. As such they were willing to believe he got manipulated. I believe it too. Even when he heard his trial he failed to grasp key details and the "only the killer could know" was debunked (a lot of it was either in the paper or rumor mill, was fed to him or was a red herring. The whiskey bottle was useless because a.) there was nothing but the bottle head and b.) four different brands had the same head.) Unless the prosecution has Jessie's prints the bottle literally means nothing
I have watched all three documentaries and various news stories on WM3. I have also read a book too - I think it was Damien's. I find the case extremely interesting. Yes, I was/am swayed by the HBO documentary. It does seem that they were railroaded. There are so many unanswered questions in watching the films. I think it odd that celebrities took up this case and as another poster mentioned, why didn't they use their resources/money to do something about finding out the truth? It's hard for me to believe that JLM was doing anything in his confession but just saying whatever he had to so he could go home. After all these years, Jason seems to be the most creditable of the three, especially in court when they agreed to the Alford plea. I wonder if one of them confessed now to anything, does the Alford plea protect them from being prosecuted twice for the same crime? And is this an ongoing case for WMPD?
Sorry if I am repeating anything already posted or am ignorant in the discussion.
Sorry if I am repeating anything already posted or am ignorant in the discussion.
(To the bolded) This is completely and utterly unsubstantiated. Pure conjecture.
To the bolded -- (with emphasis on the underlined, which contradicts the bolded) Hence, an "inconsistency" from his original alibi all the same.
^ Also, to completely ignore that all of the wrestling "witnesses" were completely taken apart by the prosecution is beyond disingenuous. Each one of them didn't hold up under cross examination. Below is just one example between the prosecutor (Davis) and one of JM's wrestling "witnesses":
DAVIS: Ok. And you told police, you told Mr. Stone, you told everybody on June ninth “The reason I remember it was the fifth is because that’s the night we paid $300 dollars” right? That’s what you told them?
REVELLE: Yes sir, that’s what I’d said.
DAVIS: Now, the receipt, and I’m going to show you a copy of a receipt. You told officers, you said “We paid $300 dollars and that’s why I remember it was the fifth cause we went down there”—In fact you and Bill Cox went down there and paid him the money, right? That’s what you told officers?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok. I wanna show you a receipt. (HANDING) And does that receipt have your name at the top?
REVELLE: (EXAMINING) Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok. You’re Fred Revelle, right?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok, and does that receipt reflect that you paid Charles Stone $300 dollars?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok, and what date does that receipt show?
REVELLE: April 27th.
DAVIS: Ok, and April 27th was a Wednesday too, wasn’t it?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: It was just a Wednesday the week before these murders occurred, right?
REVELLE: I’m not really sure. I’d have to look at a calendar.
DAVIS: Ok. And you told police, you told Mr. Stone, you told everybody on June ninth “The reason I remember it was the fifth is because that’s the night we paid $300 dollars” right? That’s what you told them?
REVELLE: Yes sir, that’s what I’d said.
DAVIS: Now, the receipt, and I’m going to show you a copy of a receipt. You told officers, you said “We paid $300 dollars and that’s why I remember it was the fifth cause we went down there”—In fact you and Bill Cox went down there and paid him the money, right? That’s what you told officers?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok. I wanna show you a receipt. (HANDING) And does that receipt have your name at the top?
REVELLE: (EXAMINING) Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok. You’re Fred Revelle, right?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok, and does that receipt reflect that you paid Charles Stone $300 dollars?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: Ok, and what date does that receipt show?
REVELLE: April 27th.
DAVIS: Ok, and April 27th was a Wednesday too, wasn’t it?
REVELLE: Yes sir.
DAVIS: It was just a Wednesday the week before these murders occurred, right?
REVELLE: I’m not really sure. I’d have to look at a calendar.
You're being dishonest. These were teenagers and most of the kids besides Revelle were VERY consistent on the fact that Jessie went every thursday during the time the murders occurred. Since they were teens the state bamboozled them
The receipt is a red herring.
For comparison. Every first friday of the month my old dojo would have board breaking. If my alibi were that I were at board breaking and board breaking was a different day you'd have a point. If I went every friday and the murder was on a friday me getting it wrong about board breaking wouldn't mean anything.
Not really. The point is that Jessie gave an account of his movements. At 6:30 he was in the park. At 7:30 he left to go wrestling. That's his alibi and it's not contradictory at all. Dogmatica is a dumbass for treating it like a smoking gun
No, I'm not; and no, it's not a red herring. That is beyond relevant that one of his main witnesses (Revelle) got the Wednesday mixed up from being the 5th to the actual date of the 27th. Sorry, but it is, and it was a big reason why JM's wrestling alibi completely deteriorated on the stand and why the original jury didn't buy it. And also, enough with the name-calling. If you want to debate the case, fine, but your name-calling is beyond old and makes you look immature.
I gave a board breaking example. Revelle getting one thing wrong means nothing and again since they were teenagers it would have been easy for the prosecutors to bamboozle them.
And no it's almost certain they DID try to manipulate Jessie by offering to see Daddy and Suzie again. They tried to move him without informing his attorneys (both Crowe and Stidham denied being aware of the move, and Crowe directly contradicted the prosecution in another issue). They also purposefully limited the amount of time Jessie spent with Stidham after the first attempt at a statement ended in failure. Jessie also claims that on the ride up the officer said he'd get the chair and more importantly the police DID violate Jessie's rights with the car conversation so they could EASILY have conned him or left things out of their report
There's no direct proof but it's a VERY logical inference. The problem is that law and order advocates tend to live in a fairytale where cops don't do that and where prosecutors are always honest and NEVER do that
And no it's almost certain they DID try to manipulate Jessie by offering to see Daddy and Suzie again. They tried to move him without informing his attorneys (both Crowe and Stidham denied being aware of the move, and Crowe directly contradicted the prosecution in another issue). They also purposefully limited the amount of time Jessie spent with Stidham after the first attempt at a statement ended in failure. Jessie also claims that on the ride up the officer said he'd get the chair and more importantly the police DID violate Jessie's rights with the car conversation so they could EASILY have conned him or left things out of their report
There's no direct proof but it's a VERY logical inference. The problem is that law and order advocates tend to live in a fairytale where cops don't do that and where prosecutors are always honest and NEVER do that
You said it yourself: "There's no direct proof." I disagree that it's a logical inference because, if the prosecution promised these things, and if JM sang at the drop of hat at the mere mention of these promises -- as you are supposing (as opposed to his own free will entirely and without being "strong armed" or "tricked") -- then guess what: he would have testified against JB and DE.
The truth is, this is nothing but conjecture and you have zero proof that the prosecution ever approached JM and twisted his arm with promises. Also, the police in the cruiser didn't "violate his rights" when JM willingly interacted with the officers. And prisoner transfers happen all the time with little to no notice.
I also find it beyond curious how, the prosecution could so easily sway JM to say whatever they wanted, but Stidham, for whatever reason, was completely unable to easily manipulate JM for the sake of his own self-preservation. You can't have it both ways.
Wrong actually. Not only did Jessie stop confessing after Dan directly confronted him on it in September, but Dan was able to talk Jessie into NOT testifying on feb 8th (hence why the state purposefully limited how much time they had together) even though he wasn't all that good a manipulator. They just had to trick him into thinking Dan couldn't help him and it would be downright easy given time. He wouldn't just sing at the drop of a hat but he would be far more vulnerable.
Also, there's the fact that the state contacted Dan and Greg on the 8th of February with the claim Jessie wanted to make a statement. Anyone who REALLY thinks that there wasn't some alone time between Jessie and the prosecutors is being downright naive. Same with the "prison transfers happen all the time." Why would they do so WITHOUT informing the defense's own attorney? Considering that Dan had thwarted the previous attempt to get Jessie to testify you'd have to be a complete idiot not to consider that the move was to limit Dan being able to intervene (same reason they only gave Dan a few minutes on the 22nd. They realized Dan could have talked Jessie out of it and didn't want him to **** up their plan.)
We only have the policemen's word on what Jessie said and given the "good ol boys" network down there I can easily buy them saying things like "you'll get the chair if you don't cooperate" or "you wanna see daddy again? right? Then maybe you should cooperate." Jessie wasn't quite the person who would do it at the drop of a hat but he was weak enough that if you applied pressure he could easily break.
As for why he ultimately didn't, that's easy. After he talked with his father and thought it over he realized that the prosecutors were lying to him and that he didn't want to take part in a lie. Given that NONE of the clarification statements were correct and the state's "he was drunk" theory is utter horseshit (he'd have to clean up blood vomit beer bottles footprints upturned grass and fingerprints at night while drunk while mosquitos were out without leaving anything behind and the whiskey bottle was ultimately a worthless red herring) no. Jessie's confessions were garbage.
The nons can't afford for them to be false. Without them, they've got jack.
Ellington admitted point blank that the "ritual murder" theory is horseshit and that the state would have lost when it came to a trial. That's why he took the deal. To avoid getting slaughtered in court.