WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

New Posts

LordYAM said:
I have. It was inconsistent rubbish and the "admitting to lying" is a load of crap. Even after Jessie sat through his own trial he got details wrong (the victims were NOT raped, he said michael's face had more extensive injuries than they actually did.)

http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessiePostConvictionStatement.htm

Even things that mad him look guilty were wrong and in general that's not usually the case.

The reason people believe they're guilty is because it's comforting. The documentaries shined a light on the fact that all too often law enforcement CAN be corrupt, and that when they DO commit crimes like this it's with the approval of the townspeople. After all, the boys were just trailer park trash and it wasn't like their lives mattered. The documentaries highlighted this sociopathy and called attention to the fact that yes the people of west memphis were ignorant hillbillies (though the supporters don't come off as much better and in fact blundered into the same trap by focusing on Byers while Terry Hobbs was laughing his balls off in the background).

It exposed that Gary Gitchell was a corrupt bully, that John Fogelmen and Brent Davis were amoral psychopaths who would throw innocent people under a bus to advance their careers and that David Burnett was an incompetent idiot.
Click to expand...
It exposed that people are really gullible.

Ever notice how nons are typically less aggressive than supporters?
 
Sailor Haumea said:
It exposed that people are really gullible.

Ever notice how nons are typically less aggressive than supporters?
Click to expand...

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/195/646/1320529223886.jpg

If anything nons tend to be far nastier. When JMB switched sides he was attacked by the nons; Pam Hobbs was also attacked. Michael Moore's parents have been incredibly aggressive as well and anyone who defends the three is referred to as defending babykillers.

I've also seen people downplay Terry's actions; I outlined on the WM3 facts page that Hobbs tried to rape his neighbor and had a history of violence. I was told I was "slandering" him even though Hobbs himself admitted to attacking French. KMA (one of the biggest nons out there) also downplayed Hobbs's attempted rape of French. Unlike the dog stomping (which was only ever rumors) Hobbs himself admitted it, so it's not innuendo.

Compared to Terry Hobbs yes Damian is a teddy bear.

This kind of "law enforcement can do no wrong" attitude is all too common and I've seen law and order types make the same arguments in other cases based on the "if the judge says it it must be true." attitude.

Ex: One of the most bitterly controversial death penalty cases in CA is Kevin Cooper; DNA SEEMS to confirm him guilty (and in fact his former investigator and one of the dna experts turned against him.) THING IS there's strong proof tampering DID in fact occur. There are three pieces of dna evidence that seem to condemn him.

a.) a tan t-shirt that had cooper's blood on it; Thing is Cooper wouldn't have had access to the shirt (it wasn't prison issued and none of the people in the house he hid out in recognized it despite recognizing a ****ton of other clothes Cooper stole). The original readings only found the victim's blood on the shirt, and when EDTA testing was done the Judge had to ignore that a.) four of the "controls" had dna or were inconclusive (which rendered one of her reasons for rejecting the results false) b.) within the samples that had DNA the results were (barring a sample that was unevenly sized and shaped) high where the dna was high and low where the DNA was low (if the edta had been due to detergent and other natural factors it would have been spread out with no real difference). c.) Huff herself conceded the measurements were valid (while Cooper's expert had gotten in trouble it was due to measurements and since Huff herself didn't see a problem here the issue wasn't in play here) d.) Huff herself also failed to realize that since she acknowledged the measurements were legit it meant they were valid under Daubert.

Note this was AFTER she rigged the testing by denying Cooper's attorneys access to the shirt or any say in determining which samples were chosen as controls etc.

b.) the stain recovered from the house; First off the person who found the stain was fired for shooting himself up on drugs that he was looting from the evidence locker.Secondly, at the time the Sheriff was stealing guns from lockup and even though he wasn't at all subtle about it (he literally walked through it like a grocery store) it took 13 years before he was caught (and even THAT only happened because his son was being investigated and he rather carelessly left one of daddy's guns lying around.), so it's VERY possible that the police would have ignored the officer planting the stain. Third it was found down the hall from the massacre scene, surrounded by spots that were proven NOT to be Kevin Cooper's blood. d.) The state expert went back and modified his reading of the stain when it turned out not to match Cooper's profile (he dismissed it as correcting a misreading"). e.) It kept vanishing only to reappear when it was needed (it reappeared after the same expert who got caught lying checked it out off the books for 24 hours)

iii.) cigarettes: Leaving aside that they kept changing size and shape (they were yellow in 84 and white in 01) they were only found after cigarettes that Cooper smoked in his hideout vanished (only one cigarette was ever entered into evidence even though the arrest warrant cited multiple cigs); suspiciously the same officers who failed to keep track ALSO found the cigarettes in the victims car after a previous search failed to). Also, during the time the expert checked the stain out he checked out Cooper's saliva.


There was also a disgusting amount of favoritism shown towards the prosecution. Case in point; the police accidentally turned over records proving that TWO bloodstained shirts were recovered rather than just 1; given that the records that described it were only filled out if a CIVILIAN found the shirt and that the tan t-shirt was found by an officer it's indisputible that there WERE two t-shirts found. In spite of this (and the fact that the two shirts are completely different colors and found in a different time and place) the judge accept's the incredibly ridiculous lie that the state's attorney gave (that there was only one shirt.) They also barred the DA from being forced to check if he had a marked copy of the logs in his record (since discovery requires keeping a copy for the prosecution, and since the evidence would be marked, failure to do so would prove that the DA had withheld evidence).

Most damningly of all 11 judges have accused the state of forging evidence to get what they wanted, and accused the judge of rigging Cooper's hearing to ensure he'd loose. This was out of 28 judges hearing the case (and not only was the vote closer if one of the supporters to be believed at least one of the people voting against Cooper admitted that she was deeply suspicious and only voted against it because the AEDPA blocked her)


Even when supporters pointed all this out, numerous people (notably Debra Saunders) get furious if you dare to argue that the cops forged evidence. Notably Dr Ed Blake (the expert who thinks Cooper guilty) failed to notice the changing evidence AND was friends with many of the people in the state crime lab (which handled the testing on the prosecution's side). He still ridicules the idea of forged evidence even though, all things considered it would be pathetically easy (the DA and Sheriffs department of San Bernardino have a long history of corruption and racism, and all they would need to do is bribe a single clerk; more importantly since many people in state crime labs have an "our team" mentality it's very possible that the state experts noticed something wrong and just turned a blind eye). Even though very similar **** has happened in the real world (the jon burge scandal, Enron) people still go apeshit if you make the accusation of tampering.

I'll say it again; law enforcement can be ****ing nasty when it wants to be. I wouldn't be surprised if Mitchell Fogelman Davis and Burnett have ****ed over other innocent people with their corrupt antics
 
Wrong. The animal torture was never brought up in court so the police never took it seriously, and there was never any proof beyond what a few people said.

Also the psych records aren't entirely truthful; at least some of the incidents described on the intake form are either made up or didn't happen that way (Damian came quietly when he was arrested with Deanna for instance.) Jerry Driver WAS the source for a lot of that, and given that Damian hasn't had any incidents outside the law it's safe to say that his lack of psychosis now is proof he never really had psychosis then either.

Ex 500 is for the most part embellished; Damian was an ******* but no killer and for all their attempts nons have never been able to explain away Jessie's inconsistentcies with anything other than a lame "he was drunk" or "**** you I don't care."



I cited the Cooper case as proof that LE can be pretty ****ing nasty when it wants to be.
 
Sailor Haumea said:
I think you have it backwards.

Multiple people confirmed the animal torture. Also, the psychiatric records.

Terry Hobbs is a bad man...but he pales in comparison to Damien Echols.
Click to expand...

True. JB's cousin himself admits this, to name just one person out of multiple (if memory serves).

Does that prove he committed murder? Not necessarily, but your point still stands.
 
And yet Joel Never was called to testify which implies Fogelman never took it seriously or didn't follow up on it (which implies to me that it was a worthless rumor at best.)

Haumea buys into a lot of the same tired crap Nons do (namely if you ignore the glaring holes you can somehow swallow the state's horseshit theory)
 
LordYAM said:
I have. It was inconsistent rubbish and the "admitting to lying" is a load of crap. Even after Jessie sat through his own trial he got details wrong (the victims were NOT raped, he said michael's face had more extensive injuries than they actually did.)


http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessiePostConvictionStatement.htm


Even things that mad him look guilty were wrong and in general that's not usually the case.
Click to expand...


Your insistance that something is "rubbish" and a "load of crap" is not evidence. Even though you consistently assert your opinion is in fact evidence, it is not. If there was evidence to exonerate the WM3, the multimillion dollar celeb machine behind them would have uncovered it and plastered it all over the media. However, the WM3 remain convicted child killers.


LordYAM said:
The reason people believe they're guilty is because it's comforting. The documentaries shined a light on the fact that all too often law enforcement CAN be corrupt, and that when they DO commit crimes like this it's with the approval of the townspeople. After all, the boys were just trailer park trash and it wasn't like their lives mattered. The documentaries highlighted this sociopathy and called attention to the fact that yes the people of west memphis were ignorant hillbillies (though the supporters don't come off as much better and in fact blundered into the same trap by focusing on Byers while Terry Hobbs was laughing his balls off in the background).
Click to expand...


Once again, you make a sweeping, generalized blanket statement: "The reason people believe they're guilty is because it's comforting." That's utterly ridiculous. I take no "comfort" in the fact that these guys viciously murdered 3 little boys for a thrill. And once again - your opinion means nothing - it is not fact, and has no basis in fact.


LordYAM said:
It exposed that Gary Gitchell was a corrupt bully, that John Fogelmen and Brent Davis were amoral psychopaths who would throw innocent people under a bus to advance their careers and that David Burnett was an incompetent idiot.
Click to expand...


You stand behind your beloved convicted child murderers, but state as fact that Fogelman and Davis are "amoral psychopaths"? Now you're just getting desperate.
 
LordYAM said:
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/195/646/1320529223886.jpg

If anything nons tend to be far nastier. When JMB switched sides he was attacked by the nons; Pam Hobbs was also attacked. Michael Moore's parents have been incredibly aggressive as well and anyone who defends the three is referred to as defending babykillers.

I've also seen people downplay Terry's actions; I outlined on the WM3 facts page that Hobbs tried to rape his neighbor and had a history of violence. I was told I was "slandering" him even though Hobbs himself admitted to attacking French. KMA (one of the biggest nons out there) also downplayed Hobbs's attempted rape of French. Unlike the dog stomping (which was only ever rumors) Hobbs himself admitted it, so it's not innuendo.

Compared to Terry Hobbs yes Damian is a teddy bear.

This kind of "law enforcement can do no wrong" attitude is all too common and I've seen law and order types make the same arguments in other cases based on the "if the judge says it it must be true." attitude.

Ex: One of the most bitterly controversial death penalty cases in CA is Kevin Cooper; DNA SEEMS to confirm him guilty (and in fact his former investigator and one of the dna experts turned against him.) THING IS there's strong proof tampering DID in fact occur. There are three pieces of dna evidence that seem to condemn him.

a.) a tan t-shirt that had cooper's blood on it; Thing is Cooper wouldn't have had access to the shirt (it wasn't prison issued and none of the people in the house he hid out in recognized it despite recognizing a ****ton of other clothes Cooper stole). The original readings only found the victim's blood on the shirt, and when EDTA testing was done the Judge had to ignore that a.) four of the "controls" had dna or were inconclusive (which rendered one of her reasons for rejecting the results false) b.) within the samples that had DNA the results were (barring a sample that was unevenly sized and shaped) high where the dna was high and low where the DNA was low (if the edta had been due to detergent and other natural factors it would have been spread out with no real difference). c.) Huff herself conceded the measurements were valid (while Cooper's expert had gotten in trouble it was due to measurements and since Huff herself didn't see a problem here the issue wasn't in play here) d.) Huff herself also failed to realize that since she acknowledged the measurements were legit it meant they were valid under Daubert.

Note this was AFTER she rigged the testing by denying Cooper's attorneys access to the shirt or any say in determining which samples were chosen as controls etc.

b.) the stain recovered from the house; First off the person who found the stain was fired for shooting himself up on drugs that he was looting from the evidence locker.Secondly, at the time the Sheriff was stealing guns from lockup and even though he wasn't at all subtle about it (he literally walked through it like a grocery store) it took 13 years before he was caught (and even THAT only happened because his son was being investigated and he rather carelessly left one of daddy's guns lying around.), so it's VERY possible that the police would have ignored the officer planting the stain. Third it was found down the hall from the massacre scene, surrounded by spots that were proven NOT to be Kevin Cooper's blood. d.) The state expert went back and modified his reading of the stain when it turned out not to match Cooper's profile (he dismissed it as correcting a misreading"). e.) It kept vanishing only to reappear when it was needed (it reappeared after the same expert who got caught lying checked it out off the books for 24 hours)

iii.) cigarettes: Leaving aside that they kept changing size and shape (they were yellow in 84 and white in 01) they were only found after cigarettes that Cooper smoked in his hideout vanished (only one cigarette was ever entered into evidence even though the arrest warrant cited multiple cigs); suspiciously the same officers who failed to keep track ALSO found the cigarettes in the victims car after a previous search failed to). Also, during the time the expert checked the stain out he checked out Cooper's saliva.


There was also a disgusting amount of favoritism shown towards the prosecution. Case in point; the police accidentally turned over records proving that TWO bloodstained shirts were recovered rather than just 1; given that the records that described it were only filled out if a CIVILIAN found the shirt and that the tan t-shirt was found by an officer it's indisputible that there WERE two t-shirts found. In spite of this (and the fact that the two shirts are completely different colors and found in a different time and place) the judge accept's the incredibly ridiculous lie that the state's attorney gave (that there was only one shirt.) They also barred the DA from being forced to check if he had a marked copy of the logs in his record (since discovery requires keeping a copy for the prosecution, and since the evidence would be marked, failure to do so would prove that the DA had withheld evidence).

Most damningly of all 11 judges have accused the state of forging evidence to get what they wanted, and accused the judge of rigging Cooper's hearing to ensure he'd loose. This was out of 28 judges hearing the case (and not only was the vote closer if one of the supporters to be believed at least one of the people voting against Cooper admitted that she was deeply suspicious and only voted against it because the AEDPA blocked her)


Even when supporters pointed all this out, numerous people (notably Debra Saunders) get furious if you dare to argue that the cops forged evidence. Notably Dr Ed Blake (the expert who thinks Cooper guilty) failed to notice the changing evidence AND was friends with many of the people in the state crime lab (which handled the testing on the prosecution's side). He still ridicules the idea of forged evidence even though, all things considered it would be pathetically easy (the DA and Sheriffs department of San Bernardino have a long history of corruption and racism, and all they would need to do is bribe a single clerk; more importantly since many people in state crime labs have an "our team" mentality it's very possible that the state experts noticed something wrong and just turned a blind eye). Even though very similar **** has happened in the real world (the jon burge scandal, Enron) people still go apeshit if you make the accusation of tampering.

I'll say it again; law enforcement can be ****ing nasty when it wants to be. I wouldn't be surprised if Mitchell Fogelman Davis and Burnett have ****ed over other innocent people with their corrupt antics
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where your personal vendetta against law enforcement was spawned from, but it's clearly clouded your judgement and your ability to objectively look at facts. Did you experience something in your life where you perceived that law enforcement somehow railroaded you? You do realize that doesn't mean all law enforcement are evil, corrupt conspirators, right?
 
LordYAM said:
Wrong. The animal torture was never brought up in court so the police never took it seriously, and there was never any proof beyond what a few people said.

Also the psych records aren't entirely truthful; at least some of the incidents described on the intake form are either made up or didn't happen that way (Damian came quietly when he was arrested with Deanna for instance.) Jerry Driver WAS the source for a lot of that, and given that Damian hasn't had any incidents outside the law it's safe to say that his lack of psychosis now is proof he never really had psychosis then either.

Ex 500 is for the most part embellished; Damian was an ******* but no killer and for all their attempts nons have never been able to explain away Jessie's inconsistentcies with anything other than a lame "he was drunk" or "**** you I don't care."



I cited the Cooper case as proof that LE can be pretty ****ing nasty when it wants to be.
Click to expand...

Once again, you just make stuff up and state it as fact. None of what you typed there holds any water. Just stating that the analyses of trained professionals is untrue, embellished, outright lies, etc., doesn't make it so. You haven't once backed up anything you've stated regarding their purported innocence with even a modicum of evidence.
 
dogmatica said:
I'm not sure where your personal vendetta against law enforcement was spawned from, but it's clearly clouded your judgement and your ability to objectively look at facts. Did you experience something in your life where you perceived that law enforcement somehow railroaded you? You do realize that doesn't mean all law enforcement are evil, corrupt conspirators, right?
Click to expand...
LE and the State lie everyday. They don't deserve anymore trust than a normal citizen.
 
iluvmua said:
so I guess 24 people got it wrong then? If there is a trial this time around, You can bet the Prosecution is going to be VERY well prepared.

If there was enough evidence that TH and his friend committed these murders, they would be arrested and quite simply there is not enough evidence to do so.

I believe both sides have new evidence and I'm curious to see what both sides have that either point to guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...
This shows how naïve our citizens are. They really don't understand that the State and its agents (LE, Prosecutors and Judges) don't always act with integrity and honesty. They withhold evidence, they turn their back on evidence that doesn't match their tunnel vision and they have and will lie. Ask yourself this...how fair is it that the State gets to spin it's tale and present it's case before the defense and then get to go last in closing statements? Just today over 11k cases were dismissed in MASS due to a lying lab technician. The states experts are always believed over the defense. Why?

The system is set-up against the accused. People think just because someone is arrested they are guilty. That is a big hurdle to overcome after the state plays out it story on tv to taint the jury pool. I think if the police make an arrest in a case they should only be able to state that and not the accused name, The prosecutor and cops should not be permitted to discuss the case publicly prior to the conclusion of the trial. If the accuse is found not guilty, the gag order should remain. If there are leaks and they are reported, that evidence should be excluded and I think the charges should be dismissed. Is it too much to ask the states agents to keep things confidential until they prove their case in court?​
 
tmikebond said:
This shows how naïve our citizens are. They really don't understand that the State and its agents (LE, Prosecutors and Judges) don't always act with integrity and honesty. They withhold evidence, they turn their back on evidence that doesn't match their tunnel vision and they have and will lie. Ask yourself this...how fair is it that the State gets to spin it's tale and present it's case before the defense and then get to go last in closing statements? Just today over 11k cases were dismissed in MASS due to a lying lab technician. The states experts are always believed over the defense. Why?

The system is set-up against the accused. People think just because someone is arrested they are guilty. That is a big hurdle to overcome after the state plays out it story on tv to taint the jury pool. I think if the police make an arrest in a case they should only be able to state that and not the accused name, The prosecutor and cops should not be permitted to discuss the case publicly prior to the conclusion of the trial. If the accuse is found not guilty, the gag order should remain. If there are leaks and they are reported, that evidence should be excluded and I think the charges should be dismissed. Is it too much to ask the states agents to keep things confidential until they prove their case in court?​
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!!! good post!!!!
 
Callahan still the best place for WM3 case docs yes. A fantastic podcast about the case in very explicit detail is True Crime Garage. Three parts - each of which are lengthy but cover the case end to end in a surprisingly unbiased fashion. The hosts even admit they realize there are many supports and 'nons' out there but their goal is to simply present the case on both sides. Regardless of my personal opinions about a case, I love listening to and reading factual, unbiased presentations that give both sides. No, Paradise Lost is not one of those nor are the several "non" sites out there :).

For the record, I believe it is likely that the WM3 committed these murders and they happened close to how Jessie confessed. That said, from a legal perspective there were hordes of errors and rushes to judgement made and had normal legal procedure been followed, I am unconvinced that a completely unbiased jury would've found them guilty. I also feel people blur the line between not guilty and innocent as they are two very different things. No, I'm not sharing my reasons why and no I'm not getting into a long-winded argument from either side about why I feel the way I do. IMO and none of you are swaying it either way.

Seriously though, check out TCG - great, thorough breakdown of the case.
 
I'm new to websleuths, and I'm not one hundred percent certain of their guilt or their innocence - I'm trying to keep an open mind, but does anyone remember the mention of "Mr. Bojangles"? Bojangles is a fast food restaurant that was located a few miles from where the boys bicycles were found. The police received a call from the manager of the restaurant. Apparently a "black male" went into the women's restroom and was "muddy and disorientated and covered in blood." The officer who responded to the call didn't enter the restaurant, instead she pulled up to the drive -through window. She was told that the man had left. The officer spent the next few minutes looking for the man, but then responded to another call. It may have nothing at all to do with the murders of Stevie, Michael, and Christopher, but it is definitely interesting!
 
stephylee969 said:
I'm new to websleuths, and I'm not one hundred percent certain of their guilt or their innocence - I'm trying to keep an open mind, but does anyone remember the mention of "Mr. Bojangles"? Bojangles is a fast food restaurant that was located a few miles from where the boys bicycles were found. The police received a call from the manager of the restaurant. Apparently a "black male" went into the women's restroom and was "muddy and disorientated and covered in blood." The officer who responded to the call didn't enter the restaurant, instead she pulled up to the drive -through window. She was told that the man had left. The officer spent the next few minutes looking for the man, but then responded to another call. It may have nothing at all to do with the murders of Stevie, Michael, and Christopher, but it is definitely interesting!
Click to expand...


I'm convinced Mr. Bojangles was Larry Ceaser.
 

Attachments

  • larry_ceaser01.gif
    larry_ceaser01.gif
    65.4 KB · Views: 31
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 179 more.
Total: 3,445 (members: 180, guests: 3,265)

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
3,265
Total visitors
3,445
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,295
Messages
17,966,835
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top