WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by Rebdot, Jan 2, 2011.

  1. Scout12

    Scout12 Member

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Hi,
    I have a question. Something I haven't heard much about in this case is Jesse's tennis shoes. What his friend said had such a ring of truth to it, imo., that Jesse didn't want to look at them anymore after what he had done and wanted his friend to take them, etc. Was this found to be true? Also, some of his testimony came across as very authentic. Not all of it, of course, but enough to make me strongly suspect he saw some of what he reported. Then again, I have strong suspicions about TH as well. I can't imagine what the poor parents have gone through - first losing their children that way, and then to not know for certain who did it?
     


  2. MrRoboto

    MrRoboto New Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Read the info regarding the ice pick Jason had that Blink on crime found out about .Jason to me acts all innocent and proclaims he didn't do anything but he could never come up with an alibi.
    I always wondered why Damien and Jason never were angry with Jessie over his "false confession". If I was being accused of a crime I had nothing to do with and someone claimed I was there etc., I couldn't wait to strangle the lying P.O.S !!
     
  3. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agree, Scout. There are many things about JM that add up in this case, contrary to what the docs and certain people may tell you. I'm not a non -- I'm a fencie -- just to be clear. I feel like, if any of the WM3 were somehow involved in this, it was JM. Whether the other two were involved or not is a different story.

    There are even certain things JM got right in his initial confessions (there are things he got wrong -- granted -- but again, there are things he got right too: like MM being separate from SB/CB in the ditch, being north up the creek; correctly id'ing which boy got which injuries to the mutilation and to the facial cuts, whether the boys were tied with their clothes on or off -- these precise details wouldn't have been in the papers at the time).
     
  4. Scout12

    Scout12 Member

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Yes, I have wondered the same thing about how they feel about Jessie. Never heard about the ice pick!
     
  5. Scout12

    Scout12 Member

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Yes, I agree on all points. I am on the fence too. Read all the documents first, then watched all the films, what a tragic, puzzling case. :(
     
  6. Vi0l3tt3

    Vi0l3tt3 Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Newbie to the forum here. However, I've followed the case for about 14 years.

    I've read through all of the documents available on Callahan, including Damien's 500 page psych record.

    There are too many holes in theories to say who did it. As an example: just because Damien had mental issues doesn't make him a murderer, just because a hair that matched TH's mDNA was found in a binding doesn't mean that he did it as it could have been transferred from a hair on Stevie's clothing to the binding, I dismissed JMB a long time ago..

    It is such a puzzling case! The deeper that you read and find things the more confusing it becomes.
     
  7. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree Violette, although I'm still quite suspicious of JMB. His timeline is incredibly fishy. He puts himself behind Blue Beacon all throughout the early morning, in one instance, driving his truck bak there with his son RC (RC never corroborates himself).

    Have you ever heard of the website Jivepuppi? It's an incredible source: http://www.jivepuppi.com/john_mark_byers_2.html
     
  8. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I remember watching Paradise Lost and understanding very much that it was trying to paint the WM3 as being innocent. I was a huge Metallica fan, that's why I saw the movie. I was fully expecting to walk away thinking "wow, those poor teenaged boys were wrongly accused - what an outrage and an injustice!!". However, after the movie ended, I remember thinking "hmm. I see what they were trying to do, but these guys seem guilty to me. Very, very guilty. Interesting". So I went beyond the "docs" and did my own studying. I dug into the Callahan site. I started reading arguments from people who thought they were guilty, instead of just the people crying "they're innocent". I was torn because I really believed that I was supposed to believe they were innocent - but I just didn't see that slam dunk.

    So after researching and reading the transcripts and Callahans, and putting aside emotion and deciding not to believe they were innocent just because that's what the cool kids were saying...I determined they are guilty as hell.

    The supporters are some of the best yarn spinning delfectionists around. I mean they really are very, very good. But all the yarn in the world doesn't change the truth - the WM3 murdered those little boys.

    Also, regarding Miskelley's confession - there were many, not just the one, he did in fact know things only the killers would know, and he confessed over and over again even after his lawyer begged him not to.

    Someone here talked about Jessie only confessing to want to "please" people. He certainly didn't care about "pleasing" his lawyer when he confessed yet AGAIN despite his lawyer's utter insistence that he not. Jessie initially confessed because he felt remorse and guilt. He continued to confess because he felt remorse and guilt and dammit, nobody was going to shut him up until he got the truth out there.

    Damien was an over the top psycho. It's all there on Callahans. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    For those asking for "solid" proof the WM3 are guilty - it's all out there - in the trial transcripts, Callahans, the 24 jurors decision and...oh yeah...common sense.

    But people who fight tooth and nail that the WM3 were 'railroaded" have their head in the sand and nothing can ever, ever change their minds (see the poster in this thread who says they will "never" believe they are guilty.

    It's the same mindset as the people who insist 911 was an "inside job" and that the US faked the moon landing. It gives them some sense of place - some invisible upper hand, that makes them feel relevant and "one step ahead" of everyone else. It seems to stem from insecurity and low self esteem. It's really sad, actually.

    Oh yeah, also, the WM3 PLEAD GUILTY.
     
    KCappy likes this.
  9. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I've seen you use your "I'm a teacher so I know they're innocent" stance many times before. It doesn't mean anything. I know teachers who "know" they are guilty. Sorry, your being a teacher doesn't make you an authority on psychopathic child killers.
     
    KCappy likes this.
  10. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Right, because people wasted out of their mind never mix up some details or get some recollections wrong. He confessed MULTIPLE times. Whisky bottle anyone? Remember him detailing that and where exactly it was? Why in the hell would someone, if they were "coerced" into confessing KEEP confessing, AFTER the fact, when their very own lawyer is literally BEGGING them not to? You're telling me he was "coerced" into confessing by people he didn't trust, but his own lawyer, who he did trust, couldn't "coerce" him into NOT confessing? How can you possibly reconcile that??
     
    KCappy likes this.
  11. missy_g

    missy_g Member

    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The whiskey bottle proves their guilty [emoji849]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you -- I am a fencie and I still suspect the WM3, particularly JM. I also agree with your thought about JM and the double-standard when it comes to his "coercion" in the other thread. I will not say I fully believe the WM3 (all of them) are guilty, because I honestly don't know, but I certainly still entertain the thought and I feel like those that completely close themselves off to the idea that they're guilty are misguided.

    That said, I find the bolded ironic, because I was on another forum, and this guy came in who was a gung-ho non, claiming he had "direct evidence" of the WM3 guilt (which he didn't; his evidence proved nothing), but was also claiming the 9/11 was an inside job. I'm just saying: be careful when you're painting people with such a broad brush. The crap is thick on both sides; not just one.
     
  13. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's what you deduced from my post? Wow. Obtuse much?
     
  14. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Of course, not all people who are supporters are conspiracy theorists and vice versa.

    Glad you see the glaring problem with the "coercion". He was so stupid, weak and wanting to please that he was goaded into confessing to murders he didn't commit, but couldn't be convinced to tell the truth, to save his own bacon, by his own lawyer? There's zero logic there. It blows the whole "coerced into a false confession" thing out of the water.
     
  15. missy_g

    missy_g Member

    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You're the one that said it. Even if they did do the crime, I doubt a whiskey bottle, in the area they probably frequented often is enough evidence to prove their guilt.
    As for the confessions? There is nothing but his word to place him at the scene. No evidence whatsoever. He claimed to be there but couldn't get the time of the crimes right.

    I'm a fence sitter. With that being said, anyone could watch that taped confession and tell its ********. Anyone could look at any of the confessions and tell they're crap. JM changes his story every single time.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  16. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nobody ever said the whiskey bottle on its own would convict them. It's one piece of a thousand that point to them. It is significant however in the context in which I brought it up.

    The confessions had inconsistencies because he was blasted out of his mind. That happens to people when they're extremely intoxicated. You have to look at ALL of the evidence added all together - not pick each piece apart on its own. I take it you've read all of the info on Callahans? The full trial transcripts? Damien's psych records? Jessie's MULTIPLE confessions?

    How do you explain the "Jessie was coerced" into confessing to murders, then KEPT ON CONFESSING, even after his lawyer begged him not to? How could he be "coerced" into lying about something that would put him in prison for murder, but couldn't be "coerced" into telling the "truth" by his own lawyer? Can you not see how that contradicts everything about it being a false confession?

    The significance of the whiskey bottle is that it proves his confession had merit, along with all the other facts that lined up. Yes, there were minor inconsistencies in his confessions. But the consistencies far outweighed the inconsistencies, and the fact that he told (for the most part) the same story over and over, even after he had absolutely NO REASON to keep confessing, speaks volumes. If you ask me about a crazy, extremely drunken night, and I tell the story several times over to different people, there will be inconsistencies. Hell, even when you're sober you'll get things mixed up.

    When you logically take the multiple confessions along with all the other evidence, their guilt is glaring.

    Also, a lack of DNA at a crime scene is not exculpatory. It simply means they didn't leave DNA (totally possible) or that they didn't find DNA. And back in '93, the science wasn't nearly what it is now.

    An innocent person simply does not admit to a crime over and over and over again. Once, under duress, OK - I'll give you that. But you must look at the MANY confessions, in context, and ask yourself, "why would he make a false confession because he was "scared" and "retarded" and "wanted to please", and then CONTINUE to make this false confession when he had ZERO reason to, and people in authority (to him) were saying "JESSIE - SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!"?

    Nobody has been able to explain that. That's because it didn't happen.
     
    KCappy likes this.
  17. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Also note - he continued to confess AFTER he was convicted. You're telling me post conviction confessions were coerced? I think we know that's simply not true.
     
  18. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    FACT - JESSIE MISSKELLEY CONFESSED NUMEROUS TIMES:
    The Paradise Lost and West of Memphis documentaries and the book and movie Devil's Knot completely leave out the fact Jessie Misskelley confessed to the murders numerous times both before and after he was convicted.

    May 6, 1993: The morning after the murders, Jessie's friend, Buddy Lucas, stopped by Jessie's house. Buddy said Jessie told him he "hurt" some boys in West Memphis the night before. He then broke out in sweat, cried, and gave Buddy a used pair of sneakers (presumably the ones he wore to the crime scene).
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/b_lucas_interview.html

    June 3, 1993: With consent from his father, Jessie was taken to the West Memphis Police Department for questioning. He was being questioned because he was a known friend of Damien Echols, who was a suspect in the murders. With additional written permission from his father, he was read his Miranda rights and given a polygraph exam, which he reportedly failed. The documentaries imply that Jessie was interrogated for 12 hours before confessing. That is a lie. Jessie arrived at that police station at 10:00am and confessed at 2:20pm. Only 2 1/2 hours of that time was spent in actual interrogation.

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/jmtimelog.html
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmir.html

    June 7, 1993: Jessie's own family members believed he could have been involved with the murders. Jessie Misskelley Sr. was interviewed by KAIT-TV just days after his son's arrest. On camera, Jessie Sr. admitted Jessie Jr. may have been with Echols and Baldwin at the crime scene.

    Reporter: "Was he with them?"
    Misskelley Sr: "He could have been with them, but he didn't have anything to do with it I don't believe."
    [video=youtube;KRtEdkoun1s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRtEdkoun1s&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jessiemsr.html

    June 11, 1993: Many recent reports suggest Jessie immediately recanted. He did not. He confessed again to his own attorneys eight days later.


    August 19, 1993: Jessie Misskelley met with his attorney, Dan Stidham, at the Clay County Detention Center and gave a statement that continued to confirm his guilt.
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_stidham_8_19_93.html
    http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_stidham_8_19_93.pdf

    February 4, 1994: On the day he was sentenced to life plus 40 years for the murders, he got in a police car and confessed to the officers all the way to prison.
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html

    February 8, 1994:
    He put his hand on a Bible and swore to his attorney (Dan Stidham) that he, Damien, and Jason committed the murders. Further, he told Stidham that he was drunk on Evan Williams whiskey during the murders and the broken bottle could be found where he threw it on the ground under a bridge in West Memphis on his way home from the crime scene. Stidham told prosecutors he would believe his client's confession if he could find that bottle. So Stidham, WMPD Inspector Gary Gitchell, and the prosecutors drove to West Memphis to look for it. They found a broken Evan Williams bottle in the exact area that Stidham indicated Jessie said it would be. According to Prosecutor John Fogleman, Stidham directed the group to search the I-40 underpass nearest to Wal-Mart (near the current sight of Kroger), and the men found the broken bottle in that location. Further corroborating this story is the fact that Jessie mentioned in this 2/8/94 confession that Vicki Hutcheson was the one who bought him Evan Williams whiskey on the day of the murders. When the attorneys called Hutcheson she confirmed that she did, indeed, buy Jessie a bottle of Evan Williams on the day of the murders.

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/jm_2_8_94_statement.html
    http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html
    Here is a good retelling of the finding of the Evan Williams bottle by case researcher “St. Alphonse.” According to "St. Alphonse" this is the story as it was told to him by Prosecutor John Fogleman, Prosecutor Brent Davis, and WMPD Inspector Gary Gitchell:
    http://midsouthjustice.org/archived_html/west_memphis_homicides/Jessie%20just%20can%27t%20SHUT%20UP%202%20-%20www_ezboard_com.htm

    February 17, 1994:
    This time, Jessie confessed to the prosecutors. At the start of the confession the prosecutors noted that Jessie had not been promised any deals for his testimony. His attorneys begged him not to give this confession, but he gave it anyway.
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

    October 24, 1994: A cell mate of Jessie’s named Michael Johnson wrote to prosecutor Brent Davis begging him to keep Jessie behind bars. He said Jessie told him details of the crime. He described Jessie as a “cold, morbid person.” Johnson got all the facts correct, except one. He told Davis that the WM3 left a woman’s “nightgown” at the scene. No nightgown was found at the scene. However, fibers consistent with Jason Baldwin’s mother’s bathrobe were found on one of the victims. Maybe Jessie called the bathrobe a “nightgown” while mentioning it was a piece of evidence linking the WM3 to the crime. Perhaps Johnson just got this fact a bit mixed up in his retelling of Jessie’s morbid tale. You can read Johnson’s letter at the following link.
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/micjo.html

    Recent Years: For years, rumors have circulated around Arkansas that Jessie continued to confess to his counselors in prison. So far, none of those counselors have spoken publicly. But other associates of Jessie have spoken about his more recent confessions. Many years before the WM3 were released, a WM3 supporter who posted on the WM3 discussion boards as "TrueRomance" befriended Jessie Misskelley. Her real name may have been "Lindsey." She wrote and received letters to Jessie, talked to him on the phone, and also visited him in prison. She immediately ceased believing in the three's innocence after having a conversation with Jessie in prison where she asked him directly if he had been involved in the murders. According to her, the answer he gave caused her to stop all contact and become a “non” (a non believer in WM3 innocence). We don't know what Jessie told her, she has never disclosed that information, but it clearly wasn't good. Below is an excerpt from a post she made on a WM3 discussion board. The original post cannot be found and the exact date of the post is unknown… it was possibly around 2006. The post still exists because it was copied to other WM3 discussion groups. For clarification, when she refers to “the KGB,” that is a knickname for WM3.org founders Kathy Bakken, Grove Pashley, and Burk Sauls. Here is what “TrueRomance” had to say:

    “If I was going to let this case consume my life I felt like I needed to research things more aggressively and ask Jessie some point blank questions I never had. I felt like it was the only fair thing to do. If I'm risking my peace of mind and throwing myself 110% into this then I'm going to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person I'm putting MY good name on the line for is being honest and is innocent. After all my research and questions I found out things were much different than I originally thought. Its also different when you ask someone a point blank question and you dont get the answer you were expecting. And don't reply to this and tell me to cite this and provide that because I did that little dance with supporters for long enough and I dont care whether anyone agrees with me. The information I found is readily available to anyone who wants to look at it, but any supporter still stuck in that conspiracy mentality is only going to twist it. I was lied to over and over by supporters, the KGB, and consistently withheld information on that side. Once I "became a non" I was offered a wealth of information, never once misled, and never once forced to believe the same as anyone else. I never got that when I was a supporter. So do I believe the three are guilty? Yes. And if any supporter wants to pull this over to the other board or make fun of me or my lifestyle, my physical appearance, or social class (which theyve done in the past), feel free. I got two things out of this situation that youll never have and that is an education and the truth.”
     
  19. Compassionate Reader

    Compassionate Reader Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't know why I bother, but . . .

    If one will approach this with an open mind, one will see the truth.

    The last post was a bunch of NONsense. Not sure which NONsite you were quoting, but I've seen it all before and simply don't buy into those opinions - and that's all you've cited, opinions - not any real evidence of guilt. I have my own opinions, formed after years of research and my 25 years' experience working with teenagers (and you can discount that all you wish, but you can't provide a comparable source of reasoning that proves guilt) which tell me the three convicted young men are innocent.

    If your best "evidence" is "True Romance," that tells me all I need to know about you!

    JM has maintained his innocence since he spoke with his father right after the infamous "second confession" except for the Alford plea on 8/19/11 in which he maintained his innocence as well. As to BL, he is as mentally challenged as JM, and I'm sure you know that there are depositions implicating BL in these murders. Neither BL nor JM can tell a coherent story without prompting. It is indicative of their mental challenges.

    When citing his original statement to police, you fail to include that JM's initial statement (not the recorded one, BTW) implicated someone else! The police manipulated him into naming JB and DE. If you don't see that, I'll never convince you otherwise, and you'll never convince me that the police didn't manipulate (or coerce) JM's initial statement - and the "corrected" version later that same day.

    All JM, Senior said was that JM, Jr. "could have been with them." He didn't implicate JM, Jr. and has always supported his son's innocence. Frankly, JM, Sr. isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, either, and could have easily been confused by the media attention.

    When JM "confessed to his own attorneys eight days later" it was a result of JM misunderstanding that DS and RW were there to help him. Again, JM was attempting to "please" an authority figure by saying what he thought they wanted to hear. I've been the "authority figure" in similar circumstances, although they didn't involve murder, where a mentally challenged youth is spinning a yarn just to make the questioning stop. This happens. I've witnessed it. You can't make false what I've witnessed with my own eyes and ears!

    Again, the Aug. 19, 1993 statements were given when JM still saw his attorneys as being "with the police." He simply tried to say what he'd been saying - again his sole purpose was to get out of the hot seat. Unless one has worked with the mentally challenged, one might not believe how this can happen, but it can - and often does.

    The police car "confession" is ridiculous. Again, if it happened (and I don't put it past those cops to make it up), it was just another example of JM trying to stop the questioning. Yeah, I know that the cops said it was spontaneous - but I don't believe them. Period. It makes much more sense for them to be questioning him about the trial than for him to just spontaneously "confess" again!

    The "hand on the Bible" statement, like every other statement he has made, is full of errors. (For example, he didn't even recognize a police sketch of the area!) It was prompted by DS throughout because DS was told that JM wanted to make a statement. DS didn't want to be charged with suborning perjury, but he didn't believe JM was telling the truth. In the end, DS was able to convince JM not to make a statement to LE on that day. But, nine days later . . .

    This brings us to the "second confession." Although LE denies it, I'm convinced (because JM told DS and DS reported it, but Judge Burnett did nothing) that there was intense pressure (yes, even "coercion") involved here, as well. Additionally, JM's statement even after sitting through the trial was still error-ridden! In fact, none of the statements JM has made match the actual facts and evidence of the case. So, these statements are worthless!

    As to the "jailhouse snitch," anything he told prosecutors he could have gleaned from news reports about the trial. Also, in case you didn't know (because NONsites seldom mention it), the fiber evidence has been debunked. Of course, this happened years later, and it seems to me that most NONs are stuck in 1994 or before and fail to accept facts and information that have come out since then - except to trumpet, "They plead guilty in the Alford pleas" while failing to mention that they also maintained their innocence. Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

    Bottom line as to all the JM statements: After talking with his father (who told him to "tell the truth"), JM refused to testify against DE and JB. Period.

    BTW, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
     
  20. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are things that JM does get right, even in the initial confessions. He gets which victim got which injuries (the mutilation, the face injuries) right. There are other things also.

    He once said he lied about the times to throw off police -- to me, this is logical, especially considering how evident it is that he is trying to downplay his own involvement in the crime from the very first confession. "I only held the one down, then I left," is what he first tried to say, before he slips up and says he "beat up" MM. No one "leads" JM to slip up there; he slips up himself. I'd suggest to anyone: read all the confessions twice -- once, with the mindset he's innocent, then again, with the mindset he's guilty.
     

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