Page 56 of 65 FirstFirst ... 7475455565758 ... LastLast
Results 2,751 to 2,800 of 3250

Thread: West Memphis Murders

  1. #2751
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by SRVFan View Post
    What I want is to know why they were three months away from a trial that could have cleared their names, set them free with no criminal record, gotten them paid because they would have sued the piss out of the State of Arkansas, been able to make movies and books, etc. Why did they decide to approach the State of Arkansas with the Alford plea just three months before the trial and give all of that up by saying they wanted to plead guilty? I'm sorry, but if I was innocent, and I only had three months to wait to prove it, I wouldn't cop a plea deal. That screams guilty all day long.
    So I've been in jail half my life for a crime I believe I didn't commit.

    "See that front door? If you tell everyone your innocent, and plead guilty, you can walk out that door right now and be a free man again."

    "Or, you can wait a few years, try your luck again, and hope that the justice system doesn't fail you again, because if it does, you're going to die in prison."

    If I put myself in the above situation, I'm not saying I would, but I'm saying there's definitely a chance I'd plead guilty.

    Bur I've never had my life on the line. I've never spent 2 decades in jail. Who knows what I'd do?

    But you say you know for sure you'd never plead guilty. I assume you're speaking from experience? Can you relate to the defendants? What has your experience in jail been like?
    Last edited by beep; 05-17-2013 at 11:05 AM.
    "Death has come to your little town, Sheriff." -Dr. Loomis

  2. #2752
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Natchez Ms
    Posts
    3,738
    I'll be honest here. I believe they are guilty as hell. That said I'd run my ass out of prison in a heartbeat if I thought it would take several years to prove my innocence. A couple months though and I'd sit it out.
    I am the king of all things stupid!

  3. #2753
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    Everyone keeps asking about this "supposed" evidence that the defense has. They wonder where it is and why it hasn't been presented. It WAS presented in the Arkansas Supreme Court. The DNA evidence is consistent with Terry Hobbs, which isn't something to hang a guilty verdict on, but is certainly more than they had on Damien, Jason and Jessie. The DNA evidence was what led the Supreme Court to agree that the convicted should be given a new evidentiary hearing, something Burnett had denied them over and over again.

    I have searched high and low for anything in court testimony or autopsy results that says the boys ingested urine before being killed. The only thing is that one officer claims Damien told him this during initial questioning, and Gitchell says, "Oh, wait, the ME told me the boys had urine in their stomachs. But he told only me and did not note it any documents." I find this only in some online articles. I also hear the urine in the stomachs argument whenever anyone is trying to persuade me of their undeniable guilt. Because I can concede that if there was urine and Damien did indicate so, that is pretty damning evidence. But since there is no record of said urine, I can only assume that it did not exist except in Gitchell's imagination.

    And if I had spent most of my life on Death Row for a crime I did not commit, and the State was willing to let me out if I pleaded guilty but could still maintain my innocence AND I had a legion of rich rock stars and actors to back me up, I'd of hightailed it too.

  4. #2754
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Petaluma Ca
    Posts
    4,672
    Quote Originally Posted by McMorbid View Post
    I'll be honest here. I believe they are guilty as hell. That said I'd run my ass out of prison in a heartbeat if I thought it would take several years to prove my innocence. A couple months though and I'd sit it out.
    In total agreement!!!

  5. #2755
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by beep View Post
    So I've been in jail half my life for a crime I believe I didn't commit.

    "See that front door? If you tell everyone your innocent, and plead guilty, you can walk out that door right now and be a free man again."

    "Or, you can wait a few years, try your luck again, and hope that the justice system doesn't fail you again, because if it does, you're going to die in prison."

    If I put myself in the above situation, I'm not saying I would, but I'm saying there's definitely a chance I'd plead guilty.

    Bur I've never had my life on the line. I've never spent 2 decades in jail. Who knows what I'd do?

    But you say you know for sure you'd never plead guilty. I assume you're speaking from experience? Can you relate to the defendants? What has your experience in jail been like?

    My experience is I worked in the prison that Echols was housed in. Lets just say he played people with his pity party stories. Who he was on camera and off camera were two different people.

  6. #2756
    Serph Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PrincessPoe View Post
    Everyone keeps asking about this "supposed" evidence that the defense has. They wonder where it is and why it hasn't been presented. It WAS presented in the Arkansas Supreme Court. The DNA evidence is consistent with Terry Hobbs, which isn't something to hang a guilty verdict on, but is certainly more than they had on Damien, Jason and Jessie. The DNA evidence was what led the Supreme Court to agree that the convicted should be given a new evidentiary hearing, something Burnett had denied them over and over again.

    I have searched high and low for anything in court testimony or autopsy results that says the boys ingested urine before being killed. The only thing is that one officer claims Damien told him this during initial questioning, and Gitchell says, "Oh, wait, the ME told me the boys had urine in their stomachs. But he told only me and did not note it any documents." I find this only in some online articles. I also hear the urine in the stomachs argument whenever anyone is trying to persuade me of their undeniable guilt. Because I can concede that if there was urine and Damien did indicate so, that is pretty damning evidence. But since there is no record of said urine, I can only assume that it did not exist except in Gitchell's imagination.

    And if I had spent most of my life on Death Row for a crime I did not commit, and the State was willing to let me out if I pleaded guilty but could still maintain my innocence AND I had a legion of rich rock stars and actors to back me up, I'd of hightailed it too.
    Wrong. The new evidence was supposed to be presented at the December 2011 evidentiary hearing, and supporters were really excited to find out what it was and would it set free their heroes.

  7. #2757
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Petaluma Ca
    Posts
    4,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Serph View Post
    Wrong. The new evidence was supposed to be presented at the December 2011 evidentiary hearing, and supporters were really excited to find out what it was and would it set free their heroes.
    And they still haven't released this evidence?

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm

  8. #2758
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    38
    I'd like to see some solid evidence regarding the urine as well. I don't believe a word Glitchell says.

  9. #2759
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Serph View Post
    Wrong. The new evidence was supposed to be presented at the December 2011 evidentiary hearing, and supporters were really excited to find out what it was and would it set free their heroes.
    So, the Supreme Court didn't review this evidence? They just took the word of the defense that it existed without making sure it did before they ruled in favor of the hearing? No, the defense gave the results to the Supreme Court that would be introduced at the hearing. The court ruled in part,

    "While there is a significant dispute in this case as to the legal effects of the DNA test results, it is undisputed that the results conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested."

    I understand that the evidence would have been presented in open court when the hearing happened in December, but it was the existence of the evidence that led the Supreme Court to make the decision for a new hearing. But no, it has not been presented in open court to the public as far as I know. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    And I'm still waiting for someone to send me links to documents proving via autopsy reports and trial transcripts that the boys had urine in their stomachs.

  10. #2760
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Natchez Ms
    Posts
    3,738
    It also doesn't rule out their involvement. It just proves that they tested someone else's dna. All that says is it would be harder to convict because of a lack of dna evidence on the three. The evidence suggests that a fourth party may have been involved. Where did the evidence originate would be my first question.
    I am the king of all things stupid!

  11. #2761
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by McMorbid View Post
    It also doesn't rule out their involvement. It just proves that they tested someone else's dna. All that says is it would be harder to convict because of a lack of dna evidence on the three. The evidence suggests that a fourth party may have been involved. Where did the evidence originate would be my first question.
    It was the hair that was tested, and that is the DNA that was presented to the Supreme Court. That hair was consistent with Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby. It may not prove Hobbs guilt, but considering his inconsistent stories, faulty alibi, and eye witnesses who say they saw Hobbs with the boys that afternoon it does raise a red flag. So, that's the origin of the DNA and it's results as presented to the Supreme Court.

  12. #2762
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Natchez Ms
    Posts
    3,738
    Yes I know the evidence and it's theory well. I'm just pointing out that it does not rule out the original three. A lack of evidence is only just that. Plenty of people have committed crimes without leaving physical evidence. For that matter physical evidence is often contaminated to the point that it becomes useless. TH's hair could've been there for innocent reasons. That evidence along with other circumstantial evidence is an indicator that he was involved but apparently not enough to arrest anyone. It still can't rule out the involvement of any of the original three. It simply gives them grounds to point the finger. I would assume this is not the only reason the state chose not to retry them or overrule any appeals. There has to be another reason. In my opinion it's the financial burden of a possible retrial and settlement in the event that a new jury found them innocent. Times have changed and people expect DNA evidence in any crime.
    I am the king of all things stupid!

  13. #2763
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,854
    They got some big names for the movie.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804463/

    27! pages of pictures from the set- http://tinarowden.com/slideshows/dk_unit_4/index.html

  14. #2764
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,486
    Quote Originally Posted by RiotBoots View Post
    They got some big names for the movie.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804463/

    27! pages of pictures from the set- http://tinarowden.com/slideshows/dk_unit_4/index.html
    It'll probably be another way to brain-wash the public into believing they're innocent. Much like that Peter Jackson flick. Great.

  15. #2765
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by RiotBoots View Post
    They got some big names for the movie.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804463/

    27! pages of pictures from the set- http://tinarowden.com/slideshows/dk_unit_4/index.html
    Looks like it premiers at our film festival next month.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aries65 View Post
    It'll probably be another way to brain-wash the public into believing they're innocent. Much like that Peter Jackson flick. Great.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Haters-Gonna-Hate-Baby-Smoking-Pipe.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	60.9 KB 
ID:	47667
    "Death has come to your little town, Sheriff." -Dr. Loomis

  16. #2766
    I'm not familiar most of the actors (but that's the case with just about any movie), but I'll say: Reese Witherspoon as Pamela Hobbs, eh, I'm not buying it. I think Park Overall would have been a good choice if she were younger, but that's irrelevant now. Rex Linn as Gitchell, good choice.

    And. . . regardless of what you think of the case, it's always important to remember about biopics, historical movies, and any other program "based on a true story." It's always fictionalized. Always. This is just a movie.

  17. #2767
    verocruz Guest
    I so agree with you! I thought of Park Overall as well!! I cannot buy Reese as Pamela. They just got her for her big name I'm sure.

  18. #2768
    Ric2F Guest
    Has anyone read where one of the killers confessed to his own lawyer after he had already been convicted. He admitted to a lot more involvement and even explained his first statement to police.

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

    [SIZE=2]MISSKELLEY: I'm Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.
    STIDHAM: Do you understand that I am tape recording this?
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
    STIDHAM: Okay. Jessie, a few minutes ago I asked you about making some statements to the Officers when they transported you from Piggott to Pine Bluff. You told me that you had told them some stuff. Is that Correct?
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
    STIDHAM: And at first you told me that you were just making it up, that you were lying to them, and then you placed your hand
    (Page 1)
    on the Bible and told me that you were there when these boys got killed.
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
    STIDHAM: Uh, what's the truth, Jessie? I want to know the truth.
    MISSKELLEY: The truth is, me and Jason and Damien done it
    STIDHAM: You were there when the boys were killed?
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
    It continues on for 74 pages.

    You should read it and near the end the lawyer tells the killer not to tell anybody else. At that point its obvious the lawyer wants to try and hide the confession unless he can use it in some way.
    At one of the later hearings for the killer the recording of the confession was played in court

    There is another one where the killer confessed to prosecutors.
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html

    ' Within this confession the killers lawyer pleads with him not to confess to the prosecutors. The killer even admits to more involvement than he was convicted of or even accused of.


    [/SIZE]
    Last edited by Ric2F; 10-01-2013 at 11:15 PM. Reason: misspelling

  19. #2769
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    7,438
    But did you also read that if He confessed they would let him go home, he was in the police interrogation room for hours without any bathroom breaks, any food, or anything to drink...

  20. #2770
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,653
    I still want to know how Echols knew two of the subjects had urine in their stomachs before the autopsies were done.
    Last edited by SRVFan; 10-01-2013 at 09:23 AM.

  21. #2771
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    I would still like to see the documents that prove there was urine in their stomachs. I have searched high and low and can't find anything about it being presented at trial or noted in any of the autopsy reports. All anyone can link me to is the blink article where she says that a detective claims Damien made those statements, and Gitchell saying the ME told him there was urine in the stomachs but it isn't noted anywhere in the autopsy reports or trial testimony that I can find. If someone else can find it I'd love to read it.

  22. #2772
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,616
    My mom works with a friend of one of the boys' mothers. She said that a jar, containing one of the boy's testicles, was found under Echols bed. Due to the fact that the police bungled the search warrant, it wasn't admissible in court. She said that Echols and the other two had been terrorizing the neighborhood for quite a while, and had a fascination with removing testicles from dead dogs they found on the side of the road. She also stated that there was evidence that Echols WAS a Satan-worshipper, due to what was found in his room (books, pentagrams, etc.). Take that for what it's worth. ...

  23. #2773
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    The testicles in jars under Damien's bed was not and has never been true. Those were rumors that were being spread around town during the time. Mark Byers even mentions it in Paradise Lost. There were things found in Damien's room that may or may not have been associated with devil worship but that is not evidence conclusive with guilt.

  24. #2774
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenivere2011 View Post
    My mom works with a friend of one of the boys' mothers. She said that a jar, containing one of the boy's testicles, was found under Echols bed. Due to the fact that the police bungled the search warrant, it wasn't admissible in court. She said that Echols and the other two had been terrorizing the neighborhood for quite a while, and had a fascination with removing testicles from dead dogs they found on the side of the road. She also stated that there was evidence that Echols WAS a Satan-worshipper, due to what was found in his room (books, pentagrams, etc.). Take that for what it's worth. ...
    Echols told the police that he was one when he tried to kill his stepfather and use him as a sacrifice just about a year before the boys were killed.

  25. #2775
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by PrincessPoe View Post
    I would still like to see the documents that prove there was urine in their stomachs. .
    Ask and ye shall receive.

    Urine was found in the stomachs of two of the boys. See Appendix B (Letter from Inspector Gary Gitchell to Kermit Channel at Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, dated 5-26-93; item (9) "Dr. Peretti mentioned finding urine in the stomach of two boys").
    Scroll down to the third paragraph below the section that says "end of page five".
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html
    Last edited by SRVFan; 10-01-2013 at 08:55 AM.

  26. #2776
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,653
    I will say this. I'm not sure that ALL of the three are truly guilty, but I believe in my heart of hearts that Echols is.

  27. 10-01-2013, 01:36 PM

  28. #2777
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by pkstracy View Post
    But did you also read that if He confessed they would let him go home, he was in the police interrogation room for hours without any bathroom breaks, any food, or anything to drink...


    No this confession is to his own lawyer? Why would his lawyer tell him he could go home if he confessed? He had already been convicted at that time.


    He confessed to the prosecutors later and I guess you could make the claim that they told him he could go home but his lawyer was sitting there pleading with him not to confess.

  29. #2778
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by pkstracy View Post
    But did you also read that if He confessed they would let him go home, he was in the police interrogation room for hours without any bathroom breaks, any food, or anything to drink...
    Police are allowed to lie to people in order to get a confession. It may not be "nice," but they're not dealing with "nice people."
    To understand the living, you got to commune with the dead.
    Minerva

  30. #2779
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by McCourt View Post
    Police are allowed to lie to people in order to get a confession. It may not be "nice," but they're not dealing with "nice people."
    There were no police in the room. He was already convicted. The confession above was to his own lawyer. Everyone shoujld really read it, note the date and the circumstances. It is 74 pages of description from everything including before the crime, the walk to the area, the crime, after the crime.

    Its right here and the confession is right at the beginning. So much incorrect information is being stated that I dont understand why people wont read the confession.

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

  31. #2780
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,450
    We're talking about a boy/young man with an IQ of 68/70. 68 is INCOMPETENT. Don't take his interview out of context, please, I mean that was one L-O-N-G session. Without food, rest, or any rewards until Misskelley said what they wanted him to say. I mean, (and I'm going on memory alone, it's far too late at night to look up specific quotes, but in essence They drew a circle around the cops and "good people" and one around Damien, Jason and "bad people" and asked this borderline retarded person, deprived of sleep, nourishment, and outside contact, to decide which one he wanted to be a part of. And then they told him how he could do that.

    Remember Jesse's answer to what time they did the killings? "Around lunchtime." Sorry, no. All three boys attended school that day, lunch and all. It took almost three hours to get Jesse to get that one right.

    I've no problem with the facts. But one cannot take an interrogation as long and as obviously led (and I'm being kind here... O.M.G.) and just print a bit of it and say, "Lookie here, see what he said?" No. It was wrong. It was police work at it most despicable. And you know, I'm glad they're free if, for nothing else, to scream that this cannot be the accepted formula these "clever" cops use when they have to get suspects and fast.

    I cannot believe Gary Gitchell was quoted here. What a complete and utter lying asshat. He is what's wrong with our justice system; he and those like him. He makes all of law enforcement look like criminals. He didn't care that he was taking the freedom of three young men when NOBODY EVER GAVE A LICK OF EVIDENCE THEY WERE EVEN THERE.

    Disgusting and shameful. This case was a blemish on the justice system of our country. It was our disgrace. It doesn't matter if we like any of "The Three" -- nobody asked anyone to like them. But for the love of God, why can't people SHOW ME HOW THEY'RE GUILTY? I'll tell you why: The evidence is nonexistent. It isn't there. And you know, Damien DID act like a dumbass during the trial. No argument there. But he was -- hell, was he even 18 then? I hope to God no one ever judges me for my actions at age 18. Oh have mercy.

    I wish to Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols, and Jesse Misskelley every happiness and success. I stand behind their claim of innocence and I celebrate their freedom. They damn well deserve it.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I am the master of my fate:
    I am the captain of my soul! (Invictus)
    (And Timothy McVeigh's last words...)

  32. #2781
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TaupinJohn View Post
    We're talking about a boy/young man with an IQ of 68/70. 68 is INCOMPETENT. Don't take his interview out of context, please, I mean that was one L-O-N-G session. Without food, rest, or any rewards until Misskelley said what they wanted him to say. I mean, (and I'm going on memory alone, it's far too late at night to look up specific quotes, but in essence They drew a circle around the cops and "good people" and one around Damien, Jason and "bad people" and asked this borderline retarded person, deprived of sleep, nourishment, and outside contact, to decide which one he wanted to be a part of. And then they told him how he could do that.

    Remember Jesse's answer to what time they did the killings? "Around lunchtime." Sorry, no. All three boys attended school that day, lunch and all. It took almost three hours to get Jesse to get that one right.

    I've no problem with the facts. But one cannot take an interrogation as long and as obviously led (and I'm being kind here... O.M.G.) and just print a bit of it and say, "Lookie here, see what he said?" No. It was wrong. It was police work at it most despicable. And you know, I'm glad they're free if, for nothing else, to scream that this cannot be the accepted formula these "clever" cops use when they have to get suspects and fast.

    I cannot believe Gary Gitchell was quoted here. What a complete and utter lying asshat. He is what's wrong with our justice system; he and those like him. He makes all of law enforcement look like criminals. He didn't care that he was taking the freedom of three young men when NOBODY EVER GAVE A LICK OF EVIDENCE THEY WERE EVEN THERE.

    Disgusting and shameful. This case was a blemish on the justice system of our country. It was our disgrace. It doesn't matter if we like any of "The Three" -- nobody asked anyone to like them. But for the love of God, why can't people SHOW ME HOW THEY'RE GUILTY? I'll tell you why: The evidence is nonexistent. It isn't there. And you know, Damien DID act like a dumbass during the trial. No argument there. But he was -- hell, was he even 18 then? I hope to God no one ever judges me for my actions at age 18. Oh have mercy.

    I wish to Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols, and Jesse Misskelley every happiness and success. I stand behind their claim of innocence and I celebrate their freedom. They damn well deserve it.
    Well Im trying to give you evidence. Unfortunately you and some of the others dont realise I am not talking about his interview with police. This confession had none of the things you mentioned in it. It was done after he was convicted. It was done with no police present, It was done to his own lawyer in private. Jessie described the time and details for 74 pages. All you have to do is click the link above and you can see this is a completly different time, and text. I even cut and pasted the very first part of the interview where you can plainly see that no long series of questions were asked and Jessie freely admited his guilt.

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

  33. #2782
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,450
    Let me go a bit further and address the "I hate Damien" folk. At 18, he was... well, young of course, and he showed all the characteristics of a rebellious young man. No surprise there. He dabbled (and I'm not sugar coating it, it was absolutely dabbling and nothing more) with different religions/ideas. I believe he enjoyed getting a reaction from people (and my personal opinion is that that was due to getting little or no reaction for ANYthing as a child... but I digress...)

    And he was just horrible during the trial. He was. I get that.

    But let me suggest this: If every 18-year-old was tried and convicted because of their "strange behavior" then wouldn't the vast majority of our young men be doing time? I mean if all you have to do is piss everyone off, well we're gonna need more prisons.

    I submit that the bottom line is it matters NOT whether we "like" ANY of them. There is zero evidence they committed a crime, it simply doesn't exist. They were taken out of their quiet and non-assuming lives and thrown in an adult prison for LONGER THAN THEY'D EVEN BEEN ALIVE. And folks, I'm saying and loudly that they didn't do this. I'm sorry but show me different.

    The DNA evidence indicates (and quite clearly) that Terry Hobbs and his friend David Jacoby were AT THE SCENE where the boys' bodies were discovered. Furthermore, both Hobbs and Jacoby admit to being together at that crucial time, and in Jacoby's van.

    Think about it: These weren't "let's do this for shits and giggles" murders. And they weren't the amateurish first-killings done by three simply Arkansas dudes trying to kill some time.

    They were personal, particulary with Stevie Branch, the stepson of Terry Hobbs. Somebody whom these boys trusted lured them into ... something. I'm thinking a van, but let's just say "something" (the van, Jacoby's, was never even checked. Seriously.) And whomever murdered these boys had it personal for one of them, namely Stevie.

    I've said it, I've sang it, and I'll do it again: Terry Hobbs, I hope you see this post when you Google your own name (and you SO do, I'm sure of it.) Because the devil's in the details, darling; and so's your DNA.

    For those that disagree, do it with facts, facts, facts. Not "my dry cleaner's cousin's gardener said that Damien had [insert something outrageous] under his bed." What a ludicrous suggestion! We're talking about whether or not a man is guilty of murdering three eight-year-olds! This is NOT the time for outlandish "I heard..."s! And I'll tell you something else: the more people insist on pinning this act of evil on Jason, Damien, and Jesse, the less attention LE is going to give to ... oh I don't know, LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE! Because it's there. And those three young men were NOT.

    There is a monster loose in West Memphis, Arkansas. Please, let's finally make him accountable.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I am the master of my fate:
    I am the captain of my soul! (Invictus)
    (And Timothy McVeigh's last words...)

  34. #2783
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,616
    Quote Originally Posted by PrincessPoe View Post
    The testicles in jars under Damien's bed was not and has never been true. Those were rumors that were being spread around town during the time. Mark Byers even mentions it in Paradise Lost. There were things found in Damien's room that may or may not have been associated with devil worship but that is not evidence conclusive with guilt.
    Paradise Lost is a bunch of useless propaganda. You'd have to wear some really thick rose-colored glasses to believe that muck.

    Echols wasn't just a strange kid, he was and is a psychopath.

    I still can't believe there are people out there that believe those three are innocent, even though they've read the documentation of the case. It really boggles the mind.
    Last edited by Jenivere2011; 10-01-2013 at 11:21 PM.

  35. #2784
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by SRVFan View Post
    Ask and ye shall receive.

    Scroll down to the third paragraph below the section that says "end of page five".
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html
    Thank you for looking for it, however it again says only that Peretti mentioned finding urine, but did not document that finding in any of his reports, at least that I have been able to find. That's basically what I mentioned before. Gitchell said Peretti found urine in the boys stomachs but I can't find it listed in any of the medical reports. Either that was sloppy work on Peretti's part or it just wasn't fact. I can always appreciate other people's opinions on this case, and I can understand where people might be inclined to believe in guilt. It is just my personal opinion that all three are innocent and that the people who should have been investigated from the get go weren't. Also, I know the PL docs are biased towards the three defendants, I only mentioned it because Mark Byers talks about that rumor of the testicles in a jar under Damien's bed, and quotes it as fact. That was a rumor and nothing more. And SRVFan, I can understand your feelings on Damien. Any time I have found myself wavering on the side of guilt it is ALWAYS because of my true disgust for Damien as a person. I have just always believed that Jason was innocent, and Jessie well...Jessie just isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and I don't see his confession(s) as holding a lot of weight because his first confession was so off the mark, and if you really listen to him talk he just doesn't strike me as a person smart enough to try and fool police. His subsequent confessions came after he had already been told so many details of the murders and how they happened that they feel tainted to me. He did end up serving a lot of time instead of taking a deal to testify against the others so...But yes, Damien leaves me with a very unsettling feeling. I believe he certainly was capable of these things, but my heart of hearts tells me that Jason and probably Jessie are innocent. And since the case was built on the three of them that would mean Damien is innocent too.

  36. #2785
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,450
    OTE=Ric2F;1409489]Well Im trying to give you evidence. Unfortunately you and some of the others dont realise I am not talking about his interview with police. This confession had none of the things you mentioned in it. It was done after he was convicted. It was done with no police present, It was done to his own lawyer in private. Jessie described the time and details for 74 pages. All you have to do is click the link above and you can see this is a completly different time, and text. I even cut and pasted the very first part of the interview where you can plainly see that no long series of questions were asked and Jessie freely admited his guilt.

    I have clicked that link and EVERY available link. If clicks were dimes I'd retire. I do not shamelessly defend murderers or even "might-be" murderers. This "callahan" link has been posted numerous times (although I've got no problem with you continuing to refer people to it.) There's a lot there... I mean I'm trying to give you a positive.

    But there's even MORE when you look at the interrogation IN FULL. Not cutting and bolding what you like and conveniently dismissing the rest.

    You know what would be a true, and I mean a true nightmare? Going to prison as a teenager for 18 years for something you had absolutely NO part it. I sweat empathy anyway, but for these three I bleed it. Because some dickhead (Yo Gitchell!) decided they could probably be convicted of this, that's why they lost almost two decades of their lives.

    And I'm just not okay with that.

    My son is 17, and he wears black more often than not, plays in an alternative band, and has read everything Stephen King ever penned. Remind you of anyone? But he'd never hurt anyone, and his interests are exactly that: his. Nobody should EVER be convicted based on what the public views them to be. Hell, I'm a Death Hag, and I someone close to me came up really dead, I'd have a hard time explaining my fascination with... well, this.

    But that doesn't make me a murderer.

    Those three young men in Arkansas were simple, they just were. They did not have the know-how to pull of the perfect crime (perfect in that nobody knew what the hell happened.) One of them was retarded (two points is two points,) and the other two weren't even together that day. If Damien killed them for some sort of satanic ritual () then why did the other two go along with it, as is claimed? Okay, let's dismiss Misskelley because of his obvious lack of reason. Why would Jason Baldwin, who inarguably had NO interest or connection to dark religion, go along with something so horrific, so evil?

    What motive did he have for helping Damien kill three kids and then cover it up? I'm not seeing it. Jason was incredibly young, but not a stupid-young; I mean that's how I'm seeing him. Where's the motive? And boredom doesn't cut it; kids are bored every single day yet seldom decide the cure is a triple-homicide. Nope, not buying it.

    I'm trying so hard here. Trying to see your point. I know you're as passionate about this as I, and I respect you for that. And I hope we can keep the healthy debate going, I swear I do.

    But as far as that site goes, I mean Darlie Routier, Pamela Smart, and Jeffrey MacDonald all have "Our Innocence" pages. Doesn't mean any one of them isn't guilty as all get-out. Anything can be turned to look different in various lights. I just hope nobody confines themselves to callahan site because it's -- it reminds me of people who quote one Bible verse and take it out of context to fit their own view. That's exactly how I see it.

    Addressing the latter part of your post: Jesse was (by legal standards) retarded. He'd been in custody for a very long time, and he was scared. He also wanted to please the cops; he believed they'd let him go if only he'd get it right. And he did, but damn did he take the long way doing it! And we'll never know what was said to him before the tape began , before his voice was first recorded (the part you're referring to.)

    I believe the nature of this crime clearly indicates it was personal. It was absolutey not (oh I am SO sure of this) an act of "devil worshipping" -- I mean come ON. Someone had it in for one of the victims, and the other two were killed for seeing that unfold. I cannot for the life of me see it any different.

    The Three are free, and that was a tremendous victory for Good. I cannot help them to freedom any longer, they no longer need anyone soapboxing for them. But I won't forget nor will I allow anyone else to that this DID happen, and it was wrong. Only through history do we learn from mistakes. And because of the mistakes of a few overzealous cops/prosecutors, there weren't only three victims of this travesty but six.

    If one judge, one attorney, looks at this case and realizes, "Hey, what happened here was wrong," then perhaps those 18 years weren't totally served in vain. Perhaps people will be less anxious to convict based on personality and supposed behavior.

    And if it stops only one person from going through the living nightmare that these men endured for over half their lifetimes, it will truly be a journey well taken. Like the saying, "Better 100 guilty men go free than one guilty man to be convicted" -- well I believe that. I also believe that, to convict a man/men of murder and sentence one to DIE, we'd better be damned sure we've got the right guys. The courts of West Memphis saw it differently. And had Echols been put to death before release, that should've haunted the souls of everyone responsible for killing him.

    Hell, that's almost as haunting as the notion that Terry Hobbs is out walking among us. That, by my definition, is the stuff of true nightmares. Unfortunately, the only ones who can confirm that have been silenced forever. And before their tenth birthday. If there any any words to describe that sort of injustice, I cannot imagine what they could be.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I am the master of my fate:
    I am the captain of my soul! (Invictus)
    (And Timothy McVeigh's last words...)

  37. #2786
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TaupinJohn View Post
    OTE=Ric2F;1409489]Well Im trying to give you evidence. Unfortunately you and some of the others dont realise I am not talking about his interview with police. This confession had none of the things you mentioned in it. It was done after he was convicted. It was done with no police present, It was done to his own lawyer in private. Jessie described the time and details for 74 pages. All you have to do is click the link above and you can see this is a completly different time, and text. I even cut and pasted the very first part of the interview where you can plainly see that no long series of questions were asked and Jessie freely admited his guilt.

    I have clicked that link and EVERY available link. If clicks were dimes I'd retire. I do not shamelessly defend murderers or even "might-be" murderers. This "callahan" link has been posted numerous times (although I've got no problem with you continuing to refer people to it.) There's a lot there... I mean I'm trying to give you a positive.

    But there's even MORE when you look at the interrogation IN FULL. Not cutting and bolding what you like and conveniently dismissing the rest.

    .
    You may well have clicked this "Callahan" link. It is just that from your above post you said

    "We're talking about a boy/young man with an IQ of 68/70. 68 is INCOMPETENT. Don't take his interview out of context, please, I mean that was one L-O-N-G session. Without food, rest, or any rewards until Misskelley said what they wanted him to say. I mean, (and I'm going on memory alone, it's far too late at night to look up specific quotes, but in essence They drew a circle around the cops and "good people" and one around Damien, Jason and "bad people" and asked this borderline retarded person, deprived of sleep, nourishment, and outside contact, to decide which one he wanted to be a part of. And then they told him how he could do that.

    Remember Jesse's answer to what time they did the killings? "Around lunchtime." Sorry, no. All three boys attended school that day, lunch and all. It took almost three hours to get Jesse to get that one right. "

    However absolutely none of that is in this confession. What you are describing is a statement Jessie gave to police the day he was arrested ( which occured on 6/3/93. The link I posted goes to a completely different text. This is not a statement where Jessie is not admitting guilt. This is a real confession, Jessie was not in a long session and he admitted he did it within the first few minutes. His Lawyer, which was the only person conducting the interview. No circle was drawn in this interview because no police were there. He was not sleep deprived in this interview and what I cut and pasted was the very first of the interview. Jessie did not give the time as noon in this interview.

    I cut and pasted the very start of the interview because that is all it took for him to confess. I then provided the link so anyone could see the entire interview which gives in great detail over 74 pages of what occured during before and after the crime. I posted the short amount of text also because it is unrealistic to post 74 pages of text when it is just a simple click away.

    What I fail to understand is why you comment on the interview with police, where in fact Jessie did not confess (which occured on 6/3/93) and completely dismiss one of his confessions he made after he had been convicted (which occured on 2/8/94) and admitted to more involvement than he had even been convicted of?

    Im simply trying to show you the evidence you claim has never been shown to you. So I am quite unclear when you refer to something other than what was presented. Callahans has dozens of links. In fact this link was one of the last links added to the site and many people have not seen this confession. It was not available at the trial of Damien and Jason because the lawyer kept it confidentual. It was only exposed at a later hearing for MissKelley and was used to deny his motion.

    Lastly, there is an additional confession (which occured on 2/17/94) that Jessie gave to the prosecutors after he had confessed to his own lawyer. During this interview Jessies lawyer Stidham plead with Jessie not to confess because Stidham wanted to make a deal . Jessie confessed knowing no deal was in place and claimed he wanted something done about the killing.
    This third confession can be found by simply clicking
    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html and is a completly different confession and link than the Stidham confession.

  38. #2787
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    As far as Jesse's confessions go I still think you have to look at the very first one because that is the one that landed them all in jail. The judge wouldn't even sign the arrest warrants for the other two because it was so off the mark. So Gitchell and Ridge went back and got the right time line. The first confession was obviously coming from a person who would have said anything if he thought it would get Dad a new truck and eventually get him home. During Jesse's trial it was shown that he was in another county at the time. Several witnesses testified to being with Jesse at a wrestling event. Jesse even signed the log in sheet at the place they were wrestling. That testimony was completely ignored by the police, prosecution and ultimately the jurors. The confessions to Stidham and later to prosecutors came after his conviction. After he had already heard every fact of the case and knew what he should say. And there was a deal being put in place for Jesse. Prosecutors have even said that they were willing to cut him a deal if he would testify against Damien and Jesse because the case against them was so weak.

    This case was too big for the WMPD. They screwed it up from the get go and there was a lot of sloppy police work on their part. The family should have been the first people looked at and cleared before moving on to a pool of other suspects, but Gitchell was asking Jerry Driver to compile him a list of juveniles Driver thought might have been capable of this the day the boys were found. He wasn't remotely interested in looking at the families. The only family member at the time of the murders who was interviewed by detectives was Byers and that might have been because he did have a criminal past that involved violence against family. But Hobbs wasn't interviewed formally until 2007 and by that time he could use the old "that was so long ago I can't remember." Hobbs has always claimed he was out looking for Stevie with his friend David Jacoby, but Jacoby says that isn't true. Hobbs says he never saw the boys, but neighbors say they saw him with the three before six. Plus, if the murders occurred during the time the prosecution claims they did, at the place they claim they did, people were already in those woods looking for Stevie, Chris and Michael. That would mean that Damien, Jason and Jesse were doing the killings while people were all around them calling out the kids names. And they would had to have snuck out of the woods without being seen by police and volunteer searchers. Only one witness claimed to have seen Damien near the crime scene that night. This was at night, while she was driving, and it was Domini, not Jason she said she saw. Prosecutors would later skew that to say she actually saw Jason but mistook him for Domini. She also told police she thought her nephew was involved and a host of other people.

    This case in no way is a slam dunk when it comes to the guilt of Damien, Jason and Jesse. There are just too many holes and not enough evidence to fill them in. I know Damien was completely nuts and had a history of violence and mental health issues. I know Jesse had a history of fights too, but there is nothing in Jason's past that would in any way lead me to believe that he could murder three little boys just because Damien told him too. He's the only one who I've heard speak about Chris, Michael and Stevie with real concern for finding out who actually killed them. But like I said, to believe in his innocence means that Damien would have to be innocent too, since he was with Damien that night and the prosecution built the case against the three of them.



  39. #2788
    tarsier Guest
    I'll never understand how they got a conviction on this case.

  40. #2789
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PrincessPoe View Post
    As far as Jesse's confessions go I still think you have to look at the very first one because that is the one that landed them all in jail. The judge wouldn't even sign the arrest warrants for the other two because it was so off the mark.
    I think you have stated the difference in what I and a lot of westmemphis 3 supporters have. It seems to be a sticking point that they do not believe that there was enough evidence to convict them or the evidence was obtained in a bad way. Regardless of that, two different trails happened where two different sets of jurys found them guilty from seeing all the evidence. So yes at that point I understand peoples aprehension of guilt findings. However when I first started reading documents from the case I saw that Jessie MissKelley had confessed to prosecutors on 2/17/94. This confession was before the Echols/Baldwin trial and would certainly have resulted in a slam dunk conviction. Later we discovered well after both trials that MissKelley had confessed to his own lawyer on 2/8/94 and that confession is even more of a slam dunk because it was in private to his own lawyer with no deals in place, no coercion from police, no promises of going home, nobody leading him, and he knew detail after detail after detail that had never been given to him.

    So the difference between me and supporters of the three killers is that it is far more important to me that the facts ( two consistent confessions) prove beyond ANY doubt that they were guilty. So I believe that if supporters would see these confessions and realise that they are guilty instead of focusing on the trials or what they have been told.

    I just believe actual guilt is the most important thing. I am having a difficult time figuring out why this isnt important to the supporters of these three murderers. So I give them a link to the confessions and even show the text of where MissKelley confessed and it is simply ignored. I cant figure out why it is ignored unless supporters dont know of the confessions or are confusing them with the first interview with police. The confession even clears up why he said some things to the police in the interview.

    So to those that understand and still dont change your mind on their guilt I am sorry. For those of you that had never seen the confessions to his lawyer and to prosecutors after conviction, please read them and form your opinion.

  41. #2790
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    I have read the confessions, and I stand by the fact that the confessions AFTER the first one are in my view, tainted because Jesse already knew the details of the crime from his own trial. His first confession to police was riddled with inconsistencies and things that flat out couldn't have happened. What about the log sheet from the place he went wrestling at that he signed that night. That, along with witnesses who saw him at the match or went with him are never addressed. Plus there is zero motive for the three of them to have committed this crime. If it was really just a thrill kill (since the idea it was occult related is ridiculous) why spend so much time hiding clothes and submerging the bodies while people are in the woods looking for the kids. Wouldn't it have made more sense for them to have left in a rush, worried about being discovered. They weren't sophisticated criminals, didn't have access to a car and would have fled on foot. They left behind no physical evidence, no foot prints, nothing. I don't believe the kids were killed where they were found. I'm certainly not ignoring the confessions you are pointing out, I just don't see them the way you do. Not to mention that Jesse's confession wasn't even introduced at Jason and Damien's trial so it wasn't considered evidence during that case. I'm not sure why you are sorry that you can't change my mind on their guilt. A few posts up even you said you weren't entirely convinced that ALL of them were guilty. "I will say this. I'm not sure that ALL of the three are truly guilty, but I believe in my heart of hearts that Echols is."

  42. #2791
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PrincessPoe View Post
    I have read the confessions, and I stand by the fact that the confessions AFTER the first one are in my view, tainted because Jesse already knew the details of the crime from his own trial. His first confession to police was riddled with inconsistencies and things that flat out couldn't have happened. What about the log sheet from the place he went wrestling at that he signed that night. That, along with witnesses who saw him at the match or went with him are never addressed. Plus there is zero motive for the three of them to have committed this crime. If it was really just a thrill kill (since the idea it was occult related is ridiculous) why spend so much time hiding clothes and submerging the bodies while people are in the woods looking for the kids. Wouldn't it have made more sense for them to have left in a rush, worried about being discovered. They weren't sophisticated criminals, didn't have access to a car and would have fled on foot. They left behind no physical evidence, no foot prints, nothing. I don't believe the kids were killed where they were found. I'm certainly not ignoring the confessions you are pointing out, I just don't see them the way you do. Not to mention that Jesse's confession wasn't even introduced at Jason and Damien's trial so it wasn't considered evidence during that case. I'm not sure why you are sorry that you can't change my mind on their guilt. A few posts up even you said you weren't entirely convinced that ALL of them were guilty. "I will say this. I'm not sure that ALL of the three are truly guilty, but I believe in my heart of hearts that Echols is."
    It wasnt me that said Im not sure all are guilty but I think Echols is. That was someone else. I am 100% convinced of guilt. I really cant go into every piece of evidence and explain it because it has been done 100s of times. You certaininly are entitled to use whatever evidence and logic you choose to make your conclusion.

    I would like to express one point again towards the initial statement given to police. Criminals dont simply come in and confess to all their deeds, they fabricate things that make them seem less culpable. Jessies first statement is quite consistent with someone making things up as to deflect guilt. Jessie was not the sharpest tool in the shed and by saying certain things for instance he that the crime happened at noon he might feel that that gave him an alibi because he was getting off work at that time. However when you know the crime occured after 6 PM but Jessie can still give details of what Damien and Jason did then you have to assume he knows details but is trying to protect himself in his dimwitted mind.
    Jessie repeatedly said he left and then gave more information on what occured at the crime scene.

    As far as believing all the confessions besides the first one are tainted. Thats certainly your perogative. My thinking is that why would he give this confession at this point? He had already been convicted. His Lawyer was the only one there. He admitted to much more involvement than he had been convicted of. he knew details that were not in the trial, He described events before and after the murders that are consistent with the timing. He explained why he said things to police. To have a tainted confession you would think there would be some type of reason to give a tainted confession. I ask why he would give it to his lawyer. It certainly rings true. In fact the reason Jessie gave the confession to Stidham was because on the way to jail he confessed to the transport officers and they contacted Stidham. Jessie didnt contact Stidham asking to confess. In fact when Stidham first got there he again claimed innocence. then placed his hands on the bible and confessed. So in my mind why would the confession be tainted or for that matter even given.

    Anyway thats my conclusion. I think its correct and logical and the reason I said I am sorry if you read the confession and dont believe the killers own words is because they dont think the killers confession is consistent, without coercion, and done for no other reason than to tell the truth. I believe it so positively that it hurts me to see others dismiss it with no logical reason. I just feel like emotion and initial falsehoods take precidence over logic and facts.

    Anyway, good discussing this with you.
    Last edited by Ric2F; 10-02-2013 at 02:17 PM.

  43. #2792
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    89
    I'm sorry I just realized it wasn't you that said that. I was scanning quick, but at any rate, I can appreciate your opinions on the case. Unlike a lot of supporters I have zero love for Damien Echols. I find him repugnant and a fame whore. He's riding the murders of these boys all the way to the bank, and while I don't believe he killed them, I do believe he is using them to further his rise up the fame ladder. Jesse was offered a reduced sentence if he would testify at Damien and Jason's trial. If he was so inspired to confess to everyone and their mother, why would he then retract that and spend a life time in prison as opposed to life with parole or whatever the deal was being offered? I don't know why he confessed to Stidham or why he decided at the last minute not to testify in exchange for a reduced sentence. I only know that for me, personally, the evidence against the West Memphis Three is not there. Not enough for me to justify letting Damien Echols sit on death row and Jason and Jesse to rot away in prison. I believe the police ignored important leads and focused on Jerry Driver's prime suspect. Driver hated Damien with a passion and was convinced he committed the crime before anyone even checked their alibis. I just can't believe in my heart they did it.

  44. #2793
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Natchez Ms
    Posts
    3,738
    I just want to chime in and say it's nice that people with apposing views can remain civil in this debate.
    I am the king of all things stupid!

  45. #2794
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by McMorbid View Post
    I just want to chime in and say it's nice that people with apposing views can remain civil in this debate.
    I dont know if you are speaking of me. Frankly because I feel my view is so certain I think I do tend to come of as all knowing and above others opinions. I get quite frustrated but I dont take things personal in a discussion. I try to wrap my head around why people wouldnt agree with me, so when I explain that I think I come off as snotty or whatever. I do become annoyed when I do my very best to be totally honest and it appears that its dismissed without the person reading or understanding what I have described.

    But yeah, what good would it be to personally attack your partner. I have learned through the comments on Youtube that personal attacks actually disuade people from your arguement. This is a pretty good forum and the moderators keep a pretty close reign on trolling.

  46. #2795
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    7,438
    I have read anything and everything on this case, yes it was shown that he did "confess" but did you stop to think that after hours of having to sit in the police station being interrogated, before you were even given a lawyer, saying come on Jesse we know you did it, we have proof, using the old tactic that ,the other two already confessed, you might as well confess also, come on Jesse we know you did it, then in his mind he is thinking yeah what if I did it and I better go ahead and say I did it so they will go easy on me and let me go home, the lawyer is probably begging him not to say it did it because he wasn't guilty but innocent and he didn't want Jesse to have this on his record or to be charged, I will say it again if there was solid proof that they did it then why did they not go ahead and execute Damien, and keep the other two in prison for life. Instead of making the deal with them and letting them go. I have never heard of the Justice system letting out someone that they "had" solid evidence that committed the crimes and make a deal with them if they were guilty. I believe they are innocent. I believe that JMB and Hobbs had something to do with it.

  47. #2796
    Ric2F Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by pkstracy View Post
    I have read anything and everything on this case, yes it was shown that he did "confess" but did you stop to think that after hours of having to sit in the police station being interrogated, before you were even given a lawyer, saying come on Jesse we know you did it, we have proof, using the old tactic that ,the other two already confessed, you might as well confess also, come on Jesse we know you did it, then in his mind he is thinking yeah what if I did it and I better go ahead and say I did it so they will go easy on me and let me go home, the lawyer is probably begging him not to say it did it because he wasn't guilty but innocent and he didn't want Jesse to have this on his record or to be charged, I will say it again if there was solid proof that they did it then why did they not go ahead and execute Damien, and keep the other two in prison for life. Instead of making the deal with them and letting them go. I have never heard of the Justice system letting out someone that they "had" solid evidence that committed the crimes and make a deal with them if they were guilty. I believe they are innocent. I believe that JMB and Hobbs had something to do with it.
    Hey I will try one last time.

    1The statement you are talking about with cops there has nothing to do with the confession to his lawyer.
    This statement occured on 6/3/93
    At no point did Jessie confess.

    2 After that the trial was held and Jessie was convicted.

    3 The first CONFESSION occured after conviction on 2/8/94. No police were ever there. Jessie had not been beaten down and the Lawyer wasnt pleading with him not to confess. The lawyer was asking him very detailed questions. And got a very detailed confession. It was not used at trial or known about for several years. The lawyer was the only person present, no police, no prosecutors.

    4 After Jessie confessed to his lawyer. Jessie confessed to the prosecutors This confession occured on 2/17/94
    This was the confession where Jessies lawyer was pleading with Jessie not to confess. This was after he already knew jessie was guilty or at least claimed guilt. This point is irrefutable

    5 So there are three text documented statements and two that would qualify as confessions.

    a. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html Statement to police 6/3/93
    1. 2/4/94 Misskelley trial ends

    b. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html Confession to Lawyer after conviction 2/8/94

    c. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html Confession to prosecutors 2/17/94

  48. #2797
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    7,438
    Let's agree to disagree. Shall we you keep throwing up Callahan, they did interrogate him for hours and he did confess to the police so they would let him go home, then he talked to his lawyer, but anyway you won't change my mind and I cannot change yours. Until I see hard ass proof DNA< or pictures of them at the site killing the boys, or them actually coming forward in front of cameras, not in a closed room with one person then I'll say I was wrong they did it.

  49. #2798
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,854

  50. #2799
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Ric2F View Post
    There were no police in the room. He was already convicted. The confession above was to his own lawyer. Everyone shoujld really read it, note the date and the circumstances. It is 74 pages of description from everything including before the crime, the walk to the area, the crime, after the crime.

    Its right here and the confession is right at the beginning. So much incorrect information is being stated that I dont understand why people wont read the confession.

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html
    Thanks for the link. I probably would have read it before, but now its moot and my give a shitter is broken.
    To understand the living, you got to commune with the dead.
    Minerva

  51. #2800
    Mammy Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by McCourt View Post
    Thanks for the link. I probably would have read it before, but now its moot and my give a shitter is broken.
    LOL, my give a shitter went out years ago! I replaced it with a who gives a fucker.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •