West of Memphis

Mrs G Norris said:

To me they seem like a lot of men who you see in low socio economic environments .. I would never apologise or condone such violence, but it is a very different kind of violence than sexual mutilation.

They may have been worth looking at, but the so called 'evidence' against both of them in relation to this crime is not the kind of evidence which would even get them arrested, let alone make it into a court of law. The filmmakers know this, they are not that naive, they also know full well that they do not need to meet the same standards required of the police or a court of law, so they recklessly created a narrative for the general public in order to sway the court of public opinion in favour of the convicted, and if that meant painting TH as a suspect then away they went.

It's manipulative and irresponsible.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%.

I find it very curious that before the movies came out that there was talk of 'blaming the parents' from Jessie Misskelly and from Jason's cellie. I am just wondering if the film makers had hinted to the defense or even to the defendants about this. How else would they have this idea years before the movie came out?

I doubt that the film makers (unless they consulted with an attorney somewhere) thought the film would cause such a rage against Byers since any evidence they portrayed in the movies could not be used in a court or even made sense for that matter. But when they made the 2nd and all those that followed they should have stopped it then, but they didn't. They were then at that point where they were making a ton of money from this lie. I blame them for this happening.

Mrs G Norris said:

Trial by media is a problem in the USA. Just look at the Casey Anthony case, that was a disaster because the police got the media involved so much that it became a soap opera before it even went to trial. Same goes for the JBR case actually .. Once the reporters find a narrative that sells objectivity can fly out the window which I certainly think has happened with the PL movies and WOM .. that's why people need to look beyond MSM.

The judges in Florida weren't surprised at the CA verdict. Why? Because they weren't reading the media reports as if they had the answer, they were looking at the motions and evidence.

Click to expand...

Our media is not very responsible either. They take a story and just copy that story like it was the truth without going over any of the facts. It's really sad, but unfortunately that's the way it's done today.

How else would they have this idea years before the movie came out?

Click to expand...

...because it's a really obvious defence strategy?

... because two of the step parents had records for violence and domestic abuse?

It's the same here, it's a shame ..

Sad to see how uninformed even apparently intelligent people are regarding the injustice inflicted on WM3

JaneyBGood said:

Sad to see how uninformed even apparently intelligent people are regarding the injustice inflicted on WM3

Click to expand...

Sadly most of the celebrity supporters have ONLY watched the Paradise Lost movies. If those supporters would have gone just a little further, researched and used their common sense they would not have supported them.

I also think that this case drew a lot of attention internationally due to it being a death penalty case. It has with other cases too, this one really isn't much different in that respect.

UdbCrzy2 said:

Sadly most of the celebrity supporters have ONLY watched the Paradise Lost movies. If those supporters would have gone just a little further, researched and used their common sense they would not have supported them.

I also think that this case drew a lot of attention internationally due to it being a death penalty case. It has with other cases too, this one really isn't much different in that respect.

Click to expand...

That is not fair as many of them are directly involved.

UdbCrzy2 said:

Sadly most of the celebrity supporters have ONLY watched the Paradise Lost movies. If those supporters would have gone just a little further, researched and used their common sense they would not have supported them.

I also think that this case drew a lot of attention internationally due to it being a death penalty case. It has with other cases too, this one really isn't much different in that respect.

Click to expand...

What proof do you have that "celebrity supporters have ONLY watched the Paradise Lost movies"? I doubt Natalie Maines entered into a lawsuit with Terry Hobbs with only the viewing of a movie under her belt. It's also doubtful that Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh got deeply involved in investigating the case and donating millions to testing and still have only seen Paradise Lost. Same goes for Eddie Vedder, Johnny Depp and Henry Rollins. which people are you referring to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

primitivefuture said:

What proof do you have that "celebrity supporters have ONLY watched the Paradise Lost movies"? I doubt Natalie Maines entered into a lawsuit with Terry Hobbs with only the viewing of a movie under her belt. It's also doubtful that Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh got deeply involved in investigating the case and donating millions to testing and still have only seen Paradise Lost. Same goes for Eddie Vedder, Johnny Depp and Henry Rollins. which people are you referring to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's pretty easy, because they have said so.

What got you interested in the WM3?

I watched Paradise Lost is their answer.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPHIWSafulQ"]Larry King Live - Singers want 'West Memphis 3' released - YouTube[/ame]

UdbCrzy2 said:

That's pretty easy, because they have said so.

What got you interested in the WM3?

I watched Paradise Lost is their answer.

Larry King Live - Singers want 'West Memphis 3' released - YouTube

Click to expand...

But that's not what you said. There is a huge difference between saying that watching Paradise Lost got them interested in the case and saying that they "ONLY watched Paradise Lost".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

primitivefuture said:

But that's not what you said. There is a huge difference between saying that watching Paradise Lost got them interested in the case and saying that they "ONLY watched Paradise Lost".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yes. I watched the movie got interested again after years and then started researching online and looking at the evidence.

ScarlettScarpetta said:

Yes. I watched the movie got interested again after years and then started researching online and looking at the evidence.

Click to expand...

That is what many people did, even people who believe the three are guilty. I've read many posts from people who believe strongly in their guilt who say that they first heard of the case through the movies.

I agree that people who have only seen the movies are not in the best place to make informed arguments one way or another, but I would be shocked if this was the case for any of the celebrities who donated their time and/or huge amounts of money. And for several of them, I know it isn't true.

Has anybody here not seen Paradise Lost? Does it make sense to nitpick the chronology of research by each individual interested in this case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So -- getting back to it --- is that not a fair enough point?

That it's an OBVIOUS defense strategy to look at the indisputably violent step fathers of two of the victims, and think, "Hmmm! Maybe we can use this as reasonable doubt!" -- and then discuss with it a client???

It's a no brainer, IMO.

primitivefuture said:

Does it make sense to nitpick the chronology of research by each individual interested in this case?

Click to expand...

No.

The argument. It's invalid.

Ausgirl said:

So -- getting back to it --- is that not a fair enough point?

That it's an OBVIOUS defense strategy to look at the indisputably violent step fathers of two of the victims, and think, "Hmmm! Maybe we can use this as reasonable doubt!" -- and then discuss with it a client???

It's a no brainer, IMO.

Click to expand...

Of course it's obvious. Especially considering that standard police procedure in a case where a child is killed is to look at the parents first and clear them or investigate them if need be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Todd Moore had a rock solid alibi, hence why he wasn't looked into. But standard procedure would have looked into Hobbs, Byers, or any other parent. Byers was investigated, but Hobbs wasn't until they found the dna. That is blatant incompetence. You do not just ignore the stepfather, even if it turns out he doesn't have a history of violence. And I haven't seen the video were hobbs was questioned, but from what I've heard they asked very soft questions. Compare to how he reacted when he was directly questioned by natalie pasdar's lawyers (by all accounts he was a lot less comfortable under questioning). Hobbs may be innocent, but only an idiot would say he should never have been investigated, and shouldn't be now, especially considering his violent past. Honestly, David Jacoby probably knows more than he's telling. Even if he didn't take part in the killing, he knows something. To be honest I think the real reason people are trying to say it's scapegoating is because it's easier to believe that the right people were imprisoned, and that a normal citizen would never do something that horrible. They also don't want to think the system could fail so grievously. Cold Case did an episode about it. The damian expo basically says "when a child is murdered someone has to pay, and it's easier to blame the trash from the wrong side of society." Whether or not that holds true to Echols such behavior is disturbingly common, and I honestly think it was a guiding force as to why Echols was a suspect (yes he had issues, but when you're brutally honest, Byers and Hobbs were just as violent, if not more so). It's easier to blame the freaky goth kid rather than the stepfather.

Honestly, the WMPD were ****ups.

UdbCrzy2 said:

Sadly most of the celebrity supporters have ONLY watched the Paradise Lost movies. If those supporters would have gone just a little further, researched and used their common sense they would not have supported them.

I also think that this case drew a lot of attention internationally due to it being a death penalty case. It has with other cases too, this one really isn't much different in that respect.

Click to expand...

I would bet that those celebrity supporters have a lot more information and knowledge about this case than both you and I combined.

As for the international aspect, death penalty cases don't grab attention in and of themselves. Executing someone based on what is believed to be scant evidence does grab attention.

reedus23 said:

I would bet that those celebrity supporters have a lot more information and knowledge about this case than both you and I combined.

Click to expand...

It would be cool if we could quiz them as I'd give you ten to one that many couldn't even get simple facts of the case right such as how long Misskelley was interrogated for before confessing and where Echols lived at the time of the murders.

reedus23 said:

As for the international aspect, death penalty cases don't grab attention in and of themselves.

Click to expand...

Some evidence to the contrary:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq3yeZQes6Q"]Anti-death penalty rally at Texas Capitol draws international attention - YouTube[/ame]

given that peter jackson donated a million dollars to do forensic tests, and that natalie pasdar ultimately went head to head with terry hobbs, they probably did do research, probably did look a little more, and did use common sense. The "they just saw the documentaries" is yet another canard meant to try and attack credibility, something the nons are guilty of themselves (Seriously, terry hobbs has a violent past yet he shouldn't be considered at all even though his friend placed him with those victims, even though as stepfather he should have been looked at regardless due to the fact that stepparents, parents and family acquaintances are the prime suspects in such case, even though multiple family members testified against him, even though the police didn't even look at him for fourteen years, even though jesse miskelley's confession is full of holes and could easily explained by him being so badgered and intensely interrogated he honestly believed it (which is actually pretty common with teenagers who are young, mentally challenged (miskelley was in the bottom 96th percentile, meaning he was dumber than 96% of the kids his age, and the police still showed only part of the interrogation, which was far more than 30 minutes.)) or offered him a plea bargain when he was desperate/asked when he was emotionally vulnerable)). The supporters are amply willing to consider that things might not be so clear cut. That maybe the case is murkier than the police thought. The nons want everything tied up in a nice neat little ribbon. They want the system to be good. They want it to be the freaky goth kids rather than the stepfather and other "upstanding citizens" who commit these crimes. Ultimately, the supporters use far more common sense than nons ever will.

I'm happy to be the cheese in the sammich.

or the ham...


or, like... bologna....