Random things about this case...

kyleb · Mar 9, 2013

Cappuccino said:
You're supposed to assess each piece of evidence individually first to see whether or not its true.

I was speaking from the understanding that if something is demonstratively false then it doesn't rightly fit the definition of term evidence, and in response to HastingsChi's request for smoking guns.

Cappuccino said:
Then you put together what's left to see if the case is tenable with the body of evidence that is actually true.

Yeah, or at least possibility true, as it's not like we enjoy and existence where one can conclusively determine anything and everything to be either true or false. With that fact in mind, it seems to me that David Klein has done a respectable job of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt on his WM3 Truth website, in the pages linked under the "The Case Against the WM3" heading on the navigation bar to the left. That said, if you can provide refutations of anything he presents as evidence there, please share.

On a side note, you asked a question in another thread which I came across the other day and answered [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9002587&postcount=12"]here[/ame].

Cappuccino · Mar 9, 2013

If you want me to refute anything you read on David K's website, then I suggest you present it here. Its impossible for supporters to refute it there, because our posts always get deleted.

And no, your clip from PL2 did not answer my question. Brent Turvey never diagnosed anything, and nor was he ever qualified to. He gave an opinion to Jessie's defense lawyer about seeking advice on bite marks. That's all.

Cappuccino · Mar 9, 2013

I was speaking from the understanding that if something is demonstratively false then it doesn't rightly fit the definition of term evidence, and in response to HastingsChi's request for smoking guns.

And btw - its the job of the trial to determine whether or not something entered into evidence is true or false. Its wrong headed in the extreme to think that anything classed as evidence must be true.

Every piece of evidence must be looked at individually to see whether or not its credible. Only those that are judged credible by the jury should be put together to see if the prosecution has a tenable case.

HastingsChi · Mar 10, 2013

kyleb said:
I was speaking from the understanding that if something is demonstratively false then it doesn't rightly fit the definition of term evidence, and in response to HastingsChi's request for smoking guns.

I never asked for a smoking gun or even used a term that could be construed to mean anything resembling a smoking gun; I simply asked another member who noted that their opinion regarding guilt or innocence had evolved over time. Deep evidence was cited as a factor in their evolution of opinions. Being as curious person I simply asked what specifically might he or she cite as the catalyst for the evolution of his or her opinion and what was it which reinforced the catalyst to solidify his or her opinion. Nothing more, nothing less; not looking to debate them, rather be educated by his or her reply and gaining some knowledge from it.

I am still very much looking forward to reading his or her reply if/when it happens.

kyleb · Mar 10, 2013

Cappuccino said:
If you want me to refute anything you read on David K's website, then I suggest you present it here.

I don't presume to know what you can or can't refute, which is why I simply linked to a website which summaries the bulk of what I believe proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the hopes that you might provide an explanation of what, if anything, you know to be false amongst what is presented as evidence there.

Cappuccino said:
He gave an opinion to Jessie's defense lawyer about seeking advice on bite marks. That's all.

No, if you'd bothered to watch the video from the timestamp I suggested, you'd have seen that Turvey also "explains to Stidham that [the injuries to Byers' genitals] were indeed caused by a knife and that it was done(even how it was probably done) outta anger" just like [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8794921&postcount=2"]Madeline said[/ame].

Cappuccino said:
Its wrong headed in the extreme to think that anything classed as evidence must be true.

Sure, but that's not what I was suggesting anyway.

HastingsChi said:
I never asked for a smoking gun or even used a term that could be construed to mean anything resembling a smoking gun

You asked "what specifically about each item of "deep evidence" demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty", and an individual item which in itself demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty is what is known as a smoking gun. The proper question is: what specific pieces of evidence when considered together demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, as that is how the determination of guilt works absent any smoking guns.

Cappuccino · Mar 10, 2013

I don't presume to know what you can or can't refute, which is why I simply linked to a website which summaries the bulk of what I believe proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the hopes that you might provide an explanation of what, if anything, you know to be false amongst what is presented as evidence there.

That website blocks any opposing views. Not that it matters - if you think the contents of David K's website prove guilt, then present that evidence here. You know, in a place where opposing views won't be blocked.

And I did watch your vid, but that doesn't change these two facts - 1) Brent Turvey is not qualified to diagnose wounds on a murder victim, and 2) He didn't attempt to do that anyway. Turvey gave advice to Jessie's defense lawyer on which type of forensic scientist to consult. End of.

Cappuccino · Mar 10, 2013

You asked "what specifically about each item of "deep evidence" demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty",

No, I did not. Why is that even in quote marks, I never asked any such thing.

kyleb · Mar 10, 2013

It's in quotation marks because it's quoted from the person I was replying to: HastingsChi. Furthermore, your claim that WM3 Truth always deletes opposing views is easily disproved by a quick perusal of the comments sections of the blog entries. For instance, on this page is an opposing view which David Kelly personally responded to:

Tangier March 8, 2013 at 8:22 pm

Animals did this postmortem.

Do you people think OJ is innocent? Columbian drug dealers were the murderers?

You believe some satanic cult bs vs. science? Who had motive and opportunity? Who had a history of violence against one of the victims? Terry Hobbs.

wm3truth March 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm

How about you? Do you think Fred Goldman killed his son and Nicole Simpson? Because the case against Fred Goldman is stronger than the case against Terry Hobbs.

If OJ Simpson had given six highly detailed confessions in 1994-95, and a bunch of people told the police they heard OJ bragging about the murders, would you consider that proof that OJ was framed?

Click to expand...

However, even if your your claim that WM3 Truth always deletes opposing views was true, that wouldn't prevent anyone from reading the information there and addressing it here or any number of other places. Granted, I've yet to find any actual refutation of the case laid out there. Am I to take it you haven't either?

Cappuccino · Mar 10, 2013

What is the case laid out there? Lay it out here, where David K. cannot delete the responses, like he does on his own silly blog.

Cappuccino · Mar 10, 2013

Kyleb, you haven't produced a shred of evidence. You've just repeatedly told us to go to David K's web site. Here it is....

http://wm3truth.com/contact

Now could you, or anyone else reading, please stop quoting this blog as if it is something authoratitive. Its a blog written by a person who thinks the wm3 are guilty. And it has "truth" in the title.

Where's the evidence?

HastingsChi · Mar 10, 2013

kyleb said:
You asked "what specifically about each item of "deep evidence" demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty", and an individual item which in itself demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty is what is known as a smoking gun. The proper question is: what specific pieces of evidence when considered together demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, as that is how the determination of guilt works absent any smoking guns.

It's quite disconcerting that you believe that you know understand a question I asked (and then explained in a subsequent post) better than the author of the question; me.

It is troubling that you are trying to restrict a discussion I'm attempting to have with another member; frankly I don't understand why you are meddling and muddying the waters by putting your spin on a question that was not directed to you. If you continue to harass and try to tell members how to post, i will involve the moderators to alleviate this problem.

I don't appreciate your behavior.

kyleb · Mar 10, 2013

Cappuccino said:
Where's the evidence?

Again, what's presented as evidence there is contained in the links listed under the "The Case Against the WM3" section on the navigation bar on the left side of website, as I explained when I first linked to it. I'm not going to recount all that information here as long as it remains free for anyone to read over there though, as the saying goes: there's no point in reinventing the wheel.

HastingsChi said:
I don't appreciate your behavior.

My intention was not to harass you, nor to tell you how to post. I was simply addressing a misconception contained in your question to HP, just as I appreciate having misconception I present pointed out by others, as that helps everyone following the conversation better comprehend the reality of the topic at hand. In this case that is specifically: assessing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt exists requires thorough consideration of the body of evidence as a whole.

Veidt · Mar 10, 2013

kyleb said:
I suspect that by "deep evidence" HP was making a general reference to the evidence which has been either flagrantly misrepresented or outright ignored in mainstream accounts of the case, his use of the term deep referring to the fact that one has to dig past such accounts to find that evidence. Regardless, assessing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt isn't a matter of considering each item of evidence individually, but rather one of determining if reasonable doubt is tenable given the body of evidence as a whole. If convictions required smoking guns, proverbial or otherwise, all but the dumbest of degenerates would walk free from the law.

Which evidence are you referring to? I'm not attacking you - I'm curious to know because most of what I know about this case are the more mainstream details. Plus I don't know what to think about who might be guilty so I'm always interested in hearing different arguments from both sides.

kyleb · Mar 10, 2013

The best argument for guilt I've found is at the website WM3 Truth, under the "The Case Against the WM3" section in the navigation bar on the left. Notable evidence includes multiple direct confessions from Misskelley, as well as witness reports of confessions from Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. Then there's the Hollingsworths' reports of seeing Echols covered in mud/dirt near the crime scene shortly after the likely time of the murders, Echols's psychological history, the criminal history of all three, the fraudulent alibis of all three, and various other tidbits of information which when taken together have left me a loss as to find any room for reasonable doubt.

Granted, I've only started looking into the details of this case a little over a week ago, so I'm far from an expert on the matter. That said, I have watched all four movies on the topic and read numerous articles and threads on various forums, and none of what I've found rightly addresses much of what is presented in the case laid out on the website linked above, let alone refutes it. If you happen to find anything of the sort, please share.

Veidt · Mar 10, 2013

kyleb said:
The best argument for guilt I've found is at the website WM3 Truth, under the "The Case Against the WM3" section in the navigation bar on the left. Notable evidence includes multiple direct confessions from Misskelley, as well as witness reports of confessions from Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. Then there's the Hollingsworths' reports of seeing Echols covered in mud/dirt near the crime scene shortly after the likely time of the murders, Echols's psychological history, the criminal history of all three, the fraudulent alibis of all three, and various other tidbits of information which when taken together have left me a loss as to find any room for reasonable doubt.

Granted, I've only started looking into the details of this case a little over a week ago, so I'm far from an expert on the matter. That said, I have watched all four movies on the topic and read numerous articles and threads on various forums, and none of what I've found rightly addresses much of what is presented in the case laid out on the website linked above, let alone refutes it. If you happen to find anything of the sort, please share.

Thank you. I didn't know that site and I'm reading it now. I just wonder what their sources are, sometimes; for example, they state that Misskelley was not interrogated for 12 hours but I wonder what their source is - if they found official documents, consulted people who were there and remember, etc. It's not on the Callahan site either, not that I can see at least. I'm not saying it's not a good side, but it would be immensely helpful if both sides could cite their reasons and evidence for certain facts. Some things like DNA evidence are obviously fool proof but when it comes to things that can be disputed that would make it easier.

The threads here on WS have a lot more details and debate if you're interested in learning more. It seems to be pro-WM3 with occasional questions thrown in, but don't let that put you off because whatever your opinion is there's lots of links and theories. I first heard about the case several years ago so I can't remember what I read at the time. I remember reading about it on the Crime Library website, I don't remember if it's any good though. There's the entry about them here, and an update when they were freed was made here.

Nova · Mar 10, 2013

Did anyone ever figure out what "deep evidence" is? I'm genuinely curious.

hello people · Mar 11, 2013

No you're not...you're trying to be condescending

Veidt · Mar 11, 2013

Nova said:
Did anyone ever figure out what "deep evidence" is? I'm genuinely curious.

I assume that "deep evidence" means things like DNA matches that are harder to dispute, than circumstantial evidence (for example).

kyleb · Mar 11, 2013

Veidt said:
they state that Misskelley was not interrogated for 12 hours but I wonder what their source is

That's explained on the Jessie Misskelley’s confession – June 3, 1993 page, in the section I'll reproduce below, with the links to the original documents and audio recordings at the Callahan archives:

What actually happened on June 3, 1993

When police brought Misskelley in for questioning that day, they did not consider him a suspect. They had identified Damien Echols as a prime suspect (not because he wore black and listened to Metallica; investigators had more mundane but significant grounds for their suspicions) and were interviewing his friends and acquaintances.

West Memphis PD compiled an overall timeline for the day. Many of these times are documented by release forms or time announcements on recordings.

9:45 am: Detective Sgt. Mike Allen picked up Jessie Misskelley at his father’s workplace.

10:00 am: Allen filled out a subject description form for Jessie Misskelley.

10:00 – 11:00 am: Allen interviewed Misskelley while Detective Bryn Ridge watched. (Read Mike Allen’s interview notes: original or transcription. Read Bryn Ridge’s interview notes: original or transcription.)

11:00 – 11:30 am: Detective Sgt. Allen and Jessie Misskelley drove to find Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Sr., who signed a polygraph release form for his 17-year-old son.

11:30 am – 12:30 pm: Detective Bill Durham conducted a polygraph exam on Jessie Misskelley. After studying the charts, Durham told investigators that Misskelley had failed and was “lying his *advertiser censored* off”. Polygraph report.

12:40 – 2:30 pm: Detective Ridge and Inspector Gary Gitchell continued interrogating Misskelley, who gradually revealed that he was present at the murders and watched Damien and Jason kill the three boys. (Read Ridge’s interview notes: original or transcription.)

2:44 pm: Jessie Misskelley officially arrested for murder.

2:44 – 3:18 pm: Tape-recorded interrogation of Jessie Misskelley, who confesses to participation in the murders with Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. (Full text transcription or mp3 audio.)

Sometime between 3:45 and 5:05 pm: Inspector Gitchell conducts a series of short follow-up tape-recorded interrogations of Misskelley. (Gitchell failed to follow proper procedure in announcing the time when turning on and turning off the tape recorder.) (Full text transcription or mp3 audio.)

Detective Bryn Ridge later wrote up a report covering the whole day’s events: original or transcription.

So, yeah, the fact that Misskelley confessed less than five hours after he was brought in for questioning, which started with him not even being considered a suspect no less, is well documented. As for the claim that Misskelley only confessed after 12 hours of interrogation, that was apparently woven from whole cloth.

As for the TruTV articles you linked, I'd come across them before, but only now taken the time to read them in their entirety since you linked them. Having done so, I have to say that they make for textbook examples of how how poor our mainstream media's coverage of this matter is. I highly recommend reading WM3 Truth's "The Case Against the WM3" section in its entirety, from top to bottom, checking the cited sources as needed; then go back and reread the true TruTV articles you linked for comparison sake. Having recently done as much myself, I assure you that it's quite an eye-opening experience.

Nova · Mar 11, 2013

hello people said:
No you're not...you're trying to be condescending

hello, I've been reading and posting here for nearly 15 years and I've never heard the term "deep evidence".

That doesn't mean it isn't a valid and useful phrase, even if you invented it yourself. I just wanted to know what you meant by it. No condescension was involved and I'm sorry if it seemed it was.

Random things about this case...

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics