How was the LE behavior regarding Jessie's first confession inappropriate (there were five so far that we can prove, with rumors that he still is), the LE had parental consent, even for the polygraph, they had Jessie sign a miranda waiver, according to Jessie himself they were not mean to him. So how did they bring forth a false confession, especially since in that confession Jessie knew things that no one else knew? How did Jessie know for a fact that Christopher was the one mutilated in the groin area? How did he know that one was cut in the face? How did he know that Michael was not with the other two (since he stated Michael ran and he had to bring him back farther away from the others?)
I'm still deciphering.....however, I have a problem with the confessions. As I said above-I've yet to read where Jessie told a story of events without constant interruption or correcting.
Or how about what Damien told police 4 days after the bodies were found (you can find this in the link below)
On May 10, four days after the bodies werhe found, the police had not solved the cases. When Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, he asked him how he thought the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols's answer is abstracted as follows:
- He stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.
At the time Echols made the statement, there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others.
Your last statement cannot be proven therefore is simply not a fact. No matter how you word it or how many times you say it-it is not a fact.
Think about how many people came and went from that scene. Think about how friendly JMB was with wmpd. They even apologized to him for bringing him in for questioning.
That's one way you and I differ looking at this case-you believe there's no way anyone heard anything-I believe the rumors were flying.
Let's just say for the sake of argument here that Jessie's first confession was coerced (although this is not a fact by any means, and one I can't phantom why people insinuate) what about the confession to his own attorney's? The one with just him and his attorney's, no police, no prosecution. It makes no sense unless his own attorney's were coercing him or leading him to confess. (if you believe this, look up law ethics, a lawyer could be barred for it).
I've mentioned before Jessie may have simply enjoyed the attention. One could also ask why he refused to testify against the other two?
What would it take to convince supporters of guilt? There is more circumstantial and physical evidence in this case, than was in the Scott Peterson case, Charles Manson, etc... Take a look through criminal history and see what kind of cases truly convicts people versus what is found on tv.
Please list this physical evidence....I'm completely serious. I'm not talking about a knife that may/may not have caused the wounds consistent with the victims...I'm talking hardcore physical evidence.
Then we see the conspiracy coming through, of course the WMPD bungled or screwed up the investigation, how else could the WM3 be innocent? Of course the prosecution and the judge can't admit they made a mistake, they were so good at it they convinced 24 jurors to convict just to send three innocent teenagers to prison. The top of the cake (so far, federal court is next to be included in this) is the ASSC, of course the state supreme court is going to continue to cover everyone's butt. The ASSC was not just looking for judicial errors, they denied the first appeal due to preponderance of the evidence of guilt.
http://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/1996a/961223sc/cr94-928.wpd
Does anyone truly believe this? I mean this is almost as bad as the conspiracy of JFK, or the landing on the moon, or the terrorist bombing of the pentagon. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe this many individuals with careers and reputations on the line would continue to cover for someone else.
I do believe it can and does happen.
The reason there is no physical evidence, or very little that has been tested is because the bodies were submerged in water, do a little research about murder victims submerged in water and what happens to evidence. As for the scene being a dump site, well the defense even disagrees with you. But then they need it to be the crime scene more than the prosecution, as that is how they explained the injuries... animal predation. I still love the canine type animal that swung the victims up against a hard object (possibly a tree according to the report) and that is how all three had basilar skull fractures. Of course, the report doesn't explain how this canine pulled all three out of the water, did the injuries and then somehow without opposing thumbs put the boys back in the water, and even pushed them so hard that they didn't surface.
I could take any murder case in history and state the very things supporters say, I would just take each piece of evidence one by one (you can't use them as a whole, because then guilt is evident) and tear them down by any means available. I would blame corrupt cops, no blood (even if there was some) any confessions (even if out of three accused all three confessed in one form or another) and make them false anyway I could. I would state the scene had to be a dumping site, even when by all evidence it was the crime scene. I would shift the blame to someone else, and then when it became clear that person was innocent, I would just shift again to someone else. Even if they had alibi's, when the accused didn't.
I would convince anyone that would listen that they were convicted in a satanic panic, just because they listened to metallica and wore black and read Stephen King. I would ignore or say it wasn't important if one of the accused had been hospitalized numerous times for mental issues, with diagnosis of psychotic and violent tendencies. Even with a past history of violent outbursts, including killing a dog (but hey it's not conclusively proven that cruelty to animals means they will escalate and kill, it's such a uncommon occurrence with killers, right?)