WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[Userid]

Nobody ever said the whiskey bottle on its own would convict them. It's one piece of a thousand that point to them. It is significant however in the context in which I brought it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody has been able to explain that. That's because it didn't happen.

If the whiskey bottle proved anything, it proved that the route he had given in his confessions from Lakeshore to the BBW and back home that day was accurate. Again, this is another thing he gets right in his confessions. That underpass where he broke the bottle would have been the exact point he would have crossed to get to his trailer park, because the highway would have prevented him from doing so any earlier -- and this intersection is the closest point for him to cross. The train tracks he mentions also line up perfectly, right where he said they'd be.

 

[dogmatica]

I don't know why I bother, but . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only thing I know about "True Romance" is that it was a cool movie with Gary Oldman.

Yes, I put zero stock in your self proclaimed expertise in psychotic teenagers. You've ridden that pony for years, and it still holds no water. An "open mind"? I ventured into this case fully expecting to be horrified by the fact that "three innocent teenagers" had been "railroaded" because they wore black and listened to Metallica and were outsiders - exactly like me. I have read all the same things you have. My first inkling that something stank was after watching the first Paradise Lost. The stink wasn't the idea that they had been "railroaded", it was that "holy ****, these guys seem totally guilty to me. I am going to dig deeper". And so I did.

I admire your unflinching ability to twist words and manipulate the existing evidence so tirelessly, but I'm not fooled by you or your "expertise with troubled teens" for one second. You have the gift of spin, like Johnny Depp, Berlinger and Sinofsky and Vedder. Congrats. However I'm too much of a critical thinker and a pragmatist to fall for it. Spin on though - you are good at convincing yourself what you want to believe to be true - even though that doesn't make it so.

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

I have no idea what relevance that statement has in the context of this discussion - but it doesn't matter. Cheers.

 

[dogmatica]

There are things that JM does get right, even in the initial confessions. He gets which victim got which injuries (the mutilation, the face injuries) right. There are other things also.

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

I think it's a fruitless endeavor to try and use logic with supporters who feel some connection with the WM3. You can use logic and evidence all you want, but WM3 fanboys and fangirls will only hear "blah blah blah" and will instantly spin the logic and evidence to fit their narrative - the WM3 have become cult heroes and the poor victims in this case to these people. You have supporters like compassionate reader who use their self proclaimed expertise to manipulate you (or try, anyway) and assert to look at this with an "open mind" - then you'll "see the truth"...it's ironic really, but mostly, it's sad.

 

[dogmatica]

If the whiskey bottle proved anything, it proved that the route he had given in his confessions from Lakeshore to the BBW and back home that day was accurate. Again, this is another thing he gets right in his confessions. That underpass where he broke the bottle would have been the exact point he would have crossed to get to his trailer park, because the highway would have prevented him from doing so any earlier -- and this intersection is the closest point for him to cross. The train tracks he mentions also line up perfectly, right where he said they'd be.

Exactly. But what supporters will say in response to your post is "the whiskey bottle proves nothing". Absolute denial and spin. Of course the whiskey bottle in and of itself does not prove guilt - no non has ever claimed it does. However, in context, and with all the other evidence, it's very, VERY significant and powerful.

 

[dogmatica]

.but I've seen it all before and simply don't buy into those opinions - and that's all you've cited, opinions - not any real evidence of guilt.

Multiple confessions, their contents, their timing and their context are not opinions. They are recorded fact. Keep trying.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Multiple confessions, their contents, their timing and their context are not opinions. They are recorded fact. Keep trying.

None of JM's statements are fully supported by the crime scene evidence. By the time of his arrest, the entire community had discussed the case ad nauseum. Much of what he initially told the police was either coerced or gleaned from listening to friends/neighbors discuss the murders. That's how it happens in small towns. I know because I grew up in one. Later statements were augmented, I'm quite sure, by police manipulation, and even post conviction statements got significant facts wrong - and this is after he had heard the State's theory during his trial. So, there is absolutely no physical evidence of guilt for DE, JB or JM. The only physical evidence which can be even tenuously linked to someone who should have bee a POI in the case is the so-called "Hobbs hair" found in MM's ligature. Although that is certainly not enough to convict him, it should be enough to warrant an investigation of TH by a competent police force. IMO, the key to this case is in discovering why TH has the "Teflon" status he has.

 

[dogmatica]

None of JM's statements are fully supported by the crime scene evidence. By the time of his arrest, the entire community had discussed the case ad nauseum. Much of what he initially told the police was either coerced or gleaned from listening to friends/neighbors discuss the murders. That's how it happens in small towns. I know because I grew up in one. Later statements were augmented, I'm quite sure, by police manipulation, and even post conviction statements got significant facts wrong - and this is after he had heard the State's theory during his trial. So, there is absolutely no physical evidence of guilt for DE, JB or JM. The only physical evidence which can be even tenuously linked to someone who should have bee a POI in the case is the so-called "Hobbs hair" found in MM's ligature. Although that is certainly not enough to convict him, it should be enough to warrant an investigation of TH by a competent police force. IMO, the key to this case is in discovering why TH has the "Teflon" status he has.

You can deny the validity and weight of the many confessions, Echol's psych reports, lies about alibis, DE's and JB's confessions, fibre and knife evidence, eyewitness spottings of the 3 near the crime scene, the lies DE told on the stand, common sense, guilty verdicts and guilty pleas, and no evidence pointing to anyone else (Hobbs hair is easily explained by innocuous transfer) all the livelong day. Oh and the fact that Echols' claims of having exculpatory evidence and proof of the "real killer" have somehow vanished into thin air. That doesn't change the fact that they convicted the right men, and that the right men plead guilty.

I'll ask you again - why hasn't Echols and his media machine revealed this exculpatory evidence? And please don't bother with the "we won't know until they reopen the case" rhetoric...that doesn't need to happen for Echols and his team to show the world that he and the other 2 are truly innocent. But I think you know that. I understand you refuse to acknowledge or just deny the mountains of evidence against them - there's no point in us playing that game.

But can you honestly, without dancing around it - explain why Echols hasn't revealed this explosive exculpatory evidence, and why he hasn't revealed the "real killer"?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

You can deny the validity and weight of the many confessions, Echol's psych reports, lies about alibis, DE's and JB's confessions, fibre and knife evidence, eyewitness spottings of the 3 near the crime scene, the lies DE told on the stand, common sense, guilty verdicts and guilty pleas, and no evidence pointing to anyone else (Hobbs hair is easily explained by innocuous transfer) all the livelong day. Oh and the fact that Echols' claims of having exculpatory evidence and proof of the "real killer" have somehow vanished into thin air. That doesn't change the fact that they convicted the right men, and that the right men plead guilty.

I'll ask you again - why hasn't Echols and his media machine revealed this exculpatory evidence? And please don't bother with the "we won't know until they reopen the case" rhetoric...that doesn't need to happen for Echols and his team to show the world that he and the other 2 are truly innocent. But I think you know that. I understand you refuse to acknowledge or just deny the mountains of evidence against them - there's no point in us playing that game.

But can you honestly, without dancing around it - explain why Echols hasn't revealed this explosive exculpatory evidence, and why he hasn't revealed the "real killer"?

And still claim they 'have evidence that will prove them innocent'. Now they have plead guilty and been released for time served, they still have never came up with that evidence, but continue to ask or donations.

 

[dogmatica]

And still claim they 'have evidence that will prove them innocent'. Now they have plead guilty and been released for time served, they still have never came up with that evidence, but continue to ask or donations.

It's so over the top obvious that they are the killers, and the fact that they smugly continue to play their supporters (like you said, by asking for donations) is really actually quite sad. It's sad that the supporters don't open their eyes and finally concede "damn, we got played, and played hard".

The reason they asked for the Alford Plea instead of going ahead with a new trial is because there is no exculpatory evidence. It was a bluff. If there was, they would have gone to trial and been redeemed and had their convictions overturned. And for the supporters who claim "they were killing Damien, that's why they took the plea", if that was the case, they would have presented this "exculpatory evidence" to the world when they were free men. It's been over 4 years. If that evidence existed, the world would know all about it, and the WM3 would have their convictions overturned. Instead, they remain convicted child killers.

 

[Userid]

I'm honestly asking: are they really still asking for donations? The only thing I've seen recently is JB starting a "********" account (I think to write a book), and that was a year or so ago. But to my knowledge, there are no other "donations" being asked. I know JM isn't asking (the guy still lives in West Memphis). Maybe I just haven't seen it. Do you mean supporters in general when you say, "they're still asking for donations"?

Edit: Okay, don't know why "go fund me" was censored, but whatever.

 

[dogmatica]

I'm honestly asking: are they really still asking for donations? The only thing I've seen recently is JB starting a "********" account (I think to write a book), and that was a year or so ago. But to my knowledge, there are no other "donations" being asked. I know JM isn't asking (the guy still lives in West Memphis). Maybe I just haven't seen it. Do you mean supporters in general when you say, "they're still asking for donations"?

Edit: Okay, don't know why "go fund me" was censored, but whatever.

I don't know about the details of the donation situation.

I don't see JM asking for anything - I think he still feels guilt and just wants to put it behind him. Echols and Baldwin, however, are milking their celebrity.

JM was (is) a horrible, evil person, but I don't believe he was the architect. I believe he kind of got sucked in and went along with it, felt sick afterward and hence confessed over and over, trying to clear his conscience. Echols and Baldwin, on the other hand, are still laughing about it...laughing the hardest at their "supporters".

 

[shadoworder]

On the contrary, the state had no reason to go along with the Alford plea. The DA even confessed that had it gone to trial " I would've had my *advertiser censored* handed to me"
He also in the same interview (In GQ Magazine I believe) called the Alford plea "A godsend" to him. The truth is if these poor kids committed the crime, they would have never been freed. It was the state that did not want the trial, why? Because their is zero evidence tying them to this murder. The real killer was most likely one of the step-parents, I'm guessing Byers.

 

[dogmatica]

On the contrary, the state had no reason to go along with the Alford plea. The DA even confessed that had it gone to trial " I would've had my *advertiser censored* handed to me"
He also in the same interview (In GQ Magazine I believe) called the Alford plea "A godsend" to him. The truth is if these poor kids committed the crime, they would have never been freed. It was the state that did not want the trial, why? Because their is zero evidence tying them to this murder. The real killer was most likely one of the step-parents, I'm guessing Byers.

This post is so ridiculous, I don't even know where to start. If you honestly believe there is "zero evidence tying them to the murder"...well, good luck to you. "I'm guessing Byers". Lol. Wow.

 

[Userid]

On the contrary, the state had no reason to go along with the Alford plea. The DA even confessed that had it gone to trial " I would've had my *advertiser censored* handed to me"
He also in the same interview (In GQ Magazine I believe) called the Alford plea "A godsend" to him. The truth is if these poor kids committed the crime, they would have never been freed. It was the state that did not want the trial, why? Because their is zero evidence tying them to this murder. The real killer was most likely one of the step-parents, I'm guessing Byers.

Completely inaccurate.

The real reason was because, the state would have been at a complete disadvantage with the disintegration/loss of over 20-year-old evidence and a witness pool either 20 years older (dilapidated memories), dead, or whereabouts unknown.

Lisa Sakevicius, to name just one, who was the original forensic criminalist who worked on the case, died a few years ago. Without her alone, the state would have been at a total disadvantage.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

On the contrary, the state had no reason to go along with the Alford plea. The DA even confessed that had it gone to trial " I would've had my *advertiser censored* handed to me"
He also in the same interview (In GQ Magazine I believe) called the Alford plea "A godsend" to him. The truth is if these poor kids committed the crime, they would have never been freed. It was the state that did not want the trial, why? Because their is zero evidence tying them to this murder. The real killer was most likely one of the step-parents, I'm guessing Byers.

Agree with you up to the last three words. Byers was definitely a stronger suspect than most, but IMO it was the other step-father.( Was Byers a step-father ? IIRC Byers adopted Chris)

 

[dogmatica]

Agree with you up to the last three words. Byers was definitely a stronger suspect than most, but IMO it was the other step-father.( Was Byers a step-father ? IIRC Byers adopted Chris)

The perpetrators of this crime confessed to said crime, were convicted of said crime, and then plead guilty to said crime.

 

[CoolJ]

The perpetrators of this crime confessed to said crime, were convicted of said crime, and then plead guilty to said crime.

Confessed???

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

The perpetrators of this crime confessed to said crime, were convicted of said crime, and then plead guilty to said crime.

A coerced confession, a wrongful conviction, a blackmailed guilty plea......, three wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Userid]

"Blackmailed guilty plea" ....Sorry, no. They accepted the plea completely on their own terms. The other two, you have a point -- but nobody twisted their arm to take the Alford (well, unless you count DE and JM urging JB), and 2/3rd's of them "jumped at the opportunity." Also, correct me if wrong, but the Alford plea was introduced by DE's defense team.

I will heed the point though that the introduction of JM's confession to the jury did taint the convictions of DE and JB.

Whether JM was "coerced" or not is another question. He wasn't coerced in every single confession he gave, particularly the cop-car confession (immediately after already being convicted) and the bible confession (where he miraculously memorized precise details of the entire trial -- verbatim, without ever picking his head up from the table -- even though he's considered "retarded" by many). I would say he wasn't "coerced" in any single confession, but if he was, it would only be the one initial confession. All the other confessions, he gave on his own accord and against his own lawyer's wishes.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Userid, I will stand by my guns on this one. A dodgy confession would be grounds for second thoughts, but not a diabolical confession, or even 100 diabolical confessions. As for blackmail, perhaps not the right word, but if you offer a person the opportunity to get out of prison after eighteen years, only the martyrs would say no, and the majority of us simply are not martyrs.