Search results

They got a fair trial. And a fair verdict. And they made the right plea when they said "guilty your honor" in 2011.

Simply stating something "means nothing" doesn't make that so. You've done that with all the evidence that convicted the Wm3. That's the supporter MO. Simply to state "that proves nothing". Clearly, you're incorrect. Simply denying something's existence to fit your narrative doesn't mean it...

Why would 1 person tie 3 totally different knots?

That's correct.

There were 3 killers, so no need for bodies to be handled one at a time.

I didn't want anyone thinking this was "my definition" - as in something I came up with. I just wanted to clarify that. Anyway, onward.

Correct. Probably more accurate to state "according to the definition".

It's not my definition... Re: the mountain, again, ATD.

Circumstantial evidence: Fingerprint analysis, blood analysis and DNA analysis. How often are people convicted on these types of evidence? All the time. The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence "Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of...

As with every other piece of evidence against the WM3, supporters simply sweep this under the rug or claim the police planted it. That's what they do, they just deny. Of course you and I know simply denying something doesn't make it go away.

Double post for some reason

1. I didn't tell you what sealed the deal for you. I asked, hence the 2 question marks. 2. There's zero evidence to suggest TH committed this crime.

Of course you know that circumstantial evidence is used to convict people all the time...it's a TV myth that it's not. I notice you didn't answer my question regarding your personal belief... ;-)

You'll dismiss the necklace but a single hair that might be Hobbs' seals the deal for you??

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the "mountain of evidence"...when I look at the totality of the evidence, everything thing added up against all 3 of them, it's so utterly glaring to me that they are guilty. Perhaps if you take one piece at a time, without the context of the...

Userid - I know you're a fence sitter, but wow, I have to tell you, if I had no idea about this case, and I collectively read all of your posts/information/rebuttals/correction of misinformation etc., well, let's just say I'd have zero doubt in my mind that the right guys were convicted. I...

None of this is relevant, and you are adding up non-connected little details (that are your interpretation) and throwing it out as somehow being exculpatory. It's not, not even in the slightest. The supporter mentality is very disingenuous - or maybe just utterly confused. They ignore the...

The reason the other people were dropped is because they eliminated them as suspects. Echols was not dropped because on the contrary, the evidence kept mounting. Again, in regards to the confessionS - you are still referring to this as one coerced confession. It was not. It was many, many, many...

Precisely.

It's ridiculous to conclude that because Echols' name was mentioned before his arrest (that's how many, many arrests are made - that's why cops ask around to get an idea of who may potentially be involved) that this somehow planted a falsehood in the mind of the police and they proceeded to...