48 Hours and Paradise Lost; West Memphis Three

[kyleb]

Yeah, thanks. Here's [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10036299#post10036299"]the post[/ame], my search for it came up empty because you substituted "seen" for UdbCrzy2's "watched", but of course the meaning is the same. That said, going to Lorri for more information on the case after watching the PL movies is akin to going to the Pope for more information on Jesus after reading the Bible, far from an unbiased source.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yeah, thanks. Here's the post, my search for it came up empty because you substituted "seen" for UdbCrzy2's "watched", but of course the meaning is the same. That said, going to Lorri for more information on the case after watching the PL movies is akin to going to the Pope for more information on Jesus after reading the Bible, far from an unbiased source.

And where else would you go to find Information on Jesus. The bible and the pope seem like pretty good sources..

The point is that we don't need unbiased sources here. We need people with information. Their information is vast and thorough.

That is where you go for it. It does not mean that they did not spend time on their own looking into it also.. But that this was their main info.

Not seeing the problem yet...

 

[kyleb]

Do you see any problems with the claims of fact in this title card from Paradise Lost 2:

If not, I'm left with a couple of questions:

1. Why should Misskelley's 72 IQ score be accepted as more accurate than the higher scores he got on other tests before being informed that a lower score could result in a lesser sentence?
   
2. What evidence is there to suggest the June 3 recordings of Misskelley confessing only came at the end of "over 12 hours without legal representation or access to his family", rather than starting less than five hours after he was picked up from his father and less than three and a half hours after he'd gone back to his father to get his polygraph release forum signed as described in this time log?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Do you see any problems with the claims of fact in this title card from Paradise Lost 2:

If not, I'm left with a couple of questions:

1. Why should Misskelley's 72 IQ score be accepted as more accurate than the higher scores he got on other tests before being informed that a lower score could result in a lesser sentence?
   
2. What evidence is there to suggest the June 3 recordings of Misskelley confessing only came at the end of "over 12 hours without legal representation or access to his family", rather than starting less than five hours after he was picked up from his father and less than three and a half hours after he'd gone back to his father to get his polygraph release forum signed as described in this time log?

What is hard is that you are all over trying so hard to defend your position in this case. It is hard to discuss it when you flip from one topic to another.

We were discussing why someone chose to get involved in the case.



I believe that Misskelley is mentally challenged. The severity I am not positive of but it is great. I don't believe any of his statements as I believe he was used and coerced to make horrible statements that were not true. He had to be led through the interrogation. They ask him a question, he answers it wrong for their purposes so they coax him back to where they want him.
It is shameful. This man is mentally challenged.. In a big way.

 

[kyleb]

We were discussing why someone chose to get involved in the case.

More specifically we've been talking about how Pasdar came to learn about this case, which was from the Paradise Lost movies and through contact with Lorri Davis according to affidavit, and I'm curious as to why you see no problem with relying on such biased individuals as primary sources of information. Is it that you've seen evidence to substantiate the claims of fact they commonly make such as those in the title card I posted, or is it simply that you accept their claims as fact regardless of any evidence to the contrary?

 

[primitivefuture]

Yeah, thanks. Here's the post, my search for it came up empty because you substituted "seen" for UdbCrzy2's "watched", but of course the meaning is the same. That said, going to Lorri for more information on the case after watching the PL movies is akin to going to the Pope for more information on Jesus after reading the Bible, far from an unbiased source.

Udb said many celebrities have "ONLY" watched the PL movie. I was arguing that his/her statement is untrue. Whether or not anybody considers Lorri a reliable source for information was not my concern. Do I think Pasdar would have been better served had she pored over the documents at Callahan? Yes. I imagine she would have come to the same conclusion, but that is beside the point. She became interested in the case after watching the movie. She then struck up a dialogue with Lorri and read/watched the links and documents provided for her by a source other than Paradise Lost. She did not "ONLY" watch the movie. That's all I was saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

More specifically we've been talking about how Pasdar came to learn about this case, which was from the Paradise Lost movies and through contact with Lorri Davis according to affidavit, and I'm curious as to why you see no problem with relying on such biased individuals as primary sources of information. Is it that you've seen evidence to substantiate the claims of fact they commonly make such as those in the title card I posted, or is it simply that you accept their claims as fact regardless of any evidence to the contrary?

It is not bias to believe in someone. It is bias when all you look at is skewed by that belief. I believe they are innocent. Why? Because when I look at the whole of the evidence I think it points 90 degrees south of where they are. Anyone who watches the movies, can see there is a huge miscarriage of justice here. Without any spin.. Just watching that trial without any one elses commentary, an intelligent person can see what a sham it was. Listening to Jessie's interrogation, Anyone can see what a farce that is.

You don't need any spin or bias for an intelligent soul to see at the very least this case was a sham without real evidence but a case with voodoo and fear driving it.

There is no bias when looking at the court footage, or interviews.. They are what they are. It is all it took for me.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Anyone who watches the movies, can see there is a huge miscarriage of justice here. Without any spin.. Just watching that trial without any one elses commentary, an intelligent person can see what a sham it was.

Listening to Jessie's interrogation, Anyone can see what a farce that is.

~~snipped for space~~

I don't think the movie represented the true trial do you? There were two trials in case you didn't know that and they lasted much longer than what the movie showed.

You may not know this, but Jessie confessed 5-different times and the one time was while in the company of his attorney. All five times were recorded and documented at Callahans. He also confessed to others numerous times which have not been recorded.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

~~snipped for space~~

I don't think the movie represented the true trial do you? There were two trials in case you didn't know that and they lasted much longer than what the movie showed.

You may not know this, but Jessie confessed 5-different times and the one time was while in the company of his attorney. All five times were recorded and documented at Callahans. He also confessed to others numerous times which have not been recorded.

I think it was an accurate representation. The clips of Jessies interview as the police are leading his answers.. I know all about the trials, However I also know that what they showed was true and factual about the trials that happened. So yes snippets can bring forth the truth.

I think that Jessie was snowed and I don't think his confessions mean anything. I believe that Jessie had no idea what happened, HE did not get facts straight, He lied, He was coerced. I find that to be factual and true.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Udb said many celebrities have "ONLY" watched the PL movie. I was arguing that his/her statement is untrue. Whether or not anybody considers Lorri a reliable source for information was not my concern. Do I think Pasdar would have been better served had she pored over the documents at Callahan? Yes. I imagine she would have come to the same conclusion, but that is beside the point. She became interested in the case after watching the movie. She then struck up a dialogue with Lorri and read/watched the links and documents provided for her by a source other than Paradise Lost. She did not "ONLY" watch the movie. That's all I was saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, she listened to what Lorri said too. She does state she donated after watching the movie then was contacted by Lorri.
How's that?

 

[primitivefuture]

How's that?

That's fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UdbCrzy2]

What is hard is that you are all over trying so hard to defend your position in this case. It is hard to discuss it when you flip from one topic to another.

We were discussing why someone chose to get involved in the case.



I believe that Misskelley is mentally challenged. The severity I am not positive of but it is great. I don't believe any of his statements as I believe he was used and coerced to make horrible statements that were not true. He had to be led through the interrogation. They ask him a question, he answers it wrong for their purposes so they coax him back to where they want him.
It is shameful. This man is mentally challenged.. In a big way.

If you've only watched the biased movies you may be inclined to believe that he was 'mentally challenged'. There is documentation available that shows differently. As a matter of fact we have an entire thread here devoted to Misskelley's IQ and claims of being 'retarded'.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If you've only watched the biased movies you may be inclined to believe that he was 'mentally challenged'. There is documentation available that shows differently. As a matter of fact we have an entire thread here devoted to Misskelley's IQ and claims of being 'retarded'.

They are not biased.. They are laying out the case for the truth. It was not in those trials. The witnesses, The trials, the interrogations are not biased. They are factual. If all you watch is those parts you can plainly see that this was a miscarriage of justice and nothing points to them. That it is fear and satan driven.

The evidence in those trials is not evidence that proves it was them. Jessie is mentally deficient. There is no doubt. I won't argue the extent of his disability.

It is there.

And even if it wasn't, He is not telling the truth, whether it be by mental disorder or just lying. His facts don't add up. His interrogation was nothing but the police telling him what to say..

That is enough.

 

[kyleb]

They are not biased.. They are laying out the case for the truth.

So where exactly can one find any evidence to substantiate the notion that the June 3 recordings of Misskelley confessing only came at the end of "over 12 hours without legal representation or access to his family" as they claim, rather than starting less than five hours after he was picked up from his father and less than three and a half hours after he'd gone back to his father to get his polygraph release forum signed as described in this time log and the rest of the documentation which corroborates it suggests? Or again, is it that simply that you accept their claims as truth regardless of any evidence to the contrary?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So where exactly can one find any evidence to substantiate the notion that the June 3 recordings of Misskelley confessing only came at the end of "over 12 hours without legal representation or access to his family" as they claim, rather than starting less than five hours after he was picked up from his father and less than three and a half hours after he'd gone back to his father to get his polygraph release forum signed as described in this time log and the rest of the documentation which corroborates it suggests? Or again, is it that simply that you accept their claims as truth regardless of any evidence to the contrary?

I don't care about. You are missing the point. It is what I actually hear that I am talking about. Not what has been reported, Not a lawyers idea.. But what I actually hear and see is enough to see that it was a sham.

 

[kyleb]

How is insisting people are impartially "laying out the case for the truth" while not caring how far from the truth the evidence shows their claims to be anything but a sham?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

How is insisting people are impartially "laying out the case for the truth" while not caring how far from the truth the evidence shows their claims to be anything but a sham?

I really have a hard time with run on sentences..

But the point is that watching the movies you don't have to take anyone's word for anything. All you have to do is watch the trial, listen to the interrogation and you can see what a sham and ridiculous case this was.

 

[Miranda!]

Addressed to both kyleB and UdBcrazy:-

What, for each of you, was the 'entry point' for your interest in this partidular case? and when?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Addressed to both kyleB and UdBcrazy:-

What, for each of you, was the 'entry point' for your interest in this partidular case? and when?

How about you? Are you not an administrator on blackboard site? What has happened to your site? TIA

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

How about you? Are you not an administrator on blackboard site? What has happened to your site? TIA

I am not getting this response.. It is a good question. What was what brought you to this case?