justthinkin
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 175
I don't know who told you the "Hobbs hair exonerated the WM3", but I do know that I didn't. Kindly refrain from accusing me of doing a "rerun" of things which I've never posted in the first place.
The DNA results so far are as follows...
So, I'd like to hear how three drunken teens could torture, rape, beat, sexually mutilate, and murder three 8 year olds without leaving a trace of themselves behind. Any explanation needs to take into account that the crime scene was not clean, there are plenty of other peoples' DNA there. It also needs to take into account that this was all done as part of a Satanic ritual, as per Jessie's "confessions".
@Justthinkin - I'm still waiting for your thread about Jessie's June 3rd statement. I hope you didn't change your mind, I was really looking forward to discussing that subject.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I merely thought this may be a similar circumstance to when some, not all, supporters went around saying the Hobbs hair exonerated the WM3. It wasn't intended to be personal at all. I believe Riordan made that statement along with Lori Davis, and it filtered down to the rest. Isn't that what's being said on supporter boards now about this latest DNA? Some supporters do get that it doesn't exonerate the WM3, but there are others who don't get it. And what's the title of this thread? New DNA evidence clears the WM3. That's not a truthful statement.
Of course then there's the old report on the partial palm/fingerprints from which the WM3 have not been excluded, and the Jacoby hair which jivepuppi, a supporter, claimed was so close to Echols mtdna, that Echols could not be excluded.
I get that you, unlike some others here, do not support TH as the perp. I believe you made that quite clear, and I said I respected that.
Thanks for the source info you provided. I do appreciate it.
No need for a thread on what Jessie said. I got the answer I was looking for. I wasn't looking for a discussion. Not everything has to be a discussion.
I have already posted a list of 5 or 6 cases that went to trial based on circumstantial evidence, and for which the perp/s left no DNA behind, and were still convicted.
What does it matter? The new DNA evidence is still not, so far, basis for a new trial. Damien admitted his alibi was changed to fit the facts of the case under oath. Jason offered no alibi, none, and Jessie's was a mess as well. The explanation, I read for why other DNA, but not that of the WM3 is present is last on--first washed off.
Really, I don't have to prove anything because the WM3 have already been convicted. The onus is on the defense to prove new, cumulative evidence prevails that the WM3 would likely be acquitted if a new trial were held. At least that's my take on it.