It's a very simple question.

[Nova]

Just wanted to add, this murder was far from spontaneous. Damien's psych history is full of examples of his capability to murder.
He stated that he hates the human race.
That when he feels rage, the only solution is to hurt someone.
He threatened to eat his father and admitted he should be locked because he was going to hurt someone.
His parents said they were frightened of him.
One of his hospitalisations was due to his constant thoughts of killing others or himself.
He told his doctor he was a sociopath.
He also wrote this little gem, amongst other disturbing missives

"No more. Everyone will pay because everyone is too stupid to open their eyes.This is the final times, and I am the new messiah. Wake up and smell the crud, , I don't care whether you are saved or not. Everyone pays the price."

Damien was indeed troubled. But for all his morbid writings and claims, there is very little evidence of his actually hurting anyone.

What's more, to believe LE's theory of the crime, one has to believe not only that Damien was homicidal, but that he turned his attention on three 8-year-olds, sexually assaulted at least one of them, AND THE BIGGEST LEAP, that he somehow convinced JB and JM to participate.

JM had some anger-management issues, but there's no evidence of his assaulting random children, IIRC.

JB had very little if any history of physical violence.

None of this proves Damien, Jason and Jessie could not have committed the crimes, of course; but it at least suggests they did so without much in the way of predictive behavior or that there's a lot of evidence missing in re their prior bad acts.

 

[Nova]

No, it just means that one needs a little more to refute them, than a desperate need to believe they are lying.

You are again incorrect.

Baldwin and Misskelley had known each other for years.

Not to mention the fact that witness after witness reported seeing them together fairly regularly.

Like Charles Ashley, Ricky Climber, Robert Burch, and others.

See?

This is why supporters aren't generally taken very seriously.

I see that you are extremely rude for no apparent reason. As far as I know, nobody is forcing you to post here.

I for one would otherwise appreciate your seemingly exhaustive knowledge of the case, but your lack of even minimal manners does not suggest you have much confidence in your own claims. If you did, you wouldn't feel the need to bully everyone else rather than simply providing the information (and sources) that supports your contentions.

(The above is my opinion, obviously.)

 

[Nova]

Yep, this case seems to bring out the aggression in people on both sides of the fence. I think it's partly because alot of supporters seem to take the easy way out instead of researching for themselves [not meaning you], and just allow the support movement's propaganda to dictate their opinion. It's partly the reason that I now believe in their guilt. It makes you wonder why they have to tell lies and embellish things in order to shape your opinion, and yet they keep trotting out the same old half truths and mistruths constantly, so I guess those that are convinced of their guilt get a little exasperated with debating the same points over and over again.

Neither you nor Dirty Larry have reached 100 posts. So if you're worn out from debating the same points over and over, it isn't because you did so here.

Some of us have been discussing this case here for 15 years. We've discussed it, gone on to other topics, returned and left again any number of times over the years.

I make no claim to perfect recall at this point and have no problem with being re-educated as to details I've forgotten or never knew.

But with few exceptions, that isn't what is happening. Instead, I get vague responses with the clear implication that my question or statement is too stupid to be corrected with clear information.

Now, I'm a big boy and don't much care if you and Dirty Larry think I'm an idiot. But not getting answers to my questions makes this a waste of my time.

 

[aussiesleuth]

I nnever said I had debated the case on this particular foruim.
I also didn't call you an idiot. Paranoid perhaps?
My post was not intended to be offensive or derogatory, and I even stated that Iwas not targeting you personally,I was actually agreeing with you, and explaining why I thought it was so.

 

[Dirty larry]

we also have to assume the water somehow selectively washed away only the evidence that pointed to the defendants' guilt.

No we don't.

We simply have to realize that the Defense chose not to test all the evidence submitted to Bode.

Like the other hair collected from Moore's binding for example.

JM didn't confess the day the bodies were found.

Yes, he did.

To one of his best friends, Buddy Lucas.

There was plenty of time to pursue other suspects had the WMPD been so inclined.

And the list of others who were questioned is quite long.

And evidence such as that left by "Bojangles" needed to be collected immediately.

By immediaetely, do you mean before it was known the victims had been murdered?

There doesn't seem to be much independent evidence of prior connection between JM and the others

As I have already shown, that's patently untrue.

Even in Matt Baldwin's statement he refers to Misskelley by his first name.

JM's own friend testified he asked to be introduced to JB and DE after rumors started circulating that they were involved in the murder.

And who would that be?

Damien was indeed troubled.

Echols was a violent psychotic gas-huffing dabbler in Satanism.

What's more, to believe LE's theory of the crime, one has to believe not only that Damien was homicidal

Since it's a documented fact that he suffered from homicidal ideation - it's not really a leap, is it?

but that he turned his attention on three 8-year-olds

Much like the Great Dane, Echols tended to exploit whatever opportunities came along.

AND THE BIGGEST LEAP, that he somehow convinced JB and JM to participate.

Are you implying this crime was planned prior to the arrival of the victims to the scene?

JM had some anger-management issues

You could say that.

but there's no evidence of his assaulting random children, IIRC.

Yes, the little girl he struck in the head with the brick wasn't random - she had "dissed" him.

JB had very little if any history of physical violence.

Well, except for his own report that he once strangled his little brother until his face turned red.

Some of us have been discussing this case here for 15 years.

That's a neat trick, considering Webslueths didn't exist 15 years ago, and you didn't even join yourself until 2003.

your last sentence above and actually just about every single reply of yours is so nasty. It's hard to take anything you say and actually absorb it because of all the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" on every.single.post

First off, I tend to agree with the majority of people who have recently been posting here.

Second, If you feel there is a more "polite" way of dealing with someone who continues to repeat blatantly false information over and over again - even after being corrected a number of times with the actual documentation - I'm all ears?

You see, I understand that a person could be "mistaken", and so the first time, I generally just point out the mistake.

Even the second time, I am often willing to accept that the person simply "forgot" the truth.

But when a person makes the same false claim three times or more,.... well, that's deliberate misinformation, and there really is no excuse for it - nor should it be allowed to stand here or anywhere else.

 

[Nova]

I nnever said I had debated the case on this particular foruim.
I also didn't call you an idiot. Paranoid perhaps?

Here is what you wrote, with emphasis added:

"Yep, this case seems to bring out the aggression in people on both sides of the fence. I think it's partly because alot of supporters seem to take the easy way out instead of researching for themselves [not meaning you], and just allow the support movement's propaganda to dictate their opinion...."

I'm not so narcissistic that I thought you were literally addressing me, but I was posting as one of those supporters you believe can't seem to think for ourselves. But I wasn't particularly offended. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my post.

My post was not intended to be offensive or derogatory, and I even stated that Iwas not targeting you personally,I was actually agreeing with you, and explaining why I thought it was so.

In the context of the surrounding posts, I wasn't sure whom you were addressing. In any event, no harm done. I'm not easily offended and nothing you posted was so terrible.

Welcome to WS, BTW.

 

[Nova]

That's a neat trick, considering Webslueths didn't exist 15 years ago, and you didn't even join yourself until 2003.

Not that it matters, but since you like to make pronouncements as if they were the absolute, irrefutable truth, one can't help but make note when you are wrong.

I've been posting at WS since 1997 or 1998, back when Jon-Benet Ramsey was the primary topic of discussion.

WS was already on its second owner at the time I joined, so I know it had been around for at least a year at that point. Perhaps I'm guilty of rounding up to 15 years, but not by much.

However, there were several board crashes during the early years that resulted in everyone having to re-register, restart their post counts, etc.

I suspect the 2003 date you found for me is the date of the last such crash.

 

[Dirty larry]

one can't help but make note when you are wrong.

This should be stunning.

I've been posting at WS since 1997 or 1998, back when Jon-Benet Ramsey was the primary topic of discussion.

Again, that's a neat trick.

© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2010

Not to mention that your claim was you were discussing THIS case here 15 years ago.

I suspect the 2003 date you found for me is the date of the last such crash.

Interestingly, the thread which started this particular forum in 2004 is still here - locked at the bottom of the page.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8679"]West Memphis 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


You didn't enter that thread until 2007 - at which point, you weren't even aware of the fact that the documents were available online - using "Devil's knot" as your reference material.

I can show you if you like?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1609020&postcount=232"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - West Memphis 3[/ame]

Perhaps I'm guilty of rounding up to 15 years, but not by much.

Yes, you were only off by 11 years.

 

[Nova]

This should be stunning.

Again, that's a neat trick.

© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2010

Not to mention that your claim was you were discussing THIS case here 15 years ago.

Interestingly, the thread which started this particular forum in 2004 is still here - locked at the bottom of the page.

West Memphis 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


You didn't enter that thread until 2007 - at which point, you weren't even aware of the fact that the documents were available online - using "Devil's knot" as your reference material.

I can show you if you like?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - West Memphis 3


Yes, you were only off by 11 years.

Oh, Larry, by all means believe what you want.

I suppose it's possible I started posting here in 1999, but I don't believe it was that late. Websleuths existed under other owners and I don't believe the 1999 copyright reflects the first incarnation of the site. If it does, then my bad. I rounded up by 4 years.

The software crashes to which I referred also wiped out threads as well as logons, so the dates you are seeing are those when certain topics were recreated.

And I still think Devil's Knot is an excellent source. Not flawless, perhaps, but useful nonetheless. I realize that those convinced of the WM3's guilt consider this to be heresy.

In any event, I never claimed to be the world's leading expert on the WM3. I merely said that most of us went on to other cases at some point and there's no reason to be so insulting if some us need our memories refreshed. If that's too much trouble for you, then why post here at all? I should think you'd welcome a chance to recount the evidence from your point of view.

 

[Dirty larry]

Oh, Larry, by all means believe what you want.

It has nothing to do with what I believe.

I suppose it's possible I started posting here in 1999, but I don't believe it was that late. Websleuths existed under other owners and I don't believe the 1999 copyright reflects the first incarnation of the site.

Of course not.

If it does, then my bad. I rounded up by 4 years.

No, you "rounded up" considerably more than that.

The software crashes to which I referred also wiped out threads as well as logons, so the dates you are seeing are those when certain topics were recreated.

Of course they do.

And I still think Devil's Knot is an excellent source.

Devil's knot it a joke.

As is Mara-wanna Leveritt.

I realize that those convinced of the WM3's guilt consider this to be heresy.

The fact that you are defending her rag as a reliable source just illustrates how far from the facts of this case you really are.

In any event, I never claimed to be the world's leading expert on the WM3.

No, you just said that you and others have been discussing this case here for 15 years.

I'm just pointing out the fact that you are being dishonest.

Don't take it personally - I've never seen a supporter yet who didn't at some point begin to claim they have followed this case since the trials.

It's one of the many predictable dynamics.

 

[Nova]

It has nothing to do with what I believe.

Of course not.

No, you "rounded up" considerably more than that.

Of course they do.

Devil's knot it a joke.

As is Mara-wanna Leveritt.

The fact that you are defending her rag as a reliable source just illustrates how far from the facts of this case you really are.

No, you just said that you and others have been discussing this case here for 15 years.

I'm just pointing out the fact that you are being dishonest.

Don't take it personally - I've never seen a supporter yet who didn't at some point begin to claim they have followed this case since the trials.

It's one of the many predictable dynamics.

Oh, I see, you're one of those!

A casual reference to "15 years" by me can't just be a rough, off-the-cuff estimate, chosen simply to indicate "a long time." It has to be dishonesty. Even though 10 years or 5 years would have made my point just as well.

'Cause nobody ever uses language figuratively, nobody ever makes an error on a matter that doesn't matter much in the first place. No, they support your view or they are liars.

Even my references to board crashes and other software problems can't possibly be true because you are so convinced I am lying about a time span that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the WM3.

Well, a mind that closed isn't a mind I trust to weigh information or opinions in a productive fashion. Too bad, because for a minute there, I thought you had a lot of knowledge that might enlighten all of us.

As for when supporters claim they began following the case, I promise you I paid no attention to what went on in Arkansas (unless the U. of Florida was playing football there) until Paradise Lost was first broadcast on HBO.

I discovered Devil's Knot a number of years later. I don't want to say how many years because no doubt I'll be off by a year or two and that will be another "lie."

(ETA: Just reread your post and your claim that all WM3 supporters are eventually caught in lies. This is precisely the attitude that keeps many of us suspicious of the verdicts. It's not enough to argue that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, you have to insist that all doubts and even casual comments are lies. Were you the foreman on the Echols jury? Sounds like you could have been.)

 

[justthinkin]

Damien was indeed troubled. But for all his morbid writings and claims, there is very little evidence of his actually hurting anyone.

Nova, I would suggest to you that your statement above would include innumerable murderers on the planet. They all had to start somewhere. Do you think Damien's personal and psychological history, a complete fabrication? Granted, Jerry Driver had an agenda, but does that alter who Damien was? Do you want to throw all the psych history out because of Driver? Would you have us believe that all the psychologists and their assistants who worked with Damien, not only in Arkansas, but also Oregon, all had ulterior motives before the deed was even done?

 

[aussiesleuth]

Damien also attempted to rip someones eyeball out during a fight at school. He was suspended from school as a result. There is alot of evidence of his violent tendencies if you are willing to accept facts.

 

[luvstm]

Dirty Larry, I asked YOU a " very simple question" a page or so back. Perhaps you didn't respond because what I mentioned is VERY hard to debate?

 

[Nova]

Nova, I would suggest to you that your statement above would include innumerable murderers on the planet. They all had to start somewhere. Do you think Damien's personal and psychological history, a complete fabrication? Granted, Jerry Driver had an agenda, but does that alter who Damien was? Do you want to throw all the psych history out because of Driver? Would you have us believe that all the psychologists and their assistants who worked with Damien, not only in Arkansas, but also Oregon, all had ulterior motives before the deed was even done?

I think Echols had a very difficult childhood and was quite disturbed. No, I don't want to see that evidence thrown out.

On the other hand, damaged, even morbid, teenagers are not uncommon. Some become killers, but obviously most do not.

Moreover, as much as he like to cultivate the image, Echols was not the only one in town with a history of oddness. John Mark Byers had an equally checkered and violent past--which is NOT to say Byers committed the murders either, just that psychological troubles do not by themselves prove guilt. It's the rest of the evidence I find sketchy at best.

I'd like to see Echols' "weirdness" supported with more concrete evidence that he was involved in the crime.

 

[Nova]

Damien also attempted to rip someones eyeball out during a fight at school. He was suspended from school as a result. There is alot of evidence of his violent tendencies if you are willing to accept facts.

The problem is knowing what was real and what was part of the image cultivated by the town of Echols (with Echols' own assistance).

 

[Nova]

It was not only dishonesty, it was a pretty silly effort to try and belittle someone who was absolutely correct - that the overwhelming majority of supporters don't know anything about this case that wasn't in the films.


Apparently 15 just sounded better, huh?

No, they tell the truth, or they are liars.

Things rarely get any simpler than that.

I'm only convinced you were lying about your time span because - you were.

You're the one who brought it up?

If your constant "embellishments" are what you consider an open mind - I'll pass, thank you.

As you can see, I have no problem enlightning those who are honest.

The rest I'm not particularly concerned with.

As I said, I'm perfectly willing to have a civil, rational discussion with anyone who can remain honest.

Okay, you've called me a liar more than enough times over something where the exact number of years doesn't matter. You're not proving my dishonesty; you're merely proving what a petty and small-minded person you are. I seriously doubt you know the meaning of the word "civility."

I do remember distinctly that we discussed Jon-Benet Ramsey here for a couple of years before Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town was published (because I remember the anticipation that preceded that publication and the ensuing rush to read it). PMPT came out in early 1999, so my memory of joining here in 1997 or so is basically correct. Yes, I rounded up to 15 when 12 or 13 would have been more precise; so shoot me.

You might want to look up the legal definition of perjury. It requires that the telling of an untruth be germane to the issue at hand, recognizing that human beings often speak inexactly.

Of course, you made faulty assumptions about the creation of the site based on dates that stem from the most recent crash, not from the actual creation date. So I suppose we are to decide you are a chronic liar as well.

But I think it's more likely that you are just a troll.

 

[Roxye]

Anyone else find it odd that the copyright starts in 1999, but the first registered user was in 2003?

 

[ziggy]

Not odd - Nova is correct there were crashes and I used to follow the JonBenet case as a paid registered user on another site and only was a lurker here and that had to be in 1999 because I still lived in Nashville. I'm pretty sure I joined in 2001 because I remember discussing Danielle Van Dam and being on the computer in my Nashville apartment when 911 happened (but if I am incorrect, of course, I'm a horrible awful person and a liar).

 

[Nova]

Anyone else find it odd that the copyright starts in 1999, but the first registered user was in 2003?

No. As I explained above, there were board crashes that wiped out all threads and user logons. We all had to re-register and threads were restarted.

I assume 2003 was the last such crash. Post counts, etc., date from that time.

I am less sure about the 1999 date. Based on my admittedly imperfect memory, I am reasonably certain WS existed before that year.

Maybe that's the year a previous owner acquired the site and s/he chose to begin the copyright at that point. (In the late 1990s, there were battles over ownership of WS and the creation of what used to be called "Two Bs", that is WeBBsleuths.com as a rival site. It may still exist for all I know. There could be any number of reasons why 1999 was chosen as the initial copyright date based on those disputes.)