I've Changed My Opinion

[bessie]

ADMIN NOTE: Stick to the topic, and STOP the basing and name calling.

Bessie
WS ADMINISTRATOR

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Kennedy Jo]

I don't know who is guilty of what. That being said Echols is mentally unstable and he was his own worst enemy. These little boys were murdered by more than one person. Someone knows. Who?

 

[Tony1902]

Bessie, my home gal, my brain is constantly fluttering back and forth from this. “You lean to one side..precisely so. To sit on the fence is impossible..The third road does not exist.” I go on and endless loop. I wish for modern forensics. Presentisim..

 

[Chuck Norris' Chin]

I remember the horrific murders of these boys on the news years ago. After seeing the documentaries on HBO years ago, I thought the young men convicted of the murders were found guilty based on literally no evidence & coerced testimonies by "witnesses". The crime scene debacle by the first responders should've been enough not to charge those 3 young men, let alone the incompetence by the WMPD from the very beginning.

 

[Chuck Norris' Chin]

IMO, if it isn't MH Sr, I believe (as do many many others) the perpetrator could have been a long haul trucker who parked at the 76 Truck Stop numerous times. The trucker possibly lured those kids into his truck after noticing the boys in that area in the past. He then kills them in his truck & walks a short distance in the dark to dump the bodies. It was reported that the boys were hogtied with their own shoe laces. The bonding with shoe laces seems premeditated & time consuming. Seems if a family member would've killed them (IE MH Sr), they'd been much sloppier & would've left some evidence. But of course it was reported the officers botched much or all of the evidence. After the FBI recently stated how many long haul truckers are serial killers, it would not surprise a trucker is responsible. I obviously have zero evidence this is true. But after reading about serial killers Bruce Mendenhall & Robert Ben Rhoades basically converting their sleeper cabs into torture chambers, it's a possibility.

 

[dogmatica]

I remember the horrific murders of these boys on the news years ago. After seeing the documentaries on HBO years ago, I thought the young men convicted of the murders were found guilty based on literally no evidence & coerced testimonies by "witnesses". The crime scene debacle by the first responders should've been enough not to charge those 3 young men, let alone the incompetence by the WMPD from the very beginning.

You need to understand that you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV. And the "documentaries" are your source of truth...well, what can I say?

 

[Chuck Norris' Chin]

You need to understand that you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV. And the "documentaries" are your source of truth...well, what can I say?

Thanks for making me "understand" that I shouldn't believe everything that I see on TV. You mean Gilligan & his boatmates weren't really on a deserted island for several years?

 

[Chuck Norris' Chin]

Dog, I know if I reply to you that I'll be going down the rabbit hole that you reside. Whee, here I go. FYI, I've read a lot about this case over the years besides viewing the documentaries. There's no evidence that I've seen connecting these 3 men to the murders. Only a coerced confession & some bogus witness testimonies. Oh I forgot about the shenanigans by the Jury Foreman & Judge in the original trial. I guess the State of Arkansas disagrees with me. What? The State released them on an Alford Plea? They wouldn't release child murderers would they. No, no they wouldn't unless they were likely innocent from the get go.

 

[dogmatica]

Dog, I know if I reply to you that I'll be going down the rabbit hole that you reside. Whee, here I go. FYI, I've read a lot about this case over the years besides viewing the documentaries. There's no evidence that I've seen connecting these 3 men to the murders. Only a coerced confession & some bogus witness testimonies. Oh I forgot about the shenanigans by the Jury Foreman & Judge in the original trial. I guess the State of Arkansas disagrees with me. What? The State released them on an Alford Plea? They wouldn't release child murderers would they. No, no they wouldn't unless they were likely innocent from the get go.

When you simply parrot the WM3s' fans' talking points, it shows you have in fact, not done any research beyond reading only what fits your narrative.

"There's no evidence I've seen". Exactly - you haven't seen it because you are either in denial, haven't looked past the "documentaries" or are unable to understand the evidence. It's glaring, and there's a LOT of it. I won't dig it up for you - it's all in the court transcripts, and documents on Callahan's. (I'm sure you've read all the files on Callahan's, yes?). The 500 is also an extremely damaging piece of evidence as well. You've read that, right?

"Only a coerced confession". Again - this statement is glaring in its utter inaccuracy. Misskelley confessed not once, but many, many, many times - several POST conviction. First of all, the first confession was not "coerced". His many subsequent confessions were not "coerced" either. He confessed to 2 police officers in their squad car (and sorry, but "they were lying" isn't a defense or proof). He confessed, with his hand on a bible, after his own lawyer BEGGED him not to. He absolutely insisted and said he was going to "make this right". Tell me, how can one be "coerced" into confessing, multiple times, when the people who allegedly coerced him, aren't even in the room? How does someone continue to confess, AFTER they've been convicted of the crime, despite the pleas and insistence of their own lawyer that they NOT? How does one confess and give details to the crime that were NOT public knowledge? How does an innocent person keep on confessing over and over and over? I'll tell you the answer to all of those questions: Because they did it.

"Bogus witness testimony" - well, that means nothing, that's just a "bogus" talking point you threw out because you've heard other supporters tow that line. There were MANY witnesses, in different capacities, who maintained their testimony and would have absolutely zero reason to perjure themselves.

Re: the Alford Plea: the DEFENSE approached the prosecution with the idea of them pleading guilty, not the other way around. The WM3 had a new trial coming to them, and they claimed they had "exculpatory evidence" that would point to the "real killer". Instead of taking the new trial and clearing their names and suing the State for millions, they went to the prosecutor and asked to plead guilty. And, shockingly, to this day, they have NEVER released any exculpatory evidence whatsoever. Why? Because it DOESN'T EXIST. What innocent person pleads guilty to child murder, claims to have evidence to clear their name, and never follows through? A guilty person, that's who.

Also, murderers are released from prison all the time.

I suggest you do a little more research before you stand up and defend 3 (twice) convicted child killers.

 

[Chuck Norris' Chin]

Of course murderers are occasionally released once their sentences are completed. But again these men were released under the Alford Plea. It makes zero difference who approached who regarding the plea. Do you understand the definition of an Alford Plea? Since I disagree with your opinions, then it must be true that I didn't do enough research... according to you. Again, what evidence was there that connected the three men to the murders? You said a lot of words (double talk) about the evidence, but you didn't actually present any. Were there footprints, fingerprints or DNA evidence? So no physical evidence. Did anyone actually see any of these three at the scene where the boys were eventually found deceased? JM was 17, a minor & his IQ was in the low 70's. He was alone when he was questioned by police for up to 12 hours. (Wiki)> "Dr Richard Ofshe testified that the brief recording of JM interrogation was a "classic example" of police coercion. Critics have also stated that JM various "confessions" were in many respects inconsistent with each other, as well as with the particulars of the crime scene and murder victims" Dr Richard Ofshe is an expert on false confessions. So the only evidence they had was the ramblings of a 17 yr old kid (JM) who was most likely coerced by the police. IMO, JM's later rambling with his attorney present was quite strange & that of a person who was delusional.

 

[Chuck Norris' Chin]

Dog, do you think it's possible that someone else committed these murders?

 

[dogmatica]

Of course murderers are occasionally released once their sentences are completed. But again these men were released under the Alford Plea. It makes zero difference who approached who regarding the plea. Do you understand the definition of an Alford Plea? Since I disagree with your opinions, then it must be true that I didn't do enough research... according to you. Again, what evidence was there that connected the three men to the murders? You said a lot of words (double talk) about the evidence, but you didn't actually present any. Were there footprints, fingerprints or DNA evidence? So no physical evidence. Did anyone actually see any of these three at the scene where the boys were eventually found deceased? JM was 17, a minor & his IQ was in the low 70's. He was alone when he was questioned by police for up to 12 hours. (Wiki)> "Dr Richard Ofshe testified that the brief recording of JM interrogation was a "classic example" of police coercion. Critics have also stated that JM various "confessions" were in many respects inconsistent with each other, as well as with the particulars of the crime scene and murder victims" Dr Richard Ofshe is an expert on false confessions. So the only evidence they had was the ramblings of a 17 yr old kid (JM) who was most likely coerced by the police. IMO, JM's later rambling with his attorney present was quite strange & that of a person who was delusional.

I presented no double talk whatsoever. I debunked your assertions. You proved your lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the evidence by making false claims. I corrected them for you. Again, the evidence against them is ubiquitous - do your own research. Read Callahan's. Read the 500. Learn bout Echols alibi being torn to shreds on cross. Learn about Baldwin's not even presenting an alibi. Learn about Misskelley's alibi being decimated. Learn about Echols' constant lying and being busted lying on cross. All the information a person with even a modicum of critical thinking ability needs to realize their guilt is readily available at multiple sources.

Misskelley is on record saying he dumbed himself down in his IQ test to throw investigators. He's NOT functioning at the level of a "5 year old". Even in the disingenuous "documentaries", you can see he's perhaps not the sharpest tool in the shed, but far from the imbecile supporters make him out to be.

Again - you fail to acknowledge his many, MANY confessions, some post conviction. Again - how is one "coerced", when the alleged "coercers" aren't even present? And POST conviction? If Misskelley was SO incredibly susceptible to being made to say what anyone wanted him to say, why could his OWN ATTORNEY not STOP him from confessing? Supporters can't have it both ways. By that logic, he would have not put his hand on a bible and insisted on confessing when his own lawyer firmly demanded he not. So he's only capable of being coerced when it's damaging to him, but not when it's in his best interest? How does one deduce that? That's not a thing.

No, you don't get to diagnose Misskelley as "delusional". You have zero basis or evidence to that fact. That's grasping at straws, nothing more.

 

[dogmatica]

Dog, do you think it's possible that someone else committed these murders?

No. THAT would be "delusional".

 

[Troyce]

I won't attempt to answer your numerous questions because you would merely attempt to debunk anything that I might say. I will address this one:

"Why would somebody exhibit all of the signs of being a psychopath and yet not be one?"

Not all psychopaths are killers. I'm not totally sure that Damien is a psychopath. He certainly has had mental problems in the past, and basically "growing up" in prison certainly left him immature. (The plethora of immature actions he has exhibited since his release proves this.) However, the justice system should not convict a person, and certainly should not sentence a person to death, on such a lack of real evidence as there was in this case. (Jessie could "confess" every day and twice on Sunday and I would not believe it because of his mental disability.) IMO, the reason for the lack of evidence is that Damien, Jason and Jessie are factually innocent of these crimes. I hope that the State of Arkansas reopens this case, that a proper investigation is conducted and that the real killer is punished for his crimes.

Can you enlighten me on his ‘plethora of

 

[weirj]

I won't attempt to answer your numerous questions because you would merely attempt to debunk anything that I might say. I will address this one:

"Why would somebody exhibit all of the signs of being a psychopath and yet not be one?"

Not all psychopaths are killers. I'm not totally sure that Damien is a psychopath. He certainly has had mental problems in the past, and basically "growing up" in prison certainly left him immature. (The plethora of immature actions he has exhibited since his release proves this.) However, the justice system should not convict a person, and certainly should not sentence a person to death, on such a lack of real evidence as there was in this case. (Jessie could "confess" every day and twice on Sunday and I would not believe it because of his mental disability.) IMO, the reason for the lack of evidence is that Damien, Jason and Jessie are factually innocent of these crimes. I hope that the State of Arkansas reopens this case, that a proper investigation is conducted and that the real killer is punished for his crimes.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Can you enlighten me on his ‘plethora of

DE moved to Salem, MA at one point. I found that disconcerting. He continued to seek attention while the other two did not. His choice of an occupation tends to lend itself to making him less credible, IMO. I still believe that he and the other two are innocent of the murders, but, IMO, DE continues to "act out" in an immature way that causes many to believe him capable of the murders. However, none of his post-conviction actions are proof of his guilt. I hope I live long enough to see the truth come out. Maybe DS's upcoming book will provide some proof! I continue to hope.

 

[dogmatica]

DE moved to Salem, MA at one point. I found that disconcerting. He continued to seek attention while the other two did not. His choice of an occupation tends to lend itself to making him less credible, IMO. I still believe that he and the other two are innocent of the murders, but, IMO, DE continues to "act out" in an immature way that causes many to believe him capable of the murders. However, none of his post-conviction actions are proof of his guilt. I hope I live long enough to see the truth come out. Maybe DS's upcoming book will provide some proof! I continue to hope.

That's true. It's his behaviors pre-conviction that are proof of his guilt. Then there's also that inconvenient fact that the WM3, despite claiming they had it, have not presented one, not even one little tiny bit of exonerating evidence. You almost sounded as though logic was going to get the better of you, then it all fell apart. You have seen the truth come out. You can rest your mind knowing the case was solved long ago.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I’ve always said that DE was/is his own worst enemy. It was more understandable when he was a teenager, but, even now, his actions DO NOT make him a murderer.

 

[dogmatica]

I’ve always said that DE was/is his own worst enemy. It was more understandable when he was a teenager, but, even now, his actions DO NOT make him a murderer.

"Even now"? That makes no sense. His actions in 1993 make him a murderer. Those actions being...murdering children.

 

[sneezy]

I’ve seen the documentaries, read tons and I’m still on the fence. That being said I have many issues with how the investigation was handled-especially the evidence as well as not following up with many of the leads.

Here’s what I’m wondering...did the state worry about the quality of the evidence and investigation so that rather that worry about that coming out, allowed the Alford pleas as an “everybody wins” scenario? The WM3 get out and the state’s poor investigation doesn’t get exposed—because that may open the state up to civil litigation?

Just thinking out loud...