Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
and this: http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3326&page=10
Joseph puts a lot of things in prospective.
off my soapbox until October.
There are very few injuries on any of the victims that could be caused by fists.
Also, I've seen a picture of Damien a day or so after the crimes, when he was first questioned, and his hands do not have any scrapes or scratches on them to indicate that he had been hitting anyone.
Nonsense. This is a flat out lie.
Forensic experts disagree with you. They say that the injuries, except the basilar skull fractures, were caused by postmortem animal predation.
I've seen those pictures too. Blurry jpegs of blurry full-body photos taken from a distance. You're seriously claiming that you can see enough detail on those photos to rule out scrapes on Damien's hands?
In any case, an 18-year-old beating up an 8-year-old isn't gonna suffer a lot of damage.
Forensic experts disagree with you. They say that the injuries, except the basilar skull fractures, were caused by postmortem animal predation.
Again, there is no indication in these photos that Damien had hit someone the day before.
A few forensic experts, selected and paid by the defense, now claim that animal predation caused the cutting injuries. The medical examiner who did the autopsies testified that they were probably caused by a knife or piece of glass.
The medical examiner who did the autopsies isn't even board certified. He failed the exam several (I think three) times. One of the defense experts is the man who actually wrote the textbook on forensic pathology.
But not even these new defense experts deny that there were blunt force injuries as well.
Yes, there was blunt force trauma, resulting is basilar skull injuries. This type of injury simply cannot be caused by the scenario in Jessie's story. He didn't say that they beat their heads against the ground or did anything that could have caused this type of severe injury.
There is also no indication that he hadn't hit someone the day before.
I can't edit my post, so I'll post again. The testimony of Joseph Samuel Dwyer is in the Rule 37 transcript, starting on p. 360.
http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_rule37_brief_2_18_11.pdf
Multiple confessions. Many POST conviction.
How do you explain that CR? How do you explain him confessing after he was convicted, on the record, after his attorney BEGGED him not to? Why is he STILL confessing?
Because of his limited mental abilities, Jessie is easily manipulated. After his conviction, LE worked on Jessie, attempting to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They had him convinced that his attorneys were not there to help him. There were only two post conviction statements. The first was in the car on the way to prison. This type of statement is very common in someone of Jessie's IQ. It was an attempt to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear so he (Jessie) could go home. The second post conviction statement, the one made over the objection of his attorneys, was, as I said before, after LE had been talking to Jessie, without notifying his attorneys, in an attempt to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. As you probably know, Jessie did not testify against Damien and Jason because he simply couldn't continue telling his false story any longer. He has not "continued to confess." He has maintained his innocence since approximately one month after his conviction.
How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?
No forensic evidence has connected the Evan Williams bottle to any of the three convicted young men. There is nothing to explain. Unless some forensic evidence connecting Jessie or one of the other teens to the bottle is produced, the fact that an Evan Williams bottle was found (after searching under several overpasses) proves nothing. It is a common brand used by many homeless people, and the fact that Jessie mentioned drinking that brand and discarding a bottle in the area is only relevant if the bottle found can be forensically linked to him.
Why did they lie about their alibis? Why did Damien admit he lied about his alibi on the stand?
Damien got confused. To him, and the other two teens, May 5th was just another day. They had no reason to remember in detail their movements on that day. Damien's mother refreshed his memory as to the events of the day. Neither Jason or Jessie "lied" about their alibis. All three of the teens were with friends and/or family during the afternoon and early evening of May 5th. The WMPD didn't want to accept these alibis as truthful, stating that their friends and family were lying to establish alibis for them. What should they have done if they were with friends and family, invent another story that satisfies the WMPD instead of telling the truth?
Why did Michael Carson testify to Baldwin's confession and pass a lie detector test?
Simple answer: because he is adept at lying.
Why did Damien fail his?
Simple answer: because he was nervous as most people would be if they were being falsely accused of a murder they didn't commit.
The previous two answers demonstrate why lie detector results are not admissible as evidence in court. They are simply too prone to errors.
Why did Damien blow kisses to the murdered children's parents?
Damien was a foolish teen at the time. This was only one of the foolish behaviors that he exhibited at the trial. Even he will tell you that now.
Why did Todd Moore see Damien in that area when they were searching for Michael?
This is news to me, but I suppose because Damien visited West Memphis from his home in Marion fairly often it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that he was there visiting Jason on May 5th. Did Todd see Jessie and Jason, too?
To believe the wm3 are innocent is to believe in a conspiracy theory larger than has ever existed. it's ridiculous.
To believe the WM3 are guilty is ridiculous. How can three teens commit three murders and not leave one speck of physical evidence at the scene? The case against them was circumstantial, fueled by "Satanic panic" and an intense desire to find the perpetrators quickly so everyone would feel safe again. The WMPD botched up the investigation. No conspiracy here, except the "good ol' boy" network protecting their own as they always do in small towns. That's the only conspiracy at work here, the small town conspiracy that looks at anyone who is different in some way as somehow subhuman. Read Samuel Dwyer's testimony from the Rule 37 abstracts and you'll see what I mean.
Why did Damien say he was "enjoying it" re: the spotlight/trial?
This type of foolish utterance is typical of a teen, especially one who feels alienated and ostracized by the society around him. It does not mean that he is a murderer.
Why did Damien mutilate and kill a Great Dane?
Multiple confessions. Many POST conviction.
How do you explain that CR? How do you explain him confessing after he was convicted, on the record, after his attorney BEGGED him not to? Why is he STILL confessing?
How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?
Why did they lie about their alibis? Why did Damien admit he lied about his alibi on the stand?
Why did Michael Carson testify to Baldwin's confession and pass a lie detector test?
Why did Damien fail his?
Why did Damien blow kisses to the murdered children's parents?
Why did Todd Moore see Damien in that area when they were searching for Michael?
To believe the wm3 are innocent is to believe in a conspiracy theory larger than has ever existed. it's ridiculous.
Why did Damien say he was "enjoying it" re: the spotlight/trial?
Why did Damien mutilate and kill a Great Dane?