My view has done a complete 180
- Thread starter gryncher
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192- Latest: Caylee Advocate
I suspect the hearing will get them nowhere, and I highly doubt they will get new trials.
Do you know anything about the "New Evidence" the defense supposedly has?
and how many more appeals Damien has until he gets his execution date? I heard he is on his last appeal, but i'm not sure.
Mary456
Active Member
He actually passed two polygraphs, one given by the WMPD and one by the State Police.
But supporters don't believe in polygraphs...until Terry Hobbs fails his :waitasec:
Wescott
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2009
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 2
Wescott
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2009
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 2
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
All of the information that has been presented in the last few posts that is offered as proof of the guilt of the West Memphis Three is totally circumstantial. There is no physical evidence to link any of the three young men in prison with these murders. On the other hand, there are hairs that link a stepfather to the discovery ditch.
Given Jessie's mental inability, if he takes the stand in the upcoming hearing, it may just be the undoing of the State's case. It will be easy for the State's attorney to twist his words, and it will be just as easy for the defense attorney to twist them back. It will be a very vivid proof of how easy it is to manipulate Jessie into saying whatever is needed. He will be shown to be a totally useless witness to anything.
Someone earlier implied that Stidham only used this case to advance his career. I really don't see how losing a case can advance a career. It is true that he is now a judge. Of course, so are Brent Davis and John Fogleman, if memory serves. IMO, the prosecutors (the winners for the time being) are the ones who made their careers on this case, not the defense attorneys. Stidham's career advancement is the result of hard work and good practices, not his participation in this case. Does anyone know what Crow, Price, Ford and the other original defense attorneys are doing now? The people who profited career-wise from this case were the winners: Fogleman, Davis, Judge (now Senator) Burnett, and Gary Gitchell, who retired on his laurels after spearheading this investigation.
As to Terry Hobbs, he has refused to take a lie detector test, and he is not cooperative at all with any requests that might reveal what he has hidden for almost twenty years now, his involvement in these murders, evidenced by the presence of his beard hair in the ligature of Michael Moore. It totally baffles me why certain people don't want to see the real killer of these little boys brought to justice. Instead, they want to execute an innocent man.
No, Jessie is not still confessing. This is just a rumor perpetuated by the "nons" to try to continue to keep three innocent young men in prison for murders they did not commit. Even if Jessie were still making up stories about May 5th, given his ability to be manipulated, they would be meaningless.
The hearing in December will certainly open up a few eyes about this case, and IMO it will ultimately lead to either a new trial (with a not guilty verdict) or the outright freeing of the three falsely incarcerated young men. There is a lot of new evidence indicating the innocence of the three young men in prison, and the State, despite its secret testing, has apparently not found any more incriminating evidence to point to their guilt. Without the "Satanic panic" they had back in 1994, the State has no case. I can't wait until December.
Given Jessie's mental inability, if he takes the stand in the upcoming hearing, it may just be the undoing of the State's case. It will be easy for the State's attorney to twist his words, and it will be just as easy for the defense attorney to twist them back. It will be a very vivid proof of how easy it is to manipulate Jessie into saying whatever is needed. He will be shown to be a totally useless witness to anything.
Someone earlier implied that Stidham only used this case to advance his career. I really don't see how losing a case can advance a career. It is true that he is now a judge. Of course, so are Brent Davis and John Fogleman, if memory serves. IMO, the prosecutors (the winners for the time being) are the ones who made their careers on this case, not the defense attorneys. Stidham's career advancement is the result of hard work and good practices, not his participation in this case. Does anyone know what Crow, Price, Ford and the other original defense attorneys are doing now? The people who profited career-wise from this case were the winners: Fogleman, Davis, Judge (now Senator) Burnett, and Gary Gitchell, who retired on his laurels after spearheading this investigation.
As to Terry Hobbs, he has refused to take a lie detector test, and he is not cooperative at all with any requests that might reveal what he has hidden for almost twenty years now, his involvement in these murders, evidenced by the presence of his beard hair in the ligature of Michael Moore. It totally baffles me why certain people don't want to see the real killer of these little boys brought to justice. Instead, they want to execute an innocent man.
No, Jessie is not still confessing. This is just a rumor perpetuated by the "nons" to try to continue to keep three innocent young men in prison for murders they did not commit. Even if Jessie were still making up stories about May 5th, given his ability to be manipulated, they would be meaningless.
The hearing in December will certainly open up a few eyes about this case, and IMO it will ultimately lead to either a new trial (with a not guilty verdict) or the outright freeing of the three falsely incarcerated young men. There is a lot of new evidence indicating the innocence of the three young men in prison, and the State, despite its secret testing, has apparently not found any more incriminating evidence to point to their guilt. Without the "Satanic panic" they had back in 1994, the State has no case. I can't wait until December.
CR - people are convicted on circumstantial evidence ALL THE TIME. That's only in the movies that it doesn't hold water. Ask any lawyer.
You seriously will discount the mass of "circumstantial" evidence but you place all that credence in a hair in a lace? Wow.
That hair (if it's even TH's) is easily explained by secondary transfer.
My kid plays at other kid's houses - and I know I've found dog hairs on his clothes when he came home. I'm sure if you did a detailed examination you could find the dna of his friends parents somewhere too. So what?
Where did you come up with the idea that circumstantial evidence isn't sufficient?
Do some research.
The WM3 are where they belong.
You seriously will discount the mass of "circumstantial" evidence but you place all that credence in a hair in a lace? Wow.
That hair (if it's even TH's) is easily explained by secondary transfer.
My kid plays at other kid's houses - and I know I've found dog hairs on his clothes when he came home. I'm sure if you did a detailed examination you could find the dna of his friends parents somewhere too. So what?
Where did you come up with the idea that circumstantial evidence isn't sufficient?
Do some research.
The WM3 are where they belong.
Oh man CR - Jessie doesn't have a "mental disability". I know plenty of guys with his level of intelligence. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's not handicapped for christsake.
Watch PL1. He understands sarcasm and even uses it himself. He reads his card without skipping a beat.
Being a bit of a dumbass doesn't mean you will confess over and over again to a crime you didn't commit. That's insanity, and Jessie is not insane.
He's guilt ridden.
it's astonishing that you discount all of that.
Holy denial!
Watch PL1. He understands sarcasm and even uses it himself. He reads his card without skipping a beat.
Being a bit of a dumbass doesn't mean you will confess over and over again to a crime you didn't commit. That's insanity, and Jessie is not insane.
He's guilt ridden.
it's astonishing that you discount all of that.
Holy denial!
Also, The majority of murder cases Are based on circumstantial evidence.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
1) I realize that circumstantial evidence is often used, even in murder cases. In fact, IMO, much of the evidence against the real killer of the three little boys is circumstantial. However, there is at least one piece of physical evidence against the real killer, which is one more piece of physical evidence than there is against the WM3. Although I am not opposed to the death penalty, I am opposed to imposing it when there is not one shred of physical evidence implicating the person upon whom the death penalty was imposed. Using circumstantial evidence only in a DP case is simply wrong IMO, especially when physical evidence pointing to another person exists.
2) I don't know what you base your assessment of Jessie's mental disability on, but, having taught high school for 25 years and having taught students of his IQ, I can tell you from first hand experience that a person with an IQ in the 70's (or even low 80's) will keep changing the story they tell until they tell a story that satisfies the "authority figure" (teacher, parent, police officer) asking questions. It is a defense mechanism that they have mastered that is basically an attempt to hide their mental deficiency from others and/or to get the questioning to stop. If they are placed in a stressful situation, like prison, they are prone to tell any story that they believe might reduce the stress or get them out of the situation. They themselves know that they are not as smart as those around them, but they want to hide that fact from others if at all possible.
2) I don't know what you base your assessment of Jessie's mental disability on, but, having taught high school for 25 years and having taught students of his IQ, I can tell you from first hand experience that a person with an IQ in the 70's (or even low 80's) will keep changing the story they tell until they tell a story that satisfies the "authority figure" (teacher, parent, police officer) asking questions. It is a defense mechanism that they have mastered that is basically an attempt to hide their mental deficiency from others and/or to get the questioning to stop. If they are placed in a stressful situation, like prison, they are prone to tell any story that they believe might reduce the stress or get them out of the situation. They themselves know that they are not as smart as those around them, but they want to hide that fact from others if at all possible.
How can someone be SO WRONG??
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
I don't know what "someone" you mean, but if you are referring to me, I don't believe that I am wrong. I have stated my reasons for my opinions. What actual physical evidence exists that proves the WM3 committed this crime? If none exists, my statement is correct. As to Jessie, I base my statements on my own personal experiences teaching for 25 years. You cannot invalidate my experiences. As I asked before, upon what do you base your opinions?
How many of your students confessed to such a crime, were convicted of that crime, then continued to confess after they were convicted?
That must have been some school you taught at!
I base my opinions on the documents on Callahans and the opinions of 24 people who sat through every single day of those 2 trials. Oh and a little something called common sense.
I don't struggle with the concept of 1+1=2.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
I have also read the documents on Callahan's and base my opinions in part on that phase of my research. However, trial transcripts don't always tell the whole story. Also, over seventeen years have passed since the original trials. New information has come to light. Not all of that new information is available on Callahan's. I use all information available when forming my opinions.
As to the juries, they can be wrong. That's why we have an appeals process in our judicial system. It's also easy for a jury to be wrong when it's foreman is introducing information forbidden by the judge. It's equally easy for a jury to be wrong when, as they begin deliberations, the judge implies that the verdict should be guilty. As I taught mathematics, I, too, understand the concept of 1 + 1 = 2, at least if you are working in base 10.
As to "common sense," I, too, have used that tool when evaluating this case. "Common sense" tells me that three long-haired teens could not have committed these crimes and left not one tell tale hair or any other piece of physical evidence at the scene. "Common sense" tells me that these three teens had absolutely no reason to kill the three little boys and that the occult "expert" at the trial was a joke. "Common sense" tells me that, since 61% of child murders are committed by a parent, step parent or friend of the family, the real killer of the three little boys is more likely to be a member of one of these groups than a random set of teens.
I have had many students with low IQ's who, when questioned about a particular situation, have given answers that were disjointed and, often, not truthful at all, even claiming to have witnessed something which later investigation proved to be impossible. This is similar to Jessie's situation. My opinions about Jessie's statements are based on my first hand knowledge of how easy it is to get someone with a low IQ to say whatever is fed to him/her. Again, testimony to this effect is available in the Rule 37 abstracts from Dr. Tim (?) Derning.
IMO, the police coerced a false confession from Jessie. IMO, they did this because they knew he was mentally disabled and they wanted to charge Damien with the crime. IMO, what the police did was despicable. They took advantage of a mentally-challenged youth in order to solve their case and thereby advance their careers. They had Damien in their sights from the beginning, because Jerry Driver suggested him as a suspect. (Why he did so is another despicable story.) Read Samuel Dwyer's testimony in the Rule 37 abstracts and you'll see what I mean about the police profiling of suspects.
Finally, let me clear up a common rumor that has persisted over the years. Jessie has not "continued to confess" as so many people claim. He has not claimed to have been involved in these murders since the statement he gave on 2/17/94 when LE had worked on him for some time, trying (in vain, I might add) to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. This was done without the knowledge and against the wishes (obviously) of his attorneys. Even that statement was still incorrect in many details and has not stood the test of time and the new discoveries and testing that have occurred in this case post-conviction.
The West Memphis Three are innocent. The real killer is walking free. The evidentiary hearing in December will be the first step toward freedom for the three young men who have been falsely incarcerated.
As to the juries, they can be wrong. That's why we have an appeals process in our judicial system. It's also easy for a jury to be wrong when it's foreman is introducing information forbidden by the judge. It's equally easy for a jury to be wrong when, as they begin deliberations, the judge implies that the verdict should be guilty. As I taught mathematics, I, too, understand the concept of 1 + 1 = 2, at least if you are working in base 10.
As to "common sense," I, too, have used that tool when evaluating this case. "Common sense" tells me that three long-haired teens could not have committed these crimes and left not one tell tale hair or any other piece of physical evidence at the scene. "Common sense" tells me that these three teens had absolutely no reason to kill the three little boys and that the occult "expert" at the trial was a joke. "Common sense" tells me that, since 61% of child murders are committed by a parent, step parent or friend of the family, the real killer of the three little boys is more likely to be a member of one of these groups than a random set of teens.
I have had many students with low IQ's who, when questioned about a particular situation, have given answers that were disjointed and, often, not truthful at all, even claiming to have witnessed something which later investigation proved to be impossible. This is similar to Jessie's situation. My opinions about Jessie's statements are based on my first hand knowledge of how easy it is to get someone with a low IQ to say whatever is fed to him/her. Again, testimony to this effect is available in the Rule 37 abstracts from Dr. Tim (?) Derning.
IMO, the police coerced a false confession from Jessie. IMO, they did this because they knew he was mentally disabled and they wanted to charge Damien with the crime. IMO, what the police did was despicable. They took advantage of a mentally-challenged youth in order to solve their case and thereby advance their careers. They had Damien in their sights from the beginning, because Jerry Driver suggested him as a suspect. (Why he did so is another despicable story.) Read Samuel Dwyer's testimony in the Rule 37 abstracts and you'll see what I mean about the police profiling of suspects.
Finally, let me clear up a common rumor that has persisted over the years. Jessie has not "continued to confess" as so many people claim. He has not claimed to have been involved in these murders since the statement he gave on 2/17/94 when LE had worked on him for some time, trying (in vain, I might add) to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. This was done without the knowledge and against the wishes (obviously) of his attorneys. Even that statement was still incorrect in many details and has not stood the test of time and the new discoveries and testing that have occurred in this case post-conviction.
The West Memphis Three are innocent. The real killer is walking free. The evidentiary hearing in December will be the first step toward freedom for the three young men who have been falsely incarcerated.
Wescott
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2009
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 2
Mary456
Active Member
He's not; I was being facetious.
Terry Hobbs is not a suspect. He never was and never will be, because he had nothing to do with these murders.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
Gary Gitchell did state in his Pasdar deposition that all parents were originally suspects, as should be the case in a situation like this. However, TH was not interviewed by the police until 2007 - after the new testing revealed that his mtDNA was found at the discovery site. Back in 1993, IIRC, TH did his best to avoid the police and questioning. The defense has indicated their intent to question him at the upcoming hearing. Let's wait and see what happens after that.
I want to know why his hair being at the scene, his odd behavior during that day, his constant lying about simple questions about this case, and his constant anger and abuse towards other people doesn't make people understand why some would think he committed these murders.
Compassionate Reader
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 113
This is a rumor. The only source is the Hoax board, and IMO its name says it all.