New to this case and new to the forum

[leslievernon]

@Userid reg. turtles/bites:

hahah.. yeah. he said he had turtles in his garden. but i saw him testifying reg. the wounds, when other medical experts were also present (whats his name the guy who was also at the ted bundy trial?)...when was that - 07? at a hearing. anyway, don't get me wrong here i have nothing against the guy per se, but peretti of course defended his findings from 93/94, i would do so too, and also it came out he failed his exam twice as pathologist., back then. just saying.
the point is: there was nobody else at the trials to challenge peretti. i mean the defense.. no money, no ressources, i mean limited at best.
so yeah, he's a good guy but, if you don't have a trained eye for certain things... and i mean the animal bites.

ETA:
yes, thank you, dogmatica.

 

[dogmatica]

he had worshippers all along, k-mac...
i for example did not worship him.. i hardly liked him (in Paradise Lost). but when you begin reading into the case, and you find out that his name was mentioned by somebody right there at the ditch when the bodies were found... you kind of, subconsciously, plant an idea in everybody's head, don't you.. social misfit, psychic problems, unstable, goth-like/satanist, psychotic, maybe.... yeah, that looks good before it even begins. add to that news stories of satanic cults, show some pentagrams on walls.. hell, even i would have said "lock em up".

the police was under immense pressure to solve that and this mentioning of echols name so early was like a blessing. iirc what exactly incriminating did he say when the cops visited him.. echols.. was that may 6th?..7th?

It's ridiculous to conclude that because Echols' name was mentioned before his arrest (that's how many, many arrests are made - that's why cops ask around to get an idea of who may potentially be involved) that this somehow planted a falsehood in the mind of the police and they proceeded to blindly stick to that. All those things you mention are circumstantial and are relevant. Obviously on their own they don't prove guilt, but of course anyone who has actually read and understood the case knows that's not even close to all they had.

You're adding 1 + 1 and coming up with potato. The sort of...logic(?) you're putting forth, thankfully isn't used in real life criminal cases...if it were, we'd have killers getting away with murder every day.

 

[dogmatica]

so your saying with his mental and criminal history he should never have been looked at??
who should have then?
if we can not start at where there is smoke...….

the police had every right to go for him first.
that's where the evidence started.

Precisely.

 

[dogmatica]

thx. yeah, it's not my native language... maybe i got that word wrong all along, well..

ok, echols as a suspect.
sure.. like i said and i didnt even exaggerate too much - he was a person of interest, considering everything else, i would have wanted to talk to him.
but he was the only one left... after months of investigating.. i remember there was a truck driver of interest.. there were some other teens, that were questioned and really looked at... yeah. but everything to no avail.

then they picked up jessy and brought him in and this is really the point where supporters and non-supporters divide, completely. ... why is it so hard to believe that somebody confesses to something, let's say through police pressure, and then later says that he made it up. when you have like 25% of DNA exoneration cases where people were in jail because they confessed to something they didn't actually do... it happens.

The reason the other people were dropped is because they eliminated them as suspects. Echols was not dropped because on the contrary, the evidence kept mounting. Again, in regards to the confessionS - you are still referring to this as one coerced confession. It was not. It was many, many, many confessions, and they were NOT coerced. The police cannot coerce a confession if they are not even present. Unless you're not understanding the meaning of coercion.

 

[dogmatica]

another thing that led me to believe that the state's version can't be true, is lividity:

correct me if i am wrong, but coroner kent hale noted "body#2 (steven branch) lividity on left buttock", the other two bodies had "lividity on buttocks and back".

in the state's version, all 3 bodies laid face down in the mud, in the water, for ca. 19 hours.
how can there be lividity on the back?

dr. peretti, who examined the bodies and was the state's medical expert during the trial(s), found no mosquito bites on any of them.
also, there was a "grid-like pattern" (again, peretti) on the inner thigh of steven branch. peretti couldn't say what made that impression. police searched the ditch with metal detectors.. i doubt that there is any report indicating that an object was found in the ditch that could have made such impression. that impression most probably was created while the victim was dying, while there was still a bloodflow, i guess (and that is my amateur medical opinion).

the bodies must have been moved to the ditch from somewhere else. imo those things support that somehow.

None of this is relevant, and you are adding up non-connected little details (that are your interpretation) and throwing it out as somehow being exculpatory. It's not, not even in the slightest. The supporter mentality is very disingenuous - or maybe just utterly confused. They ignore the totality of the overwhelming evidence that proves the WM3 are guilty, and then cherry pick (often non-existent) bits of info to weave together some non-logic to fit their narrative (whatever that might be - first it was Byers, Bojangles, Hobbs...basically ANYONE who isn't the WM3).

What's even more puzzling is, why would it possibly be that supporters are so utterly opposed to the WM3 being guilty? Nons have mountains of evidence, confessions, convictions, guilty pleas...supporters have... a hair that means nothing. And a bunch of goofy theories, all of which are spun to do nothing but try and point AWAY from the WM3. They hold no water, have no credibility and certainly zero evidence to back them up. All they do is desperately try to distract from the glaring guilt of the WM3.

Very, very bizarre.

 

[dogmatica]

Userid - I know you're a fence sitter, but wow, I have to tell you, if I had no idea about this case, and I collectively read all of your posts/information/rebuttals/correction of misinformation etc., well, let's just say I'd have zero doubt in my mind that the right guys were convicted. I respect that you're ambivalent, but I sure don't understand how you are. Cheers.

 

[leslievernon]

you wanna know why people who don't think they did it (let us get beyond the supporter vs non-supporter thing - we all just look at it and come to conclusions) are so suspicious reg. the case:

1 example:
bojangles... hey, i almost forgot that.
let's see.... so there was a shot fired, about the time when ryan clarke and his friends were in the woods searching. there was also a splash heard. that was about 9pm on may 5th.
at 9:30ish a black guy entered the bojangles restaurant ca. 1 km away.... well, i'm gonna stop there. i am not here to summarize it all for you. read it up at callahans. (statement of the owner, king, irrc.)

fact is: 2 cops, ridge and allen were there the next day, were offered a blood soaked toilet paper, but only took a few blood scraps off the wall, and then at the trial ridge actually said on the stand that he "lost that piece of evidence" (quote)
the state crime lab found a negroid hair of unknown origin on the blankets used to cover the victims. the only negroid hair ever found and to this day unknown.

this single instance... is so damn suspicious - not only that mysterious suspect but also the enormous incompetence of ridge and allen - needless to say this has nothing to do with echols, baldwin or misskelley.


yeah... the totality of the overwhelming evidence.... all "maybes", dogmatica. what did peretti say... "could be from a serrated knife" etc. etc...could, could, could. the rambo knife.. come on. don't make a fool of yourself. no fingerprints, no DNA, nothing. and as it turned out none of the wm3's DNA or hair or whatever was found at the scene. what do you say about that actually?

no.. DNA...found...from the alleged killers.
now if somebody tells me that misskelley confessed another 28 times while doing a handstand on a bible, i'd not be too impressed. sorry.

 

[Userid]

@Userid reg. turtles/bites:

hahah.. yeah. he said he had turtles in his garden. but i saw him testifying reg. the wounds, when other medical experts were also present (whats his name the guy who was also at the ted bundy trial?)...when was that - 07? at a hearing. anyway, don't get me wrong here i have nothing against the guy per se, but peretti of course defended his findings from 93/94, i would do so too, and also it came out he failed his exam twice as pathologist., back then. just saying.
the point is: there was nobody else at the trials to challenge peretti. i mean the defense.. no money, no ressources, i mean limited at best.
so yeah, he's a good guy but, if you don't have a trained eye for certain things... and i mean the animal bites.

ETA:
yes, thank you, dogmatica.

I would love to know how many other forensic pathologists had to re-take their exams -- I'd bet there are a lot out there. I don't think that makes Peretti any better or worse, and I think supporters unfairly label him. I mean, if the guy's so terrible and inept at this job, you would think he would have lost it ages ago -- but he's still a forensic pathologist in Arkansas to this day. Being a bad test taker doesn't prove anything, and that was a low blow for the film makers to throw out there in their lame-azz attempts to discredit him.

Peretti was challenged by both the prosecution and the defense during the initial trials, as well as defense hired-guns like Werner Spitz (who claimed all the skull fractures were from wild dogs banging the bodies against trees. Yes, seriously.) later on in future hearings.

Good document: Baldwin/Misskelley Rule 37 Hearing - Abstract of Testimony of Dr. Frank Peretti

 

[leslievernon]

yeah... later on they all were there, spitz, baden, souviron (that was the bundy guy) and he was furious, if you saw the video of him discrediting the claims that these were stab wounds.

yeah, thx, that's what i meant reg. peretti, the Rule37 hearing. like i said he looked like a nice man, peretti, my point was there should have been more than 1 medical expert since wounds were, a big deal, in this case, i mean..

YES; i totally admit i found some of the claims from spitz during the Rule37 completely ludicrous. seriously.. he said some sentences, like you mentioned, that let my toenails roll up..

 

[Userid]

Userid - I know you're a fence sitter, but wow, I have to tell you, if I had no idea about this case, and I collectively read all of your posts/information/rebuttals/correction of misinformation etc., well, let's just say I'd have zero doubt in my mind that the right guys were convicted. I respect that you're ambivalent, but I sure don't understand how you are. Cheers.

Thanks Dogmatica -- yes, contrary to popular belief, the WM3 are probably the strongest suspects in the case. I know supporters won't like that, but when you look at everything, that is the conclusion. That said, and although they are the strongest suspects (compared to people like TH, etc.), I don't believe they should have been convicted, particularly DE and JB -- since they were tried separately from JM and JM didn't testify in their trial, therefore his confession should have only been factored in his trial. The WM3 might be the strongest suspects in the case, but even so, there isn't a substantial amount of evidence against anybody in this case. Supporters are wrong when they say that there is a mountain of evidence in favor of the WM3's innocence, but nons are also wrong when they say there is a mountain of evidence in favor of their guilt. There is no mountain, period.

 

[Userid]

yeah... later on they all were there, spitz, baden, souviron (that was the bundy guy) and he was furious, if you saw the video of him discrediting the claims that these were stab wounds.

yeah, thx, that's what i meant reg. peretti, the Rule37 hearing. like i said he looked like a nice man, peretti, my point was there should have been more than 1 medical expert since wounds were, a big deal, in this case, i mean..

YES; i totally admit i found some of the claims from spitz during the Rule37 completely ludicrous. seriously.. he said some sentences, like you mentioned, that let my toenails roll up..

Peretti did bring in more medical experts though: Dr. Dugan, Dr. Sturner, Dr. Mincer.

I'm glad you feel the same about Spitz's claims than I do. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

 

[leslievernon]

let's talk about animals a little bit more. did you know that, Userid:

(in my summary i read)
"In Baldwin's Motion to Release the Fiber Evidence and Animal Hairs from April 2008 it says that Bode Technology had informed the parties that animal hairs were found on several slides, prepared by the Arkansas Stae Crime Laboratory."

then in may, baldwin filed a new motion, incl. the affidavit of veterinarian dr. halverson... she basically confirmed yes they are animal hairs (where was the exact location of them?), and that both dr. sakevicius and a forensic guy named john killbourn basically just weren't asked by either state or defense in 94, what those hairs are all about..

 

[Userid]

let's talk about animals a little bit more. did you know that, Userid:

(in my summary i read)
"In Baldwin's Motion to Release the Fiber Evidence and Animal Hairs from April 2008 it says that Bode Technology had informed the parties that animal hairs were found on several slides, prepared by the Arkansas Stae Crime Laboratory."

then in may, baldwin filed a new motion, incl. the affidavit of veterinarian dr. halverson... she basically confirmed yes they are animal hairs (where was the exact location of them?), and that both dr. sakevicius and a forensic guy named john killbourn basically just weren't asked by either state or defense in 94, what those hairs are all about..

Yes, I did know about the animal hairs. Good topic, albeit a confusing one. I say confusing because, there weren't just "some" hairs, but a ton of hairs found. I want to say something like 37 -40, something like that. I can't recall if Sakevicius or anyone was questioned about them during trial, so I'll take your word for it. The hairs are confusing because, they came from canine-type of animal; but all of the supposed bites were attributed by turtles. So, you have all these animal hairs, but the animals never bit the boys? Only turtles did? That's why it's confusing.

Something to consider: at first glance, these hairs support animal predation, but one must remember that a domesticated animal could be responsible for these hairs. I think that the majority of the hairs -- if not all (memory is fuzzy) -- were found on CB alone. Both MM and CB were seen playing with MM's dog that day on the side of MM's house. I can't remember if CB owned a dog himself, can you? My point is, the hairs could have come from a dog that CB had come in contact with that day, or even the day before (depending on his personal hygiene habits).

But yes, a good topic and rebuttal. Tricky. The one mark on MM's chest does look like a dog-claw mark to me, but I'm certainly no expert.

 

[leslievernon]

"The hairs are confusing because, they came from canine-type of animal; but all of the supposed bites were attributed by turtles. So, you have all these animal hairs, but the animals never bit the boys? Only turtles did? That's why it's confusing."

good point. and add to that grumpy old german spitz.. yeah, it was not clearly thought out imo.
yeah.. now i remember. canine-type.. like dogs, wild dogs.

and the animal hairs:
i'm gonna take your word reg. on which body they were found.
reg. pets: here it says "stevie had a dog called "King"and a turtle." did the moore's have a dog too? i can't remember..

"My point is, the hairs could have come from a dog that CB had come in contact with that day, or even the day before (depending on his personal hygiene habits)."

i agree that is why i meant that the location is critical: weren't they found on the bodies? sure it would be another thing if they just were found on their clothes.


ETA: isn't the whole point of that proving that the state's case cannot be true reg. the boys being submerged immediately after the killing? i think that was the whole point of baldwin's motion.

 

[Alyssa Edwards]

Alyssa -- wow, I am thoroughly impressed with the fact you brought up the "Devil Made Me Do It" car. This is something not even long time followers of the case ever bring up. I remember bringing this up on an old board. I have an assignment for you:

Look at the "ME" that is written on the car very, very closely....

Now, look at the "ME" that was freshly carved on a tree in the crime scene where the bodies of the boys were found (photo 196):
"ME" - Carving on tree

See any similarities? In my opinion, there are extreme similarities with the way the "ME" is written on both the tree and the car; and this is the reason why the police took the time to photograph the car at the time. There was never an official explanation given as to why they photographed the car, but to me, that is the only reason that makes sense. It's not because "Devil," it's because of the word "ME."

Just catching up today, thank you for your suggestion userid. I have compared both “me” photos and wow scarily similar!

 

[Userid]

Just catching up today, thank you for your suggestion userid. I have compared both “me” photos and wow scarily similar!

Yes, I thought so too. If we could only know who wrote those on both items...

It's been supposed that the "M" in the "ME" tree carving stands for "Michael," as in Damien's birth name (he changed it to Damien later). Not saying that proves he did it; just mentioning the supposition.

 

[leslievernon]

reg. dog-claws - maybe this might be interesting for you, Userid:

(under point 6)
"Certain of the injuries observed on the victims were consistent with non-human bite marks; the extrusion of tissue from the area of lips, eyelids, and wounds on faces consistent with animal feeding behavior. Also, pathologists working with the defense have identified a series of wounds that Dr. Peretti had opined were knife wounds as wounds actually caused by animal claws."

Jason Baldwin Fiber/Hair Release

ETA:
i must admit, that ME coincidence is just eerie.. yes, i think its michael echols, or michael hutchison?
yeah... the devil made ME do it... i rather see it like that, right? anyway, i mean how long was that carving there...? or that car at the auto yard.

 

[Userid]

"The hairs are confusing because, they came from canine-type of animal; but all of the supposed bites were attributed by turtles. So, you have all these animal hairs, but the animals never bit the boys? Only turtles did? That's why it's confusing."

good point. and add to that grumpy old german spitz.. yeah, it was not clearly thought out imo.
yeah.. now i remember. canine-type.. like dogs, wild dogs.

and the animal hairs:
i'm gonna take your word reg. on which body they were found.
reg. pets: here it says "stevie had a dog called "King"and a turtle." did the moore's have a dog too? i can't remember..

"My point is, the hairs could have come from a dog that CB had come in contact with that day, or even the day before (depending on his personal hygiene habits)."

i agree that is why i meant that the location is critical: weren't they found on the bodies? sure it would be another thing if they just were found on their clothes.


ETA: isn't the whole point of that proving that the state's case cannot be true reg. the boys being submerged immediately after the killing? i think that was the whole point of baldwin's motion.

Yup, on the body -- that's how I interpret the report. That's why I mention hygiene in the previous post. If CB had his shirt off in the days before the murder, playing with a (his?) dog, and never showered (like many young boys that age do), perhaps that could explain. I'll admit, it's not a great explanation -- I'm just brainstorming here.

I suppose dogs could have accessed the bodies, even in water -- especially 2-3 feet of water, as these bodies were in.

 

[Userid]

reg. dog-claws - maybe this might be interesting for you, Userid:

(under point 6)
"Certain of the injuries observed on the victims were consistent with non-human bite marks; the extrusion of tissue from the area of lips, eyelids, and wounds on faces consistent with animal feeding behavior. Also, pathologists working with the defense have identified a series of wounds that Dr. Peretti had opined were knife wounds as wounds actually caused by animal claws."

Jason Baldwin Fiber/Hair Release

Yes, I remember this report. I agree that the chest wound on MM looks like an animal (specifically, dog) wound; although I don't agree with the other assessments of that report. There were distinct dash-markings and half-moon injuries to two if not all of the boys, that came from a man-made object. No animal could have made those markings. They were found in the very places were animal predation was said to occur.

 

[Userid]

reg. dog-claws - maybe this might be interesting for you, Userid:

(under point 6)
"Certain of the injuries observed on the victims were consistent with non-human bite marks; the extrusion of tissue from the area of lips, eyelids, and wounds on faces consistent with animal feeding behavior. Also, pathologists working with the defense have identified a series of wounds that Dr. Peretti had opined were knife wounds as wounds actually caused by animal claws."

Jason Baldwin Fiber/Hair Release

ETA:
i must admit, that ME coincidence is just eerie.. yes, i think its michael echols, or michael hutchison?
yeah... the devil made ME do it... i rather see it like that, right? anyway, i mean how long was that carving there...? or that car at the auto yard.

The car was actually found abandoned. I believe it was a stolen car. It was found far and only photographed by police in the salvage yard. It was found in a field or slightly wooded area a few miles from the crime scene.

Great question as to how long the "ME" was carved in the tree -- all we know is, that it was a "fresh" carving. That's the word the police used to describe it. What also creeps me out are those ropes tied above the carving. There were other ropes found at the crime scene, if memory serves, as well. I also remember a detective talking about how there was a string of some sort hanging from the "exposed root" tree near where MM was recovered, on the east bank. I'm sorry but I doubt I'll be able to find sources; I'm just going off memory.

ETA: also, pretty sure the car was found after the murders.