Truth and Justice Podcast

[MilanaCapricorn]

Also... I'm pretty sure that when the DNA was retested the only match was a hair belonging to TH. And furthermore it excluded the 3. Just because someone takes an Alford plea is doesn't mean that they are saying the are guilty or even have to admit guilt... All it means is that the defendents can maintain their innocence while acknowledging that the state has enough evidence to convict. The reason they took the ever odd plea was because the The State refused to admit wrong doing even after the DNA evidence in 2012 proved that there was no connection to the 3. In short, they weren't exhonerated and it was their only way out. Unfortunately LE is not reinvestigating so I think it's great that T&J is!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

Also... I'm pretty sure that when the DNA was retested the only match was a hair belonging to TH. And furthermore it excluded the 3. Just because someone takes an Alford plea is doesn't mean that they are saying the are guilty or even have to admit guilt... All it means is that the defendents can maintain their innocence while acknowledging that the state has enough evidence to convict. The reason they took the ever odd plea was because the The State refused to admit wrong doing even after the DNA evidence in 2012 proved that there was no connection to the 3. In short, they weren't exhonerated and it was their only way out. Unfortunately LE is not reinvestigating so I think it's great that T&J is!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

This is false.

It was the defense that approached the state about the Alford plea. The state would have gone to trial; they were preparing to go, which would have been a good thing in a way, because it would have re-opened the case; but the defense introduced the Alford plea, and the prosecution said they would accept it only if all 3 took the plea. They took the plea to get out of jail and because they were following the advice of their lawyers, who wanted to introduce it in the first place. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, the hair belonged to 1% of the population of West Memphis, which would be around 300 people. TH is a part of that group; and none of the 3 technically convicted are -- yes -- but to say "the hair belongs to him (TH)" is also inaccurate.

 

[Userid]

Hello all! Not putting my self in any category wether it's Non, fencie, or as a supporter because I think that is irrelevant, and puts people in this group against each other for no reason other than proving their point.
Felt like I needed to chime in, because Bob Ruff is IMO doing a great job of separating fact from fiction. I understand it is human nature to formulate opinions and jump to theories and defend ( or attack) what we believe to be true, but it is also human nature to forget, to lie, to speculate, to manipulate, and to justify what we believe is right. At the end of the day our words are NOT facts, and neither are our memories. People in this case could be lying for reasons completely out of the realm of covering up any involvement in this case. The confessions also could be lies or not, but the justice system is not designed to convict people based on what they say. It is designed to convict people based on evidence and a lack of reasonable doubt. This did not happen on any level in this case, beginning with LE. I commend the T&J Podcast for trying to find the facts of what happened to these poor children without jumping to conclusions based on the mere words of human beings. Frankly that should have been LE's job.
Does anyone know if there was DNA other than the few hairs found on the bodies (which belonged to the boys)? Meaning, was their any physical evidence recovered in the investigation that does not belong to the boys? And do we know if the bikes still exist somewhere in evidence?
Thanks!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

This is contentious subject, like everything in this case. Basically, there is possible sperm evidence on MM's pants, but it can't be confirmed that it is sperm, due to it being submerged, mud-covered, and the lack of technology at the time (the test rendered a "slight blue" color; a solid blue color indicated sperm; hence, the controversy). There were also several dog hairs recovered from one of the victims (can't remember which now). I want to say dozens of hairs. There was a yellow spot on the sock and shoe recovered, which many assume to be urine, but it was never confirmed to be urine in any reports.

Yes, the bikes and the clothes that were recovered still exist. They are locked up in an evidence room. Mark Byers and Pam Hobbs actually went to court to try to retrieve or even simply view the items, to ensure they were still in police custody (and not tossed out), and a court ruled against them. Here's where your mind will explode: they ruled against them because they said that, technically, the case was still open -- even though (if memory serves) they went to court after the Alford pleas had been taken (which "closed" the case).

 

[MilanaCapricorn]

This is contentious subject, like everything in this case. Basically, there is possible sperm evidence on MM's pants, but it can't be confirmed that it is sperm, due to it being submerged, mud-covered, and the lack of technology at the time (the test rendered a "slight blue" color; a solid blue color indicated sperm; hence, the controversy). There were also several dog hairs recovered from one of the victims (can't remember which now). I want to say dozens of hairs. There was a yellow spot on the sock and shoe recovered, which many assume to be urine, but it was never confirmed to be urine in any reports.

Yes, the bikes and the clothes that were recovered still exist. They are locked up in an evidence room. Mark Byers and Pam Hobbs actually went to court to try to retrieve or even simply view the items, to ensure they were still in police custody (and not tossed out), and a court ruled against them. Here's where your mind will explode: they ruled against them because they said that, technically, the case was still open -- even though (if memory serves) they went to court after the Alford pleas had been taken (which "closed" the case).

Thanks so much! This case is so difficult when it doesn't have to be. I hate when LE isn't transparent. It's been decades...


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[MilanaCapricorn]

This is false.

It was the defense that approached the state about the Alford plea. The state would have gone to trial; they were preparing to go, which would have been a good thing in a way, because it would have re-opened the case; but the defense introduced the Alford plea, and the prosecution said they would accept it only if all 3 took the plea. They took the plea to get out of jail and because they were following the advice of their lawyers, who wanted to introduce it in the first place. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, the hair belonged to 1% of the population of West Memphis, which would be around 300 people. TH is a part of that group; and none of the 3 technically convicted are -- yes -- but to say "the hair belongs to him (TH)" is also inaccurate.

True, but why would the state even bother going for it if they weren't aware of either the testing or their inadequate Evidence? Alford pleas are RARE for a reason. It's not like the defense just asked and they granted it. The JS doesn't work that way.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[dogmatica]

True, but why would the state even bother going for it if they weren't aware of either the testing or their inadequate Evidence? Alford pleas are RARE for a reason. It's not like the defense just asked and they granted it. The JS doesn't work that way.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

What's even more rare is a murder case with such spectacular media coverage, celebrity involvement and spectacle. This case ceased being about the 3 little boys who were murdered, and became about the celebrity and cult status of Damien Echols. He's a media darling and hero to many people. His "mystique" and "charisma" (yuck) long ago eclipsed the vicious and cruel murders he committed along with Baldwin and Misskelley in 1993. The money, power, celebrity and media - the collective machine behind the WM3, is unprecedented. You can hardly look at the Alford Plea and what it really means objectively anymore.

They convicted the right guys, and then the right guys plead guilty.

 

[Userid]

Bob Ruff is simply in over his head at this point. He constantly makes mistakes in his podcasts, and he'll address some of them in the next (follow-up) episodes, but then he'll make new mistakes. It's ridiculous. For example, he had absolutely no clue about the subsequent confessions. He said in his last episode he accidentally "jumbled" multiple confessions -- it's obvious, he didn't read them until now (and I'm not even sure he's really read them thoroughly). And it's tough to say he had no knowledge of them because people are providing him the material.

He finally mentions the BL interview, but only briefly mentions it (all but glossing over it) and says that the police "coerced" BL into his confession as well -- I mean, give me a fricking break. There is zero "coercion" or "leading questions" or whatever else in this video.

 

[Userid]

True, but why would the state even bother going for it if they weren't aware of either the testing or their inadequate Evidence? Alford pleas are RARE for a reason. It's not like the defense just asked and they granted it. The JS doesn't work that way.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The state was fully prepared to go to trial, according to Ellington. They would have gone to trial had the defense never brought up the Alford plea. This is clear. So to say "the justice system doesn't work like that" is an attempt to whitewash the fact that had the defense never requested the Alford plea in the first place, it would have went to trial.

 

[LR1]

He finally mentions the BL interview, but only briefly mentions it (all but glossing over it) and says that the police "coerced" BL into his confession as well -- I mean, give me a fricking break. There is zero "coercion" or "leading questions" or whatever else in this video

Did I hear him say Damien picked him up off the ground just by looking at him?

 

[DJG1122]

Bob Ruff's latest podcast has an interview with Dan Stidham, who is now a sitting judge. He has some very interesting things to say about Jessie, the trial and his role then and now.

 

[dogmatica]

Bob Ruff's latest podcast has an interview with Dan Stidham, who is now a sitting judge. He has some very interesting things to say about Jessie, the trial and his role then and now.

Shocking, he's releasing his "memoirs" and working on a book. And still espousing the "mind of a 5 year old" and "mental retardation" BS. You can see it right in the "documentaries" that he's clearly NOT the mental midget supporters make him out to be.

And now he's got him faking not being "mentally disabled"? Lol.

 

[dogmatica]

If Jessie will "tell you anything you want to hear", how did his own attorney not get him to STOP confessing? Can't have it both ways. Utterly disingenuous, this guy.

 

[Userid]

Bob Ruff's latest podcast has an interview with Dan Stidham, who is now a sitting judge. He has some very interesting things to say about Jessie, the trial and his role then and now.

In all honesty, Stidham didn't really provide any "new" information. Same with the JB interview. And the 2nd DE interview was just plain horrendous. Bob Ruff is a terrible interviewer and all that second interview consisted of was DE speaking on subjects he's gone over ad nauseum (prison life, after-prison life, his religion at the time, etc.) and absolutely nothing about the actual case itself. Ruff had his kid gloves on with that interview and asked zero relevant questions at all.

 

[Userid]

Ruff is so predictable, it's beyond comical at this point. In his latest episode, he pretty much says that TH is the killer, as he alludes in his "unsub profile" that the killer "has experience packaging meat" etc.

Way to go out on a limb there, Ruff. (eye roll)

A months-long "investigation," and the best you come up with, is the one suspect that all the movies (after PL2) already pegged years ago. What a complete waste of time. It's almost as if Ruff just got tired of this case (i.e. the flack he was catching from nons), and simply deferred to the movies to produce some sort of "outcome" before his "break." What a joke.

 

[dogmatica]

Ruff is so predictable, it's beyond comical at this point. In his latest episode, he pretty much says that TH is the killer, as he alludes in his "unsub profile" that the killer "has experience packaging meat" etc.

Way to go out on a limb there, Ruff. (eye roll)

A months-long "investigation," and the best you come up with, is the one suspect that all the movies (after PL2) already pegged years ago. What a complete waste of time. It's almost as if Ruff just got tired of this case (i.e. the flack he was catching from nons), and simply deferred to the movies to produce some sort of "outcome" before his "break." What a joke.

It's incredibly galling to me that no interviewer has ever asked any challenging, pointed or probing questions of any of the WM3. They go in already believing the bunkum that they were "railroaded and wrongly convicted"...they walk on set to cheers and nothing but questions about how difficult life in prison was for someone "wrongly convicted". It's astounding. Of course I'm sure that's part of the deal - interviewers aren't allowed to ask such questions. Same as posting anything challenging on their Facebook fan pages. I asked Jason why he didn't provide an alibi at trial and where the exculpatory evidence they promised was. Deleted and blocked immediately. Shocking.

 

[fridaybaker]

You actually think the 4 perp theory is "likely," wow.

LG could have very well been involved, but it wasn't in this ridiculous scenario where TH and DJ pick up two kids they had never even met before and make them wrestle in front of them. Also, BL would have had to be Keyser Soze to not crack while being interviewed by police multiple occassions, both on the phone and in person. This was a kid as slow if not worse than JM.

I know this is an old post, so apologies in advance regarding bringing up "old material". However, I'm curious as to why you think the scenario wherein TH and JD pick up two young men...etc., is "ridiculous" . I've read a theory advanced along these lines, and I find it quite convincing. I find it resonates with "real life" and how things often unfold better than any other, such as the occult motive.

And, may I ask what you think of the statement given by the friend of the victims, Aaron?

Also, apparently, DE is asking for more testing of the DNA. I do appreciate that there could be reasons for this other than his innocence, such as researching it beforehand and concluding that the judge would deny the request, so he does it because of the positive PR, but since the judge has already denied it, DE is appealing the decision. Does this not at all lend credibility to his innocence?

Just some questions to help me understand the whole picture.

 

[DHT1339]

I know this is an old post, so apologies in advance regarding bringing up "old material". However, I'm curious as to why you think the scenario wherein TH and JD pick up two young men...etc., is "ridiculous" . I've read a theory advanced along these lines, and I find it quite convincing. I find it resonates with "real life" and how things often unfold better than any other, such as the occult motive.

And, may I ask what you think of the statement given by the friend of the victims, Aaron?

Also, apparently, DE is asking for more testing of the DNA. I do appreciate that there could be reasons for this other than his innocence, such as researching it beforehand and concluding that the judge would deny the request, so he does it because of the positive PR, but since the judge has already denied it, DE is appealing the decision. Does this not at all lend credibility to his innocence?

Just some questions to help me understand the whole picture.

you're referring to the puzzle theory

i don't think it's ridiculous that TH and DJ would pick up two young men. what makes the puzzle theory not very believable to me is why would LG and BL participate in the murder of three young boys with two guys they had only just met an hour or two ago? that just doesn't seem realistic to me, no matter how high or drunk those two could have been