kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Do you actually imagine you're the one presenting evidence rather than arguing around it here, or do you just get some sort of sick thrill out of inverting reality?
West of Memphis
- Thread starter Cappuccino
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Wow you're delusional. I'm sorry but you are. Everyone has provided reasons that support why the police may have strong armed miskelley. Every real expert supports the idea. The reason people who believe their guilt are a minority is because they are based on emotion. You ignore any interpretation that can paint the police as bullies who strongarmed a teen into confessing even if the interpretations are backed by evidence and sense and cling to anything that paints them guilty even if you have no evidence. Pull your fingers from your ears, un bury yourself and pull your head from your *advertiser censored*
primitivefuture
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 6
Yikes. That's pretty rude and does nothing for your argument, and i agree with you on other posts you've made. I know this topic is emotional. It makes me crazy sometimes. I get intensely frustrated reading this board at times, but if I can control my potty mouth, you probably can too. Don't get yourself booted so we can keep the conversation interesting with more contributors, please.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's tough not to bite on the bait thrown when trolling sometimes.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Yet nobody has provided evidence that they did, and I provided evidence to the contrary in the form of Misskelley's own words, yet argue around what's evidenced and call me disillusion for doing otherwise?
Seriously, do you actually imagine you're the one presenting evidence rather than arguing around it here, or do you just get some sort of sick thrill out of inverting reality?
I think everyone simply posts their interpretation of the various facts/statements/evidence/etc. Sick thrill? I'll just take that as trolling. Inverting reality? I'll just take that as more trolling.
Hey, just bringing the topic 'round to police corruption for a moment -- what a racket that would have been, think about it:
- the cops protect their snitches
- the snitches let the dirty cops know when and where large amounts of money, drugs and/or weapons are going to be on the move
- cops raid this
- profit
It's not foundless allegation either, before that particular comment rears its head again. These cops -- some of 'em named as part of the investigation/searches in this case -- were arrested, charged and some were dismissed, the manure really hit the windmill, there. It's on record. It was in all the papers. The WMPD was dirtier than... dirt.
So one of the stepdads of the murdered children was a snitch. What about the other one? Cause, Mark Byers was named and investigated as a suspect - and hey, he was a snitch. Ie, useful to the WMPD.
So why wasn't Terry given the same treatment, being that he apparently wasn't too useful to anyone, and he too had a violent past, was known for DV, drugs.. etc. Why wasn't he even interviewed?
Just another thing on my list of things that make me go hmmm, where this guy is concerned.
- the cops protect their snitches
- the snitches let the dirty cops know when and where large amounts of money, drugs and/or weapons are going to be on the move
- cops raid this
- profit
It's not foundless allegation either, before that particular comment rears its head again. These cops -- some of 'em named as part of the investigation/searches in this case -- were arrested, charged and some were dismissed, the manure really hit the windmill, there. It's on record. It was in all the papers. The WMPD was dirtier than... dirt.
So one of the stepdads of the murdered children was a snitch. What about the other one? Cause, Mark Byers was named and investigated as a suspect - and hey, he was a snitch. Ie, useful to the WMPD.
So why wasn't Terry given the same treatment, being that he apparently wasn't too useful to anyone, and he too had a violent past, was known for DV, drugs.. etc. Why wasn't he even interviewed?
Just another thing on my list of things that make me go hmmm, where this guy is concerned.
^ Yeah, it's always been in the back of my mind that this was a police cover-up; either a cover-up for a high-powered, connected individual(s); or a cover-up for a consciously-inept police department desperate to convict the "best" suspects they had (who just so happened to be the WM3) to appease the public outcry for such a heinous and public crime. They had to convict someone, here.
As someone else wrote, it has never sat well with me that a photographer snapped a pic of one of the detectives "accidentally" discovering the first body. It could be innocent -- who knows -- but that has always been fishy for me. In addition, how the police simply "lost" the blood scrapings from Bojangles also has never sat well with me. Can they (the department) really be that stupid? I mean, is it really possible: you stumble on the bodies strictly through dumb luck and you lose a piece of evidence that may hold critical answers one way or another in the same case?
As someone else wrote, it has never sat well with me that a photographer snapped a pic of one of the detectives "accidentally" discovering the first body. It could be innocent -- who knows -- but that has always been fishy for me. In addition, how the police simply "lost" the blood scrapings from Bojangles also has never sat well with me. Can they (the department) really be that stupid? I mean, is it really possible: you stumble on the bodies strictly through dumb luck and you lose a piece of evidence that may hold critical answers one way or another in the same case?
I honestly believe, at the very least, the fact that the WMPD were already under some pretty heavy scrutiny around the time of the murders was a factor in the massive hurry-up to charge and convict, as well as a few highly suspect people being given the all-clear with little to no investigation.
Unsubstantiated as yet, but on jivepuppi, there's a comment about Judge Burnett himself having purchased one of the stolen weapons ... with an article quoted, but ofc that article isn't anywhere online. Or to be found, by any means I have at my disposal. I'd love that see a hard copy of that particular newspaper edition, though....
I am really surprised that not one of the various documentaries has made a bigger deal of this. It's a big deal, to me. I think it explains a lot - and could possibly explain a -whole- lot.
Unsubstantiated as yet, but on jivepuppi, there's a comment about Judge Burnett himself having purchased one of the stolen weapons ... with an article quoted, but ofc that article isn't anywhere online. Or to be found, by any means I have at my disposal. I'd love that see a hard copy of that particular newspaper edition, though....
I am really surprised that not one of the various documentaries has made a bigger deal of this. It's a big deal, to me. I think it explains a lot - and could possibly explain a -whole- lot.
we kind of covered that. One tendency is that if someone has been interrogated roughly enough, and is both young and mentally challenged it's possible to convince them they really did (Martin Tancliff was convinced that he had killed them in a fit of rage when he blacked out.) Jesse may well have thought he did it due to it being hammered into his skull. The fourth time he had just lost (and was in an emotional state, not to mention alone), and the final time the da had approached behind the attorney's knowledge and offered him a deal.
Jesse had earlier been persuaded not to give a statement.
So, basically in essence Jesse was emotionally malleable and could have been manipulated into thinking he really did it (i.e. that the prosecutions theory was right) or that he could be malleable enough to make deals out of desperation
Jesse had earlier been persuaded not to give a statement.
So, basically in essence Jesse was emotionally malleable and could have been manipulated into thinking he really did it (i.e. that the prosecutions theory was right) or that he could be malleable enough to make deals out of desperation
Troy, there have posts addressing those other confessions. I linked several scholarly articles that outlined the fact that some folks do make -multiple- false confessions, and provided some reasons for why.
Basically, if someone is compelled to confess, even though they did not do the crime, and then are put under duress, and fed a pile of info on the crime while that's going on, and they have a pretty low IQ, low self esteem, are scared out of their wits and maybe even believe their friend could have committed such a terrible crime... it's no surprise there's ongoing confessions after the first. And no surprise these confessions just keep getting more accurate with every telling.
It doesn't make sense to me, or to a lot of people -- but this is documented as a real thing that happens, and it isn't all that rare. --Hundreds-- of people have confessed to the Black Dahlia murder, some of them multiple times. Look at that nutter who confessed repeatedly to being present at JonBenet's murder...
I don't believe a single one of JM's confessions. And I am not, mind you, a "supporter".
LOL, lordYAM - we crossposted.
Basically, if someone is compelled to confess, even though they did not do the crime, and then are put under duress, and fed a pile of info on the crime while that's going on, and they have a pretty low IQ, low self esteem, are scared out of their wits and maybe even believe their friend could have committed such a terrible crime... it's no surprise there's ongoing confessions after the first. And no surprise these confessions just keep getting more accurate with every telling.
It doesn't make sense to me, or to a lot of people -- but this is documented as a real thing that happens, and it isn't all that rare. --Hundreds-- of people have confessed to the Black Dahlia murder, some of them multiple times. Look at that nutter who confessed repeatedly to being present at JonBenet's murder...
I don't believe a single one of JM's confessions. And I am not, mind you, a "supporter".
LOL, lordYAM - we crossposted.
I hear ya there, Troy.
Is why I'm still willing to discuss the ins and outs of this case. Bad investigation, bad trial - hands down both stunk. I agree with the outcome of the Alford plea, if not the thing itself, on that basis.
But are they -innocent-? All or -some- of them? I just dunno.
Is why I'm still willing to discuss the ins and outs of this case. Bad investigation, bad trial - hands down both stunk. I agree with the outcome of the Alford plea, if not the thing itself, on that basis.
But are they -innocent-? All or -some- of them? I just dunno.
I feel the EXACT same way! I have read "Devil's Knot" and watched all the "Paradise Lost" films as well as "West of Memphis," but still can't committ myself solely to one side or the other. Just a feeling I have, which I know means virtually nothing in terms of evidence and proclaiming guilt or innocence.
Well, that's the beauty of forums, I guess - none of us (that I know about! lol) have or will ever have any bearing on the case itself, so all we can do really is try to understand it better. Or you know, convert followers to various theory war factions. 
I hope you do share some of your thoughts when you feel like it.
I hope you do share some of your thoughts when you feel like it.
Did you know that Devil's Knot was not a true story?
See this on Mara's website
http://maraleveritt.com/2012/04/2007-fogleman-letter-panned-devils-knot/