West of Memphis

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I was actually addressing Scarlett's question of whether a predator could take 3 kids at once. The answer is -- yes. Common or uncommon, it happens. The end.

I agree, it's unusual - not impossible though, which is all the point I was trying to make. It isn't -impossible- that a local pedo had been grooming these kids for weeks, tried it on with one of the boys who panicked and.. it went from there.

It's also not impossible that a bunch of mean teenagers went overboard with bullying and killed one child, and took out the others to prevent them talking.

It's quite possible Terry Hobbs killed them all.

I just have a deep allergy to thing being declared impossible when they're not.

I never said it was impossible. I think all we have with him being seen with the boys around 6:30 that night...

I can not believe for the life of me that the State of Ark is not interested in justice.

 

[Ausgirl]

I can not believe for the life of me that the State of Ark is not interested in justice.

In that, we can agree 100%.

We can theorise here til the cows come home -- and that's awesome, its a good thing to do -- but really it's peeing in the ocean for all the difference it'll make, while a proper investigation is declined by the powers that be in Arkansas.

 

[Miranda!]

The thing that took DJ off my list is that He was willing to wire his cell and let people listen.

The jury is still out for me about him. Something is just somehow out of kilter and I cannot work out quite what and where. Whether he really had nothing what so ever to do with it all; or started to think something was dodgy and suppressed it; or helped in some sort of cover up or, worst case, was somehow involved.

What I found disconcerting is how willing he was to try to 'trap' his friend; how 'his friend' made no effort to ask how he had got the number; how at the civil case hearing, where he had be subpoenaed to attend and then expressed doubts but said he did not want the same thing to happen to Hobbs as he had seen happen to the three.

Also how, after that 'interaction' with media he then went to local station with a 6 month old voice mail of JMB calling, very politely, saying he would appreciate a talk about a couple of things... Jacoby saw that as 'trickery' and yet was more than willing to do two different scenes calling Hobbs whilst being both recorded and filmed. I rather tend to think that the latter involved more trickery!!

He is more than capable of having two cell phones without letting on!!

In general I think most agree that Hobbs needs a proper investigation, something he, too, should want just as much in order to clear his name.

Also the idea of some one being in a flim and not watching it is odd. So too is the way Jacoby is now active on line and Hobbs even more so than before.

Something is just not quite right with all of this.

 

[Graznik]

What I found disconcerting is how willing he was to try to 'trap' his friend; how 'his friend' made no effort to ask how he had got the number; how at the civil case hearing, where he had be subpoenaed to attend and then expressed doubts but said he did not want the same thing to happen to Hobbs as he had seen happen to the three.

This!
He gives the impression of knowing something and that, whatever it is, it's making him rather troubled. But the whole conversation in West of Memphis just seem odd. Not quiet sincere. I sure wish we could find out.

 

[primitivefuture]

Where exactly did UdbCrzy say what you've put in quotes there?

I'm not sure how to link to a post from another thread, but I'll try to quote it below. I post from an app on my phone which operates differently than the computer site.

Sadly most of the celebrity supporters have ONLY watched the Paradise Lost movies. If those supporters would have gone just a little further, researched and used their common sense they would not have supported them.

I also think that this case drew a lot of attention internationally due to it being a death penalty case. It has with other cases too, this one really isn't much different in that respect.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JaneyBGood]

You didn't even actually address anything Mrs G said in what you quoted from her, which isn't a respectful way to disagree by any stretch.

*my bad, you did touch on the matter of sexual mutilation with mention of "Experts studied autopsy photos of the bodies and determined it was NOT a sexual mutilation but bites from snapping turtles that caused those injuries------POST MORTEM", but in reality the experts hired by Echols' lawyers never actually went so far as to claim the mutilation was done by snapping turtles, others have taken it upon themselves to do that, and none of them have presented any notable evidence to substantiate those claims.

So sorry my post didn't satisfy you....I call ABSOLUTE BS in regards to your claims that experts didn't substantiate the claims regarding "snapping turtles" being the cause of mutilation to the boys------I heard it with my own ears and saw it with my own eyes---when demonstrated how it was the MOST PROBABLE cause of wounds! Why do so many on here seem to take pleasure out of being snarky, rude, and condescending to those that share an opposing view? As for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jesse Misskelly, I believe and know with all my energy and soul that they are and always have been INNOCENT...

 

[JaneyBGood]

This is the thing, if you watch all three PL movies, and WOM, and read 99.9% of the media of this case, then yes you will absolutely think that, I am not surprised most people have a different opinion from mine at all considering all the time, effort, and money invested in the narrative the defence wanted the public to buy into.

So according to the above statement, myself or anyone that believes in Wm3's innocence is simply buying into a narrative created by media, film directors, activists, celebrities, and the innocence project??? Question is, what do the aforementioned reap in return for my "buying" into this narrative?........I won't hold my breath waiting on an answer to that.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So according to the above statement, myself or anyone that believes in Wm3's innocence is simply buying into a narrative created by media, film directors, activists, celebrities, and the innocence project??? Question is, what do the aforementioned reap in return for my "buying" into this narrative?........I won't hold my breath waiting on an answer to that.

It's just deflection. I believe in they're innocence because there is no evidence they are guilty. Simple as that for me. Movies, No movies. The evidence is in trial. Or non evidence I would say.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It's just deflection. I believe in they're innocence because there is no evidence they are guilty. Simple as that for me. Movies, No movies. The evidence is in trial. Or non evidence I would say.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although the initial introduction to this case was the PL documentaries for many supporters, I think it's disingenuous to assume that all supporters (including celebrities) have done no further research than the movies. IMO, many people are of that opinion, without justification.

 

[Ausgirl]

And I think that opinion is expressed ad nauseum, in order to create drama where none is wanted or needed. Just IMO.

 

[kyleb]

I call ABSOLUTE BS in regards to your claims that experts didn't substantiate the claims regarding "snapping turtles" being the cause of mutilation to the boys

That's not even an accurate representation of what I said. Again, the experts hired by Echols' lawyers never actually went so far as to claim the mutilation was done by snapping turtles, others have taken it upon themselves to do that.

Question is, what do the aforementioned reap in return for my "buying" into this narrative?

The same thing many of the subjects reap in the asch conformity experiment:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA"]Asch Conformity Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That's not even an accurate representation of what I said. Again, the experts hired by Echols' lawyers never actually went so far as to claim the mutilation was done by snapping turtles, others have taken it upon themselves to do that.



The same thing many of the subjects reap in the asch conformity experiment:

Asch Conformity Experiment - YouTube

Talk about propaganda.

There is plenty of evidence and facts that point away from these 3. The only DNA. They have does it identify any of these three.
It's really simple to see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyleb]

What exactly were you proclaiming to be propaganda before quickly attempting to change the subject?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What exactly were proclaiming to be propaganda before quickly attempting to change the subject?

Im sorry... What?!!

 

[kyleb]

My bad, I left out a word, please see my edited post.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry. Not much better.

Lets get back to the facts and evidence..

 

[kyleb]

Sure, let's get back to the fact that the experts hired by Echols' lawyers never actually went so far as to claim the mutilation was done by snapping turtles, others have taken it upon themselves to do that in WoM for instance, the movie which is the topic of this thread.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sure, let's get back to the fact that the experts hired by Echols' lawyers never actually went so far as to claim the mutilation was done by snapping turtles, others have taken it upon themselves to do that in WoM for instance, the movie which is the topic of this thread.

It does not matter to me. I believe that a lot of the damage to the bodies is the result of wild life. Turtles or not. It makes no difference to me the kind of wildlife.

It makes sense where they were found and the condition of the bodies.

 

[kyleb]

Oh come on, you just said you wanted to get back to talking about facts and evidence, but as soon as I do so you try to change the subject again?

 

[missy_g]

I was going to post a video of Damien's defense team talking about the animal predation but I'm not going to bother.