Why did the WM3 do it?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

kyleb said:
There was more evidence presented at trial than what you mention, and more evidence which has come out since then through document releases and hearings.
Click to expand...

Really? What evidence was presented at trial that we don't know about, and what evidence has come to light since?

Before getting into any of that though, where is evidence that any of Misskelley's many confessions were coerced, or anything to disprove the fiber evidence?
Click to expand...

The fibre evidence has been demolished.

As for Carson and Hutcheson, I first heard of them through West of Memphis, so I never had time to actually consider their testimony before I heard the recantations. I doubt I ever would have put any stock in what they said anyway though, as neither seem like individuals of notable character, which leaves me to consider their recantations just as dubious as their previous claims.
Click to expand...

Yes...and yet their previous claims were an integral part of both juries decision to convict. Unlike you, those juries DID have time to actually consider their testimony, and unlike you they were misled enough to put stock in them.

That's the kind of thing you won't read on the "truth" site.
 
The problem is that you're not refuting the evidence presented at WM3 Truth, you just keep refusing to acknowledge it. IF for example you could actually prove your claim that "The fibre evidence has been demolished", I'd be happy to agree. However, I get the impression that you don't comprehend how one might even go about proving such a thing, do you?
 
Kyleb - what was the most recent evidence you heard of about the fibres from the crime scene?
 
And please answer my other questions too - what evidence was presented at trial that we haven't mentioned, and what evidence has come to light since?
 
I want to stick to the claims of coercion reguarding Misskelley's confessions for the time being. There's no point in moving on to other evidence if each piece of evidence is simply going to be hand-waved away with wholly unsubstantiated arguments.
 
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!! I had a long post prepared that got eaten by the Internet gods. I'll try again.

Coercion or "coaching," whatever you want to call it, Jessie was told what to say or was led into saying what they wanted to hear, if you prefer it that way. Much of what Jessie said didn't match the forensics of the case. When Jessie's statement was taken to Judge Pal Rainey, he refused to issue arrest warrants, citing the inconsistencies in Jessie's statement. So, they went back and got a "clarification" statement.

From Jessie's first statement:

"RIDGE: Okay, Jessie, let's go straight to that date, 05/05/93, Wednesday, early in the morning. You received a phone call is that correct?
JESSIE: Yes, I did
RIDGE: And who made that phone call?
JESSIE: Jason Baldwin
RIDGE: Alright, what occurred, what did he talk about?
JESSIE: He called me and asked me if I could go to West Memphis with him and I told him, no, I had to work and stuff. He told me that he had to go to West Memphis so, him and Damian with and then I went with them.
RIDGE: Alright, when?
JESSIE: Wednesday
RIDGE: Alright, when did you go with them?
JESSIE: That morning
RIDGE: 9 o'clock in the morning?
JESSIE: Yes, I did. I went with them"

Now, we know that the little boys and Jason Baldwin were in school on May 5, 1993 at 9:00 am. So, this has to be fixed. Gitchell tries to fix it in this exchange (with Ridge chiming in):


"GITCHELL: Now, did you say that the boys skipped school that day, these little boys did?
JESSIE: Yes, they were going to catch, they were going somewhere and like I said, Damian and nem left before I did, I told them that I would meet them there and stuff, and it was early in the morning and so, they went ahead and met me, they went on up there and then I come up later on behind them.
GITCHELL: What time did you get there?
JESSIE: I got there about 9
GITCHELL: In the morning?
JESSIE: Yes
GITCHELL: Wednesday morning?
JESSIE: Yes
GITCHELL: And
RIDGE: What time is it right now?
JESSIE: Right now?
RIDGE: Yeah, you don't know what time it is?
GITCHELL: Do you not wear a watch?
JESSIE: It's at home
RIDGE: So
JESSIE: My dad woke me up this
RIDGE: so, your time period may not be exactly right in what you're saying?
JESSIE: Right
RIDGE: It was like earlier in the day, but you don't know exactly what time, okay,
cause I've gotten some real confusion with the times that you're telling me, but now, this 9 o'clock in the evening call that you got, explain that to me.
JESSIE: Well after, all of this stuff happened that night, that they done it, I went home about noon, then they called me at 9 o'clock that night, they called me.
RIDGE: And what did they tell you on the telephone?
JESSIE: They asked me how come I left so early and stuff, and I told them that I couldn't stay there and watch that stuff no more, so I had to do something to get out of there."

Here Gitchell and Ridge are trying desperately to get Jessie to change the time frame. Gitchell begins by emphasizing that the little boys had to have skipped school (which they didn't) for Jessie's story to be true. In the first part in bold, Ridge is "coaching" Jessie into agreeing that his time frame might not be right, which Gitchell hopes will cover the fact that what Jessie is saying is impossible. I don't care how low your IQ is, you know the difference between 9 am and early evening. Then, Ridge is subtly suggesting that the 9 am is really 9 pm with the second part in bold. Jessie doesn't pick up on the clues and still insists that the crime happened during the day and that he went home at noon.

From the "clarification" statement:

"Gitchell: Jessie, uh, when when you got with the boys and with Jason Baldwin when you three were in the woods and then little boys come up, about what time was it? When the boys come up to the woods?
Jessie: I would say it was about 5 or so 5 or 6.
Gitchell: Know, did you have your watch on at the time?
Jessie: Huh uh (no)
Gitchell: You didn't have your watch on?
Jessie: Huh uh (no)
Gitchell: Uh, alright you told me earlier around 7 or 8, which time is it?
Jessie: It was 7 or 8.
Gitchell: Are you
Jessie: It was starting to get dark.
Gitchell: Ok, it
Jessie: I remember it was starting to get dark.
Gitchell: Ok, well that clears it up. I didn't know, that's what I was wondering, was it getting dark or what.
Jessie: We got up there at 6:00 and the boys come up and it was starting to get dark.
Gitchell: Ok, so you and Jason and Baldwin uh, Damien you all got there right at 6.
Jessie: About 6 yeah"

Unfortunately, we don't know how Gitchell got Jessie to change his original time from noon to 6 pm or 7pm or 8 pm. That part wasn't recorded. However, it is obvious that some sort of conversation occurred since this is vastly different from Jessie's original statement. What Jessie has said since then is that they "told [him] what to say." I call that coercion. You can call it "coaching" all you want, but your saying the moon is made of green cheese doesn't make it so, does it?

This time discrepancy is only one example of errors in Jessie's original statement and how, during the "clarification" statement, the interrogators coerced Jessie to say what they wanted to hear. So, Jessie's statement was not only coerced, but it is a false confession.
 
Compassionate Reader said:
Coercion or "coaching," whatever you want to call it
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of what I want to call things, It's a matter of the definition of terms, and the evidence presented of doesn't accord with the meaning of coercion, as I explained [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9121596&postcount=45"]previously in this thread[/ame]. Of course I'm not insistent that you call what you are referring to coaching, there's plenty of other ways to describe it and I won't contest any accurate description. However, calling it coercion is simply false; can you please acknowledge that fact?

On a side note, my condolences on the lost post, I've been there more than a few times myself. I've learned to hit ctrl+a and ctrl+c to select and copy a post before submitting, then if something goes wrong you can ctrl+v to paste it into a new reply window or notepad. Granted, I still forget to do so on occasion, but it's saved me a lot of headaches over the years.
 
Well assuming Misskelley was telling the truth regarding who mutilated Christopher Byers throughout his many confessions, that pegs Baldwin as quite crazy in his own right, just not overtly so to anywhere near the extent which earned Echols his extensively documented mental heath history.

On a side note, while I find the wild finger pointing at Terry Hobbs as revolting as that which was previously directed at Mark Byers, at least I can take solace in seeing so many supporters of the convicted aren't buying into the defense's completely unsubstantiated claims of animal predation and no knifes.
 
Dysthymia said:
I think that it is entirely within forum rules to start a thread about something and expect it to be kept on topic. The topic of this one is Why did the WM3 do it?~SNIP~
Click to expand...

It might have been easier to get people to stick to the desired topic by asking "Why would the WM3 have done it?"
 
UdbCrzy2 said:
He still has mental problems. That is something that never goes away. He was institutionalized several times before he murdered the children.

It is documented that he was homicidal and dangerous to others.

I'm sure that his wife, Lorri has her handsful. She probably feels as though she is like his mother instead of his wife.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but as a consolation prize, she has Johnny Depp coming around to hang out!
 
This information is all still very new. Although the affidavits might not be totally accurate, I'm sure that there is at least some truth in them. Let's see what else comes out before we totally discount them.
 
iluvmua said:
I do not believe this for one second.

It does not make a lick of sense.

Buddy Lucas and the Hollingsworth guy were look at years ago when this first started and now all of a sudden they are the new suspects along with TH's friend Mr. Jacolby????

Not buying at all what they are selling
Click to expand...

OH that's just plain strange, although I can't help but wonder about motive here, is someone looking for a little financial benefit from the money raised by Lorri? Anyway, I don't believe it for a second, he's just hoping WM3Org will buy him a car or help him out with his electricity bill or something ..
 
LisaB said:
It might have been easier to get people to stick to the desired topic by asking "Why would the WM3 have done it?"
Click to expand...

My two cents are as follows:

This was a crime of

  1. Opportunity
  2. Savage curiosity
  3. group dynamic
  4. bravao

Damien, ever the ring leader, saw an opportunity to play out some of his twisted religious / cultist fantasies and took it. Many younger sociopathic killers describe "wanting to know what its like to kill someone". Additionally, among his both chronologically and intellectually younger companions, he wanted to demonstrate what a badass he really was. Once things started, someone realized that they couldn't let the boys go or they were toast, so they did everything they could to hide them.

Kids (particularly bored kids) do stupid crap, often without a thought to the ultimate consequence. It is rarely this vicious and twisted, but it happens.

@ 16, a friend and I "stole" a freight train. We were both bright and would eventually both become engineers (not train engineers however). We were so enthused at the prospect of getting the thing moving, that we didn't consider what would happen if we were caught. Fortunately, we were luckier and smarter than these three, and no one ever really knew who "moved" the train about 25 miles (though my friend's Dad certainly had some strong suspicions).
 
^^^^^ So "Boys will be boys"? Is that what passes for a theory of the crime these days?
 
Cappuccino said:
I've often wondered what it would feel like to kill someone too, but I'd never want to find out the hard way, still less drag my best friend and a casual acquaintance into a horrible triple child homicide.
Click to expand...

I know this goes back in the posts a bit... But hey

My niece (partners side) told me when I was pregnant that she wanted to cut that baby outta me and kill it..

Now she suffers from ADHD and she's 8 now (6 at the time she said this)

Thing is she said something extremely horrible to me, am I worried about my child alone with her yes... But 2 years on from her wanting to cut the baby out an kill it.. Both me and my son are alive...

Saying and doing are two completely different things IMO..

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 138 more.
Total: 2,976 (members: 139, guests: 2,837)

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,837
Total visitors
2,976
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,911
Messages
18,101,420
Members
230,954
Latest member
SnootWolf02
Back
Top