Why did the WM3 do it?

[ceecee30]

My view is simply based on evaluating the evidence I've seen, so if you provide evidence to substantiate your disagreement, my view will change with respect to that.

I'm not asking you to change your views, the people with fancy credentials that believe it was animal predation even you won't believe.. So how would I provide any evidence that would alter your views? I can't plain and simple.

All I'm merely doing is speculating as to what could have caused those particular markings, be it an animal, a knife, concrete etc.

Again I clarify that I am speculating based on the images I have seen from the autopsy.

 

[kyleb]

So how would I provide any evidence that would alter your views?

Anyone who has evidence which contradicts my view can present it, and my view will change with respect to that. In this case, if someone provide examples of claws and or claw marks that are consistent with the spaces, then I'd believe the scrapes could have been caused by animal claws. However, since neither the experts nor anyone else has done as much, I've no reason to believe as much. I don't care about credentials at all, I only care about evidence.

 

[reedus23]

Anyone who has evidence which contradicts my view can present it, and my view will change with respect to that. In this case, if someone provide examples of claws and or claw marks that are consistent with the spaces, then I'd believe the scrapes could have been caused by animal claws. However, since neither the experts nor anyone else has done as much, I've no reason to believe as much. I don't care about credentials at all, I only care about evidence.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe anyone is attempting to convince you of anything. You have your opinion and you're entitled to it. Ceecee was simply expressing her opinion and he/she is equally entitled to his/her opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to convince you of anything, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with you either.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not sure what leads you to believe anyone is attempting to convince you of anything.

Well I'm at a loss as to how you imagined I believe as much, when in fact what you quoted from me is simply a response to Ceecee's question which I quoted in that post.

that doesn't mean we have to agree with you either.

Of course nobody has to agree with anyone. But again, by simply proclaiming disagreement one might as well be insisting that the Earth is flat. Rational discourse requires requires actually providing evidence to substantiate one's opinions, while simply making assertions isn't conducive to the spirit of a discussion forum.

Oh, and to save you a bit of typing in the future: it's safe to just use feminine pronouns to refer to Ceecee, as she mentioned having been pregnant [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9356196&postcount=200"]earlier in this thread[/ame]. And that reminds me, I meant save you some typing before by telling you that I'm a guy.

 

[reedus23]

Well I'm at a loss as to how you imagined I believe as much

Respectfully snipped by me. Maybe I should have used the word view instead of opinion.

Anyone who has evidence which contradicts my view can present it, and my view will change with respect to that.

 

[kyleb]

Again, that was not an expression of any belief that anyone is attempting to convince me of anything, but rather simply a response to Ceecee's question:

So how would I provide any evidence that would alter your views?

 

[reedus23]

Again, that was not an expression of any belief that anyone is attempting to convince me of anything, but rather simply a response to Ceecee's question:

I will let it go as we are debating nothing pertinent to the case anyhow.

 

[ceecee30]

Just to clarify... Ceecee is female and I'm not offended if anyone gets it wrong.. Ceecee is a fairly androgynous username!!

Kyle I managed to find some concrete that has ridges and trowels, through it when I was out walking yesterday.. I didn't manage to get a pic yesterday, but will be heading of that way again today and will post a pic.

Obviously I didn't have a ruler with me so I couldn't really compare the ridges in the concrete with the autopsy photo.

 

[kyleb]

No worries as earlier in this thread Gheckso linked to this thread which has some images of troweled concrete, a trowel, and the scrapes on the chest. But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides. The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence for such to result in scrapes which just happened consistent with the saw edge of the knife found behind Baldwin's house, and even more so an amazing coincidence that the saw edge and hilt of that knife is also consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead and cheek.

That said, for those who do prefer to believe the scrapes might have come from troweled concrete, the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens. I suspect that would be a fool's errand though, for the reasons I've previously explained.

 

[sloane7777]

here is my answer I dont think they did.

 

[reedus23]

here is my answer I dont think they did.

I don't know if I'll ever be comfortable saying they did it or not, what I am comfortable saying is there is no direct evidence they did it and what circumstantial evidence was given at trial was questionable at best.

 

[kyleb]

Misskelley's many confessions are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are.

 

[reedus23]

Misskelley's many confessions are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are.

That confession is a flimsy as the paper it's written on. I saw that before I even knew the confession was challenged by the lawyers or even an issue at all.

 

[gheckso]

No worries as earlier in this thread Gheckso linked to this thread which has some images of troweled concrete, a trowel, and the scrapes on the chest. But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides. The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence for such to result in scrapes which just happened consistent with the saw edge of the knife found behind Baldwin's house, and even more so an amazing coincidence that the saw edge and hilt of that knife is also consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead and cheek.

That said, for those who do prefer to believe the scrapes might have come from troweled concrete, the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens. I suspect that would be a fool's errand though, for the reasons I've previously explained.

You are making assumptions here that cannot be defended, if the child was dragged over a concrete structure we have no way of knowing the particulars of it, the condition of the concrete at the time, the way in which they were dragged, any exposed aggregate or reinforcement, whether or not the troweling job was sophisticated or just a rough once over. All you can gather from the pictures and the concrete theory is that the marks are similar and worthy of discussion.

For someone to test the hypothesis they would need to know all the particulars listed above, seems like a straw-man to me.

 

[ceecee30]

No worries as earlier in this thread Gheckso linked to this thread which has some images of troweled concrete, a trowel, and the scrapes on the chest. But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides. The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence for such to result in scrapes which just happened consistent with the saw edge of the knife found behind Baldwin's house, and even more so an amazing coincidence that the saw edge and hilt of that knife is also consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead and cheek.

That said, for those who do prefer to believe the scrapes might have come from troweled concrete, the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens. I suspect that would be a fool's errand though, for the reasons I've previously explained.

Do you ride a bike at all? Ever experienced "road rash" I have and it did look quite similar..

Looks like ill have to get my partner to get a pig for our spit, so I can test my theory with the trimmings!

Ill have to look a geckos picture to see if its similar to the concrete i saw

 

[kyleb]

That confession is a flimsy as the paper it's written on. I saw that before I even knew the confession was challenged by the lawyers or even an issue at all.

Waving one's hands at evidence doesn't make it go away. Furthermore, dismissing Misskelley's many confessions, including tape recorded ones, as if they were just one confession written on paper shows flagrant disregard for the facts of this case.

All you can gather from the pictures and the concrete theory is that the marks are similar and worthy of discussion.

No, I gather that the concrete hypothesis is utter claptrap for the reasons I stated above, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

For someone to test the hypothesis they would need to know all the particulars listed above

Rather, if the hypothesis had any basis in reality, one could derive the particulars you mentioned from studying the wounds, reproduce concrete capable of producing comparable scrapes, and demonstrate as much on pig skin. I'd do as much if I thought the concrete hypothesis might have some basis in reality, but I don't, and apparently the who do don't share my respect for the scientific method.

Do you ride a bike at all? Ever experienced "road rash" I have and it did look quite similar..

I have, and it looks generally similar, but different in the regards I explained previously.

That said, it's good to see neither of you two are sold on the defense experts' claims of claw marks.

 

[gheckso]

No, I gather that the concrete hypothesis is utter claptrap for the reasons I stated above, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

As I said, your reasons hold no place in reality as you are assuming knowledge of particulars listed earlier that you cannot have. Most of us here are not privy and wish not to be to the autopsy photographs with which I would have no expertise in studying anyhow.

I don't have the luxury of time to conduct any experiments and don't see how I could replicate a scene without knowing the scene anyhow. Hence the similar and worthy of discussion comment.

That said, it's good to see neither of you two are sold on the defense experts' claims of claw marks.

Not once have I claimed the claw marks are not possible. That's not to say I don't keep an open mind with this particular case.

Misskelley's many confessions are direct evidence, or at least the tape recorded ones are.

You are right there, we simply differ as to what its evidence of.

But look at the scrapes on chest, each one is deepest on one side and tappers off to the other, whereas the shape of the ridges in the troweled concrete would result in scrapes deepest in the middle and tapering off to both sides.

I don't see any deepest to one side and tapering off to the other, I simply see scrap marks with light abrasion between them, with other abrasive marks with around the gouge, it also appears from what I can see that the abrasion also continues on the chin.

The concrete would also leave scrapes between the those caused by the ridges as they aren't much higher than the rest of the concrete, whereas the the scrapes on the chest show unscraped sections between them.

Are we looking at the same picture because I do see abrasions between the scrap marks? there are some scrap marks where the abrasions seem to fade, could this be where the perp is lifting the body off the concrete therefore not fully contacting the entire surface but only the ridges? just speculation.

Besides all that, the skin would have to be slid exactly on line with the ridges in the concrete to leave even vaguely comparable markings. So, it would be quite an amazing coincidence

I don't quite understand this, of course the skin would have to be slid on line with the ridges, how is this in any way a problematic situation.

the way to test that hypothesis is to get some fresh pig skin from a butcher and rub it up against such concrete to see what happens

You are simplifying a situation that may have been much more complex than simply rubbing some pig skin on concrete. The scientific method would involve replicating the exact particulars to obtain definitive results.

I'm not saying I believe the theory but I do believe it has merit.

 

[kyleb]

Most of us here are not privy and wish not to be to the autopsy photographs with which I would have no expertise in studying anyhow.

Well then I won't bother discussing them with you further, aside from this anyway:

Not once have I claimed the claw marks are not possible.

Nor have I suggested you did. What I said is, "it's good to see neither of you two are sold on the defense experts' claims of claw marks" as if you were sold on those claims you'd be arguing that the scrapes couldn't be anything but claw marks.

You are right there, we simply differ as to what its evidence of.

And what exactly do you take Misskelley's many confessions to be evidence of: that he was somehow brainwashed into confessing not only to the cops on 6/3, but also to his lawyer on 6/11, again to his lawyer again on 8/19, to police from another country as they took him back to prison after his conviction on 2/4, yet again to his lawyer on 2/8, and finally to the prosecution against the advice of council on 2/17? And do you believe that Buddy Lucas lied about Misskelley confessing to him the day after the murders, or do you contend that brainwashing took place prior to that? I'm just guessing since you're so coy about explaining, but feel free to offer alternative explanations.

 

[reedus23]

Waving one's hands at evidence doesn't make it go away. Furthermore, dismissing Misskelley's many confessions, including tape recorded ones, as if they were just one confession written on paper shows flagrant disregard for the facts of this case.

It obviously doesn't make it go away and that's a damn scary thing because an innocent man can be convicted on such a questionable piece of evidence. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about whether it's one confession he tried to regurgitate on subsequent occasions or multiple confessions. That's a meaningless argument you use to try to distract from the fact that the original confession isn't worth a damn.

 

[reedus23]

No, I gather that the concrete hypothesis is utter claptrap for the reasons I stated above, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

I suppose this is another example of where you're actually not inviting people to try to get you to change your opinion.