Why do nons keep ignoring the following evidence?

[LordYAM]

Throughout this, I've noticed that the nons tend to do several



1.) During Jesse Miskelley's taped confession the police not only edited the tape, but left suspicious swathes during the tape, the timing of which is extremely suspicious (they break off without their clarification statement, and then the moment the tape starts rolling they suddenly had it.)

2.) That if a suspect is malleable enough they can be convinced they had actually done it (martin tancliff). Given that Jesse wasn't very smart, and was young, and was in custody and questioned for a long time (and this is before he was officially arrested, I wouldn't be surprised if the cops made him feel like a prisoner even before it was official) why couldn't he have been broken down to the point where he would be open to suggestion?

3.) Ignore that if Jesse's confession were true than

a.) Several drunken teenagers were able to magically chase down and do all that stuff to the teens, than remove any physical evidence at night while they were drunk off their asses, and while their were search parties out (why didn't they hear the screams)

b.) These drunken teens would be able to remove all primary transfer in such a way that secondary transfer would stay intact (and primary transfer clings for far longer than secondary transfer)

c.) That the Prosecution deliberately tried to twist the testimony of people who claim they saw echols at the scene (they try to imply that it was jason baldwin. This implies that the woman in question couldn't even recognize her own neice, yet could magically recognize some kid she barely knew at night when he was wearing jet black clothes and see mud on the clothing WHILE SHE WOULD HAVE HAD ONLY SEVERAL SECONDS.

d.) That even after the trial when Jesse "confessed" again that his statement was STILL wildly off from what happened.

4.) Ignore that even Peretti conceded that any knife could make the wound (and given that peretti wasn't even certified I'm not sure it's a knife at all) and that the only one who pushed the lake knife was the prosecutor with his "grapefruit" theory

5.) That terry hobbs should have been investigated right away simply because he was Stevie's stepfather (stepparents, parents and family friends are far more likely to kill their children as such they should have been the first suspects investigated)

6.) That given the circumstances (hobbs claims he never saw the kids that day, and these are active 8 year old boys constantly tying and retying their shoes) that the secondary transfer doesn't hold water for why his hair was there

7.) That given the circumstances (what are the chances of them coming into contact with hair that was similar yet not belonging to terry hobbs) why do people keep trying to claim it wasn't hobbs

8.) That Terry hobbs was a vicious ******* who beat his own children, and his wife, and who was testified against by his best friend and other family members

9.) That the testimony against Damien can have an innocuous explanation (he was trying to get people to shut up, he wanted to **** with them etc.) and that given the age of the witnesses and circumstances (he said she said) that the testimony might not be completely accurate or reliable?

 

[reedus23]

I think it would be interesting to have those that believe the WM3 are guilty argue the case for Hobbs or someone else having done it and for those that don't believe the WM3 are guilty arguing the case for their guilt.

 

[Miranda!]

Brilliant idea - but I can not see it gaining any traction.

I would be willing to be an assistant on the prosecution.

Question one: Would they be tried together or as they were or three seperate trials?

In all honesty I do not think I could make a case with any conviction to get a conviction on JB!

Do we have to be honest or can we introduce stuff that was not admissable??

Could anyone make a realistic case against Jason in the dock in a seperate trial? Not as lone perp but as a participator?

 

[reedus23]

Brilliant idea - but I can not see it gaining any traction.

I would be willing to be an assistant on the prosecution.

Question one: Would they be tried together or as they were or three seperate trials?

In all honesty I do not think I could make a case with any conviction to get a conviction on JB!

Do we have to be honest or can we introduce stuff that was not admissable??

Could anyone make a realistic case against Jason in the dock in a seperate trial? Not as lone perp but as a participator?

I think if I were to try the case for the prosecution, I'd have to try them just like they did. I would try all 3 together if I could but that's impossible because of the "confession". So JM is tried, and probably tried first because the strongest piece of evidence you have is the "confession" and you want to get that conviction in the first trial. DE and JB would have to be tried together if you're going to try JB because, like you indicated, there is so little against JB. Trying JB separately probably leads to an acquittal so you have to dirty him up by trying him with DE.

To answer your last question, I don't know. I kind of just threw that out there without giving it much thought. I keep finding myself going to the fact that if I wanted to get convictions, I'd do exactly what the prosecution did. Don't focus on the facts, but play to the passions of the jury, mix in some crazy DE persona. But setting out those kind of arguments here really don't advance anything, so I I'm left saying I don't know in answer to your question.

 

[reedus23]

Throughout this, I've noticed that the nons tend to do several



1.) During Jesse Miskelley's taped confession the police not only edited the tape, but left suspicious swathes during the tape, the timing of which is extremely suspicious (they break off without their clarification statement, and then the moment the tape starts rolling they suddenly had it.)

2.) That if a suspect is malleable enough they can be convinced they had actually done it (martin tancliff). Given that Jesse wasn't very smart, and was young, and was in custody and questioned for a long time (and this is before he was officially arrested, I wouldn't be surprised if the cops made him feel like a prisoner even before it was official) why couldn't he have been broken down to the point where he would be open to suggestion?

3.) Ignore that if Jesse's confession were true than

a.) Several drunken teenagers were able to magically chase down and do all that stuff to the teens, than remove any physical evidence at night while they were drunk off their asses, and while their were search parties out (why didn't they hear the screams)

b.) These drunken teens would be able to remove all primary transfer in such a way that secondary transfer would stay intact (and primary transfer clings for far longer than secondary transfer)

c.) That the Prosecution deliberately tried to twist the testimony of people who claim they saw echols at the scene (they try to imply that it was jason baldwin. This implies that the woman in question couldn't even recognize her own neice, yet could magically recognize some kid she barely knew at night when he was wearing jet black clothes and see mud on the clothing WHILE SHE WOULD HAVE HAD ONLY SEVERAL SECONDS.

d.) That even after the trial when Jesse "confessed" again that his statement was STILL wildly off from what happened.

4.) Ignore that even Peretti conceded that any knife could make the wound (and given that peretti wasn't even certified I'm not sure it's a knife at all) and that the only one who pushed the lake knife was the prosecutor with his "grapefruit" theory

5.) That terry hobbs should have been investigated right away simply because he was Stevie's stepfather (stepparents, parents and family friends are far more likely to kill their children as such they should have been the first suspects investigated)

6.) That given the circumstances (hobbs claims he never saw the kids that day, and these are active 8 year old boys constantly tying and retying their shoes) that the secondary transfer doesn't hold water for why his hair was there

7.) That given the circumstances (what are the chances of them coming into contact with hair that was similar yet not belonging to terry hobbs) why do people keep trying to claim it wasn't hobbs

8.) That Terry hobbs was a vicious ******* who beat his own children, and his wife, and who was testified against by his best friend and other family members

9.) That the testimony against Damien can have an innocuous explanation (he was trying to get people to shut up, he wanted to **** with them etc.) and that given the age of the witnesses and circumstances (he said she said) that the testimony might not be completely accurate or reliable?

I won't speak to nons nor to anyone specifically on this board, but for some people, it is as if they read off of cue cards instead of engaging in critical thought. They feel to concede any fact, regardless of how minute, regardless how well established to the contrary, or regardless how off topic, it would weaken their overall position. So when faced with an issue that may not be favorable to their position, instead of engaging in critical thought about that issue, or conceding that point, you will find that they instead resort to regurgitating something off of that cue card. Just my observations from life more so than here and of course....all JMHO.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If I were to try to prove that Damien, Jason and Jessie were guilty, I would want to have some sort of forensic link (not merely circumstantial) linking the Lake knife to the crime itself. (Saying that it was found in a lake behind one of the defendant's trailers is circumstantial.) Was any real evidence found on that knife? If not, I would then try to establish a consistent time line for the defendants that put them in the RHH woods and no where else at the time of the crime. That would lead to the most important thing I would need in order to prove that Damien, Jason and Jessie were guilty - an accurate TOD. As others have opined, the lack of a conclusive TOD makes this a very difficult case to prove - against anyone.

Also, I think I might want to interview a few other people in the town to establish violence on the part of the three (and it would have to be all three) defendants. If I could find a witness or witnesses that could testify to unprovoked violence toward other persons on the part of all three of the defendants, I think that would be beneficial in a case against them. I know it would simply be more circumstantial evidence, but, IMO, it would be much stronger circumstantial evidence than anything presented in the original trial. (BTW, Damien's "mental health" issues would not, IMO, be helpful. IMO, those issues could provide a means for appeal after conviction or a possible reason for acquittal.)

 

[Sarah]

I think it would be interesting to have those that believe the WM3 are guilty argue the case for Hobbs or someone else having done it and for those that don't believe the WM3 are guilty arguing the case for their guilt.

This is just the problem I have with this and why I'm still sat on the fence.
I could probably come up with a plausible argument for any number of people involved with the case.

I would far prefer to be able to come up with an evidence led theory rather than a suspect led one, but I just don't think that a good enough job was done evidence-wise to lead to any solid conclusions :banghead:

This case still troubles me deeply though and I hope that one day new, solid evidence will come to light.

 

[Sarah]

I can't speak for 'nons' nor for supporters, but as a fence-sitter I don't think any of this is really completely cut and dry.

I've debated whether to reply to this and actually started typing a reply several times before changing my mind . . . I have absolutely no stake in this one way or another and I don't think that my replies are going to change anyone's mind, but FWIW my opinions in red below and the reasons why I can't totally buy into all of these points (kept fairly brief, although each point could be a thread in its own right) :

Throughout this, I've noticed that the nons tend to do several



1.) During Jesse Miskelley's taped confession the police not only edited the tape, but left suspicious swathes during the tape, the timing of which is extremely suspicious (they break off without their clarification statement, and then the moment the tape starts rolling they suddenly had it.)

2.) That if a suspect is malleable enough they can be convinced they had actually done it (martin tancliff). Given that Jesse wasn't very smart, and was young, and was in custody and questioned for a long time (and this is before he was officially arrested, I wouldn't be surprised if the cops made him feel like a prisoner even before it was official) why couldn't he have been broken down to the point where he would be open to suggestion?



The whole confession thing is still a huge red question mark to me. I think that in general Jesse's interviews were handled badly - IMO just one more thing that LE could have dealt with better. Given his mental age I think a parent should have been present with him during the interviews (and almost certainly would have been in the UK) and I wonder how the outcome would have differed if that had been the case. Would there have been no confession at all or would there have been a more reliable confession that was not so open to question and interpretation after the event?

Was he coerced? IMO 'no' but some of the questioning was certainly leading.
Subjected to incessant, relentless questioning to break him down? Again 'no' but he was held by LE for a considerable period of time and we have no idea of what was said during breaks in the tape or in between questioning.

TBH I really struggle with the idea of him being that open to suggestion as to start believing a made up story. That's kind of a moot point though, since that view is entirely subjective and I have absolutely nothing to base it on one way or another.



3.) Ignore that if Jesse's confession were true than

a.) Several drunken teenagers were able to magically chase down and do all that stuff to the teens (boys? - my correction), than remove any physical evidence at night while they were drunk off their asses, and while their were search parties out (why didn't they hear the screams)

IF the three boys did have a fatal encounter with three drunk teens in the woods, I really don't think that it would have taken much physical dexterity or coordination from the teens to initially corral them. MOO but based on my own childhood playing in woods, I think physical intimidation on the part of the teens combined with awe of the older boys and a bit of curiosity on the part of the kids could have lured them in. I have several anecdotes around this, but won't ramble on here unless anyone wants to hear them.

The removing of physical evidence is more troubling for me - not impossible I don't think, but dependent on a good chunk of luck.

And the screams? Yep, this is where I'm feeling let down by not having a more reliable TOD.



b.) These drunken teens would be able to remove all primary transfer in such a way that secondary transfer would stay intact (and primary transfer clings for far longer than secondary transfer)

Assuming you're referring to the 'Hobbs hair' here.
To me that isn't surprising. We had a family member with a beard stay with us for a while. My personal observation is that facial hair doesn't seem to shed as much as head hair, but it really does tend to get stuck in places. It's much coarser and pointier than head hair and I've picked up bits from the carpet in my socks that have really got poked into the fabric and even survived a trip through the washer and drier.



c.) That the Prosecution deliberately tried to twist the testimony of people who claim they saw echols at the scene (they try to imply that it was jason baldwin. This implies that the woman in question couldn't even recognize her own neice, yet could magically recognize some kid she barely knew at night when he was wearing jet black clothes and see mud on the clothing WHILE SHE WOULD HAVE HAD ONLY SEVERAL SECONDS.

Yes. IMO mistaking Jason for Domini is a ludicrous suggestion. However, I do believe that a few seconds would have been more than enough to recognise a person known to you in headlights and also to make a reasonable identification of the person with them. At the very least they would have got a good physical impression of him and I don't think there were that many long haired youths, dressed all in black hanging around with Domini at that time.

d.) That even after the trial when Jesse "confessed" again that his statement was STILL wildly off from what happened.

Yes, that is troubling, but there are other plausible explanations in addition to him making it all up. For example : He was drunk at the time and was only remembering confused flashes of what happened / he was lying to minimise his own involvement / He was embellishing the basic facts of a true story to tell LE what he thought they wanted to hear - or some combination of all three. And just how wildly off his confession actually is of course depends on first establishing what it was that really happened. My frustration at a lack of real solid evidence is kicking in again !!!

4.) Ignore that even Peretti conceded that any knife could make the wound (and given that peretti wasn't even certified I'm not sure it's a knife at all) and that the only one who pushed the lake knife was the prosecutor with his "grapefruit" theory

Yes. How I wish we had a complete consensus about what wounds were pre vs post mortem and what the most likely cause was of them !!!

5.) That terry hobbs should have been investigated right away simply because he was Stevie's stepfather (stepparents, parents and family friends are far more likely to kill their children as such they should have been the first suspects investigated)

Absolutely. IMO ALL parents / step parents / other family living close by should have been investigated immediately as a matter of course if only to eliminate them from any further enquiries.
However, while statistics tell us that they are the most likely to be guilty in cases where a child is killed, I don't know that there are that many comparable cases where a child and unrelated friends are killed together by a single parent for us to be able to draw statistical probabilities from.


6.) That given the circumstances (hobbs claims he never saw the kids that day, and these are active 8 year old boys constantly tying and retying their shoes) that the secondary transfer doesn't hold water for why his hair was there

Posted some of my thoughts on this in one of the earlier questions.
For me this is again where I'd like more information - a definitive answer on whose lace the hair was found on and how it was caught in there. For example, if it was actually embedded in the fabric of a lace belonging to a boy who'd been somewhere that he could legitimately pick up that hair then to me that's no shock at all.

7.) That given the circumstances (what are the chances of them coming into contact with hair that was similar yet not belonging to terry hobbs) why do people keep trying to claim it wasn't hobbs

Yep. We can play the semantics and statistics games all we like and indeed it may not be Terry Hobbs' hair . . . However, common sense tells me that it most probably is !!!

8.) That Terry hobbs was a vicious ******* who beat his own children, and his wife, and who was testified against by his best friend and other family members

But he's not the only one connected to this case with skeletons in his closet or a violent past - not by a long way. In fact IMHO there are a number of individuals surrounding this case who could be capable of killing 3 young boys given the right set of circumstances / provocation.

9.) That the testimony against Damien can have an innocuous explanation (he was trying to get people to shut up, he wanted to **** with them etc.) and that given the age of the witnesses and circumstances (he said she said) that the testimony might not be completely accurate or reliable?

Absolutely agree. I tend to think that Damien most likely did say what he's accused of or at least something similar but IMO he was a bit of a flamboyant attention seeker - even if that attention was in the form of being a social misfit and it's just the sort of thing I can see him saying to play up to that image.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'd like to state that, for someone of Jessie's limited mental ability, using leading questions during interrogation as the police did is coercion. I know this to be a fact from my 25 years of teaching high school students, many of whom are of like mental abilities (or disabilities) as Jessie. These students will latch onto any information that the questioner gives them as a clue to tell them what the questioner wants to hear. Then, they will parrot back the desired response for the simple reason that they want the questioning to stop.

IMO, based on my years of experience with teenagers, Jessie's questioners used the fact that he was of limited mental ability to manipulate (coerce) him into a bogus (false) "confession" because the pressure was on to solve the case and Jessie was an easy target for their coercion. IMO, the actions of the wmpd (particularly Gitchell and Ridge) were unethical if not truly illegal. IMO, interviewing a mentally-challenged teen without an attorney or at least a family member present was another example of a totally unethical action. These are some of the glaring problems with Jessie's interrogation and his subsequent statements falsely implicating himself and Damien and Jason in these horrific murders.

 

[hello people]

They did it

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I'd like to state that, for someone of Jessie's limited mental ability, using leading questions during interrogation as the police did is coercion. I know this to be a fact from my 25 years of teaching high school students, many of whom are of like mental abilities (or disabilities) as Jessie. These students will latch onto any information that the questioner gives them as a clue to tell them what the questioner wants to hear. Then, they will parrot back the desired response for the simple reason that they want the questioning to stop.

IMO, based on my years of experience with teenagers, Jessie's questioners used the fact that he was of limited mental ability to manipulate (coerce) him into a bogus (false) "confession" because the pressure was on to solve the case and Jessie was an easy target for their coercion. IMO, the actions of the wmpd (particularly Gitchell and Ridge) were unethical if not truly illegal. IMO, interviewing a mentally-challenged teen without an attorney or at least a family member present was another example of a totally unethical action. These are some of the glaring problems with Jessie's interrogation and his subsequent statements falsely implicating himself and Damien and Jason in these horrific murders.

I didn't think he was that disabled. He doesn't get SSI like Echols. Isn't it strange that he would not qualify for benefits since he's in such a disabled state?

 

[primitivefuture]

I didn't think he was that disabled. He doesn't get SSI like Echols. Isn't it strange that he would not qualify for benefits since he's in such a disabled state?

Why was he told he didn't qualify?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LordYAM]

1.) The gaps in the tape were what made me suspicious. the timing was too suspicious. It cuts out just before they start and restarts just when they have it. I don't think they beat him, but they probably (and I wouldn't be shocked) if they said things like "you'd better remember you little ****bag" or verbally threatened him with violence. I firmly think the police verbally interrogated and coerced Jesse Miskelley. Martin Tanclff honestly believed he'd killed his parents simply because he was so malleable after that long interrogation. Jesse was not as smart so I can buy him being coerced and malleable enough to be tricked into thinking he truly did it

2.) "IF the three boys did have a fatal encounter with three drunk teens in the woods, I really don't think that it would have taken much physical dexterity or coordination from the teens to initially corral them. MOO but based on my own childhood playing in woods, I think physical intimidation on the part of the teens combined with awe of the older boys and a bit of curiosity on the part of the kids could have lured them in. I have several anecdotes around this, but won't ramble on here unless anyone wants to hear them.

The removing of physical evidence is more troubling for me - not impossible I don't think, but dependent on a good chunk of luck.

And the screams? Yep, this is where I'm feeling let down by not having a more reliable TOD." It's more the evidence removal. The time described in the alibi would have given them a very short gap, and it's difficult even for skilled criminals to remove forensic evidence in a short time. These were drunken teenagers, so I doubt that they would be able to remove all that evidence in a short time without leaving marks or evidence of removal (i.e. they would have been crude trying to remove it). The screams would have been heard.

Jesse could easily have been incorporating later info into his confessions.

5.) Compassionate Reader suggested that Hobbs tried to threaten Stevie and lost his temper and then attacked (badly injuring) stevie. The boys could have been a witness that hobbs murdered to tie up loose ends.

I mentioned Hobb's violence because Nons try to downplay it. They say we're just throwing spagetti at the walls and hoping it sticks, and that we're overplaying the dna. UBD has accused multiple people of unjustly victimizing hobbs because he's the victim's step parent (when in fact his violence is an issue.) Billy sinclair (a non) at least has the decency to admit that hobbs was a vicious dirtbag. A lot of nons try to ignore Hobb's violent actions, simply because they imply he may have done it.


You said



Assuming you're referring to the 'Hobbs hair' here.
To me that isn't surprising. We had a family member with a beard stay with us for a while. My personal observation is that facial hair doesn't seem to shed as much as head hair, but it really does tend to get stuck in places. It's much coarser and pointier than head hair and I've picked up bits from the carpet in my socks that have really got poked into the fabric and even survived a trip through the washer and drier."

The hair was found in Michael's laces. How often did Michael play at their house? When was the last time. These are 8 year old boys who are a lot rougher than other people (kids are) they would have been tying retying their shoes, horse playing etc. Maybe a beard hair would survive, but I don't know. Then the killer would have to remove the lace by pulling it through the eyehole. Overall I'm not buying it. And than David Jacobi (or someone with similar hair) was also found to have left hair on a stump near the dump site (and yes I firmly think it was a dump site, because the drunken teenagers wouldn't have been able to throughly remove all that blood in a short time.) Incidentally, I think Jacobi knows more than he's telling. He may not have killed those children but he probably knows something about what happened that night. Maybe even know who did it.

 

[Graznik]

Why was he told he didn't qualify?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do we even know that he applied for such benefit and didn't qualify? Have we seen the paper work for that, as we have for Echols?

Just because someone has a mental disability, of varying degree and kind, doesn't mean they will apply for or even need any kind of benefit.

 

[primitivefuture]

Do we even know that he applied for such benefit and didn't qualify? Have we seen the paper work for that, as we have for Echols?

Just because someone has a mental disability, of varying degree and kind, doesn't mean they will apply for or even need any kind of benefit.

I've never heard anything about Jessie applying for SSI. I wondered if Udb knew something the rest of us don't. I would think it wouldn't be unusual for someone with Jessie's mental deficit to choose not to apply, since applying would require admitting that he isn't as smart as the average person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marg from Oz]

Sorry to be so ignorant, but what is/are nons?

 

[Graznik]

Neither have I, and I thought it was a rather strange assumption to make.

Like I said, a lot of people with a range of mental disabilities or disorders do not need or want benefits. So Jessie not using that system doesn't strike me as odd at all. Just because you happen to be considered as "slow" doesn't mean that there isn't a wide range of jobs that would be suitable for said person. So it's completely unnecessary to insinuate anything else.

Also, non/nons is short for non-supporter, i.e. someone who believes in the guilt of Damien, Jason and Jessie.

 

[reedus23]

Sorry to be so ignorant, but what is/are nons?

Not an ignorant question. Took me a while at first to figure it out as well. Apparently it is a term given some time back to those who believe the WM3 killed the 3 boys, i.e. non-supporters of the WM3.

 

[reedus23]

Neither have I, and I thought it was a rather strange assumption to make.

Like I said, a lot of people with a range of mental disabilities or disorders do not need or want benefits. So Jessie not using that system doesn't strike me as odd at all. Just because you happen to be considered as "slow" doesn't mean that there isn't a wide range of jobs that would be suitable for said person. So it's completely unnecessary to insinuate anything else.

Also, non/nons is short for non-supporter, i.e. someone who believes in the guilt of Damien, Jason and Jessie.

The exact nature of is disability, if any, is of little importance. In my estimation, regardless of what exact number he got on an IQ test, regardless of whether he applied for and received/denied SSI benefits, there is little doubt in my mind that JM was slow minded. Put whatever label you (generic "you") want on it, he simply wasn't the brightest bulb on the block. Couple that with individuals who have been trained in techniques to trip people up and add in the fact that he had no attorney or representative present with him and it was a scenario asking for disaster. Was JM coerced? I have no reason to believe he was "physically" coerced or beaten with a phone book until he confessed. But were the words he spoke HIS words or the words of his interrogators? I have little doubt about the answer to that question.

 

[Graznik]

I just reacted to how it seemed to be insinuated that as he didn't receive any SSI benefits, he must have been denied them and should therefore be considered to either not be hindered at all by his IQ or have a "normal" IQ.

There is no doubt in my mind that the "confession" was coerced. IMHO, it's bogus, the lot of it.