WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[zencompass]

Brilliant summary Cher !

 

[zencompass]

But "behavior" (in addition to image) is exactly why the WM3 were proven guilty. Two wrongs don't make a right here, at least in my view.

Is TH a good guy? Probably not (I honestly wouldn't know; I've never met the guy). Does that definitively prove he's a killer? No (again, in my view).

Hi Userid,

I understand what you mean mostly D.E.'s behavior right? It's just that when I study the behavior I come up with T.H.'s demonstrated
narcissistic rage behavior which has been the only motive for murder in other cases.

What I don't understand is when Jessie said that Jason pulled out a knife and immediately started slashing and stabbing a young boy. That doesn't make sense
to me because Jason was a carer for his little brothers when his Mom was at work. I just could never see this in a million years. In my view.

Do you know what I mean about Jason? It doesn't make sense to me. What do you think about this? Thanks in advance

 

[Userid]

Hi Zen,

I think that, JB (assuming he did have something to do with this crime) would have never done anything like this his entire life had he never met DE. You see this with couple killers: one dominant personality heavily influences the other, and this case, DE would be the dominant personality.

I see what you mean about him having younger brothers, but then again, killers have daughters and wives (like BtK to name just one out of a plethora of examples) and go on to commit horrific acts like this against women, while being married and while raising their daughters (BTK was active all along).

What I particularly find disturbing about DE's behavior was his well-documented animal abuse -- which is a history that is actually shared among a grand majority of killers (i.e. abuse of animals in their formative years, which eventually leads to humans).

 

[zencompass]

Hi Userid,

I appreciate your thoughts on this.

We do disagree on possible perpetrators of this horrible crime but I know that if you didn't care about the three little guys who were
so viciously attacked and killed, you wouldn't be on these threads. I know that you care as deeply as others about what happened to Stevie,
Chris and Michael.

As for OB Jr., well I have looked into different sized dinghies and whatnot that could have been used to transport the bodies from his
backyard into the bayou and into the Discovery site. I must agree it is a possibility.

I just wanted to say that I know that all of us are truly on the same side when it comes to the compassion and care about what happened
to Chris, Michael and Stevie.

If we weren't human with different world views we wouldn't have different perspectives and I respect that.

For me, T.H. is the most viable suspect. I say "most viable" because there are other "viable" suspects of course.
However I do try to keep an open mind - otherwise I miss clues.

 

[Userid]

Yes, in all honesty, I care most about the three victims, not the WM3; I think we all do.

I'm glad you keep an open mind and don't have tunnel vision -- that's the best approach, in my view.

 

[zencompass]

Hi Userid,

I have found that others on these threads have an open mind as well. It's just that the evidence and behavior points to T.H. quite often.

People can't help what they are drawn to, even though they are keeping an open mind.

It's like how you feel about O.B.Jr. - you are keeping an open mind but the road seems to go in his direction, in your perspective.

I think we are all trying to do the best we can in looking at what I feel is one of the most complicated cases I have encountered.

 

[CoolJ]

Hi Userid,

I have found that others on these threads have an open mind as well. It's just that the evidence and behavior points to T.H. quite often.

People can't help what they are drawn to, even though they are keeping an open mind.

It's like how you feel about O.B.Jr. - you are keeping an open mind but the road seems to go in his direction, in your perspective.

I think we are all trying to do the best we can in looking at what I feel is one of the most complicated cases I have encountered.

You know what makes this case so complicated IMO?
There are so many people involved. So many possible suspects. And it seems like almost everyone who was questioned was either contradicted by someone else or themselves during further questioning.

 

[Userid]

^ Agreed, but this is how a lot of unsolved cases are.

In addition to the justice the three victims and their families deserve, I think people are drawn to this case because it seems like the answer is right under our collective noses. The "answer" differs of course among everyone, but it feels that way for everyone.

 

[CoolJ]

^ Agreed, but this is how a lot of unsolved cases are.

In addition to the justice the three victims and their families deserve, I think people are drawn to this case because it seems like the answer is right under our collective noses. The "answer" differs of course among everyone, but it feels that way for everyone.

I noticed how you said "this is how a lot of unsolved cases are."

 

[Userid]

Hah, yeah. Although the Alford pleas make this case, technically, solved, I consider it unsolved in the sense that there is no "smoking gun" for any one suspect necessarily. Personally, I view the JM confessions (all of them) as the most damning; I'm sure you'll view the one hair the same -- but either way, neither are bonafide proof pointing to either party.

 

[zencompass]

^ Agreed, but this is how a lot of unsolved cases are.

In addition to the justice the three victims and their families deserve, I think people are drawn to this case because it seems like the answer is right under our collective noses. The "answer" differs of course among everyone, but it feels that way for everyone.

Hi Userid

Yes it does feel that way!

 

[Parksestx]

Newb here. Went to high school not far from WM in the early 80's. Long time follower of the case. I phoned the state capital asking for a WM3 pardon years back (when I thought they were innocent). I've read everything on Callahan8K and even helped pay to keep the website open. I've been to the crime scene. I'll preface my thoughts with this: I don't think there was/is enough credible evidence to convict ANYBODY in a court of law, be it 1993 or today.

That said, some things bother me about the case....

1. Misskelley's 6 or 8 confessions. Facts iffy, whatever...Nobody does that. And he isn't "borderline retarded. He was tested 3 times and scored low 80's down to 72 or whatever. They went with the lowest number, duh. So he's somewhere between Mohammed Ali (78) and Andy Warhol (86). Plus he flunked the polygraph.

2. Three different type knots used, indicative of three people being involved.

3. Two victims has more wounds on the left side of the head/face; one victim had more wounds to the right side of the head/face. Indicative of one assailant being left-handed. IQ boy is a south paw.

4. Damien Echols EXTENSIVE mental health problems. I know I don't need to quote Exhibit 500. It speaks for itself. Read some of his writings both before and after arrest. Disturbing, putting it mildly. "Rosie" taking him places from jail, his body changing and becoming another creature that will snuff out mankind, etc. etc. etc. The guy's nuttier than a fruitcake. Does that make him a killer? Nope. But when a true nut job does kill someone, most everybody agrees - Oh, I saw that coming....Dude should have Been committed a long time ago. Totally nuts.

5. Damien Echols NUMEROUS lies over the years. Flunked the polygraph, changed the whole timeline for his alibi, phone call claims unverified, said he was in the Robin Hood area 2 or 3 times per week then claims he almost never went over there, tried to lie in court about the timing of the Aleister Crowley secret-squirrel code, his unfounded claims of prison rape. A phenomenal amount of untruths the guy has told up to and continuing today.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth after a decade and a half of following this and researching.

 

[Userid]

^ Agree. That is why no one has ever been brought to justice, and why the WM3 were wrongfully convicted and released, albeit via the Alford plea.

The hair is really the only thing that ties TH to this crime, but two things: it might not even belong to him (1% of the population of the area is in the dozens if not hundreds, can't remember the exact number now) and secondary transfer can't be ruled out, since whoever tied the knot was handling the socks, shoes, and clothes of the victims. Others will say the bite mark, but that is not a bite mark. The "under bite" extends far to the left of SB's face, but the majority of people never see this because they only see the cropped shot shown in the PL docs. The photo where you can see the entire wound for what it is, is very gory and that is why it was probably cropped.

JM doesn't sit right with me. The fact he tried to say that he was hanging out with two other boys, before he mentions DE and JB, also make me suspicious. Out of all the WM3, he is the one I feel is the most involved. And you're right about DE -- he's lied the most out of any single suspect involved in this case, and that includes TH.

 

[reedus23]

Misskelley's 6 or 8 confessions. Facts iffy, whatever...Nobody does that.

I can tell you unequivocally that it happens. My own personal opinion on this particular instance is that those confessions are worthless. I read them before I knew much about this case and certainly before I formed any opinions of guilt/innocence and the first thing I said as I was going through callahan's is "Well, I'll wait and see whatever other evidence there is because this confession is worthless".

I do agree though. There is not nearly enough to convict anyone, whether then or now. What is a shame is that there certainly was enough to give reason to more thoroughly investigate persons other than those that they did.

 

[Userid]

^ There was zero need for JM to confess in the squad car to officers after already just being convicted.

If you carefully examine them, the confessions contain accurate information. JM, in the original confessions (that everyone poo-poo's), he gets which injuries happened to which boys exactly right, which wasn't reported in the news at the time. He also gets the layout of the woods right and his path from the woods home (via the train tracks, under the overpass).

 

[dogmatica]

^ There was zero need for JM to confess in the squad car to officers after already just being convicted.

If you carefully examine them, the confessions contain accurate information. JM, in the original confessions (that everyone poo-poo's), he gets which injuries happened to which boys exactly right, which wasn't reported in the news at the time. He also gets the layout of the woods right and his path from the woods home (via the train tracks, under the overpass).

Don't bother. JM could still be confessing today, and supporters will completely disregard it.

 

[dogmatica]

I can tell you unequivocally that it happens.

And I can tell you that it unequivocally doesn't. Your own personal opinion doesn't change the facts of the case. The evidence against them is overwhelming, JM confessed, then confessed again, then again, then kept confessing, as his lawyer begged and pleaded with him not to (crazy how when it's in his best interest, he can't be "manipulated" into something - only when it will ruin his life and send him to prison for child murder is he susceptible to such manipulation - wacky stuff!). And again - if they had "exculpatory evidence", and proof of the "real killer", why did they plead guilty? Would you, if you were wrongfully accused of such atrocities, and had proof of your innocence, plead guilty? I think probably not. Unless of course there was no exculpatory evidence, and you couldn't in fact prove who the "real killer" was, because it was...you.

 

[The Founder]

I'm wondering if they have evidence that they did not do it why not present it?

 

[Userid]

^ Most likely because such evidence (that proves the WM3 did not do it) doesn't exist. If it did, they wouldn't have asked for the Alford pleas. Remember, it was the defense that asked for the Alford pleas. Many supporters like to omit this fact, but the fact is, the State was ready (albeit reluctantly) to go to trial, until the defense approached them with the Alford pleas; then the State accepted those pleas. If such evidence existed, they would have never asked for the Alford pleas because under such a plea, they are all still technically guilty, for life.

 

[dogmatica]

I'm wondering if they have evidence that they did not do it why not present it?

They don't have such evidence,because such evidence does not exist. It does not exist because they are guilty.