WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[dogmatica]

Confessed???

Several times. Pre and post conviction.

 

[dogmatica]

A coerced confession, a wrongful conviction, a blackmailed guilty plea......, three wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think you understand what "coerced", "wrongful" and "blackmailed" actually mean.

 

[dogmatica]

Userid, I will stand by my guns on this one. A dodgy confession would be grounds for second thoughts, but not a diabolical confession, or even 100 diabolical confessions. As for blackmail, perhaps not the right word, but if you offer a person the opportunity to get out of prison after eighteen years, only the martyrs would say no, and the majority of us simply are not martyrs.

Stick to your guns all the live long day. Doesn't change the fact he confessed, multiple times, several times AFTER his conviction, hand on the bible, after his lawyer insisted he not do so. You can sweep that under the rug all you want - it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and that he was telling the truth.

Also, where's this exculpatory evidence we were promised? Where is the evidence proving who the "real" killer is?

 

[dogmatica]

... and the majority of us simply are not martyrs.

Or child murderers.

 

[CoolJ]

I don't think you understand what "coerced", "wrongful" and "blackmailed" actually mean.

Ahhh..., you mean the Misskelley "confession" LOL

Ever notice how it always seems to be the mentally challenged one who they get their confessions from? I could cite 3-4 other cases just off the top of my head that went down the exact same way!

Coerced Confessions for LE 101 - find a mentally challenged guy close to the investigation

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

I don't think you understand what "coerced", "wrongful" and "blackmailed" actually mean.

Stick to your guns all the live long day. Doesn't change the fact he confessed, multiple times, several times AFTER his conviction, hand on the bible, after his lawyer insisted he not do so. You can sweep that under the rug all you want - it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and that he was telling the truth

.

Why so assertive and untactful ? Try Monty Python's Argument Clinic, and take Jessie's Confession along with you, I'm sure it would make a good sketch.

Also, where's this exculpatory evidence we were promised? Where is the evidence proving who the "real" killer is?

The last time I looked, I didn't owe you anything, and I don't feel like I owe you a reply for your future dogmatism.

 

[Cher Lockhomes]

Ahhh..., you mean the Misskelley "confession" LOL

Ever notice how it always seems to be the mentally challenged one who they get their confessions from? I could cite 3-4 other cases just off the top of my head that went down the exact same way!



Coerced Confessions for LE 101 - find a mentally challenged guy close to the investigation

Richard Buckland was a prime example:

After the murder of Dawn Ashworth, police arrested a 17 year old man called Richard Buckland. Due to a slight mental disability Buckland actually confessed to the murders.

The prime suspect at the time was Richard Buckland, a 17-year-old with learning difficulties who confessed to the murder of Miss Ashworth under questioning but denied killing Miss Mann.

https://sites.google.com/site/dnaunravelledd/case-file

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2...s-after-rapist-jailed-20-years-on-from-crime/

or "Jerry Hobbs":

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...hings-about-this-case&p=12077809#post12077809

 

[CoolJ]

Richard Buckland was a prime example:

After the murder of Dawn Ashworth, police arrested a 17 year old man called Richard Buckland. Due to a slight mental disability Buckland actually confessed to the murders.

The prime suspect at the time was Richard Buckland, a 17-year-old with learning difficulties who confessed to the murder of Miss Ashworth under questioning but denied killing Miss Mann.

https://sites.google.com/site/dnaunravelledd/case-file

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2...s-after-rapist-jailed-20-years-on-from-crime/

or "Jerry Hobbs":

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...hings-about-this-case&p=12077809#post12077809

Brendan Dassey in the Steve Avery case another prime example. There are many many more.

 

[dogmatica]

Ahhh..., you mean the Misskelley "confession" LOL

Ever notice how it always seems to be the mentally challenged one who they get their confessions from? I could cite 3-4 other cases just off the top of my head that went down the exact same way!

Coerced Confessions for LE 101 - find a mentally challenged guy close to the investigation

You need to research his MULTIPLE confessionS more. There wasn't just one confession. A person doesn't get 'coerced" into confessing over and over again, POST conviction. If he was so easily "coerced" into confessing by the evil police, why could he not be "coerced" into NOT confessing by his OWN LAWYERS? Also, the "mentally challenged" myth has been debunked time and time again. Jessie was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he was nowhere close to being "retarded". Also, Echols and Baldwin are also on record as having admitted to the crime. But by all means, continue to sweep all that under the rug as you supporters do, because Johnny Depp and Eddie Vedder say the WM3 are innocent, and you've been sold by those "documentaries".

 

[dogmatica]

.

Why so assertive and untactful ? Try Monty Python's Argument Clinic, and take Jessie's Confession along with you, I'm sure it would make a good sketch.





The last time I looked, I didn't owe you anything, and I don't feel like I owe you a reply for your future dogmatism.

People who support child murderers tend to bring out my "assertiveness". You mean Jessie's MULTIPLE confessionS? Which ones? The pre conviction confessions or the post conviction confessions? Both? The one where he swore with his hand on the bible as his lawyer begged him not to confess, again? There are so many you'll need to narrow it down for me.

No, you don't owe me anything. However, the WM3 do owe you the exculpatory evidence they promised, as well as the proof of who the "real" killer is. But again, you have swept that under the rug.

 

[dogmatica]

Did all these people you list confess over and over again? AFTER they were convicted, as their lawyers begged them not to? The confessions were just one part of a giant, damning puzzle that led to their conviction, by 2 separate juries, and their eventual guilty pleas.

They've been out for what, 4 years now? Where's the exculpatory evidence? Are they just holding out to make it that much more of a bang when they finally do the big reveal?

 

[CoolJ]

You need to research his MULTIPLE confessionS more. There wasn't just one confession. A person doesn't get 'coerced" into confessing over and over again, POST conviction. If he was so easily "coerced" into confessing by the evil police, why could he not be "coerced" into NOT confessing by his OWN LAWYERS? Also, the "mentally challenged" myth has been debunked time and time again. Jessie was not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he was nowhere close to being "retarded". Also, Echols and Baldwin are also on record as having admitted to the crime. But by all means, continue to sweep all that under the rug as you supporters do, because Johnny Depp and Eddie Vedder say the WM3 are innocent, and you've been sold by those "documentaries".

I don't need to research anything anymore. I saw how they talked him through his confession. That is all I need to know. It looks just like all of the other coerced confessions I have researched. Do you really believe that what you have read are the only interactions Misskelley had with LE? Do you think they record or document their "unofficial" interrogations and interviews?
They had this guy so messed up he didn't have a clue what he was saying. They needed a "confession" and so they went after the "slow one", just like they always do.

 

[Userid]

Userid, I will stand by my guns on this one. A dodgy confession would be grounds for second thoughts, but not a diabolical confession, or even 100 diabolical confessions. As for blackmail, perhaps not the right word, but if you offer a person the opportunity to get out of prison after eighteen years, only the martyrs would say no, and the majority of us simply are not martyrs.

Again, it was the defense that introduced the idea of the Alford Plea anyway, so yeah, "blackmail" is definitely not the right word.

And just to be clear here, I have never blamed the WM3 for taking the Alford Plea. I feel that it holds no bearing one way or another on their guilt or their innocence; it simply came to fruition through the need to get out of prison (whether they're guilty or not, they wanted to get out immediately and I don't blame them).

 

[dogmatica]

I don't need to research anything anymore. I saw how they talked him through his confession. That is all I need to know. It looks just like all of the other coerced confessions I have researched. Do you really believe that what you have read are the only interactions Misskelley had with LE? Do you think they record or document their "unofficial" interrogations and interviews?
They had this guy so messed up he didn't have a clue what he was saying. They needed a "confession" and so they went after the "slow one", just like they always do.

ConfessionS. Several POST conviction. Once again - I'll ask this simple question. If he was so easily "coerced", why could his own lawyer not "coerce" him into NOT confessing? There was nobody there, post conviction, "coercing" him into confessing AGAIN and AGAIN. His own lawyer insisted he NOT confess AGAIN - but he did anyway, hand on the bible. If you honestly believe he was pulled from his prison cell, after he was found guilty, and "coerced" into confessing AGAIN by some evil, genius police officers, while his lawyer sat there and pleaded with him not to, there's no helping you.

But as you have said, "That is all I need to know." That tells me all I need to know.

 

[CoolJ]

ConfessionS. Several POST conviction. Once again - I'll ask this simple question. If he was so easily "coerced", why could his own lawyer not "coerce" him into NOT confessing? There was nobody there, post conviction, "coercing" him into confessing AGAIN and AGAIN. His own lawyer insisted he NOT confess AGAIN - but he did anyway, hand on the bible. If you honestly believe he was pulled from his prison cell, after he was found guilty, and "coerced" into confessing AGAIN by some evil, genius police officers, while his lawyer sat there and pleaded with him not to, there's no helping you.

But as you have said, "That is all I need to know." That tells me all I need to know.

Do you honestly believe that he had no other interactions with LE officials prior to his meeting with lawyers? Do you understand the lengths corruptors will go to hide their corruption?
If these "confessions" are so valid, why are they so inconsistent?

These men are innocent 100%. Not a doubt in my mind. Thank god they are also now free.

Let's place our energies into proving who the real child killers are and out the ones that helped them escape justice.

You can no longer convict somebody of a crime for simply being "weird"

 

[CoolJ]

Again, it was the defense that introduced the idea of the Alford Plea anyway, so yeah, "blackmail" is definitely not the right word.

And just to be clear here, I have never blamed the WM3 for taking the Alford Plea. I feel that it holds no bearing one way or another on their guilt or their innocence; it simply came to fruition through the need to get out of prison (whether they're guilty or not, they wanted to get out immediately and I don't blame them).

DE's lawyers brought up the idea of the Alford plea. Obviously as a last ditch effort before he was executed. The state made the offer. Now why would they make that offer? Why would they open up the gates of the jail cells (one on death row) of 3 child murderers?

 

[dogmatica]

Do you honestly believe that he had no other interactions with LE officials prior to his meeting with lawyers? Do you understand the lengths corruptors will go to hide their corruption?
If these "confessions" are so valid, why are they so inconsistent?

These men are innocent 100%. Not a doubt in my mind. Thank god they are also now free.

Let's place our energies into proving who the real child killers are and out the ones that helped them escape justice.

You can no longer convict somebody of a crime for simply being "weird"

These LE officials - they must be the same ones responsible for the faked moon landing and the ones who orchestrated 9/11. They must be stopped.

"Let's place our energies into proving who the real child killers are and out the ones that helped them escape justice."

According to Echols before he was released, they already had the exculpatory evidence and proof of the "real child killers". Any day now...

 

[dogmatica]

DE's lawyers brought up the idea of the Alford plea. Obviously as a last ditch effort before he was executed. The state made the offer. Now why would they make that offer? Why would they open up the gates of the jail cells (one on death row) of 3 child murderers?

Incorrect. Echols' lawyers didn't just "bring it up". They came forward to the Prosecution and presented it to them. "Last ditch effort"? Don't you recall - they were going to get a new trial. And they had the exculpatory evidence, and proof of the "real killer". The state did not "make the offer", the state accepted the offer presented by Echols' attorneys.

 

[dogmatica]

Do you honestly believe that he had no other interactions with LE officials prior to his meeting with lawyers? Do you understand the lengths corruptors will go to hide their corruption?
If these "confessions" are so valid, why are they so inconsistent?

These men are innocent 100%. Not a doubt in my mind. Thank god they are also now free.

Let's place our energies into proving who the real child killers are and out the ones that helped them escape justice.

You can no longer convict somebody of a crime for simply being "weird"

So to buy into your conspiracy theory - these evil "corruptors" got to Jessie in prison - and forced him into calling his own lawyer to arrange yet ANOTHER confession. And their threat to him was..."you better keep confessing to your own lawyer, police, and whoever else will listen, and do it with your hand on the bible, and when your own lawyer begs you not to confess anymore - you better just ignore him and do it anyway, or else we'll....throw you in prison!!" And Jessie went along with this, because he's so retarded that he didn't realize he had already been convicted, and was already in prison.

Yes, that's plausible.

 

[Userid]

Incorrect. Echols' lawyers didn't just "bring it up". They came forward to the Prosecution and presented it to them. "Last ditch effort"? Don't you recall - they were going to get a new trial. And they had the exculpatory evidence, and proof of the "real killer". The state did not "make the offer", the state accepted the offer presented by Echols' attorneys.

Thank you, and precisely. I don't know why supporters can't understand this fact. The prosecution then came back to DE's defense team and said, it's all or nothing (that's called "negotiation," not "blackmail") -- but again, after DE's lawyers came to them first -- so to call it "blackmail" is utterly false. DE started the negotiation.