I don't know how to "do" multiple quotes, so, with apologies, I'll "cut and paste" the parts of the posts to which I'd like to respond.
First, welcome Mackensie_Sage!
Graznik said: "There's no evidence pointing to the WM3, apart from Misskelley's confessions. And if you have a closer look at them you'll find that they don't add up at all. Actually, reading them in full, over and over again, was what convinced me of their innocence. Not even after sitting through his whole trial could JM get the facts straight. Sure, he could fit things in to the whole satanic motive malarkey argued by the WMPD and the prosecution (because he was coerced), but once you take a closer look at the crime and evidence there's no indication that this was satanic at all."
I totally agree with this statement. Although the prosecution tried to deny it, they were clinging to the whole "Satanic" motive simply because they could not establish a different motive. I realize that establishing a motive is not mandatory, but, generally speaking, in a sensational case like this one, a jury really wants one. So, the prosecution brought in a faux-Phd to sell the "Satanic" motive. IMO, that witness was destroyed on cross. Of course, the jury saw it differently. IMO, that conclusion was attributable to the inclination of many people to believe that, if someone is arrested, they are most likely guilty. In the opinion of the public at the time, especially when the press coverage is considered, the three were considered guilty from the moment of arrest.
Mackenzie_Sage said: "I'd like to see the fibers retested again by an independent testing facility with no interest in the outcome. When the fibers were retested and they claimed it didn't match, it was by the defense team, and that evidence never made it to trial to be examined or argued. To me right now the fiber evidence is about as speculative as the hair evidence-- worth further investigation, but no conclusions can be drawn yet about those things IMO."
Whenever evidence is tested, it is always at the behest of either the prosecution or the defense. So, IMO, it always comes down to the credibility of the testing agency and the methods used by same. In this case, the latter testing (which excluded the garments in question as the sources of the fibers) was done by using more advanced methods not available at the time of the original trials. IMO, that is a very important difference, and is why I am more inclined to accept the defense testing, which was conclusive, over the prosecution testing, which was not conclusive and was never claimed to be conclusive.
easongt said: "JM confessed to his own attorney unless I've read erroneous facts. False confessions aren't typically repeated later on when they were originally obtained under duress."
If this is referring to the February 8, 1994 statement, it needs to be considered that, at the time, the attorney was trying to determine what JM was going to say to LE. The attorney (DS) didn't want to be charged with suborning perjury. So, he was trying to be sure his client was telling a consistent story. Additionally, it must be noted that, after taking the statement, DS was able to dissuade JM from making the statement to LE that day. It took several more days of "persuasion" from LE (although they deny it) before JM made the "second confession" statement to LE - and even that post conviction statement was full of inconsistencies as well. Even the "Bible" statement was inconsistent with the facts - and DS was prompting JM throughout the statement. For example, when DS showed JM a police-prepared map of the area, JM didn't recognize it at all! As to the portion BBM, I disagree. It depends on the "confessor." Based on my experience teaching students of JM's mentality, it is very probable that he would continue saying what he thought the interrogators want to hear. That's simply how one of JM's low IQ reacts when under stress. Additionally, IMO, LE officials got "into JM's head" between the "Bible" statement and the "second confession" statement and made him distrust his own attorneys. They only allowed DS about five to ten minutes with JM before the "second confession" statement was taken because, IMO, they were afraid that, once again, JM would refuse to make the statement. Finally, and, IMO, this is the most important fact regarding JM's statements, once JM was allowed to talk with his father, someone he truly trusted, he recanted and has made no more professions of involvement but has steadfastly maintained his innocence from that time forward.
Graznik said: "The alibis of TH and JKM though are different stories entirely. For TH, the day his step-son went missing and later found murdered should be pretty damn significant. Yet he can't even remember when he called the police."
I agree with the rest of this post, but this portion, particularly, is often overlooked. I remember every detail and my every movement on the day, over 50 years ago now, that JFK was assassinated - and that event was less personal to me than the death of a step son should have been. TH seems to have a "selective memory" where this case is concerned. He remembers what he didn't do (didn't kill the kids, didn't see them at all on May 5, 1993), but he can't seem to remember what he did do during critical times. Of course, his alibi is flatly contradicted at certain times by DJ, JMB and even PH. IMO, this is simply unfathomable!
Mackenzie_Sage said: "I would disagree with your wording about the WM3 being 'excluded'. True, their DNA specifically was not found... but that only means there was no DNA found. You can't exclude someone just because of absence of DNA. In fact there is no conclusive DNA for anyone found at the crime scene, but that doesn't mean everyone is excluded; someone killed those kids.
I also wouldn't agree that the hair is 'very likely' TH's; it could belong to something like 2% of the population (if I recall correctly? I haven't read these things very recently but I recall some number like that; so to me that would not be 'very likely'; to me that would be 'possibly'.). Considering how many people that puts in the running (dozens? Maybe hundreds?), I don't consider it strong enough evidence to consider it any kind of smoking gun pointing to TH. Not to mention, all the boys have been to TH house, and one of them lived there. And the other hair was found so much later and could belong to something like 10% of the population-- again, I don't think that proves anything. There's no way to prove that a hair in the woods even belonged to the murderers, and the hair in the knot could have easily just come from one of the boys' clothes."
DNA was found, but the only DNA found that might be linked to DE, JB or JM is DNA which can only be attributed to any male on the planet. So, if the mtDNA in the hair in MM's ligature (which was a 98.5% match to the mtDNA of TH) doesn't point to TH as a possible suspect, how can the few DNA samples that don't specifically exclude any of the three innocent (IMO) men be considered as anything but flimsy evidence? There are still some "unknown" DNA samples in this case. I don't know if these samples will ever be identified, but DE, JB and JM have been excluded from these samples as well. In this type of crime, I guess the question to ask is, if the crime had been committed in the manner described in JM's statements, how could it have been done without the killer(s) leaving some sort of biological sample? At the time, both DE and JB had long hair. Yet, all hairs found have excluded them (and JM) as the source of said hair. Although mtDNA is not as precise as nuclear DNA, it does exclude most people who weren't the contributor of said sample. The two hairs so often discussed are the only hairs that can be linked to a maternal line. That's what mtDNA does; it indicates that the contributor of the hair was a member of a specific maternal line. So, the hair in MM's ligature was contributed either by TH or by someone in his maternal line. It could not have been contributed by any of a random sampling of people unless that sample consisted of only those in TH's maternal line. That's a common misunderstanding of the value of the mtDNA. Of course, the same is true of the tree-stump hair wrt DJ and 7% of the population. IMO, that's why the hairs are of significance. Although the specific donor cannot be determined, most of the world's population (including DE, JB and JM) can be excluded.
Mackenzie_Sage said: "The blood on DE's necklace is a strong piece of evidence IMO. The sightings of Echols between 9 and 10 near the crime scene, called in long before police ever implicated DE."
The blood on DE's necklace is just as likely to have belonged to JB (whose necklace it was) as to the victim who happened to have the same DQ Alpha signature. A DQ Alpha signature, although slightly better than a blood type, is not unique. Additionally, the blood samples (one was DE's, which proves nothing) were so small that they were consumed with the original testing, and, following your previous logic, there's no proof that the necklace was even worn at the time of the crime. Finally, as to the Hollingworth's supposed sighting of DE, they said he was with their niece, DT, and not JB, and their own nephew was also a suspect for this crime, which, IMO, greatly compromises any validity to their statements.
Mackenzie_Sage said: "To a smaller degree, the fact that all of their alibis fell through and were proven false, the failed polygraphs, the multiple lies of DE (not to mention his history). JM's crying breakdowns. These, along with the fibers, and the candle wax all taken individually (plus a number of other little things I could go on with but I'm sure you're familiar with all of them) would not alone convince me of their guilt. But seeing how many of these little bits of circumstantial evidence pile up, I think it builds a strong case against the WM3; whether they did it or not I'd say it's a fair consideration given the evidence."
However, there is just as much circumstantial evidence against TH - plus the hairs, which are physical evidence. The lack of any physical evidence linking DE, JB or JM to the scene is one of my reasons for believing in their innocence. I just don't see three drunk teenage boys (if one believes JM's statements) being able to commit these murders without leaving any physical evidence behind at all. I agree that the investigation was abysmally inept, but, since the wmpd had focused on DE early on in the investigation, I doubt that they would have overlooked anything linking him to the crime. However, try as they might, they couldn't find anything. IMO, if they had looked as diligently for any evidence as they looked for evidence against DE, JB and JM, this case could have been solved in 1993. However, they didn't and it wasn't.
Mackenzie_Sage said: "I don't remember the prosecution saying the fiber evidence was weak; I remember them saying it came up late in the trial and it would have prolonged things if they'd brought it up, so they chose not to bring it up. If they said it was weak, I either overlooked it or I forgot or something. I personally do think on its own merits it is weak; about as weak as the hair evidence. However, like I said, the more little things that mount, the stronger the case is."
The statement re: fiber evidence being weak was made in the first documentary by either Davis or Fogleman when they were meeting with the family members discussing why they wanted JM's testimony so badly - because the case against DE and JB without JM's statement was weak. Of course, as it turned out, the jury convicted DE and JB without JM testifying, but that opens up a whole 'nother bag of worms! I'm sure everyone is familiar with the entire "jury misconduct" issue and the foreman's sealed affidavit (that is now on Callahan's).
