I don't know why I bother, but . . .
If one will approach this with an open mind, one will see the truth.
The last post was a bunch of NONsense. Not sure which NONsite you were quoting, but I've seen it all before and simply don't buy into those opinions - and that's all you've cited, opinions - not any real evidence of guilt. I have my own opinions, formed after years of research and my 25 years' experience working with teenagers (and you can discount that all you wish, but you can't provide a comparable source of reasoning that proves guilt) which tell me the three convicted young men are innocent.
If your best "evidence" is "True Romance," that tells me all I need to know about you!
JM has maintained his innocence since he spoke with his father right after the infamous "second confession" except for the Alford plea on 8/19/11 in which he maintained his innocence as well. As to BL, he is as mentally challenged as JM, and I'm sure you know that there are depositions implicating BL in these murders. Neither BL nor JM can tell a coherent story without prompting. It is indicative of their mental challenges.
When citing his original statement to police, you fail to include that JM's initial statement (not the recorded one, BTW) implicated someone else! The police manipulated him into naming JB and DE. If you don't see that, I'll never convince you otherwise, and you'll never convince me that the police didn't manipulate (or coerce) JM's initial statement - and the "corrected" version later that same day.
All JM, Senior said was that JM, Jr. "could have been with them." He didn't implicate JM, Jr. and has always supported his son's innocence. Frankly, JM, Sr. isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, either, and could have easily been confused by the media attention.
When JM "confessed to his own attorneys eight days later" it was a result of JM misunderstanding that DS and RW were there to help him. Again, JM was attempting to "please" an authority figure by saying what he thought they wanted to hear. I've been the "authority figure" in similar circumstances, although they didn't involve murder, where a mentally challenged youth is spinning a yarn just to make the questioning stop. This happens. I've witnessed it. You can't make false what I've witnessed with my own eyes and ears!
Again, the Aug. 19, 1993 statements were given when JM still saw his attorneys as being "with the police." He simply tried to say what he'd been saying - again his sole purpose was to get out of the hot seat. Unless one has worked with the mentally challenged, one might not believe how this can happen, but it can - and often does.
The police car "confession" is ridiculous. Again, if it happened (and I don't put it past those cops to make it up), it was just another example of JM trying to stop the questioning. Yeah, I know that the cops said it was spontaneous - but I don't believe them. Period. It makes much more sense for them to be questioning him about the trial than for him to just spontaneously "confess" again!
The "hand on the Bible" statement, like every other statement he has made, is full of errors. (For example, he didn't even recognize a police sketch of the area!) It was prompted by DS throughout because DS was told that JM wanted to make a statement. DS didn't want to be charged with suborning perjury, but he didn't believe JM was telling the truth. In the end, DS was able to convince JM not to make a statement to LE on that day. But, nine days later . . .
This brings us to the "second confession." Although LE denies it, I'm convinced (because JM told DS and DS reported it, but Judge Burnett did nothing) that there was intense pressure (yes, even "coercion") involved here, as well. Additionally, JM's statement even after sitting through the trial was still error-ridden! In fact, none of the statements JM has made match the actual facts and evidence of the case. So, these statements are worthless!
As to the "jailhouse snitch," anything he told prosecutors he could have gleaned from news reports about the trial. Also, in case you didn't know (because NONsites seldom mention it), the fiber evidence has been debunked. Of course, this happened years later, and it seems to me that most NONs are stuck in 1994 or before and fail to accept facts and information that have come out since then - except to trumpet, "They plead guilty in the Alford pleas" while failing to mention that they also maintained their innocence. Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?
Bottom line as to all the JM statements: After talking with his father (who told him to "tell the truth"), JM refused to testify against DE and JB. Period.
BTW, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
