Nobody can play the straight man for as long as they did in prison without telling a soul unless you are truly embedded with Satan. And I don't believe he walks with us. I believe that it is the work of a long haul trucker.
WM3 are guilty- Evidence.
- Thread starter Rebdot
- Start date
I saw the HBO special when it first aired back in the 90s and followed it thru out. It was always my assertion that it was a highway killer. Sometimes it's the outlier statistic. I know the numbers always point to proximity and family but when does the flipside of the stat have meaning.
Exploring the highway and long haul is all we have left now. We should consider this thought exercise as true sleuths. For example, is there an underground of long hualers that communicate via Cb radio that use the freeways and truck stops, gas stations as hunting grounds. If we believe this crime had one or more people involved then it is possible this could be the case.
I do not know but I have read that soldiers and police officers that have killed someone in the line of duty have serious PTSD and live a life of hard time afterwards. These are mature men that have issues with taking a life in some cases up close or in others at a distance. Now take for example the THREE. These were three young teenagers who supposedly took those lives in a brutal and savage way who seem to have no struggle with it later while maintaining a level of innocence. POWs probably would have a hard time maintaining that kind of intgrity. The most seasoned mature killers probably have had experience with keeping secrets and hiding it. Now all of a sudden these three kids from nowhere have been able to pull off the caper of the century. I don't see it. If DE was this so called mastermind or savant, he probably didn't need the other two. Or better yet why pick a <modsnip> as an accomplice. I just don't see it. WHY lure three when one would have been easier. Why three. Alot has to happen for that to fall into place and I just don't see three teenagers, actually two and half teenagers, pulling that kind of planning and cover-up off. Not buying it.
The reason I am on this long hauler trip is last night I saw the episode of The Killing Season where they started pinning the map with red along freeway routes. I know that the i-55 runs the Mississippi north and south and the i-40 east west. West all the way to California. I would explore Truck terminals near water features and look for similar kill profiles. The bayou made a perfect place to wash away evidence. Part of me always felt the kids were over at that the truck wash and witnessed something or came to creek and happened upon something already in progress. It would have been real easy to back a long bed truck up to that area and head down there for what ever. Plus it was a truck wash, also easy to clean up or clean out the truck. I imagine that the long hauler still frequents the area and recalls his Blue Beacon experience. That whole area there is now just one big service loop for trucks. Blue Beacon relocated just east down the freeway.
D
Deleted member 185742
Guest
[video=youtube;NKnGYZfuBBQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ[/video]
paradise lost deleted scene
paradise lost deleted scene
Planted by the same people in charge of the 9/11 hoax no doubt.
Not sure if you're saying I'm a supporter or not. If so, I can tell you I am not. I have no idea if the 3 convicted did it or not. I can tell you that the investigation and trial were severely flawed. It was corrupt people who pushed through a conviction in a corrupt system. And yes, the manner in which the supposed confessions were had were flawed as well. I personally don't see anything in the evidence that makes me think these 3 are any more guilty than a number of other people. In fact, I do think that the evidence known would justify a further investigation of others before these 3. BUT that doesn't mean these 3 didn't do it.
The difference is mine isn't opinion. You can google it yourself but there are countless cases where confessions have been tossed out as coercive. There is plenty of literature also confirming it. You can continue to blindly believe what you want because it makes you feel better. I lose no sleep either way.
Overwhelming yet you keep referring only to the confession. Not so overwhelming. Got anything else? As for exculpatory evidence, I suggest you read https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/432/case.html
Now you're being obtuse.
It was VERY possible to have been coerced. They simply met him off the books and said "You wanna see Daddy and Suzie again RIGHT?" Jessie being drunk raises more problems. They could NOT have cleaned up the scene if they were drunk.
Real cops have done MUCH worse, and given that they tried to move him without telling his attorney's you'd have to be an idiot to think they wouldn't have tried again (especially since the police admitted they needed Jessie's confession or else the chances of convicting Damian became lower)
Crazyeddie
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2017
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
Rubbish. I've cleaned the **** out of many brutal messes whilst intoxicated. There was also rain that would've washed evidence away.
Supporters big "gotcha" is that they didn't find the WM3's DNA at the crime scene. They didn't find any significant DNA at the crime scene. So the WM3 were utterly incapable of cleaning up the crime scene, but the real killer was? Please.
Jessie's confessions. Many. Over and over. Some post conviction. After his own attorney begged him not to. How do you "coerce" a person time and time again to confess to something they didn't do? How do you get an already convicted person to keep confessing from behind bars? You can't. They confess over and over again, both pre and post conviction, and against the begging wishes of their attorney - IF THEY'RE GUILTY.
"Got anything else?" Yeah - it's all in the trial transcripts and the 500. I don't bother copying pasting them here anymore because supporters just completely dismiss them.
Show me precedence where an innocent person has confessed many, many, many times, kept confessing AFTER they were found guilty, and kept confessing even though their own defense lawyer begged them not to. You won't find any - because that doesn't happen in real life. One false confession? Sure. Many? Some after conviction? Nope.
"Not so overwhelming". That's funny. All those confessions are the epitome of "overwhelming". The reason I keep bringing them up? Because they are collectively extremely compelling evidence, and because supporters constantly bring them up and dismiss them. It's insane.
flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,788
It is incredibly offensive to refer to people with intellectual disabilities as "retards" and "half a person." Reading that makes any valid points get overlooked.
Again, you ignore what I said.
Please. There was VERY little rain that week. A drizzle at most.
Secondly, the fact that there was very little blood there proves it WASN'T a kill site. It was a dump site. Also
probability means that it WAS David and Terry who were there that night. THEY left DNA behind (and no the "transfer" theory is a load of horseshit.)
Finally, I WAS SPEAKING OF THE BIBLE CONFESSION WHEN I SAID THEY MET HIM OFF THE BOOKS. They told him he could see Daddy and Suzie again if he cooperated, they convinced him his attorney's couldn't help him and then persuaded Jessie to tell them what they wanted.
I'll say it again. You have no clue dealing with handicapped people. They often need to be told multiple times NOT to say things just because authority figures want them to and even then they don't get the hint. If Jessie thought Stidham worked for the state (which for someone of Jessie's low intellect was all to believable) he may have sincerely thought Stidham WANTED him to confess. The post conviction confessions are even less plausible.
I mentioned that they met with Jessie off the books and offered to let him see Daddy and Suzie again. They did this after trying to move him. If Jessie thought his attorney's couldn't help him and was desperate it would have been CHILD'S play to manipulate Jessie into saying what they wanted despite his attorney's. Jessie simply thought his attorney's couldn't help him so he went with the state.
David Perry Davis went into elaborate detail about how the confessions make no god damn sense, as has Jive. Even the "clarification" ones were ********, and no them being drunk is NOT sufficient.
http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessiePostConvictionStatement.htm
http://www.dpdlaw.com/jessieClarificationStatement.htm
http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_slide_presentation.html
Supporters dismiss them because they're a load of crap. They make no sense, get details wrong and require you to be an idiot to believe.
You clearly have no idea what "handicapped" means. Stop embarrassing yourself.
"Secondly, the fact that there was very little blood there proves it WASN'T a kill site. It was a dump site.". Oh, it "proves" it, does it? Well then, case closed! Lol.
Re: the bible confession - by your logic, one confession "off the books" negates all the other confessions. Take some logic 101 courses then get back to me.
Dear lord you're being obtuse.
One Jessie could NOT describe key details AT all. He couldn't describe the injuries weapons or location properly. The "excuse" that nons often give (that he was drunk) makes things even more complicated (since he would have, at night when it was pitch black and while drunk cleaned up numerous trace evidence, blood, foot prints, beer bottles, vomit and other evidence....while there were mosquitos everywhere.) Ted Bundy wouldn't have been able to pull it off and these are drunken *advertiser censored* teenagers. If you're really gullible enough to believe this I've got swampland in Florida to sell you.
Secondly, Jessie's alibi DOES hold up. 17 people (including people who didn't know him) give him an alibi, and the contract shows there WAS a practice that night. While one of the kids gets the payment date wrong the fact remains that the other players said Jessie was there each week. If anything him NOT being there would have stood out. Unfortunately teenagers in general have **** memories so the prosecution was able to bamboozle them.
Third, there ARE reasons Jessie would confess multiple times and be innocent. Contrary to what you think mentally handicapped people DO need to be told the same thing multiple times for it to stick (I've interacted with a few). Even if Jessie was told that Stidham didn't work for the state he'd still think otherwise unless it was drilled into his skull. Mentally handicapped people ALSO want to please authority so he may have thought Stidham WANTED him to confess.
Fourth, It WOULD have been possible for the bible confession to be coerced. Jessie had been convicted and wanted to see Daddy and Suzie again. The state, probably meeting him off the books, convinced him he could IF he did what they wanted and that his attorney's couldn't help him. If they turned him against his attorneys and convinced him it were in his interests to ignore them it would be child's play to manipulate him
By Jessie's account there was blood everywhere. For his story to make sense he and his friends would need to remove the blood (which becomes sticky) in a way that was not obvious (impossible in a drunken state) get the subtle areas while missing the most important one is nonsensical. There would have been far more.
2.) Except I discussed why they were all ********. That you have the reading comprehension of a turnip isn't my problem.