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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Planted evidence.
Don't bother. JM could still be confessing today, and supporters will completely disregard it.
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.
Nobody ever said the whiskey bottle on its own would convict them. It's one piece of a thousand that point to them. It is significant however in the context in which I brought it up.
The confessions had inconsistencies because he was blasted out of his mind. That happens to people when they're extremely intoxicated. You have to look at ALL of the evidence added all together - not pick each piece apart on its own. I take it you've read all of the info on Callahans? The full trial transcripts? Damien's psych records? Jessie's MULTIPLE confessions?
How do you explain the "Jessie was coerced" into confessing to murders, then KEPT ON CONFESSING, even after his lawyer begged him not to? How could he be "coerced" into lying about something that would put him in prison for murder, but couldn't be "coerced" into telling the "truth" by his own lawyer? Can you not see how that contradicts everything about it being a false confession?
The significance of the whiskey bottle is that it proves his confession had merit, along with all the other facts that lined up. Yes, there were minor inconsistencies in his confessions. But the consistencies far outweighed the inconsistencies, and the fact that he told (for the most part) the same story over and over, even after he had absolutely NO REASON to keep confessing, speaks volumes. If you ask me about a crazy, extremely drunken night, and I tell the story several times over to different people, there will be inconsistencies. Hell, even when you're sober you'll get things mixed up.
When you logically take the multiple confessions along with all the other evidence, their guilt is glaring.
Also, a lack of DNA at a crime scene is not exculpatory. It simply means they didn't leave DNA (totally possible) or that they didn't find DNA. And back in '93, the science wasn't nearly what it is now.
An innocent person simply does not admit to a crime over and over and over again. Once, under duress, OK - I'll give you that. But you must look at the MANY confessions, in context, and ask yourself, "why would he make a false confession because he was "scared" and "retarded" and "wanted to please", and then CONTINUE to make this false confession when he had ZERO reason to, and people in authority (to him) were saying "JESSIE - SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!"?
Nobody has been able to explain that. That's because it didn't happen.
This is exactly how I see it.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.
Rubbish. I've cleaned the **** out of many brutal messes whilst intoxicated. There was also rain that would've washed evidence away.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)
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
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.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 *advertiser censored* 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.