WM3 are guilty- Evidence.

[LordYAM]

Another thing;

Jessie had just been convicted. He was panicked and scared. If the state met with him a few times they could have easily tried to manipulate him. The problem is that he wouldn't have necessarily "just confessed". Dan had a rapport with him (as seen when Dan ultimately persuaded him not to testify on the 8th); so the state needed to destroy that (hence the "dan can't help you", limiting the time they had together).

Unfortunately Jesse's conscience won out; after talking to his daddy he realized he couldn't doom two other people. He also realized the state was lying to him. So it's a simple matter.

<modsnip>

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I have watched all three documentaries and various news stories on WM3. I have also read a book too - I think it was Damien's. I find the case extremely interesting. Yes, I was/am swayed by the HBO documentary. It does seem that they were railroaded. There are so many unanswered questions in watching the films. I think it odd that celebrities took up this case and as another poster mentioned, why didn't they use their resources/money to do something about finding out the truth? It's hard for me to believe that JLM was doing anything in his confession but just saying whatever he had to so he could go home. After all these years, Jason seems to be the most creditable of the three, especially in court when they agreed to the Alford plea. I wonder if one of them confessed now to anything, does the Alford plea protect them from being prosecuted twice for the same crime? And is this an ongoing case for WMPD?
Sorry if I am repeating anything already posted or am ignorant in the discussion.

The problem as I understand it is, there has to be legal permission for evidence testing to be done. The state considers this case closed thanks to the "guilty" Alford plea. So they would essentially be spending time and money requesting evidence testing only to have it denied because "the case is closed."

 

[Userid]

Another thing;

Jessie had just been convicted. He was panicked and scared. If the state met with him a few times they could have easily tried to manipulate him. The problem is that he wouldn't have necessarily "just confessed". Dan had a rapport with him (as seen when Dan ultimately persuaded him not to testify on the 8th); so the state needed to destroy that (hence the "dan can't help you", limiting the time they had together).

Unfortunately Jesse's conscience won out; after talking to his daddy he realized he couldn't doom two other people. He also realized the state was lying to him. So it's a simple matter.

<modsnip>

I don't necessarily "cling" to it, but I don't outright dismiss the fact the one, two, or all of them could be guilty.

I don't think it was a ritual murder either, actually. I think it could have been a bullying-gone-wrong scenario.

Law enforcement can be dirty. It can also be incompetent. There's a difference, which you seem to fail to grasp here.

Lastly, all you do is name call and label people. I've never seen a supporter or a non as thin-skinned as you. I sincerely hope you are still a teenager.

 

[Userid]

The problem as I understand it is, there has to be legal permission for evidence testing to be done. The state considers this case closed thanks to the "guilty" Alford plea. So they would essentially be spending time and money requesting evidence testing only to have it denied because "the case is closed."

The case was considered "closed" for decades though. That didn't stop the new Defense lawyers from accessing evidence and testing in 2007. The State has no use to do so -- yes -- but the Defense still could (just as they did when the 3 were locked up), if their clients wanted. I wouldn't necessarily blame the WM3 if they didn't, though.

On the flip side, when parents of the victims requested seeing the clothes/bikes of the victims a few years ago (after the WM3 were released via Alford), they were denied because the court had told them it was still open, so who the heck knows.

 

[Userid]

Wrong actually. Not only did Jessie stop confessing after Dan directly confronted him on it in September, but Dan was able to talk Jessie into NOT testifying on feb 8th (hence why the state purposefully limited how much time they had together) even though he wasn't all that good a manipulator. They just had to trick him into thinking Dan couldn't help him and it would be downright easy given time. He wouldn't just sing at the drop of a hat but he would be far more vulnerable.

Also, there's the fact that the state contacted Dan and Greg on the 8th of February with the claim Jessie wanted to make a statement. Anyone who REALLY thinks that there wasn't some alone time between Jessie and the prosecutors is being downright naive. Same with the "prison transfers happen all the time." Why would they do so WITHOUT informing the defense's own attorney? Considering that Dan had thwarted the previous attempt to get Jessie to testify you'd have to be a complete idiot not to consider that the move was to limit Dan being able to intervene (same reason they only gave Dan a few minutes on the 22nd. They realized Dan could have talked Jessie out of it and didn't want him to **** up their plan.)

We only have the policemen's word on what Jessie said and given the "good ol boys" network down there I can easily buy them saying things like "you'll get the chair if you don't cooperate" or "you wanna see daddy again? right? Then maybe you should cooperate." Jessie wasn't quite the person who would do it at the drop of a hat but he was weak enough that if you applied pressure he could easily break.

As for why he ultimately didn't, that's easy. After he talked with his father and thought it over he realized that the prosecutors were lying to him and that he didn't want to take part in a lie. Given that NONE of the clarification statements were correct and the state's "he was drunk" theory is utter horseshit (he'd have to clean up blood vomit beer bottles footprints upturned grass and fingerprints at night while drunk while mosquitos were out without leaving anything behind and the whiskey bottle was ultimately a worthless red herring) no. Jessie's confessions were garbage.

The nons can't afford for them to be false. Without them, they've got jack.

Ellington admitted point blank that the "ritual murder" theory is horseshit and that the state would have lost when it came to a trial. That's why he took the deal. To avoid getting slaughtered in court.

^ Well, that's convenient. Dan was able to manipulate him, but not manipulate him all the way, and only at certain points after JM had already confessed a plethora of times. Okie-dokie, I guess.

And no, I'm not wrong. See the bible confession. Given after JM was already convicted, and against the extreme and recorded behest of Stidham. If you think JM also wasn't "directly confronted" by Stidham before the actual recorded confession, you're dreaming. Stidham would have surely said, "I'ld like a minute alone with my client" at some point before the recorded session.

To answer your questions, because JM himself requested the meetings. And also, again, prison transfers are common and are due to a plethora of reasons, such as over-crowding, etc. It isn't the prosecution who is behind it 100% of the time, but the facility itself. Supporters just like to assume the evil prosecutors ordered it when there is zero proof of that; and supporters like to lump in the prosecutors with being in cahoots with the holding facility, and the WMPD, and Judge Burnett, and Peretti, and TH, and pretty much anyone else you can think of -- with no proof. It's comical, really.

Also, I guess his father wasn't communicating with him at all during the multiple confessions he gave after being convicted? He only communicated with him when prosecutors approached him with a deal in exchange for his testimony against JB and DE? Wonder why JM would listen to his father then, but not any other single time he talked to his father beforehand. Same with his lawyer. Sorry, that doesn't wash.

And the Alford Plea works both ways. Let's not forget that it wasn't Ellington who approached the WM3 with that plea; it was the other way around. He would have gone to trial if the WM3 never approached with that plea, but supporters love to ignore that.

 

[LordYAM]

First of all Dan DID get Jessie to stop confessing for a good 6 months; it wasn't until after Jessie was convicted that he confessed again, and given that Dan had just failed to keep Jessie out of prison it would not necessarily be hard for prosecutors to try and turn Jessie against Dan. Secondly, despite the "bible confession" (which was itself riddled with holes and inexplicable) Jessie DIDN'T actually give testimony that day; Dan talked him out of a formal statement.

Jessie was under a ton of pressure repeatedly, and being convicted (and thus fearing death) made it even worse.

THAT'S why I'm suspicious of the transfer. Dan had already talked Jessie out of a formal statement so they would have seen him as an obstacle. Moving without telling would have given them the time needed to meet with Jessie and get him to agree.

The thing that really seals it is that on the 22nd they gave Dan FAR less time to talk with his client than before. That implies they did make a concerted effort to turn Jessie against him and dupe him into thinking Dan couldn't help him.

As for his dad....he actually DIDN'T get to talk to him until after the final confession. After that Jessie shut his mouth

 

[Userid]

First of all Dan DID get Jessie to stop confessing for a good 6 months; it wasn't until after Jessie was convicted that he confessed again, and given that Dan had just failed to keep Jessie out of prison it would not necessarily be hard for prosecutors to try and turn Jessie against Dan. Secondly, despite the "bible confession" (which was itself riddled with holes and inexplicable) Jessie DIDN'T actually give testimony that day; Dan talked him out of a formal statement.

Jessie was under a ton of pressure repeatedly, and being convicted (and thus fearing death) made it even worse.

THAT'S why I'm suspicious of the transfer. Dan had already talked Jessie out of a formal statement so they would have seen him as an obstacle. Moving without telling would have given them the time needed to meet with Jessie and get him to agree.

The thing that really seals it is that on the 22nd they gave Dan FAR less time to talk with his client than before. That implies they did make a concerted effort to turn Jessie against him and dupe him into thinking Dan couldn't help him.

As for his dad....he actually DIDN'T get to talk to him until after the final confession. After that Jessie shut his mouth

Quite honestly, I'm utterly stunned when you say that JM "actually DIDN'T get to talk" to his father. His father and his family were allowed regular visitation throughout the time he was incarcerated. His father states himself that he was visiting JM regularly. We hear JM in taped phone recordings talking to his various members of his family, including his GF at the time, Susie B, as we've all seen in Paradise Lost 1. So, for you to say that, honestly blows my mind. If you're suggesting that JM didn't get to talk to his father from the time he was convicted until the time after he gave his last confession, I'd ask how you could possibly know that and I'd ask what your source is for that.

Second, your "feeling" of suspicion that there was something sketchy about the prison transfer is just as vaild as the "feeling" by others that there wasn't. Both are mere "feelings."

 

[LordYAM]

Quite honestly, I'm utterly stunned when you say that JM "actually DIDN'T get to talk" to his father. His father and his family were allowed regular visitation throughout the time he was incarcerated. His father states himself that he was visiting JM regularly. We hear JM in taped phone recordings talking to his various members of his family, including his GF at the time, Susie B, as we've all seen in Paradise Lost 1. So, for you to say that, honestly blows my mind. If you're suggesting that JM didn't get to talk to his father from the time he was convicted until the time after he gave his last confession, I'd ask how you could possibly know that and I'd ask what your source is for that.

Second, your "feeling" of suspicion that there was something sketchy about the prison transfer is just as vaild as the "feeling" by others that there wasn't. Both are mere "feelings."

I'll concede Jessie had some contact with his dad but you still cowardly ignored that a.) Jessie only resumed confessing after he'd been convicted and b.) that it's not just mere feelings. I provided supporting evidence to buttress my guess (that they limited Jessie's time with Dan, only moved him after their first attempt to get a statement ended in failure). The kid WOULD have been under pressure and scared out of his mind. If they convinced him Dan couldn't help him it would be easy. And given that Dan was able to talk him out of it first it's safe to say they went to town on Jessie

 

[Userid]

I'll concede Jessie had some contact with his dad but you still cowardly ignored that a.) Jessie only resumed confessing after he'd been convicted and b.) that it's not just mere feelings. I provided supporting evidence to buttress my guess (that they limited Jessie's time with Dan, only moved him after their first attempt to get a statement ended in failure). The kid WOULD have been under pressure and scared out of his mind. If they convinced him Dan couldn't help him it would be easy. And given that Dan was able to talk him out of it first it's safe to say they went to town on Jessie

Guess you wouldn’t be you if you could discuss a topic without resorting to labels and name-calling. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t address every single one of your points. You’ve also (I’ll refrain from the cute “cowardly” label you used for me, since I can actually handle a difference of opinion) ignored many of my points, like how it was Ellington who introduced the Alford Plea to the defense and not the other way around.

The fact JM “resumed” confessing after being convicted doesn’t at all prove your theory all the same, sorry.

Also, you didn’t really provide any concrete sources at all. You “feel” as though there was foul play on the prosecutors. You’ve “proven” zero. It can’t be proven either way, in all honesty.

 

[LordYAM]

Uh....no. You ignore the context of Jessie's confessions (he had a desire to please authority early on, and later on he was under pressure and purposefully cut off from his defense attorney; they were about as accurate as David Duke's ramblings on black people). My assertion about Dan is NOT easy to counter; hell the fact Dan had a long talk that got him to be quiet proves that THAT was why he was quiet in the trial. Dan had gotten through to him.

You ignore that the police REFUSED to videotape key moments (the "clarification statement", most of the interrogation prior to confessing") or that the "transfer" was NOT innocent (if you really think that it's okay to keep the defense out of the loop you obviously are okay with misconduct. Ellington was NOT willing to take it to trial; he admitted point blank he would have lost when it came down to it. And the defense had a reason to offer it. They knew the state would drag things out for possibly two or three years and they were sick of it.

My "trolling" was establishing that nons rely on outright garbage to support their theories. When examined they crumble.

 

[LordYAM]

I've been on wm3truth. In one article even a non condemned his logic on one area, and the others rely on dishonesty and stupidity.

At this point the only people who truly think them guilty are cop apologists.

 

[Userid]

If nons are cop apologists, supporters are conspiracy theorists. Where do these stupid labels you love to use get us? Nowhere. And you're conflating this into something it's not by tacking on what's become an epidemic in this country (unjust cop shootings) with this case, when one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

I'm waiting for concrete sources to back up your claims that the transfer can be proven as "sinister," amongst other things. You only have your conjecture; if that works for you, that's fine.

Lastly, you're flat out wrong about Ellington. The defense approached him with the Alford Plea. He would have gone to trial if the defense never approached him; he admits this in one of the video interviews. He was saying it certainly would have been an uphill battle for him for a plethora of reasons (some of which I've already outlined), but he would have pressed on.

It is possible (for some, anyway) to discuss the case without trolling. It seems like you just can't handle at least trying to be civil about it, so it's kind of pointless in discussing it at all with you.

 

[LordYAM]

Except that's not really true. Ellington admitted that he would have been beaten; certainly the "ritual murder" theory wouldn't have flown. And the defense could have chosen an alford plea for reasons that had nothing to do with a weak case.

There have been MANY Cases where the state has tried to defend the verdict LONG after their key evidence crumbled (Clarence Brandley for instance. In 1987 a conservative appeals judge gave him a new trial AND publicly called the police and prosecutors liars and racists. It took 2 years for Brandley's appeal to be granted and another year before the supreme court turned down the state's request to block a new trial). Even if the three HAD won the hearing they would have had to endure probably 2 years worth of the state obstructing things.

Also, Kent Arnold broke the law when he introduced the confession. THAT ALONE should have resulted in the verdict getting thrown out yet it wasn't. At this point they had every reason to suspect the state would drag this nonsense out.

The reason I dismissed the transfer was because they could have EASILY told Dan "hey we're moving you're client." They didn't. Notably this was AFTER their first attempt to get Jessie to give a statement ended in failure in large part thanks to dan talking him out of it. THAT is why I believe there was something fishy. They neglect to tell the lawyer something very easy....and oh look the lawyer had previously rumbled their attempt to get testimony.

Do the math.

 

[Userid]

Except that's not really true. Ellington admitted that he would have been beaten; certainly the "ritual murder" theory wouldn't have flown. And the defense could have chosen an alford plea for reasons that had nothing to do with a weak case.

There have been MANY Cases where the state has tried to defend the verdict LONG after their key evidence crumbled (Clarence Brandley for instance. In 1987 a conservative appeals judge gave him a new trial AND publicly called the police and prosecutors liars and racists. It took 2 years for Brandley's appeal to be granted and another year before the supreme court turned down the state's request to block a new trial). Even if the three HAD won the hearing they would have had to endure probably 2 years worth of the state obstructing things.

Also, Kent Arnold broke the law when he introduced the confession. THAT ALONE should have resulted in the verdict getting thrown out yet it wasn't. At this point they had every reason to suspect the state would drag this nonsense out.

The reason I dismissed the transfer was because they could have EASILY told Dan "hey we're moving you're client." They didn't. Notably this was AFTER their first attempt to get Jessie to give a statement ended in failure in large part thanks to dan talking him out of it. THAT is why I believe there was something fishy. They neglect to tell the lawyer something very easy....and oh look the lawyer had previously rumbled their attempt to get testimony.

Do the math.

That happens, though, with transfers. It isn't unprecedented. I get why you think there was some sinister plot to move him without telling his lawyers, but again, there is nothing that definitively proves there was anything sinister there.

Yes, Arnold broke the law and the three should have never been convicted based on the JM's confessions, agree there. That was despicable.

You interpret what Ellington says one way, I interpret it another. To me, he was saying, it would have been an uphill, but he would have pressed on, had the defense never approached with the Alford Plea. He "wasn't looking forward" to pressing on, but he would have. There's honestly no point arguing which side benefited more, because they both benefited equally. If the Defense thought their case was rock-solid, they wouldn't have entertained the Alford Plea; and vice-versa (the prosecution would have never accepted the Alford plea, if their case was rock-solid). So the WM3 get to be technically free (I stress, technically), while the prosecution gets the snap-back-to-jail for any of them for simply sneezing wrong, considering they're still technically guilty. The end.

 

[Troyce]

The End.

 

[Indy55]

Userid and LordYAM- I am genuinely curious about the prison transfer debate, this may be common knowledge to most, but what exactly is the transfer you are both referring to? A transfer between detention facilities prior to conviction or a transfer between correctional facilities post conviction? Anyone happen to recall date and facility names?

 

[LordYAM]

Okay. On Feb 8th Jessie contacted his attorneys to allegedly confess. He gave a big dramatic show of putting his hand on the bible and saying "I want something done about it." After talking things over with his attorney Dan Stidham he ultimately decided to not testify against Damian and Jason. Shortly afterwards (I think it was the 17th) Dan found out on the news that Jessie was being moved to another facility. This was the first he heard about it so he called Judge Burnett in the evening and got him to stop the transfer. On February 24th thereabouts Jessie was asked to give another statement. THIS time Dan was limited in how much time he spent with Jessie and in audio recordings Jessie comes across as hostile to his own attorney. I've seen some claim that Crow was informed but I honestly doubt it. The timing (only moving him AFTER his attorney had persuaded him not to testify against his friends) and the fact that they tried to keep Stidham in the dark implies to me that they had sinister reasons (wanting to talk to him without a lawyer, which is generally unethical.)

Many supporters believe that the reason Stidham was not informed was because they saw him as an obstacle to getting Jessie to testify against Damian and Jason (the prosecutor admitted that their case was weakened without it and in fact a reason they were convicted was because Kent Arnold illegally leaked the confession during the deliberation process). They also think the state used the opportunity to try and coerce Jessie (i.e. imply he'd burn in hell if he refused, saying he could see his daddy and girlfriend again, and that Dan couldn't help him.)

Even with the alleged police car confession we have naught but the state's word for what was said. They could have easily done something like say "you know it could be easier for you if you testify. Maybe you won't die. Or you can see daddy again."

The reason being is that even by dirty cop standards that's pretty disgusting (not as bad as the stuff Jon Burge did but pretty bad nonetheless)

 

[Userid]

Userid and LordYAM- I am genuinely curious about the prison transfer debate, this may be common knowledge to most, but what exactly is the transfer you are both referring to? A transfer between detention facilities prior to conviction or a transfer between correctional facilities post conviction? Anyone happen to recall date and facility names?

To directly answer your question:

The transfer occurred after he had already been convicted (which again, is beyond common, after a prisoner has been convicted). He was convicted on February 4th, and transferred to another facility soon after. See link below.

The whole theory that the prosecution would have to transfer JM to "isolate" him doesn't make sense, in reality. It's not like his lawyers were in the jail with him 24 hours a day at the facility prior. It's a red herring. If they wanted to get him alone, they wouldn't have had to have gone to the trouble to transfer him.

http://cleminfostrategies.com/whats-the-difference-between-prison-and-jail/

 

[LordYAM]

Except that theory doesn't hold up. The prosecutors could have EASILY called and said "we want to transfer Jessie." They didn't do even that (Dan only learned from the evening news.) As said this was AFTER Dan talked Jessie out of testifying. THAT is why people are suspicious. If Dan was kept in the dark it would make it easier to talk to him alone without Dan knowing.

As said before they NEEDED the testimony. Had Kent Arnold not leaked it illegally they probably would have lost.

 

[Indy55]

Arkansas DOC, much like many DOCs, implements an intake or evaluation period for inmates in which eventual facility placement is determined based on the needs of the inmate and general facility statistics such as population and staff at that particular time. It is true that with a pending criminal trial for DE and JB, continued contact with counsel is certainly plausible, but with JM already convicted and serving sentence, the nexus between counsel's advice on JM testifying and counsel's necessity for continued access to JM was destroyed. JM's relationship with counsel was now relegated to "witness", not "defendant". Therefore, DOC's decision and protocol on inmate transfer would easily take precedence over any additional pending criminal proceedings in which JM was not facing charges. I don't disagree that this very well impacted the subsequent conviction of DE and JB, but there just doesn't appear to be strong evidence for the belief that this particular chain of events were the result of some sophisticated legal and psychological strategy on behalf of the prosecution. JM was convicted, sentenced, and entered the correctional system in the same manner as any other inmate. The widely held belief of "causation" here is nothing more than spurious correlation.