Common Ground

Although I agree with your basic premise, the interrogation of a suspect, when recorded, is recorded with full disclosure to the person being recorded. IMO, it's not the same thing as the government (or anyone) secretly recording my phone conversations or reading my emails. IIRC, that is illegal - and should be!

i agree with you CR. almost all patrol cars contain audio and video recording devices these days which have proven to be protective of the actual truth.
 
Although I agree with your basic premise, the interrogation of a suspect, when recorded, is recorded with full disclosure to the person being recorded.
Sure, but Misskelley wasn't even a suspect until he said he witnessed the murders, and which point they arrested him and asked his permission to record a statement. Furthermore, if a person prefers to talk to police without being recorded, suspect or otherwise, I contend they have the right to do so, and wouldn't want to see a law depriving people of that right.
 
I think we can all agree that WMP should have interviewed all the parents.

Agreed, and related to this one they should have searched all three childrens' homes for exclusionary fibres.
 
They should have made a bigger effort to find Mr Bojangles too!
 
Police should have secured the area upon discovery of the boys bodies and called in a forensic unit.

Officers walking around the scene in plain clothes is, (I guess) excusable until then, but all those clothes should have been bagged at the scene so that fibres from them could be matched and ruled out from others collected.
 
The entire Robin Hood Hills area should have been searched with a forensic search unit.

ETA: Oops I just realised I've veered the thread off topic, we were supposed to be coming up with facts we agree on :blushing:
 
MGN, thank you so much for this thread! What a helpful idea. It's truly wonderful to be able to just discuss and explore this case without all the distractions!
 
i agree with you CR. almost all patrol cars contain audio and video recording devices these days which have proven to be protective of the actual truth.

In this day and age of smart phones, if LE isn't recording it, I would politely inform LE that I was going to record any interaction.
 
I don't agree with all the "the police" should've done claims, as I respect the fact that the murders were far from the only crimes the cops had to deal with, and that they have limited resources by which to accomplish such tasks. Given those circumstances, I contend the WMPD did a respectable job, aside from their handling of the crime scene that is.
 
If their resources were too limited for all the required tasks they should have availed themselves of all the help on offer from other LE agencies.
 
Hi Kyleb .. this is really just a place to list things we all agree on .. debates can be taken off this thread onto relevant ones .. really determined that we don't get into the nitty gritty here .. This is a thread to find common ground ..
Bumping this, because it is being ignored and the thread is turning into another debate thread.
 
they should have availed themselves of all the help on offer from other LE agencies.
What offers did they from other agencies did they not avail themselves of specifically?

the thread is turning into another debate thread.
I'm started my disagreements as requested:

if something gets posted someone doesn't agree with pipe up?
I can't stop people from contesting my disagreement, and I'm going to ask for details on such arguments when they are lacking.
 
Did WMP interview any of the parents/extended family of the 3 boys?

Yes. They interviewed JMB and all three mothers. They ascertained (I believe through Dana) that Todd Moore was out of town on May 5, 1993. In short, they interviewed, at least informally, everyone except Terry Hobbs and Todd Moore. The one that stands out is Hobbs. The notes indicate that they tried several times to interview him, but he was never at home. Apparently, they just gave up!
 
I don't agree with all the "the police" should've done claims, as I respect the fact that the murders were far from the only crimes the cops had to deal with, and that they have limited resources by which to accomplish such tasks. Given those circumstances, I contend the WMPD did a respectable job, aside from their handling of the crime scene that is.

I truly understand LE has a difficult job and this is far from their only case. However, beside the crime scene, not interviewing all of the family members immediately is pretty glaring as well. One of the reasons I feel they got a bit of tunnel vision a bit early on.
 
Long time lurker on this thread, first time posting about WM3. I happened to come across PL3 on HBO last week and it really got me to thinking. I think(hope) we can all agree that the (expert) who got his credentials through mail order is a little absurd and they let him testify.
 
Long time lurker on this thread, first time posting about WM3. I happened to come across PL3 on HBO last week and it really got me to thinking. I think(hope) we can all agree that the (expert) who got his credentials through mail order is a little absurd and they let him testify.

Yep. Good ol' Burnett, hard at work. His justification of that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Basically, he said that you don't need an education to be an expert.:floorlaugh:
 
Yep. Good ol' Burnett, hard at work. His justification of that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Basically, he said that you don't need an education to be an expert.:floorlaugh:

I couldn't believe it! At first a few years ago I thought they were guilty. Now I have changed my mind. They most certainly had tunnel vision and somebody(anybody) was going to pay for this crime, IMO, that's has WMPD felt. I really felt bad for JB during the interview on PL3. You could tell he had been through so much and is truely innocent, IMO


Also, are we on common ground that the boys were killed in the woods? I feel like they were.
 
Yep. Good ol' Burnett, hard at work. His justification of that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Basically, he said that you don't need an education to be an expert.:floorlaugh:

But then turned around and questioned Ofshe's credentials.
 
I think(hope) we can all agree that the (expert) who got his credentials through mail order is a little absurd and they let him testify.
Griffis' mail order degrees weren't the credentials that got him on the stand, but rather his experience as a police officer and consultant on the investigation of occult related crimes. That said, his testimony was underwhelming to say the least. The prosecution would've been negligent to ignore issue of motive though, and they apparently were unable to find a better witness to qualify as an expert in regard to Echols' interest in the occult than Griffis.

But then turned around and questioned Ofshe's credentials.
No, they questioned Ofshe's claims and practices.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
639
Total visitors
801

Forum statistics

Threads
627,063
Messages
18,537,183
Members
241,171
Latest member
justicefornoah
Back
Top