Misskelley's I.Q.

[Dysthymia]

Unless I am misreading this document, it appears that the WMPD did conduct a second luminal test in the area on the very next day. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_dsmith.html

As I understand Luminol testing was NOT legally allowed to be used in Arkansas back in 1994 when the trials were held. Judge Burnett allowed the defense to state “no blood was found at the crime scene” but the prosecution was not allowed to mention that blood was found by the luminol testing.

What is important about these tests is that they were conducted at a crime scene where 3 little boys were brutally murdered and there was evidence of blood in several (8)places, not just on the places where the detectives laid the little boy’s bodies as stated by you. http://callahan.8k.wn3/img/crimelab.html

No there wasn't.
Luminol testing is not able, on its own, to show the presence of blood. If you look at the list of things, apart from blood, which luminol reacts with, common sense should tell you that if you spray luminol around in any patch of woods you will get positive reactions, it doesn't mean there was ever blood there.

And its got nothing to do with Arkansas laws in 1993 either. It doesn't make any difference what Arkansas legally recognises, chemistry does not recognise luminol as a blood specific chemical.

These are "going around in a circle" arguments. The WMPD were at a crime scene where one of the children had been emasculated. They conducted luminol testing and it showed positive for blood. What kind of a stretch in logic does it take to assume that the substance revealed by the test is blood where a brutal crime had been committed?

Except it wasn't. There was plenty of DNA found at that crime scene, just none of it belonged to Jason, Damien or Jessie.

What plenty of DNA? The DNA that did NOT exclude the WM3?

The notion of blood evidence is a flight from fact on your part, (or more accurately on Blink's part, your mistake is to have believed her). I agree the crime scene wasn't all that clean though, plenty of evidence there, just none of it pointing in the direction you want it to.

My sites are from Callahan. Which is as impartial as one can get. And to be personal, I do not like being attacked by you for stating my opinions here (with links to where I obtained my information.) I never noticed that you do the same thing.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

"Unless I am misreading this document, it appears that the WMPD did conduct a second luminal test in the area on the very next day. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_dsmith.html

There is another agent (chemical) that they should have tested the scene with to be positive that the Luminol readings were actually blood and not rust or any of several other things that react to Luminol. Retesting with Luminol is meaningless. However, there's nothing wrong with testing with Luminol - as long as it is followed up with the other chemical. Basically, the Luminol is a preliminary test to see where to retest with the other chemical.

"As I understand Luminol testing was NOT legally allowed to be used in Arkansas back in 1994 when the trials were held. Judge Burnett allowed the defense to state 'no blood was found at the crime scene' but the prosecution was not allowed to mention that blood was found by the luminol testing."

There were a lot more things that Burnett didn't allow the defense to introduce than the prosecution. Read the pretrial hearings and you'll see what I mean. If the prosecution had wanted to introduce the supposed blood, then they should have ordered the WMPD to conduct the other tests. They were aware of the requirements. And, even if it were proven to be blood, IMO the amount is hardly indicative of the slashing attack by Jason that Jessie mentioned in at least one of his statements.

"What is important about these tests is that they were conducted at a crime scene where 3 little boys were brutally murdered and there was evidence of blood in several (8)places, not just on the places where the detectives laid the little boy’s bodies as stated by you. http://callahan.8k.wn3/img/crimelab.html"

The large areas (other than the spots where the detectives laid the bodies) were not in the immediate area where the crime supposedly occurred (according to Jessie's story). The few small spots that tested positive with Luminol (other than the places where the bodies were laid) that were in the general area of the ditch were most likely caused by careless tracking of blood by the officers. The only large areas of blood that could not be attributed to placing the bodies on the bank were removed from the immediate area, as I said before, and were more than likely caused by someone moving the bodies and placing them on the ground before arriving at the ditch.

"What kind of a stretch in logic does it take to assume that the substance revealed by the test is blood where a brutal crime had been committed?"

The problem with assumptions is that they can be false. If the WMPD had been thorough, they would have tested the indicated areas with the other chemical. Then we would have known for sure. However, even if the areas indicated by the Luminol are blood, there is no way to prove when or how the blood got there. If the Manhole Theory is correct, then the supposed blood revealed by Luminol could just as easily have gotten on the ground when the bodies were moved. It doesn't prove that Jessie's story is true or that the WMFree are guilty or even that the boys died on the ditch bank.

"What plenty of DNA? The DNA that did NOT exclude the WM3?"

No DNA that matches the WMFree has been reported. There was plenty of DNA, but it belonged to either the victims, Terry Hobbs, David Jacoby or some unknown males. However, the unknown males cannot be the WMFree. They have been excluded as donors to all DNA found and tested.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Unless I am misreading this document, it appears that the WMPD did conduct a second luminal test in the area on the very next day. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_dsmith.html

As I understand Luminol testing was NOT legally allowed to be used in Arkansas back in 1994 when the trials were held. Judge Burnett allowed the defense to state “no blood was found at the crime scene” but the prosecution was not allowed to mention that blood was found by the luminol testing.

What is important about these tests is that they were conducted at a crime scene where 3 little boys were brutally murdered and there was evidence of blood in several (8)places, not just on the places where the detectives laid the little boy’s bodies as stated by you. http://callahan.8k.wn3/img/crimelab.html

You are right there was plenty of evidence, but that seems to be something that supporter continually deny. They deny it because they have never done their own research and rely on books or movies to tell them the facts.

I have often thought that there was a possibility that the 'slicked off' bank could have been due to making a homemade mud slide. The only ones who really know that are on this earth and can speak are the WMGuilty, as the other three's voices have been silenced in a very cruel and evil manner.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You are right there was plenty of evidence, but that seems to be something that supporter continually deny. They deny it because they have never done their own research and rely on books or movies to tell them the facts.

Again, none of that evidence points to any of the WMFree. I've done plenty of research and read the trial transcripts and the pretrial hearing transcripts and the Rule 37 hearing transcripts and abstracts and the other documents on Callahan's, too, and I believe that the totality of the information there does not prove guilt. Since, in this country a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, IMO, these three men are innocent.

I have often thought that there was a possibility that the 'slicked off' bank could have been due to making a homemade mud slide. The only ones who really know that are on this earth and can speak are the WMGuilty, as the other three's voices have been silenced in a very cruel and evil manner.

That's an interesting theory. Maybe they could ask Aaron Hutchinson about it. He was a playmate of the three victims so he should know if the little boys made the area into a mudslide. I don't think that teenagers would be interested in making a mudslide. From what I know of teenagers as compared to eight-year-old boys, a mudslide is more likely to be of interest to the eight-year-old boys, don't you think?

 

[UdbCrzy2]

That's an interesting theory. Maybe they could ask Aaron Hutchinson about it. He was a playmate of the three victims so he should know if the little boys made the area into a mudslide. I don't think that teenagers would be interested in making a mudslide. From what I know of teenagers as compared to eight-year-old boys, a mudslide is more likely to be of interest to the eight-year-old boys, don't you think?

No, I think the water was too deep for those young boys to be playing in, but just the right depth for 3 gas huffing/tuleo heads to commit a horrible crime.

 

[Dysthymia]

There were a lot more things that Burnett didn't allow the defense to introduce than the prosecution. Read the pretrial hearings and you'll see what I mean.

As to the evidence that was not deemed admissable by Judge Burnett? I read a lot of people on the witness lists for each WM3 but I don't know to what you are referring?

If the prosecution had wanted to introduce the supposed blood, then they should have ordered the WMPD to conduct the other tests. They were aware of the requirements.

But there was no way the prosecution could have done that. The state of Arkansas did NOT allow any luminol tests introduced as evidence in trial. [/B]

No DNA that matches the WMFree has been reported. There was plenty of DNA, but it belonged to either the victims, Terry Hobbs, David Jacoby or some unknown males. However, the unknown males cannot be the WMFree. They have been excluded as donors to all DNA found and tested.

Wasn't there DNA evidence that did NOT exclude the WM3? "Hobbs' hair "was not positively identified as his. It was "similiar" to his. The other hair is only "similiar" to that of Mr. Jacoby's.

 

[Cappuccino]

Unless I am misreading this document, it appears that the WMPD did conduct a second luminal test in the area on the very next day.

It doesn't matter how many times they carried out luminol tests, the chemical is not blood specific and doesn't become any more so with repeated tests.

As I understand Luminol testing was NOT legally allowed to be used in Arkansas back in 1994 when the trials were held. Judge Burnett allowed the defense to state “no blood was found at the crime scene” but the prosecution was not allowed to mention that blood was found by the luminol testing.

That's because luminol can't "find" blood, it can only react positively in the presence of any substance containing iron, copper, or any compound of iron or copper. Its probative value is too low to be admitted as evidence of the presence of blood without follow up tests with blood specific chemicals. The prosecution could, of course, have ordered those tests but for some mysterious reason chose not to.

These are "going around in a circle" arguments. The WMPD were at a crime scene where one of the children had been emasculated. They conducted luminol testing and it showed positive for blood. What kind of a stretch in logic does it take to assume that the substance revealed by the test is blood where a brutal crime had been committed?

In the early days of the investigation the WMPD considered the theory that the place where the boys were found was a dump site, and not the murder scene. They discarded it in the face of Jessie's confession. But to test that soil with blood specific chemicals would be a very good way to put this whole argument about Jessie's confessions to rest, don't you think? You could easily verify or falsify his confession that way, but unfortunately it wasn't done.

What plenty of DNA? The DNA that did NOT exclude the WM3?

No, the plenty of DNA that did. Some of the biological samples collected failed to amplify and therefore couldn't yield any conclusive results. However, most of it amplified just fine and yielded conclusive results which excluded the wm3 as the source.

My sites are from Callahan. Which is as impartial as one can get. And to be personal, I do not like being attacked by you for stating my opinions here (with links to where I obtained my information.) I never noticed that you do the same thing.

It wasn't the Callahan's site which set you wrong on luminol, because that site has never made such a nonsensical claim. Its Blink who is currently spouting the misinformation that positive luminol results = presence of blood.

As for me posting links, I've posted the link about luminol so many times here I know the contents off by heart. Luminol reacts with blood, saliva, rust, potassium permanganate, vegetable enzymes, and animal proteins including urine and fecal matter.

http://www.enotes.com/luminol-reference/luminol

 

[Cappuccino]

No, I think the water was too deep for those young boys to be playing in, but just the right depth for 3 gas huffing/tuleo heads to commit a horrible crime.

The water was between 2 to 2 and a half foot deep. That's plenty shallow enough for three healthy 8 year old boys to be playing in.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No, I think the water was too deep for those young boys to be playing in, but just the right depth for 3 gas huffing/tuleo heads to commit a horrible crime.

However, the three teenagers didn't commit the crime. There is not one jot or tittle of evidence to support that assertion. Two jury verdicts don't support the assertion because juries can be wrong. (It's why we have an appeals system in this country.) Jessie's stories don't support that assertion because they are error-ridden. Nothing supports that assertion except the desire of the WMPD to solve the crime quickly which led to a sloppy investigation, a tainted jury and an unjust verdict.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

As to the evidence that was not deemed admissable by Judge Burnett? I read a lot of people on the witness lists for each WM3 but I don't know to what you are referring?

Witnesses give testimony, and testimony becomes evidence. So, when Burnett excluded witnesses, he excluded evidence. One example is Dr. Ofshe. His testimony was restricted so the jury didn't hear everything he could have told them. That's one example. There are others, and I'm sure you've see them, too.

But there was no way the prosecution could have done that. The state of Arkansas did NOT allow any luminol tests introduced as evidence in trial.

That's why the prosecution should have conducted further tests using a chemical that is blood specific. Luminol is not. Reusing it 100 times will not make it blood specific, either.

Wasn't there DNA evidence that did NOT exclude the WM3? "Hobbs' hair "was not positively identified as his. It was "similiar" to his. The other hair is only "similiar" to that of Mr. Jacoby's.

Both of those hairs, although not being positive for Hobbs or Jacoby, were positive about excluding the three defendants. (BTW, the Hobbs hair was a 97.5% match and the Jacoby hair was a 93% match. Pretty close, don't you think?) As another poster pointed out, there was some evidence that was not identified, but IIRC it was trace evidence that simply was inconclusive. I'm not sure, but I think that some of that evidence was retested in the recent round of testing (using newer methods) and the WMFree were excluded. The remaining inconclusive evidence is still a mystery AFAIK.

 

[Dysthymia]

It wasn't the Callahan's site which set you wrong on luminol, because that site has never made such a nonsensical claim. Its Blink who is currently spouting the misinformation that positive luminol results = presence of blood.

As for me posting links, I've posted the link about luminol so many times here I know the contents off by heart. Luminol reacts with blood, saliva, rust, potassium permanganate, vegetable enzymes, and animal proteins including urine and fecal matter.

http://www.enotes.com/luminol-reference/luminol

This discussion is about the crime investigation. I am speaking about the documents on Callahan which are the ones containing the information about the testing of luminol at the crime scene. (With links to the information.) Enote entries about luminol are not documents about the WMPD and their tests for blood at the crime scene. Which is the subject.

I said once before that you need to stop attacking me for my opinions. Everyone else is discussing this but you are attacking me. Stop it.

 

[Cappuccino]

I'm not attacking you at all, Dysthymia, I'm disagreeing with your assertion that a positive luminol test=presence of blood. Its all well and good for you to post links from Callahan's proving that luminol tests were done, but its a bit superfluous because I'm not disputing that.

The dispute is about the meaning of the test results. In order to discuss that accurately, we need to know the properties of luminol, so that we can assess whether or not a positive luminol reaction is indeed evidence of blood at the crime scene. Which is why I posted the above link. If you don't like the enotes link, here's another, slightly more detailed one...

http://www.tech-faq.com/luminol.html

ETA: Sorry if you felt attacked, none of my posts were meant that way. I'm just trying to argue the point, and I suppose if anything I was attacking Blink a bit, but not you.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The water was between 2 to 2 and a half foot deep. That's plenty shallow enough for three healthy 8 year old boys to be playing in.

Are you sure about that one or is that another one of your opinions you are giving as fact???



Ridge: Ok. This ditch was searched by me until I came to a point it was over my head in Ten Mile Bayou, in the same manner just as far as I could reach in the water uh - with my hands searching, uh - it was -

Fogleman: So you're saying that on exhibit 13 -

Ridge: Yes sir, on this exhibit, I actually came into the ditch in this area and started this search with the sweeping of my hand, searching for anything that was in the ditch. I got to about this area when it was too deep for me to reach and keep my head above the water and I just continued to search with my feet and just searching all the way til I got to near the Ten Mile Bayou, where it was over my head and I had to retreat. Uh - the search was continued in that we took sandbags and damned up the creek below where the bodies were found, below where the secondary creek that you could see that goes to the west and comes into the creek. It was damned off and - with sandbags. Above that area, where the bodies were found, was damned off with sandbags and all the water was pumped out of that area. Uh -

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/brynridge2.html

See, this is the truth, it was very deep and the water was drained as you can see by the testimony from the man who found the gruesome and horrid crime scene of 3-eight-year-old cub scouts murdered and found nude and bound and beaten to death.

 

[Cappuccino]

Are you sure about that one or is that another one of your opinions you are giving as fact???

Before I go any further in any discussion with you, which one of my opinions have I ever previously given as fact?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I'll be polite and say that Ridge misremembered the level of the water.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/exhibits/States_Exhibit_37A.jpg

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Before I go any further in any discussion with you, which one of my opinions have I ever previously given as fact?

Read just the post before this one about the water in the ditch. Is that your opinion or a fact. Sounds to me like you are giving a fact. Which is it???

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I'll be polite and say that Ridge misremembered the level of the water.

http://callahan.8k.com/images2/exhibits/States_Exhibit_37A.jpg

And like the link I posted in his testimony says, that the ditch was drained.

So, I guess what YOU are saying is your opinion because you see a picture? You are not going by the actual testimony?

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Cappuccino]

Are you sure about that one or is that another one of your opinions you are giving as fact???

What do you mean by "another one of my opinions" exactly? Which one of my opinions have I ever previously given as fact?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

And like the link I posted in his testimony says, that the ditch was drained.

So, I guess what YOU are saying is your opinion because you see a picture? You are not going by the actual testimony?

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

The picture was taken at the time of the recovery of the clothing. The ditch was drained later.:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

In his testimony, Ridge lied.

 

[Cappuccino]

Yeah, and the bodies were also discovered in the drainage ditch itself, not the creek which fed into it. The slicked down banks referred to at trial were on the borders of the drainage ditches, not blazoned all along the ten mile bayou. :banghead:

But, of course, in order to know that you would have to read the testimony given at the trials about the discovery of the bodies. I'll be polite and assume that UdbCrzy2 hasn't read the full trial transcripts.

However, I definitely want to see what exactly he/she means by "another one of your opinions given as fact."