Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed

Blockhead

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

AND, his DNA was found at the crime scene!!

According to the Defense's press conference in 2007... http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/press_conference.html

Cigarette Thought To Have Been Smoked By Terry Hobbs:
- Do not exclude the cigarette smoker as the source of a ligature hair on Moore.
- About 0.12% of the population could be the source of the cigarette butt DNA.
- About 1.5% of the population could be the source of the ligature hair

Results from SERI Test of Cheek Swabs from David Jacoby and Cigarette Butt Thought to Have Been Smoked by Him:
- DNA test results from these two samples are the same and do not exclude the cigarette smoker as the source of the tree stump hair
- About 3% of the population could be the source of the cigarette butt DNA
- About 7% of the population could be the source of the tree stump hair


So, as you can see, it's not even definite that the alleged Hobbs (could belong to 1.5% of the population) and Jacoby (could belong to 7% of the population) hairs are from Hobbs or Jacoby...

Yeah, there's only a 98.5% chance that it was Terry Hobbs's hair that was found TIED INTO THE KNOT used to tie up one of the OTHER kids and a 0% chance that it was any of the defendants' hair tied into the knot. So I get your point - we should conclude that the defendants did it.

We know for a fact that these victims weren't bound with their own laces, so there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Moore wasn't bound with Branch's lace - where Hobb's hair would be expected to be found..

Let's also not forget that Thomas Fedor acknowledged the connection to Hobbs and Jacoby was "weak" at best, and that the Defense opted to use a "reference sample" they collected themselves, rather than the hair Hobbs submtted over a decade ago.

So what do we have?
A hair that was similar to a reference sample that MAY have been Hobbs was found on a shoelace that may have been his sons...

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

So what do we have?
A hair that was similar to a reference sample that MAY have been Hobbs was found on a shoelace that may have been his sons...

And what do you have that ties the three defendants to the scene of the crime?

Nothing.


But let's not forget Damien's mental history, right? :roll:

Or the fact that you lied about Jessie Misskelley's I.Q score and claimed that his intelligence proves that all three of the defendants are guilty of murder.

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

According to the Defense's press conference in 2007... http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/press_conference.html

Cigarette Thought To Have Been Smoked By Terry Hobbs:
- Do not exclude the cigarette smoker as the source of a ligature hair on Moore.
- About 0.12% of the population could be the source of the cigarette butt DNA.
- About 1.5% of the population could be the source of the ligature hair

Results from SERI Test of Cheek Swabs from David Jacoby and Cigarette Butt Thought to Have Been Smoked by Him:
- DNA test results from these two samples are the same and do not exclude the cigarette smoker as the source of the tree stump hair
- About 3% of the population could be the source of the cigarette butt DNA
- About 7% of the population could be the source of the tree stump hair


So, as you can see, it's not even definite that the alleged Hobbs (could belong to 1.5% of the population) and Jacoby (could belong to 7% of the population) hairs are from Hobbs or Jacoby...

But it is definite that NONE of the DNA evidence belonged to any of the three defendants.

1.5% of the population were not in the area of the crime scene at that time. But Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby were in the vicinity.

So how does DNA found at or near the crime scene, not tied to the convicted, lead to the conclusion that they did not commit the crime? This I will never understand. Are we to throw out all of the evidence pointing toward their guilt, to consider that someone else's DNA was also found in the vicinity? Secondary transfer, the fact that other people may have been in that spot roaming around before the crime or during the search, or after etc. all account for that theory...

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

So what do we have?
A hair that was similar to a reference sample that MAY have been Hobbs was found on a shoelace that may have been his sons...

And what do you have that ties the three defendants to the scene of the crime?

Nothing.


But let's not forget Damien's mental history, right? :roll:

Or the fact that you lied about Jessie Misskelley's I.Q score and claimed that his intelligence proves that all three of the defendants are guilty of murder.

:roll: How many confessions does jesse have to make? Even after conviction...
:roll: Where were they during the murders. THey lied/fabricated about all their alibis and changed their stories (damien 7 times)

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

So how does DNA found at or near the crime scene, not tied to the convicted, lead to the conclusion that they did not commit the crime? This I will never understand. Are we to throw out all of the evidence pointing toward their guilt, to consider that someone else's DNA was also found in the vicinity? Secondary transfer, the fact that other people may have been in that spot roaming around before the crime or during the search, or after etc. all account for that theory...

What leads to the conclusion that the three convicted boys didn't commit the crime is that ZERO DNA belonging to any of them was found at or near the crime scene.

Though I admire your slippery wording here which tries as best as is possible to avoid mentioning that there is ZERO EVIDENCE tying any of the three convicted to the crime scene. I also admire your use of the word 'also' when mentioning that someone else's DNA was found at the crime scene. Maybe you can explain what you mean by the word 'also'? You know that NO DNA belonging to any of the three defendants was found at the scene so why did you state that 'someone else's DNA was also found in the vicinity'?

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

:roll: How many confessions does jesse have to make? Even after conviction...
:roll: Where were they during the murders. THey lied/fabricated about all their alibis and changed their stories (damien 7 times)

The confessions were a sham. What occurred before the recorded segments of the so-called 'confessions'? Why were these parts of the police interrogation not recorded, or deleted?

You don't know, do you?

Jessie Misskelley simply repeated what the police already knew. And everything points towards the police having used suggestion, coercion, and intimidation to force him to confess.

But then you don't care about any of this because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Like someone mentioned above, this is a great troll job.

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

So how does DNA found at or near the crime scene, not tied to the convicted, lead to the conclusion that they did not commit the crime? This I will never understand. Are we to throw out all of the evidence pointing toward their guilt, to consider that someone else's DNA was also found in the vicinity? Secondary transfer, the fact that other people may have been in that spot roaming around before the crime or during the search, or after etc. all account for that theory...

What leads to the conclusion that the three convicted boys didn't commit the crime is that ZERO DNA belonging to any of them was found at or near the crime scene.

Though I admire your slippery wording here which tries as best as is possible to avoid mentioning that there is ZERO EVIDENCE tying any of the three convicted to the crime scene. I also admire your use of the word 'also' when mentioning that someone else's DNA was found at the crime scene. Maybe you can explain what you mean by the word 'also'? You know that NO DNA belonging to any of the three defendants was found at the scene so why did you state that 'someone else's DNA was also found in the vicinity'?

There were 16 hairs out of the 26 recovered from Chris's body that were never tested....
There was also another from Moore's ligature which was never tested...
But you already know that... :roll:

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

:roll: How many confessions does jesse have to make? Even after conviction...
:roll: Where were they during the murders. THey lied/fabricated about all their alibis and changed their stories (damien 7 times)

The confessions were a sham. What occurred before the recorded segments of the so-called 'confessions'? Why was these parts of the police interrogation not recorded, or deleted?

You don't know, do you?

Jessie Misskelley simply repeated what the police already knew. And everything points towards the police having used suggestion, coercion, and intimidation to force him to confess.

But then you don't care about any of this because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Like someone mentioned above, this is a great troll job.

Now its your job to prove coercion, Thats a typical support view, yet no one has ever provided evidence of this so called coercion/intimidation/force...
I'm still waiting for a single supporter to offer an explaination why an innocent Misskelly would continue to confess to his own attorney after his arrest...

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

Now its your job to prove coercion, Thats a typical support view, yet no one has ever provided evidence of this so called coercion/intimidation/force...
I'm still waiting for a single supporter to offer an explaination why an innocent Misskelly would continue to confess to his own attorney after his arrest...

Somebody else has already provided an explanation as to why false confessions occur. Maybe you should go back and read it so that we don't go around in circles.

Practically everyone who has ever looked into the details of this case has come to the conclusion that the Misskelley confessions were a sham.
But then they're all you have, so you keep beating that drum.


What occurred before the recorded segments of the so-called 'confessions'? Why were these parts of the police interrogation not recorded, or deleted?

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Now its your job to prove coercion, Thats a typical support view, yet no one has ever provided evidence of this so called coercion/intimidation/force...
I'm still waiting for a single supporter to offer an explaination why an innocent Misskelly would continue to confess to his own attorney after his arrest...

Somebody else has already provided an explanation as to why false confessions occur. Maybe you should go back and read it so that we don't go around in circles.

Practically everyone who has ever looked into the details of this case has come to the conclusion that the Misskelley confessions were a sham.
But then they're all you have, so you keep beating that drum.


What occurred before the recorded segments of the so-called 'confessions'? Why were these parts of the police interrogation not recorded, or deleted?

And I have already provided evidence of Jesse trying to trow police off in his confession. Maybe you should go back and read it so that we don't go around in circle.

WHICH confession was a sham? The one where his defense lawyers begged him not to say anything or the after conviction confession? How are they shams, If everyone who has ever looked into the details of this case came to that conclusion why were they found guilty? Also I KNOW you haven't read his confessions.
You don't know, I don't know nor does it prove anything...

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

And I have already provided evidence of Jesse trying to trow police off in his confession. Maybe you should go back and read it so that we don't go around in circle.

Why would he want to throw the police off in his confession? Why don't you answer the questions that people pose to you? I asked this question earlier and you ignored it then. Why would someone who is allegedly making a genuine confession try and 'throw the police off track'?

Blockhead wrote:

WHICH confession was a sham? The one where his defense lawyers begged him not to say anything or the after conviction confession? How are they shams, If everyone who has ever looked into the details of this case came to that conclusion why were they found guilty? Also I KNOW you haven't read his confessions.

I didn't say 'everyone'. I said 'practically everyone'.

Obviously it was in many people's interest to see 'someone', 'anyone', convicted of this crime. It was especially important to see someone convicted of this crime when you take into account the utter incompetence of the initial police investigation.

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Nice dodge. Please answer these direct questions:

According to the cross-examination document you posted, what was Jessie's ACTUAL IQ in '89, '92, & just before the trial?

According to the Arkansas Supreme Court document I posted, what was Jessie's IQ?

Reading through Wilkins' testimony, he mentions two earlier WAIS tests for Jessie:

1989 -- performance = 84, verbal = 68, full-scale = 74
1992 -- performance = 88, verbal = ??, full-scale = 73

Then Wilkins' own exam in 1993 post-arrest:

1993 -- performance = 75, full-scale = 72

Can you acknowledge that IQ = full-scale score?

Byrnzie

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Nice dodge. Please answer these direct questions:

According to the cross-examination document you posted, what was Jessie's ACTUAL IQ in '89, '92, & just before the trial?

According to the Arkansas Supreme Court document I posted, what was Jessie's IQ?

Reading through Wilkins' testimony, he mentions two earlier WAIS tests for Jessie:

1989 -- performance = 84, verbal = 68, full-scale = 74
1992 -- performance = 88, verbal = ??, full-scale = 73

Then Wilkins' own exam in 1993 post-arrest:

1993 -- performance = 75, full-scale = 72

Can you acknowledge that IQ = full-scale score?

No, he can't acknowledge anything that doesn't fit his preconceived agenda.

Blockhead

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_2_8_94_statement/

- He describes the injuries in detail and manages to correctly identify each victim with their injuries.
- He explains the injuries to the tip of Stevie’s penis.
- He identifies the fact that there were 2 bikes, and the colour of each, as well as correctly identifying the green bike as a girls bike (see the case photos, the green bike has a girls frame).
- He correctly states that the boys jeans were removed without being unsnapped.
- He described the area accurately and repeatedly corrected Stidham regarding the location of where certain things were when they were drawing the diagram.
- He admitted to lying in his original statements, mostly regarding points that made the least sense to begin with (e.g. brown rope, Damien and Jason going into the water together, eating dogs at the cult meetings).
- The timeline given by Jessie seems to fit and explain why none of the parents/searchers saw any of the 3 in the woods (he says they left by around 7:30PM).

Why would an innocent man would say all of this (and not only WHY he would say it, but how he knew all of it to start with). He described the injuries accurately to the point of knowing which injuries belonged to each victim.
I think you supporters will have trouble comming up with a decent explaination for this one. Jessie basically cleared everything up. The time, the blood, the additional injuries, the bikes, the lies in the first statement, wrestling, the whisky bottle,ect ect.

I hope this once and for all ends the discussion on the first statements accuracy. As I have explained/linked many times, Jessie lied through that first statement about anything he was involved with and this confession and the prosecutor confession are probably about as close as we are every going to get as to what occured on that horrible day.

This is truly chilling... Once you read how they splashed the water with their hands and wiped it down with their hands, it explains how the slicked off bank was the location and the small creek was where the bodies were submerged...

Any supporter who ACTUALLY reads that and is still a supporter is a complete and utter lost cause...

Some quotes:

Jessie: Then Damien started playing with that little boy's penis. He put his hand over the top of it - squeezing it, squeezing it.

Peretti: 65B shows the midshaft of the penis and the head of the penis with contusion, bruising and overlying scratches. These injuries could be from a squeeze, a very tight squeeze, but with a clear demarcation of the uninvolved and involved surfaces.


Jessie: Damien grabbed that boy by the ears. When he was going to get up the butt, he grabbed him by the ears from behind. He grabbed him by the ears.

Peretti: The injuries to the ears can be caused by holding the ears, pulling the ears. The darkened discoloration - that's the bruising of the ear. You can see fine little scratches which are linear.


Stidham: Were the boys making any noise or saying anything?

Jessie: They - uh, we put a shirt in their mouth.

Peretti: The injuries involving the lips could be an object, any object, inserted inside the mouth or hand placed over the mouth or firm object placed over the mouth.

Oh and Byrnzie show me coercion...

Byrnzie

Blockhead wrote:

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_2_8_94_statement/

- He describes the injuries in detail and manages to correctly identify each victim with their injuries.
- He explains the injuries to the tip of Stevie’s penis.
- He identifies the fact that there were 2 bikes, and the colour of each, as well as correctly identifying the green bike as a girls bike (see the case photos, the green bike has a girls frame).
- He correctly states that the boys jeans were removed without being unsnapped.
- He described the area accurately and repeatedly corrected Stidham regarding the location of where certain things were when they were drawing the diagram.
- He admitted to lying in his original statements, mostly regarding points that made the least sense to begin with (e.g. brown rope, Damien and Jason going into the water together, eating dogs at the cult meetings).
- The timeline given by Jessie seems to fit and explain why none of the parents/searchers saw any of the 3 in the woods (he says they left by around 7:30PM).

Why would an innocent man would say all of this (and not only WHY he would say it, but how he knew all of it to start with). He described the injuries accurately to the point of knowing which injuries belonged to each victim.
I think you supporters will have trouble comming up with a decent explaination for this one. Jessie basically cleared everything up. The time, the blood, the additional injuries, the bikes, the lies in the first statement, wrestling, the whisky bottle,ect ect.

I hope this once and for all ends the discussion on the first statements accuracy. As I have explained/linked many times, Jessie lied through that first statement about anything he was involved with and this confession and the prosecutor confession are probably about as close as we are every going to get as to what occured on that horrible day.

This is truly chilling... Once you read how they splashed the water with their hands and wiped it down with their hands, it explains how the slicked off bank was the location and the small creek was where the bodies were submerged...

Any supporter who ACTUALLY reads that and is still a supporter is a complete and utter lost cause...

Some quotes:

Jessie: Then Damien started playing with that little boy's penis. He put his hand over the top of it - squeezing it, squeezing it.

Peretti: 65B shows the midshaft of the penis and the head of the penis with contusion, bruising and overlying scratches. These injuries could be from a squeeze, a very tight squeeze, but with a clear demarcation of the uninvolved and involved surfaces.


Jessie: Damien grabbed that boy by the ears. When he was going to get up the butt, he grabbed him by the ears from behind. He grabbed him by the ears.

Peretti: The injuries to the ears can be caused by holding the ears, pulling the ears. The darkened discoloration - that's the bruising of the ear. You can see fine little scratches which are linear.


Stidham: Were the boys making any noise or saying anything?

Jessie: They - uh, we put a shirt in their mouth.

Peretti: The injuries involving the lips could be an object, any object, inserted inside the mouth or hand placed over the mouth or firm object placed over the mouth.

Oh and Byrnzie show me coercion...

The coercion would have occurred during the interrogation time prior to the mere 40 minutes of the recorded part of the interview. Jessie didn't say anything during these so-called confessions that the police didn't already know.
Also, it was agreed by the criminal pathologists on the case that the murders had to have taken place elsewhere. The 3 boys were murdered elsewhere and their bodies dumped in the woods. But then, you know better, right?

Byrnzie

Blockhead, if all of the sexual activity described by Jessie really did take place in the woods, and if the three boys were beaten to a pulp and one castrated, then why was ZERO DNA found at the scene belonging to any of the three convicted boys?


Whoops! Sorry! Did I forget to mention that Jessie 'confessed' three times????!!!

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_2_8_94_statement/

- He describes the injuries in detail and manages to correctly identify each victim with their injuries.
- He explains the injuries to the tip of Stevie’s penis.
- He identifies the fact that there were 2 bikes, and the colour of each, as well as correctly identifying the green bike as a girls bike (see the case photos, the green bike has a girls frame).
- He correctly states that the boys jeans were removed without being unsnapped.
- He described the area accurately and repeatedly corrected Stidham regarding the location of where certain things were when they were drawing the diagram.
- He admitted to lying in his original statements, mostly regarding points that made the least sense to begin with (e.g. brown rope, Damien and Jason going into the water together, eating dogs at the cult meetings).
- The timeline given by Jessie seems to fit and explain why none of the parents/searchers saw any of the 3 in the woods (he says they left by around 7:30PM).

Why would an innocent man would say all of this (and not only WHY he would say it, but how he knew all of it to start with). He described the injuries accurately to the point of knowing which injuries belonged to each victim.
I think you supporters will have trouble comming up with a decent explaination for this one. Jessie basically cleared everything up. The time, the blood, the additional injuries, the bikes, the lies in the first statement, wrestling, the whisky bottle,ect ect.

I hope this once and for all ends the discussion on the first statements accuracy. As I have explained/linked many times, Jessie lied through that first statement about anything he was involved with and this confession and the prosecutor confession are probably about as close as we are every going to get as to what occured on that horrible day.

This is truly chilling... Once you read how they splashed the water with their hands and wiped it down with their hands, it explains how the slicked off bank was the location and the small creek was where the bodies were submerged...

Any supporter who ACTUALLY reads that and is still a supporter is a complete and utter lost cause...

Some quotes:

Jessie: Then Damien started playing with that little boy's penis. He put his hand over the top of it - squeezing it, squeezing it.

Peretti: 65B shows the midshaft of the penis and the head of the penis with contusion, bruising and overlying scratches. These injuries could be from a squeeze, a very tight squeeze, but with a clear demarcation of the uninvolved and involved surfaces.


Jessie: Damien grabbed that boy by the ears. When he was going to get up the butt, he grabbed him by the ears from behind. He grabbed him by the ears.

Peretti: The injuries to the ears can be caused by holding the ears, pulling the ears. The darkened discoloration - that's the bruising of the ear. You can see fine little scratches which are linear.


Stidham: Were the boys making any noise or saying anything?

Jessie: They - uh, we put a shirt in their mouth.

Peretti: The injuries involving the lips could be an object, any object, inserted inside the mouth or hand placed over the mouth or firm object placed over the mouth.

Oh and Byrnzie show me coercion...

The coercion would have occurred during the interrogation time prior to the mere 40 minutes of the recorded part of the interview. Jessie didn't say anything during these so-called confessions that the police didn't already know.
Also, it was agreed by the criminal pathologists on the case that the murders had to have taken place elsewhere. The 3 boys were murdered elsewhere and their bodies dumped in the woods. But then, you know better, right?

WHT... I am not talking about the 1st interview... If you actually care about this case, then read the attached confession. It literally explains everything...
Also luminol says different...

Blockhead

Byrnzie wrote:

Blockhead, if all of the sexual activity described by Jessie really did take place in the woods, and if the three boys were beaten to a pulp and one castrated, then why was ZERO DNA found at the scene belonging to any of the three convicted boys?


Whoops! Sorry! Did I forget to mention that Jessie 'confessed' three times????!!!

You do realize what he described matched everything...
Why was ZERO DNA found?... Well maybe because they were placed in 2-1/2' of water...

The Waiting Trophy Man

The reason Jessie described the details so well was because the cops put them in his head in the first place. It was coersion. They simply led him through his confession like a dog on a leash and he told them what they wanted to hear.

Blockhead

The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:

The reason Jessie described the details so well was because the cops put them in his head in the first place. It was coersion. They simply led him through his confession like a dog on a leash and he told them what they wanted to hear.

Why did you even waste your time posting this, You didn't read the confession, so you clearly have no clue as to what details jesse give (even though I outlined some) How did the police know all these details when they first questioned jesse? They weren't even known then...
How was the 1st cofession coersion? Why did he continue to confess?
Please leave this thread, you have no knowledge in this case and no intrest in reading what has been posted.