I just dont underastand why you cant accept that the scene was handled poorly. The entire case was handled poorly. Yes, there are many, many biased opinions on this case, but in the end, the way evidence was handled was a joke and the authorities fucked up continuously.
Again, Echols and Miskelley were VERY fucked up kids. No denying that. But what was used at trail was a sham and did not warrant a guilty verdict. If those copes/detectives had done their job better, maybe, just maybe Echols would still be in jail. I dont know why you keep dismissing that. the Shit job the authorities did to implicate Echols is exactly what set him free. You should be bashing these authorities with equal conviction.
Who says I am not, has anyone asked that question?
What specific evidence was handled poorly.
Its funny how you complain that I am dismissing the detectives jobs,
Yet everyone in here is dismissing multiple confessions, changes in stories (time of murder) 7 times, The fact that they fabricated/lied about all their alibis... You can take the evidence piece by piece and argue it, but if you put this together as a whole and look at it from the point of view, time/place/lying about alibis/whereabouts/ its clear it was them. (my opinion)
After this debate is over, can you all reenact the O.J. Simpson trial for me?
It's been entertaining.
I was hoping for the Anthony trial personally.
na, I am tired of doing all the work, this place shows me that no mater how much factual data you post people will never change their minds especially if they have the same views as Eddie Vedder.
I hope someone out here read the stuff I posted, because its clear that the people arguing with me have not and will not.
After this debate is over, can you all reenact the O.J. Simpson trial for me?
It's been entertaining.
I was hoping for the Anthony trial personally.
na, I am tired of doing all the work, this place shows me that no mater how much factual data you post people will never change their minds especially if they have the same views as Eddie Vedder.
I hope someone out here read the stuff I posted, because its clear that the people arguing with me have not and will not.
EDDIE SAID SO !!!!!!!!
ask everybody here they'll tell ya
Godfather.
I just dont underastand why you cant accept that the scene was handled poorly. The entire case was handled poorly. Yes, there are many, many biased opinions on this case, but in the end, the way evidence was handled was a joke and the authorities fucked up continuously.
Again, Echols and Miskelley were VERY fucked up kids. No denying that. But what was used at trail was a sham and did not warrant a guilty verdict. If those copes/detectives had done their job better, maybe, just maybe Echols would still be in jail. I dont know why you keep dismissing that. the Shit job the authorities did to implicate Echols is exactly what set him free. You should be bashing these authorities with equal conviction.
Who says I am not, has anyone asked that question?
What specific evidence was handled poorly.
Its funny how you complain that I am dismissing the detectives jobs,
Yet everyone in here is dismissing multiple confessions, changes in stories (time of murder) 7 times, The fact that they fabricated/lied about all their alibis... You can take the evidence piece by piece and argue it, but if you put this together as a whole and look at it from the point of view, time/place/lying about alibis/whereabouts/ its clear it was them. (my opinion)
Ok, I misinterpreted your posts asking me to prove where the scene was handled poorly as that you didnt believe it.. nevermind then if you agree that the scene and evidence were handled poorly.
I dont dismiss the inconsistencies with their timelines and unreliable confessions. I do have concerns about Miskelleys statements.. I just cant form a conclusion from them that someone else should die because of it.
I just put a lot of weight on things like this that are unanswered:
How about giving us your interpretation of these facts:
--Why was there no blood at the scene of the murders??
--how do you explain the bloody guy who entered Bojangles and the evidence collected (I vaguely recall) was lost??
No blood, maybe because each kid was found in 2-1/2 ' of water? They weren't found until the next day.
But they werent brutally attacked in the water. Miskelley claimed all the attacks happened in the woods. I'm pretty sure there were a few experts that claimed these types of injuries would have left substantial amounts of blood on the ground in surrounding areas. They found nothing.
Ok, I misinterpreted your posts asking me to prove where the scene was handled poorly as that you didnt believe it.. nevermind then if you agree that the scene and evidence were handled poorly.
I dont dismiss the inconsistencies with their timelines and unreliable confessions. I do have concerns about Miskelleys statements.. I just cant form a conclusion from them that someone else should die because of it.
I just put a lot of weight on things like this that are unanswered:
But they werent brutally attacked in the water. Miskelley claimed all the attacks happened in the woods. I'm pretty sure there were a few experts that claimed these types of injuries would have left substantial amounts of blood on the ground in surrounding areas. They found nothing.
After this debate is over, can you all reenact the O.J. Simpson trial for me?
It's been entertaining.
I was hoping for the Anthony trial personally.
na, I am tired of doing all the work, this place shows me that no mater how much factual data you post people will never change their minds especially if they have the same views as Eddie Vedder.
I hope someone out here read the stuff I posted, because its clear that the people arguing with me have not and will not.
Since you and I are the only ones really discussing in the last few pages, are you throwing this childish bullshit at me? Because my mind was never made up on their innocence/guilt. And I never ONCE considered Edddie while I was reading the case file or looking at the info related to this case.
Yes, you've proved with your 'facts' that Echols was definitely disturbed. And dont panic your little self, I've read most of the stuff you posted.. It sound more like you're offended that everyone doesnt think like you just because you think you've read more than the next guy.
If you'd feel comfortable putting a man to death on the information you posted thats fine -- we'll just agree to disagree..
Ok, I misinterpreted your posts asking me to prove where the scene was handled poorly as that you didnt believe it.. nevermind then if you agree that the scene and evidence were handled poorly.
I dont dismiss the inconsistencies with their timelines and unreliable confessions. I do have concerns about Miskelleys statements.. I just cant form a conclusion from them that someone else should die because of it.
I just put a lot of weight on things like this that are unanswered:
But they werent brutally attacked in the water. Miskelley claimed all the attacks happened in the woods. I'm pretty sure there were a few experts that claimed these types of injuries would have left substantial amounts of blood on the ground in surrounding areas. They found nothing.
na, I am tired of doing all the work, this place shows me that no mater how much factual data you post people will never change their minds especially if they have the same views as Eddie Vedder.
I hope someone out here read the stuff I posted, because its clear that the people arguing with me have not and will not.
oh ... the irony ...
soo ... what is your thoughts that 2 of the 3 contributors to the site you keep sourcing believe they are innocent?
na, I am tired of doing all the work, this place shows me that no mater how much factual data you post people will never change their minds especially if they have the same views as Eddie Vedder.
I hope someone out here read the stuff I posted, because its clear that the people arguing with me have not and will not.
oh ... the irony ...
soo ... what is your thoughts that 2 of the 3 contributors to the site you keep sourcing believe they are innocent?
That I don't care... At least I know they have read all the info out there.
On the otherhand AMT has showed me that people are still using things they "heard" about or pulling out quotes from the PL 1 & 2 movies. Those are not factual, they are biased doc's with misinformation. Yet people keep citing them. That my issue.
To my mind you are struggling to grasp the meaning of the term 'beyond all reasonable doubt', so let me define it for you:
"that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime".
Given the poor handling of the crime scene (shall we start with the luminol tests not being done until 6 days after the crime?), the fact Jessie Misskelley was interrogated for 12 hours, yet only 46 minutes of this was recorded, the fact that rigorous DNA analysis was not pursued at the time of the crime - all completely contradict this definition of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
I recognise your passion for this case, but no amount of copying and pasting is going to suddenly shine a light and guide us all to the truth. I've read much of what you've linked us to, and I'm not contesting the fact that Echols is, or was a very disturbed young man, or that stories were changed......BUT, that doesn't automatically make him a killer - there are other feasible explanations for his behaviour, as unlikely as they may seem - as I said earlier, there have been many cases of people admitting to crimes only to be exonerated by DNA evidence at a later stage. Human beings do and say all kinds of strange things and for all kinds of reasons, so it's important to keep an open mind.
I personally couldn't give two shits what Eddie Vedder thinks about this case, and I haven't watched the Paradise Lost films in years. Nor do I feel any particular affinity to Echols the misunderstood outsider, even though I probably felt a similar way when I was in my teens. What motivates my interest in this case is the fact that justice has not been served. I felt somewhat deflated when I heard the news of their release from prison - not necessarily because I didn't think they deserved to be, but because it felt like everyone was losing sight of what this case is about. For me this case is about leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of tracking down those who really commited this crime.
The handling of this case has been appalling, and I think it's an absolute insult to those poor young boys and their devastated families that ALL the available evidence has not been considered. Therefore I find it very hard to really consider any of the arguments you are putting forth, because you are skipping over the very fundamental facts of the investigation, instead focussing on untenable theory which does not definitively prove anything.
To my mind you are struggling to grasp the meaning of the term 'beyond all reasonable doubt', so let me define it for you:
"that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime".
Given the poor handling of the crime scene (shall we start with the luminol tests not being done until 6 days after the crime?), the fact Jessie Misskelley was interrogated for 12 hours, yet only 46 minutes of this was recorded, the fact that rigorous DNA analysis was not pursued at the time of the crime - all completely contradict this definition of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
I stopped reading here, Its clear that you are uniformed and get your information from biased info and documentaries. Please do your self a favor and read the court documents.
You want facts?
As you can see, Misskelley arrived at the station at 10am, and confessed at 2:20 pm.
Even ignoring the time he was taken to visit his father to get permission for the polygraph, that gives us an "interrogation" of just over 4 hours before the confession.
What did Misskelley's interrogation expert Warren Holmes have to say about this?
Q: Mr. Holmes, my name is Brent Davis. I met you, previously, at another hearing. If I ask you any
questions that you don’t understand, please ask me to rephrase them and I will be glad to do so.
A: All right, sir.
Q: And it’s my understanding that, primarily, what you do now is lecture to police agencies, law-enforcement agencies on interrogation tactics, is that correct?
A: True.
Q: Okay. And would it be fair to say that you’re basically training officers on how to conduct an interrogation?
A: True.
Q: Okay. And would it be accurate to say that when you train officers to conduct interrogations that you tell them that, at a minimum, in an important case, that you want them to go 4 hours, uninterrupted, with a suspect?
A: True.
Q: Okay. So, in this particular case, the time period that the officers were with the suspect doesn’t pose a problem for you, does it?
A: No.
Q: That would be what you recommend them to do if you were advising them, correct?
A: I would have done exactly what they did.
This begs the question - if you and so many supporters demand you have studied the trial transcripts and read all these links that I have posted before..., then why does your "information" directly contradict the testimony so often?
Newsflash for you blockhead, Echols mental history means absolutely nothing. There are a million kids with histories just like his and way worse. They aren't going around killing kids. It means fuck all.
Newsflash for you blockhead, Echols mental history means absolutely nothing. There are a million kids with histories just like his and way worse. They aren't going around killing kids. It means fuck all.
ooooooh yes it does,it shows violent tendensies with the possibilty of murder with no remorse....would someone please spell check that for me..
I can only imagine what I would have been like if I'd grown up in fucking West Memphis, Arkansas. It must be right in the bible belt because when I was looking for a local radio station to listen to on the day of the hearing, most radio stations were either talking religion or playing christian rock. Every other song had 'God' in the title. These guys had been locked up in nut country.
If the WM3 went to church, listened to christian rock and dressed "properly," they probably never would have gone to jail for these crimes, or even been suspected of committing them.
The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children). But it would have been a lot more difficult to find the killer(s) because EVERYONE would have been a suspect. Much easier to focus on the weird teenagers that listened to "devil's music" and dressed in black.
Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
I can only imagine what I would have been like if I'd grown up in fucking West Memphis, Arkansas. It must be right in the bible belt because when I was looking for a local radio station to listen to on the day of the hearing, most radio stations were either talking religion or playing christian rock. Every other song had 'God' in the title. These guys had been locked up in nut country.
If the WM3 went to church, listened to christian rock and dressed "properly," they probably never would have gone to jail for these crimes, or even been suspected of committing them.
The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children). But it would have been a lot more difficult to find the killer(s) because EVERYONE would have been a suspect. Much easier to focus on the weird teenagers that listened to "devil's music" and dressed in black.
HAHAHA!!!! Perfect example of doing what you hate...
You think they are biased and looking at "weird teenagers", etc.
But you say "The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children)"
Newsflash for you blockhead, Echols mental history means absolutely nothing. There are a million kids with histories just like his and way worse. They aren't going around killing kids. It means fuck all.
ooooooh yes it does,it shows violent tendensies with the possibilty of murder with no remorse....would someone please spell check that for me..
Godfather.
I do believe he spelled "blockhead" and "fuck" correctly in his personal attack.
I can only imagine what I would have been like if I'd grown up in fucking West Memphis, Arkansas. It must be right in the bible belt because when I was looking for a local radio station to listen to on the day of the hearing, most radio stations were either talking religion or playing christian rock. Every other song had 'God' in the title. These guys had been locked up in nut country.
If the WM3 went to church, listened to christian rock and dressed "properly," they probably never would have gone to jail for these crimes, or even been suspected of committing them.
The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children). But it would have been a lot more difficult to find the killer(s) because EVERYONE would have been a suspect. Much easier to focus on the weird teenagers that listened to "devil's music" and dressed in black.
HAHAHA!!!! Perfect example of doing what you hate...
You think they are biased and looking at "weird teenagers", etc.
But you say "The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children)"
How's it feel to be just like them?
It's the simple truth.
Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Newsflash for you blockhead, Echols mental history means absolutely nothing. There are a million kids with histories just like his and way worse. They aren't going around killing kids. It means fuck all.
ooooooh yes it does,it shows violent tendensies with the possibilty of murder with no remorse....would someone please spell check that for me..
Godfather.
I do believe he spelled "blockhead" and "fuck" correctly in his personal attack.
you've got the passive-aggressive thing nailed down ...
I can only imagine what I would have been like if I'd grown up in fucking West Memphis, Arkansas. It must be right in the bible belt because when I was looking for a local radio station to listen to on the day of the hearing, most radio stations were either talking religion or playing christian rock. Every other song had 'God' in the title. These guys had been locked up in nut country.
If the WM3 went to church, listened to christian rock and dressed "properly," they probably never would have gone to jail for these crimes, or even been suspected of committing them.
The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children). But it would have been a lot more difficult to find the killer(s) because EVERYONE would have been a suspect. Much easier to focus on the weird teenagers that listened to "devil's music" and dressed in black.
HAHAHA!!!! Perfect example of doing what you hate...
You think they are biased and looking at "weird teenagers", etc.
But you say "The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children)"
How's it feel to be just like them?
It's the simple truth.
not really. perhaps you should look up truth in the dictionary. No where will you find "opinion".
Comments
What specific evidence was handled poorly.
Its funny how you complain that I am dismissing the detectives jobs,
Yet everyone in here is dismissing multiple confessions, changes in stories (time of murder) 7 times, The fact that they fabricated/lied about all their alibis... You can take the evidence piece by piece and argue it, but if you put this together as a whole and look at it from the point of view, time/place/lying about alibis/whereabouts/ its clear it was them. (my opinion)
I was hoping for the Anthony trial personally.
I hope someone out here read the stuff I posted, because its clear that the people arguing with me have not and will not.
ask everybody here they'll tell ya
Godfather.
Ok, I misinterpreted your posts asking me to prove where the scene was handled poorly as that you didnt believe it.. nevermind then if you agree that the scene and evidence were handled poorly.
I dont dismiss the inconsistencies with their timelines and unreliable confessions. I do have concerns about Miskelleys statements.. I just cant form a conclusion from them that someone else should die because of it.
I just put a lot of weight on things like this that are unanswered:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_bridge.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_tanderson.html
Please read luminol reports...
Since you and I are the only ones really discussing in the last few pages, are you throwing this childish bullshit at me? Because my mind was never made up on their innocence/guilt. And I never ONCE considered Edddie while I was reading the case file or looking at the info related to this case.
Yes, you've proved with your 'facts' that Echols was definitely disturbed. And dont panic your little self, I've read most of the stuff you posted.. It sound more like you're offended that everyone doesnt think like you just because you think you've read more than the next guy.
If you'd feel comfortable putting a man to death on the information you posted thats fine -- we'll just agree to disagree..
Yeah! They should think for themselfs!
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Thanks I have not seen this.. will take a look in a bit.. But why was this done SIX days after the bodies were discovered?
oh ... the irony ...
soo ... what is your thoughts that 2 of the 3 contributors to the site you keep sourcing believe they are innocent?
On the otherhand AMT has showed me that people are still using things they "heard" about or pulling out quotes from the PL 1 & 2 movies. Those are not factual, they are biased doc's with misinformation. Yet people keep citing them. That my issue.
To my mind you are struggling to grasp the meaning of the term 'beyond all reasonable doubt', so let me define it for you:
"that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime".
Given the poor handling of the crime scene (shall we start with the luminol tests not being done until 6 days after the crime?), the fact Jessie Misskelley was interrogated for 12 hours, yet only 46 minutes of this was recorded, the fact that rigorous DNA analysis was not pursued at the time of the crime - all completely contradict this definition of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
I recognise your passion for this case, but no amount of copying and pasting is going to suddenly shine a light and guide us all to the truth. I've read much of what you've linked us to, and I'm not contesting the fact that Echols is, or was a very disturbed young man, or that stories were changed......BUT, that doesn't automatically make him a killer - there are other feasible explanations for his behaviour, as unlikely as they may seem - as I said earlier, there have been many cases of people admitting to crimes only to be exonerated by DNA evidence at a later stage. Human beings do and say all kinds of strange things and for all kinds of reasons, so it's important to keep an open mind.
I personally couldn't give two shits what Eddie Vedder thinks about this case, and I haven't watched the Paradise Lost films in years. Nor do I feel any particular affinity to Echols the misunderstood outsider, even though I probably felt a similar way when I was in my teens. What motivates my interest in this case is the fact that justice has not been served. I felt somewhat deflated when I heard the news of their release from prison - not necessarily because I didn't think they deserved to be, but because it felt like everyone was losing sight of what this case is about. For me this case is about leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of tracking down those who really commited this crime.
The handling of this case has been appalling, and I think it's an absolute insult to those poor young boys and their devastated families that ALL the available evidence has not been considered. Therefore I find it very hard to really consider any of the arguments you are putting forth, because you are skipping over the very fundamental facts of the investigation, instead focussing on untenable theory which does not definitively prove anything.
Godfather.
You want facts?
As you can see, Misskelley arrived at the station at 10am, and confessed at 2:20 pm.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
Even ignoring the time he was taken to visit his father to get permission for the polygraph, that gives us an "interrogation" of just over 4 hours before the confession.
What did Misskelley's interrogation expert Warren Holmes have to say about this?
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/warrenh.html
Q: Mr. Holmes, my name is Brent Davis. I met you, previously, at another hearing. If I ask you any
questions that you don’t understand, please ask me to rephrase them and I will be glad to do so.
A: All right, sir.
Q: And it’s my understanding that, primarily, what you do now is lecture to police agencies, law-enforcement agencies on interrogation tactics, is that correct?
A: True.
Q: Okay. And would it be fair to say that you’re basically training officers on how to conduct an interrogation?
A: True.
Q: Okay. And would it be accurate to say that when you train officers to conduct interrogations that you tell them that, at a minimum, in an important case, that you want them to go 4 hours, uninterrupted, with a suspect?
A: True.
Q: Okay. So, in this particular case, the time period that the officers were with the suspect doesn’t pose a problem for you, does it?
A: No.
Q: That would be what you recommend them to do if you were advising them, correct?
A: I would have done exactly what they did.
This begs the question - if you and so many supporters demand you have studied the trial transcripts and read all these links that I have posted before..., then why does your "information" directly contradict the testimony so often?
ooooooh yes it does,it shows violent tendensies with the possibilty of murder with no remorse....would someone please spell check that for me..
Godfather.
If the WM3 went to church, listened to christian rock and dressed "properly," they probably never would have gone to jail for these crimes, or even been suspected of committing them.
The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children). But it would have been a lot more difficult to find the killer(s) because EVERYONE would have been a suspect. Much easier to focus on the weird teenagers that listened to "devil's music" and dressed in black.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
HAHAHA!!!! Perfect example of doing what you hate...
You think they are biased and looking at "weird teenagers", etc.
But you say "The truth is, the real killer or killers probably were one of these local religious nuts - they're the ones that usually do crazy shit like killing little kids(usually their own children)"
How's it feel to be just like them?
I do believe he spelled "blockhead" and "fuck" correctly in his personal attack.
It's the simple truth.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
you've got the passive-aggressive thing nailed down ...
Years of practice...you can learn to if you are willing to commit.
not really. perhaps you should look up truth in the dictionary. No where will you find "opinion".
pm sent
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Damien Echol's mental history is not evidence of murder.
You have no evidence.
Why do people feel the need to post that they sent a pm?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Because Blockhead thinks they're guilty.
And if they do, why spell out sent,
Shouldn't it be pms?