Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed
Comments
-
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...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.
1. It's not just one piece of all the crime scene DNA that is not tied to the defendants. It's ALL the DNA found at the crime scene that is NOT tied to the defendants. If one hair can make it all the way from Terry Hobbs's house, to the crime scene, and into ANOTHER boy's knot, how can three people commit such a violent crime without at least one of them leaving one spec of DNA evidence? That's extremely unlikely.
2. All of WHAT "evidence pointing toward their guilt"?? And why are you so willing to disregard evidence that points to someone else's guilt while holding so tightly onto the evidence you claim to have against the WM3? If you think evidence should be disregarded for Terry Hobbs just because there's a reasonable doubt as to whether it proves he is the killer, shouldn't you use the same rules when examining the evidence against the WM3?
3. "Someone else's DNA was ALSO found in the vicinity"? There you go again trying to imply something that's not true. The suggestion with the use of this word is that there WAS DNA from the WM3 found in the vicinity. You're also downplaying the DNA evidence that points to Terry Hobbs by saying it was "in the vicinity" of the crime. It was INSIDE THE KNOT! That's a hell of a lot closer than just "in the vicinity". But your presentation of the facts isn't biased at all! :roll:0 -
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 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.
We know that Jessie was very susceptible to suggestion. The doc who evaluated him completely made up a story about a crime that never happened and had Jessie confessing to it within 30 minutes!! (This is according to one of the official documents Blockhead posted - except he left that part out of the quote for his post.)
We know that the coercive techniques used by the police during interrogation crossed the line. The Supreme Court of Arkansas said they could not condone all of the techniques used. (Per the Supreme Court document I posted.)
And we know that this confession - obtained without proper consent, from a kid with a borderline retarded IQ who is highly susceptible to suggestion, through means of interrogation that crossed the line of what is acceptable to the state - is the ONLY piece of "evidence" against him. (This according to the document I posted by the state Supreme Court when confirming his conviction.)0 -
Who's going to be sporting their "Jail the WM3" shirts at PJ20? Anyone?
I can't believe this thread is still going the way it is.
Do we all agree that it is asinine and ridiculous to have the ability to Plead GUILTY to murder in order to be RELEASED from jail???? Please?????hippiemom = goodness0 -
Blockhead wrote:why were they found guilty?
1. The jury was tampered with.
2. They didn't test the DNA evidence.
3. The judge was biased.
4. The jury wasn't allowed to hear all the defense evidence.
5. The jury had already heard inadmissible prosecution evidence.
Haven't some of the jurors changed their minds?Post edited by _ on0 -
cincybearcat wrote:Who's going to be sporting their "Jail the WM3" shirts at PJ20? Anyone?
I can't believe this thread is still going the way it is.
Can you imagine someone in the front row wearing that???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me0 -
Blockhead wrote:
You do realize what he described matched everything...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????!!!
That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.Blockhead wrote:Why was ZERO DNA found?... Well maybe because they were placed in 2-1/2' of water...
See, again you're misleading. It's not true that ZERO DNA was found. Plenty of DNA was found - but zero DNA was found to match ANY of the defendants. Are you saying this miracle water selectively removed all DNA from the defendants while leaving other DNA behind??0 -
Then show me where... Please linke and quote where he was coerced?_ wrote: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 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.
We know that Jessie was very susceptible to suggestion. The doc who evaluated him completely made up a story about a crime that never happened and had Jessie confessing to it within 30 minutes!! (This is according to one of the official documents Blockhead posted - except he left that part out of the quote for his post.)
We know that the coercive techniques used by the police during interrogation crossed the line. The Supreme Court of Arkansas said they could not condone all of the techniques used. (Per the Supreme Court document I posted.)
And we know that this confession - obtained without proper consent, from a kid with a borderline retarded IQ who is highly susceptible to suggestion, through means of interrogation that crossed the line of what is acceptable to the state - is the ONLY piece of "evidence" against him. (This according to the document I posted by the state Supreme Court when confirming his conviction.)
And why do you keep talking about the 1st confession, We have clearly moved beyond that, and I have already admitted that he lied, and also provided evidence as to why he lied and admitted it.
Now you know he made more than ONE confession right...
Your losing steam...0 -
Blockhead wrote:
Then show me where... Please linke and quote where he was coerced?_ wrote:We know that Jessie was very susceptible to suggestion. The doc who evaluated him completely made up a story about a crime that never happened and had Jessie confessing to it within 30 minutes!! (This is according to one of the official documents Blockhead posted - except he left that part out of the quote for his post.)
We know that the coercive techniques used by the police during interrogation crossed the line. The Supreme Court of Arkansas said they could not condone all of the techniques used. (Per the Supreme Court document I posted.)
And we know that this confession - obtained without proper consent, from a kid with a borderline retarded IQ who is highly susceptible to suggestion, through means of interrogation that crossed the line of what is acceptable to the state - is the ONLY piece of "evidence" against him. (This according to the document I posted by the state Supreme Court when confirming his conviction.)
And why do you keep talking about the 1st confession, We have clearly moved beyond that, and I have already admitted that he lied, and also provided evidence as to why he lied and admitted it.
Now you know he made more than ONE confession right...
Your losing steam...
So you HAVEN'T actually read the court documents then?? Maybe you should actually read the official files before acting like you know what you're talking about. (I read that on a message board once - or repeatedly, ad nauseum.)
"the supreme court observed, however, that the tactic of playing a tape recording of a boy's voice saying "Nobody knows what happened but me" came perilously close to psychological overbearing, and the court could not condone its use"
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html
We have not moved beyond the first confession. You admitted he lied about some parts of the confession, but you have not admitted that the confession itself was untrue. The reason given for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe Jessie couldn't understand that it made no sense given his low mental capacity, but you should be able to understand that.
Yes, I know he made more than one confession. And you still haven't read the documents explaining false confessions.
You're losing steam.0 -
? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind._ wrote:That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.Blockhead wrote:Why was ZERO DNA found?... Well maybe because they were placed in 2-1/2' of water...
See, again you're misleading. It's not true that ZERO DNA was found. Plenty of DNA was found - but zero DNA was found to match ANY of the defendants. Are you saying this miracle water selectively removed all DNA from the defendants while leaving other DNA behind??
Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...
Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...0 -
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
The reason for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... Well I am only repeating what JESSE himself said in testimony... I am not why you are asking me..._ wrote:So you HAVEN'T actually read the court documents then?? Maybe you should actually read the official files before acting like you know what you're talking about. (I read that on a message board once - or repeatedly, ad nauseum.)
"the supreme court observed, however, that the tactic of playing a tape recording of a boy's voice saying "Nobody knows what happened but me" came perilously close to psychological overbearing, and the court could not condone its use"
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html
We have not moved beyond the first confession. You admitted he lied about some parts of the confession, but you have not admitted that the confession itself was untrue. The reason given for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe Jessie couldn't understand that it made no sense given his low mental capacity, but you should be able to understand that.
Yes, I know he made more than one confession. And you still haven't read the documents explaining false confessions.
You're losing steam.
Its not a false confession... You would have a leg to stand on if he only confessed once, but...
Jessie MissKelley first statement. Why would Jessie give a false statement?
Buddy Lucas statement. Why would Buddy Lucas give a statement to police that Jessie, Damien and Jason assaulted some boys and he was in trouble?
Jessie confessing to his own attorney for months. What reason would Jessie have for confessing to his lawyer?
Jessie's confession on tape to his lawyer swearing on the bible he was involved and tells about the whisky bottle. Why would Jessie confess to something after conviction and admit to more involvement than previously accused?
Jessie confesses to prosecutors. What was Jessie's reason for confessing to prosecutors?0 -
Blockhead,
Your real name ins't Terry Hobbs, is it? If it is, that would explain your efforts to convince others that the WM3 are actually guilty.It's nice to be nice to the nice.0 -
_ wrote:
That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.
Exactly. I thought of this this afternoon, too. Initially, the police believed that the kids were sexually abused.
I find it hard to believe that Jessie would come up with that stuff on his own without being coerced.
As it turns out, there was no rape. Oops!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 self0 -
Blockhead wrote:? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind.
Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...
Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...
Talking of cherry=picking, this is exactly what you've been doing ever since this thread began. Cherry-picking, lying, and getting all giddy and angry when things don't go your way.
The confessions were a sham.
Absolutely no DNA was found at the scene of the crime matching any of the three defendants, despite the 3 murdered boys allegedly having been sexually abused before being murdered and deprived of massive amounts of blood.
You're claiming that the blood, and other bodily fluids, was simply washed off in the water is PATHETIC.
You don't know what you're talking about.
And there is ZERO evidence linking any of the three defendants to this crime.
You're just stewing in your own juices.0 -
Blockhead wrote:Jessie confessing to his own attorney for months. What reason would Jessie have for confessing to his lawyer?
Jessie's confession on tape to his lawyer swearing on the bible he was involved and tells about the whisky bottle. Why would Jessie confess to something after conviction and admit to more involvement than previously accused?
Jessie confesses to prosecutors. What was Jessie's reason for confessing to prosecutors?
Jessie's third confession, after having been convicted, still, for the most part, the important part, the crime itself, did not agree with the evidence:
Now, look carefully at this exchange:
DAVIS: Ok. Now what did Jas, what did you see Jason and Damen do to the other two (2)?
MISSKELLEY: Well Damien screw one of'm.
DAVIS: When your saying he was going to screw him, what did you see him do?
Davis knows that there is no evidence of sexual penetration, so, when Jessie says that Damien "screw one of'm," he quickly changes it to "going to screw him."
I could go on through the testimony and point out how often it appears that Jessie had been coached by someone prior to making this statement, and was still having to be corrected throughout the statement, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence. Read through the statement and see for yourself. It's true that this statement contains more information that agrees with the police theory at the time than his other statements did. However, it is still full of inaccuracies that just wouldn't be there if Jessie had actually been at the scene of those murders.
Don't miss the testimony about the knife. Jessie describes a "lock-blade" knife, not the serrated knife of the famous grapefruit experiment. Also, there is a statement by someone - I think his name is Sam Dwyer (I'll find out and edit if I'm wrong) - that says that Jason's mother threw a serrated blade knife into the lake before the murders because she didn't want Jason to have such a knife.
Remember, in the trial, the prosecution carefully demonstrated how the wounds were caused by a serrated knife? That's just not true. In the upcoming evidentiary hearing, evidence from forensic pathologists, one of whom literally wrote the book on forensic pathology (unlike the State's Peretti who couldn't even pass his certification test, in three tries), will be introduced to indicate that those alleged knife wounds were actual post mortem animal predation wounds.
This final statement of Jessie's is, in short, still full of inaccuracies. Also of interest is the initial exchange where it is painfully obvious to any intelligent person that, by his belligerent responses, Jessie has come to distrust his attorneys, especially Stidham.
The prosecution had been questioning Jessie while he was incarcerated, trying to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They planted the idea into his highly-impressionable mind that his attorneys are not his friends. After all, listening to them landed him in prison, right? So, they finally convinced him (they think) to testify. They now need a new statement, one that agrees more closely with the "facts" in the case. This statement is the culmination of their continued pressure. In the end, as we all know, Jessie didn't testify. When he was able (after the statement was made) to talk to his dad, his dad told him to tell the truth.
The truth is that Jessie was not at the scene of the crime, or at the discovery site. Neither was Damien or Jason.
Multiple confessions. Many POST conviction.
How do you explain that CR? How do you explain him confessing after he was convicted, on the record, after his attorney BEGGED him not to? Why is he STILL confessing?
Because of his limited mental abilities, Jessie is easily manipulated. After his conviction, LE worked on Jessie, attempting to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. They had him convinced that his attorneys were not there to help him. There were only two post conviction statements. The first was in the car on the way to prison. This type of statement is very common in someone of Jessie's IQ. It was an attempt to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear so he (Jessie) could go home. The second post conviction statement, the one made over the objection of his attorneys, was, as I said before, after LE had been talking to Jessie, without notifying his attorneys, in an attempt to get him to testify against Damien and Jason. As you probably know, Jessie did not testify against Damien and Jason because he simply couldn't continue telling his false story any longer. He has not "continued to confess." He has maintained his innocence since approximately one month after his conviction.
How do you explain the Evans Williams bottle?
No forensic evidence has connected the Evan Williams bottle to any of the three convicted young men. There is nothing to explain. Unless some forensic evidence connecting Jessie or one of the other teens to the bottle is produced, the fact that an Evan Williams bottle was found (after searching under several overpasses) proves nothing. It is a common brand used by many homeless people, and the fact that Jessie mentioned drinking that brand and discarding a bottle in the area is only relevant if the bottle found can be forensically linked to him.
Why does anyone give a false confession?
Oh, I forgot...you don't care.Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
Huh, that horse is still twitching. Who'd have thunk it._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Blockhead wrote:
? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind._ wrote:That's a lie. I'm not going to go through this point by point, but Jessie said the boys were sodomized - which is what the police initially believed - but, in fact, they were NOT sodomized. This points more toward the police telling Jessie the story than Jessie actually being there.Blockhead wrote:Why was ZERO DNA found?... Well maybe because they were placed in 2-1/2' of water...
See, again you're misleading. It's not true that ZERO DNA was found. Plenty of DNA was found - but zero DNA was found to match ANY of the defendants. Are you saying this miracle water selectively removed all DNA from the defendants while leaving other DNA behind??
Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...
Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...
Wow, getting kind of testy, huh? No need for that. Now just put on your thinking cap, pull up your big boy pants, and let's run through this again:
As I've said MANY times, I have read all the confessions. I have also read stuff you seem to have skipped over: like the accounts of what ACTUALLY happened. You posted above (a few select) quotes from a confession. One of the quotes described how the boys were sodomized. You said Jessie "described the injuries accurately" & later you said, "You do realize what he described matched everything." I said that is a lie. I explained why it's a lie, but I'll explain it again: It is not true (=lie) that what he described matched everything because the boys were not sodomized & he said they were. Get it?
We both know your choice of words on the DNA was misleading, but whatever. We also both know that zero DNA was found to match the defendants. That fact doesn't change just because not all of it was tested. (If you're so sure the untested DNA is theirs, maybe you should contribute some money to pay for the DNA testing.) And you still haven't explained this miracle water that washes away only selective DNA.Post edited by _ on0 -
Blockhead wrote:
The reason for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... Well I am only repeating what JESSE himself said in testimony... I am not why you are asking me..._ wrote:So you HAVEN'T actually read the court documents then?? Maybe you should actually read the official files before acting like you know what you're talking about. (I read that on a message board once - or repeatedly, ad nauseum.)
"the supreme court observed, however, that the tactic of playing a tape recording of a boy's voice saying "Nobody knows what happened but me" came perilously close to psychological overbearing, and the court could not condone its use"
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html
We have not moved beyond the first confession. You admitted he lied about some parts of the confession, but you have not admitted that the confession itself was untrue. The reason given for him lying about some things makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe Jessie couldn't understand that it made no sense given his low mental capacity, but you should be able to understand that.
Yes, I know he made more than one confession. And you still haven't read the documents explaining false confessions.
You're losing steam.
Its not a false confession... You would have a leg to stand on if he only confessed once, but...
Jessie MissKelley first statement. Why would Jessie give a false statement?
Buddy Lucas statement. Why would Buddy Lucas give a statement to police that Jessie, Damien and Jason assaulted some boys and he was in trouble?
Jessie confessing to his own attorney for months. What reason would Jessie have for confessing to his lawyer?
Jessie's confession on tape to his lawyer swearing on the bible he was involved and tells about the whisky bottle. Why would Jessie confess to something after conviction and admit to more involvement than previously accused?
Jessie confesses to prosecutors. What was Jessie's reason for confessing to prosecutors?
Developmentally delayed people do strange things that don't make sense, especially when under stress.
How about you explain why he confessed to another crime that didn't even happen??0 -
Byrnzie wrote:Blockhead wrote:? How is it a lie, I Just fucking link his confession (not 1st) which you clearly didn't read probably because 75 pages is to long for you, or your to lazy to read it because nothing will change your mind.
Maybe you should pay attention to the post, because WE ARE PAST THE FIRST CONFESSION. So pay attention...
Why don't you actually read the confession that I linked, It shouldn't take long...
Nothing is misleading... Your cherrypicking, my response was in context to Byrnzie who said ZERO DNA was found of the Defendants. To which my reply you quoted.
We also don't know if there was DNA from the defendants, as I posted before 16 of the 26 hairs found, were not tested.
So again, If you don't fucking know what your talking about, you probaly shouldn't fucking post.
So again, read the confession from jesse that I posted...
Talking of cherry=picking, this is exactly what you've been doing ever since this thread began. Cherry-picking, lying, and getting all giddy and angry when things don't go your way.
The confessions were a sham.
Absolutely no DNA was found at the scene of the crime matching any of the three defendants, despite the 3 murdered boys allegedly having been sexually abused before being murdered and deprived of massive amounts of blood.
You're claiming that the blood, and other bodily fluids, was simply washed off in the water is PATHETIC.
You don't know what you're talking about.
And there is ZERO evidence linking any of the three defendants to this crime.
You're just stewing in your own juices.
Re: the lack of blood: obviously Blockhead has never witnessed the scene of a violent crime. That's good for his emotional well-being, but not so good for his critical thinking skills.0 -
Here's another question for you Blockhead:
How long was the police interrogation of Jessie Misskelley? Only the last 45 minutes of the interrogation were actually recorded.
How long was the total interrogation?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help