[QUOTE/]All three of the falsely convicted men said that they were innocent when they accepted the Alford plea. I'm not sure who you meant when you said "those people" but the mother of one of the softball girls has since said that Damien was not being serious when he made the statement at the ball park. Michael Carson, the jailhouse snitch who claimed that Jason "confessed" to him in the juvenile hall, has said in the most recent documentary "West of Mempbis" that he was high on LSD at the time and didn't know what he was saying while employees at the juvenile hall have said that Jason and Michael weren't ever alone together long enough for the conversation to have taken place. Joyce Cureton, the supervisor at the juvenile hall at the time, testified at the Rule 37 hearing that she was told to be unavailable to testify for the defense. Jessie has said that what he said was what the police told him to say. If you are referring to any other "people" than those, please tell me.[QUOTE/]
I am ofcourse refering to the half dozen or so people who heard the three murderers saying that they killed those boys and that they were going to get at least one more. None of those witnesses have recanted. Jason never said he was high on lsd at the time, only that he had taken it before. As for the juvy c.o's exactly how long dose it take to tell someone you killed three babies? A few seconds? I cant recall that even being said but Im not sure.
Its o.k. though because they were only saying that stuff for shock value right? Reguardless of the fact that they didnt know they were being listened to. I guess they were trying to "shock" themselves?
As for the mother saying that they werent being serious how the hell would she know? More importantly, What kind of person goes about "joking" about that kind of thing so soon after it happened and what kind of person would say that it was alright because they "werent being serious" I guess the same kind of person that thinks all the confessions, the boogy man statement and the many many other incriminating things that those murderers said was said for "shock value"
[/QUOTE]I disagree. There aren't "plenty of senarios" (sic) to explain the presence of Hobbs' hair in the ligature of Michael Moore. There are only two scenarios that would explain that - either Hobbs left the hair himself or it was secondary transfer. Since Hobbs claims that he didn't see any of the boys on May 5th, secondary transfer is less likely, IMO, than Hobbs leaving the hair himself because we know that Hobbs is a proven liar. The Jacoby hair presents an even more unusual situation. The boys were not with Jacoby at any point during May 5th. Jacoby claims that he was never near the discovery ditch, and he also claims that Hobbs was at his house "playing guitars" early that evening. So, again there are two possibilities. If Jacoby is lying, he could have left the hair when he went to the discovery ditch. Or, Hobbs could have picked up the hair when he was with Jacoby and left it at the discovery ditch himself. That's it. The important thing here that you seem to be missing is how these two hairs got to the discovery ditch if the teenagers
were the murderers, and, even more important, why were none of the teenagers' hairs at the scene? Was the water magic in that it only washed away the teens' hairs while leaving the hairs of two innocent men? I find that highly unlikely.[/QUOTE]
.....AHEM...."Secondary transfer"= MANY POSIBILITIES! PERIOD. Those hairs could have hung onto their clothes, shoes, body etc for a long while. Fact.So disagree all you want. As for why there werent any hair from the threemurderers at the scene I cant say. Who the hell says there has to be hair left from the murderers in order for them to have been the ones who did it anyway?
Damien and co went around confessing, saying they killed those babies and they were gonna do it again, said there werent any bones in their rooms not to mention Damien denying threatning to kill his parents while they slept and even getting physical with his mother. All that stuff did infact happen though so they too are proven liars. Your hypocrisy astounds me.
[/QUOTE]First, I didn't read the Satanic Bible because my husband and I weren't married (or even living together) at the time he had the book. Second, yes, at the time he got the book, we would have been about the age of the teens. Guess what? WE NEVER KILLED ANYONE! The fact that a person owns a certain book does not make him/her a murderer. THAT WAS MY POINT! Teenagers (and young adults) often have unusual tastes and buy and read unusual things. It's part of the maturing process.[/QUOTE]
In trying to convey your point You have missed mine. My point again being that you were into the same things that those boys were into at their age and probably took crap for it and that is why you feel the need to protect them. Weather or not you lived with your hubby or not makes no never mind. Youy knew of the book (and I still believe you read and probably liked it) and had no problem with him reading a satanic book.
And your correct. The fact that those men wore black, induldged in satanic activity/read satanic bibles literature etc and listened to metal does not make them a killer. Killing those babies makes them murderers.
[/QUOTE]I didn't say it was "perfectly normal" for teens to "go about admitting to murderers (sic)." My experience with teenagers has shown me that they often make outrageous threats against family and/or peers, and they VERY RARELY carry out such threats. And, Damien never threatened the victims. However, false confessions, especially by teenagers or mentally challenged persons (and Jessie was both) are far from rare. I don't care whether you personally would admit to a murder that you didn't commit. I don't think I would, either. However, that doesn't mean that false confessions never occur.
Admitting to the murder of three babies, bragging about it afterwards,knowing intimate details of the crime scene(reguardless of weather he confused laces with rope and got times wrong) are a FAR CRY from making typical teenage threats and boasts.
Threatning to get a tatto, running away, saying you are a black belt at karate and that you beat up five guys are the kinds of outraegous things teens make. NOT what those murderers said.
They say things to make themselves look cool or tough. To get people to think well of them. Bragging about killing three babies and saying they were going to do it again, Saying you love to be thought of as a boggy man by children AFTER you have been sentenced to death and the game is over do not qualify as a teens attempt at gaining popularity or shocking someone. GET REAL.
So what? Again, that doesn't mean that false confessions never occur. Please research the Norfolk Four as one example.[/QUOTE]
Please show me where I said that false confessions never occur. Yoyu cant because I never said that. What I said is that Baldwin didnt give a false confession. His attourney was present begging him not to confess and he did anyway. He also told even more of the story UNCOERSED to the officers that took him to prison POST TRIAL.
Fact is baldwin was the only one who showed remorse and thats why he confessed. I think echols was the ring leader and did sucker those other two into killing those babies. Stupid thing to follow an a$$ like echols? Absolutely! Dose being stupid or even realy stupid absolve you of murder? NO.
For the record none of those men were mentaly retarted. Realy stupid dose not equal mentaly handicapped. Sorry.
[/QUOTE]Obviously, I don't think that my scenario sounds "silly" or I wouldn't put it forth. I'm not in the habit of saying "silly" things on Internet boards. Are you?[/QUOTE]
Is it realy that obvious?... I wouldnt think so. I would say thats a matter of opinion. My opinion is that your theory is silly to a point that it could possibly be a joke.
[/Quote]Damien was being sarcastic when he made the "boogeyman" statement. It's just another example of a teen saying something for shock value. Again, that sort of thing happens all the time. I'm
sorry that you
can't see it.[/QUOTE]
You just keep on with your lil shock value opinion dont you? Your basis for this conclusion is I suppose that damien says that he only said it for shock value yes? After all if he says he only said it for shock value then he couldnt be lying could he? PLEASE HANG THIS UP!! IT is by far and away your WEAKEST POINT and would be laughed out of any court room.
To think that this man would be going for shock value on the documentary ment to absolve him is insane!! I guess when asked what he thought of the prosicutions closing statements by his attourney, he response of " I dont know I was only half way listening" was said for shock value as well yes? I have another word for that. LIES! So either he was telling the truth and did love being thought of as a boggy man, or he was lying and cannot be taken for face value for anything he says. Take your pick mam.
[/QUOTE]I didn't quote Terry. Nor did you. He said that Pam couldn't "just get over" Stevie's death and he couldn't take it anymore. I advise you to watch the Pasdar deposition. As to me having never lost someone in a brutal manner, you're wrong. I have.[/QUOTE]
Wait wait wait....You didnt quote terry? You started with "terry said" yes? So now you admit to misleading anyone reading this by putting words into ones mouth? I now submit that you are a liar and that nothing you type/say can be taken at face value. It seems more and more that you are not the expert you claim to be and I advise YOU to rewatch any and all, read any and all things you advised me to read.
With reguards to your cousin I can only say that if you were truely as close to your cousine as I was to my sis and as terry was to his son then You have my condolences. Infact if you werent that close to him/her you have my sympathy.
[/QUOTE]When my 13-year-old cousin was killed, I did
live in a small town. Everyone talked about it and asked me questions, and I was a child myself at the time - I was ten. My cousin's parents had trouble dealing with everything, but my uncle didn't leave my aunt two weeks later because she was still dealing with the grief. He stood by her and tried to help her cope. The whole family did. As an adult, when I was attacked and almost raped in the laundry room, my husband helped me deal with that situation; he didn't leave me two weeks later because I still needed to talk it out. And, when I was AGAIN sexually assaulted a few years later outside our apartment, my husband was there for me and didn't expect me to "just get over it" in two weeks. Don't presume to know my experiences, either. Yes, trying to forget is, for many, a common defense
mechanism. However, it doesn't work for everyone, and for those who can't (or don't) use it, the others around them must allow them to grieve in their own way. Trying to force them to "get over" the situation will only make the grieving process longer and more painful for all concerned.[/QUOTE]
Well I suppose thats just proof that people react many different ways to extreem depression at having lost someone close. now isnt it? Noone should be persacuted for not thinking rationally 14 days after the brutal murder of their son.
Also, by your own rational, acting what you precieve to be weird dose not a killer make. Yes?
[/QUOTE]The Alford Plea said that the State had enough evidence that they COULD (not would) be convicted if they went to trial. Obviously, since they were already convicted, they knew that another kangaroo court could well convict them on the same bogus evidence. I don't think that another jury would have convicted them primarily because the whole Satanic panic thing is passe now. Scott Ellington didn't believe that another jury would find them guilty either, at least according to his interview published in a December, 2011, Gentlemens' Quarterly
article. However, since these men had served over eighteen years in prison for murders that they didn't commit, I totally understand why they wouldn't want to trust the same justice (or should I say in
justice) system that had already unjustly convicted them to get it right this time? And, they are not
on probation. They have a ten year suspended sentence. They have no travel restrictions and they do not have to periodically report to a parole or probation officer. Please get your facts straight.[/QUOTE]
Yes. West memphis is packed full of supersticious bumpkins who want to see all teen fry. I totally see why they wouldnt take this case which they were so obviously wrongly convicted of so many years ago to a "kangeroo courtroom" (who decided it was a kangeroo court again?) where they would finally be exhonerated and free of all accusations. BULL!!!
Fact is there was a good chance they would be sentenced again on the count of very good surciumstancial evidence and confessions both infront of a police officer and infront of their community.
Also F.Y.I. They ARE on probation. It is called unsupervised arole. If they screw up even once they go back for the years they have over their head.
So once again mam It is YOU who are wrong and it is YOU who need to get your facts straight.
"OOOOH I know. Because those bumpkins in memphis want all "weird teens" put behiend bars and ultimately exicuted so they didnt want to gamble right? GET REAL!!"
[/QUOTE]The "bumpkins in Memphis," which is in Tennessee, don't have anything to do with a crime in West Memphis, Arkansas. Small town justice can often go astray. This case is one example of such. The McMartin preschool trials is another. The Salem witch trials are yet another. There are a plethora of examples of such a situation, if you just investigate. Would you
gamble with your
I know where this all took place thank you. You are the one who decided to bring up geography. Im still not sure why.
Taking the boys out of the area that the crime took place in was done so that they werent convicted or exhonerated by their hometown due to any bias that may or maynot be present. It is a common practice afforded to many high profile cases.
Why exactly did you bring this up again?
LOL at bringing up the salem witch trials too. Your realy grasping at straws arent you.
I would gamble my life if I was innocent, had a bunch of "bogus evidence" against me and had the dixie chicks, metalica and a whole slew of other multi millionairs in my corner. Make no mistake. Were these boys not supported by celebrities they would have been just another bunch of worthless murderers. Money changes EVERYTHING.
[/QUOTE]I'm sorry that you are angered. However, you, too, have a bias in this situation, as the previous poster mentioned. I don't think that I am "defending killers." I think that I am seeking justice for falsely convicted men.[/QUOTE]
Well I suppose its like this. In order to make a decision one must be a bit bias one way or the other. It is that very bias that sways you one way or the other.
It is when one makes a decission contrary to what the evidence and common sence suggests, no matter how overwhelming that evidence may be that they have shown, for lack of a better term, unresponsible bias.
It is fact that there exists an overwhelming ammount of circumstancial evidence against those men to show their guilt. It is also a fact that despite all the posts here your whole opinion rsts on a hair that can be explained away and a man acting what you precieve to be weird.
That mam is why your opinion on this case is in the minority.
No matter how much money backs those murderers they will always be guilty so says the record, so says the court, so says the very men in question as per their plea and so says everyone who knows they are guilty. They will screw up again and prision will be waiting for them.
[/QUOTE]I never said that you didn't have the right to your opinion. You
have said that you haven't read all of the case documents available at Callahan's. IMO, someone who has read those documents (as I have) is more educated on the case than someone who has not. That's all I said. I'm not saying that you haven't read anything. I'm saying that you haven't read everything, or at least, by your own admission, you haven't read the case documents readily available to anyone who wants to educate him/herself on the case.[/QUOTE]
I have read most of the available literature available as well as the court transcripts and find nothing new. Nothing to sway my opinion.
As are you. I have said my peice and barring any completely off the wall statements you make I will not likely be compelled to respond to any new posts you make.
I have a feeling that you are one of those who feels that as long as you get the last word you win so go ahead and take it.
I would hate to wasted enough of my time on a troll.
Take care now.