Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Dead metal I dont see myself as bias. I infact went back and forth on weather or not they were innocent finally seccumbing to the idea that they are indeed guilty. All curcumstantial evidence points to it and I flat dont believe all the excuses afforded those men to look past the confession. Had the dixie chicks metallica etc not publicly backed these killers this would just be another open and shut case. America just looooves money though and anyone associated with it so the dixie chicks must be right yes?
The bottom line is that my points and opinions are at least backed by circumstantial evidence as was those killers conviction. The oppositions opinions are based on wild conspiracies and the idea that echols was just being "shocking" baldwin was too stupid to know that he didnt really kill those baby. Please.
Its not as if the majority of people dont agree with me. My beliefs are actually the majority.
You sir, unlike compassionate reader have not insulted me or dishonored the memories of the families or victims with wild accusations so I respect your opinion and your right to disagree.
EDIT:
I checked out your links bro. That sucks. I never said people were never convicted wrongly. I infact am a felon having been wrongly convicted. Those guys are not in that category is all I am saying.
Take care bro.

I'm German and therefore have no idea who the dixy chicks are. I also never knew that Disturbed's 3 was based on this, I heard they had a song that was supposed to back teenagers who where wrongly impressioned, but didn't know the title.
So I'm not basing this on the backing of famous people.

I'm basing this on what I've learned, and on passed experience.


The older sister of a friend of my little brother was murdered, her body was then stolen from the cemetery just before the burial.
Just like here, a weird goth/metler guy who constantly talked about what a badass killer and satanist he was, was accused. Especially due to being her ex boyfriend and having been stalking her after she ended their relationship. He also stated that he would kill her if she wouldn't come back to him.

Guess who was the true killer, two weeks later the mother of the girl went to the doctor, her "privates" where itching. The doctor told her she had an infection you get from having sex with corpses.
Turns out that her husband, the girls step father killer her daughter and later stole her body to have some fun while his wife was out. He was keeping her in a cooler in a shed.

He also showed no signs of ever being that way, in fact there was more proof against the weird kid than against him, but it was still the good, friendly and helpful guy who would help out with Church duties whenever possible. The guy who "stood" at his wife's side and "supported" her and cried while being interviewed and who got angry talking about what he would do to the scum responsible.


So yes, that hair from the step father, is pretty hard evidence.

decepta-scott wrote:".........Compassionate reader you simply recycle the same crap over and over. You say things like those murderers were convicted on others "false" confessions when in fact none of those people have said they were lying."


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.


"There are plenty of senarios where that hair could have been transfered to the other child via terrys own child. For you to go on about all the elaborate set ups and off the wall ways those murderers are innocent and then say that theres no possible way a child could have a hair from his friends father passed to any part of his body is just silly."


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.


"You say your hubby got that satanic book in the sixties yeah? That would put you right at the murderers age at the time they killed those babies yes? Thought so. You Didnt read a satanic bible that your ol man brought in the house? I cant prove other wise but I submit that you didnt have a problem with it either and thusly have an open mind to it at very least. I believe that you did indulge that lifestyle while at the murderers age possibly took guff for it and that is why you blindly defend those murderers."


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.


"Please stop acting like it is perfectly normal for teens to go about admitting to murderers. To quote the mighty megatron Shock value my boran compressor."


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.


"Howard stern in known for his shock value. He is perhaps one of the most shocking people in the u.s.He is hated for the shocking things he has said for decades now and NEVER ONCE has he had to say he murdered three babies."


So what? Again, that doesn't mean that false confessions never occur. Please research the Norfolk Four as one example.


"You cant tell me you dont see how silly this all sounds. Good god woman."


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?


"That murderer echols was clearly NOT playing when he said that he loved to be thought of as a bogy man and to have children fear for their lives when thinking of him. He wasnt saying that for shock. Im sorry that YOU cannot see that, although Id bet that you actually can see it despite what you say."


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.


"Listen up. Dont presume to act as if you know how it feels to loose someone in a brutal manor. Terry has shown no weird behavior. He also never said that people were showing too much sympathy. What he said was that people wouldnt leave him alone and that his wife was having an awful time getting over their sons death. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you intentionally misquote people to further your own agenda?"


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.


"When my youngest sister was raped and murdered I too dealt with it by trying to forget it completely. It is infact a common safety mechanism. I was lucky enough to not have lived in a small town where everyone weather they knew you or not would come up and talk your ear off about it. Same thing being said over and over and over and over again by everyone around you. Then to go home and have your wife on the floor drowning in tears and meloncholy. Id say he acted about as normal as expected given the circumstances.....How dare you even comment on that. You know shite lady."


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.


"You are aware that those murderers took an alford plea correct? That means that they agree that the state DOSE INFACT HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT THEM.....but they still maintain they are innocent. Why do that and be forever labeled a baby killer? Why not take it to trial and be completely exhonerated if theres soooo much evidence to show their innocence? Why be on probation for decades if it would be an easy win?"


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 injustice) 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.


"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!!"


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 life?


"You have angered me now lady. I get mad when a clearly bias person defends baby killers because they see themself in them. Human nature dictates that anyone with a shred of a soul would show their emotions when talking to someone defending killers."


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.


"Once again Id thank you to cease saying that I am not educated on this case as I am. Thus far Im pretty sure the only thing youve corrected me on were the ages of the children killed and the shoelace. Hardly worth mentioning. My opinion should be taken every bit as serious as yours."


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.

"Thank you."

You're welcome.

[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 injustice) 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 life?[/QUOTE]

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.

[/quote]You're welcome.[/quote]

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.

I just read your story dead metal. That was a good one back when i firdt heard it in ninth grade. It is an urban legend. Think about it. Its all wrong man. Absolutely no part of that story holds up to scrutinization. I dont think you intentionally posted an urban legend though.
Im still trying to figure out how that story proves the importants of the hair as it pertains to this particular case though.....

Shadowman you are entitled to your opinion but your comments prove that you have NOT read my posts as you say you have. Had you read them you would know that none of your comments can be applied to my responses.

decepta-scott wrote:I just read your story dead metal. That was a good one back when i firdt heard it in ninth grade. It is an urban legend. Think about it. Its all wrong man. Absolutely no part of that story holds up to scrutinization. I dont think you intentionally posted an urban legend though.
Im still trying to figure out how that story proves the importants of the hair as it pertains to this particular case though.....

Dude, the kid sat in my place to cook food crying his eyes out that someone had "stolen" his sister.
His mother told us that someone took the corpse from the cemetery building just an hour before the ceremony, I read the article in the local paper that described how the metal head was arrested, I was there when the kid told my brother goodbye because he was going with his mum because she couldn't stand living here anymore. I was there when the vicar announced the replacement helping hand, and I was told by his neighbours what he did with the girl.

So no, I'm sorry but it's not an urban legend.

And what it has to do with this case? Well, in this case it was also the "weird" kid who was found guilty, oh and it was the step dad who actually did it. Oh yea and it was full of crappy police work, just like this case here.

SHADOWMAN why dont you show me this "reason" of which you speak? It dosent exist.
You admit you know nothing of this case and that you didnt even take time to read my posts so with all due respect your comments mean zip and your oponion should not be concidered.
I would say that compassionate reader is just as "dead set" in her opinion that the three are innocent as I am that they are guilty.
I have actually gone back and forth a few times as a matter of fact. Had you taken time to read the posts that you scrutinize you may have known that. In the end the evidence has swayed my opinion to their guilt. If any REAL evidence to their innocence comes forth I would view it with an open mind and eat crow were it tangable. Until then...

Bottom line for the last time is that the three murderers supporters have a hair and a man behaving what they call weird. THATS ALL. Baldwin confesses against his attourneys wishes and his supporters say it was false confession. He confesses to the officers taking him to prision and they say that too was a false confession. He had details of the scene that only the killers would have and they say....well their supporters have no response for that actually that ive heard. they also have nothng to say about the knife found in the pond behiend echols home that matches the cuts on the babies flesh.
Echols has a satanic bible and skulls in his room as well as a bunch of other satanic books, quotes from satanic worship authors and the murders match a satanic sacrifice and their supporters say that dosent make him a killer. He is heard talking to miskelly and baldwin several times about the murders and several people come forth to testify to that and their supporters say they were joking or that it was done for shock value. Kids will be kids right?
the three men continue to sas and talk crap to everyone involved especially the parrents of the victems before, durring and after the trial and echols admits to loving the fact that children will fear them and that hes loving to be thought of as a boggy man and their supporters say that also was for shock.
After so easily dismissing all that they want to say a hair that could easily be there via secondary transfer and the "weird" behavior of terry proves his guilt???
Well I say B.S. It seems to me that compassionate reader and now you have way too easily explained away crucial evidence that alone may not convict them but together form a nearly complete pic.

DEAD METAL Perhaps I should have been more specific. The s.t.d. thats only contracted through intercourse with a corpse is infact an urban ledgend.
As for the rest of the story who knows. You say it happened and I cannot refute it although bodys are generally taken straight from the funeral home to the cemetary with all the family and friends following (youve never seen a funeral precession on the road?) to be blessed and comitted to the earth at the final gathering. All that happens right away with no time inbetween.
The casket is also locked tight and the key turned over to the next of kin following the ceromony.
If the man who was guilty was always by his wifes side as uou say then when would he have time to sneak away to get the body, how would he have the key?
I guess it is POSSIBLE if the funeral went wildly different than others go. Maybe they have a different reliegon and do it differently. I just thought Id give you some food for thought.
And I never said I didnt see how the story had anything to do with the w.m.3. case at all, I said I didnt see how your story proved the sagnifigance of a hair as it pertains to the w.m.3 case.

People are wrongly convicted every now and again but those men are not in that catagory.
I will also add that at the time of the killings echols was damn near 19 yrs old and the others were almost 18 and 16 yrs old. Echols wasnt even supposed to be in highschool anymore. He was and is a MAN and 17 yrs old is old enough to know better as well. Remember that the next time you want to spout off about how KIDS say weird things because they werent quite children now wee they? At exactly what age are you expected to take responsibility for what you say?