MovieChat Forums > West of Memphis (2012) Discussion > blood evidence + testimony = guilty

blood evidence + testimony = guilty

posted 8 years ago by jackbrown-48983
9 replies | jump to latest

jessie confessed b4 the police even got to him - he didn't need to be interrogated. the day b4 the police arrived someone was over his house, asked him what was wrong, and jessie replied, "I hurt some boys in the woods yesterday." he was at the police station between 10am and 2:30pm and only 2 and a half hours were spent in interrogation. it wasn't 9, or w/e WoM claims.

then he confessed to his defense attorney, then again to his defense attorney, then to the prosecuting attorneys despite the fact that he was advised not to do so (so he doesn't just do EVERYTHING he's told), then he confessed again after he was found guilty to the very policemen who were driving him off to prison.

one of the boy's blood was found on a necklace belonging to damien, but you never learn any of this in the biased documentary and -

MOST PPL ARE TOO LAZY TO DO ANY ACTUAL RESEARCH ON THE CASE, THEY HEAR ONE BIASED SIDE OF IT, SPREAD THE BS THAT THESE BOYS WERE CONVICTED B/C THEY LISTEN TO METALLICA AND WEAR BLACK, AND NOW B/C OF THOSE MORONS 3 CHILD KILLERS ARE FREE AND YOU'RE LINING THEIR POCKETS.

congrats all. is the motive provided by the prosecutors sketchy? of course it is, but they needed a motive and it doesn't really matter b/c they're guilty anyway. what were they supposed to do, claim that there was no motive? what they did was better than that. the scumbag defense would have used anything else to their advantage. if the prosecutors told the truth, that damien was just nuts and he only hung out with jessie/jason b/c they were easily manipulated/intimidated, the defense would have chewed through it. anyone who believes they got an unfair trial just doesn't understand how it works.

also, damien's defense provided a 500 page medical and juvenile history document to the jury after he was found guilty in an attempt to get off based on his sanity. honestly it probably should have worked, I won't list any of the crazy things he's done. he belongs in the asylum. oh and jessie has a history of beating up children, which was all he was ever willing to do to the 3 little boys.

an innocent person doesn't say, after having been found guilty of such a crime, "at least now I'm like the west memphis boogeyman. parents will tell their children scary stories about me and they'll look under their bed b4 they sleep. damien might be under there." talk about a god complex, he even talks about himself in the 3rd person, in some bizarre fantasy of being a mythological horror of a legend. "I've been eating kool aid packets for the extra energy needed to become the christ, pretty soon ppl will know it just by looking at me." sick retard.

we know that he lied on the stand, it's in Paradise Lost, he's shown up there telling the prosecutor why he changed his name to damien - HE GIVES THEM THE SAME EXPLANATION THAT A FICTIONAL CHARACTER GIVES ABOUT ANOTHER FICTIONAL CHARACTER IN THE BOOK, "THE EXORCIST," A BOOK THAT DAMIEN OWNED. note damien's demeanor when he provably lies to the prosecutor there. it's the same demeanor he has when he talks about the little boys. I play poker for a living, I pay attention to that sort of thing. I didn't know anything about the case b4 watching Paradise Lost, and I still knew they were guilty b/c I'm not as retarded as any of you.

[–] putter_b 8 years ago

Glad that another person saw the movie, jumped to a non page and then regurgitated the same old lies as facts. Let's do this...

jessie confessed b4 the police even got to him - he didn't need to be interrogated. the day b4 the police arrived someone was over his house, asked him what was wrong, and jessie replied, "I hurt some boys in the woods yesterday." he was at the police station between 10am and 2:30pm and only 2 and a half hours were spent in interrogation. it wasn't 9, or w/e WoM claims.

Where to even begin... Someone claimed he had confessed. Look into Callahan and see who that someone was and why he would shift the blame onto Jessie. Your times are wrong too btw. A juvenile should have had a lawyer, parent or guardian with them when they were being interrogated by the cops, just common sense I guess. Simple as that.

then he confessed to his defense attorney, then again to his defense attorney, then to the prosecuting attorneys despite the fact that he was advised not to do so (so he doesn't just do EVERYTHING he's told), then he confessed again after he was found guilty to the very policemen who were driving him off to prison.

As for the other confessions, he confessed to the police (trying to blame it on Damien and a different Jason Baldwin to buy his Dad a truck with the reward money). During this confession they showed Jessie the pictures of the boys after the bodies were recovered. So of course he knew some of the wound placements. If you read all of the listed confessions, they constantly contradict themselves along with the facts of the murder. Even the ones AFTER he sat through his trial. Simple as that.

one of the boy's blood was found on a necklace belonging to damien, but you never learn any of this in the biased documentary and -

And you failed to mention that the blood also matched Jason & Damien.

MOST PPL ARE TOO LAZY TO DO ANY ACTUAL RESEARCH ON THE CASE, THEY HEAR ONE BIASED SIDE OF IT, SPREAD THE BS THAT THESE BOYS WERE CONVICTED B/C THEY LISTEN TO METALLICA AND WEAR BLACK, AND NOW B/C OF THOSE MORONS 3 CHILD KILLERS ARE FREE AND YOU'RE LINING THEIR POCKETS.

Says the guy who just spewed a bunch of crap from a non board.

congrats all. is the motive provided by the prosecutors sketchy? of course it is, but they needed a motive and it doesn't really matter b/c they're guilty anyway. what were they supposed to do, claim that there was no motive? what they did was better than that. the scumbag defense would have used anything else to their advantage. if the prosecutors told the truth, that damien was just nuts and he only hung out with jessie/jason b/c they were easily manipulated/intimidated, the defense would have chewed through it. anyone who believes they got an unfair trial just doesn't understand how it works.

Jason and Damien did NOT hang out with Jessie. They knew of one another, but they were not buddies by any means. As I stated, Jessie just went with a rumor he had heard and by being mentally slow, he implicated himself in the murder.

also, damien's defense provided a 500 page medical and juvenile history document to the jury after he was found guilty in an attempt to get off based on his sanity. honestly it probably should have worked, I won't list any of the crazy things he's done. he belongs in the asylum. oh and jessie has a history of beating up children, which was all he was ever willing to do to the 3 little boys.

Sigh...Exhibit 500 was provided to try to spare Damiens life. You won't list anything, because you obviously did not read it. As for Jessie beating up kids, other than the girl he hit with a rock once, please cite a source.

an innocent person doesn't say, after having been found guilty of such a crime, "at least now I'm like the west memphis boogeyman. parents will tell their children scary stories about me and they'll look under their bed b4 they sleep. damien might be under there." talk about a god complex, he even talks about himself in the 3rd person, in some bizarre fantasy of being a mythological horror of a legend. "I've been eating kool aid packets for the extra energy needed to become the christ, pretty soon ppl will know it just by looking at me." sick retard.

You are right, a kid with a horrible upbringing is finally getting the attention he so desperately needed growing up, he should be executed...

we know that he lied on the stand, it's in Paradise Lost, he's shown up there telling the prosecutor why he changed his name to damien - HE GIVES THEM THE SAME EXPLANATION THAT A FICTIONAL CHARACTER GIVES ABOUT ANOTHER FICTIONAL CHARACTER IN THE BOOK, "THE EXORCIST," A BOOK THAT DAMIEN OWNED. note damien's demeanor when he provably lies to the prosecutor there. it's the same demeanor he has when he talks about the little boys. I play poker for a living, I pay attention to that sort of thing. I didn't know anything about the case b4 watching Paradise Lost, and I still knew they were guilty b/c I'm not as retarded as any of you.

Damien owned the Exorcist? Shocking...I too have a copy of it, so do the millions of other people who purchased it. Guess we all are secret child killers... Being weird does NOT make him a murderer. I guess I am not sure how you do in poker, but if you are saying you noticed "tells" then you must be living on ramen noodles and Natty Ice.

So let's instead discuss, Vicki Hutcheson telling people that she was forced to make up lies about Damien by the WMPD? Or how about Pam Hobbs believing the WM3 are innocent? Or Mark Byers believing it? Or how about Steve Jones (one of the first people to find the bodies and a ex-WMPD officer) believing they were innocent? Or Michael Carson admitting that he lied during Jason's trial? Or the laughable Dale Griffis with his mail order cult degree (seriously, do some research on this nut). Or why happened to most of the WMPD officers that were in charge of this case (some are in prison, some resigned before they could be brought up on charges and one of the most famous ones ended up getting caught stealing over 30K from the department). But yup, they WM3 are guilty...

[–] jackbrown-48983 8 years ago

uhhhhhhhhhhh, no, I didn't just go to a "non board." wm3truth, callahan.8k, westmemphisthreefacts.com.... it's funny how you use a word to describe basically everyone except for a tool, btw. jessie is a moron, so what if he confuses the times in his confessions? who cares if he only remembers that one of the boys is wriggling around half the time? how long ago were these crimes when he confesses? couple that with the fact that jessie is an idiot who gets black out drunk on a regular basis and you should understand that his testimony more likely than not isn't going to be 100% accurate. tell me what you did last week. next week tell me what you did, a month from then tell me what you did. it's going to get fuzzier even for you, and even you are smarter than jessie. an innocent person doesn't confess to his own defense attorneys, idiot.

do you honestly believe that it's more likely that NONE of his memory is true? there's no chance of that, so if it didn't happen then he must be lying and then the reason for his demeanor at the time would be guilt over lying... and I don't believe for a second he feels that guilty over a lie. look at him. hear the guilt in his voice. if he wasn't so messed up over it, he wouldn't have kept repeating it over and over. and if it's messing him up, it makes sense that he'd continually distort it in his own mind. there were 3 different knots used, there was more likely than not 3 killers, not terry hobbs, not byers (if we were having this convo 10 years ago you'd be blaming byers, LOL), the wm3 fit. there aren't many ppl capable (that is, screwed up enough) to have done it but damien is certainly one of them.

the boy's blood was on that necklace b/c either the cops framed the wm3, or b/c they were guilty. there's no other reasonable possibility, which makes you clowns a league or so away from 9/11 truthers.

you misunderstood my point about damien btw, ofc you believe that I "was just using the fact that damien owns weird things to be evidence of his guilt." why wouldn't you believe that, parrot? pay attention this time idiot, this logic train doesn't connect to too many places: the fact that damien was provably lying when he told the prosecutor why he changed his name to damien (he didn't change it to damien b/c "a saint named damien used to cure lepers," damien only said that b/c a character in the exorcist gives the same speech), coupled with the fact that his demeanor while provably lying is indistinguishable from the time he spends giving his alibi or denying involvement, coupled with the fact that his demeanor while verifying simple facts is radically different, makes it obvious to me that he was guilty. damien's own family disowned him out of fear.

an innocent person isn't convicted of such a thing and thinks only of how parents will tell their kids horror stories about them. I'm sorry for your low level of perception and lack of common sense and simple logic.

you want a few things from me so here you go: it doesn't matter that some idiot believes they're innocent for the same reason that it doesn't matter that the other parents believe they're guilty. facts don't change based on what anyone believes. SOME officers are corrupt to the point that they embezzle? omg, that's a new one! they prob framed innocent teens for triple murder and convinced 1 of them to confess NONSTOP (WHAT ELSE COULD POSSIBLY EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES IN HIS CONFESSIONS?! LOL, "HE'S A DAMAGED, IDIOT, BLACK OUT DRUNK" JUST ISN'T SUFFICIENT ENOUGH! THE WHOLE THING MUST BE A LIE!).

and again, it doesn't matter that the motive portion of the trial was dumb as hell - that's not why the wm3 were convicted. oh and... THIS JUST IN! PROBABLE CRACK ADDICT VICKI HUTCHESON NOW CLAIMS THAT THE POLICE MADE HER SAY EVERYTHING, THREATENING TO FRAME HER FOR THE MURDER IF SHE DIDN'T! uh, yeah, that's not news. why would anyone say that 11 years later? she's probably telling the truth despite the fact that her testimony was completely unnecessary in the first place. sounds like a risk worth taking for those cops. she was no piece of the puzzle, jessie's trial had his confession, vicki was absolutely nothing and it seems much more likely to me that she just wants attention during a mid life crises or perhaps some documentary maker convinced her to say it (makes more sense than the cops convincing her to lie when they don't even need her, lol).

all I want to hear from you is this: "yes, a little boy's blood was on that necklace, the cops framed the wm3." OR: "the necklace doesn't exist, it's a lie made up by nons." OR: "yes, a little boy's blood was on that necklace but that doesn't necessarily mean that damien was involved. the murderer could have put the blood there knowing that the police would look at damien." OR: "it wasn't the boy's blood on the necklace, there's a .000000000000000001% chance that the blood belonged to someone else." OR: "yeah his blood was on the necklace, but damien could have just been hanging out with him some time and possibly sucking his blood as damien likes to do."

which is it? which ridiculous explanation seems more likely to you than, "well yeah the kid's blood is on the necklace, damien killed him." I need to hear it though, it'll be funny.

[–] putter_b 8 years ago

I am going to try to decipher your post, but sadly I am having a very hard time reading what you are writing here.

uhhhhhhhhhhh, no, I didn't just go to a "non board." wm3truth, callahan.8k, westmemphisthreefacts.com.... it's funny how you use a word to describe basically everyone except for a tool, btw. jessie is a moron, so what if he confuses the times in his confessions? who cares if he only remembers that one of the boys is wriggling around half the time? how long ago were these crimes when he confesses? couple that with the fact that jessie is an idiot who gets black out drunk on a regular basis and you should understand that his testimony more likely than not isn't going to be 100% accurate. tell me what you did last week. next week tell me what you did, a month from then tell me what you did. it's going to get fuzzier even for you, and even you are smarter than jessie. an innocent person doesn't confess to his own defense attorneys, idiot.

Lol, you cite 2 biased non boards and then Callahan (which I think we can all agree on that you probably went to it once, it was too difficult for you to understand so then you went back to the non boards).

Innocent people confess to crimes they don't commit, it happens. Frankly, I believe that Jessie was repeatedly told things like "If you tell us what we want to hear, we can work with you." Or as he previously stated, if he confessed they would allow his girlfriend to come and see him. There were more inconsistencies with his confessions than facts. Of the three that are documented, they contradict one another in almost every conceivable way.

do you honestly believe that it's more likely that NONE of his memory is true? there's no chance of that, so if it didn't happen then he must be lying and then the reason for his demeanor at the time would be guilt over lying... and I don't believe for a second he feels that guilty over a lie. look at him. hear the guilt in his voice. if he wasn't so messed up over it, he wouldn't have kept repeating it over and over. and if it's messing him up, it makes sense that he'd continually distort it in his own mind. there were 3 different knots used, there was more likely than not 3 killers, not terry hobbs, not byers (if we were having this convo 10 years ago you'd be blaming byers, LOL), the wm3 fit. there aren't many ppl capable (that is, screwed up enough) to have done it but damien is certainly one of them.

1. It's not a memory if it didn't happen.
2. The knots do not matter, it's not like the WM3 were established Boy Scouts or the knots are even evidence (if you want to talk about knots, why was Terry Hobbs facial hair IN one of the knots?).
3. You do not know who I think or thought was guilty.
4. Here is a stretch, what if it's not the WM3, Hobbs or Byers?

the boy's blood was on that necklace b/c either the cops framed the wm3, or b/c they were guilty. there's no other reasonable possibility, which makes you clowns a league or so away from 9/11 truthers.

Which boy? And why did you skip the fact that the blood also matched Damien and Jason's blood types?

you misunderstood my point about damien btw, ofc you believe that I "was just using the fact that damien owns weird things to be evidence of his guilt." why wouldn't you believe that, parrot? pay attention this time idiot, this logic train doesn't connect to too many places: the fact that damien was provably lying when he told the prosecutor why he changed his name to damien (he didn't change it to damien b/c "a saint named damien used to cure lepers," damien only said that b/c a character in the exorcist gives the same speech), coupled with the fact that his demeanor while provably lying is indistinguishable from the time he spends giving his alibi or denying involvement, coupled with the fact that his demeanor while verifying simple facts is radically different, makes it obvious to me that he was guilty. damien's own family disowned him out of fear.

I think you misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Half way through your semi-literate rant you changed courses over and over, almost like you forgot what you were saying and decided to just post it. And where did you get this non-sense of Damien's family disowning him? Watch Paradise Lost part 1 and get back to me... I'll patiently wait.

an innocent person isn't convicted of such a thing and thinks only of how parents will tell their kids horror stories about them. I'm sorry for your low level of perception and lack of common sense and simple logic.

No but an innocent kid, with some mental issues, who never received the attention a child needs and craved notoriety would. That does not make him a killer.

you want a few things from me so here you go: it doesn't matter that some idiot believes they're innocent for the same reason that it doesn't matter that the other parents believe they're guilty. facts don't change based on what anyone believes. SOME officers are corrupt to the point that they embezzle? omg, that's a new one! they prob framed innocent teens for triple murder and convinced 1 of them to confess NONSTOP (WHAT ELSE COULD POSSIBLY EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES IN HIS CONFESSIONS?! LOL, "HE'S A DAMAGED, IDIOT, BLACK OUT DRUNK" JUST ISN'T SUFFICIENT ENOUGH! THE WHOLE THING MUST BE A LIE!).

You obviously are very new to this case. Many of us have been studying it for years, even Predamorph (who doesn't post often anymore and is a non) can have a healthy debate on the subject. One thing that most of us CAN agree on though is that the WMPD bungled this case up from the word go. I can ramble off at least 10 facts as to why/how, but it will probably just go over your head since I can't write them in red crayon for you.

and again, it doesn't matter that the motive portion of the trial was dumb as hell - that's not why the wm3 were convicted. oh and... THIS JUST IN! PROBABLE CRACK ADDICT VICKI HUTCHESON NOW CLAIMS THAT THE POLICE MADE HER SAY EVERYTHING, THREATENING TO FRAME HER FOR THE MURDER IF SHE DIDN'T! uh, yeah, that's not news. why would anyone say that 11 years later? she's probably telling the truth despite the fact that her testimony was completely unnecessary in the first place. sounds like a risk worth taking for those cops. she was no piece of the puzzle, jessie's trial had his confession, vicki was absolutely nothing and it seems much more likely to me that she just wants attention during a mid life crises or perhaps some documentary maker convinced her to say it (makes more sense than the cops convincing her to lie when they don't even need her, lol).

1. Vicki testified in the trial about Esbats and other satanic rituals. Her testimony DID matter.
2. Probably crack addict? Really?
3. Did you ever read the statement Aaron gave to the police? I suggest you do so.
4. The WMPD have shown time and time again that they are not above corruption.
5. It does not matter when she came forward, the fact that she did speaks volumes.

all I want to hear from you is this: "yes, a little boy's blood was on that necklace, the cops framed the wm3." OR: "the necklace doesn't exist, it's a lie made up by nons." OR: "yes, a little boy's blood was on that necklace but that doesn't necessarily mean that damien was involved. the murderer could have put the blood there knowing that the police would look at damien." OR: "it wasn't the boy's blood on the necklace, there's a .000000000000000001% chance that the blood belonged to someone else." OR: "yeah his blood was on the necklace, but damien could have just been hanging out with him some time and possibly sucking his blood as damien likes to do."

And all I want to hear from you is "Wow...You are right, I am dumber than Jessie which is obvious from my constant spelling mistakes, lack of punctuation and fear of capitalizing letters. I now realize that both Jason and Damien's blood type was the same as on the necklace so it is NOT a smoking gun."

which is it? which ridiculous explanation seems more likely to you than, "well yeah the kid's blood is on the necklace, damien killed him." I need to hear it though, it'll be funny.

I really do not need to hear anything from you, you are funny enough.

[–] jackbrown-48983 8 years ago

there are no spelling mistakes and there's no problem with the grammar. your lack of reading comprehension is on you, dumb%^$, I hope you're trolling. I don't bother to capitalize the first word of a sentence b/c I'm not a tool. some rules are just pointless.

1) blood on the necklace (it wasn't EITHER from jason/damien or the kid, there was blood on that necklace that matched the kid AND blood that matched jason, you f*&$ing moron)
2) semen on the pants where jessie said it'd be.
3) discarded bottle of whiskey where jessie said it'd be.
4) jessie confessed repeatedly, to his own attorneys, on the way to prison, and then to his counselors in prison for years.
5) someone saw damien around the scene (with either jason or domini) around the time the murders could have taken place.
6) the psychological profiles fit perfectly.
7) their alibis couldn't have been any worse.
8) fiber evidence (however weak, it doesn't matter if it only supports a 90% probability given the rest of the evidence, it's still something)
9) candle wax at scene is similar to candles found in damien's bedroom.
10) jessie said that jason's mom's "nightgown" was there. it wasn't, but fibers from her bathrobe were found. sort of like how his times don't exactly fit, so they must not have done it, right dips*&^?

you can't add all of that s*&^ up and say, "THEY WERE ARRESTED B/C THEY WEAR BLACK AND LISTEN TO METAL," dumba^%. they were tried and found guilty twice based on the above, and if you were in the jury instead of watching a biased documentary, I'm sure that would have been enough evidence for you but now you just don't want to admit what a f*&^ing moron you are. damien is proven to have lied MANY times in both of his books and often on camera (I know, "LA LA LA," you can't hear me). how you get fooled by someone so f*&^ed up, lol.....

what outlandish scenario can explain the facts of this case while the wm3 are innocent? your best bet is to say that jessie did it but it was with 2 other ppl. it was most likely still 3 due to the shoelace. terry hobbs DNA would be on that shoelace, why don't you go look at your shoelaces? I've found hairs sticking out of mine as well b4, that means absolutely nothing. it was likely transferred long b4 the murder.

an innocent person doesn't confess for years. it's beyond retarded to back someone who, after being found guilty of this, says, "yeah in a way it's kind of cool though. parents will tell their children horror stories about me like I'm now the West Memphis Boogeyman. the kids will look under their beds b4 sleeping, Damien might be under there." egocentric, blood-drinking, animal-murdering psychopath. prob innocent though b/c there's a total "lack of evidence." enjoy the kool aid, jacka%$, this guy makes eric harris look stable.

[–] jackbrown-48983 8 years ago

I don't figure you have the attention span to read all of that so I'm putting the q to a separate post:

if the cops told him what to say, why wouldn't it be perfect? they have as many takes as they want and jessie screws up right at the very start. why didn't the cops say, "let's try that again, jessie. start the confession over and this time I want you to say this happened starting at 7pm."????

you don't seem to be able to distinguish obvious sarcasm either - I was trying to make the point that yes, cops are corrupt in that they'll skim off of the top when confiscating things. what they won't do is frame 3 innocent kids for child rape/murder. I should have known that I'd have to spell that out for you, sorry to have overestimated your level of perception after already finding it so low.

[–] putter_b 8 years ago

1) blood on the necklace (it wasn't EITHER from jason/damien or the kid, there was blood on that necklace that matched the kid AND blood that matched jason, you f*&$ing moron)

Wrong. It was a "blood type" match, which matched one of the victims along with Damien and Jason. It was not specific to anyone.

2) semen on the pants where jessie said it'd be.

Wrong. The test was with a laser, which the doctor even stated that the prosecution used it as a "test" when in fact it wasn't.

In fact, just to help you out, instead of running back to whatever board told you that lie, here is the doctor's transcripts.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_channell1.html

3) discarded bottle of whiskey where jessie said it'd be.

Wrong. The bottle wasn't even mentioned until the "bible confession". There is no evidence it was purchased on that day, nor does it have anything to do with the crime.

4) jessie confessed repeatedly, to his own attorneys, on the way to prison, and then to his counselors in prison for years.

Wrong. There is zero evidence that he confessed to counselors in prison.

5) someone saw damien around the scene (with either jason or domini) around the time the murders could have taken place.

Wrong. It was the Hollingsworth clan who claimed they saw Damien and Domini near the laundromat, the prosecution said that it was actually Jason not Domini. Why did the Hollingsworth put them there? Because their kin, LG was also a lead suspect.

6) the psychological profiles fit perfectly.

Wrong. The ONLY credible FBI profiler to get involved (John Douglas) made a profile that is no where NEAR the WM3.

7) their alibis couldn't have been any worse.

Wrong. They were 3 kids who more or less had zero going on in life. Every day tends to blend together.

8) fiber evidence (however weak, it doesn't matter if it only supports a 90% probability given the rest of the evidence, it's still something)

Wrong. The "fiber" was similar (not exact) and it also matched several items at the local Walmart.

9) candle wax at scene is similar to candles found in damien's bedroom.

Wrong. Lisa Sakevicius testified that the candles found at Jason, Damien and Domini's residence did NOT match any "waxy" substance at the crime scene.

10) jessie said that jason's mom's "nightgown" was there. it wasn't, but fibers from her bathrobe were found. sort of like how his times don't exactly fit, so they must not have done it, right dips*&^?

Wrong. See your idiotic response for #8.

It's good to see you can cut and paste directly from westmemphisthreelies and claiming to be non-biased. But believe me kid, many of us have been studying this for years. Sadly for you, I am one of them.

[–] jackbrown-48983 8 years ago

after reading your comment I regretfully did MORE damn research but stopped after finding your first statement inaccurate:

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/march17_hearing.html

there were 2 sources of blood on that necklace, 1 of which was consistent with damien and another of which was consistent with EITHER jason OR steve branch (the boy whose face was cut if I remember correctly). it makes sense that damien's blood was on it, but why would jason's be there? you won't find any blood from any guys I know on any of my things, dude, it doesn't make sense. yeah, sure, 11% of the population has the same blood as the 2nd source of that necklace, so what? wtf is it doing there? it's just another piece that fits jessie's testimony. it isn't a smoking gun, but it, along with everything else, is more than enough. jessie knew which boy had his face cut, he knew which boy was castrated. so you can either believe that the cops told jessie these things so that jessie could reiterate them, or you can believe that jessie was there.

IF the cops just told him what to say, THEN his confession at 3:18PM would have matched the "clarification" followup at 5PM. the fact that his times changed (and nothing else of importance) doesn't mean jack s*&^. the only contradiction in his confession was right at the beginning, but the supposedly crooked cops didn't bother to restart the recording? no, do you really not understand why that doesn't make sense? put yourself in a crooked cop's shoes, it doesn't make any damn sense for jessie to start telling the story, "oh yeah, this happened at 9AM," when you need it to have occurred in the evening. is it so "leading" to ask the kid (towards the end of the confession, way later than jessie's original story began with this), "well, you're not wearing a watch, are you? no? what time is it right now? okay... you don't know, so then does it make sense to say that this could have occurred at a later time?" big deal.

here's what's going on: a bunch of ppl read the confession transcript and of those who were paying the least attention felt that the detectives asked "leading questions" b/c they don't know the difference between a clarification and a real question. when the detective says, "about the size of a baseball bat?" for example, it's obviously b/c jessie had indicated with his hands the size of the stick. the detective isn't giving jessie any info b4 it comes out of jessie's own mouth. the very few instances where this is happening, it's clear that the reason is b/c jessie had told them earlier b4 they started recording (about the time at which you MUST believe that the detectives were just telling him what to say in order to frame 3 innocent boys if you believe they didn't do it, LOL). they're just jogging his memory: "okay, you said earlier...." those instances are of little importance too, clarifications on exactly where someone was standing or the direction of which someone was running.

the most leading question asked: "so where was the boy running? back towards the houses, the blue beacon, towards the interstate?" to which jessie responds, "back towards the houses." big f*&^ing deal, dude. he could have reiterated any of the detective's examples and it wouldn't have changed anything - it isn't as though they knew which direction the boy had run. in every case where they had evidence that needed to be corroborated by jessie, it wasn't fed to him - in fact, when jessie was asked which boy was mutilated, in the taped recording JESSIE NAMED THE WRONG BOY BUT POINTED TO THE RIGHT ONE.

IF the cops had told him what to say, and they were looking for this, they'd have just started over at this point. they would not have said on tape, "okay, you're pointing to the byers boy though? not steve branch?" how dumb do you think they are? the reason it looks worse than it is, is simply b/c the cops AREN'T crooked. (either that or they're COMPLETELY retarded, and they're clearly smarter than that). I'd follow less of the unnecessary rules here than they did - why does he need to know his rights 3 times? if they wanted to frame them we wouldn't be having this discussion, multiple smoking guns would see to that.

I'm pretty sure if you asked me if I had killed them, I'd pass the polygraph test. they failed abysmally. I'd waste more of my time going through the rest of your points but after reading for an hour just to find that you've lied on the first point, why the hell would I bother?

how could you see and hear jessie and think he's innocent b/c his times don't fit? that's the deciding factor for you, isn't it? yeah, the cops found the dumbest person they could, promised him a new truck if he'd tell them that he and a couple others mutilated, raped and killed children, and so jessie just decided to confess while deserving an oscar for his fake guilty conscience that's all over his face and in his voice, not just once but to everyone involved, repeatedly. yeah right, clown, I'm sure he had very legitimate reasons for confessing 6 times throughout a period of 4 months (since you want to deny his confessions to counselors we won't count those).

none of you even say that the cops framed them. okay. cops that aren't willing to frame someone are likely to just get the first idiot they find to admit to something he didn't do though, apparently. what sounds easier to you? framing them, or getting someone to admit to something they didn't do (which, if they did, they purposefully must have given him all the info he needed to "confess" - the problem with this is that if they were corrupt then they'd have just more easily framed someone). plus... if they were to get someone to admit to this crime that they know the person didn't commit, why the hell would they make it harder for themselves and have that person implicate TWO others? wouldn't it be much easier to get him to say that he lured the boys over, smashed 2 of their heads together, and chased the 3rd one down? how did this happen, if they're setting him up? it doesn't make any sense. you don't think.

if it happened the way you say it happened, this is the most likely scenario:

detective: look at these pictures, jessie, we know what happened to these boys. damien and jason killed them. we just need you to tell us that you saw it so that we can arrest them. we'll need you to implicate yourself just a little bit as well so it's believable. you don't have to say you've done much to them, just that you helped hold them, tie them up, maybe hit one of them a couple times. you didn't have to know that these boys were about to be killed, you were just being a bully. then they started raping and killing the kids, so you ran away. no one will say that you're guilty of murder. just tell us what you've done, okay? we'll start recording soon....

do you really believe that? is there more evidence to put that detective behind bars than the wm3? b/c either he, or the wm3 belong behind bars, that much is for certain. w/o jessie's testimony, he had nothing - so why would he be so bent on nailing damien and jason if he doesn't even have reason to believe they did it? only that detective wasn't alone, was he? the detective would have NEEDED the others to go along with this. imagine that this is your job... you come up with this idea... you're, uhhhhhh, really going to suggest this brilliant idea to your coworker? "hey man, look, we're not getting anywhere with this case... it won't be our first unsolved case, sure, and we might not have too many of them, but... do you want to kind of try something a bit new here?" there's no way to suggest this to anyone. it doesn't make any sense, you're f*&^ing stupid.

[–] putter_b 8 years ago

there were 2 sources of blood on that necklace, 1 of which was consistent with damien and another of which was consistent with EITHER jason OR steve branch (the boy whose face was cut if I remember correctly). it makes sense that damien's blood was on it, but why would jason's be there? you won't find any blood from any guys I know on any of my things, dude, it doesn't make sense. yeah, sure, 11% of the population has the same blood as the 2nd source of that necklace, so what? wtf is it doing there? it's just another piece that fits jessie's testimony. it isn't a smoking gun, but it, along with everything else, is more than enough. jessie knew which boy had his face cut, he knew which boy was castrated. so you can either believe that the cops told jessie these things so that jessie could reiterate them, or you can believe that jessie was there.

Hmmmm, considering it was Jason's necklace that has been photographed on both he and Damien, I can imagine how blood may have gotten on it from either one. Two young teens learning how to shave? Hmmmmmmm

The only reason Jessie knew who had what damage, was because the cops showed him the pictures BEFORE he even made a statement. So yeah, you are still wrong.

IF the cops just told him what to say, THEN his confession at 3:18PM would have matched the "clarification" followup at 5PM. the fact that his times changed (and nothing else of importance) doesn't mean jack s*&^. the only contradiction in his confession was right at the beginning, but the supposedly crooked cops didn't bother to restart the recording? no, do you really not understand why that doesn't make sense? put yourself in a crooked cop's shoes, it doesn't make any damn sense for jessie to start telling the story, "oh yeah, this happened at 9AM," when you need it to have occurred in the evening. is it so "leading" to ask the kid (towards the end of the confession, way later than jessie's original story began with this), "well, you're not wearing a watch, are you? no? what time is it right now? okay... you don't know, so then does it make sense to say that this could have occurred at a later time?" big deal.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the cops thought Jessie was "slow" when they questioned him?

here's what's going on: a bunch of ppl read the confession transcript and of those who were paying the least attention felt that the detectives asked "leading questions" b/c they don't know the difference between a clarification and a real question. when the detective says, "about the size of a baseball bat?" for example, it's obviously b/c jessie had indicated with his hands the size of the stick. the detective isn't giving jessie any info b4 it comes out of jessie's own mouth. the very few instances where this is happening, it's clear that the reason is b/c jessie had told them earlier b4 they started recording (about the time at which you MUST believe that the detectives were just telling him what to say in order to frame 3 innocent boys if you believe they didn't do it, LOL). they're just jogging his memory: "okay, you said earlier...." those instances are of little importance too, clarifications on exactly where someone was standing or the direction of which someone was running.

This is a supporter site, but it has some interesting information. I get it, that of the 3 sites you linked, 2 were "non" sites, I think you owe it to yourself to read this.

http://www.jivepuppi.com/misskelleys_many_confessions.html

the most leading question asked: "so where was the boy running? back towards the houses, the blue beacon, towards the interstate?" to which jessie responds, "back towards the houses." big f*&^ing deal, dude. he could have reiterated any of the detective's examples and it wouldn't have changed anything - it isn't as though they knew which direction the boy had run. in every case where they had evidence that needed to be corroborated by jessie, it wasn't fed to him - in fact, when jessie was asked which boy was mutilated, in the taped recording JESSIE NAMED THE WRONG BOY BUT POINTED TO THE RIGHT ONE.

Once again, the cops had no clue what happened. If anyone ran, if anyone fought, if anyone did anything. So stating that Jessie named one boy and then pointed out another is moot, there is no proof that it happened that way.

IF the cops had told him what to say, and they were looking for this, they'd have just started over at this point. they would not have said on tape, "okay, you're pointing to the byers boy though? not steve branch?" how dumb do you think they are? the reason it looks worse than it is, is simply b/c the cops AREN'T crooked. (either that or they're COMPLETELY retarded, and they're clearly smarter than that). I'd follow less of the unnecessary rules here than they did - why does he need to know his rights 3 times? if they wanted to frame them we wouldn't be having this discussion, multiple smoking guns would see to that.

They kept asking him similar questions with different verbage. Go back and reread it. His answers changed depending on what he was going to say or do.

I'm pretty sure if you asked me if I had killed them, I'd pass the polygraph test. they failed abysmally. I'd waste more of my time going through the rest of your points but after reading for an hour just to find that you've lied on the first point, why the hell would I bother?

No, they failed a polygraph administered by a man who had very limited experience with that process. Add into that, said administer was only trained a few months before hand. Also, other well known polygraph administers said that the initial administer misread several statements wrong.

how could you see and hear jessie and think he's innocent b/c his times don't fit? that's the deciding factor for you, isn't it? yeah, the cops found the dumbest person they could, promised him a new truck if he'd tell them that he and a couple others mutilated, raped and killed children, and so jessie just decided to confess while deserving an oscar for his fake guilty conscience that's all over his face and in his voice, not just once but to everyone involved, repeatedly. yeah right, clown, I'm sure he had very legitimate reasons for confessing 6 times throughout a period of 4 months (since you want to deny his confessions to counselors we won't count those).

You might want to go back and find out exactly how many times Jessie confessed. And I am glad that you have the "eye" to look at someone and decide if they are guilty or not. I wish I had that skill, you must be amazing on the jury stand.

none of you even say that the cops framed them. okay. cops that aren't willing to frame someone are likely to just get the first idiot they find to admit to something he didn't do though, apparently. what sounds easier to you? framing them, or getting someone to admit to something they didn't do (which, if they did, they purposefully must have given him all the info he needed to "confess" - the problem with this is that if they were corrupt then they'd have just more easily framed someone). plus... if they were to get someone to admit to this crime that they know the person didn't commit, why the hell would they make it harder for themselves and have that person implicate TWO others? wouldn't it be much easier to get him to say that he lured the boys over, smashed 2 of their heads together, and chased the 3rd one down? how did this happen, if they're setting him up? it doesn't make any sense. you don't think.

Hmmmmm heads smashed together? Interesting. Are you following the same school as Scummy and Blink? Make up a scenario so outlandish that it may have happened? Ok, I will go too then. The boys decided to tie each other up and jump in the creek. Cool, can we call that fact?

if it happened the way you say it happened, this is the most likely scenario:

detective: look at these pictures, jessie, we know what happened to these boys. damien and jason killed them. we just need you to tell us that you saw it so that we can arrest them. we'll need you to implicate yourself just a little bit as well so it's believable. you don't have to say you've done much to them, just that you helped hold them, tie them up, maybe hit one of them a couple times. you didn't have to know that these boys were about to be killed, you were just being a bully. then they started raping and killing the kids, so you ran away. no one will say that you're guilty of murder. just tell us what you've done, okay? we'll start recording soon....

Let me ask you this. Do you think the WMPD were competent, law abiding officers of the law? Jessie stated before that he confessed because they told him he could see his girlfriend. So was he lying there?

do you really believe that? is there more evidence to put that detective behind bars than the wm3? b/c either he, or the wm3 belong behind bars, that much is for certain. w/o jessie's testimony, he had nothing - so why would he be so bent on nailing damien and jason if he doesn't even have reason to believe they did it? only that detective wasn't alone, was he? the detective would have NEEDED the others to go along with this. imagine that this is your job... you come up with this idea... you're, uhhhhhh, really going to suggest this brilliant idea to your coworker? "hey man, look, we're not getting anywhere with this case... it won't be our first unsolved case, sure, and we might not have too many of them, but... do you want to kind of try something a bit new here?" there's no way to suggest this to anyone. it doesn't make any sense, you're f*&^ing stupid.

The cops had no business handling this case. They should have turned it over to the FBI from the word go. Witness tampering, coercion, fabricating evidence, "misplacing" evidence, allowing unqualified people to be involved in the case, not securing the crime scene, etc...

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]