- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: West Memphis three
Posted on 6/23/21 at 11:40 am to JimNat
Posted on 6/23/21 at 11:40 am to JimNat
In the autopsy one of the murdered children had re-bar marks on him like being struck by a piece. There was a sewer man-hole access nearby the murder scene and the re-bar inside the man-hole access used for steps matched the marks found in the autopsy.
I believe that man-hole was the murder scene and Terry Hobbs did it.
I believe that man-hole was the murder scene and Terry Hobbs did it.
0
Posted on 6/23/21 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
a coerced confession
media contrived bullshite
Misskelly confessed to Buddy Lucas the very next morning. Went as far as giving away the Adidas that he wore at the crime scene. A kid with mental disabilities is very protective of their belongings. He wouldn't part with his prized pair of shoes without great motivation.
And how the hell did Miskelly even know that 3 boys were dead, when the police hadnt even find the bodies until 4 hours after this first confession? How did a retarded kid just happen to name the other 2, who also didnt have alibis, if he wasnt telling the truth?
He also confessed to other friends, and to his parents. His father took him to the cops for that very reason!!
Posted on 6/23/21 at 3:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and too easy to coerce/display as freaks for the town
if cops can't get an immediate lead, it's logical to focus on the freak shows. b/c even without a strong case, they have a shot (as seen by the initial convictions in these trials)
While Echols as one of the towns local faux-Satanists was somewhat of a "freak," you've never been to the South if you think Baldwin or Misskelley were anything but normal for small town Arkansas.
Again ... the cops focused on two people BEFORE they looked at these killers. And yes, when cops identify a likely suspect, they do tend to focus on them ... that's how investigations work.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 4:07 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
media contrived bullshite
Here's direct quotes from one of his confessions:
JESSIE: Yes, I did. I went with them and then
GITCHELL: Now, where you in a car? Whose car where y’all in?
RIDGE: You went to the Robin Hood, explain to me where those woods are.
JESSIE: By uh, Blue Beacon Truck Wash.
RIDGE: A little patch of woods
JESSIE: A little patch of woods
RIDGE: Behind Blue Beacon?
JESSIE: Behind it, right back there behind it.
RIDGE: can you describe to me what in those woods, what's the location where you were?
RIDGE: Is there a path that you go down?
JESSIE: Uh, down a little path
RIDGE: Alright, where does that path go too?
RIDGE: Okay, and when you came back a little bit later, and are all three boys are tied?
JESSIE: Uh-huh
RIDGE: Is that right?
JESSIE: Yes, and I took off and run home.
RIDGE: okay, now when it’s going on, when this is taking place, you under – you saw somebody with a knife, who had a knife?
JESSIE: Jason
RIDGE: Jason had a knife, what did he cut with the knife. What did you see him cut or who did you see him cut?
JESSIE: I saw him cut one of the little boys
RIDGE: Alright, where did he cut him at?
How is that not leading him into statements? He might as well have had a fishing pole with a big shiny hook in the interview room.
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 6/23/21 at 4:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
no
the state has to PROVE beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that they committed these crimes. some circumstantial evidence, a coerced confession, and hearsay isn't enough to do it. there was plenty of reasonable doubt
Doesn’t the Alford plea basically say that even they, and presumably their attorneys believe that they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? Who are you to say there was plenty of reasonable doubt, when the boys themselves, and their attorneys believed they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and so copped an Alford?
Posted on 6/23/21 at 5:27 pm to troyt37
quote:
Doesn’t the Alford plea basically say that even they, and presumably their attorneys believe that they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? Who are you to say there was plenty of reasonable doubt, when the boys themselves, and their attorneys believed they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and so copped an Alford?
More complicated than that in this particular case IMO. There were alot of factors at play on both sides. If the state truly believed these guys were child rapists/killers, they would not have considered or accepted anything other than re-convictions.
On the state's side, they likely would have lost if the defendants were granted new trials (which is what was about to happen). The defendants had much better representation and a ton of funds from celebrity support. The state was in a weak position, but still did not want to lose face.
On the defendant's side, the desire for freedom was likely strong after a couple decades in prison. They could go back to trial, but what if by chance they did lose again? They were convicted the first time around with very little evidence after all.
IMO Alford was a way for both sides to get what they wanted... the state to maintain that the defendants were guilty and avoid lawsuits, and the defendants to get their freedom. Why would the defendants accept Alford if they thought they were purely innocent? Well, easy for us to say that when we haven't spent decades in a state prison.
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:24 pm to troyt37
quote:
Doesn’t the Alford plea basically say that even they, and presumably their attorneys believe that they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? Who are you to say there was plenty of reasonable doubt, when the boys themselves, and their attorneys believed they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and so copped an Alford?
Yes. If they thought they would be acquitted they would have sought a new trial and then sued the state for millions related to wrongful conviction. There is a reason the convicted refuse to release the results of the DNA tests.
The multi-million-dollar propaganda machine had shifted public opinion (as this thread notes). This is the same machine that convinced the public that Trump stole the 2016 election, Trump peed on Russian hookers, Juicy Smalls was attacked by MAGA supporters, MAGA kids assaulted an Indian man, Trump told people to drink bleach, hydroxychloroquine will kill you, cloth masks stop covid, Trump made fun of veterans, Putin put bounties on troops, Trump tried to steal the Georgia election, BLM riots were mostly peaceful, antifa does not exist ... shall I continue?
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:27 pm to jdd48
quote:
There were alot of factors at play on both sides. If the state truly believed these guys were child rapists/killers, they would not have considered or accepted anything other than re-convictions.
Plea deals are arranged every day, for crimes more heinous than these, both then and now. You can’t really say that with any authority.
quote:
On the state's side, they likely would have lost if the defendants were granted new trials (which is what was about to happen). The defendants had much better representation and a ton of funds from celebrity support. The state was in a weak position, but still did not want to lose face.
You may we’ll be correct here, but the only thing we know of that these expensive lawyers and money would have really brought to bear was starstruck juries, with musicians holding concerts, and Johnny Depp making appearances. For all the money and celebrity involved, it didn’t produce one iota of exonerating evidence. Would have only hurt their case if I was a juror.
quote:
On the defendant's side, the desire for freedom was likely strong after a couple decades in prison. They could go back to trial, but what if by chance they did lose again? They were convicted the first time around with very little evidence after all.
With the best lawyers money could buy, and Hollywood firmly in their corner? Sorry, if I’m innocent and have all of that going for me, I’d tell you where to stick your plea deal.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:28 pm to troyt37
quote:That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the DA still wants the "win" on his record, despite knowing that he would lose an actual retrial. And as a reminder - they were still in prison.
Doesn’t the Alford plea basically say that even they, and presumably their attorneys believe that they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? Who are you to say there was plenty of reasonable doubt, when the boys themselves, and their attorneys believed they would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and so copped an Alford?
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:35 pm to Baylor Kyle
quote:What?
There is a reason the convicted refuse to release the results of the DNA tests.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:36 pm to troyt37
quote:bullshite.
With the best lawyers money could buy, and Hollywood firmly in their corner? Sorry, if I’m innocent and have all of that going for me, I’d tell you where to stick your plea deal.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:41 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Another way is that the DA still wants the "win" on his record, despite knowing that he would lose an actual retrial.
Maybe, but on the basis of what evidence? What exonerating evidence was produced by the high powered lawyers and money? Because Henry Rollins, Natalie Maines, Eddie Vedder, Johnny Depp, Metallica, Disturbed, L7, Trey Parker, Jack Black, Winona Ryder, Will Ferrell, Robert Smith, Patti Smith, Marilyn Manson, Shepard Fairey, Tom Waits, Clive Barker, Peter Straub, Margaret Cho, Dan “The Outlaw” Hardy, Patton Oswalt, Sarah Silverman, Axl Rose, Iggy Pop, Steve Earle, Hank Williams III, Chuck D, Mandy Moore and Demi Lovato saying so might sway a jury, but doesn’t make them innocent.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:46 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
bullshite.
Right, because we haven’t already seen several cases where previously convicted killers took it to the mat in court, after having Hollywood come out strong in their corner, right?
Or were you just reminding all of us what you are still full of, as if anyone could forget?
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:48 pm to troyt37
quote:DNA? Keep in mind, the convictions were not vacated. This was a negotiated deal because the DA knew he was wrong, but that he still had a lot of leverage against the convicted because they were still in prison.
Maybe, but on the basis of what evidence?
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:49 pm to troyt37
quote:You spend 20 years in an Arkansas prison and then get back to me on if you wouldn't take the first fricking chance to get out that you could.
Right, because we haven’t already seen several cases where previously convicted killers took it to the mat in court, after having Hollywood come out strong in their corner, right?
Or were you just reminding all of us what you are still full of, as if anyone could forget?
Again, they were STILL IN PRISON.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:55 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
You spend 20 years in an Arkansas prison and then get back to me on if you wouldn't take the first fricking chance to get out that you could.
Again, they were STILL IN PRISON.
My high school best friend pulled 15 at Tucker. I had cut all ties. His mom asked me to pick him up and bring him home once paroled, because I was a good influence on him. The whole ride home he talked about how to keep doing what got him convicted, but not get caught. He’s back there now, so it must not have been too bad.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 6:58 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
DNA?
So you’re honestly trying to make me believe that they have DNA that exonerates them, but the best lawyers money could buy advised them to cop Alford? Pull the other one, dude. It plays jingle bells.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:16 pm to troyt37
quote:STILL IN PRISON. It would be different if they had already been sprung but the DA was acting like he was going to try again.
So you’re honestly trying to make me believe that they have DNA that exonerates them, but the best lawyers money could buy advised them to cop Alford?
To be very clear - Alford is a tool of charlatan DAs. And we have one in this case.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:26 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What?
Not sure how to make it any more clear. If you can clarify your question I will try and respond.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 7:28 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
You spend 20 years in an Arkansas prison and then get back to me on if you wouldn't take the first fricking chance to get out that you could.
Again, they were STILL IN PRISON.
If I had spent 20 years in prison, and I had two choices:
1. Admit I'm guilty and spend the rest of my life as a convicted child murderer x3
2. Spend one more year and clear my name (because obviously there is zero evidence against me and I have man hole marks to exonerate me)
I'm spending one more year.
This post was edited on 6/23/21 at 7:29 pm
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News