What's your verdict on the West Memphis 3?

[Damien Karras]

Fi

There was plenty, read the Callahan website, fibres matched, candle wax matched there was quite a few things that tied them to the scene. Also a small knife/pendant was found in Damiens house with traces of his own blood and blood matching one of the children.

Fibres and candle wax don't mean without a a shred of doubt they did it. I'd never heard of the pendant though

 

[SpiderCrawl]

Fi


Fibres and candle wax don't mean without a a shred of doubt they did it. I'd never heard of the pendant though

There is tonnes of stuff the documentaries left out, it doesn't mean much but it does cause doubt as to wether they were there or not. West of Memphis is one of the worst documentaries for facts on this case.

 

[Damien Karras]

There is tonnes of stuff the documentaries left out, it doesn't mean much but it does cause doubt as to wether they were there or not. West of Memphis is one of the worst documentaries for facts on this case.

Yeah that is what I feared. But from what was being widely discussed was that there wasn't a shred of evidence tying them to the scene of the crime. I've seen the callahan site before and my ADD won't allow me to sort through all the stuff. There isn't much in the media that counters what HBO put forward.

 

[SpiderCrawl]

Yeah that is what I feared. But from what was being widely discussed was that there wasn't a shred of evidence tying them to the scene of the crime. I've seen the callahan site before and my ADD won't allow me to sort through all the stuff. There isn't much in the media that counters what HBO put forward.

The media was mainly on the side of the three rather than the case, read the west Memphis facts page, it's a sort of much more condensed version of Callahan.

Also stevies mom seems to blame terry in that documentary but in real life has apologised for it seeming like she accused him, the collection of documentaries are pretty shady imo.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

I think it was the guy who came into the Bojangles all bloody.

 

[RawHawg]

There is tonnes of stuff the documentaries left out, it doesn't mean much but it does cause doubt as to wether they were there or not. West of Memphis is one of the worst documentaries for facts on this case.

Your info is very interesting. Two or more sides to every story, I'm going to check out more of what you posted. What are your personal thoughts on why, if they were guilty, they were allowed to be free (in a manner of speaking) in society under the Alford deal, and why didn't they just keep them incarcerated?

 

[SpiderCrawl]

Your info is very interesting. Two or more sides to every story, I'm going to check out more of what you posted. What are your personal thoughts on why, if they were guilty, they were allowed to be free (in a manner of speaking) in society under the Alford deal, and why didn't they just keep them incarcerated?

I think the cost of keeping going to trial caused the Alford plea to happen. I just think the 3 were in the woods already (judging by jessie saying he had a bottle of whiskey he got from babysitting, which was corroborated, and the police did find the cap of the bottle in the woods.) The young boys came across them and then it all got out of control. The day after it Jessie had a pair of shoes with specks of blood on them that he gave to his cousin and told him to get rid of them, he ended up giving them to someone else.

There is a lot of evidence pointing to them at the scene. I just think the general public and media got attached to the idea that its a massive conspiracy by the police, judge, lawyers, jury etc simply because they were "listening to Metallica and wore black".

 

[Guestx]

They didn't help their own cause, of course, but they were troubled anti-establishment teens who seemed intent on not cooperating and sticking it up to 'the man'. I reckon that kid's step-father/father or whoever, did it. As did the father of one of the other dead kids, he said so himself, that he suspected that guy was involved.

Wait, so you think that BOTH Byers and Hobbs were the killers?

 

[Guestx]

Guilty imo, read up on "Damien" and all he psych records, he was very disturbed as a teenager. Had books on sacrifice and how he wants people to fear him. Misskelley confessed several times and even spoke to police about it on a car ride to or from prison (can't remember which way).

The defence case was basically anyone but these guys, Mr bojangles, mark and then terry, and they seem to get "proof" of every guy they frame.

A voice of dissension! Interesting.

I have heard other people say that they think the three were guilty for similar reasons, and I've also heard people say that they thing Damien did it alone.

 

[Guestx]

The documentaries left all of his "problems" out, they made it out like he wore black so was arrested and the police made this story up.

I've heard that before. I'll take a look at your links.

 

[Guestx]

Fibres and candle wax don't mean without a a shred of doubt they did it. I'd never heard of the pendant though

To be fair, the state must only prove its case beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond any doubt at all.

 

[bandicoot]

Wait, so you think that BOTH Byers and Hobbs were the killers?

This is what I tend to believe.

 

[Guestx]

PS Nothing that you posted proved he did the crime, period. Nothing. You got any actual evidence? OMG he thought he was possessed he is a mass murderer then.

This brings up a really good question actually: What is evidence?

For instance, if someone is known to be obsessed with the idea of robbing a bank, and he has said that he wants to rob a bank, and then a bank three blocks from his house gets robbed, should his statements be considered a form of evidence?

I'm not asking if he should be convicted based on those statements alone, but should they be taken into consideration?

 

[Guestx]

Yeah that is what I feared. But from what was being widely discussed was that there wasn't a shred of evidence tying them to the scene of the crime. I've seen the callahan site before and my ADD won't allow me to sort through all the stuff. There isn't much in the media that counters what HBO put forward.

I've noticed this. While I haven't personally looked into the extra material, like @SpiderCrawl is saying, I've heard many people allude to significant evidence that is just magically left out of all the documentaries and the like.

If that's the case, I'm surprised by now that there hasn't been a sort of counter-doc that presents all this stuff.

 

[Guestx]

This is what I tend to believe.

Why then did Byers start accusing Hobbs? It seems that if they were both in on it, Byers would realize he could be digging his own grave by doing that.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

This brings up a really good question actually: What is evidence?

For instance, if someone is known to be obsessed with the idea of robbing a bank, and he has said that he wants to rob a bank, and then a bank three blocks from his house gets robbed, should his statements be considered a form of evidence?

I'm not asking if he should be convicted based on those statements alone, but should they be taken into consideration?

Physical evidence such as murder weapon, victim's blood, being known to be with victim at time of death.
But being town weirdos does not make you a murderer. Shit, Ted Bundy was suave as fuck and was a prolific serial killer.

Wasn't the main evidence against the 3 basically the confession of the partially retarded one or shit?

It was evidence of his character, he isn't free, there was no deal, he is still guilty. Read up on the Alford plea.

Lol, so again, not a shred of fucking physical / tangible evidence. Character means shit. Jeffery Dahmer was such a nice boy.

PS - if you are going to say there was any actual physical evidence, then link it

PPS - I know what hte Alford plea is, again, do you think they just give this to child murderers if they were not worried about them being set free and then sued????? Let's live in fucking reality.

 

[Guestx]

Physical evidence such as murder weapon, victim's blood, being known to be with victim at time of death.
But being town weirdos does not make you a murderer. Shit, Ted Bundy was suave as fuck and was a prolific serial killer.

Wasn't the main evidence against the 3 basically the confession of the partially retarded one or shit?

I'm just asking, in general, should statements like that be considered a piece of evidence? Obviously it's not enough to convict, but is it evidence?

 

[Pixelated Porn]

I'm just asking, in general, should statements like that be considered a piece of evidence? Obviously it's not enough to convict, but is it evidence?

You can use character and history to a degree, but you need to have some physical evidence. The retard confessing was what the prosecution had afaik

 

[Guestx]

You can't judge them on looks, read the case files, they are guilty.

Do you feel 100% on that?

 

[SpiderCrawl]

Do you feel 100% on that?

Yeah, I was on the other side initially after watching all the docs, but I really got into the case and changed my outlook on it.