- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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 6/18/21 at 9:24 pm to davyjones
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:24 pm to davyjones
***Mainly to RobbBobb, but anyone else interested as well. Had a reply error. "Fat fingers" or something.....
Ok, please don't take this as snide or a gotcha, legitimate question: What's your take as to what caused the system there in Arkansas to take the drastic step of setting Misskelley free after such a horrific crime, i.e. what specific evidentiary flaws were uncovered, causing that to occur?
But this complicates the above question pretty seriously: What evidentiary flaws were found in the separate cases of the other two? The answers to these questions has to be pretty substantial in weight, because why wouldn't it be possible that perhaps two did it but the third didn't. Or only one did it and the other two weren't involved.
How do we get to the point that all 3 individuals were set free after this unthinkable event??
Ok, please don't take this as snide or a gotcha, legitimate question: What's your take as to what caused the system there in Arkansas to take the drastic step of setting Misskelley free after such a horrific crime, i.e. what specific evidentiary flaws were uncovered, causing that to occur?
But this complicates the above question pretty seriously: What evidentiary flaws were found in the separate cases of the other two? The answers to these questions has to be pretty substantial in weight, because why wouldn't it be possible that perhaps two did it but the third didn't. Or only one did it and the other two weren't involved.
How do we get to the point that all 3 individuals were set free after this unthinkable event??
This post was edited on 6/18/21 at 9:29 pm
1
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:28 pm to Lieutenant Dan
quote:
At one point early in the process, most (including myself) thought Mark Byers was the guilty one.
That's because the Paradise Lost documentaries wanted you to think it was him. (that creates doubt) There were lots of Hollywood and music "do-gooders" behind those films.
And Mark Byers didn't do himself any favors. He certainly acted strange. He is a bad guy and had his hands in all kinds of illegal's enterprises.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:40 pm to Rebel
quote:
And Mark Byers didn't do himself any favors
Not in the least. They highlighted his crazy antics from setting the fire, amazing grace, evidence of his hair found in the rope used to hogtie, etc.. dude was a legit nut job.
Then Terry Hobbs, which Byers supposedly went after at the time.
They definitely were painting the guilty narrative in different directions other than the 3.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:40 pm to Rebel
A hair was found attached to the ligature of one of the boys, it was tested for DNA which was found "to be consistent with" the DNA of Terry Hobbs, stepfather of young Stevie.
Another hair found on a tree stump near the crime scene was found to be consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby, a friend of Hobbs, according to court documents.
Both have denied involvement of course, and I guess that's as far as that got. Strangely.
Another hair found on a tree stump near the crime scene was found to be consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby, a friend of Hobbs, according to court documents.
Both have denied involvement of course, and I guess that's as far as that got. Strangely.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:46 pm to davyjones
quote:
A hair was found attached to the ligature of one of the boys, it was tested for DNA which was found "to be consistent with" the DNA of Terry Hobbs, stepfather of young Stevie.
Ok, I stand corrected. I vaguely remember the hair and couldn't remember if it was Byers or Hobbs. But yeah, I figured that was some pretty damning evidence.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:49 pm to davyjones
Terry Hobbs wound up shooting his brother in law in some type of domestic squabble.
BIL survived the shooting initially but died a year or two later from complications of the shooting.
I am convinced Hobbs and Miskelly at the least had some involvement. Echols, Baldwin, and Jacoby prolly had something to do with it too.
BIL survived the shooting initially but died a year or two later from complications of the shooting.
I am convinced Hobbs and Miskelly at the least had some involvement. Echols, Baldwin, and Jacoby prolly had something to do with it too.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:56 pm to Rebel
I believe it was the two I mentioned above, Hobbs and Jacoby.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 9:58 pm to Lieutenant Dan
quote:
Ok, I stand corrected. I vaguely remember the hair and couldn't remember if it was Byers or Hobbs. But yeah, I figured that was some pretty damning evidence.
Oh y'all are right about Byers....he didn't do himself any favors. Dude was crazy as a road lizard.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:36 pm to Big EZ Tiger
He is a POS.
Guilty or not, he didn't give a damn a bout those murdered boys.
Guilty or not, he didn't give a damn a bout those murdered boys.
This post was edited on 6/18/21 at 10:40 pm
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:45 pm to davyjones
quote:
How do we get to the point that all 3 individuals were set free after this unthinkable event??
It was the beginning of cancel culture. Celebs were descending on the authorities of this small town, calling them all sorts of things on nationwide TV. And despite the fact that no other killings of this nature occurred in that area before, or during the years that they were locked up, the heat just kept getting turned up. The original trial judge said the exact same thing
LINK
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:43 pm to davyjones
Again, you can literally read the original transcripts of the confession. You can see clearly the timestamp when the interrogation began and the time when he starts to confess. You can literally see:
- 10 a.m. the interrogation begins
- 2:20 p.m. he says he was present when the three boys were killed
I agree on his cognitive function - it is subjective. I am just trying to be clear that he was not retarded or autistic. Stupid, yes, but capable of attending school, playing school sports, holding a job, and getting a driver's license. To me, that is mental acuity capable of discussing the information with police.
On the DNA, I am not saying that implicates them. I am just saying one has to apply standards equally - you cannot crow about the hair on Branch and ignore the blood in the necklace - both are the same probabilities. I get frustrated with people with think the hair means Hobbs did it but dismiss the necklace blood.
Answer me this about the confession:
1. How do you explain Misskelley's initial misdirection on the time of the killing? The cops have nothing to gain by coaching him to give wrong times, only doubting its veracity; however, it demonstrates he was clever enough to attempt to both confess but also plant reasonable doubt - he's the only one to have motive to lie here.
2. Explain the Evan Williams bottle? The cops would have zero knowledge of that?
3. Explain the four subsequent confessions? Why would he confess even against his attorney's will? Why would he confess to cops after his conviction? What would be his motive?
4. Again, do you have any evidence it was coerced or just the generic objection? Funny how the standards are different - demand perfect evidence on one side but accept evidenceless emotion on the other.
Finally, unrelated to the confession ... why can't any one of the three come up with an alibi? What are the odds?
- 10 a.m. the interrogation begins
- 2:20 p.m. he says he was present when the three boys were killed
I agree on his cognitive function - it is subjective. I am just trying to be clear that he was not retarded or autistic. Stupid, yes, but capable of attending school, playing school sports, holding a job, and getting a driver's license. To me, that is mental acuity capable of discussing the information with police.
On the DNA, I am not saying that implicates them. I am just saying one has to apply standards equally - you cannot crow about the hair on Branch and ignore the blood in the necklace - both are the same probabilities. I get frustrated with people with think the hair means Hobbs did it but dismiss the necklace blood.
Answer me this about the confession:
1. How do you explain Misskelley's initial misdirection on the time of the killing? The cops have nothing to gain by coaching him to give wrong times, only doubting its veracity; however, it demonstrates he was clever enough to attempt to both confess but also plant reasonable doubt - he's the only one to have motive to lie here.
2. Explain the Evan Williams bottle? The cops would have zero knowledge of that?
3. Explain the four subsequent confessions? Why would he confess even against his attorney's will? Why would he confess to cops after his conviction? What would be his motive?
4. Again, do you have any evidence it was coerced or just the generic objection? Funny how the standards are different - demand perfect evidence on one side but accept evidenceless emotion on the other.
Finally, unrelated to the confession ... why can't any one of the three come up with an alibi? What are the odds?
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:45 pm to RobbBobb
Not disagreeing with your point above but started time when they hit "record."
This post was edited on 6/18/21 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:50 pm to davyjones
What you fail to mention is "consistent with" means several million people.
If this convinces you Hobbs is guilty, how do you explain blood "consist with" Stevie Branch was found in Baldwin-Echols' necklace?
What makes more sense: a father's hair on his son's body or a child's blood in a stranger's necklace?
If this convinces you Hobbs is guilty, how do you explain blood "consist with" Stevie Branch was found in Baldwin-Echols' necklace?
What makes more sense: a father's hair on his son's body or a child's blood in a stranger's necklace?
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:57 pm to RobbBobb
Hard to have any kind of investigation with that type of interference.
It was bad to the point that the celebs declared an investigation wasn't necessary as the three boys were innocent and could not done such a crime.
It was bad to the point that the celebs declared an investigation wasn't necessary as the three boys were innocent and could not done such a crime.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:00 am to davyjones
quote:
I believe it was the two I mentioned above, Hobbs and Jacoby.
So let's have some fun. Layout a detailed timeline of the crime that is consistent with the known boys' movements and is not contradicted by known sightings of Hobbs or Jacoby.
It's easy to throw stones at others and makeup fake alternative suspects but impossible to craft an alternative that holds up to your own scrutiny previously applied to the convicted's case. So let's see if you can layout an detailed logical alternative or just claim "Col. Mustard did it."
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:04 am to Baylor Kyle
My friend, on the subject of anything Jesse Misskelley said, we are simply at completely opposite ends of the spectrum as to his mental abilities, or disabilities as it were, IMO. Have you seen video coverage of the guy? There's just no other way to put it, in my opinion: he's slow. I do absolutely believe that the detectives were highly motivated to solve this fear-instilling crime on the double. Otherwise they were about to have a very uneasy public, which leads to loss of elections for the high sheriff, given oftentimes unreasonable expectations.
So yes, I believe they manipulated him into false confessions. In one instance a WM detective who had only recently been certified as polygraph technician administered the test to Misskelley and came back and told him it showed "he lied his arse off." Of course that was pre-confession. Misskelley's defense team had those same test results reviewed by a much more seasoned polygraph expert who concluded that Miss had only lied about one question: prior drug use. Sure, I acknowledge that's one side against the other in terms of interpretation of those test results, but "lied his arse off"? I have no doubt the results were at least much more close to middle ground than that. But the forcefulness of that tactic tells me exactly what many, many people suspect: they took advantage of slow guy.
As for DNA, the hair situation specifically used the terminology "DNA" whereas the necklace situation has only used the terminology "blood type". Those are two vastly different concepts. And it was actually DNA that did get these guys freed.....DNA found on the boys DID NOT MATCH the DNA of any of the WM3.
But I have a question for you now: how is it that all 3 were freed? Sounds to me like a much more fully encompassing shitshow on the part of local police.
So yes, I believe they manipulated him into false confessions. In one instance a WM detective who had only recently been certified as polygraph technician administered the test to Misskelley and came back and told him it showed "he lied his arse off." Of course that was pre-confession. Misskelley's defense team had those same test results reviewed by a much more seasoned polygraph expert who concluded that Miss had only lied about one question: prior drug use. Sure, I acknowledge that's one side against the other in terms of interpretation of those test results, but "lied his arse off"? I have no doubt the results were at least much more close to middle ground than that. But the forcefulness of that tactic tells me exactly what many, many people suspect: they took advantage of slow guy.
As for DNA, the hair situation specifically used the terminology "DNA" whereas the necklace situation has only used the terminology "blood type". Those are two vastly different concepts. And it was actually DNA that did get these guys freed.....DNA found on the boys DID NOT MATCH the DNA of any of the WM3.
But I have a question for you now: how is it that all 3 were freed? Sounds to me like a much more fully encompassing shitshow on the part of local police.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:08 am to Baylor Kyle
quote:
It's easy to throw stones at others and makeup fake alternative suspects
We are still just having anonymous speculative conversation about an incident that has nothing to do with any of us directly, right? At least I know I am. I'm not quite interested enough to consider my conversation "throwing stones". I may be at a slightly lesser level of intensity on this thing than you. I don't know. But I will ask you as well.....if this was the airtight case that you seem to believe, why are the 3 wandering around the country free as a bird now??
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:11 am to Baylor Kyle
quote:Surely they collected the necklace as evidence, eh? So they'd have that blood to test DNA. And they had the kids' DNA. Are there DNA test results concluding that the DNA on necklace and DNA of the youngster matched? That should be rather easy to do.
If this convinces you Hobbs is guilty, how do you explain blood "consist with" Stevie Branch was found in Baldwin-Echols' necklace?
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:14 am to davyjones
Free but all three still have felonies.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:16 am to davyjones
As I've stated myriad times, I am passionate about intellectual honesty and truth. I have no stake in the game. I just get frustrated when people deliberately misrepresent facts whether it is about DNA evidence in a murder case or Russians stealing the 2016 election. I do not care if anyone disagrees just when they live in la la land. I have not problem owning my own side's weaknesses.
My rule is tit for tat - happy to answer your question as to why they pleaded guilty after you answer my three about 1. the Evan Williams bottle; 2. the lack of alibis; 3. the four other confessions. That's for your benefit - otherwise it looks like you're just avoiding and distracting.
My rule is tit for tat - happy to answer your question as to why they pleaded guilty after you answer my three about 1. the Evan Williams bottle; 2. the lack of alibis; 3. the four other confessions. That's for your benefit - otherwise it looks like you're just avoiding and distracting.
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News