The thing that gives me the most pause

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Farm]

All I said was that, if you think nons never lie or put forth opinion as fact, then you are an idiot and/or delusional. I stand by that statement.

You can "stand by" a urinal for all I care, but until you put up some examples of these non-supporter lies -  it's safe to say you are completely full of shit again.

The fact is, there is absolutely NO COMPARISON to the unrelenting bullshit you and your ilk have peddled through the years, and it takes a pretty fucked up individual to even TRY to say it's common to both sides.

[addict]

Whatever. I don't think I peddle unrelenting bullshit. If you think I do, then so be it.

[Farm]

I don't think I peddle unrelenting bullshit

You're peddling it right now, by trying to deny the shit you and your ilk have spread.

Don't you think it's just a little ridiculous to try and play dumb at this stage?

[addict]

Listen, I agreed that supporters have lied or put forth opinion as fact through the years. I never said that nons have done it as often or to the same extent. I'm not sure what else you want/expect.

I'd be interested to hear what bullshit I have personally spread through the years.

[flexj]

From Addict on the stain board

I think they're innocent. Though I'm not one who completely discounts the possibility that I could be wrong. My main issue is with Jessie's confession, which is what led to the arrest of JJ&D to begin with - I think it's a fictional mess. I think that most of the details Jessie got 'right' were a result of leading questions, and I don't believe he told those details to Ridge/Gitchell before they began recording. I find it hard to believe that JJ&D were capable of pulling off the murders without leaving any physical evidence behind (either at the crime scene or in their homes) that would prove they were involved (I wish the defense had been allowed to retest the fibers). I think the case the Prosecution presented against Jason Baldwin was pretty much ridiculous, which is odd considering he was supposedly the most violent of the three during the murders. The fact that they tried to use the Hollingsworth's 'sighting' of Damien and Domini as proof against Jason indicates how weak they knew their case was, IMO.  I am bothered by the juror notes that show Miskelley's statement crossed out during deliberation in the E/B trial. And it bothers me that the Prosecution chose to offer the satanic ritual motive when there's nothing at the crime scene to indicate any such thing. It also bothers me greatly that the WMPD questioned Damien on 5/7/93, but there's no evidence they questioned Terry Hobbs until 2007, and I've seen nothing to show they bothered to question Tony Hudson either. I also wonder how thoroughly they checked alibis on some other people before crossing them off as possible suspects.

That's a quick overview off the top of my head of why I think what I do - obviously, it would take a much longer post to go into any more depth.

I will say she has been more respectful than most supporters (at least since I have been around).  And I know this is her opinion which she has a right to even if she is wrong.  If I knew nothing of her here on this board and read this as it is, I would form an opinion that she favors the TH theory, and I call BS on that

[Farm]

I'm not sure what else you want/expect.

I've asked you to present a single aspect of the supporter"argument" that wasn't forged entirely from lies.

I'm not at all surprised you failed to find one.

I'd be interested to hear what bullshit I have personally spread through the years.

Well, one example right here:

And it bothers me that the Prosecution chose to offer the satanic ritual motive when there's nothing at the crime scene to indicate any such thing.

But more interesting is the fact that EVERYTHING in your post quoted above is "faith based".

There is not a shred of evidence to even hint that any of your beliefs are true.

For example, there is nothing to even imply Misskelley was "fed details" by his interrogators -  you just CHOOSE to believe this because you need to.

It's actually kinda sad.

[addict]

If I knew nothing of her here on this board and read this as it is, I would form an opinion that she favors the TH theory, and I call BS on that

Why would you think that? We can all agree that it's odd that there's no evidence the WMPD bothered to question Terry before 2007, right?  What about Tony Hudson?  Shouldn't they have talked to him on record to verify JMB's statement?  You need to find something else to call BS on - I don't think it's possible to make it any clearer than I have everywhere I post that I am not pointing the finger at Hobbs.

Farm... I still haven't seen any example of anything at the crime scene that indicates occult motive. Because you choose to claim it's a fact that it was because Damien was interested in the occult is no more fact than my opinion on the matter is. We've been over the idea that Miskelley was fed details time and time again. Two boys were cut, etc. You believe Jessie told them details before the tapes were turned on. I don't. You have no proof other than your interpretation/opinion of what Ridge says about Jessie claiming he was there when the boys first came into the woods. It differs from my interpretation/opinion, but if you want to call that me spreading bullshit, then I'd say you need to work harder to find the lies you claim I've been spreading for years.

I was asked my opinion over there, and I gave it. Simple as that. I didn't try to claim what I thought was "fact" - it's clear that post is my opinion and nothing more. I wasn't asked to prove anything - I was asked what I thought. I answered.

[Farm]

We can all agree that it's odd that there's no evidence the WMPD bothered to question Terry before 2007, right?

Only if you ignore the fact that they have his hair sample from back then.

Because in the RATIONAL mind, that's evidence that they questioned him.

But then you CHOOSE to believe otherwise, because you NEED to.

And again, that's kinda sad.

Farm... I still haven't seen any example of anything at the crime scene that indicates occult motive.

That's funny, you said before the Prosecution presented it as a "satanic ritual murder".

But now that I've pointed out that you were spreading bullshit, you "edited" your claim.

It's almost as if you were fully aware that your claim was false before I addressed it again.

We've been over the idea that Miskelley was fed details time and time again.


HAHAHAHA!!!

You really need a new cop-out.

You have no proof other than your interpretation/opinion of what Ridge says about Jessie claiming he was there when the boys first came into the woods.

Hey retard.

I have sworn statements from everyone who was present INCLUDING MISSKELLEY.

Where's YOUR evidence which even remotely challenges them?

Ofshe?

Stidham?

15 years after the crime, and you still can't even come up with the ACCUSATION from Misskelley that they fed him information.

You seriously can't see how incredibly stupid that looks?

You choose to believe that everyone present - INCLUDING MISSKELLEY - were lying... because that's what you were told to believe, and you NEED to believe it.

It's more than kinda sad - it's absolutely pathetic.

[addict]

me: We can all agree that it's odd that there's no evidence the WMPD bothered to question Terry before 2007, right?

Only if you ignore the fact that they have his hair sample from back then.

Because in the RATIONAL mind, that's evidence that they questioned him.

But then you CHOOSE to believe otherwise, because you NEED to.

And again, that's kinda sad.

Hobbs' hair was not entered into evidence until 10/29/93, and it was entered along with samples from Melissa Byers, Steve Branch, Sherri Branch, Dawn Moore, Terry Hobbs, Ryan Clark, Amanda Hobbs, Pamela Hobbs and Dana Moore. I think it's you that NEEDS to believe that's proof that TH was questioned. Lieutenant Larry Mitchell testified on 11/10/09 that he found no evidence in the files to indicate TH was officially questioned during the original investigation. But I'm sad for claiming the same thing? Obviously Mitchell has no reason to NEED to believe that, does he? Is he just being irrational?

me: You have no proof other than your interpretation/opinion of what Ridge says about Jessie claiming he was there when the boys first came into the woods.

Hey retard.

Hey fart face.

I have sworn statements from everyone who was present INCLUDING MISSKELLEY.

Sworn statements that none of the questions were leading? I highly doubt that's the case. After all, it's easy to see to anyone with a RATIONAL mind that there are leading questions in that interrogation. You can claim that Jessie told them those details before the taping, but that's just your opinion. It's not a fact.

eta: I no longer think it's true that Jessie said nothing of consequence to them before they began the audio tape. After re-reading/listening to the original confession today, I think my point was ridiculous to a certain extent (I'm guessing you know what I'm talking about, Farm, even if other people are lost - if not, then ask me to go into detail and I'll find what I said in context). Here's the thing... I don't know what Jessie said or what he didn't say before they began taping - I don't think anyone but Jessie, Ridge and Gitchell do. The whole bottom/you mean here? thing really bugs me. It's odd to me that it doesn't give you pause at all.

[Sherry]

Hi Addict,
I’d like to jump in here with a question, if I may.  When you talk about these “leading” questions, how do you feel about the part where Miskelley mentions all by himself that he chased down Michael Moore and brings him back?  Because, at that point, there was no question posed to him with that particular information in it, and of course, there couldn’t have been because there was no way of the investigators knowing that particular info.  Would you feel that the investigators told him to say that? 

I’ve never read or heard about Miskelley, himself, claiming that the investigators told him exactly what to say….or has he?  I’ve always just heard that people felt he was coerced so let’s just say for a moment he was feeling pressured and just wanted to tell them anything to get them off his back…..do you feel that he would really give such detail? 

To me, if I were a supporter, hearing all the details that Miskelley gave that were correct (ie. The boy who was cut on his face, the boy who was castrated) the only explanation to get those things right would be if the investigators told him exactly what to say……and again, it’s my understanding that Miskelley himself hasn’t ever said that they told him “word for word” what to say.  Correct me if I’m wrong…because I’ve never read that anywhere.

Sherry

[flexj]

Excellent points Sherry
It makes ya wonder if they had led him or told him what to say, we wouldn't of have had those discrepancies in his first confession.

Just as he told the officers transporting him "I wanted to throw them off"

[Sherry]

Excellent points Sherry
It makes ya wonder if they had led him or told him what to say, we wouldn't of have had those discrepancies in his first confession.

Just as he told the officers transporting him "I wanted to throw them off"

thanks Flex.....plus, another significant part in PL1 is where Miskelley talks about keeping his head down.  He pipes up to defend himself and says "they told me to keep my head down."  Now, if he had defended that....you can't tell me that he wouldn't have defended himself with regard to the confessions.  He would have, at some point, said "Hey, they told me what to say or they told me to say that." 

Bottom line is..... there is no other way he would have given so many correct details about the crime unless A) they told him word for word what to say or B) he was there.  "coercion" is not even a plausible explanation of his confessions.

[Rudder]

Hi Addict,
I’d like to jump in here with a question, if I may.  When you talk about these “leading” questions, how do you feel about the part where Miskelley mentions all by himself that he chased down Michael Moore and brings him back?  Because, at that point, there was no question posed to him with that particular information in it, and of course, there couldn’t have been because there was no way of the investigators knowing that particular info.  Would you feel that the investigators told him to say that? 

Misskelley made this same statement before he was even questioned or arrested.

Floresca said Misskelley told her and other students the day before he was arrested that he participated in the killings.
A group of students were driving last Wednesday after school to a friend's house to go swimming when Misskelley began telling his bizarre tale, she said. "He was saying he hit the little boy and the little boy ran off and he was taking him back to where Damien and the other boy were," she said. According to Misskelley's story, Echols had already killed the two other boys, she said.
http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2812

[lislis78]

Jessie made multiple confessions, each containing details that were accurate as well as erroneous. In one confession he stated that he chased down Michael Moore and brought him back to the location. If we're to believe Jessie's original statement then he chased Michael down in the woods at a time when Michael Moore was reportedly in school. After bringing Michael back he says he left. So how he manages to see the boys get tied up and thrown in the water is beyond me. In the mind of a teenager whose intelligence quotient is minimal, he's not admitting culpability by saying that he impeded Michael's ability to flee the scene. In his mind, he's giving the cops exactly what they want and he's making the story interesting while he's at it. He made up several stories and he gave conflicting accounts with each "confession". I don't care if his IQ was 70 or 170; he didn't even get some of the basic details correct.

We all know that the police had one or more discussions with Jessie off the tape. You know how we know? Because Jessie went to the police station on 5/15/93 to report a suspicious man (Tracy Laxton) chasing some kids. However, you never see or hear one mention of that meeting during subsequent "confessions". If someone says that the police talked to Jessie before the tape recorder was turned on then that's a reasonable assumption. Does it matter though? The WMPD hadn't even gotten the medical examiner's report. They didn't even know what happened to the boys. And then you have Jessie who couldn't keep much of anything straight about what allegedly happened that morning - oops, evening - in Robin Hood.

[Sherry]

Jessie made multiple confessions, each containing details that were accurate as well as erroneous.

But you see, the things that he got incorrect were explained by miskelley himself as “trying to throw them off track” and he likely did that to lessen his own involvement.

When you consider the things that he has gotten correct….which imo are very crucial details (which boy was cut on the face and which side of the face, which boy was castrated, chasing down Michael Moore, who was subsequently found a distance away from the other two boys) you can only explain that by two scenarios….either the investigators told him that information “word for word” (minus the part about chasing Michael Moore because they could not have know that) or he was there.  So, again, do you think that the investigators forced him to say all of that?....and if so, do you really think that he would not have said something about it during PL1 after they played his confession.