Unbiased Opinion

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

[7718billy]

Hi, I recently discovered the story of this sad event.  I have searched for an unbiased overview of this case and have yet to find one.  I've started to look at the actual transcripts and other official documents, but as many of you know its a rather daunting task.   Can anyone point me to an unbiased analysis of this case that someone has done.  I do not think it exist.  So if it in fact does not exist can someone point to the most respected and biased (toward guilt) case study?   All the ones I've seen so far have been from the perspective of not guilty. 

With what I've read so far, I'm currently of the opinion the WM3 were not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, I'm still researching information and I must say both sides of this argument seems to use several illogical methods or opinions based on little more than speculation, which makes it difficult to form an opinion.  I don't have an opinion yet as to if I think they actually killed these poor boys. 

But if no one can point me in the right direction with the previous request maybe a few questions can be answered. These questions are what I'm asking my self while researching.  I'm not looking for an opinion but fact as answers as you can tell by no question containing "why". 

1.  Is their any evidence linking any of the WM3 to the crime scene? (Other than the confession)

2.  What evidence on the corpse or WM3 connect the WM3 to the murder?

2.  Other than the confession, what facts or evidence led police to suspect the WM3.

3.  Are transcripts available to the complete interview with Misskelly before his confession?

4.  What was Misskelly talking about when he said he "wanted something done" in context to his post conviction confession?

5. Was any forensic evidence found in the anus of any of the victims? 



I will probably have some more questions as I dig deeper but for now that's it. 

One opinion I have formed is the confession is the crux of the whole case against the WM3.  I'm looking for more reliable evidence as I've read the transcript (all 3) and it does not correlate with other facts of the case.   I'm not sure of the motive for confession (he very well may have participated) but the words and general context is extraordinarily suspect in my opinion.  The time line being one of the most damning.  I've dealt with numerous people who as Misskelly lack intelligence or mental capacity.  It seems to me that he was saying what the police wanted him to say. 

The other big belief I have is that the murder did not take place at the creek, and leads me this.   The lack of physical evidence at the scene, and a boy bled to death and no traces of blood can be found.   

[DogIsYourName]

Hi Billy,

I just posted 15 things that point towards the guilt of the WM3 -- you can find them in this thread:  http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/topic,7489.0.html

Unfortunately, there is not a concise write-up of the case that I would consider unbiased ("Blood of Innocents" might qualify but it is outdated).  After someone does the research required to write something like that, they probably will have a strong opinion one way or another.  But there is also not an in-depth summary of their guilt either.  You can read the opening and closing statements of the trials, although those do not factor in additional evidence against the WM3 that was not used at trial.

I can try to address your questions:

1.  Is their any evidence linking any of the WM3 to the crime scene? (Other than the confession)

Yes, see my 15 points.  For example, Damien used to live in the Mayfair apartments, which overlooks the crime scene.  His dad had left him the day before the murders, so maybe he went back there to take a walk down memory lane?  The area is also a logical midpoint between the trailer parks, and Damien admitted that he was familiar with the area.  He had probably used the pipe bridge as a cut through to travel back and forth.

Also, I don't think you can fairly discount everything Jessie said in his many confessions just because he lied to the WMPD about some details.  That would be a big mistake.  A lot of the evidence corroborates many of the details Jessie provided.  For example, the Evans Williams bottle, the "no more beer" comment, and many wounds on the victims.

2.  What evidence on the corpse or WM3 connect the WM3 to the murder?

Damien's necklace had blood on it matching the blood type of Steve Branch and Jason Baldwin.  Jessie said Damien initially attacked Branch.

The fact that Michael was not cut, and Jessie said (unprompted) in his confession that he told Jason he wasn't going to do this one like the others.  Like Jessie said, only the other two boys were cut.  The fact that Michael was found away from the other two, and Jessie said Michael had tried to run away.

2.  Other than the confession, what facts or evidence led police to suspect the WM3.

Damien toyed with them from the beginning.  No other suspect did that, which I am sure drew their attention.

None of them had verifiable alibis.

Also, Damien had been hospitalized three times, including for homicidal threats.  That put him in the pool of people potentially capable of killing the kids.

3.  Are transcripts available to the complete interview with Misskelly before his confession?

No.  Only the investigator notes are available for the pre-taped statement.  Since the WMPD did not tape that portion, they also do not have a transcript.

4.  What was Misskelly talking about when he said he "wanted something done" in context to his post conviction confession?

It's open to interpretation.  He could've meant he wanted justice served on Jason and Damien.  He also could've meant he wanted a better sentence.  I tend to think he was refering to justice, but I do think he was motivated by the life plus 40 sentence he received.

5. Was any forensic evidence found in the anus of any of the victims? 

No.

The other big belief I have is that the murder did not take place at the creek, and leads me this.   The lack of physical evidence at the scene, and a boy bled to death and no traces of blood can be found.   

To me, it does not make sense to use that location as a dump site, meaning the murders took place there.  If someone were picking a dump site, they would choose one away from where the kids disappeared and a search was taking place.  They would probably dump them in the Mississippi river.  I also do not think they would be moved from a manhole because that is just way too risky.

Remember, this happened out doors in the woods and an entire night passed before they were discovered.  Blood seeps into the ground and spreads out to virtually undetectable concentrations in the water.  The bodies were found in the water.

Hope that helps.

dog.

[7718billy]

Hi Billy,

I just posted 15 things that point towards the guilt of the WM3 -- you can find them in this thread:  http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/topic,7489.0.html

Yes, I've read that and it was well written. 

Unfortunately, there is not a concise write-up of the case that I would consider unbiased ("Blood of Innocents" might qualify but it is outdated).  After someone does the research required to write something like that, they probably will have a strong opinion one way or another.  But there is also not an in-depth summary of their guilt either.  You can read the opening and closing statements of the trials, although those do not factor in additional evidence against the WM3 that was not used at trial.

I can try to address your questions:

1.  Is their any evidence linking any of the WM3 to the crime scene? (Other than the confession)

Yes, see my 15 points.  For example, Damien used to live in the Mayfair apartments, which overlooks the crime scene.  His dad had left him the day before the murders, so maybe he went back there to take a walk down memory lane?  The area is also a logical midpoint between the trailer parks, and Damien admitted that he was familiar with the area.  He had probably used the pipe bridge as a cut through to travel back and forth.

While I appreciate and understand the implications your point makes, however it does not prove any of the WM3 were at the scene.  It just proves they could have and I don't disagree that they had opportunity.

Also, I don't think you can fairly discount everything Jessie said in his many confessions just because he lied to the WMPD about some details.  That would be a big mistake.  A lot of the evidence corroborates many of the details Jessie provided.  For example, the Evans Williams bottle, the "no more beer" comment, and many wounds on the victims.

I don't discount it or account for it.  I believe it to be invalid so I wont use it in my search for what I think happened.  I'm sure this has been a point of contention for many supporters and non and I'm not going drive another debate on it.  I completely understand others validation of his confessions as guilt, however I cant. I'm sure We can agree to disagree on this point. 

2.  What evidence on the corpse or WM3 connect the WM3 to the murder?

Damien's necklace had blood on it matching the blood type of Steve Branch and Jason Baldwin.  Jessie said Damien initially attacked Branch.

Can you link me to testimony that indicates this? This is rather damning if true.

The fact that Michael was not cut, and Jessie said (unprompted) in his confession that he told Jason he wasn't going to do this one like the others.  Like Jessie said, only the other two boys were cut.  The fact that Michael was found away from the other two, and Jessie said Michael had tried to run away.

Again, my opinion and I most certainly do not want to offend you, but that confession is not a form of proof at least in my eyes. (one note:  Many non-supporters use the confession rather liberally with out indicating which one they are referring to, in other words they are taking the any one of the confessions and use them in a vacuum to frame and validate their point.  This is not an effective way of proving something and really takes things out of context.)

2.  Other than the confession, what facts or evidence led police to suspect the WM3.

Damien toyed with them from the beginning.  No other suspect did that, which I am sure drew their attention.

None of them had verifiable alibis.

Also, Damien had been hospitalized three times, including for homicidal threats.  That put him in the pool of people potentially capable of killing the kids.



3.  Are transcripts available to the complete interview with Misskelly before his confession?

No.  Only the investigator notes are available for the pre-taped statement.  Since the WMPD did not tape that portion, they also do not have a transcript.

4.  What was Misskelly talking about when he said he "wanted something done" in context to his post conviction confession?

It's open to interpretation.  He could've meant he wanted justice served on Jason and Damien.  He also could've meant he wanted a better sentence.  I tend to think he was refering to justice, but I do think he was motivated by the life plus 40 sentence he received.

5. Was any forensic evidence found in the anus of any of the victims? 

No.

The other big belief I have is that the murder did not take place at the creek, and leads me this.   The lack of physical evidence at the scene, and a boy bled to death and no traces of blood can be found.   

To me, it does not make sense to use that location as a dump site, meaning the murders took place there.  If someone were picking a dump site, they would choose one away from where the kids disappeared and a search was taking place.  They would probably dump them in the Mississippi river.  I also do not think they would be moved from a manhole because that is just way too risky.

Remember, this happened out doors in the woods and an entire night passed before they were discovered.  Blood seeps into the ground and spreads out to virtually undetectable concentrations in the water.  The bodies were found in the water.

My thing about this is the hairs discovered, all the blood and other physical evidences goes away but these hairs are able to make the trip from a potential school, house, and bike ride into the woods then falls off onto the ligatures when he is tied up? Sorry that defies belief at least for me.   In fact this one point is my really my only hindrance from assuming guilt. 

Hope that helps.
It did thank you for you time. 
dog.

[auburnesq]

but that confession is not a form of proof at least in my eyes.

Any confession is evidence, and it is the jury's job to determine the credibility of any evidence. If you don't find the confession(s) valid "proof", I must ask why and what standards you would require to find that they are "proof"?

[7718billy]

but that confession is not a form of proof at least in my eyes.

Any confession is evidence, and it is the jury's job to determine the credibility of any evidence. If you don't find the confession(s) valid "proof", I must ask why and what standards you would require to find that they are "proof"?

I agree that its a jury's job to determine creditability.  I hope you will agree at least the first confession and its veracity is completely subjective based on the manner in which questions were asked and the times Misskelley gave.  The fact his confession is subjective and open to interpretation leads me to discount it as evidence.   Further the complete incompetence of the police during this interview is stunning.  Once Misskelly became a suspect the interview should of been recorded or transcribed.  Instead you only get one portion of it.  We don't know if the police coerced this guy.  We don't know if he gave the statement freely with out other circumstances being in play.  Why would the police only film or record one part of such a long interview? Were they trying to hide something?  Did they just not think that it would be a good idea?  Again the truth is I cant tell and because I cant tell I cannot assume guilt or innocence base on these comments. 

The last confession is also suspect.  A guy who had been drinking until vomiting has a much more vivid account of the actions a year after the fact?  It does seem to me the more he heard from the case at court the more accurate his statements became. 

So far what I've read and discover is this whole case is based mostly on circumstantial evidence and consequently it's not overwhelming.   Most non-supporters use the confession as the only form of guilt it seems.  I don't understand how they can use such a subjective piece of information as the sole determining factor. 

Another point I have to make is:

I can not find a logical explanation on how a a piece of hair found on the ligatures of a boy who travels from a school/house through the woods while riding a bike, brutally beaten, tied up,  sexual molested, then drug or thrown to a creek and then that hair happens to  fall to his hands when tied up.   It defies logic and reality in my mind. 

[Rudder]

1.  Is their any evidence linking any of the WM3 to the crime scene? (Other than the confession)
Which confession? Echols', Baldwin's or any of Misskelley's? There are plenty of confessions in this case...

2.  What evidence on the corpse or WM3 connect the WM3 to the murder?
Knife wounds consistent with a hunting knife found in the lake behind Baldwin's trailer.

2.  Other than the confession, what facts or evidence led police to suspect the WM3.
Have you read anything at callahans? The police questioned a lot of people concerning this crime and a surprising amount of them said that Echols was involved. Should the WMPD have ignored this information? Seems like that would be irresponsible of them to do so considering this is exactly the kind of info they were looking for by questioning people.

5. Was any forensic evidence found in the anus of any of the victims? 
There is an unknown hair that has yet to be identified found on Chris Byers ligature. I don't know if Teer or any of her family has given hair samples but I'd think there may be a match there. If not Teer, then someone the murderers had contact with...Dink maybe, who knows. There is also an allele that was found on Stevie's penis that hasn't been identified. As far as I know, no one has been ruled out concerning that.

I can not find a logical explanation on how a a piece of hair found on the ligatures of a boy who travels from a school/house through the woods while riding a bike, brutally beaten, tied up,  sexual molested, then drug or thrown to a creek and then that hair happens to  fall to his hands when tied up.   It defies logic and reality in my mind.
Does velcro defy logic in your mind? It's the same principle. IF the hair was Hobbs', it stuck to a shoelace. How in hell does that defy logic?

[DogIsYourName]

Billy,

Damien's necklace had blood on it matching the blood type of Steve Branch and Jason Baldwin.  Jessie said Damien initially attacked Branch.
Can you link me to testimony that indicates this? This is rather damning if true.

Here are some old threads on the subject:
http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/topic,3413.0.html
http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php/topic,233.0.html

In a nutshell, the necklace was not introduced at trial because Judge Burnett would have needed to sever the trials at that point, meaning he would've declared a mistrial.  The State decided not to introduce it, thinking they could win without it and not wanting to try the case all over again.

Therefore, the only testimony you will find about the necklace is between the attorneys and the Judge.  The jury did not hear about it.

Why would the police only film or record one part of such a long interview? Were they trying to hide something? 

They probably did not realize Jessie was going to confess.  I wish they had taped all of the interrogations, but it seems their standard operating procedure was to only bring out the tape recorder or Video camera when they knew they had something crucial.  They didn't tape Damien's interrogation either.

Most non-supporters use the confession as the only form of guilt it seems.  I don't understand how they can use such a subjective piece of information as the sole determining factor. 

I disagree that it's the only evidence, but those confessions are very important because they are very hard to explain way.  Jessie confessed many times over quite a long time period.  He confessed to his own attorney, before and after the trials.  It's hard to believe that anyone would do that repeatedly and over such a long time span unless there is some truth behind what they are saying. 
 

[BlackAngel]

Billy

How new did you say you were? Because I seen you made it to just about every board that talks about the WM3.

Just curious.

Usually it takes people awhile to find their way around.   

[7718billy]

1.  Is their any evidence linking any of the WM3 to the crime scene? (Other than the confession)
Which confession? Echols', Baldwin's or any of Misskelley's? There are plenty of confessions in this case...

Can you provide a link to transcripts or official records of these confessions, specifically the Echols' and Baldwin's?  I wasn't aware the others confessed and if true that's pretty damning.

2.  What evidence on the corpse or WM3 connect the WM3 to the murder?
Knife wounds consistent with a hunting knife found in the lake behind Baldwin's trailer.

Can you provide a link to testimony or official records that proves the knife belonged to any of the WM3?  Again if true, this is rather damning. 

2.  Other than the confession, what facts or evidence led police to suspect the WM3.
Have you read anything at callahans? The police questioned a lot of people concerning this crime and a surprising amount of them said that Echols was involved. Should the WMPD have ignored this information? Seems like that would be irresponsible of them to do so considering this is exactly the kind of info they were looking for by questioning people.

Speculation and hearsay is not evidence or fact.  I don't disagree that Echols was probably capable of this crime based on his history. I also don't disagree that he wasn't well liked in the community before this horrible crime.  I've only been reading for a few days now and haven't been able to get to everything. 

5. Was any forensic evidence found in the anus of any of the victims? 
There is an unknown hair that has yet to be identified found on Chris Byers ligature.
I thought this was identified as belonging to Hobbs? 

I don't know if Teer or any of her family has given hair samples but I'd think there may be a match there. If not Teer, then someone the murderers had contact with...Dink maybe, who knows. There is also an allele that was found on Stevie's penis that hasn't been identified. As far as I know, no one has been ruled out concerning that.

I can not find a logical explanation on how a a piece of hair found on the ligatures of a boy who travels from a school/house through the woods while riding a bike, brutally beaten, tied up,  sexual molested, then drug or thrown to a creek and then that hair happens to  fall to his hands when tied up.   It defies logic and reality in my mind.
Does velcro defy logic in your mind? It's the same principle. IF the hair was Hobbs', it stuck to a shoelace. How in hell does that defy logic?

So the perps were able to pull that string through the eyelets with out it falling off?  If this velcro theory holds true, why is their not more physical evidence stuck to the boys from the WM3 if they in fact did sexually attack the victims?  This hair doesn't even raise doubts for anyone who are non supporters?  I dont see how these hair are the only physical evidence linking anyone to that site.  If that hair was able to travel that far, it should be rather easy for other pieces of evidence form the WM3 to be found at the scene if they were there.  Yet no one can prove, outside of the confession, any of the WM3 was at the creek.  Nothing from the scene was ever found in possession of the WM3.     

[7718billy]

Billy

How new did you say you were? Because I seen you made it to just about every board that talks about the WM3.

Just curious.

Usually it takes people awhile to find their way around.   

Well, I'm a former Intelligence analyst and I know how to research, I also know my way around the web....I don't take offense and am open to debate as for me it leads to discovery.  The reasons for my post are more in an attempt to not recreate the wheel someone has already made.  Shit load of documents to read and quite honestly I want to find the most compelling arguments and the facts that back those arguments up.

[sheer]

Hi and welcome to the board,

The reasons for my post are more in an attempt to not recreate the wheel someone has already made.  Shit load of documents to read and quite honestly I want to find the most compelling arguments and the facts that back those arguments up.

I can understand that, but I'm dubious about you letting the confessions go. As Dog pointed out, there are verifiable statements in the confessions, and as Rudder said; there are more than just Jessie's confessions.
I would add that it wasn't used in the E/B trial and that you might want to take a look at the case history of Richard Ofshe. I posted about it somewhere on here.


And I think it's safe to say that invitations to 'other' boards will be winging their way to you as we speak. ;) 

sheer

[7718billy]

Billy,

In a nutshell, the necklace was not introduced at trial because Judge Burnett would have needed to sever the trials at that point, meaning he would've declared a mistrial.  The State decided not to introduce it, thinking they could win without it and not wanting to try the case all over again.

That necklace if I read right connects anywhere between 11%-30% of the worlds population.  Not conclusive and is more likely to hinder prosecution than help.

They probably did not realize Jessie was going to confess.  I wish they had taped all of the interrogations, but it seems their standard operating procedure was to only bring out the tape recorder or Video camera when they knew they had something crucial.  They didn't tape Damien's interrogation either.

Your opinion reaffirms mine that they are incompetent.  Detectives know when a suspect starts talking specifics that its time to record.  From the time the statement started it was  presented as a stand alone statement as if nothing preceded it. At least that my take. 

Most non-supporters use the confession as the only form of guilt it seems.  I don't understand how they can use such a subjective piece of information as the sole determining factor. 

I disagree that it's the only evidence, but those confessions are very important because they are very hard to explain way.  Jessie confessed many times over quite a long time period.  He confessed to his own attorney, before and after the trials.  It's hard to believe that anyone would do that repeatedly and over such a long time span unless there is some truth behind what they are saying.

I agree with this and it is rather incriminating.  However, there is in my mind an awful amount of irregularities regarding all of the confession.  Add on that the only stuff I've seen linking the WM3 to that crime is only circumstantial.  I don't see how these, rather dumb and immature teenagers could brutally kill these poor kids without leaving a trace of forensic evidence despite a few hairs being able to "stick" to the boy while traveling to and incurring the violent activities. 

[Storm]

We do not know if the hair tied in the ligature that tessted to be Terry Hobbs was in Stevies shoelace. If it was indeed Stevies shoelace, that makes sense why TH hair was wrapped in a ligature of the shoelaces.

What do you make of the alibis 7718Billy?  Or the fact that Jessie confessed many times, not just once and again one year later. Or Damiens 500? Im guesing you visited Callihans?

[flexj]

Hi Billy,
 A statement given to the police that Daminen and Jason (as some believed it was his girlfriend Domini) were walking down the service road the night of the murders, and were seen covered in mud.


Then we have:
Dixie Hufford calling the Police that 2 boys and a girl entered the laundromat were she worked around 10-10:30PM and were covered in mud and what she believed to be blood.

[kerriew]

So Domini has supposedly been seen in two places? That's something to think about. Nevermind what I just said I just read the statement of Dixie Hufford. She only stated one of the people were LG Hollingsworth. Anyone know this woman? How credible is she?