Unbiased Opinion

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

[76387]

76387 Posts in 6760 Topics by 681 Members
Latest Member: wiltar

[7718billy]

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

I dont think supporter or non supporters will agree on that confession.  With out more information about before and after those statements were made, I don't know how anyone could validate their veracity. 

If someone can provide physical evidence that corroborates Misskellys statements other than a bottle I will become convinced these men are guilty.  His statements progressively correlates with the theory the  prosecution/investigators had at the very beginning.  This would be rather compelling but to believe that would to believe the police were acting competently during their investigation, which I currently don't.  If I think the cops did a horrible job why would I believe they got it right as far as their theory on how the crimes were committed. 

Riddle me this.  If he was being truthful, why lie about the time in the first confession?  What motive could he possibly have to manipulate that detail? 

As far as the "other" sites go, I've been their too, however I post on boards that have an opposing view of mine in order to draw debate and subsequently discovery.  Whats making this difficult for me is that many post that I've read from a variety of sites don't present their facts, evidence, or opinions with a credible source/documentation.  They put the information in the context that best illustrates their point of view, consequently losing objectivity.

 Not to offend anyone but the most common I see on the forums is the context in which they portray the confessions.  Many people take statements from all of the confessions and co mingle them together with out putting into context when the statements were made, which in my mind has a huge impact on their veracity.  An example of this is some pick and choose the best  comments from Misskelly post conviction as if he made those comments all at the same time.  The other side is just as guilty. 

As mentioned earlier Misskelly's statements progressively moved towards the prosecution/police version of events without introducing anything new. In other words he only confirmed what they believed at first after absorbing information from the trial. Did the prosecution/police get it exactly right? If so, that's awful convenient for the non's side wouldn't you agree? Especially when most murder cases and confessions do not follow this particular peculiarity. 

[7718billy]

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.

Its not that I do not believe the hair was secondary transfer, its that I find it highly unlikely almost impossible it traveled and endured with out falling off...while I can understand that it can be a coincidence the sheer lack of belief from the other side that it can be any other than that is an indication of  no objectivity.

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?

Can you link to his others? I've read his first two and the post conviction statment?

I really wish the cops did a good job but unfortunately they failed and they failed these three boys who died in such a horrible and tragic way.  The WM3 may very well be guilty but the complete and utter lack of a competent investigation conducted by the police has raised to many inconsistencies for me. 

As mentioned earlier Misskelly's statements progressively moved towards the prosecution/police version of events without introducing anything new. In other words he only confirmed what they believed at first after absorbing information from the trial. Did the prosecution/police get it exactly right? If so, that's awful convenient for the non's side wouldn't you agree? Especially when most murder cases and confessions do not follow this particular peculiarity.

[kerriew]

http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/board,19.0.html

Billy read the above forum. There is more to the confessions than just a bottle.

[7718billy]

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.

Can you link these for me?  Also is their any evidence the other side has to refute this? 

[7718billy]

http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/board,19.0.html

Billy read the above forum. There is more to the confessions than just a bottle.

People keep posting links to forums and other posters comments and honestly I'm looking for official transcripts.   I try to read through the post but most quickly turn into a flame war where insults and profanities far outweigh the discussion. 

[kerriew]

http://callahan.8k.com/

Here you go.

[7718billy]

http://callahan.8k.com/

Here you go.

LOL that validates every thing said here......Which document do I read first? I suppose no one can link to the specific transcript, document, or statement that backs up certain claims made?


 This seems to be the common theme in these threads.   I guess I will just have to read every piece of information as most just link to other posters comments which are obviously biased and presented in a favorable context of their opinion.  So frustrating, that both sides play the same game.  I cant be the only one attempting to take an objective view.  Most are so lost in their own beliefs they cant see straight. 

I say all of that with the initial mind set of playing devils advocate and truly don't know yet what happens. Thanks for the help.  Take care.

[auburnesq]

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. 

No, I don't agree. The credibility of a confession is not determined by one or two verifiable or non verifiable details, but everything in context and as a whole.

The fact his confession is subjective and open to interpretation leads me to discount it as evidence. 

Unfortunately subjectivity isn't a legal standard, so I still have no idea what standard you are using to dismiss the confession 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 mere fact that he could have been coerced is irrelevant. Absent evidence that he actually was coerced, his confession stands. Unless you have a procedural handbook from that PD for that time period, it presumptive to state that they are incompetent for not doing what you think they should have.

So far what I've read and discover is this whole case is based mostly on circumstantial evidence and consequently it's not overwhelming.

  Just like almost every other case in the US legal system. No matter how many times people like Larner whine that there just isn't any evidence, it doesn't make it so.

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.

In your eyes it is subjective. The rest of us look at under the actual reasonable man standard. The confession isn't the only evidence - the confessions, the robe fibers, the necklace, the Evan Williams bottle, etc.....you know, all that circumstantial stuff.

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.

You obviously have never owned an animal or have a child.

Riddle me this.  If he was being truthful, why lie about the time in the first confession?  What motive could he possibly have to manipulate that detail?

Why do assume that a confession needs to 100% accurate? Criminals lie all the time, and often over the stupidest details. I know I have written on here about a client I had who shot a guy and confessed to shooting the guy. Yet he insisted on lying about where he was when he shot him. He was standing on a curb next to an open window and shot down into the car. He insists that he was standing several feet away. The ballistics report indicated that he shot down into the car, the witnesses stated that he was in the curb next to the car, and he admitted that he shot the guy so why lie about where you were standing? Who knows. My best guess is that they think it somehow lessens their culpability, but it could be for any number of reasons.

[kerriew]

Ok Billy I am confused. I gave you the link to every single OFFICIAL document that is for public viewing. It is just a sight with documents. No opinions or forums. What else do you want? For others to do the research for you? Help me out here  Billy and really explain what you want from us. Yes we have read these documents but no one can remember exactly which one your questions are coming from therefore you need to search for yourself.

[kerriew]

Billy,
I also want to hear your explanation for why you think circumstantial evidence is not good enough?

"So frustrating, that both sides play the same game."

Excuse me but this isn't a game to us. Todd Moore posts here and I think it's insulting to insinuate his son't murder is a game

See ya all later I have to go to class

[flexj]

http://callahan.8k.com/

Here you go.

LOL that validates every thing said here......Which document do I read first? I suppose no one can link to the specific transcript, document, or statement that backs up certain claims made?


 This seems to be the common theme in these threads.   I guess I will just have to read every piece of information as most just link to other posters comments which are obviously biased and presented in a favorable context of their opinion.  So frustrating, that both sides play the same game.  I cant be the only one attempting to take an objective view.  Most are so lost in their own beliefs they cant see straight. 

I say all of that with the initial mind set of playing devils advocate and truly don't know yet what happens. Thanks for the help.  Take care.

You of course know how that sounds, the people here don't do this for a living, Callahan's is the source for documentation, and the rest is left up to interpretation.
People here will help you, but you (as most of us has) have got to do your own research.  To ask questions on a case of this magnitude and expect everyone here to fire off at a whim is asking allot.  To call it a game is reprehensible, as people here really do care of what has happened, and what is happening.   Now if I misunderstood your post than I apologize, but it sure does sound condescending.

[flexj]

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/dixieh.html
This is the statement from Dixie

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/narleneh.html
This is the statement of Damien walking down the service road, and seeing Domini Teer, which some believe could have been Jason as they both had long red hair and are about the same build

[sheer]

I try to read through the post but most quickly turn into a flame war where insults and profanities far outweigh the discussion

I chose 3 threads at random in the link that Kerrie posted and none of them did what you stated. You didn't even read the first one did you?

I dunno...You don't want to discuss the confessions, not even ones that aren't Jessie's. You say that his confessions moved close to what the police believed, but you don't say what the police believed and why they weren't able to get Jessie to tell exactly what they believed from the start. You refuse to read threads that might educate you on Ofshe and why Stidham went down the false confession route and your refuse to read threads about Stidham and the post-conviction confession.

It's convenient to dismiss them, that I understand..but wanting to discuss this case without bias, yet simultaneously reject a portion of it without entertaining any debate on the matter is silly.


Now you're bemoaning the fact that Kerrie gave you a link to Callahans? wow.

I can guess where this is going.
Sorry to interrupt.


sheer

[flexj]

http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/board,19.0.html

Billy read the above forum. There is more to the confessions than just a bottle.

People keep posting links to forums and other posters comments and honestly I'm looking for official transcripts.   I try to read through the post but most quickly turn into a flame war where insults and profanities far outweigh the discussion.

Billy,
 I just want you to know something here that I find typical, when someone new comes in and makes statements like you have, in my opinion, you have already made yours.

Now I searched this board for months before I joined the board, and I learned a hell of a lot reading the arguments.  So with that in mind, if you are serious about searching for the truth, well then search

[7718billy]

Billy,
 I just want you to know something here that I find typical, when someone new comes in and makes statements like you have, in my opinion, you have already made yours.

If you read my post today I've clearly stated the goal was to illicit debate and draw specific links to testimony, official transcripts, and other facts of the case to either rebut or confirm the supports view.  However, as mention here and other forums, the more I read the more suspicions I have of innocence.

The questions I brought up are fact finding in nature and do have the implication of a non guilty WM3.  However, most of those were answered with, opinions, circumstantial evidence, or clearly biased and subjective answers and I wanted to avoid this.

No, I don't agree. The credibility of a confession is not determined by one or two verifiable or non verifiable details, but everything in context and as a whole.

Okay which confession do you believe the most?  What parts of the confession do you believe and what other non-circumstantial evidence support this belief? What parts of the confession do you believe is a lie and what non-circumstantial evidence support this belief?

Several of the items in his 1st confession does not correlate with the evidence.  Not just one or two things. However, miraculously he knows more and more about the case as time goes on.  None of which opposes the prosecutions/cops theory of what happened. Nothing new is discovered at his last confession. It appear to me that every time he confesses he is around the cops or prosecutor and when he recants he is around his lawyers.  It is my feeling especially after reading Ofshe's testimony, that Misskelley is highly impressionable.   Is their any expert rebuttal of Ofshe testimonies? [url=http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ofshe.html]http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ofshe.html[/url] [/i][/b]

Unfortunately subjectivity isn't a legal standard, so I still have no idea what standard you are using to dismiss the confession as evidence.

Is it because you don't agree that the confession is suspect that you raise this point?  While I understand and accept that you take it as gospel and use it as crux for your belief, why is can you not understand and accept an opposing view? I've stated that the confession is subjective on many levels and has many questions surrounding its veracity. Consequently, I don't accept it as valid evidence.

have been coerced is irrelevant. Absent evidence that he actually was coerced, his confession stands. Unless you have a procedural handbook from that PD for that time period, it presumptive to state that they are incompetent for not doing what you think they should have.

Legally yes, but reality is we don't know. However reading the 1st statement and 2nd before reading Ofshe's testimony I came to the conclusion MissKelley was giving answers the police wanted to hear.  The police were asking questions that only had a few possible answers.  My own experiences come into play with this determination.  If I was handed a transcript from an interrogator about a insurgent describing an event and it was fillled with inaccuracies and type of questions the police asked I could not take that and use it in my analysis.  However, there are questions they shouldn't of asked but didn't which leads me to incompetence or misconduct.  The police only wanted him to say what they wanted.  What led Misskelly to confess?  Is their any record of this?

Just like almost every other case in the US legal system. No matter how many times people like Larner whine that there just isn't any evidence, it doesn't make it so.

Not true, and I would say this is a rather blatant attempt at a rather biased opinion for total disregard for facts. Nine time out of 10 a conviction for a brutal murder has physical/forensic evidence or eye-witness testimony linking the suspect to the specified crime scene. In this case there are none, other than the confession.  If there is non-circumstantial evidence linking the WM3 to the scene out side of the confession share it and post it. In other words you can not prove for a fact that the WM3 was at the scene at the alleged times of murder.

In your eyes it is subjective. The rest of us look at under the actual reasonable man standard. The confession isn't the only evidence - the confessions, the robe fibers, the necklace, the Evan Williams bottle, etc.....you know, all that circumstantial stuff.

First I heard about robe fibers can you point me to this?  The necklace implicates by different accounts 11% to 30% of the world population.  I'm not sure what that bottle implicates or implies.

You obviously have never owned an animal or have a child.

Not true but if so I've never been tied up, raped, beaten, or drug down a creek bed either, or murdered.  However, the mere suggestion that is the only explanation for that hair is continued biased and un-objective thinking. While I'll freely admit that it does not exonerate or implicate any one it does raise serious issues.

Why do assume that a confession needs to 100% accurate? Criminals lie all the time, and often over the stupidest details. I know I have written on here about a client I had who shot a guy and confessed to shooting the guy. Yet he insisted on lying about where he was when he shot him. He was standing on a curb next to an open window and shot down into the car. He insists that he was standing several feet away. The ballistics report indicated that he shot down into the car, the witnesses stated that he was in the curb next to the car, and he admitted that he shot the guy so why lie about where you were standing? Who knows. My best guess is that they think it somehow lessens their culpability, but it could be for any number of reasons.

 

How can you read his first two confessions and not have at least a doubt?  A reasonable doubt.  If you don't understand how bad the cops mangled the first two confessions then I presume you would never consider an alternate theory and continue to explain other circumstances away with subjective and circumstantial information.  It doesn't matter really if its accurate or not, which the first statement was full of inaccuracies cleared up by extraordinarily leading questions.

In your example their is a ballistic report and obviously other physical/forensic evidence where in this case there are not any. 

Ok Billy I am confused. I gave you the link to every single OFFICIAL document that is for public viewing. It is just a sight with documents. No opinions or forums. What else do you want? For others to do the research for you? Help me out here  Billy and really explain what you want from us. Yes we have read these documents but no one can remember exactly which one your questions are coming from therefore you need to search for yourself.

Well I was hoping someone would. I'm sorry you are confused.  I wanted to speed up my discovery process without reading every single document.   Well, by all accounts, other people have done the research and if they happen to remember where a certain thing is, is it so bad to ask for them to help me along? Your link sending me to callahan was rather insulting actually.  You must of assumed I was not aware of this site yet, where as previous post I think I've mentioned that I've found it.  Sorry for your confusion.

[/color]
Billy,
I also want to hear your explanation for why you think circumstantial evidence is not good enough?

Excuse me but this isn't a game to us. Todd Moore posts here and I think it's insulting to insinuate his son't murder is a game

Circumstantial is not fact and should not be assumed as such, especially with the lack of physical/forensics  That's why its not good enough for me.

If you take a figure of speech that I'm using to describe how people present their opinions as a literal attack or disrespect toward anyone involved in this crime then you may want to stop reading internet forums as this was clearly not my intention.

Further, let me elaborate on what I meant.  Most people who post on these or other forums are biased and no matter what opinion they have they take examples of evidence or other unsubstantiated information and use them out of context to support their thoughts.  If you don't see this on this forum and others, I presume your not very objective and only want to hear things that support your belief.   

[/color]
I dunno...You don't want to discuss the confessions, not even ones that aren't Jessie's.

I've actually asked for links to these, but havent found them yet.

You say that his confessions moved close to what the police believed, but you don't say what the police believed and why they weren't able to get Jessie to tell exactly what they believed from the start.
Because I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm trying to illicit actual transcripts, official documents, testimony that either rebuts or confirms my suspicions and answer questions that are leading me to a conclusion.   I've stated numerous times that I'm new and still reading. Theirs a lot of reading to do and I don't have all the facts, consequently its the reason I started posting.  But so far, I'm of the belief that confession is B.S.  We can agree to disagree.   

You refuse to read threads that might educate you on Ofshe and why Stidham went down the false confession route and your refuse to read threads about Stidham and the post-conviction confession.

Again, I'm still reading a lot of stuff, to assume I'm refusing to read anything is rather presumptive. While I'm going to read the threads I want to be clear of the facts on record

It's convenient to dismiss them, that I understand..but wanting to discuss this case without bias, yet simultaneously reject a portion of it without entertaining any debate on the matter is silly.

It's not that I want to discuss this case its I want to find information.  The best way to find information is to ask questions.  The conjecture of the question I'd admit come form a supporters perspective.  However, I find this the best way to get proof of rebuttal or confirmation.

Further, I'm obviously entertaining debate by continue discussion about the confession.  However, I'm not naive enough to think I will change your mind or even understand my perspective. Now once I do have a complete understanding of the case and a final determination of my opinion, I will debate with vigor. For all I know my opinion at the end of this will change several times.  [/i][/b]

Now you're bemoaning the fact that Kerrie gave you a link to Callahans? wow.

Did you honestly think after reading all my post that I was not aware of the callahan link already? If not I hope you understand now why I was bemoaning it.

[/color]