Theory on Jessie's flip-flops

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

[Rudder]

I have learned some things that challenged my own beliefs.  But I continue to believe that a new trial is necessary.

This is what disgusts me. Guilty, innocent? Who gives a shit. Free the murdering bastards on technicalities.
Do the world a favor Alex, don't have children.

[DogIsYourName]

Rudder, do you not see the value and neccessity of providing everyone with a fair trial?  It's almost like you're engaging in a conversation about calculus but don't care about following the rules of simple arithmetic. 

But I continue to believe that a new trial is necessary.

does not mean

Guilty, innocent? Who gives a shit. Free the murdering bastards on technicalities.

[AinChi]

Dog,

Because I think a new trial is necessary, Rudder automatically thinks I believe the WM3 are guilty, and if released, will go after his children.  I have found that such preposterous arguments are made frequently by some members of this board.

[DogIsYourName]

Also, since the point of this thread is to explain Jessee's flip flops, here is the obvious "supporter" explanation for the newbies around here:

Confession 1 (Not accurate enough for warrant) - Coerced

Confession 2 (Police needed to "correct" some details so they could obtain warrant) - Coerced

Confession 3 (Police Car) - Officers (or someone else) told him he could reduce his sentence.  Alternatively, some may say that the officers lied.

Confession 4 (Stidham Present) - Did it for possible plea deal, as described by Dan Stidham and by Prosecutors in Paradise lost.  He had immunity.  

IMO, Confession 3 is the hardest to explain, but also the least documented.

[Farm]

Confession 4 (Stidham Present) - Did it for possible plea deal, as described by Dan Stidham and by Prosecutors in Paradise lost.

The Prosecution had never spoken to Jessie prior to 2/17 to offer any deal, Nor did they ever have the ability to offer one.

[DogIsYourName]

Hi Farm,

We have been over this many times, but the prosecution obviously did think they could offer him one.  They even said so in front of a movie camera.  So, whether they were correct is somewhat immaterial.  All that matters is that they thought they could cut him a deal, and Jessie believed it. 

[Farm]

We have been over this many times,

And still you are being dishonest about it.

the prosecution obviously did think they could offer him one.

No they didn't

They even said so in front of a movie camera.

No they didn't.

They said they were going to "try and negotiate his sentence down some"

And they did try... Burnett said no.

So, whether they were correct is somewhat immaterial.

 

Bullshit.

There is no way the Prosecution was ever going to offer Jessie an illegal offer, and they didn't.

All that matters is that they thought they could cut him a deal, and Jessie believed it.

   

They never spoke with Jessie prior to 2/17

What part of this do you not understand?

[Fishmonger Dave]

The Prosecution had never spoken to Jessie prior to 2/17 to offer any deal, Nor did they ever have the ability to offer one.

Dog, I know you're probably scratching your head at this.  Not only is a plea discussion explicitly referenced in the transcript, but (for God's sake!) Fogelman is even on camera in PL1 giving the terms they offered Jessie for his testimony (remove the "life" sentence and leave the 40 years, or vice-versa).  Farm loses credibility even among the seven remaining nons when he discusses this issue.

Jason was offered a flat 20 for his testimony, which means he'd now be eligible for parole.

Neither could bring themselves to put their hand on a Bible, look Damien in the eye and tell a lie of this magnitude.

Give it to us again, Farm - there was no deal offered for Jessie's testimony, right?  Show that partial transcript section you always pull out.  BTW, our previous exchanges on this many many months ago is what convinced me that nons are knowing liars. 

Bruhahahahaha 

[Farm]

Fogelman is even on camera in PL1 giving the terms they offered Jessie for his testimony

Lie much Dave?

Let me help you....


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ_TEG5L5K0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ_TEG5L5K0</a>

[Fwarm]

Jason was offered a flat 20 for his testimony

Source needed

remove the "life" sentence and leave the 40 years, or vice-versa

Can you show that

even among the seven remaining nons

There are millions of nons they have no reason to say anything.

[Fishmonger Dave]

You play more games than the circus ring where you met your wife. 

Ok, it was BRENT DAVIS, NOT FOGELMAN who offered the deal - to remove the life sentence.

This will have to go down with your "it's occult, not Satan" crap.

[AinChi]

I don't think any Nons have ever addressed the leading questions.  Why did Jessie need so much help confessing?  According to some nons, he's a fucking genius!

[Farm]

Hey Dave,

It's clear in the film clip you lied about that the Prosecution hadn't even spoken to Jessie yet.

Why is it you cannot post without lying?

And why is it you bail as soon as it's pointed out that you are lying?

[Rugs]

He had to dash back and reply to 'Bitspecial' at the brown board, regarding events on the afternoon of 5/5/93.

Strangely, 'Bit' bailed when Randy queried the source of 'Bit's' information.

I wonder if they both know 'Bit' is actually Emtee? They could have both saved themselves a lot of unnecessary typing.

[Farm]

Randy is dissapointing to say the least.

I understand his tactic in theory, but in practice it fails miserably.

I don't see a fine line at all between rational civil discussion, and spreading your cheeks for the Eddyhens.

To me, it looks like if collectively those retarded bints could muster up a cock, Randy would be wiping his chin.