• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Remember the West Memphis 3?

John Jones said:
That 'expert' was a clown. He testified that presence of blood was sign of a satanic ritual. He later said that the victims blood would be collected and saved by the satanists for use in later rituals, so the absence of blood was also proof of satanic ritual.

There was no blood collected at the scene.
Click to expand...

My issue is that judges are suppose to act as gate keepers to keep crazy crap out of their courthouse. The judge is this case let almost anything that the prosecution wanted while nothing the defense did.

I think the only reason that they did not allow Jesse's confession in the trial of Damian and Jason was because he realized that would have esulted in a mistrial.
 
Desert Fox said:
My issue is that judges are suppose to act as gate keepers to keep crazy crap out of their courthouse. The judge is this case let almost anything that the prosecution wanted while nothing the defense did.
Click to expand...

Exactly

Desert Fox said:
I think the only reason that they did not allow Jesse's confession in the trial of Damian and Jason was because he realized that would have esulted in a mistrial.
Click to expand...

Or an acquittal.
 
Vixen said:
Would YOU pose with a self-professed satanist and notorious childkiller/sodomist/rapist and call him a friend?


Your heroine does.

If this picture doesn't turn your stomach...
Click to expand...



Hmmm. I see a photo of Knox standing next to a man who a) has a very credible case for wrongful conviction as far as I can see, and b) was effectively forced into accepting an Alford Plea (a horribly misused tool and an affront to justice in the US which needs urgent reform) in order simply to get out of prison.

But what does any of this have to do with Knox's involvement (or otherwise) in the Kercher murder? If Knox had a photograph of her stood next to (say) Obama or Justin Trudeau, would this (per your strange apparent assessment of these things) make it less likely that she was involved in the Kercher murder? If she was photographed next to (say) Rolf Harris or OJ Simpson, would this (per your strange apparent assessment) make it any more likely that she was involved in the Kercher murder?

And.... "Heroine"?? Oh dear.
 
Vixen said:
Would YOU pose with a self-professed satanist and notorious childkiller/sodomist/rapist and call him a friend?


Your heroine does.

If this picture doesn't turn your stomach...
Click to expand...

Echols is not a "self-professed Satanist". It was the prosecution that claimed that despite there being no evidence of it. Echols has never claimed to be a Satanist.

As for being a "notorious childkiller/sodomist/rapist" that conviction was so tenuous that the prosecutor offered an Alford deal because the chances of getting a conviction in a new trial were poor. NO DNA or other evidence of any of the West Memphis defendants was found at the crime scene although DNA not belonging to the victims was found.

Out of curiosity, what evidence do you think proves Echols and his co-defendants guilty?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Echols is not a "self-professed Satanist". It was the prosecution that claimed that despite there being no evidence of it. Echols has never claimed to be a Satanist.

As for being a "notorious childkiller/sodomist/rapist" that conviction was so tenuous that the prosecutor offered an Alford deal because the chances of getting a conviction in a new trial were poor. NO DNA or other evidence of any of the West Memphis defendants was found at the crime scene although DNA not belonging to the victims was found.

Out of curiosity, what evidence do you think proves Echols and his co-defendants guilty?
Click to expand...

Er, he had extensive preknowledge of the c rime, of facts police had not released to the public. Two of his own relatives witnessed him walking away fromt he crime scene covered in mud. Police found muddy shoes at his home.

A blob of blue wax found on one of the little boy's shirt matched exactly a candle found at Echols' girlfriends house.

Jessie Misskelley described in detail - about five confessions at different ties - what happened, and it correlated with the crime scene.

None of the three had an alibi, all had histories of occult dabbling (torturing, killing and eating dogs). Baldwin had a knife, retrieved from the lake which matched some of the knife wounds.

All three got friends and family to give them fake alibis - a bit like Knox and Sollecito - claiming to have been home with friends and family during the murder.

Both Baldwin and Echols had several witnesses to the fact they liked to suck blood whenever they saw it.

Police investigated hundreds of possible suspects, so did not 'pick on Echols and Baldwin' because they liked Megadeth.
 
Vixen said:
Er, he had extensive preknowledge of the c rime, of facts police had not released to the public. Two of his own relatives witnessed him walking away fromt he crime scene covered in mud. Police found muddy shoes at his home.

A blob of blue wax found on one of the little boy's shirt matched exactly a candle found at Echols' girlfriends house.

Jessie Misskelley described in detail - about five confessions at different ties - what happened, and it correlated with the crime scene.

None of the three had an alibi, all had histories of occult dabbling (torturing, killing and eating dogs). Baldwin had a knife, retrieved from the lake which matched some of the knife wounds.

All three got friends and family to give them fake alibis - a bit like Knox and Sollecito - claiming to have been home with friends and family during the murder.

Both Baldwin and Echols had several witnesses to the fact they liked to suck blood whenever they saw it.

Police investigated hundreds of possible suspects, so did not 'pick on Echols and Baldwin' because they liked Megadeth.
Click to expand...

If only they were smart enough to get a random crook to leave DNA and bloody prints all over their crime scene.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hmmm. I see a photo of Knox standing next to a man who a) has a very credible case for wrongful conviction as far as I can see, and b) was effectively forced into accepting an Alford Plea (a horribly misused tool and an affront to justice in the US which needs urgent reform) in order simply to get out of prison.

But what does any of this have to do with Knox's involvement (or otherwise) in the Kercher murder? If Knox had a photograph of her stood next to (say) Obama or Justin Trudeau, would this (per your strange apparent assessment of these things) make it less likely that she was involved in the Kercher murder? If she was photographed next to (say) Rolf Harris or OJ Simpson, would this (per your strange apparent assessment) make it any more likely that she was involved in the Kercher murder?

And.... "Heroine"?? Oh dear.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. Here we go rationalising again.

You are either Mr. Gullible, or Disingenuous.

Or maybe you feel people shouldn't be punished for crimes, just like your idol.
 
bagels said:
If only they were smart enough to get a random crook to leave DNA and bloody prints all over their crime scene.
Click to expand...

The blood and DNA of one of the innocent little boys was found on a pendant belonging to Echols.

One of the boys cried, 'Help us, help us', and instead he was bludgeoned, as witnessed by Misskelley.

Shame on you for supporting obvious murderers.
 
Vixen said:
The blood and DNA of one of the innocent little boys was found on a pendant belonging to Echols.

One of the boys cried, 'Help us, help us', and instead he was bludgeoned, as witnessed by Misskelley.

Shame on you for supporting obvious murderers.
Click to expand...

Nowhere I have read that the boys' DNA was found on a pendant of Echols. You seem very consistent in lying to paint people guilty. Why?

Misskelley had an IQ of 72, was underage and was interrogated for 12 hours without his parents and without any representation. Interesting, that he was one recorded for 45 minutes.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Nowhere I have read that the boys' DNA was found on a pendant of Echols. You seem very consistent in lying to paint people guilty. Why?

Misskelley had an IQ of 72, was underage and was interrogated for 12 hours without his parents and without any representation. Interesting, that he was one recorded for 45 minutes.
Click to expand...

In the past his IQ had been measured as much as 84 and 88. He was still within the normal range at 72 as you have to be <65 to get automatic welfare for a low IQ.

He was perfectly normal, albeit perhaps a bit 'thick'. He testified on tape that the police treated him well, he had been read his rights, that he could refuse to answer and that he was welcome to have a lawyer with him.

His accounts were highly detailed and fit the crime scene. For someone who's supposed to be a challenged learner, he sure spun a good story if he was lying. He initially tried to mislead the police about timings, but his core witness statements were consistent and unchanging, with minor contradictions here and there, which is why the police asked him to come back for more questioning.

Misskelley - like Guede - claimed to have witnessed the murders, but had nothing to do with it himself. Yet he freely admitted he chased Michael Moore (one of the boys) and bludgeoned him.

He described how the boys had died, correctly. He described how 'the blond boy' (Byers, who had white blonde hair) had his genitals cut off and died quickly.

Seriously, a mentally-challenged person, or even a highly gifted one, would not have been able to have made up such a fantastically appalling story, yet which astonishingly, turned out to be an accurate summary of what happened, and matched the police and pathologists' theories.

All three - Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley - all consistently failed the polygraph (lie detector test), and these tests aren't allowable evidence in court, but speaks volumes.

Would I be right in thinking you have been given spin by Defence Gun For Hire, John Douglas, who has been championing people like Knox, Avery and the West Memphis Three?

He is a liar and thoroughly dishonorable.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
In the past his IQ had been measured as much as 84 and 88. He was still within the normal range at 72 as you have to be <65 to get automatic welfare for a low IQ.

He was perfectly normal, albeit perhaps a bit 'thick'. He testified on tape that the police treated him well, he had been read his rights, that he could refuse to answer and that he was welcome to have a lawyer with him.

His accounts were highly detailed and fit the crime scene. For someone who's supposed to be a challenged learner, he sure spun a good story if he was lying. He initially tried to mislead the police about timings, but his core witness statements were consistent and unchanging, with minor contradictions here and there, which is why the police asked him to come back for more questioning.

Misskelley - like Guede - claimed to have witnessed the murders, but had nothing to do with it himself. Yet he freely admitted he chased Michael Moore (one of the boys) and bludgeoned him.

He described how the boys had died, correctly. He described how 'the blond boy' (Byers, who had white blonde hair) had his genitals cut off and died quickly.

Seriously, a mentally-challenged person, or even a highly gifted one, would not have been able to have made up such a fantastically appalling story, yet which astonishingly, turned out to be an accurate summary of what happened, and matched the police and pathologists' theories.

All three - Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley - all consistently failed the polygraph (lie detector test), and these tests aren't allowable evidence in court, but speaks volumes.

Would I be right in thinking you have been given spin by Defence Gun For Hire, John Douglas, who has been championing people like Knox, Avery and the West Memphis Three?

He is a liar and thoroughly dishonorable.
Click to expand...


You're the one that is a liar. You just said one of the victim's DNA was found on Echols pendant. So before you go on spouting lies about another case, why don't you start with admitting you lied in your post about the DNA or provide a citation. Frankly, I'm sick of having a conversation with someone who exaggerates and lies about everything as we have seen you do in the Kercher case.
 
Vixen said:
Would I be right in thinking you have been given spin by Defence Gun For Hire, John Douglas, who has been championing people like Knox, Avery and the West Memphis Three?

He is a liar and thoroughly dishonorable.
Click to expand...

No you would not be right.

It would be helpful if you could tell us your bona fides to justify uttering such slander.

No matter. Your post carries no weight and represents well the stupid positions you hold and things you just make up.
 
Last edited:
Methos said:
I do, and heck, I'll have to confess, that back then (in late 2011) I was impressed... :o

It was an interesting time back then, wasn't it?

The real sources were few and hard to find.
PMF.org had a "working" photo gallery and a few translations, IIP had a few (translated) court documents, TJMK had the powerpoints and a lot of opinion, friendsofamanda had the CSI photos and videos, and PMF.net had "FOAKer Tuesday"... And this forum (JREF back then) was the place to go to, if you wanted to hear both sides...

The interesting thing is, that now - almost 10 years after Meredith Kercher was murdered by Rudy Guede - the reporting about "the case" has gone back to cartwheels, kisses and underwear. Here is a podcast I stopped listening to after Nancy Grace put "Bubbles" into the same league as "Victoria's Secret" :(

Speaking of podcasts, someone should tell Mr van der Leek and Ms Wilson, that the Daily Mail is not a source.
Btw. giggling and laughing Ms Wilson plays the part of the stupid blonde in this podcast just perfectly... :p
Click to expand...

Man, I can't stand Nancy Grace. Her objectivity is non-existent. I would listen to the podcast but I detest her so much that my blood boils if I hear her talk for more than a few seconds.
 
acbytesla said:
Man, I can't stand Nancy Grace. Her objectivity is non-existent. I would listen to the podcast but I detest her so much that my blood boils if I hear her talk for more than a few seconds.
Click to expand...
I tried to listen, but that high pitched, agitated voice of her, and the above mentioned "Bubbles=Victoria's Secret" thing, caused my check out...
Question from a German:"That woman was on TV and popular in the US?" :(
 
Methos said:
I tried to listen, but that high pitched, agitated voice of her, and the above mentioned "Bubbles=Victoria's Secret" thing, caused my check out...
Question from a German:"That woman was on TV and popular in the US?" :(
Click to expand...

I just can't listen. She always starts from the position that the defendant is guilty and taints every discussion from that perspective. I watched her many times talk about how she was privy to evidence in this case that was not available to the populous yet she never produced it.

Nothing I enjoyed more than when Casey Anthony was acquitted. Not because I had much opinion on the case other then I thought the evidence about the trunk of her car was bogus. No, it was because Grace in her arrogant snide way was wrong about the jury verdict and I thought she was going to have a stroke.
 
acbytesla said:
I just can't listen. She always starts from the position that the defendant is guilty and taints every discussion from that perspective. I watched her many times talk about how she was privy to evidence in this case that was not available to the populous yet she never produced it.

Nothing I enjoyed more than when Casey Anthony was acquitted. Not because I had much opinion on the case other then I thought the evidence about the trunk of her car was bogus. No, it was because Grace in her arrogant snide way was wrong about the jury verdict and I thought she was going to have a stroke.
Click to expand...

I see. Your views are taken from the mass media and are based on personalities.

So if someone comes from Seattle they are cool with you. If you don't like someone's voice, you are happy a woman who almost certainly had a hand in the murder of her child gets away with it.

How very shallow.
 
Vixen said:
I see. Your views are taken from the mass media and are based on personalities.

So if someone comes from Seattle they are cool with you. If you don't like someone's voice, you are happy a woman who almost certainly had a hand in the murder of her child gets away with it.

How very shallow.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. So what is new. I admit not liking Grace's voice. I also didn't like Hillary Clinton or Patty Murray's voice and I voted for both of them. Murray multiple times. No, what I really despised about Nancy Grace was her attitude and lack of objectivity.

BTW, Are you going to admit being a liar about Echols' pendant? Or do you have a citation? I'm waiting.
 
acbytesla said:
You're wrong. So what is new. I admit not liking Grace's voice. I also didn't like Hillary Clinton or Patty Murray's voice and I voted for both of them. Murray multiple times. No, what I really despised about Nancy Grace was her attitude and lack of objectivity.

BTW, Are you going to admit being a liar about Echols' pendant? Or do you have a citation? I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, an Echols fan. There is a pattern emerging.


Going back to the necklace, if Damien was guilty the very fact that blood was located on an item of clothing belonging to him (the necklace) would be yet another strong corroborating item of guilt. It’s difficult to explain away blood from both himself and a second individual in an innocent manner that does not point to guilt in the homicides. And if Damien was the one who killed Stevie Branch, as Jessie Misskelley had stated, then not only would Damien’s DNA be on the ligatures but there would exist evidence, such as blood which would be upon his person, and it was. And if Damien was the person who killed Stevie Branch, then the blood would then be that of Stevie Branch… DNA testing showed that of the victims, the blood was consistent with that of Stevie Branch, further corroborating Jessie’s confession. IN BOTH INSTANCES of Damien Echols and DNA connecting him to the crime it always seemed to connect him to the murder of Stevie Branch. A coincidence? Very unlikely.
Click to expand...
https://thewm3revelations.wordpress.com/2017/03/13/damien-echols-and-dna/

And

There were three important evidence samples tested. One was a blood stain on a T-shirt from Jessie Misskelley. A second was blood on a knife from John Mark Byers. A third was blood on a pendant worn by Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols. These samples were compared to those of the victims, the three defendants, and the members of the Byers household. (John Mark Byers is not genetically related to Chris Byers.)
<snip>
The blood on Misskelley's t-shirt matched Michael Moore, suggesting guilt but also matched Jessie Misskelley, suggesting he had a shirt with his own blood on it. It was not introduced as evidence. The blood on the pendant matched Steve Branch and Jason Baldwin, and if were a mixed evidence sample could have been claimed to have also match Michael Moore. The judge disallowed this from being introduced as evidence, in part because of its late appearance during the trials. The blood on the knife matched Chris Byers, and his stepfather, John Mark Byers, and as a mixed evidence sample could have been claimed to have also matched Michael Moore and Stevie Branch. It was introduced at trial with John Mark Byers contradicting his earlier statements to police stating he had cut himself with the knife.
Click to expand...

https://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_DNA_part_one.html

Even if Misskelley had taken a video, you would still be denying the obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom