www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13576147/west-memphis-three-attorney-new-theory-murder-killer.html
DNA testing underway?
View all comments
I don’t think they’re guilty.
I know they are guilty
Based on?
that's bait.
Not surprised.
Where's your evidence of their innocence?
That’s not how it works. That’s the equivalent of “what’s your evidence God doesn’t exist? I win”. It’s a logical fallacy.
And you're actually in the position of the person asking for proof that God does or doesn't exist, which is ironic.
The logical fallacy here is that you have declared them innocent without any evidence that they are innocent, which is reduted by the actual facts and evidence.
No, the state declared them guilty on zero hard evidence. That’s not how the law works. If you think the law works in a way that you don’t need any hard evidence anyone and just need speculation, fear, and a false confession that changed details every time he recounted it - then I’m terrified for this country that people like you can’t even fathom questioning the state in this case. And you say “facts and evidence” and present zero things. And if anyone does, they can be easily refuted with common sense.
Edit: also, I never said to prove god exists or not. You’re changing the argument and moving goal posts. Thus, another logical fallacy. Take a logic course.
What are you talking about, "the state"? They were tried, and convicted by a jury, just like every other criminal defendant.
You declaring a confession to be false doesn't make it so. That was a specious defense tactic that didn't work. Jessie even told the defense expert that his confession was neither false or coerced.
In his final confession he placed his hand on the Bible, and did it while Stidham was trying to stop him
And I didn't change any goalposts. You compared my challenge to present evidence that three guilty, confessed murderers are innocent to arguing about a fantasy creature, which makes no sense at all.
They were “tried” by the jury?!?! Okay, I can’t reason with you if you think that the jury “tries” the defendant and not the state. Good conversation, though, I will keep this information in mind as I continue doing my research. I hope one day you’ll be open to alternatives than what a courthouse in a small southern county is telling you. Have a good day.
U said they were tried by the state and convicted by a jury.
You're the one who said they were "declared guilty by the state", which is what the state declares at every criminal trial.
You are very confused.
Do you know how commas work? Read my sentence again.
Bro, your first two statements contradict each other. Maybe you’re confused. But again, have a good day. I hope one day you can be open to other ideas.
But yes; please do continue your research. Read the statements and trial testimony on Callahan. Read Echols' psychiatric reports, and how when he felt anxious he c.
ould only relieve it by hurting someone. How he felt he attained power by drinking blood.
Then ask yourself why you wouldn't be angry and shouting out about it every day if your friend's lie put you on Death Row. Baldwin and Echols instantly forgave Jessie and never called him out about it. They don't like to talk about it? Why? It was the pivotal act that caused them to be arrested and tried.
You never sat down and asked yourself how you would react in that position? Baldwin says, "Ah, shucks. I knew right away that it was just Jessie being stupid".
The only logical reason for not accusing Jessie of lying would be because they don't want him getting angry at being called a liar and then verifying his confession once again.
You clearly are at the beginning of your investigation into this crime and yet you're coming across hostile, angry and aggressive to someone who has been on that long journey because you've just "decided" that they're innocent because you don't like how the investigation and trial were done.
The fact is that even if there were mistakes, that in no way shows that they're innocent.
That's what logic and critical thinking is all about.
Wow. This is the most condescending and pseudo-intellectual thing I’ve read in a long time.
I’ve followed this case since 2010, so apparently you presume a lot of things.
I have read those things, and Damien sounds like a really depressed goth kid who wanted to thrive on attention and freaking people out. That is common for teenagers who don’t know their identity. That is basic psychology. I work with teenagers, if you read the stuff they said in print form, you’d think they are homicidal maniacs.
Damien and Jason don’t call him out because they understand the context of the situation and how he was screwed over.
I think you’re very good at looking hard evidence but you ignore the context. You ignore the desperation the police department was in. You ignore Jessie’s intelligent level. You ignore the psychological and sociological factors. You ignore the hysteria in the early 90s. You hand wave things away like the only Evidence being a confession that clearly has many mistakes and errors.
We will never agree, but you’re the one who constantly downvotes and made so many presumptions about me. Have a good day.
You guys can never discuss without resorting to personal attacks.
This is supposed to be about the facts of a criminal case and the law, and you bring up arguments about the existence of God while also claiming to want to stick to the facts
So you tell me to take a course in logic, which I have actually done and you obviously haven't.
“You guys” huh? Seems like you see things very black and white. Where’s the personal attack? Sounds like someone wants to be the victim and appear above others. I’m using the god thing as an analogy, not literally. Again, have a good day.
That isn't how it works when you have three convicted, confessed, murderers
We're not talking about someone's fantasy guy in the clouds. We're talking about facts and the law.
Jessie made a legal and valid confession. There were two trials in which they were all found guilty. Not one bit of evidence to back up their claims of innocence has ever been revealed in 31 years.
So, on what basic do you make your claim that they are innocent? Is it just something you "feel"?
Why didn’t the police record the whole time with Jessie? Why did Burnett disallow so much of the defensive evidence? Burnett said he didn’t believe in “psychology” which is thinking from the 1950s. You want that mindset running our criminal justice system?
And why did Jessie’s confession change all the time every time? There is zero hard evidence they were there. It’s pure bias and lack of critical thinking to not question how the police conducted investigations or how the judge was already biased towards the satanic cult angle?
They didn't record Jessie's confession at first because he was brought in as a witness. If you check out the facts that are available, you'll see that they weren't recording witness statements.
When he started confessing is when they brought out the recording device
None of them had an alibi and the preplanned ones they gave kept changing and were not backed up. Damien was seen, wet and muddy, walking from the crime scene. Damien drunkenly confessed to a friend who was intimidated into backing out by Ron Lax. Jessie confessed to Buddy Lucas while crying.
What exactly is this alleged defense evidence that wasn't allowed to be presented? What are you even talking about, because I've never heard the convicted murderers say this.
Jessie's confessions changed in detail but never in the fact that he was there and involved. He knew that Michael Moore's body would be separate from the others. He said he punched Michael Moore in the head and Michael had head wounds from a left handed person, which Jessie is.
Jessie described in graphic detail how Baldwin stabbed Chris Byers in the groin and threw his privates in the bushes. There were knife hilt marks all around the wound. Even the defense expert sees them. There were no turtles. That kid bled to death on that ditchbank before he was put in the water.
The lack of critical thinking is clearly on your part.
I’ll never convince someone like you who just blindly believe the police. Just tell me how Jessie could so easily fuck up on the difference between 9 AM and 8 PM when Gitchell finally got him on the right time. Give a rational explanation for that.
Also, most of that other stuff you say is hearsay, which is circumstantial evidence AT BEST. And please, tell me what motive the three teenagers had, outside of “they were satanists”. And correct me if I’m wrong, but Jason actually had an alibi and Jessie was wrestling in another city that night? I’ll give you Damien’s alibi not being great, but again, I’ll point out to any teenager, a random Wednesday weeks ago wouldn’t be noteworthy.
Also, read Leveritt’s book. It’s clear Jessie pointed to the wrong child initially and did it again incorrectly in the “confession”.
I've studied the facts and trial for years, and you accuse me of "just blindly believing". I read Myra's book probably before you were even born. I recall that Myra points a finger at Byers, who clearly couldn't have even been there, as he was verified as being in court at the time of the crime.
I've also read the more informative book written by actual journalists who were there and covered the trial. Have you?
The motive was most likely pent up teenage drunken frustration and rage. Echols and Baldwin had recently experienced an extreme trauma in their lives. Messed up teens acting out this way is not exactly unheard of.
And by the way - Jessie started really confessing when he was shown a morgue photo of Myers and heard a recording of Aaron Hurcheson saying, "Nobody knows what happened but me". Jessie wrongly believed there had been a witness and said, "I want out of this" before he had even been accused
It sounds like you believe Aaron was there. I don’t think many people believe that, so that’s interesting. Anyway, Jessie confessed when the detective drew a circle, put him, Damien and Jason in the circle and said you don’t want to be in this circle. Jessie confessed because he didn’t want to be in the circle. Jessie was led to believe that to avoid prison the detectives didn’t want the truth, they wanted to hear it was Damien and Jason.
You are absolutely correct. Asking someone to prove they didn’t commit a crime is ridiculous. It was up to state to prove they did it. To their credit they succeeded. But I don’t know how anyone can look at the case against them today and not have reasonable doubt.
they Never answer this. bc they know Anything they say can be refuted with facts.
What facts do you use for to refute the evidence of their guilt?
For me personally it’s Jesse’s confessions that make me believe they did it. That’s the biggest factor at least.
The confession that constantly changed and never was consistent? Even his confession after his conviction where he changed it again?!?
Edit: awww no one will answer me. Just downvote and move on.
Well, from I've seen he did try and purposefully give wrong details in his confessions to try and throw the cops off, but then that blew up in his face.
That is by far the best evidence against them. Unfortunately, what Jessie gave were likely false confessions.