[Susan]

no that was just another unproven theory

[nzcelt]

Do you believe they are guilty? If you are then you must be surely trolling.

[nzcelt]

It was meant to be "if you do", but can't edit.

[Susan]

I take it you haven't even read most of this thread.

[rapeWhistle]

Damn, those 3 boys would be about 28yrs old now.
They'd probably have kids of their own by now too.

[JohnFrash]

Anybody who claims to "know" what happened is the true idiot. It's like finding a bone in a field and constructing the last 48 hours of that person's life based on a coke can found nearby. Sure you can come up with some weak theories, but none that are worth prosecuting. Three boys were imprisoned over suspicion. Yes, suspicious as hell, but nothing ever linked them directly to the crime. Fibers and candlewax were both probably purchased at walmart and could have match articles in 70% of the nearby homes. They might be guilty, but zero evidence showed it. Damien shows the sociopathic tendencies, but i also spent time growing up in Arkansas. Rumor goes on record there. Especially in rural areas 20 something years ago.
People make assumptions, and use their past experiences to interpret this case. When looking at it, just as it is on the page, you have the beginnings of a theory, and not a thing more. I am not proclaiming their innocence. There is a chance they did it, same as there is a chance Terry Hobbs did it. I just think it is dumb that anybody can suppose their guilt based purely on garbage evidence.

[JohnFrash]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

no that was just another unproven theory

Isn't everything an unproven theory with this case? It is theorized Damien is guilty because he killed a dog and is a super-weirdo. Theorized that there were three killers based on three knots. Theorized that the wounds to the face are human bites, animal bites, knife wounds, nothing conclusive. Theorized that Hobbs is involved based on after the fact accounts and discrepancies. There are way more theories and opinions on this case than fact. You have done a good job whittling away at some of the rhetorical ideas promoted by Paradise Lost, etc. But you have yet to say anything to place guilt on the wm3 in any significant way. You just keep telling people to research the case, like that will illuminate everything. But it doesn't! Which, if you look at the conversational landscape is obvious. This much contention doesn't come from something that is a black and white case. Your opinion of their guilt is just that, an opinion. Albeit an extremely well-presented and intelligent one. But, I resent the fact that you are trying to represent yourself as some sort of expert who has insight to the "facts" just because you vaguely claim some sort of affiliation with a case website. Take a beat and just admit you want them to be guilty just like most others want them to be innocent.
I want them to be innocent, because it makes a good story, but at least I am 100% open to the fact that they could be guilty.

[Susan]

They were found guilty on circumstantial evidence. You know forensic evidence wasn't around much until lately, so if you didnt have an eye witness then most people were convicted on a set of circumstances. That doesn't mean they aren't guilty. Do you know where most false guilty cases actually come from? Eyewitnesses getting it wrong! I believe they are guilty, just as someone else might believe they are innocent. Just because you're unwilling to say which you believe doesn't make you any better. I've had a look at all the facts, as they are, not the stupid lies put forward by Paradise Lost etc etc so yes i do believe i'm in a better place to judge. It makes me so frustrated when i come here and i see all the bullshit still doing the rounds and people exlaiming how innocent they are when they don't even know the first thing about the case.

[Susan]

That's why I wanted to share some of it.

[JohnFrash]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

That's why I wanted to share some of it.

If I made you feel like what you shared was unwanted, I apologize. Massive contribution to the thread. I have nothing but respect for the amount of research you have done and your obvious familiarity with the case. I also get frustrated with people who have seen Paradise Lost and think they know the entire case and all of it's moving parts without using an ounce of independent curiosity.
I thought I said my opinion is that they are innocent, but only in the sense that they were never proven guilty. At least not in a way that satisfies me. I'm not shy about that. But I can't speak to their actual guilt or innocence. Just that they got convicted on a staggering amount of theories rather than solid evidence. Thanks for the response!