[nzcelt]

They are innocent end of discussion.

[Susan]

Originally Posted by nzcelt ↗

They are innocent end of discussion.

At least John had some intelligent discussion about it. Gah, I give up.

[JohnFrash]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

At least John had some intelligent discussion about it. Gah, I give up.

Hahahaha The comedic timing of that comment and the previous. Priceless.

[Megamel29]

Susanmarie, just out of curiosity, did you read Life After Death?

[Susan]

no, and i doubt i would ever read anything that guy writes. Why you ask?

[rapeWhistle]

Originally Posted by JohnFrash ↗

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!

It was a witch hunt, no doubt.

I've only watched the documentaries when they played on HBO and read information presented by the defenses side posted on the WM3 mySpace page back in the day when information about the case became available on the internet.

Damien Echols may/may not have been a sociopath.
I could see him killing those kids, Baldwin going along with it because he was older and cooler than him, and Misskelley seems like he wasn't even really a friend of theirs - maybe he tagged along that day or something.

However, it seems like one of the other two would flip on the "ring leader" to try and get a lesser sentence. Seems like they could say he lured them out there, killed them, made them help under threat of killing them too, then made them help restrain, kill, and dispose of the boys... or maybe they're so scared to admit guilt for fear of their defenses crumbling like a house of cards.
Guitly, not guilty, totally innocent, one-armed-man did it, Jesse Misskelley's "confession" was totally coerced by the cops who spoon fed him all the details and made him regurgitate them up for hours and hours till they got him to repeat what they were saying and could hang them all on less than an hour of audio recording that was conveniently captured out of over 12hrs of interrogation.

[Megamel29]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

no, and i doubt i would ever read anything that guy writes. Why you ask?

Because it's good to see both sides.

[Kerri]

Originally Posted by MissMary1980 ↗

Yea, but being the mother of three boys, no one person could catch 3 at once...i have tried, failed... I think they may have done it.

I know hubris-filled little mini-men can be hard to catch, had two of my own, but think about it. How quickly you would move would depend on what you were trying to hide and/or how much you had to lose. And any eight year old, shit, pert near anyone would be intimidated by an adult with a gun, knife, or weapon. Not to mention more than one weapon totin deranged sicko. Please thoroughly check this tragedy out. I know in my heart and soul that WM3 are innocent. That Alford plea swill victimized WM3 yet again, and only to protect cops, court, and the state of Arkansas from getting THEIR guilty yokel asses sued off. No offense Arkies, I am an Okie, but there is somthing very wrong with their ideas of evidence and justice. It is these 3 boys whose blood cryies from the ground. WM3 paid 20 plus youth years for a crime that there is zero solid evidence they committed.

[Kerri]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

But if the defense had had the evidence they say they do that they are innocent and all this proof that everything was done wrong in the original trial then they could not be refused another trial. So it shows that everything that comes from the defence camp is a load of spin. And dna evidence is overrated in this day and age thanks to CSI and the rest.

DNA is overated due to CSI? DNA is the gold standard of exculpatory evidence. No person should be admininstered the death penalty without a direct link of their DNA to a murder victim. Wow. I read everything you wrote about this case thinking against my gut you knew something, and an open mind is best. Wow.

[Kerri]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

8.)How did the investigators explain the lack of blood at the scene where the victims' bodies were discovered? Why was there no consideration of the possibility that the boys were murdered elsewhere and then dumped in the woods?

I don't know why you think it was not even considered that the boys were murdered elsewhere because that is not true, it was considered. The key question was whether they were dealingn with a crime scene or a dump site. Several factors pointed to “crime scene”.

The last known sighting of the three boys alive came around 6:30 pm, headed into the woods where their bodies were later found.
Many searchers were in those woods on Wednesday night and Thursday morning. It would have been very difficult for anyone to carry three bodies to the ditch without being seen. Why take that risk rather than dump the bodies somewhere secluded? And why also bring the victims’ clothes to submerge in the same spot? (Remember, the victims were hogtied after their clothes were removed.)
Police found no tire tracks, drag marks, footprints or any other physical evidence indicating a body dump.
One victim died from his knife wounds, the other two died from drowning. Were they beaten and drowned somewhere else, then brought to the ditch for disposal? Or were they beaten unconscious somewhere else, then brought to the ditch for drowning? The far more likely scenario: the beatings, knife attacks and drownings all occurred at the same location in one continuous attack.
The one factor pointing toward dump site was the lack of visible blood on the ground near the ditch. An early WMPD case summary noted, “A crime scene search failed to locate any traces of blood or other evidence which would lead investigators to believe that the victims’ had been murdered in the area where their bodies were located.” However, police and searchers noted the ditch bank looked “slicked off”, like someone had used ditch water to clean off the area.

So a week after the murders, on May 12 and 13, investigators returned and sprayed the area with Luminol, a chemical which can reveal blood traces not visible to the naked eye.

The Luminol testing showed blood traces in eight spots. After eliminating spots created during recovery of the bodies, investigators isolated two concentrated areas of blood which “indicate activity prior to recovery of the victims and relate to activity to the victims when perhaps they were being attacked”. Luminol reports and photos.

The Luminol testing left little doubt that the killings took place in the woods very near where the bodies were found.

Even though the evidence overwhelmingly points to “crime scene”, WM3 supporters have proposed “dump site” theories over the years in order to cast doubt on the WM3′s guilt. Jessie Misskelley’s many confessions all have the WM3 killing the three boys right where the bodies were found. If the boys were killed elsewhere and the ditch was just a dump site, then Misskelley must have been lying and the prosecution’s case falls apart.i

Luminol test results were not admissible in court in Arkansas in 1994. This gave defense lawyers for Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols a wedge to propose “dump site” alternative scenarios at trial. In a Luminol hearing on 3/7/94, the judge allowed defense lawyers and witnesses to mention “no blood was found at the crime scene”, but disallowed the prosecution from mentioning the blood revealed by Luminol. (WM3 supporters often argue that Judge Burnett was biased for the prosecution, but this ruling clearly favored the defense.)

Paradise Lost includes several scenes of defense representatives citing the supposed lack of blood at the crime scene or proposing “dump site” scenarios. The film never mentions the Luminol testing or the fact that blood was indeed found at the crime scene, right where Jessie Misskelley’s confessions and the prosecutions’ theory indicated it should be.

Paradise Lost 2 continues pushing the “no blood at the crime scene” misinformation and the “dump site” theory. One scene (around 0:48:00) shows Dan Stidham and Brent Turvey (a freelance “criminal profiler” who had joined the pro-WM3 movement) walking through the (now dry) ditch where the bodies were found. Turvey smugly laughs off the idea that the killers could have washed away blood by splashing ditch water. “There would have been so much more blood than that . . . This is only a disposal site.” Turvey offers no reasoning or evidence, just assertion and chuckles. The film makes no attempt to address the evidence against the “dump site” theory.

It’s understandable that defense lawyers took advantage of the judge’s ruling to push the “no blood at the crime scene” misinformation and “dump site” theories. It’s a defense lawyer’s job to generate reasonable doubt. But for the Paradise Lost filmmakers to do so is willfully deceptive.

Luminol was applied a WEEK later to the banks of a ditch accessed by turtles and most likely other animals and insects, in hot and humid conditions? I have no question in my mind why we have never heard of this evidence before. It is because it is laughable.