>killer gets away with it in the end

>killer gets away with it in the end

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    pretty sure they were innocent and a guy who lived near the ravine where the bodies were found and who knew one of the kids did it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >so uughhh....you're all innocent and all but if you want to get out you have to sign this document that says you're actually guilty but we're just letting you out anyways
      >that's so ughhh....you don't like...sue us for millions of dollars for incompetence when we knew you were innocent the whole time...
      >oh and uhhh...you're on death row so if you don't like this deal you can just sit and die in a few months while you try to fight more in court 🙂

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but if you want to get out you have to sign this document that says you're actually guilty but we're just letting you out anyways
        Who would actually be dumb enough to fall for that?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Did you not read the last part? One of them was on death row. It was either fight in court and the innocent guy dies or sign and they all go free.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It takes like 50 years to even get to the death penalty anyway lol who cares. Dumbasses shouldn't have said they did it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You mean I get let out of jail for a murder I allegedly didn't do and my friend doesn't get executed
            >And all I have to do is say I did it?
            It seems like you're suggesting that this somehow augurs that they really were innocent. I don't understand. Why wouldn't they lie and say they did it in that situation? (Or tell the truth, if they were guilty.) Either way they get out of prison.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              nta, but they had a choice of the whole thing going away (and not being able to fight the case) or taking the whole thing to trial and risk losing (and going back to jail).

              Taking the deal is the smarter choice

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Of course but any idiot would take the deal whether they were innocent or not so I don't see how it suggests they were innocent, which is what I took anon to be suggesting

                They were railroaded. But realistically, the only suspects were them or some mystery, unidentified black guy that turned up at a fast food place in the area around the time of the murders covered in blood and was then never seen again. The community was hysterical, the media mob had devolved into a circus and everyone (including the state government) was demanding that arrests be made immediately.
                The black guy almost certainly did do the crimes. But even to this day he has never been identified. Arresting the 3 local weirdo teens and basically coercing them into self incriminating was really the only option that the police had due to the amount of pressure they were under. This entire affair was a systemic failure of society and I do not think that law enforcement bares majority of the responsibly for it. If you were in the shoes of law enforcement, you would have done the exact same thing to those teens. All of us would have.

                >it was some black guy
                I'm a racist and even I think that's bullshit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm a racist and even I think that's bullshit
                How to do explain a random black guy turning up at a fast food restaurant covered in blood immediately after the murders happened and in proximity to where the bodies where found? Multiple witness saw this guy, he was definitely real. I think the chances of him being unrelated to the murders is very small. Especially since he never came forward after this to identify himself.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How do you explain someone being dumb enough to be covered in blood and just waltzing into a crowded diner? Going through all the efforts to obfuscate the rest of his killing and then doing that? Or maybe he was a hunter, or it was break fluid, or he spilt ketchup on himself, or who knows because it is the absolute most tenuous legal argument I've ever heard more akin to fricking aliens or nigfoot

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          one of the guys convicted is literally moronic and testified against the other two

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you're dumb enough to go to an interrogation without a lawyer you'll be dumb enough to fall for their manipulations. Cops don't care. As long as they can close the case they're happy. They'll do whatever they can during interrogation to get you to admit guilt even if you're 110% innocent.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wasnt one of the guys IQ sub 80?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        this is a "save face" agreement for overly-rambunctious prosecutors, nothing more.

        >ravine
        wot

        he's an esltard that thinks ravine is a fancy word for river and of course he thinks river is a synonym for creek

        uhh...have you never heard the word ravine? A wooded area surrounding a stream, creek, or river?

        why did he tie the three victims with three different types of knot?

        Not sure that even happend, but that's a good question. Are you suggesting the three accused were each assigned to one of the kids and each decided to use a different knot?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you think young teenagers who aren't like boyscouts would know great knots to use in that scenario, or just do whatever the frick they knew which might happen to be different form each other? It's clearly indicative of three killers or someone so smart they wouldn't be dumb enough to be a Black person walking into a crowded diner at night covered in blood.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not really. What were the three knots used? How different were they?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Are you suggesting the three accused were each assigned to one of the kids and each decided to use a different knot?
          no, moron. I'm suggesting it is far more likely that 3 different people each used different knots to tie up the 3 victims rather than one man holding down 3 kids and tying them with 3 different knots

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Or even that it could be that that's what happened and is worthy of consideration given there were 3 accused and if the killer was not them would've had no way to know that.

            What's plausible is they each had to tie down and murder one each as part of a pact whereby the ringleader was trying to force them all the be culpible.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It's possible (likely even) that the other two didn't know Damien was going to kill the boys when they were tying them up. They may have believed it was just bullying the kids to frighten them at that point, but then Damien being the edgy homosexual he was took it too far and killed one, and then the others

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It makes the most sense that if they did it he was absolutely pushing them into this in this way. I'm not confident who did it but I don't think given the time it occurred in it was unreasonable to give that verdict. Worst case scenario they either prevented murders down the line or we would have had two my chemical romances.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is what happened. Echols had his two goons tie up the kids to bully them a bit, then killed them. He was known to torture animals and set fires, classic serial killer stuff.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ravine
      wot

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        he's an esltard that thinks ravine is a fancy word for river and of course he thinks river is a synonym for creek

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      why did he tie the three victims with three different types of knot?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pretty sure it was this one guy I sort of remember hearing about, and all you guys who know about the actual case are wrong

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're swallowing the prosecutors' lies. Why isn't there any forensic evidence of the three teens at the crime scene?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Forensic evidence didn't really exist

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So how on earth are you so convinced it was the three teens?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pretty sure I saw all the fluff documentaries that omitted huge facts to make them seem more innocent

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the confessed to the murders and knew details about the murders that weren't released to the public and their dna was found at the crime scene.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You mad?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is that kpax?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The only thing I remember about K-Pax is when he eats the whole banana

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Arkansas is as corrupt as they get. All of the south is. These kids were railroaded because they weren't good little baptists and Satanic Panic was huge down south. It's all fun and games but wait till the corrupt system turns it's eye on you and see how you feel about it then.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this. this is why so many Americans viscerally hate Christians. not because of ~~*jews*~~ or #woke or tiktok or muh librul colliges.
      it's because we grew up being bullied by christians, and/or dealing with blacks who covered up their antisocial acts by saying they were good christian folk. if we were really unlucky some pastor diddled us as kids

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        sounds like you were really unlucky anon

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I usually give most christians the benefit of the doubt except baptists. I've met catholics who were good people, mormons who were good people, amish who were good people, Methodists, even the people who speak in tongues and flop around ont he floor i've met a few who were alright. I've never meet a baptist that was a good person, and I've met several who were downright evil (but they put on their little song and dance about how holy they are so they must be good right).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          i never dealt with mormons before i moved to a mormon state and theyre pretty insufferable

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I grew up in a town with a temple and all the Mormons I knew were either weird degens/sexpests or hilariously prude to the point they'd get upset if you said words like "crap" in front of them in fricking high school.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          i never dealt with mormons before i moved to a mormon state and theyre pretty insufferable

          I grew up in a town with a temple and all the Mormons I knew were either weird degens/sexpests or hilariously prude to the point they'd get upset if you said words like "crap" in front of them in fricking high school.

          The Mormon Menace is a real problem. One of the greatest disasters in American history was letting these people get their own state
          t. lives in a state filled with them

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Idaho or Utah?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Alaska

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They've made their way out of the states. Somehow they ended up in bong. I met two of them and they freaked me out. The way they talked to me gave me the impression they're the type to cut your head off then talk to it for six hours.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lol get fricked a Bapt chad does suffer a homo, and you got reddit all over you

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Mormons aren't Christians.
          They're not even monotheists.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          i never dealt with mormons before i moved to a mormon state and theyre pretty insufferable

          i never dealt with mormons before i moved to a mormon state and theyre pretty insufferable

          There's a lot of good Mormons but they're not Christian.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        im not religious and i want to put your face in a urinal

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >be new york israelites
      >make documentary about how southerners are so prejudiced against people they don't understand that they falsely accuse them of murder
      >meet southerners
      >don't understand them
      >falsely accuse them of murder

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >These kids were railroaded because they weren't good little baptists and Satanic Panic was huge down south.
      No, it really wasn't.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this. this is why so many Americans viscerally hate Christians. not because of ~~*jews*~~ or #woke or tiktok or muh librul colliges.
      it's because we grew up being bullied by christians, and/or dealing with blacks who covered up their antisocial acts by saying they were good christian folk. if we were really unlucky some pastor diddled us as kids

      >t. watched a documentary and took it as gospel

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair, Arkansas was (And still is to an extent) corrupt as shit and the local government could have easily framed them if they wanted

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They were railroaded. But realistically, the only suspects were them or some mystery, unidentified black guy that turned up at a fast food place in the area around the time of the murders covered in blood and was then never seen again. The community was hysterical, the media mob had devolved into a circus and everyone (including the state government) was demanding that arrests be made immediately.
      The black guy almost certainly did do the crimes. But even to this day he has never been identified. Arresting the 3 local weirdo teens and basically coercing them into self incriminating was really the only option that the police had due to the amount of pressure they were under. This entire affair was a systemic failure of society and I do not think that law enforcement bares majority of the responsibly for it. If you were in the shoes of law enforcement, you would have done the exact same thing to those teens. All of us would have.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They confessed multiple times. Damien had a long rap sheet of violent psychopathy. That's why they were arrested. Do you know anything beyond the hollyisraelite docs?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >They confessed multiple times.

          While being interrogated for hours on end

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is a lie. Jessie arrived at that police station at 10:00am and confessed at 2:20pm. Only 2 1/2 hours of that time was spent in actual interrogation.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Jessie is a literal sub 60 IQ moron, they used his "confession" to apply pressure on the other two and from what I remember only snippets of those interrogations were ever revealed (which is something that conveniently happens a lot)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Jessie is a literal sub 60 IQ moron
                No he isn't

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So how high does one's IQ need to be in order to tell the truth?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Have you never seen a crime documentary before? A literal fricking moron can be easily coached into giving a false confession.

                This is crime documentary 101, if the police are good at anything it's getting wonky confessions out of people and magically losing the 18+ hours of tape that lead to the 20s confession (which somehow didn't get deleted with the rest of the footage).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just because someone can be coached into giving a confession does not mean that they were.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, but the preponderance of missing evidence and weak confessions (without a lawyer present) suggests that certain techniques are routinely used to conjure up "confessions".

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                People do genuinely confess to crimes that they committed. A confession is always more evidence they did it than they did not if you're going to start weighing on whether a confession is of value one way or the other. Saying s confession means nothing is genuinely fricking moronic. You guys are like those people who say
                >well she was drunk so she technically couldn't have consented
                OK, well if she doesn't say no and she's not blackout drunk then that's where we fricking are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you fail to provide the full interrogation tape you have no defense against someone saying that they were coached or in some way forced to sign a confession.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Unfortunately I cannot prove a negative. It is your burden to uncover the interrogation tape and prove that Jessie was coached.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do people do this.
                >OK but do you have a source to prove your claim?
                >OK well if you won't do my work or research for me because I'm lazy I stand as correct

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the moron told his father what happened and his dad took him to the station and he confessed for like 16 hours and told them the same story a hundred times in a row, it was not a coerced confession. WM3 are undoubtedly guilty, a lot of you morons watched some israelite "documentary" and believed it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            "oh noooooo you're interrogating me for sooooooo long i wanna play fortnite i'm bored"

            "i confess"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >two people saw some black guy covered in blood allegedly.

        What does it serve for a black guy in alabama or wherever the frick racist state to go into a diner after committing murders covered in blood? He'd be better off just getting in his car and driving off. And what motive would one black guy not associated with the killer have. And why would the killings be more in line with if edgy white kids had done it. It's all so fricking stupid but because some people saw some black guy it must be him. Guy literally could've been a hunter or it could've been brake fluid or it could be a racist fugue state they had

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How do you explain someone being dumb enough to be covered in blood and just waltzing into a crowded diner?
          By all accounts this guy seems to have been a transient and needed a place to wash as much evidence of the crime off of himself as possible. If you do not own a home, a bathroom at a fast food joint seems like it would get the job done.
          >Going through all the efforts to obfuscate the rest of his killing and then doing that?
          Hard to say. Much like the killings themselves, I do not think you can discount simple mental illness.
          >Or maybe he was a hunter
          A homeless hunter with no gun or evidence of a carcass?
          >or it was break fluid
          This is possible. But multiple people did identify it as blood. Including the worker who had to clean up the bathroom after this guy left.
          >he spilt ketchup on himself
          Short of tipping an entire bottle of ketchup on himself, that seems unlikely. He was described as being 'covered' in blood. Not having a bloody spot on a his shirt.
          >it is the absolute most tenuous legal argument I've ever heard
          The point is that is this black guy is a viable suspect that was not investigated sufficiently by police. The bar for convicting a person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Can you say that bar was met when there was still a viable suspect out there that was never properly investigated or explained?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >By all accounts this guy seems to have been a transient and needed a place to wash as much evidence of the crime off of himself as possible. If you do not own a home, a bathroom at a fast food joint seems like it would get the job done

            >i just killed people and no one knows
            >I have all this blood on me dammit!
            >should I just drive to my home in my car where I likely will never be stopped?
            >should I drive to motel room and maybe change shirts before I get there and clean up more properly in the room
            >should I walk in front of the local townspeople of the people I murdered so they can eye witness me

            What's funny is if this guy killed people in the woods, by a creek, he would've just washed up there. Likely as a transient he had a change of clothes too or could've acquired one somehow. And yet he does the dumbest thing imagine able.

            The reality is he is probably a person who had an accident somewhere rather than some wild gigaBlack person murderer. You are actually fricking moronic if you lack the intellectual faculties to look at this without any skepticism whatsoever

            >A homeless hunter with no gun or evidence of a carcass?
            How do you know he didn't. This is my point. No one does. No one knows if it was blood. No one knows exactly what he looked like. It was late, dark, he was covered in some shit maybe blood, maybe even his own blood. Who fricking knows no one because the secondhand word of mouth evidence is so insanely tenuous as to be nonexistent

            So how on earth are you so convinced it was the three teens?

            I'm not I just know everyone saying it was the Black person is just a fricking moron simping for the three because they were anti Christian.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I didn't say it was a Black person. It was a white middle-aged male who knew one of the boys and lived right next to the ravine where their bodies were found.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The main problem with this theory is how unlikely it is that the crime was committed by a single person. 3 boys were murdered and tied up with different knots. There were at least two people involved in the murder and it was Echols and the other two gays

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you're relying on the three knots as evidence that the three teens are guilty, why are you hedging by saying that "at least two" people were involved? Is it plausible that two people used three different knots, but not that one person used three different knots?
                As well, please elaborate on why it's unlikely the crime was committed by a single person? The bindings were not even known to be tied before the deaths of the victims, so what are you suggesting here?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nta but it depends on the quality of knots. If they were intentionally hid to obfuscate the knowledge of knots and make it look like three teenagers who had never tied a knot in the life had done it... Literally why

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think the guy who killed them was trying to frame anyone. I don't think he even knew the teens.

                People do genuinely confess to crimes that they committed. A confession is always more evidence they did it than they did not if you're going to start weighing on whether a confession is of value one way or the other. Saying s confession means nothing is genuinely fricking moronic. You guys are like those people who say
                >well she was drunk so she technically couldn't have consented
                OK, well if she doesn't say no and she's not blackout drunk then that's where we fricking are.

                I never said a confession means nothing. I'm saying there are very important and long-standing reasons why confessions are inadmissible or dubious when they're made without rights being read, without a lawyer present, and without non-police/prosecutor witnesses. That's the point: that the state uses various means to get people to confess to things to save resources.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >As well, please elaborate on why it's unlikely the crime was committed by a single person? The bindings were not even known to be tied before the deaths of the victims, so what are you suggesting here?
                The bindings are tied differently, it's not likely for a single person to tie different knots. It's also not plausible for one person to beat 3 boys to death in the woods. They just waited their turn to get beaten to death? No one tried to run away? What makes the most sense is that multiple people were involved. What makes even more sense is that it was done by the 3 people accused of the crime, one of which admitted to it and provided details of the scene that only someone who was there would know.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The bindings are tied differently, it's not likely for a single person to tie different knots.
                But it's possible that two different people tied THREE different knots?
                >It's also not plausible for one person to beat 3 boys to death in the woods
                As per whom? And who said they were beaten to death?
                >No one tried to run away?
                Who said that? What evidence proves that?
                >What makes even more sense is that it was done by the 3 people accused of the crime, one of which admitted to it and provided details of the scene that only someone who was there would know.
                Except for the complete lack of forensic evidence, of course. Not to mention that two of whom proclaimed their innocence conistently and to the end.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >one of which admitted to it and provided details of the scene that only someone who was there would know.
                I love how you skipped over this part because you have 0 arguments against it.
                >Not to mention that two of whom proclaimed their innocence conistently and to the end.
                Criminals tend to do this, thank christ you don't work in law enforcement

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Criminals also tend to leave forensic evidence at the scene of the crime. But you glossed over that part.
                Not to mention the tendency of suspects under duress or held without charge tend to be convinced by what the police tell them they did. This is a well-documented and researched phenomenon in criminal psychology and law. How many of your confessions occurred with lawyers present?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Criminals also tend to leave forensic evidence at the scene of the crime
                Not all the time, moron. And besides, as you've been told time and time again, forensics weren't around at the time so you're arguing a moot point.
                And again, you have 0 argument about why they knew details of the crime scene.
                I don't care what youtube interrogation channel nonsense you're on about in regards to false confessions, because you can't (or delibately are choosing not to) answer basic facts.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But it's possible that two different people tied THREE different knots?
                You get what he means. It is statistically more likely to be more than one than it is one and more likely to be three than it is two just based off of this small thing. It's not a be all and end all but it's far less likely to be one person to cover their tracks unless they were military or like the fricking king of knots.

                >Except for the complete lack of forensic evidence, of course. Not to mention that two of whom proclaimed their innocence conistently and to the end.
                The facts of the matter aren't beholden to the claims of the defendent but the evidence. They knew things about the scene and it seemed like more than one person. The lack of forensic evidence is a factor of the time. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It is statistically more likely to be more than one than it is one and more likely to be three than it is two just based off of this small thing.
                What are you basing this on? Seriously. There are many killers who used different weapons to kill, who shot people in different places to kill them, etc. What is this weight you're giving to different knots? Where does this come from?
                >they knew things about the scene
                like what?
                >and it seemed like more than one person
                To whom and by what logic?
                >the lack of forensic evidence... doesn't prove or disprove anything
                interesting. Funny how forensic evidence doesn prove or disprove anything, but circumstantial and speculative evidence does.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dude, you're fricking moronic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nice rebuttal

                >Criminals also tend to leave forensic evidence at the scene of the crime
                Not all the time, moron. And besides, as you've been told time and time again, forensics weren't around at the time so you're arguing a moot point.
                And again, you have 0 argument about why they knew details of the crime scene.
                I don't care what youtube interrogation channel nonsense you're on about in regards to false confessions, because you can't (or delibately are choosing not to) answer basic facts.

                >not all the time
                didn't say that. Just as not all criminals confess, not all criminal leave forensic evidence. Do you understand now?
                >you have 0 argument about why they knew details of the crime scene
                They didn't. Saying they were drinking a relatively common brand of beer is not "knowledge of the crime scene."
                >I don't care about what youtube...
                I don't watch youtube.

                I never said forensic evidence isn't useful I said the absence of it just means you have to use other measures to try and figure out what happened you absolutely dumb illiterate third worlder.

                And yes if there are 3 knots, as I said unless this was some 3iq plan where the killer thought this would obfuscate their identity, it is more likely that the differences in knots are the result in the differences of how different people tie different knots than it is that one person tied 3 different knots. Most people don't even know 3 types of knots.

                >I never said forensic evidence isn't useful I said the absence of it just means you have to use other measures to try and figure out what happened
                I quoted you directly. You said:
                >The lack of forensic evidence is a factor of the time. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
                Yet, circumstantial and speculative evidence DOES. Funny, that.
                >And yes if there are 3 knots
                Please pick which assertions you're making:
                A. the suspect must only know one knot.
                B. the supect would only use one knot.
                C. the suspects would each use different knots.
                D. multiple knots proves multiple suspects.
                Please choose carefully.

                >but circumstantial and speculative evidence does.
                Knowing the crime scene isn't speculative evidence.

                >Knowing the crime scene isn't speculative evidence.
                you're right. That's called eye-witness evidence, which is even less reliable than circumstantial evidence lol. Even so, the suspects didn't know the crime scene to any significant degree. If I'm wrong about this, please state which suspect knew what about the crime scene.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you're right. That's called eye-witness evidence, which is even less reliable than circumstantial evidence lol
                Then you know the mystery man covered in blood is moronic
                Thanks for playing, dummy. You'd be much more comfortable making slueth posts on reddit or in a youtube comment section.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have never once asserted anything about the mystery man covered in blood. I have no idea what you're talking about. It was the step-dad of Steven Branch, not a mystery man.
                Address the other points please.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I have never once asserted anything about the mystery man covered in blood. I have no idea what you're talking about.
                Then you came into this thread halfway through and started whining about interrogation stuff you've parroted from youtube with 0 context?
                good to know.
                >Address the other points please.
                Not until you address the ones presented to you, shitter. But you don't, because you've been duped by some youtuber or watched a half-assed documentary.
                Again, thank frick you don't work in law enforcement or any kind of criminal context.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never asserted anything about a mystery man, so don't put that on me. Doesn't matter when I came into the thread. I'm pointing out how weak the case against the three teens is.
                >not until...
                which point didn't I address?
                1. why are three different knots "more likely" to be three different people? What is this based on?
                2. Was a lawyer present when the alleged confession occurred? No.
                3. Was there any forensic evidence at the crime scene fingering any of the three teens? No.
                4. Was there forensic evidence at the crime scene fingering the step dad? Yes.

                >>And yes if there are 3 knots
                >Please pick which assertions you're making:
                >A. the suspect must only know one knot.
                >B. the supect would only use one knot.
                >C. the suspects would each use different knots.
                >D. multiple knots proves multiple suspects.
                >Please choose carefully.
                E. The use of different notes makes it plausible it was different killers. The same way different fingerprints make it plausible there were different killers but with a lower degree of likelihood. It's very simply bro.

                we've gone from "most likely" to "plausible" in the "different knots = different person" argument.
                >the same way fingerprints
                don't even go there, that's not even close to a fair analogy. Everyone only has one set of fingerprints, but there's nothing limiting a person from using different knots.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >1. why are three different knots "more likely" to be three different people? What is this based on?
                you're still dying on this hill?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>The lack of forensic evidence is a factor of the time. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
                >Yet, circumstantial and speculative evidence DOES. Funny, that
                How are these not true. Are you a jeet? Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The absence of forensic evidence is simply the evidence of forensive evidence. It's tautilogically true. American school system fails the children again.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>And yes if there are 3 knots
                >Please pick which assertions you're making:
                >A. the suspect must only know one knot.
                >B. the supect would only use one knot.
                >C. the suspects would each use different knots.
                >D. multiple knots proves multiple suspects.
                >Please choose carefully.
                E. The use of different notes makes it plausible it was different killers. The same way different fingerprints make it plausible there were different killers but with a lower degree of likelihood. It's very simply bro.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never said forensic evidence isn't useful I said the absence of it just means you have to use other measures to try and figure out what happened you absolutely dumb illiterate third worlder.

                And yes if there are 3 knots, as I said unless this was some 3iq plan where the killer thought this would obfuscate their identity, it is more likely that the differences in knots are the result in the differences of how different people tie different knots than it is that one person tied 3 different knots. Most people don't even know 3 types of knots.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but circumstantial and speculative evidence does.
                Knowing the crime scene isn't speculative evidence.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Grasping at straws a bit here

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no forensic evidence
                >no confession without lawyer present
                >compelling evidence (with forensics) suggesting a different suspect
                who's grasping at straws here? These guys have a paper-thin argument and are running with it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're a brainless fricking moron, have a nice day

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >What's funny is if this guy killed people in the woods, by a creek, he would've just washed up there.
              completely correct and based post
              people arguing in bad faith about some mystery man covered in blood because they can't handle being wrong

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If we were still like this as a society we wouldn't have a fraction of the issues we have today. You want justice and peace you gotta crack a few eggs

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What you say is controversial, but its true. Back in the day, if you got sentenced to death you were executed in only days or weeks. Nowadays, you see people get sentenced to death then live for decades because the system is so clogged with litigation. Of course, this is good for people who get falsely convicted and are willing to try everything to appeal it, but for the 99.9% who aren't it just keeps terrible people alive while we pay to feed them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          While I agree with your general sentiment, your assertion that 99.9% of people sentenced to death are guilty or deserve death is insane.
          Furthermore, I'd much rather that we exhaust ever legal output than accidentally execute an innocent or incorrectly-charged man.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah ok David Gale lets bankrupt society so more than likely people who are criminals anyway don't die. The death penalty is based and the lack of certainty in it has a net good on society because it keeps people in check because they know that even being privvy to criminal behaviour could land them in the slammer.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Arkansas is corrupt because of the Clintons. They’re big murderers too

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Get fricked satanists

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Baptists are the biggest satanists there are though.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I somehow got arrested in the south for a dui after blowing 0.00 twice

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can get arrested for anything moron.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they literally, factually did not do it though

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's the deal with the one on the right? I heard someone say he was the real mastermind for some reason

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    so may libs and women wanted these guys free just because one of them was handsome and those damn southerners are racist evnagelicals anyways

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    YYYEEEEEEUUHHHH WESS MEMPHIS, b***h

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    echols is the murderer and the did it. it's not a hard thing to figure out if you study the facts. holywoods israelites decided to support them and overturn their multiple convictions.

    they were literally into occult satanism.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      being an edgy teenage satanist doesn't make you a murderer

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        no one said it did

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It means there was no "panic," moron. Damien was a violent butthole and Jesse confessed multiple times.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We know that they're innocent now and there's still "christians" calling for their heads on a spike. That's all you need to know about christcucks. Vengeful spiteful creatures.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can tell how little people know about this, or even the law in general, whenever they pull out
      >They took a PLEA deal and ADMITTED it!
      Seemingly unaware of what an Alford plea entails.

      >Makes the insinuation that those calling themselves Christians aren't actually Christians
      >Cries about actual Christians anyway

      What's up rabbi? Just chillin?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        they knew details about the murders that weren't admitted to in the public and one of them bragged on television about how he drank one of the kids blood and that he was going to be famous for having murdered them and was a self admitted satanist.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    star of the show

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It certainly was a show. Each doc had a different suspect until the last one pointed the figure at snapping turtles.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That moronic australian sensationalizes his videos a bit too much
    Assume it's for the women that watch

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't even know anything about any of this but I already know who you're talking about. My gf listens to this homosexual and I exposed his grift every fricking time he puts on that fake I'm intelligent sultry bullshit for his catwoman garam while shilling ergonomic mattresses. Actually a homosexual

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Victim's stepdad is found with a knife with blood type on it matching one of the victims
    >mysteriously has all his teeth removed before a comparison imprint can be made for bite marks on one of the victims, gives contradictory justifications for this
    >people still think these goobers did it because muh satanism

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is this the stepdad they accused in the first movie or the stepdad they accused in the second movie

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Byers has a solid alibi, the knife is irrelevant because no knife was used in the killings and the blood type also matches himself. Most 3gays think Terry Hobbs did it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Byers has a solid alibi, the knife is irrelevant because no knife was used in the killings and the blood type also matches himself. Most 3gays think Terry Hobbs did it.

      I know nothing about this case but having all your teeth removed sounds too wild to be true. Reminds me of a scene in Luther when a suspect learns that the police found fingerprint evidence so he puts his hand in a blender.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was thinking the same thing

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        he was a rural moron with fricked up teeth

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why not just burn your fingers

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was thinking the same thing

        >having all your teeth removed sounds too wild to be true
        It was a common procedure in the past to have your teeth removed and replaced with dentures even if they were healthy, because it was inevitable they'd go bad, get infected and removed anyways.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thread theme

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any documentaries telling the opposite side of the story?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No because the prosecution had nothing conclusive

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They get taken off the internet

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Even this thread appears to have attracted shills, or at least fanatics. It's a strange one alright

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was Echols and the Black person and the step-dad guy with the pocket knife.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >One confesses and says the brand of beer bottles they were drinking at the time
    >police find the same brand of beer bottles at the crime scene
    >they were innocent though honest

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >find the same brand of beer bottles at the crime scene
      That didn't happen, israelite.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The celebrities who got duped into this ruse are such clowns. I hate actors.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are so many of these like the adnan sayid guy. I actually believe the owl wife killer and maybe the dassey guy just because his cousin or brother in law or whoever it was that drove past saying he saw him seems way more likely.

      But the problem with all this shit is less celebrities and single middle aged women with a Florence knightengale complex who could never fathom some hot guy would kill someone and maybe their pussy could be the most powerful pussy in all the land to change them

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There are so many of these like the adnan sayid guy.
        unrelated but the tv show thats loosely based off this case, the night of, is really fricking good

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's ok but that case makes me seethe because the only way he's innocent is if there was a police conspiracy to frame him and he's also extremely unlucky. Lib women still believe he's innocent though because they want to frick him, and they managed to get him out of prison. It's all so tiresome.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just like all of the simps for Hurricane Carter, especially ~~*Bob Dylan*~~

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There was forensic evidence. It's hairs from the step dad. Which simply means that the kid was in the presence of his own step dad at some time. It's about as tenuous as saying half the shit the prosecution does.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    These childkillers will burn in hell. We live in a sick society which prefers fantasy to reality and so they allow murderers to walk free when it suits them.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they were guilty. every case that hollyjews take up is for guilty people

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Echols is shifty as frick. I think he's guilty.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >killer gets away with it
    many such cases

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      These greentexts are always half true and the other few best points are leaps in plausibility

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        what's untrue about it?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty much all of it you conspiracy-addled moron.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Judging from a cursory wikipedia read the first 2 are correct and nothing else is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            even wikipedia confirms far more than just two of those

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Name them? I couldn't see anything to support anything but the first 2 and maybe the injury to death ratio. It literally omits the fact a. He recorded himself. B he was in negotiations with the police before he was arrested

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What kind of idiot savant manages to stumble onto almost a million dollars before the age of twenty and then throw it all away by slaughtering 35 people? This guy's life is like some sort of dark forest gump.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >He was briefly investigated by police for the role he played in the accident, as Bryant had a known habit of lunging for the steering wheel and Harvey had already had three accidents as a result.
        Police were like: This is probably unrelated though

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >On 14 August 1993, a visitor looking for Maurice at the Copping property found a note saying "call the police" pinned to the door and found several thousand dollars in his car. The rates officer at the time found no reason to suspect criminal intent and sent council members and police to quell the stresses put forward by letters sent to the local council chambers. Police searched the property for Maurice without success. Divers were called in to search the four dams on the property, and on 16 August, his body was found in the dam closest to the farmhouse, with a diving weight belt around his neck. Police described the death as "unnatural" and it was ruled a suicide. Bryant inherited the proceeds of his father's superannuation fund, valued at AU$250,000.[9]
          Lots of suicide notes simply consist of "call the police" Nothing to see here.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://web.archive.org/web/20010508013225/http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/cttranscript.htm
      It does say he fired from the hip at least once and that the gun in question was in his right hand when he was firing at people's heads, while he was left handed and had no experience firing from the hip, but I don't know, they don't describe him as being Rambo. Not sure about everything else, but in https://web.archive.org/web/20110715014030/https://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/ten_years_on.html Ted Serong is quoted as saying:
      >"There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance" he says. "Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am". He continues "Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant ... if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off."
      This is some shady shit

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did it, it's obvious to me after watching the third movie, where the truth comes out.

    Jessie actually tells us that HE contacted the police, not the other way around. He ratted out his friends, who commited the murders. Jessie just watched, and went to the police later on and confessed, because he genuinely believed that he wouldn't get in any trouble. He was just a witness.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      oh, I forgot:
      He ratted them out because he wanted the money that would be paid out to anyone with info on the case. He basically said so himself in the third movie.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      what's the third movie called

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I couldn't watch the second and third movies knowing the first movie was such bullshit. I remember thinking, okay, if the case is as flimsy as this, if the cops just arrested them because they wear black clothes - then how the frick did that pass muster with anyone? Surely there's more to it... and then you go on the internet for five seconds and it's like oh yeah the cops had plenty of reason to suspect them and they semi-definitely did it

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Matt Orchards video made it seem kind of ambigious, was there really that little evidence?

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The truth is that there were 4 killers. The 3 kids admitted to doing it and knew details of the murder and could tell exactly what happened. They were 100% guilty and didn't deny it until they were in jail and started getting Hollywood support and Johhny Depp paying for their lawyers.
    Evidence came out that a fourth person was involved and the defense just spun it as this fourth guy did it all and the 3 murders who admitted to it couldn't have done it. So 3 murderers walk and the fourth one doesn't get prosecuted.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think you're thinking of the Central Park Five

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    These people are usually puppets. What is she going to do about a dictator in Burma?

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Red head sex sex sex

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >they all confess
    >Noooo goy my fellow Moloch worshippers are innocent.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *