I don't understand why anyone thinks the multiple confessions alone make or break the case. They're merely one aspect of this puzzle that add up to something not being right with these boys. Continuing to focus on the confessions of Jessie makes one forget that there was a hell of a lot more going on than that, such as Damien being shown on camera in news footage smiling and blowing kisses to the families of the VICTIMS, as if that isn't remotely considered cold, sociopathic behavior. Who DOES that? Even if he were innocent and angry, children died. It's not a matter to be so cavalier about and blowing kisses to them is the ultimate in disrespect, though not the only strange thing about Damien if you've read Exhibit 500 where he himself writes that he is a sociopath on his own hospital admission charts.
The problem with the confessions, is that they make absolutely zero sense. Jessie went to the WMPD to implicate Jason/Damien in the crimes, hoping to get the reward money to buy his father a new truck. BUT in the process ended up implicating himself, in some rag-tag inaccurate story that the police shouldn't even have taken seriously. Instead they corrected some of his mistakes, stamped the case "solved" and went from there.
I believe Damien (at the time at least) had delusions of grandeur. Where he was playing the part that the town decided he was supposed to, meaning they wanted him to be the boogie man, he was going to be the boogie man.
Not to mention the pre-existing police reports of Damien terrorizing some poor girl while she was alone in her home. Yeah, the report exists and was made before the murders, not something someone made up.
He banged on a trailer, where a girl was living, because she irked him (can't recall the exact details).Scaring her a bit, yes, but terrorizing her, no.
Attacking a kid at school unprovoked with witnesses saying he went for his eyes. Damien's lame excuse for it in his book. None of it adds up to an emotionally stable young man.
The attack wasn't not unprovoked. The kid told Damien he slept with Damiens girlfriend BEFORE she broke up with Damien. Then Damien attacked him, simple as that.
As for going for the eyes. Not sure if you have ever been in a fight before, but you usually win by incapacitating your opponent.
And while some people did recant, some of them have maintained their stories to this very day and have continued to do so in the most recent interviews with them. What about those? Why do people only focus on the known liars as if everyone who had something negative to say about any of the boys was making it up when there are just as many out there saying their statements are true? Why does no one mention THEM? You can't pick and choose this stuff.
Yes, some have. But the people who gave the most damning statements, were the ones who recanted. Hell, even Steve Jones (ex WMPD officer) believes the 3 are innocent now, along with 2 of the biological parents of the victims.
This isn't a case where the evidence hinges on one particular thing and focusing on one aspect like the confessions gets you nowhere. One needs to see the broad panorama of EVERYTHING wrong with this case and these boys to make a conclusion rather than picking and choosing certain aspects they want to focus on.
This is a case where there was no evidence, except a shoddy confession, remember, the original confession is all they had in Jessie's trial, it wasn't until AFTER did he confess again and again. There was no DNA, no blood, no credible eyewitnesses, etc.
reply
share
recklesscow
10 years ago
Actually in regards to the school fight, the boy may have said something to Damien prior to that day but on the actual day in question, Damien went up behind the guy and attacked him. Damien even specifically says as much himself in his own book and makes an attempt to rectify it by justifying his actions. You make it sound like the guy and Damien had a talk immediately prior to the attack, which did not happen according to the witnesses and Damien himself.
reply
share
putter_b
10 years ago
Actually in regards to the school fight, the boy may have said something to Damien prior to that day but on the actual day in question, Damien went up behind the guy and attacked him. Damien even specifically says as much himself in his own book and makes an attempt to rectify it by justifying his actions. You make it sound like the guy and Damien had a talk immediately prior to the attack, which did not happen according to the witnesses and Damien himself.
I can't quite remember all the details, for some reason I actually thought Damien had already "dropped out" of school when this altercation happened. Either way, I do know that the guy he attacked was dating Damiens (ex) girlfriend when the fight happened and that there was a verbal altercation either that day or a day or two prior.
Either way, going for an eye in a fight doesn't make him a killer.
reply
share
recklesscow
10 years ago
I had to resort to Damien's book to remember the details. According to it, she broke it off with him after she had already started seeing the other guy and Damien only found out about it from someone else that day at school. He never mentions the guy himself talking to him about it, it sounds as if he didn't even know him well because the information about their relationship was given from an outside party. Damien then says he went through the school seeking them out and attacked the guy from behind. Other students claim he was trying to claw at his eyes but in the book he claims he wasn't trying to harm him in any particular way but was acting out of impulse and anger and doesn't recall all of it. He reprimands his behavior but then he has done that with every weird behavioral issue he displayed during and before the trial. Not that it isn't to be expected. I agree it doesn't make him a murderer but an established pattern of irrational behavior involving violence and a tendency to not clearly remember the incident (as he also claims when he sucked blood from a jail inmate) is there and it doesn't look good on him. I mean between that and when he told his father he would eat him alive, there are at least three examples in his own book of agitated, irrational behavior coupled with partial memory loss.
reply
share
putter_b
10 years ago
Yes, but the same can be said about Terry Hobbs (who I do not believe is the real killer).
Terry Hobbs has been accused of sexually abusing his daughter (you can even read about it in Amanda's journal that was leaked). He was known to be physically abuse to Pam, Stevie and Amanda. He was also arrested for sexually assaulting his elderly neighbor Mildred French. Oh, and let's not forget he shot an unarmed man.
Just something to think about.
reply
share