If they didn't do it, who did?

So I imagine you're outraged at the Central Park Jogger case as well, huh? Four of the attackers "confessed" to that crime as well?

Turns out, teenagers in police custody have sometimes said whatever the hell they think the interrogator wants to hear (no matter how untrue).

Who are a little wise the best fools be.

You can say they would have run away, but it is also easy to imagine them freezing up.


'Let's eat Grandma!' or, 'Let's eat, Grandma!' Punctuation saves lives. Use it. Save a life.

That is utterly unfounded speculation and nothing else. You have no idea what those kids would or would not have done in that situation. Neither does anyone else who wasn't there.

All we do know is three victims *did not* escape and they *were* murdered. There are two possibilities. First, there were enough perpetrators to physically restrain the boys. Second, there was only one or two perpetrators who were capable of intimidating, cajoling or tricking the boys into staying put, until it was too late.

That's it. No other explanations possible. And of those two, neither is completely impossible or even improbable. I have no problem with believing a single grown man, especially a person known to the victims and/or an obvious authority figure, could have simply told those kids to shut up and stay put and had them obey, even if it was obvious their lives were at stake.

A principal problem with reconstructing crime mysteries is people project their own motives or assumed actions on to a complete stranger who was caught in an extraordinarly situation of literal life and death, then use that wholly flawed assumption as the foundation of a "most likely" scenario. Unfortunately, whatever you think you would do is suspect, until you actually face such danger. And what you think someone you've never met would do is pure guesswork, nothing more.


"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?" - Morris Buttermaker

Two of the boys were hog-tied before being drowned (thrown into water), except Christopher, who had a belt-buckle impression that his adoptive father Mark Byers later admitted to doing same day as the murder. He was the boy that was beaten and missing his penis. Also his mother, Melissa Byers, died of "unexplained" causes two years later, and Mark never called the ambulance (neighbor did). He also had his teeth pulled shortly after investigators found a bite mark on the forehead of one boy...and he produced no old dental records. I am totally suspicious of Mark Byers.

Mark Byers also had given the camera crew his knife with trace blood and forced another boy at gunpoint a couple years later to fight a kid with another one of his (Mark's) knives...who does that when their own child was victimized and murdered? Around the same time, Mark and his wife, Melissa, had burglarized a home over for over $20,000 and he was also convicted to prison after the filming of Paradise Lost 2, for selling narcotics to an undercover officer.

Both Mark and Melissa Byers were diagnosed Bi-Polar and Mark had a brain tumor creating other mental problems. He was on numerous mood-altering drugs. There was suspicion that Christopher was abused at home prior to his murder and the other boy's murders. And there's more tool Mark Byers is lying throughout most of the Paradise Lost films and, at one point, refers to his wife's "murder". Not death, but murder? He said that just moments after saying she died in her sleep probably due to the narcotic Dilaudid. One forensic specialist reported that she may've been smothered, and Mark had mentioned this to his neighbor when waiting at the hospital: "They're going to accuse me of smothering her." What the...?

Mark Byers is very fishy to me; he is likely the killer. However, the stepfather of the boy Stevie Branch, Terry Hobbs, was later found with Stevie's knife in his tool box. His mother said that Stevie had it with him, so why would it end up in Terry's toolbox? Perhaps he inadvertently left it at home...or Mark Byers dropped it off after the murders? Mrs. Hobbs divorced Terry shortly after the trial. They also matched a hair in one of the lace hog-ties to Terry.

So maybe both Mark Byers AND Terry Hobbs? Neither were the boy's biological fathers and there were known issues - abuse with Christopher and jealousy with Stevie. The biological father of Michael Moore, was the only father to act normal through everything.

On the other hand, there's the mysterious back guy that showed up at the restaurant with blood all over him and with wet pant legs. But the guy got away and the police "lost" the blood/DNA evidence.

If you haven't seen all three Paradise Lost films, I highly recommended it. I am amazed these three were convicted when there WAS a reasonable doubt. Casey Anthony's case was more tight and she was acquitted of her daughter's murder.



"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

The Norfolk Four false confession after the verdict didn't happen? Watch the documentary. The individual doesn't want to be on camera talking about the case because he still doesn't know whether or not he's guilty. He name was Joe Dick and here's from an interview with a person very familiar with the case:

Usually the person realizes they didn't commit the crime shortly after the interrogation. It's extraordinary in this case, because Dick continued to believe for many months afterward that he committed this crime. And because of that belief, and also of course because he was afraid of the death penalty -- he took a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty -- he testifies against the others.

He even believes that he did this, and he writes a letter of apology to the family at [one] point, apologizing for what he must have done. ...

It was only many years later, after he was in prison and he was evaluating the DNA evidence, that he realized he couldn't have done this; he had to have been innocent.

Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/interviews/ric hard-leo.html

That's the phenomenon that I've mentioned as possibly being responsible for the repeated confessions of Mr. Misskelley. The Internalized False Confession.

The suspect ends up actually thinking they might have committed the crime. This is very dangerous as a suspect's memory of his/her actions can be altered and the suspect no longer can identify the truth. This type of confession may happen mostly is the suspect is vulnerable, for example is naïve, young, lacks intelligence coupled with false evidence that makes he/she believe that they have really committed the act (Kassin, 1997).

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1794003

Here's the case of Paul Ingram, a man who "admitted" he repeatedly sexually assaulted his daughters as part of Satanic rituals. This was the late 80s, about 5 years before the West Memphis Three case. Ingram was asked to visualize the crimes he was accused of. He wasn't beaten, verbally abused, or tortured. The police said he must have done it and must have forgotten, so Ingram - who happened to be the local deputy Sheriff and was an avid churchgoer (implying that this could happen to anybody) - took some time and then "remembered" his crimes. He confessed, not just once, but even after he had pleaded guilty and was enjoying his days in solitary confinement. He eventually figured out what had happened, but by then it was too late. If you'd like to read the whole article: http://www.justicedenied.org/paul.htm

That's two more cases you can go post about saying that the repeated confessions prove guilt. You may not be willing to read what I write, but other people will, and that's the important thing, because you continue to make points over and over again even when I've told you that you're wrong. You went so far as to say "don't say the Norfolk Four because that didn't happen." I had to interject. Also you can read my last post, but West of Memphis is not a movie produced by the defense. You keep saying that, too.