Blood spatter

Author	Comment
newman		#81	[-]
Posts: 844 (01/20/2009 12:27 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Well, now that we got WG's nonsense lined out, let's see if there's any hope for hoopylass: haha are you fucking serious?? i understand the term perfectly, it's you who seems to struggle with it. how about the discrepancies with reality?? I see. So what you are actually trying to tell us here is that any of the things in Misskelley's statements YOU find incredible - you deem inconsistent with the facts. Uhh...right. your continual defense of the way they conducted that interview just confirms that you have no intention whatsoever of attempting to find the truth. Your chronic confusion leaves little doubt as to why you aren't taken seriously.
hoopylass		#82	[-]
Posts: 151 (01/20/2009 2:51 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	and again he avoids the hard questions...how very surprising. you are NEVER willing to put your money where your mouth is. www.factbeforetheory.net
okcjim		#83	[-]
Posts: 3516 (01/20/2009 3:40 AM) Fairy In Charge Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There are some great posts in this thread. Let's keep it that way. Post repectfully, without belittling or name calling. Yep, that's a warning for all. xegar: "After one of Jessie's claims that he left the scene Ridge actually offers this: " Okay, when you came back a little bit later, and all three boys are tied?" The word "when" indicates that Ridge knows a fact - that Jessie left the scene and returned. Ridge has no interest in : How long is a little bit later ?, what did he do, how far did he get, or why would he return." If we can see that the confession leaves so many questions to be answered, how could an officer who had had training of some kind not only ignore an abunduance of inconsistencies but also ignore the logical questions presenting themselves as well? As Hoopy points out later in the thread Ridge had the chance "to clarify things that didn't make sense" and he does not. Wraith, your point about the footprints is one I have wondered about before too. It makes no sense that if this was the murder scene how did police account for the lack of footprints? Or did they not want to address the footprint evidence or lack there of because they knew the crime scene may have not been preserved as well as it should have been? As Larner pointed out there are certainly footrpints from WMPD. Hoopy: "...the recorded interview they conducted would be a perfect training tool for detectives of 'what not to do' when obtaining a confession." I agree with you on that one. Larner: "Farm ... He doesn't provide any reasons for his arguments--just contradiction, as if that proved anything. It's particularly frustrating when others have found the original documents... --which is why I finally blocked his responses. Dealing with folks who can only be contradictory and insulting is pointless, I've found." Absolutely Larner! I really admire that WG stuck to her points and continued to ask for links, all the while providing links and excerpts to back up her points. It made the thread much easier to read through and keeps the posts focused. And if folks find someone interferes with a thread then just block that poster instead of engaging them in bickering. Team Edward, Because Jacob Doesn't Sparkle! And So The Lion Fell In Love With The Lamb, Twilgiht. Last Edited By: okcjim 01/22/2009 4:07 AM. Edited 1 times.
larner		#84	[-]
Posts: 5044 (01/20/2009 5:14 AM) Resident Gremlin Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	But as I've stated repeatedly, blocking Farm's comments does little if any good when others repeat his words constantly. The supporters do so as to refute them, to which he consistently responds as if they were somehow disproving themselves rather than him, and the NONs and alleged fence-sitters who are more non than neutral do so as if what he says has more validity than the experts simply because he says it. White Goddess has a wonderful way of hammering home the point using full documentation to support it. I admire her perseverence. I only wish that Farm demonstrated anywhere as much integrity. "Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." LOTR Trolls destroy communities.
kidsampson022		#85	[-]
Posts: 260 (01/20/2009 7:42 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	White Goddess has a wonderful way of hammering home the point using full documentation to support it. You forget how she lied about reading some documentation that she posted within the past week. sheer
pagodajade		#86	[-]
Posts: 79 (01/20/2009 9:17 AM) Newbie Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	WG, here is another gouging wound. It is from Stevies autopsy report that Peretti did. I also think a knife was used here: NAME: BRANCH, Steve E. DATE: May 7, 1993 NO: ME-330-93 The entire left side of the face to include the left ear and an area measuring 5 1/2 by 5 inches, showed multiple confluent red abrasions with multiple gouging type irregular cutting wounds and overlying abrasions. The cutting wounds measure from 1/8 to 1 3/4 inches. Many of these wounds terminated into the oral cavity. I looked at Michaels report and just found abrasions. Didn't Jessie say he wouldnt let Jason cut on Michael with a knife? From this observation, I can see why someone would believe the three in prison are guilty.
larner		#87	[-]
Posts: 5046 (01/20/2009 11:32 AM) Resident Gremlin Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The panel of experts believe these to be mostly due to animal predation, Pagoda. What do you think of the reported hundreds of small wounds described by Peretti as picaresque or due to apparent poking of all three victims? In his testimony Ridge describes them as being visible on the bodies of all three children, and describes them particularly on the bellies. If they were done by humans, why does Jessie fail to mention them at all? If they were done by water critters such as crayfish, why were none found in the filters set in place when the ditch was emptied? "Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." LOTR Trolls destroy communities.
pagodajade		#88	[-]
Posts: 80 (01/20/2009 1:15 PM) Newbie Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	larner wrote: The panel of experts believe these to be mostly due to animal predation, Pagoda. What do you think of the reported hundreds of small wounds described by Peretti as picaresque or due to apparent poking of all three victims? In his testimony Ridge describes them as being visible on the bodies of all three children, and describes them particularly on the bellies. If they were done by humans, why does Jessie fail to mention them at all? If they were done by water critters such as crayfish, why were none found in the filters set in place when the ditch was emptied? The parts of the autopsys that I mentioned I do not believe are from animal predation. I believe those wounds are from a person. Do I believe animal predation should have been noted on the bodies if there was some? Yes. The scratches and some of the wounds could have been from animals. Im not sure if they just didn't pay attention to that 15 years ago, or if it just didnt get written down as such. How do you know there were no crayfish in the filters when emptied? Im sure there were some in that creek bed.
newman		#89	[-]
Posts: 845 (01/20/2009 1:21 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I really admire that WG stuck to her points and continued to ask for links, all the while providing links and excerpts to back up her points. Well except for the fact that she persistently denied testimony which completly contridicted her entire point. It wasn't even a decent effort.
ididjenna		#90	[-]
Posts: 33 (01/20/2009 2:07 PM) WM3DB Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	My god this guy has no clue....didnt we learn the lesson when he was banned the last 843828 times?The guy is insane let him just have fun at his board.Reading these threads has become a joke with him.sheesh. Frank says there could have been in object in the Anus but in his mind its a sure thing.This man cannot be argued with or reasoned with he's like the Terminator lol In what land does 'Could Be' mean 'There was definet scientic proof an object was inserted in the Anus' Answer: Farms land GO SUNS!!!!! Last Edited By: ididjenna 01/20/2009 2:11 PM. Edited 1 times.
newman		#91	[-]
Posts: 848 (01/20/2009 2:46 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Frank says there could have been in object in the Anus but in his mind its a sure thing. Still chronically confused I see. It's really not at all complicated, maybe I can help you again. Peretti noted evidence of penetration, he even testified to this. That there could be other possible explainations doesn't alleviate the fact that it is consistent with penetration. So when folks like WG insist Peretti claimed there was no evidence of penetration, they are being dishonest.
enuffizenuff		#92	[-]
Posts: 541 (01/20/2009 3:08 PM) Starving the Trolls Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	No, he tesitified it was possible, but based on his experience with other cases which involved penetration among children, trauma would have been present, which was not in this case. Remember you don't stop laughing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop laughing.
ididjenna		#93	[-]
Posts: 34 (01/20/2009 4:05 PM) WM3DB Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Im confused??? What part of 'Could Be' does your brain not understand? Here you posted this earlier...Peretti: Well, you have the dilatation of the anus - it could be from putting um - an object in the um - anus, but also it could be due to the fact that um - postmortem relaxation and the fact that the body was in water. That would alter things also. Did you not read the part about postmortem relaxation that you yourself pasted? LOL you're unbelievable GO SUNS!!!!!
whitegoddess		#94	[-]
Posts: 1954 (01/20/2009 6:56 PM) Satin Worshiper Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Farm, lets face it. your arguement of citing the words of Davis: Ok. And would those two signs uh - dilation of the anus and reddening of the rectal mucosa - would those be consistant with some sort of sexual trauma to the anal area? Peretti: Well, you have the dilatation of the anus - it could be from putting um - an object in the um - anus, but also it could be due to the fact that um - postmortem relaxation and the fact that the body was in water. That would alter things also. As if to give weight to your assertion that Me: 8. There is no injuries exhibited on any of the 3 victims that are consistant with anal penetration or oral sex. FArm: Yes, there was. Anything else I can help you with tonight? Is beyond hysterically funny and highly amusing to me, and others that have picked up on what i believe is your flacid and lame and weightless, arguement. Even Peretti himself doesn't regard 'redness and dilation' as injuries, except you do. Why? I can only take a stab in the dark and assume that you believe you even know more than Peretti now, in that regard and in the context of evidence of sodomy and anal penetration and injury? The information that you provided doesn't even give weight to your assertion, and yet you crow it does? LOL Then you post this: Didn't need anything else. But what you rely on, didn't even give lend to Peretti testifying there were injuries consistant with sodomy or anal penetration or that dilation or even redness was an injury, to even begin with. LOL Peretti himself didn't even consider them injuries for goodness sakes! It is glaringly obvious, your assertion is wrong just accept it. Frank Peretti Telephone call with Robin Wadley http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/wadley_peretti.html DR: I ...no I did not say that. I did not say that. I told him that he asked me about anuses on two of the kids were dilated and it could happen one of three ways; probably due to the bodies being in the water, it could be done by certain foreign objects into the rectum or a small penis. He asked me if there were any injuries. I told him there were no injuries surrounding the anus. That's what i told him. DR: Well there is no evidence of - the anus is dilated. How could that happen. I said there was three ways. I told him and i told you there is no evidence of any lacerations or tears, no spermatozoa was found. DR: I don't know how he can say they were sodomized. I mean i told him that. I told him there are no tears or lacerations as i told you and i told him the explanation why the anuses may be dilated. DR: No. There is no evidence of anal rectal trauma. Okay. I mean could they have put a finger there? Yes. Could they have put a dildo there and not leave an injury? Yes. Could they have penetrated after death and not have any injuries? That's a possiblity. But, i would expect some tearing. See what i am saying here? DR: But i never said that they were sodomized. I never said that. You know, you read my Report - it is clearly - read the opinion in there. DR: No. Is it a possibility? Sure. Anything is possible. But there is no evidence of trauma. DR: See what I'm saying? DR: There are no injuries there and i told him that yesterday. I spelled that out to him. Farm, remember my post where i said this: 8. There is no injuries exhibited on any of the 3 victims that are consistant with anal penetration or oral sex. and you replied: Yes, there was. Anything else I can help you with tonight? and then you said: So, despite your ~edit~ long winded ramble, the fact still remains that Peretti did note evidence consistent with rectal penetration - which means that whenever you insist that he didn't, you are like, ~mistaken~ and stuff. Glad I could help you out again So again, you are arguing that in spite of Peretti clearly telling there are no injuries whatsoever, no evidence of trauma, no lacerations and no tears, no spermatozoa, you simply persist in refering to 'redness and dilation' as 'injuries and evidence' of rectal penetration... YOU are saying that, and not Peretti, and yet you just keep saying he did say it, and well, he just didn't. Then you post: And as usual you are ~mistaken~. I know it must suck to have page after page of your ~edit~ babble refuted with a single line of testimony, but maybe you need to review the transcripts a little more carefully before you try to tell people what they don't say. Even in the very same part of testimony, Peretti says "..but also it could be due to the fact that um - postmortem relaxation and the fact that the body was in water. That would alter things also. " So you just cut your nose of in spite of your face and draw attention to what i had? LOL "..but also it could be due to the fact that um - postmortem relaxation and the fact that the body was in water. That would alter things also. " My point exactly Farm, Peretti never ever in that testimony, personally to Fogelman, personally to the Defense, or in his own autopsy reports inference or otherwise state what you are stating. Sorry Farm, i hadn't seen this you posted: Well, now that we got WG's nonsense lined out, let's see if there's any hope for hoopylass: Actually Farm, i don't see it that what i had posted is nonsense at all, neither that you sorted anything out what so ever. Or this: So when folks like WG insist Peretti claimed there was no evidence of penetration, they are being dishonest You are so animated Farm, it is too funny. Ought i claim you are dishonest too? Pagoda: WG said: What DEEP wounds? Well, this noted by Peretti kinda sounds like DEEP wounds doesnt it? This is from Chris Byers autopsy in regards to injuries around his penis: " The gaping defect was surrounded by multiple and extensive irregular punctate gouging type injuries measuring from 1/8 inch to 3/4 inch and had a depth of penetration of 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch." Note the word 'gouging'. I still think this was done with a knife. Sounds like a knife, not an animal wound. You need a link? Nope, no link required thanks. Those 'marks' you refer to aren't DEEP Pagoda, at all, see the measurements? Get a tape measure and see for yourself. Considering it was felt a knife with serrations caused these, why not deeper? Those are surface skin marks, not deep at all. I guess the word 'gouge' conjours up all evil and horrible thoughts due to it being a nasty descriptive word itself. Peretti's measurements: depth of penetration of 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch Nope, that isn't deep my any means. I guess you have to have either experienced it yourself or know someone that has, to make such an assertion. Either that or have training and experience and examine and compare measurements agains the lake knife (which was done) and discover that they simply didn't match as Fogelman desperately tried to demonstrate in his grapefruit attack. However, the measurements are consistant with animal claw marks etc... as concured by half a dozen independent very reputable and well respected specialists in their fields of expertese. I already provided relevant links. Last Edited By: whitegoddess 01/20/2009 7:18 PM. Edited 2 times.
newman		#95	[-]
Posts: 849 (01/20/2009 8:55 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It's not complicated at all WG. When you say Peretti said there was no evidence of penetration, you are lying. Doesn't really matter how many times you repeat it.
larner		#96	[-]
Posts: 5049 (01/22/2009 12:41 PM) Resident Gremlin Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A quarter to a half inch in depth isn't deep, and I've certainly had wounds deeper than that from my cats scratching me in moments of terror or pain. A wound of that depth might require stitches, but would not in the usual course of things be life threatening unless it managed to cut into a shallow artery. I think most of us have cut ourselves deeper than that a time or two in our lives while cooking--I know I have, as have all of my children, my late spouse, all of my friends and siblings.... With a knife, such a wound inflicted purposely would be expected to be considerably deeper than a quarter to a half inch; but would be the expected depth of the beak of a turtle or the scratch of an animal claw on an already dead body. "Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." LOTR Trolls destroy communities.
newman		#97	[-]
Posts: 859 (01/22/2009 8:18 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I've certainly had wounds deeper than that from my cats scratching me 1/2 deep huh? Pity they didn't go for the juglar. Larner, is there anything that's ever happened in the history of the human race that you DON'T have "personal experience" with? You're better than Sominex.
kimbo.murderincorporated		#98	[-]
Posts: 36 (01/22/2009 10:47 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi WG, It seems that you are insisting that there was DEFINITELY no anal penetration. While we would like all to presume this added indignity wasn't suffered, it is clear from the documentation that it was a possibility. There is obviously no total proof, yet also no certainly that it did not occur. Arguing "there is no way it happened" is an emotional opinion, not based on factual findings. I hope you are right but there is a chance (which you seem not to consider) that you are not. Kimbo
larner		#99	[-]
Posts: 5054 (01/23/2009 1:37 AM) Resident Gremlin Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gee--Peretti did all but wet himself insisting that he NEVER said there was penetration. But you WANT to believe there was. Gads, this says far more about you, Kimbo, then it does about the case! "Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." LOTR Trolls destroy communities.
okcjim		#100	[-]
Posts: 3536 (01/23/2009 2:34 AM) Fairy In Charge Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Certain posters in this thread need to pay attention to the board rules. You know who you are. From the board rules: Fellow Users Please be tolerant and respectful of your fellow board members, even if their opinions differ from yours. This board is maintained by supporters of the WM3, but posters with any viewpoint are welcome. Discussion and criticism of ideas and opinions are encouraged, but you may not personally attack others. Even if you deem yourself more knowledgeable on a particular topic than another user, please remember to respond constructively. All of you need to lay off the reactionary posting. Team Edward, Because Jacob Doesn't Sparkle! And So The Lion Fell In Love With The Lamb, Twilgiht.

Yuku free message boards

Quick Reply