Blood matching Damien, Jason and Branch is not a smoking gun??? I don't see that at all.
The ACTUAL facts are as follows:
1. The necklace Damien was wearing when he was arrested had blood with TWO sources of DNA on it; NOT three.
2. One of the DNA sources matched Damien himself. I'm sure you must agree that is NOT a smoking gun? Having your own blood on something you are wearing, long after the crime in question was committed - or any time for that matter - is evidence of absolutely nothing; other than the fact that you bled a small amount at some point in time, perhaps recently, or perhaps long before the crime in question.
3. The other DNA sample on the necklace matched Stevie Branch OR co-defendant Jason Baldwin; one OR the other, not one AND the other (in the sense that there was only ONE other sample, not two). What does that tell you? It tells you that the DNA source was not tested thoroughly enough to match it to one specific individual. That's because the procedure to amplify the DNA failed and there was not enough of the sample left to perform any further testing. As such, they had a sample of DNA which matched Stevie Branch, OR Jason Baldwin,
OR one of the 11% - i.e. 1 in 10 - of the entire Caucasian population which also matched that DNA sample. Keep in mind that the police discovered that both Damien and Jason both wore the necklace on occasion; meaning it's entirely possible that the two blood samples were left on the necklace, by the defendants, on separate occasions.
Aside from the fact that the necklace contained blood samples which matched two people who were both known to have worn it - i.e. Damien and Jason - the blood sample which didn't match Damien actually matched with 1 in 10 of the entire Caucasian population. Ultimately this evidence is circumstantial at absolute best, and certainly no mental gymnastics are required to think of a reason why those blood samples might have been there. I don't know whether those boys had started shaving yet, but if so - and remember that Damien was 18 when he was arrested, so he probably had started shaving - then it's possible that their blood got onto the necklace, on separate occasions, as a result of them cutting themselves whilst shaving. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm merely pointing out that it's easy to think of perfectly innocent, and perfectly reasonable, explanations for their blood being on that necklace...
So ... do you still think those DNA samples are a smoking gun? If so then how?
It's true that the Paradise Lost documentaries are biased towards the defendants and a lot of people complain about that. However I think the point of the whole thing is that the trials - not to mention the police investigation - were biased against the defendants, so the bias of the documentaries is countering that by swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme. You're right that they may well be ruining other people's lives by accusing others, but I think what they're trying to do is show that there are other legitimate suspects. Ultimately the purpose of the documentaries is to show that any rational, critical thinking person with average intelligence, or above, who learns about this case will end up concluding that there is reasonable doubt, and that consequently the three should not be in prison.
That does not mean they are innocent!Ultimately ... any unbiased, rational, intelligent person who has no emotional stake in the case - such as being a friend, or family, or one of the attorneys, or one of the documentarians, etc. - will reach the conclusion that we simply don't know whether they did it or not, that we will most likely never know, and that there is sufficient reasonable doubt for them to be free. Whether or not there was reasonable doubt at the time of the trials is a little less clear and open to interpretation...
The most fascinating thing about this whole case is what it shows about Confirmation Bias. People have a tendency to look for and filter information in a way which confirms what they already believe. As you will no doubt have noticed, there are people who are 100% certain that the three are guilty, and there are people who are 100% certain that they are innocent. Both of these groups are completely and utterly wrong of course, as I have already stated, because it is quite simply impossible for a rational, critical thinking person - who knows all of the facts - to reach either of those positions. It's fascinating because Confirmation Bias is something which every single one of us is potentially susceptible to - it even happens to scientists - so looking at this case, reading the arguments which both sides present, and seeing how Confirmation Bias works, enables you to use what you learn here to prevent yourself from falling into the trap in other areas of your life. If you see what I mean?
The DNA samples found on Damien's necklace - which "we" have been discussing - are a good example of this, as is the hair sample which was found in one of the knots in the shoelaces of the victims. Mental traps to look out for are:
1. What ACTUALLY happened? You'll notice that one of the biggest issues is finding out EXACTLY what ACTUALLY happened. I remember when I first heard about the hair that was found in one of the knots. My first question was whether or not the hair was ACTUALLY inside one of the knots. You see ... this is the type of information which is very susceptible to "Chinese Whispers"; a game in which people pass a message, verbally, from one person to another until the final person in the 'chain' relays the message back to the originator of the message, at which point the message is often very different from the original. In a situation like this, it wouldn't have surprised me to find that a hair found ON one of the LACES had turned into a hair found IN one of the KNOTS - two completely different things - with the change being made by someone who is 100% certain of the innocence of the three. As such I set about trying to discover whether the hair was ACTUALLY inside the knot, or whether it was ACTUALLY just ON one of the laces. It's very hard to find out what ACTUALLY happened, partly because you have to find a source - in fact you might need more than one; for verification purposes - who doesn't have a Confirmation Bias and is therefore reliable. Go ahead and try; see how long it takes you to find a reliable source which confirms that the hair was found IN one of the knots. You'll quickly get an idea of what I'm talking about...
2. The blood on the necklace is another good example. You say that blood matching Damien, Jason and Branch is a smoking gun, but why is that so? My guess is that it's because your understanding of what ACTUALLY happened is incorrect. I went off and found reliable information about the blood on the necklace and wrote my response to you above. My question is, how did you react to what I told you above? Did you believe what I said? Did you go off and investigate whether what I said was accurate? If and when you discovered that what I said is what ACTUALLY happened - which it is - did it change your opinion about the blood on the necklace being a smoking gun? You don't have to reply if you don't want to, but answer those questions yourself and it will give you an idea of whether you are 'suffering' from Confirmation Bias.
3. The interesting thing about the hair is the way the two sides react to it. Those who think the three are innocent consider the hair to be very solid evidence that they are innocent. It reinforces what they already believe. Those who think the three are guilty dismiss the hair as being irrelevant, on the grounds that the hair could easily have been transferred to the lace(s) at Hobbs' house. Who is correct and what can you do with the information? Well ... I decided that making that type of decision was not possible without an experiment, so I designed and then performed one - several times over - as outlined in my previous post. Needless to say I am a big fan of Myth Busters! The point being that you need to be careful when you discover information like the hair in the knot; if you are honest with yourself you will realise that deciding whether the hair being there is easily explained by transference from Hobbs' house, or whether it got their during the crime, is really not something which can be determined without an experiment. My conclusion - and yours might be different so I'd be fascinated to hear the results - was that it is definitely POSSIBLE for a hair to be dropped on some shoe laces, then stay there as a kid runs around playing in the shoes, rides his bike, and trudges through the bush. That it is POSSIBLE for the hair to stay on one of the laces as it is removed from the shoe; though not if it is pulled through the eyelets, which a lot of people seem to overlook, and which is actually pretty normal practise. That it is POSSIBLE for the hair to then end up inside a knot you tie to bind it to another shoelace. However it is extremely IMPROBABLE for all of this to happen.
You're so right that it makes for a great debate. From what you've said you seem like an intelligent person who clearly understands that it isn't possible to reach a definitive conclusion; so much has been said by so many people over the years and there is so much misinformation out there. Although it's not possible to reach a 100% certain position either way - with the evidence that is currently available - we all have our opinions; that's only human, especially when there has been a horrendous crime against children. I'm just wondering what your opinion is? Do you think the three are guilty, or do you think it was Hobbs? It isn't quite clear to me based on what you've said...
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.
reply
share
critic2009
8 years ago
First off I gotta tell you that I am thrilled to have this conversation with you. I was scared to put my thoughts out there at first because I assumed there would be lots of hate directed toward me because I don't know if I believe the WM3 are innocent.
I have to tell you that I am not 100% sure who did it of course. But, if you were to put a gun to my head...I would have to say Damien and Jason killed those boys and Jessie played a part in helping them do it. I even believe that the mystery Bojangles man happened upon the scene as it was happening and got the *beep* kicked out of him. I really cannot believe in such a coincidence that on that very night a man with a cast walked into the restaurant bloody and muddy and didn't know what was going on. The man never stepped forward to clear himself because he was scared. Scared of what? Being blamed for the murders.
My runner up suspect is a serial killer trucker passing thru. I know...I know...but for some reason I just can't get it out of my mind why this has never been solved. And, I keep coming back to a slick serial killer getting away with murder. The killer comes through this shady town and gets away with the perfect murder. It is possible.
You are right about the necklace issue. I looked deeper into that and there is no proof at all that the blood on the necklace was Jason AND Steve Branch...only the blood types match. They were definite that one type of blood is Damiens for sure. It is definitely not a smoking gun. Sorry about that. I guess that's a great example of getting facts distorted or not understanding them thoroughly.
As much as I don't trust Hobbs...I don't believe that he did it. I do find it odd that he left town a few weeks after the murders. And, the police dropped the ball by not interviewing him right away. They must have been positive at the time that he wasn't involved. I don't know. Fishy stuff going on. The police never seemed concerned with Hobbs. There has to be a reason for that. Gitchell seems so sure that Hobbs was never a viable suspect.
Doing some other research I learned that John Mark Byers may have been working alongside the police department as a snitch. Do you know anything about that?
What do you make of the reports of Damien stalking some of the girls in the neighborhood?
reply
share
eileen-guthrie555
8 years ago
I'm enjoying reading your theories and I believe you are correct. There's far too much evidence that is uncertain that the jury should have seen as "reasonable doubt." Unfortunately, one of the members of the jury had already concluded that the three boys were guilty before being chosen as a juror. How that arse ever got chosen, I still don't understand. Then he's pick as Jury Foreman and like you mentioned all he saw in the evidence and exhibits was what he wanted to see his Confirmation Bias.
I've read a number of books, saw numerous documentaries and articles on line. I love true crimes and enjoy researching everything about true crimes, especially the ones unsolved. But the jury foreman is one of the vilest human beings that I ever read about. He's a bigot and a racist, he's also a wealthy man who acquired his wealth as a real estate developer, Kent Arnold. His brother, Gerald Arnold was arrested for child molestation just three days before jury selection, failed to acknowledge that during the voir dire, left it off the questionnaire as well as saying he had no opinion on the case, when that was all he talked about. Now, his brother is a registered sex offender. With his wealth and influence (bullied) he steered the jury towards conviction. From what I've read about him, he let his feelings about the defendants been known and even before they heard any evidence. No matter what anyone else believed, only he was right. When the jury broke for lunch, he talked about the case (even though the Judge instructions are to never deliberate before all the evidence was presented.) Yet, he ignored the Judge. He was angry that the recording of the confessions were inadmissible. He even went so far to ask his brother’s attorney how he could get on this case. I don't understand why any of other jurors didn't ask to speak with the Judge and expose him. Some of the jurors seemed enthralled with him and his charm, while others saw him as a bully. If he hadn't been on the jury, disobeyed the Judges orders repeatedly, I doubt those boys would've never been convicted. The advocacy group who were trying to get the conviction overturned discovered what Kent Arnold had done and brought it to the Arkansas Attorney General said it won't fight introduction of evidence about juror misconduct in one of the trials, though it is not agreeing that this is ground for a new trial. Why not?
It just disgusts me what that man did.
There is another case from Arkansas that remains unsolved. I saw the book and read it and there's a documentary on the case as well. Deep in corruption and has a link to Bill and Hillary Clinton, CIA, DEA, Iran-Contra and Ronald Reagan/George H W Bush. 1987, Bryant, Arkansas, two boys Kevin Ives, age 17 and Donald Henry, age 16 bodies were discovered on the railroad tracks by the train’s engineer. He saw the boys and tried to stop the train but was unable to stop in time. It was determined that they were already dead, even though Saline County medical examiner said they were alive when the train ran over them at first and called it death by natural causes, then accidental death. The medical examiners is the linked to the Clinton's. The parents of the two boys’ hired their own private medical examiner to look for cause of death and concluded homicide for both boys’ they both had trace amounts of marijuana in their system but not enough to cause a drug overdose or a drug stupor to cause them to fall asleep on the tracks, it was only after his report was released that Dr Fahmy Malak changed his cause of death on their death certificates, as now Possible Homicide. The cause of death Kevin was blunt force trauma to his head and Don was stabbed numerous times. The links was he was just a county medical examiner from a small county in southwestern Arkansas and given the job of State Medical Examiner during the middle of this investigation. Dr Malak has been a very controversial medical examiner, let’s just say this isn’t the only case he mishandled and more links to the Clinton's.
The engineer said he blew the horn and said the boys’ weren't moving at all. He later rationalized that due to the noise of his oncoming train, the vibration of the tracks, the boys had to have been dead and positioned on the tracks. This story aired twice on Unsolved Mysteries and was confirmed by the private medical examiner.
Numerous theories exist, but the most logical one is there was a clearing not far from the tracks where their bodies were discovered, where there was clearing (later known as Mena Airport) where a small private plane dropped canvas bags that were filled with drugs, mostly cocaine and the boys stumbled on the activity, ran, were chased and were murdered, someone panic and their bodies were place on the tracks for the exact reason to remove any evidence or trace of how they actually died. That landing strip was created by Ronald Reagan for the CIA and Oliver North for smuggling guns (as well as cocaine although I could find no links to the Reagan administration and the cocaine drops) during the Iran-Contra scandal. I'm not politically bashing either party but they both played a role in these deaths, whether directly or indirectly. I want these mothers to find the answers they both desperately want and have the participants in their deaths face justice.
Unfortunately, no one will ever be prosecuted. Others local names in the case are Prosecutor Dan Harmon, Deputy Prosecutor Richard Garrett, Sheriff Jim Steed, and Officers Jay Campbell, Kirk Lane, and Danny Allen (Campbell and Lane were both undercover narcotics detective but they weren't investigating anything that night). They all fought the producer and President of the company that made and distributed the documentary. First, ruling by the Judge was they couldn't release the documentary and went up all the way to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and won their victory and were finally able to release the documentary. They were all implicated in the cover-up in these boys’ murders. It’s believed that they knew about the drop and helped to facilitate the drug deal as was local DEA agents. It gets even more complicated. The Sheriff fired a shot and everyone scattered once the realized the boys' were there. Don and Kevin met up with a friends as they were running away from the tracks. Keith Coney who was on a motorcycle. Coney drove the two boys to Ranchette Grocery on Highway 111. Don Henry then apparently attempted to make a phone call although it is unknown if his call ever went through to its destination or who he was calling. Two police officers showed up and they were later identified to Mrs Ives by witnesses as Kirk Lane and Jay Campbell (who common logic would state had to also have been at the scene of the drug drop earlier that night given their subsequent actions). Witnesses observed Campbell and Lane accost the two boys and a brief scuffle ensued. When Kevin Ives reached for his rifle, one of the police officers grabbed it and smashed Kevin's skull in with the butt of the rifle likely killing him instantly or at least mortally wounding him. The two police officers then threw both boys in the back of the unmarked police car and took off towards a dirt road which dead ended in the woods after around a quarter of a mile.
Have you heard about this case? So full of corruption its so disgusting what politicians, lawyers and cops and what they won't do for power and control. It's one of the most complex, frustrating, intriguing cases I think I've ever read. Some of the participants are in prison, but not for this case and nothing happened to some. Mrs. Linda Ives died in November, 2010 not knowing the truth. The families need some justice and for those who murdered them to pay for what they did. I've always felt this would make a great movies or at least a mini-series but that will never happen as long as the Clinton's remain in politics.
reply
share
critic2009
8 years ago
Wow! I have to check this case out now. Thanks!
reply
share
eileen-guthrie555
8 years ago
It's a great true crime mysteries I've ever read. To me the best logical outcome was Mrs Ives theory the same one I mentioned above. I've only wrote a quick synopsis of her theory. I really do want your take on this case and your conclusions. If you need anything about the case, books, the documentaries, more names, anything please don't hesitate to ask.
reply
share