MovieChat Forums > West of Memphis (2012) Discussion > I used to think they were innocent, but ...

I used to think they were innocent, but not any more....

posted 9 years ago by theraj662
39 replies | jump to latest

I've seen all the movies, read a few books, gone to several websites. When I first heard of the WM3 I thought they were innocent and a major injustice had happened. Thinking they were innocent I started doing research to confirm what I had believed at the time. From what I've gathered, there wasn't any concrete physical evidence that proved it was them that did it. Also by the time police and investigators had arrived to the crime scene, the crime scene had been contaminated to the point where almost anything found could be disputed by a good defense team. Basically they were convicted on two things:

Jessie Misskelly's confession and the eye witness account stating Damien had been in the area of the murders at around the time it had happened.

Those two things could easily be contested, and I contested them myself at the time I thought they were innocent.

But the more I read and researched, on thing became strikingly obvious and changed my opinion from innocent to guilty:

Not one of the three has an alibi for them time in which the murders occurred.

Yes I know JM states he was at wrestling when the murders happened. Although he was at wrestling the evening of the murders, the time of his arrival to wrestling was actually later in the evening at a time later than the murders had occurred. There was sufficient time between the time of the murders and his arrival at wrestling for him to have been able to present at the time of the murders and participate.

JB's alibi was so weak, his defense lawyers didn't even enter it into the trial because they knew the prosecution would be able to tear it apart, and in doing so making it more incriminating to enter his alibi than by leaving it out altogether.

And finally, DE's alibi. Actually DE offered more than one alibi, each proven to be wrong, with some of them contradicting previous alibis he had given.

Now I don't know about everyone else, but if I were arrested and accused of murdering three 8 year old boys, and I in fact, did not do it, you can be PRETTY DAMN SURE I would have an alibi that would clear myself, and I'm PRETTY DAMN SURE if I were indeed innocent, the alibi I offered would check out and therefore clear me from any suspicion whatsoever!

Now on the other hand, if I were accused of such a heinous crime and actually was a participant, then my alibi would probably be very weak to begin with, be easily disproved and upon further questioning at a later time, and it may vary and contradict what I had said previously. Kinda like the alibis given by the WM3.

This is NOT investigating 101! This is simple, basic and elementary. If you are innocent, you can state where you were during a certain time on a certain day, no problem, and it will check out and be proven true, thus clearing you from suspicion.

That is why I am now CONVINCED the WM3 did it. If even one of them could offer an airtight alibi, I would believe at least that one person was innocent, but since none of them can.......well you have to find it hard to believe they didn't do it!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lupitag-11852 9 years ago

Honestly I expect to see more posts like this in the future once people stop being starstruck over the celebrities who rallied for their release and the semi-celebrity status of the boys right now, mainly Damien.

The documentaries are trash--all of them. They lie by omission and then they outright LIE (the 12 hour interrogation). It's infuriating reading the good reviews for them on here from people who have been so misled.

I don't think anyone can ever say with 100% certainty who killed those boys, but the Three stand a much higher chance of being responsible than anyone else I can think of. What irritates me is how the supporters try to put the blame on the fathers or various other suspects when the evidence they cite to condemn them is more shaky than anything leveled against the Three.

I would like to see one person give a convincing explanation as to how one boy managed to implicate two other boys in a multiple homicide who both had no alibis and were apparently not even good friends with him. Damien and Jason could have been anywhere that evening with witnesses attesting to that, but Jessie somehow manages to dream up this murder scenario on a night where not a single one of them can prove where they were. We know Damien wasn't on the phone with Holly George all night, as he claims, because according to her own testimony that wasn't the case. It's funny going back and seeing how many alibis Damien tried to piece together for that day, even relying on Jason's uncle and his girlfriend at one point. Too bad the uncle says Damien was not with Jason at his trailer. Nor was he at the family friend's house he says they went to afterward. His mother, ever faithful, even admits she was making up alibis for him.

My wish is that supporters will open their eyes and at least have the decency to admit many things don't make sense if you consider them to be innocent. If I were on trial for murder and facing a death sentence, I sure as hell would not be mocking the victims' families in court and reveling in the attention. Oh, but wait, supporters claim there's no proof of this. Funny, once can go to YouTube and see Damien intentionally trying to get a rise out of the victims' parents during the trial. It's like they're willfully ignorant to anything that might implicate their idols. Even if Damien was innocent, to mock parents who lost their 8 year old sons shows a serious lack of empathy and human decency, not to mention making you look guilty as hell to the jury.

Can anyone out there give a logical explanation for these things while still maintaining their innocence? People keep asking and all we get are evasive, non-answers like "They were railroaded", "Jessie's confession had inconsistencies", "Mocking the parents doesn't mean he was guilty"--there are never any serious attempts to provide a semi-believable explanation for all the inconsistencies that also explains Damien's behavior during the trial.

Contrary to what most supporters think, not all of us nons are frothing at the mouth to see the Three executed nor are we uneducated hillbillies from the Deep South that believe in devil worship. Some of us just happen to be quite educated and have actually read the case files behind the documentaries and see what trash they are.

[–] rjmhhk 8 years ago

The problem is that you kind of are ignoring evidence that disagrees with you

1.) Jessie DOES have an alibi. Even if you discount the wrestling (which you really can't) Multiple people place him at a trailer park between 6:00 and 6:20

2.) The Bible Confession was STILL inaccurate to ludicrous degrees. He failed to describe the area, and his assertions (hitting them with sticks and fists) were proven false. He failed to accurately describe the site

3.) I've seen plenty of supporters acknowledge Damian's behavior. He was an *beep* teenager. That's not the same as murder

4.) Except that the evidence against Hobbs IS more damning than anything against the three. He had no alibi, had beaten his previous family, the nature of statistics means the hair probably was his, the fact that when he was cross examined he gave *beep* answers....Hobbs is more likely.

5.) The 12 hours came out of the fact Jessie was picked up at 9:40 or so and that the arrest warrants weren't issued until 9:45 at night. Jessie wasn't interrogated the entire time but the police did use dicey methods and the interrogation methods were a LOT harsher than nons want to admit.

6.) The thing about mentally handicapped kids is that often times they have a "desire to please". They say what they THINK authority figures want them to say even when they've been told to cut it out. At least two of the supporters I've interacted with have been special ed teachers.

7.) The police tried to moe Jessie without telling his lawyers; considering that they tried to get a confession before the bible one but failed after Jessie and STidham talked for a long time, AND that the bible confession had them block stidham by only giving him 15 minutes, it's entirely possible that the authorities manipulated Jessie into thinking he'd benefit. Like "You wanna see Daddy and Suzie again right?"

I've never seen the documentaries. I did my own research.

[–] rachelr27 8 years ago

I would like to see one person give a convincing explanation as to how one boy managed to implicate two other boys in a multiple homicide who both had no alibis and were apparently not even good friends with him. Damien and Jason could have been anywhere that evening with witnesses attesting to that, but Jessie somehow manages to dream up this murder scenario on a night where not a single one of them can prove where they were.

Can you explain why one boy would help hogtie and commit multiple homicides with two other boys who were "not even good friends with him?"

The investigators wanted Damien and they led Jessie to him.

[–] random_guy2 8 years ago

This is simple, basic and elementary. If you are innocent, you can state where you were during a certain time on a certain day, no problem

That is just not true; the Serial podcast actually gets into this in some detail. The fact is that unless something significant happened on a particular day, most people cannot recall much about it. Where were you 12 days ago at 4pm? I could take a guess based on my normal schedule, but I certainly don't remember specifically.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] John-367 8 years ago

You are talking about three young men with not much money and fairly disorganized lives - two of them at least not massively social. They didn't have the business meetings, reservations at restaurants, church gatherings, extensive shopping trips, playing sports etc, etc, that many other people might have as definable, checkable alibis. At the time there wasn't the widespread CCTV which might have helped establish an alibi for one or more of them.

Even the alibis or partial alibis that two of them had were ignored by the police and prosecution. Jesse's alibi was the evidence of several friends and acquaintances and a signature in a signing-in book which would have been enough to pretty much rule him out completely in any sane investigation.
That alone would demolish his "confession", the major evidence against all three, if he even got as far as being seriously interrogated at all.

Incidentally, I didn't have an alibi for last night and neither did at least two of my friends. We must have committed any crime which occurred, apparently.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theycallmebrandon 8 years ago

A bank slip? I'm 31 and have never once kept a bank slip, receipt or other such thing. How is that relevant to the real world?

[–] lulupalooza 8 years ago

During the less digital systems of the 1980-90s, I always kept every bank slip - retail purchase/credit receipts too - until my account statement came in the postal mail (before online availability).

As online banking and deposit/check scanning became the norm after 2000 or so, that's what many of us did in order to keep detailed track of our banking and purchasing activity, sometimes even catching bank errors due to human involvement that is now fully computerized/digitalized. Balancing one's checkbook was crucial before automatic credit card, debit card, and electronic payment became widespread.

You would've been a kid during that era, and would understandably see no value in that practice today...as I no longer do. :)

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

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

A kid.. you mean, like they were? They were teenage boys, do you really think they cared about keeping track of their bank accounts (if they even had them)?

[–] cyf222 7 years ago

That is a pretty idiotic answer. I bet if you were picked up by cops for a murder, you would damn well have an alibi wouldn't you or be able to piece a coherent one together after over twenty years.

[–] StakkaDakka 8 years ago

interesting example as Adnan Syed is also guilty as hell just like WM3

[–] raven363 8 years ago

But what if you didn't do it but you were alone during the murder time frame? There is no way for someone to check out your alibi if noone was with you or knew where you were, so your arguement is weak.

[–] theycallmebrandon 8 years ago

Your logic is flawed. If you're going to commit murder you establish a concrete alibi. If you're innocent and you're accused of a crime providing an alibi is pretty damm hard. There's less than a handful of times I could provide an alibi for this whole month.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BridgitteVonHammersmark 8 years ago

Sorry for the silly Q...but what is a jivepupi? I must know.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BridgitteVonHammersmark 8 years ago

Thanks for answering :)

[–] tearingyoursoul 8 years ago

Do dou really believe they are guilty because they don't have alibi? Let's pretend you need more than that for someone to be convicted of murder, what more proof do you have that they did it?

For me, i need more than alibi. What about motive? Why did they do it if they did it, cult? And to me it seems as tho they were terrified about the hole deal (as anyone should) do you really think they would manage to hold it all inside instead of begging police to take them to the place the murder happened so they could share with them how they did it, why they did it etc..

I think it must have been someone either the boys knew, someone older, someone the boys trusted..

You know i have not a clue who did it, it could have been someone passing through, that lured these kids, a serial killer that hasn't been caught yet. You know too bad they messed it up in the beginning.

I just doubt that these three boys did it, i can be wrong ofcourse. It's just that... something doesn't make sense, don't you feel that too?

[–] antodoyler58 8 years ago

Have you read through Exhibit 500 ? Damian fits the profile of the type of person who could do this, he was a credible suspect ,he was mentally unstable, he had been in and out of mental facilities, he sucked blood from another boys arm at a facility, he definitely should have been questioned. The fact that he doesn't have an alibi doesn't prove anything though.

[–] prometheus1816 8 years ago

Have you read through Exhibit 500 ? Damian fits the profile of the type of person who could do this, he was a credible suspect ,he was mentally unstable, he had been in and out of mental facilities, he sucked blood from another boys arm at a facility, he definitely should have been questioned. The fact that he doesn't have an alibi doesn't prove anything though.

My brother fits the profile of the type of person who could have done this, but that doesn't mean he did. My brother should have been put in a mental institute for some things he's done in his life. If any of us are expected to have alibis for every moment of our lives then I'd say that life is not worth living. The point here is that none of these guys did it. Full stop! Same with Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey. When I look at Terry Hobbs, a man who clearly has mental issues and was finally deposed in the Natalie Maines defamation suit, shows he clearly not only had motive, but opportunity. He was the last one seen with those boys. The level of abuse he inflicted on Stevie Branch before the killings shows he clearly had anger issues, and he was also a controlling figure.... definitely someone who could have committed this crime. Watching the deposition video from the Maines suit, you can see when he is in control, he's okay. When he's not he does that smile to show he's a good guy, but there's a lot underlying that. The fact that he was trying to set up Jacoby shows that level of manipulation he has. The only alibi Hobbs has is Jacoby, but not the alibi Hobbs wants to have.

Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head. -Anon

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

Now I don't know about everyone else, but if I were arrested and accused of murdering three 8 year old boys, and I in fact, did not do it, you can be PRETTY DAMN SURE I would have an alibi that would clear myself, and I'm PRETTY DAMN SURE if I were indeed innocent, the alibi I offered would check out and therefore clear me from any suspicion whatsoever!

What if they were alone? Would you make something up just because you don't have someone to corroborate what were you doing at that time?

You would suck as a lawyer.

[–] TheShawshankErection 8 years ago

Right now, where I am, it's 3:48 am, and I'm sat alone at my desk in an empty house. If a murder were to occur near my house and I were accused, there would be absolutely nobody who could back up my alibi. Would that make me guilty?

This signature has been deleted by an administrator.

[–] lupitag-11852 8 years ago

Would someone you barely know be able to say they were with you and one other person, not at 3:18 am but at dinner time, committing a murder and, despite this person whom you barely know not having any idea what you and this second person were doing that day, somehow catch you both at a time neither of you had an alibi? Would a car full of witnesses also be able to spot you near the crime scene? Would you fail a lie detector? Would your family members openly admit to lying about your alibi to place you somewhere else? Would you say you were somewhere only to have the owner of that residence deny you were there? Would you place yourself on the phone or at a wrestling match, for example, only to have this debunked? Failing all this, would you sit through a trial and smile at and mock the family members of the little boys you were accused of murdering? Do you have an extensive psychological record involving admitting to being homicidal and saying "I knew it" when your therapist says you could be the next Ted Bundy? Have you sucked blood from an inmate's wound and attacked a kid from behind at school? If so, maybe you can make comparisons to Damien's situation.

[–] k-lyn 8 years ago

Very good post. ^^^^