WM3 - The Big Picture


OCCAM'S RAZOR


A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.


If you believe the West Memphis Three to be innocent, then the subjects/people mentioned below have to be lies, liars, coincidences and unrelated to guilt. If you believe the three to be innocent, then alternative explanations are needed.

If you believe the three to be guilty, then everything mentioned below makes sense with just that one explanation.





Jason confessed to Michael Carson
After Baldwin’s arrest, he was incarcerated in a juvenile facility with Michael Carson. Michael would later give a statement and testify that Jason had confessed to the murders. Michael would later appear in the documentary, West of Memphis, financed by multi-millionaire and supporter, Peter Jackson, and produced by Damien Echols. In it, Carson would say that he was not sure of his actions during the trial due to his use of the drugs, including LSD. Supporters of the killers claim that this statement is a recantation. The truth is that Michael never actually says he lied in his statements or testimony. Michael also passed a polygraph administered by the Arkansas State Police at the time of his statement.

Carson in 1996, two years after the trial, would again stand by his testimony when challenged. Carson would never put in to question his testimony until the documentarian, Amy Berg, who was financed by the defense team, was to contact him for an interview in 2012.


Quote: “MICHAEL: Well, we was sitting there playing spades and then the officer comes over the intercom and tells us to get in our cells, because she's fixing to bring lunch in and so me and Jason was sittin there scraping up some cards and I turned to him and said, "between me and you, did you really do it"? And he said, "yes, I did do it,” and he started giving me the gory details.
BEALL: Okay. Are you saying he didn't get into any gory details or he did?
MICHAEL: He did.”

Michael Carson statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/carson2.html
Michael Carson polygraph: http://callahan.8k.com/images/mcpoly2.jpg
Michael Carson 1996 statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/sun_article_carson.html




Jason’s grandmother didn't seem surprised about him being arrested for the crime.
In an article run by the “Commercial Appeal” at the time of the arrests, Jason’s paternal grandmother was interviewed and most notable was her lack of surprise that her grandson was involved in such a crime.

Quote: “Baldwin, 76, said she and her husband, Purd Baldwin, 82, learned of their grandson's arrest from a television report Friday morning.

"We just looked at each other and I said, 'I don't know what that boy has on his mind, killing people like that, Mrs. Baldwin said.”

Link: http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2809




Baldwin reportedly rid himself of weapons between the murders and arrests.
Days before the murders, Jason traded some T-shirts to Billy Newell in exchange for a knife and a pickaxe. Days after the murders, Jason sent his brother to the Newell household to give back the weapons. There has been some speculation that the pickaxe may have been one of the murder weapons, but this has never been substantiated. Why was he in such a hurry to give back the weapons? Was he worried about being blamed for something?

Quote: “worked at the Carnival from Wednesday until Friday and I had three T-shirts that I had traded a pic and a knife for, to Jason Baldwin, before I worked at the Carnival.
When I got home yesterday I found the pic and knife where Jason had brought it back. I made the statement to some kids that "I wonder if these were the weapons that were used to kill the boys." Then I said maybe I'd better call up to the police and tell them.”

Billy Newell statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/billnew.html
Kenny Newell statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/kennew.html




Jason’s mom accused her husband of turning Jason in to the police.
On the night of Baldwin's arrest, his mother, Gail Grinnell accused her husband of turning him into the police. If her son was indeed innocent then why would she think that her husband had “turned him in”? It seems a little odd that the thought would even cross her mind, unless something relating to the murders had been mentioned in the household.

Quote: “FOGLEMAN: Okay, alright, now do you remember the night that they arrested Jason and they were searching your trailer?
GRINNELL: Yea
FOGLEMAN: Okay, now I understand that when you came in you were very upset, which I understand, and you made a statement to your husband accusing him of turning Jason in for the reward money. What did you think that your husband could have told the police?
GRINNELL: I don’t know, why I said that
FOGLEMAN: You just don’t why you would have said that?
GRINNELL: Well I just um,
FOGLEMAN: You just don’t know?
GRINNELL: I (inaudible) I don’t know why I would have said that
FOGLEMAN: Alright, has um, what is,
GRINNELL: I just,
FOGLEMAN: Go ahead
GRINNELL: Nothing.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gail.html




Jason’s lawyer more or less admitted that his client’s alibi wasn’t credible.
Despite what he claimed were his best efforts, Paul Ford said he could only present a partial alibi for his client. Ford ultimately chose to put up no alibi at all, for fear that his witnesses would fall apart under cross-examination.

Quote: “I felt that if I was unable to establish an alibi, presenting an incomplete one was more detrimental than presenting none at all…… When we were in trial I realized that Echols’ alibi defense was ‘not very, very strong…’. It was like a house of cards… I tried to determine how to deal with…my concerns about how my alibi witnesses would hold up under cross examination.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_ford.html




Misskelley was documented to have violent run-ins with younger children.
In March, 1993, Jessie was arrested for punching Tiffany Danielle Allen, a 13-year old girl, in the face. In a statement given after the arrests to the WMPD, Dennis Carter, a friend of Miskelley’s, reported an incident in which Miskelley hit a 6-year old girl in the head with a rock and laughed about it. In the book Blood of Innocents there is an account on page 160 of an incident in which Misskelley stabbed a fourth-grade classmate in the mouth with a pencil.

Quote: “On Friday 3-12-93, the above named complaintant and her mother came to the Sheriff's Department
and reported that on 3-11-93 at approximately 4:45 PM the above named suspect struck the victim in her mouth with his fist, while at the park in Lakeshore Estates.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/tifa.html

Quote: “Jesse chased the little girl and threw a rock and hit her in the head. The little girl was crying and Jesse was laughing”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/d_carter_interview.html




Jessie reportedly had terrible fits of crying after the murders.
On the night of the arrests, Lee Rush, Jessie’s step-mother, reported that Jessie woke up crying uncontrollably during the nights following the murders. This was something she thought to be highly unusual and worth reporting. This information was also given to the crew of Paradise Lost, but they apparently didn’t feel the need to include it in the final cut of their documentary.

Quote: “Mrs. Misskelley got to talking about how Jessie Jr. was waking her up at night crying and having nightmares. Every time she went into his room he would be crying hysterically and he would tell her it was because his girlfriend was moving away. She told us it happened a number of times, and that she could not believe his girlfriends' moving would cause that kind of hysterical behaviour”

Charlie Dabbs report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/cdabbs.html
Tony Anderson report: http://callahan.8k.com/images/report_06-07-93.jpg
Howard Tankersley report:
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/rush_l_tankersley.jpg




Jessie was brought in for questioning and confessed after only 4 hours.
Jessie confessed within four hours of arriving at the WMPD on June 3, 1993. Warren Holmes, one of Jessie’s own experts, would testify that Jessie confessed within the recommended interrogation time and that he had no problem with the length of the interrogation. Despicably, documentary makers, journalists and internet bloggers still make the false claim that Jessie was interrogated for over twelve hours, before he finally gave in and confessed. As of 2011, the twelve hour lie had been increased to fourteen hours on some websites and news pieces.

Quote: “Q: Okay. And would it be accurate to say that when you train officers to conduct interrogations that you tell them that, at a minimum, in an important case, that you want them to go 4 hours, uninterrupted, with a suspect?
A: True.
Q: Okay. So, in this particular case, the time period that the officers were with the suspect doesn’t pose a problem for you, does it?
A: No.
Q: That would be what you recommend them to do if you were advising them, correct?
A: I would have done exactly what they did”

Warren Holmes testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/warrenh.html
Time log: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html




Misskelley happened to implicate two people with no alibi.
Let’s pretend for a moment that we believe the defense spin that Jessie hardly knew Damien or Jason; he operated at the level of an eight year old; and his confessions and all he said in them were untrue. For a person with such supposedly low intelligence, Jessie was extremely lucky to name two accomplices who did not have a credible alibi for their whereabouts on the night of the murders.

Quote: “MISSKELLEY: Damien, he was holding him down like, and Jason had his legs up in the air and that little boy was kicking, saying, 'don't, no' like that.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html




Misskelley implicated one person with a disturbing history of mental problems.
It would stand to reason that a person involved in these atrocious murders would likely be someone with serious mental health issues. It turns out that one of the convicted fits that role perfectly. Echols had a long and frightening mental health history, which can be seen in “Exhibit 500” a 500+ page document produced during the sentencing phase of the trial by his own defense team.

Quote: “There is an abundance of evidence to show that Mr. Echols’ serious mental illness required long term hospitalization and more aggressive treatment than he received in prior hospitalizations. In January of 1993 Mr. Echols again sought help at East Arkansas Mental Health Center where mental health professionals described Mr. Echols’ elaborate history of delusions, psychosis, and severe problems with mood and memory. His delusions often were grandiose. He told staff he was “going to influence the world.” He also reported he obtained power by “drinking blood.” His mood oscillated between euphoria and severe depression. Most of the time his affect was flat and his face “expressionless.” Other times he reported he could “do anything.” During his worst periods Mr. Echols became psychotic. He felt a “spirit [was] living within him” that was “put inside him last year.” The spirit “decided to become part of him” and was the spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html
Exhibit 500: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html




Jessie confessed to Buddy Lucas.
Documentaries, news articles or internet sites tend to only mention the June 3, 1993 confession given by the WMPD to Miskelley. Because most of the general public obtained their information about the case from one of the heavily biased documentaries or a supporter run website, they don’t know that Jessie confessed many times. He continued to confess his involvement in the murders after he was convicted, including once to his attorney, Dan Stidham. The first of Miskelley’s many confessions occurred the day after the murders. Buddy Lucas would later recant his statement about this confession and it has been rumoured that he was threatened by friends and family of Misskelley.

Quote: “RIDGE - AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS IN TROUBLE OVER?
LUCAS - THAT HE REALLY, HE SAID UM, WE HURT, UH.... UH WE HURT A COUPLE OF BOYS, THAT JASON AND DAMIEN KILLED
RIDGE - OKAY
LUCAS - COUPLE, I SAID WAS YOU INVOLVED? HE SAID YEA, I SAID WHAT DID YOU DO? I FINALLY GOT IT TALKED OUT OF HIM WHAT DID HE DO, HE SAID I HIT UH, A COUPLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD
RIDGE - OKAY, AND
LUCAS - AND EVERYTHING TO KEEP THEM FROM RUNNING AND EVERYTHING
RIDGE - AND THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD YOU?
LUCAS - YES SIR
RIDGE - AND THIS IS ON THURSDAY MORNING?
LUCAS - UH-HUH
RIDGE - OKAY.

Buddy Lucas statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/b_lucas_interview.html




Misskelley confessed to Kim Floresca.
A 15-year old girl and friend of Jessie, claimed that Jessie had told her and some friends that he participated in the murders on the day before his arrest.

Quote: “He was saying he hit the little boy and the little boy ran off and he was taking him back to where Damien and the other boy were," she said. According to Misskelley's story, Echols had already killed the two other boys, she said.
Floresca said she didn't believe Misskelley at the time.”

Link: http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2832




Jessie confessed to the police.
On June 3, 1993, a month after the murders, Jessie agreed to go to the police station to answer questions about Echols, as he was a suspect at that time. As documented above, after less than four hours of questioning, Jessie implicated himself in the murders and named Echols and Baldwin as his accomplices. Without prompting by the detectives, he volunteered to police that he chased and caught Michael Moore, who was trying to flee from the killers.

Quote: “JESSIE: When I was there, I saw Damian hit these one boy real bad, and then uh, and he started screwing them and stuff and then uh,
RIDGE: Alright, you got in front of you a picture, that was taken out of the newspaper I believe, it's got three boys and these are the three boys that were killed on that date in Robin Hood Woods, okay, which one of those three boys is it you say Damian hit? The third picture, which will be
JESSIE: Michael Moore
GITCHELL: This boy right here,
JESSIE: Yeah,
GITCHELL: Alright, that's uh the Byers boy, that's who you are pointing at?
JESSIE: Yes
RIDGE: If you read the caption, the grizzly slain from left, 8 year old Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers. Okay, so you saw Damian strike Chris Byers in the head.
JESSIE: Right
RIDGE: What did he hit him with?
JESSIE: He hit him with his fist and bruised him all up real bad, and then Jason turned around and hit Steve Branch
RIDGE: Okay
JESSIE: And started doing the same thing, then the other one took off, Michael Moore took off running, so I chased him and grabbed him and hold him, until they got there and then I left.”

First confession June 3, 1993: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html
Second clarification statement June 3, 1993: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune2.html




Jessie confessed his involvement in the murders the day he was convicted.
While being transported by two officers to the Arkansas Department of Corrections Diagnostic Unit at Pine Bluff, Jessie would again confess.

Quote: “Jessie said they were hiding behind bushes when Damion grabbed Michael Moore. The two other young boys started hitting Damion trying to help their friend and that is when Jessie and Jason jumped out and helped Damion "beat them." Jessie advised he helped hold them and beat them but had no part in raping or killing them.”

Incident report Feb 5, 1994: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html




Jessie confessed while alone with his own attorney.
A common excuse used to explain away Miskelley’s many confessions is to label them all as “coerced” or “fed to him by police. Even though no evidence of coercion exists, this excuse is still parroted by those who believe the three to be innocent. What makes these claims of coercion and feeding of details by the police incredible is that on August 19, 1993, Jessie confessed while alone with Dan Stidham, his attorney. Are we to believe his own attorney coerced him and fed him details, too?

Quote: “STIDHAM: Okay. So basically what you’re saying is that you basically volunteered what you told them, you told them what happened and they didn’t force you to do it?
JESSIE: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating)
STIDHAM: Is that what you’re saying?
JESSIE: Right.



STIDHAM: Was there a lot of blood there on the ground?
JESSIE: I don’t know –
STIDHAM: - out there where they were hitting them with sticks and stuff?
JESSIE: Yeah, there was a lot of blood.
STIDHAM: A little bit or a whole lot or …?
JESSIE: I’d say a lot.
STIDHAM: Okay. And that was at the low bank of the creek –
JESSIE: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)
STIDHAM: - which would be on this side going toward Blue Beacon?
JESSIE: Right.
STIDHAM: That’s where actually all the hitting and cutting took place?
JESSIE: Yeah.”

Conversation with Stidham August 19, 1993: http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_stidham_8_19_93.pdf

reply

Jessie confessed a second time to his attorney, Dan Stidham.
Jessie reached out to the prosecution and expressed a desire to testify against Echols and Baldwin. The prosecutors informed Stidham and on February 8, 1993, Brent Davis, John Fogleman, Gary Gitchell and Dan Stidham travelled to Pine Bluff to meet with Jessie. Stidham went into a room alone with Jessie, coming out once to ask for a Bible, which he took back into the room. At no time during that trip did Stidham allow Davis or Fogleman to speak to his client. For the second time after his conviction, Jessie confessed to his attorney, outside the presence of police and prosecutors, with his hand on a Bible.

Quote: “MISSKELLEY: I always lied and I hadn't ever put my hand on the Bible and swore. Nobody didn't tell me to do that. If they would have told me that at first, I would have done it. Nobody told me to put my hand on the Bible.
STIDHAM: Okay. So basically, you've been lying to me and Mr. Crow for the past seven, or so months - about not being there when in fact you were there?
MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.”


Quote: “[DAVIS:] It was our information that on the way down to the Department of Corrections on Friday, that he had spoken, talked continuously for a period of two to three hours, however long it took to get there, describing his involvement and even indicating to the officers that he was not shocked by what the jury did because he basically deserved the punishment he received. He talked constantly about what -- his involvement in the case. The officers advised me of that information and that's when I contacted Dan
Stidham to see if we should go down there to discuss his client's options and if he did in fact want to testify.

We then rode down to the Department of Corrections on Tuesday. Mr. Stidham rode with me. Mr. Fogleman and Mr. Gitchell met us at Brinkley, and we went to Pine Bluff. At that time, Mr. Stidham talked with him for approximately ten or fifteen minutes, at which point he came out of the room, grabbed a Bible. went back in and -- this is my personal observation -- but approximately 30 to 45 minutes later Mr. Stidham exited. He was very upset, unnerved, just kept mumbling things -- "I don't know what I'm supposed to do now. I don't know what to do now."

And after thirty minutes of conversation, it became apparent at that point that his client had indicated that he was involved in the murders and had in fact witnessed and played a part in the murders.”

February 8, 1994 Statement to Stidham: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html
February 22, 1994 hearing on Echols and Baldwin’s Motion to Dismiss: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html




Jessie’s statement to Stidham was corroborated.
During the February 8, 1994 statement to Stidham, Jessie stated that on May 5, 1993, Vicky Hutcheson bought him a bottle of Evan Williams whiskey, which he took to the crime scene with him. Jessie told Stidham that when he left after the murders, he broke the bottle under one of the overpasses on his way home. This was information known only to Jessie and Stidham. Gitchell, the prosecutors and Stidham left Pine Bluff, travelled to West Memphis and found a broken bottle neck under an overpass and confirmed that it came from a bottle of Evan Williams. They then went to the WMPD offices and contacted Vicky Hutcheson, who confirmed that she purchased a bottle of Evan Williams whiskey for Jessie on May 5, 1993. Stidham ignored this corroboration and it was falsely claimed by supporters, including the WM3.org, that the information about the bottle neck was provided by Jessie to prosecutors in their allegedly “illegal” conversations with him.

Quote: “STIDHAM: So ya'll didn't smoke any marijuana that day? Just whiskey and beer? Where's the whiskey bottle?
MISSKELLEY: Whiskey bottle? Busted.
STIDHAM: You busted it?
MISSKELLEY: Yeah.
STIDHAM: When did you do that?
MISSKELLEY: Going back - when I was going back home. After what I seen what happened made me mad.”



Quote: [DAVIS:] Mr. Stidham then went back into the room, at which time he did not allow us, nor did we request or insist on having contact with his client. He went back inside and talked for another hour and came back and to paraphrase indicated that his client's story matched with the facts much better and there were afew things we needed to do to be able to corroborate his statement.

At that point we got in our vehicles, and one of the things to corroborate his client's statement was to determine if there was an Evan Williams whiskey bottle under an overpass in West Memphis.

To quote Mr. Stidham, I believe at that time, "If we can find a bottle like he says, then that will convince me that it happened." At 9:30 or 10:00 at night we drive -- ten o'clock in the evening -- we proceed, the four of us, to roam underneath the overpasses of West Memphis and lo and behold find a broken bottle in the location indicated by his client.

We then take the bottle to a local liquor store where we proceeded to spend the better part of an hour matching the bottle with certain items, and lo and behold it matches with the brand name bottle Mr. Stidham had indicated that we should be looking for in the first place.

At that point Mr. Stidham says that wasn't good enough to convince him. Additional efforts were made. He then -- there was a week hiatus where there was no contact apparently.

February 8, 1994 Statement to Stidham: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html
February 22, 1994 hearing on Echols and Baldwin’s Motion to Dismiss: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html




Jessie confessed to the prosecution.
The last-known official confession was given by Jessie on the February 17, 1994, in the presence of members of the prosecution and the defense. The excuse given this time by supporters to explain away yet another confession is that Jessie confessed because he had been offered a deal. Those who put forward this excuse ignore the fact that in the statement it is pointed out that no offer or benefit has been promised to Jessie. The only potential benefit was a possible reduction of his sentence, which would have required approval from Judge Burnett.

Quote: “and that this statement will be tape recorded and a copy of that tape or that tape will be provided to the defense counsel and that at this point no promises have been made as to any deals or any benefits that will be granted to Mr. Misskelley as a result of his statement.”

Statement Feb 17, 1994: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html




Interview with Jessie Sr. granting the possibility his son could have been at the scene.
Jessie’s father gave an interview not long after his son was arrested. He is asked if his son was at the scene of the murders with accomplices Echols and Baldwin. His reply was that his son could have been there. People who believe the three to be innocent may not be able to believe that Jessie was involved in the murders, but his own father could.

Quote: “Yeah he could’ve been with them, but he didn’t have anything to do with it, I don’t believe.”

Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRtEdkoun1s




Jessie’s attorney, Dan Stidham claims he could make Misskelley admit to anything.
Stidham claimed he made Jessie admit to a robbery that never happened, and said he had it taped. When asked to play the tape in court, it cut out before Jessie made an admission. Stidham told the court that he would check the original VHS recording and bring it the next day. That is the last time Stidham brought up the subject and a recording of Jessie admitting to the fake robbery was never produced. In the portions that were available on the tape, Jessie denied any part in the fake robbery. The Judge’s comment regarding the abrupt ending to the tape is rather humorous.

Quote: “THE COURT: Was that the end of it? Is that kind of like the Nixon tapes? Is that it?”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jm_wilkins_stidham_12_10_93.pdf




Jessie conveniently gets dumber (IQ tests) during his trial.
Although Jessie was admittedly not the brightest of people, he most certainly was not mentally retarded as the defense so often claimed. This was a strategy by the defense at the time of the trials to excuse the multiple confessions. This strategy clearly didn’t work because not only were Jessie’s IQ test scores higher before the murders, but his own expert William Wilkins, would admit on the stand that the reason for the discrepancies was possibly due to malingering. Given that Jessie’s defense team had told him prior to testing that a lower score would make it less likely that he would be sentenced to death, it is not a stretch to believe that the lower scores on the tests administered by Wilkins were the result of malingering on Jessie’s part. Close to 13 minutes into Paradise Lost, Dan Stidham, Jessie’s lawyers told him about the benefit of scoring lower on the IQ tests.

Quote: “DAVIS: And then from that statement that it was a mild elevation you interpreted that that could show malingering, right?
WILKINS: Yes.
DAVIS: And malingering means what, Doctor?
WILKINS: It means, uh, making up stuff. Trying to present yourself as being ill when you’re not for some particular gain.
DAVIS: Did you explain to Jessie what these tests were being performed for?
WILKINS: We talked some about them in general, yes. DAVIS: Ok. And he knew that you were coming to court to testify about the results of these tests?
WILKINS: Yes.”

Dr. William Watkins testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html




Blood on a t-shirt belonging to Misskelley was of the same genetic type as a victim.
Misskelley and the victim shared the same genetic type, so the blood can be easily passed off as Jessie’s. However, it is worth noting that the victim who shared that genetic type with Jessie was Michael Moore, the victim Jessie claimed he beat, chased down and brought back to be killed by Echols and Baldwin. When the defense requested DNA testing, they did not seek to test the shirt to confirm that the blood belonged to Jessie and supporters have excused this due to a mistaken belief that excluding a victim as the source of blood is not exculpatory.

Quote: “The results of analysis are listed in Attachment #1. The HLA DQa type 4, 4 obtained from the cutting from the T-shirt is consistent with the types of James M. Moore and Jessie Misskelly, Jr.”

Lab report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/gdjan.html




The day after the murders, Jessie gave a pair of shoes to Buddy Lucas.
Jessie told investigators that he gave a pair of Adidas tennis shoes that he wore the night of the murders to his friend, Buddy Lucas. Buddy would also confirm that he received a pair of shoes from Jessie the day following the murders. Buddy later turned the shoes over to police, but it was many months after the murders and no evidence could be detected.

Quote: “The shoes were given to me by Jessie Misskelley Jr. On or about 05/06/93 and have been in my possession ever since.”

Buddy Lucas agreement:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/b_lucas/b_lucas_shoes_report.JPG




Jessie said Michael Moore ran way.
Michael's body was discovered further away from the bodies of the Chris and Steve. Jessie’s account during two of his confessions of chasing Michael, who had tried to escape the attack, and returning him gives the best and most logical reason as to why Michael was found separated from his two close friends.

Quote: “STIDHAM: When did the Moore boy run from the scene?
MISSKELLEY: That's when - after I let him go.
STIDHAM: You were holding the Moore boy?
MISSKELLEY: Yeah, and I let him go.
STIDHAM: Why did you let him go?
MISSKELLEY: After I got through hitting on him I let him go. I let him - just let him go.
STIDHAM: He took off running?
MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)
STIDHAM: Had any of the boys gotten killed yet? Or -
MISSKELLEY: No, huh-uh. (Negatively indicating)
STIDHAM: Did you know what was going to happen at that point?
MISSKELLEY: No.
STIDHAM: Why did you chase him down and bring him back - or did you?
MISSKELLEY: No, I didn't - until Damien told me, “Get him." And then that’s when I went back after him and got him.”

February 8, 1994 Statement to Stidham: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html




Jessie knew the boys pants were inside out.
In the February 8, 1994 statement to his attorney, Jessie revealed that the victims’ pants were pulled off, without being unbuttoned. He would state that the pants ended up inside out. Two of the victims’ pants when recovered were found to be inside out.

Quote: “MISSKELLEY: Then they took off their uh, their pants - Jason - Damien and them took off them little boys pants.
STIDHAM: How did they take them off?
MISSKELLEY: Pulled them. Just pulled them completely off. They didn't unsnap them or nothing. They just jerked.
STIDHAM: Pulled them from the legs? By their feet and pulled the legs off - the pants? Or did they -
MISSKELLEY: They was inside out. They pulled them from the top, just - just jerked them off.”

February 8, 1994 Statement to Stidham: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html




A carved stick was used to beat the victims.
Misskelley admits in his statements to hitting Michael Moore with a large stick. Michael's autopsy reports show blunt force trauma to his head - the type of injury that could be attributed to a large stick. In his June 3, 1993 confession, Jessie described one of the sticks as being long and skinny and having part of the bark carved off of it. Investigators would find a stick matching that description at the crime scene. After lab tests the stick came back positive for amino acids, a sign of having been handled by humans.

Quote: “STIDHAM: Which one was it?
MISSKELLEY: That one that you was holding up and that had the bark off of it.
STIDHAM: Had someone carved it?
MISSKELLEY: Yes.”

February 8, 1994 Statement to Stidham: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html
Photo: http://callahan.8k.com/images/logs01.JPG

Quote: “Turbyfill: The gist of my testimony is, I didn't find any fingerprints that would belong to anyone.
Davidson: Anyone whatsoever?
Turbyfill: Anywhere in the world.
Davidson: Now um - the amino acid test that you ran, you can not determine what human being that may have come from. Just that that stick may have had some contact with some human being, somewhere. Is that -
Turbyfill: - That's correct.”

Testimony of Ralph Turveyfill: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/rturbyfill.html




Miskelley stated that one of the victims was moving in the ditch.
In three separate confessions, Jessie said that at least one of the boys was still moving when he was thrown into the water. This is important because the medical examiner concluded that the cause of death of Steve and Michael was drowning.

Quote: “Brent Davis - Can you tell us were they saying anything or were they?
Jessie Misskelley - They was not saying nothing and when they throwed them in the water and I don't remember but one of them was moving.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html

Quote: “CAUSE OF DEATH: Multiple Injuries with Drowning.”

Steve Branch autopsy report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autsb.html
Michael Moore autopsy report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html




Misskelley correctly identifies which injuries the victims had.
Those on the side of the convicted constantly bring up the things Jessie got wrong in his confessions. What they fail or refuse to understand is that most confessors will intentionally lie for a variety of reasons, including minimizing their own involvement in the crime, trying to learn what the police know and/or throwing the police off. The truth is that Jessie got a lot right and one of the major details that he got right was which injuries the victims suffered, something only someone present could know. Below are just a few examples, including that he knew only one boy was sexually mutilated.

Quote: “MISSKELLEY: He grabbed one of'm by the ear, I don't know which one, he grabbed on of'm by the ear trying to pull his ear off or something. He grabbed'm pretty tight. It turned kind of red.”


Quote: “MISSKELLEY: Then, uh, Jason pulled out a knife. He took one of them - I don't know which one - cut him on - I think it was on this side of his face.
STIDHAM: Which side are you pointing to?
MISSKELLEY: This is the left.
STIDHAM: Which boy was that?
MISSKELLEY: I don’t know.
STIDHAM: Wasn't the Cub Scout?
MISSKELLEY: No. It was one of them other two. I don't know -
STIDHAM: So he was either the blond headed one, or the Byersboy - the one that got cut?
MISSKELLEY: Yes.
STIDHAM: Okay.
MISSKELLEY: To my knowledge I’m gong to say the blond one.”


Quote: “STIDHAM: Okay. When did you realize that somebody was going to get killed?
MISSKELLEY: After I seen Jason cut that one on his left side of his face. I didn't know he's going to get killed until I saw him get on top of - one of them boys and cut him completely.
STIDHAM: What do you mean cut him completely.
MISSKELLEY: He cut his penis off and -
STIDHAM: Is that the first time you realized -?
MISSKELLEY: That's when I realized that, you know, they're going kill these boys.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html




Jessie has never given a one-on-one interview since the murders.
In fact, when it seemed like he might answer a few questions while attending two separate screenings of Paradise Lost 3, Jessie looked very uncomfortable at the beginning of the Q&A portion of the program and left on both occasions, leaving Damien and Jason to answer the questions.

Quote: “Misskelley, however, spoke little and had to leave the room when the discussion turned to who the three thought had actually committed the crimes.”

Link: http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2011/10/10/8256166-echols-without-pa radise-lost-we-would-have-sunk-into-obscurity
Link: http://wm3truth.com/2011/10/misskelley-silent-at-press-screenings/

reply

Jessie has been accused of physically abusing his girlfriend and her children since his release.
In November of 2012, a heated discussion took place involving supporters of Jessie Misskelley and Audrey G’Fell, the sister of Jessie’s ex-girlfriend, Susie Brewer. Audrey claimed that Jessie used Susie and her kids as punching bags. The posts were made on the WM3.org Facebook page and, although the posts were promptly removed by the page’s administrators, they were screen captured for posterity. As is all too often the behaviour of supporters, they quickly attempted to excuse or simply refuse to believe the accusation by saying that Susie cheated on Jessie and that one of the kids already has a criminal record.


Quote” How bout I tell y’all a thing or two bout Mr Jessie himself? Bout how he’s a damn woman beater and a he tried to put his hands on my nephew so the best thing my sis could have done was left the sorry *beep* ... Jessie ain’t all *beep* perfect like y’all think so get a *beep* clue...

“IDC what he’s done for [Susie] and them boys it gave him no right to use her or them boys as punching bags”

Link: http://midsouthjustice.org/smf/index.php?topic=87.0




Jessie seems to disagree that Damien is a “good kid.”
During a break at Jessie's trial, a young woman makes the statement, “Damien is a good kid.” Jessie, knowing more about Damien than she did, gave her an "Are you crazy?" look and she apologized. This also goes against the myth that Jessie didn’t know Damien. This can be seen during Paradise Lost and @1:26 in the following YouTube clip.

Quote: “Damien is a good kid.”..... (gets look from Jessie) ......”I guess, I don’t know”

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HQMUmFB-Gs




Damien’s troubled past.
Before the murders, Damien reportedly lit fires in classrooms, attempted to set a house on fire, ran after a small child with an axe and attempted to gouge out a classmate’s eyes (Shane Divilbiss). During an interview with Piers Morgan, Damien claimed that he was never in trouble with the law. In reality, Damien was charged with burglary, breaking and entering, disorderly conduct, sexual misconduct and terroristic threatening. He was held at the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center in Jonesboro for two weeks. Some of the above incidents are documented in Exhibit 500. Exhibit 500 is 500+ pages of Damien’s mental health records, which were presented to the court by his defense team during the penalty phase of his trial in the hopes of saving their client from the death penalty. Exhibit 500 gives incredible insight in to the mind of the young Damien Echols, and shows that he was more than capable of such a crime.

Quote: “He threatened to kill Deanna threatened to kill several of my family members just not my uncle but several others. He threatened to kill me and then later came up behind me in the hallway while I was at my locker I knew he was back there so I just started to walk I didn't look at him or anything he jumped on me from behind draggin me down to the ground and clawing at my face with his fingernails. He uh, people was saying he was trying to rip my eyes out and my the scars is what it looked like, when I got up I turn around and I was going to fight but he was being held down by several of the people that were in the hallway witnessing it so I didn't have to”

Shane Divilbiss statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/shadi.html
Exhibit 500, page 29: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/029.jpg
Exhibit 500 in its entirety: (MUST READ) http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html




Echols' own parents were frightened of him.
Damien’s parents told personnel at St. Vincent Hospital in Oregon that they were scared of what Damien could do to them or the other children in the household. Included in the many documented threats Damien would make to others were threats to cut his mother’s throat, and stab his father.

Quote: “both parents do not feel that they wish to have him return to their home. They are frightened of him and what he can do, not only to them but to other children that reside in the home”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/150.jpg




Echols documented history of blood-drinking.
Along with the documented instance of Damien sucking at the wound of a fellow inmate while in the Detention Center in Jonesboro, the desire for blood also correlates with Misskelley's post-conviction detail of Echols sticking his finger into the wound on Steve’s cheek and licking off the blood.
(Note that Misskelley was unaware of the documented blood-drinking in Exhibit 500, at the time he offered the detail.)

Quote: In Little Rock, and the reason for that was while he was in detention in uh, Jonesboro he uh was sucking the blood out of some kids wound on the kids neck and while I took him, I took him from Jonesboro to Little Rock to the hospital and I ask him why he did that and he, first he said it was a joke, and then he said that's how you receive's power he said I've been doing this for years”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jerry_driver_statement.html

Quote: “His behavior deteriorated drastically. One resident reported he observed Mr. Echols sucking the blood off the scratch that another inmate had on his arm.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html

Quote: “B-Do you know how many times you might have hit him?
M-a bunch
B-What part of his body were you hitting him in?
M-Face
B-Okay
M-Head
B-What was Damien doing during this time?
M-Well, the one that got cut on his face, he stuck his finger on his cheek and licked the blood off of it.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_feb17.html




Echols threatened to kill and eat his stepfather.
Among the many disturbing things to be found in Echols’ records, threatening to eat his father with a spoon was one of the most bizarre.

Quote: “Q. And when your father came in, you told him you would eat him alive, didn't you?
A. No, that happened at the hospital.
Q. Oh, you told him that at the hospital?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. And it was during this time period, was this a time period when your medication was out of balance?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So you did these things when your medication was normal?
A. I had been drinking that night.
Q. Now, as a result of that, you were hospitalized, correct?
A. Right.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien2.html




A drawing attributed to Echols appeared to show a baby/child sacrifice.
In a drawing seized from Echols’ belongings, a pair of small feet belonging to either an infant, or young child, are visible behind one of the headstones, along with what may be a child’s rattle in close proximity. A former girlfriend stated that Echols wanted her to get pregnant and to sacrifice the child if it was a girl.

Quote: “I ran away with Damien. I went to a hospital in Memphis and he went to one in Little Rock. I found out that he plained to kill our first born if it was a girl. Damien would not do it he is a coward and would have tried to get me to do it. That’s when I knew he was nuts and I had nothing else to do with him. I meet Damien at school. I read some of his poems and felt sorry for him.”

Photo of drawing: http://midsouthjustice.org/smf/index.php?topic=61.0
Deanna Holcomb statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/holcomb.html




Numerous people had made statements about Echols’ cruelty to animals.
Among the frogs, cats and dogs mentioned in statements given by individuals that knew Damien, he was reported to have stomped a dog to death and was said to have wanted its skull as a trophy. After arrest, investigators did indeed find a dog skull belonging to Echols. Similar behaviour can be found among many murderers in their youth.

Quote: “He pulled the intestines out of the dog and started stomping the dog until blood came out of his mouth. He was going to come back later with battery acid so that he could burn the hair and skin off of the dog's head. He had two cat skulls, a dog skull and a rat skull that I already knew about.”

Joe Bartoush statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/joehb.html
Heather Cliett statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/heatherc1.html
Chris Littrell interview notes: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/clreport.html



One of Echols reasons for claiming disability was that he was homicidal.
Damien, in his own words, described himself as homicidal when he applied for disability in 1994. That he was homicidal was not the sole reason. He also claimed to be sociopathic, suicidal, manic depressive and schizophrenic.

Quote: “REASON FOR HOSPITALIZATION OR CLINIC VISITS – Homicidal, Manic depression, Sociopathic, Suicidal, Schizophrenia”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/images/500/1/125.jpg




Echols expressed an interest in what it would be like to kill.
Echols’ ex-girlfriend Deanna Holcomb told police that Damien had expressed interest in what it would be like to kill someone.

Quote: “Damien once told me that he had never killed anyone but wondered what it would feel like.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/holcomb.html




Echols was presumably contending with an emotional event that occurred the day before the murders.
Accounts from Pam Hutchison, Damien’s mother, report that Damien’s father had left the family home the day before the murders. This event may have tipped an already mentally unstable individual over the edge.

Quote: “RIDGE: ALRIGHT, WAS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT TUESDAY ?
HUTCHISON: NO.
RIDGE: OKAY, YOU GOT UP AT 8 OR SO IN THE MORNING?
HUTCHISON: RIGHT
RIDGE: DRUNK YOUR COFFEE AND THEN YOU WATCHED TV OR CLEANED HOUSE?
HUTCHISON: UH, SAT THERE AND DRUNK COFFEE, UH, MY HUSBAND AND I SEPARATED THAT DAY.
RIDGE: ON TUESDAY?
HUTCHISON: YES, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING A LITTLE UNUSUAL, UH,
RIDGE: DO YOU MIND MY ASKING WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT PROBLEM WAS?
HUTCHISON: BECAUSE OF MY EX-HUSBAND. HE DOESN'T WANT HIM TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY CHILDREN.
RIDGE: OKAY
HUTCHISON: AND UH, WE SEPARATED THAT DAY.
RIDGE: THAT TUESDAY, UH, HOW DID YOUR CHILDREN REACT TO THAT?
HUTCHISON: UH, DAMIEN CRIED, BUT UH CONSTANCE, WE CALL HER MICHELLE, SHE WAS LOOKING, IT DIDN'T CAUSE HER ANY”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/pamh1.html




Damien’s letters to Gloria Shettles.
Gloria Shettles was an investigator that worked with Damien’s defense team. Damien wrote numerous letters to Gloria. Each letter was extremely disturbing and clearly from a man not of sound mind. The attorneys would actually agree that his mental state was unstable, as shown by their effort to reduce his death sentence via admission of his mental health records, known as Exhibit 500.

Quote: “Halloween gets closer every day. I am outgrowing my skin. My hands and feet are changing. I am the Christ. Realize what's happening before its too late.”
“God still tries everything he can to kill me but he can't. Death can't stop me. I would be only the third person in history to raise from the Dead. Lazarus, Jesus Christ, Damien. I will prove it very soon. Afterwards I will come to power and nothing will stop me. I wrote all this down because it is easier than trying to tell people who wouldn't believe it anyway. They will all believe it very soon. Unmask, unmask.....and the Red Death held sway over all. Now they'll take their medicine. They'll take it and they'll like it, the stupid little *beep* or they'll have their brains bashed the *beep* out.”

Damien’s letters to Gloria Shettles: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/writ_de_writings.html
Affidavit of Gloria Shettles: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/g_shettles_affidavit.html




Damien confessed to his friends Kenneth Watkins.
Not only was Damien seen close to the crime scene on the night of the murders and also implicated in the murders by Jessie Misskelley, there were also many other accounts of his admissions to participation in the murders. One such confession was to his friend, Kenneth Watkins.

Quote: “Kenneth- then we walked on the overpass, which Damien, and Damien said that he was there, and a couple of other friends. a few people.
Ridge- now what's he talking about when he says he was there.
Kenneth- he said that he knows who killed the little kids, cause he was there, with a couple of people.”

Kenneth Watkins statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/kenw2.html




Damien was overheard admitting he killed the boys.
Multiple witnesses came forward to testify that they overheard Damien admit that he had killed the boys at a softball game. Those witnesses became known as the “Softball Girls.” At trial, Echols denied being at the ballfield and claimed that the girls were all just making things up. His testimony regarding his presence at the ballfield was refuted by the director, who also corroborated the fact that the girls heard an admission from Echols. The Medford girls’ mother, Donna Medford, also corroborated the timing of the statements her daughters overheard. Subsequent to his conviction, Echols claimed that the date the girls claimed to have heard the statement was after his arrest on June 3, 1993. This was a false claim, based on the date of their police interviews, which occurred after the arrests. It is very clear from the statements that the girls are referring to an event that occurred 2 weeks prior to their statements to police. Additionally, the girls did not give a date, although their mother and Ms. Simmons stated that it was during the last week in May, 1993, which was prior to Echols’ arrest. Echols revised the story yet again for 48 Hours (and he now appears to be sticking to the story), admitting that he made the statement in response from taunts of others.

Quote: (Jackee Medford) Two weeks ago I herd Damien say that he killed the 3 little boys. We where at the girls club and he was with severl people were around hem. I do not know who all of these people where. I was with my Bestfriend Christi and my sister Jodee.

(Jodee Medford) About 2 weeks ago I was at the Girls Club softball field. And I heard Damien say "I killed the three little boys and before I turn myself in I am going to kill two more and I already have one picked out. I overheard him say this to a group of people when I was walking by him. I don't know him. I just know of him. And Jason Blawid and his girfriend Heather were standing by him. I was with my sister Jackee and her friend Christi Vanvickle. That was the first time I had ever seen Damien and the next night he was there too.

(Christy Van Vickle) Two weeks ago I was at the Girls Club with Jackee Medford. I passed by and Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin where talking to a bunch of people. He wasn't talking to me. I heard him say that he killed the three boys. It scared me so I walked away. I didn't hear him say any thing else. I told my mom what I had heard.

(Donna Medford) The week of May 24th when my two girls Jodee & Jackee Medford and Christi Vanvickle got in the car they started all talking at once telling me about what the wierd black haired boy had said that night. The all said they heard him say that he had killed those 3 little boys. Jodee said she heard him say "He had killed the boys and before he got caught or turned himself in he was gonna kill 2 more and already had one picked out." I told them he was just nuts and to stay away from him.
Katie Hendrix was also with me that night & repeated the same story. She also told me he had said he was going to bite her titties off. When he left she yelled 'Did you really kill those 3 boys & he yelled 'yes'."

(Peggy Simmons) The mother of Jackee Medford, (Donna ______) approached me & told me that Damien had been up here bragging about killing the three boys and that he was going to kill two more and already had one stalked out. Jackee Medford was standing by her mother when she was telling this to me.

Jackee Medford statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jackeem.html
Jodee Medford statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jodeem2.html
Christy Van Vickle statement: hhtp://callahan.8k.com/wm3/cvan.html
Donna Medford statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/donnam.html
Peggy Simmons statement: http://callahan.8k.com/images/simmons_p_statement.jpg

reply

Echols said he hardly knew Misskelley.
Perhaps the very first WM3 defenders, Berlinger & Sinofsky, claim in Paradise Lost that Echols barely knew Misskelley. Echols alludes to as much in his book as well. But Echols' ex-girlfriend, Deanna Holcomb, in the trial of her ex-boyfriend, names four of Damien's friends - Baldwin is one of them, Misskelley is another. There are also many other accounts that the three convicted killers hung out together.

Quote: “Fogleman: Alright. Did - during the course of your uh - going with Damien, uh - did he have any particular friends? Friends in particular?
Holcomb: Um - yes sir.
Fogleman: Alright, who - who were they?
Holcomb: Jason, um - Jessie, Joey Lancaster and some other people.
Fogleman: Alright.
Davidson: Your Honor, I'm having a hard time hearing.
The Court: Speak a little bit louder.
Davidson: I didn't understand the last name.
Fogleman: Joey Lancaster. Is that what you said?
Holcomb: Yes sir.
Fogleman: Alright. Uh - and you said "Jason,” who are you referring to?
Holcomb: Jason Baldwin.
Fogleman: Alright. And you said "Jessie"?
Holcomb: Misskelley.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/dholcomb.html




Damien’s actions during the trial were far from those of an innocent man.
Some of Echols’ actions included taunting the victims’ families by blowing kisses at them and licking his lips. He can be seen in Paradise Lost, turning around in his chair and smiling at the parents. This was also confirmed by family members of the victims and others present at the trials. In the Geraldo special, there is footage of Damien outside the courthouse taunting the mother of one of the victims. Typically, Echols tries to justify his behaviour by alleging that his actions were a response to mistreatment by others.

Quote: “Q. There has been a reference made at one time that you licked your lips after a earlier proceeding in this case.
A. That is when I went to court in one of the other places. I can't remember which place it was. I do stuff like that sometimes. I guess I just lost my temper because it was like when I went outside, everybody was out there, standing there calling me names, screaming at me, things like that. And I guess it just made me upset when I did that.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien1.html
Commercial appeal: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/oct/07/memoirs-missing-eleme nt/?print=1




Echols admitted to lying about his alibi on the stand.
Under cross-examination by the prosecution at his trial, Echols was asked whether he was changing his story to fit the circumstances and Damien admitted to changing the times to fit the timeframe of the murders.

Quote: “Q. Your mother testified that when you were down at the police station, one of the things she told you was, we’ve got some alibis, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. She’s testified that the same day the police talked to you, or maybe it was your sister, that that is when you first started discussing among the family about the details of those alibis, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When the police talk with you on the tenth, at that point in time you tell them from 3:00 to 5:00 is when you think you were at the Sanders’, is that right?
A. I probably told him that then.
Q. That was about five days after the boys had turned up missing that you told him it was around 3:00 to 5:00?
A. I probably told him that if it’s in the report.
Q. When your mom tells him something, it is about five to six or five to six-thirty, okay?
A. (NODS HEAD)
Q. As time moves on and the time period that is in question becomes later that evening, the visit to the Sanders’ becomes later that evening, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So the story kind of changes to fit the facts we need to cover, right?
A. Yes, sir.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien1.html




Damien lied about living 10 to 15 miles from the crime scene.
In a TV interview, Damien stated that he had never heard of Robin Hood Hills (the crime scene) and that he lived 10 to 15 miles from the crime scene. He claimed he didn’t spend a lot of time in West Memphis, which is ironic, considering the fact that his address was in West Memphis, not Marion. Supporters have done this, too, alleging that Baldwin and Miskelley lived great distances from the crime scene and would never have been able to walk that distance. In reality, the three routinely walked from their homes to the local Wal-Mart, which was located on the service road not far from the crime scene. They walked to the J.W. Rich Ball Field, which was also not far from the crime scene. Echols (and supporters) also ignore the fact that travelling on foot and being able to cut across fields and cross I-55/I-40 would likely shave an additional one to two miles from the distance, since vehicles have to travel on the roadways provided, while those on foot do not.

It appears that supporters are unable to perform a driving direction search on Mapquest, or a similar internet map program. At the time of the murders, Echols lived in Broadway Trailer Park in West Memphis which was less than three miles from the crime scene. Baldwin lived in Lakeshore Trailer Park, which was less than four miles from the crime scene, which, coincidentally was about the halfway point between Echols and Baldwin’s trailers.

In fact, the crime scene was a known hangout for teenagers. It was also a frequent campsite for transients passing through and/or homeless people living in the area. Previously Damien had lived in Mayfair apartments, only a few hundred feet from the crime scene and most likely was very familiar with the area. A better understanding of this can be seen @8:48 in the following video.

Quote: “I didn’t really go to West Memphis a lot”

Distance using Google maps: http://midsouthjustice.org/smf/index.php?topic=123.0
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEtbjm2uHI




Did Damien name himself after the leper loving monk?
Damien testified in court that he changed his name because of how much he was involved with the Catholic Church. This is a paragraph from the Exorcist. A copy of The Exorcist was found in Damien’s room upon his arrest.

Quote: "But now 'Damien,' he said; how I wish I had a name like that. So lovely. Where does that come from, Father? That name? It was the name of a priest who devoted his life to taking care of lepers on the island of Molokai. He finally caught the disease himself.” –From the book “The Exorcist”

Source: The Exorcist

This is Damien’s testimony, under oath, at his trial in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

Quote: “Q: OK. So that's why your last name changed. How about your first name?
A: First name - at the time of the adoption, I was very involved in the Catholic church, and we were going over different names of the saints. St. Michael's was where I went to church at. And we heard about this guy from the Hawaiian Islands, Father Damian, that took care of lepers until he finally caught the disease himself (sic) and died.
Q: Was that the reason you chose "Damien" as your first name?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Did the choosing of the name "Damien" have anything to do with any type of horror movies, Satanism, cultism, anything of that nature?
A: Nothing whatsoever.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/damien1.html




Deanna Holcomb testified that Damien carried a knife similar to the Lake Knife.
A knife found in the lake behind Baldwin's trailer happened to look a lot like a knife that Echols' ex-girlfriend Deanna Holcomb attributed to Damien. The lake knife would later be shown at trial as one of the possible murder weapons.

Quote: “Fogleman: Ok. Now during the time that you uh - went with him, did Damien carry any type of weapon?
Holcomb: Knives.
Fogleman: Pardon?
Holcomb: Knives.
Fogleman: Ok. I want to show you what has been introduced as exhibit 77 and ask if you've seen a knife like that before?
Holcomb: Yes sir.
Fogleman: Alright. Where did you see it and under what circumstances?
Holcomb: Uh - I saw it in his coat pocket. His lea - his trench coat pocket.”

Deanna Holcomb testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/dholcomb.html
Lake Knife: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/lake_knife_photos.html




Blood found on a necklace belonging to Echols was of the same genetic type as a victim.
Blood found on a necklace seized from Echols at the time of his arrest happened to be the same genetic type as Steve Branch, the boy who was attacked by Echols, according to Miskelley’s statements. Regrettably the science of DNA testing was in its infancy and the material required for more specific genetic testing was greater than the sample available. The results were inconclusive due to the fact that Baldwin shared the same HLA-DQ Alpha profile as Steve. The material available could only be subjected to HLA-DQ Alpha testing, which consumed the entire sample. The necklace was never entered into evidence at trial because the results were inconclusive and it would have led to Echols and Baldwin getting separate trials, which would have required the prosecution to start again. Modern methods may have been able to detect enough material to test the blood and resolve whether it belonged to Baldwin, or Steve, but the defense chose not to request testing on this evidence. Supporters have excused this failure, just as they did with Miskelley’s tee-shirt, to the mistaken belief that eliminating a victim as the source of blood when the original testing result was inconclusive would not be exculpatory.

Quote: “Genetic Design which indicated that they had been able to isolate two separate DNA sources on that particular necklace. One DNA source being consistent with the DQ-Alpha type, which is a system for typing DNA, consistent with Damien Echols. The other DQ-Alpha type source that was found on that particular necklace was consistent with the victim Steven Branch”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/march17_hearing.html
Video of defense/prosecution getting the blood results: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ




Witnesses saw Damien near the crime scene on the night of May 5, 1993.
Multiple witnesses testified at the trials that they saw Damien very close to the crime scene near the time of the murders. The prosecution implied that the witnesses may have been mistaken and that the person with Echols was Jason. To be fair to the witnesses, they were all convinced that it was Domini Teer, Damien’s girlfriend at the time. However, Domini and her mother both stated in their police interviews that Domini did not leave the house that night. If they were telling the truth, then it would have been impossible for Domini to have been on the service road with Echols and the only other person without an alibi during that time frame was Baldwin. The witnesses had no doubt that they saw Damien and, more importantly, they testified that he was covered in mud. Over the years, supporters have portrayed Narlene Hollingsworth as an attention seeker, who manipulated her children to lie in order to claim reward money. The fact that the reward was never claimed by anyone and that it was all returned to the donors who put it up is a minor, insignificant detail that is apparently not worth mentioning. Supporters have also misrepresented the statement of Narlene’s husband, Rick Hollingsworth, claiming that he didn’t see anyone on the service road that night. In fact, what Hollingsworth told police in December, 1993, was that there were two people he could not identify. He further stated that Narlene identified them that night as Damien and Domini and she wanted to stop and pick them up because she thought it was strange that they were walking around at that time of night.

Quote: “Fogleman: Ok. And on your way to the - as you were approaching Love's and Blue Beacon, uh - did you see anybody there on the service road?
Hollingsworth: Yes, we did.
Fogleman: Alright. And who did you see, Narlene?
Hollingsworth: We saw Damien and Domini.
Fogleman: Alright. And uh - is the person you refer to as Damien, is he in the courtroom?
Hollingsworth: Yes sir.
Fogleman: Would you point him out to the jury?
Hollingsworth: He's right there.”

Narlene Hollingsworth testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/narleneh.html
Tabitha Hollingsworth statement: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/tabh.html
Anthony Hollingsworth testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/anthonyh.html
Rick Hollingsworth statement: http://callahan.8k.com/images/rick_hollingsworth_statement.jpg





According to Damien, Ron Lax thought he was lying.
In a letter to his family, Damien wrote that he thought his investigator, Ron Lax, thought he was lying about his innocence. Not only did he think Mr Lax didn’t believe him, he also wrote how Jason's attorneys said they thought Damien was guilty.

Quote: “I don’t think Ron believes I’m telling the truth. Jason’s lawyers said they believe he is innocent, but they think I’m guilty”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/images2/letter_to_family.jpg




Echols own attorney didn’t seem convinced of his client’s innocence.
Damien’s original defense attorney Val Price, when asked if the three were innocent after their release replied "it's hard to say.” This is not the reply you would expect from the man who represented Echols at trial. It is rather strange how some people can be so sure of the innocence, yet the man who knew Damien and the details of the case far better than most, is not.

Quote: “Among bystanders outside the courthouse was Val Price, Echols' original defense attorney. As a testament to changed times, Price, who in 1994 defended the Mid-South's most notorious teen murder defendant, said he's now a juvenile prosecutor. Watching the carnival atmosphere around him, he smiled and shook his head.”
"The whole tenor of everything has changed quite a bit,'' he said. Asked if he believed Echols was indeed innocent, Price squinted his eyes and shook his head again. "It's hard to say,'' he said.”

Commercial appeal: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/aug/19/notebook/




Damien’s boogeyman comment.
One of the strangest things Damien was to ever say on film was when he described how he liked the idea of himself being known as the “West Memphis Bogeyman.” He seems to be proud that parents will use his killer status as a means to scare their kids when they are acting up. These are certainly not the words you would expect to come from a wrongly accused and wrongfully convicted person. You can watch the scene in the following video @10:35

Quote: “I kind of enjoy it because now, even after I die, people are going to remember me forever. They’re going to talk about me for years. People in West Memphis will tell their kids stories. It will be like, sort of like I’m the West Memphis boogeyman. Little kids will be looking under their beds before they go to bed...Damien might be under there!”

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOCOcw0vRZg

reply

Luminol reacted positive for blood where Misskelley said the boys were murdered.
During the trials, the defense would repeatedly try to convince the jury that the crime scene was a dumpsite and that the crimes had to have happened elsewhere. The reasoning behind this was the lack of visible blood at the scene, which ignored the fact that examiners got positive reactions at several areas at the crime scene when they conducted testing using Luminol the week after the murders.

Quote: “The areas (5) and (7) indicate activity prior to recovery of the victims and relate to
activity to the victims when perhaps they were being attacked.”

Donald Smith report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_dsmith.html
Luminol photos: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/luminol_photos.html




Three different types of knots were used to tie up the victims.
An expert for the prosecution would testify that three different knot variations were used in the binding of the three victims. One was a square knot, one was a half hitch knot and the last was a half hitch knot with a figure eight. Misskelley’s confessions, coincidentally, name exactly three people as committing this crime.

Quote: “Fogleman: Alright, on the left ankle, what kind of knots did we have on Michael Moore?
Sakevicius: Square knot.
Fogleman: Alright. So on Stevie Branch, on the left wrist we had what kind of knot?
Sakevicius: Three half hitches.
Fogleman: Alright. Now on the right wrist on Stevie Branch, what did we have?
Sakevicius: A half hitch with a figure eight

Lisa Sakevius testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/lsakevicius.html




Fibers found at the scene were consistent with fibers found in Echols and Baldwin’s homes.
In 2012, the defense released a report stating that recent tests proved that the crime scene fibers and the fibers from the garments from Echols and Baldwin’s trailers were not consistent, allegedly refuting the testimony of the original fiber examiner at trial. Conveniently, Lisa Sakevicius, died in 1999 and, therefore, has never been able to defend herself, or her work against the defense attorneys’ attacks. The new testing was conducted by experts paid by the defense and their opinions have not been subject to cross-examination. Additionally, the the defense experts’ examination was not done until after their clients pled guilty in August, 2011. In fact, the claims were not part of the motions for new trial and, therefore, would not have been available at the hearings that were scheduled to take place in December, 2011. The original evidence still stands and has yet to be legally challenged.

Quote: “Fogleman: So on all the other fibers, uh - the other three fibers, you did all of what you just described?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Fogleman: And what was the results?
Sakevicius: They were the same - or similar.
Fogleman: I don't have any futher questions at this time, your Honor..”

Lisa Sakevius testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/lsakevicius.html




Two of the three convicted failed polygraph tests. Damien and Jessie both failed their polygraph test. After Damien was notified that he failed the test, he told the examiner that he would tell him all about it if the examiner would let him talk to his mother. After speaking to his mother, Damien continued to deny his involvement. Jason would never take a polygraph test.

Quote: “he then said: "I will tell you all about it if you will let me talk to my mother." detective Ridge brought his mother in to my office to talk to him. After talking to his mother he again denied being involved in the murders. After approximately twenty minutes, I asked: "you’re never going to tell anyone about this but your doctor, are you?" he replied: "no.”

Echols polygraph: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/depoly.html
Jessie’s polygraph: http://callahan.8k.com/images2/jm_polygraph.jpg




Possible semen stain on pair of jeans.
Jessie would state in his confessions that Echols wiped semen on one of the victim’s pants. After initial tests, examiners got positive reactions for semen on a pair of blue jeans. Further testing was inconclusive due to the submersion of the clothing underwater, which degraded the available sample.

Quote: “STIDHAM: What colour were the pants? Was he masturbating, do you know what masturbating is?
MISSKELLEY: Yes. He - STIDHAM: Jacking off?
MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)
STIDHAM: Did he wipe himself with the pants or did he?
MISSKELLEY: No. He wiped it off on the pants.”

Link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

Quote: “Channell: Uh - for those specific screening tests. What we employed those screening tests for - for instance, if one screening test is positive that lets us continue with our testing. If it however was negative, then we would stop with the analysis at that point.
Fogleman: And so, both tests were positive as a screening test for the presence of semen?
Channell: That's correct.”

Kermit Channell testimony: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/kermitc1.html




A total between $10 and $20 million dollars has been spent on defense efforts.
Peter Jackson has provided one of the biggest budgets in history in an effort to find exculpatory evidence for the three convicted, yet not on shred of conclusive exculpatory evidence has been found. In a recent interview, Jackson admitted that they had no idea who committed the murders. The irony in his comment is comedic considering the documentary he financed falls just short of calling Terry Hobbs, Steve’s step-father, the “real killer.”

Quote: “Peter Jackson: Well, obviously we don’t know who killed these kids and unless the state really looks into it probably no one will ever really know, but it’s a very relevant part of the story: who the police chose to point the finger at in 1994 and who they chose to ignore. There’s certainly some potential suspects who they didn’t even interview back then; they didn’t even question them and you’ve got to ask, “Why did that happen?”

Link: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52167




The three pled guilty in August, 2011 and admitted that the state possessed sufficient evidence to convict them at a re-trial.
In 2011, the West Memphis Three defense team offered to make a deal with prosecutor Scott Ellington, rather than attempting to prove innocence at a hearings on the defenses’ new trial motions that were set to begin in December, 2011. What is even more baffling about the killers’ decision is that for years they have claimed that they would never give up until their names were cleared. The PR campaign waged by their attorneys also gave the impression of confidence of winning their clients’ freedom. Beginning in 2007, the defense attorneys claimed that the new trial motions would be granted and they boasted that they had “conclusive evidence” that exonerated their clients. Four months before they were to present all of that new evidence before a new judge, the defense approached the state in an effort to skip the hearings. When that was rejected and the prosecutor requested a guilty plea, the defense attorneys jumped at the deal, coming up with the Alford, plea, which would allow their clients to say that they were innocent, even as they entered their pleas in court on August 19, 2011. Just over one year later, we have yet to see any of the so-called “conclusive evidence” the defense had to clear their clients’ names. So far, the best they’ve been able to do is “The Hobbs Family Secret,” which is nothing more than double and triple hearsay claims made by former friends of Terry Hobbs’ nephew, Michael, Jr. Sadly, the media is so unconcerned with the facts that many interviews, websites and blogs claim that the three killers have been “exonerated.” Others ignore the pleas as a minor, inconvenient detail and claim that the three were forced into taking them to save the State of Arkansas from a lawsuit. As always, supporters ignore the fact that the three killers were not forced at gunpoint to take the pleas and decided to do so because their attorneys advised them to do so. The critical question that supporters refuse to ask themselves because they don’t like the answer is “Why would attorneys who were sure of winning new trials for at least two of their clients advise them to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit?”

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Ei7vnOesE&feature=player_embedded


Note: Alford does not require an admission of guilt, although it does require an acknowledgment that the State possess sufficient evidence to convict. Claiming to be innocent does not change the effect of the guilty plea and the three are legally and factually guilty, as they were in 1994.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Brillant as usual from Preda. Echols was a walking time bomb with a loyal follower (Baldwin) and a bully (Misskelley) who was unlucky to be there when they murdered the 3 little boys.

reply

[deleted]

I have read here for a some weeks but never posted. I made this account just to thank you for your posts. I was unaware of a lot of what you have provided it must have taken you a long time. I was leaning on the innocent side but after reading this Im thinking guilty is more likely. It is just too much to discount all the above. Im also a bit upset that west of memphis left out so much.

Thank you again predamorph.

reply

[deleted]

"Jason confessed to Michael Carson"

You do know that Michael Carson has since recanted, right?

All the rest of this stuff is heresay and sloppy character profiling. And Jessie's "confessions" remain inconsistent and factually wrong.

Got any hard evidence that links them to the crime? Thought not.

---------------------------------
IMDB Boards©: Where intelligent film discussion goes to die.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Actually Occam's Razor would be Hobbs - systematically abusive step-father with a well documented history of violence against one of the murdered children, who also lacks an alibi, dna found on dead child, and allegedly confessed to murdering these children - simplest and most probable answer to the question: who done it.

reply

Hobbs - systematically abusive step-father with a well documented history of violence against one of the murdered children,


Well documented by the Hicks family, years later. Now I wonder why that is? Its not like he ever shot one of their family members or anything in order for them to have a reason to make such UNFOUNDED claims...............oh wait.

reply

how were they unfounded? the wife said he used her as a punching bag and her story was corroborated by witnesses. the neighbor's recount of Hobbs' attack was supported by police report. the murder victim told several family members that he was afraid of Hobbs and that Hobbs beat him. moreover Hobbs proudly admitted during the deposition to his history of violent confrontations with other people and his arrest record for violent crimes.

reply


the murder victim told several family members that he was afraid of Hobbs and that Hobbs beat him.


He has a name you know. And the fact that Stevie is deceased means this can't be corroborated.



moreover Hobbs proudly admitted during the deposition to his history of violent confrontations with other people and his arrest record for violent crimes.


No he didn't. In fact he did the opposite and either denied he did it or just accepted he had committed a criminal act.

reply

Exactly. As a medievalist I studied "Occam" -- William of Ockham -- and his over-cited "razor" that was already a part of philosophical argument prior to Ockham. Given that the overwhelming majority of persons are murdered by a relative or someone they know well (a stepfather perhaps?), it is most likely that the boys knew their attacker(s). I actually remember arguing with family members over the Laci Peterson case. When I first heard the story of her missing, before anything was known about Scott's affair, compulsive lying, and WAY before Peterson's body (and the nearly-term baby she was carrying) drifted to land in the marina, I said that a pregnant woman is almost always murdered by her male partner -- not the nonsense floated at the time about a satanic cult killing (sound familiar?), and/or a mysterious van and/or a robbery across the street on the day Laci went missing, which actually did happen but was not connected to Peterson. My relatives freaked out and said oh no Scott would never do this, such a nice couple, etc. Now of course Scott is on death row in San Quentin. Ockham wins again.

"I love those redheads!" (Wooderson, Dazed and Confused, 1993)

reply

<<<<<<<<Actually Occam's Razor would be Hobbs - systematically abusive step-father with a well documented history of violence against one of the murdered children, who also lacks an alibi, dna found on dead child, and allegedly confessed to murdering these children - simplest and most probable answer to the question: who done it.>>>>>>>>>

Yes. This is what I struggle with. I was uneasy about Hobbs long before it became a thing.






🐈 Rachel

reply

[deleted]

Been a while since I visited here. Bump for old times. :)

reply

To the top!

reply

Thanks Predamorph for your extensive information with links. I have a lot of reading ahead of me, no idea how you find the time to gather all of this information and arrange it via relevance. I appreciate it though! It makes my own research a lot easier. Particularly helpful for fence sitters that struggle navigating the entire callahan site for specific info.

reply

Anytime.

If you need anything just pm me, this applies to all rational posters here.

reply

[deleted]

Weird how this post always gets ignored.

reply

Bump.

reply

One of the best posts I've read regarding the WM3.

Thanks for providing all the links, there where a few new reads there for me.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you F-Jenkyns.

Reading some posts it seems as though certain people are so adamant and single-minded in their support for the WM3 that they are not prepared at all to listen to other interesting opinions/views from the non-supporters. Surely the focus should be on the attempt to search for the truth rather than to close ones mind to differing opinions.





reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree. This is probably the best post i've seen on the WM3. This is the post that kick started my own research into the case and Preda single-handedly supplied practically all the relevant information with links, making it incredibly easy for people new to the case to navigate callahan to further their own independent research. Thanks again! I will try and remember to bump it regularly.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

bump

reply

Also, Predmorph, thanks. I go to that Callahan site, but I wont lie to anyone, I like my information in a nice bundle, not link after link to find which one has good stuff. THIS is all good necessary stuff, and thank you. I said what I FIRST thought...but again, Im a fresh mind and very open to changing my mind. Ill read these and def update with what I think.

I do appreciate all this information man! Thank you.

reply

Sadly...Im still very split. BUT...I see no "I believe their innocent" given good explanations to all Preda has said. Sadly, Im a newb and not sure which to go. Now sadly, I have to play the "Their innocent" card because no one has debated any logic with this fantastic poster (Preda.) AGAIN...Im not saying these kids are innocent if youll read my "No it was WM3...wait Byers...no Hobbs" post. Im still leaning towards innocent, but this post def, while I was 60-40...Im now leading towards 50-50...but, under american justice, GUILTY without a reason of a doubt, sadly, Im gonna play "innocent" but idk if I trully believe that because I believe you "supporters" need to debate each fact, and you guys arent...here we go:

1/5 of the argument....

Jason confessed to Michael Carson

I can never trust when someone else in Juvy said he heard a confession. One scumbag trying to get a better deal with himself. Also....my "thinking" is what the jury had to convict them. If I read correctly, from wikipedia and other sources, Jessies confession couldnt be used on Damien. So....this is X jury wise.




Jason’s grandmother didn't seem surprised about him being arrested for the crime.
This is telling and sad. But again, doesnt = guilt. I can say Im not surprised OJ went to jail finally, and look at what happened in his trial. All im saying is this is sadly circumstantional stuff...I still think it is VERY telling though.

Baldwin reportedly rid himself of weapons between the murders and arrests.
"speculation." Sadly, I dont believe we have these weapons. So, speculation = zero.



Jason’s mom accused her husband of turning Jason in to the police.
Okay? Most parents wouldnt do this, but idk really where to comment on "they did it" factor. He was being a good parent and turning in a possible suspect.



Jason’s lawyer more or less admitted that his client’s alibi wasn’t credible.
This also confuses me. I cant argue from an innocent by-point because this bothers me about all 3. BUT...Hobbs doesnt have an alibi either. No alibi doesnt = guilty. Or Hobbs should be on their with them. Still....yes, this bothers me.



Misskelley was documented to have violent run-ins with younger children.

This is bad....but again, a lot of men sadly hit and abuse women. It doesnt make them murderer...just women beaters and shady @$$holes.




Jessie reportedly had terrible fits of crying after the murders.
THIS bothers me badly. But again, I know people who do break up with their gfs and do NOT take it well at all. A lot of suicides have to do with love. So is it possible he cried because of that...yes...but it is also an odd coincidence he did this right after the murders, but it could be just that, a coincidence.




Jessie was brought in for questioning and confessed after only 4 hours.
Ok, Im sorry, but the police will do whatever it is to cover their butts, this is fact. My friends house was illegally searched, and they made bs claims to cover their tracks. So I must admit I have a hard time buying this. It could be true, but who do you trust here? Who is right? Only the cops-Jessie know the truth. Again, cops wanna cover their tracks, just like the alford plea so no lawsuit could take place. Lets also be honest, this case was mishandled. The way they handled the bodies were so amateurish it is sick. Also...for them not to question the parents MORE and look up the records of Hobbs-Byers shows shady police work. Im not saying their bad policeman, they just didnt handle this case properly. Also, they way they handled the "Bojangles" materials...again, amateurish. I remember hearing his arm was in a sling, and I forgot that is how BUNDY got victims.



Misskelley happened to implicate two people with no alibi.
Yes...this sucks. THE two people he implicates...no alibi. Ill admit, this is shady. Again...no alibi doesnt = guilty. Heck, I have a hard time remembering what I did last week. Still, this isnt good...but doesnt = guilty.



Misskelley implicated one person with a disturbing history of mental problems.
Shady people hang with shady people. Bottom line. If a gang is hanging out, Im pretty sure none of them are boyscouts.


Jessie confessed to Buddy Lucas.
Couldnt be used on the jury.


Misskelley confessed to Kim Floresca.
See Buddy Lucas


Jessie confessed to the police.
There are some questions here, he got info wrong. Also, one person says 4 hours, one says 12, one says 14. Damien said the cops did EVERYTHING they could on him to admit guilt. My dad warned me about this and told me to just say,"I wanna lawyer, I wanna lawyer, I wanna lawyer." Some people are mentally weak and will confess to stuff they didnt do. Check my "kid confesses to killing his gf when she ran away" story.



Jessie confessed his involvement in the murders the day he was convicted.
While being transported by two officers to the Arkansas Department of Corrections Diagnostic Unit at Pine Bluff, Jessie would again confess.
Jessie is...idk. But it cant be used in court. IM going by what the jury had to convict these kids.



Jessie confessed while alone with his own attorney.
One thing bothers me about this "confession" One minute he deosnt know if there was a lot of blood, next, yes, there was a lot.




This is 1/5. AGAIN, Im not saying their innocent in the slightest, but I feel you supporters need to debate this stuff in detail, and sadly, me a newb did the best I could. I felt someone needed to. Again, Im a very open vessel and trying to understand this all. Im js, circumstational is all circumstantional. If we convict on circumstantional evidence, in america we are riding a very slippery slope here.

These kids def could have done it...Im still learning and study...I will reply with 2-3-4-5/5 of my replies "playing" why they could be innocent. I used to love debates and would even debate for a side I didnt agree with, so it doesnt bother me.
On a side note...Preda, youre a beast man! Seriously, fantastic info and please dont bash me! Im simply trying the best I can since none of the other "supporters" will.

Im not bashing you supporters,but I feel you guys should comment on each thing here!

reply

OK, I was gonna go eat, but lets do 2/5 of the info. Also I wanna make one other statement. Henry Lee Lucas. The cops wanted to make him a scapegoat for all these murders. Theyd ask him something....hed say wrong info, theyd be like,"Dont you mean...." ooo yea, that is right. And why not? He killed a few..but he was getting smokes, treated like a king, so why not play along? I know this doesnt have much to do with anything IM js, you cant always trust everything. Ok...let me "play" defense.

Jessie confessed a second time to his attorney, Dan Stidham.
The bible means nothing to me. How do I know he wasnt an athiest? IDK, doesnt matter because the jury couldnt use this. Also, something I forgot to mention. The first confession, the police had the nerve to ask if this kid KNEW WHAT A DAMN PENIS IS!? This is the guy I need to trust with confessions, when police arent even sure he knows what a penis is!? Again...it couldnt be used on the jury-trial.




Jessie’s statement to Stidham was corroborated.
Okay, this is something I wanted to comment on badly. So...lets say I go buy a bottle of whiskey, break it near a crime scene. Does this mean im guilty? NO. Again, unless this bottle has some DNA...doesnt mean much imho.





Jessie confessed to the prosecution.
Judge Burnett....something about that guy..haha, ok Im off topic. All I can say is it wasnt used on the jury, but now, If im playing "defense" I gotta explain confession after confession. So...Im gonna try the best I can.
I had a friend...who ill put it nicely as I can...wasnt the "brightest crayon in the box." Another friend I knew wanted to play a trick on him. So...what happened was he broke this old crappy lamp, and HE was like, YOU did it. "No I didnt" eventually...the kid ADMITTED to breaking the lamp, when we all knew he didnt. Eventually I broke it up, told him cut it out, and the kid who broke it took the heat. Anywho, how is this relevant?

So, how is this story relevant? Jessie could be THIS type. "You did it, confess, you know you did it, confess, confess, confess, you did it, confess. Come on...confess." Also....I cant trust that 4 hour comment, the police could have given Jessie little details here and there. Finally, he confesses. People have said they seen problems in his confession. Also, I know the "He told police BS info" will come at me. All I can say is maybe in his diluted mind, he actually began to believe he did it. His iq is 72...not "retarded" but not exactly a scholar. That is the best I got, lol!



Interview with Jessie Sr. granting the possibility his son could have been at the scene.
His parents were scared of them. Maybe his dad just felt jail would be best for his son. IDK honestly.




Jessie’s attorney, Dan Stidham claims he could make Misskelley admit to anything.
As it should, as this is serious, I must admit this all made me laugh. He could have lost the tape. But...this would make my point of what I said earlier....but who knows!




Jessie conveniently gets dumber (IQ tests) during his trial.
I see this too. His IQ as far as I know is 72. The end.


Blood on a t-shirt belonging to Misskelley was of the same genetic type as a victim.
We will never know sadly, so, this cant be used. I know you "nons" hate this...but this is pure hear-say.



The day after the murders, Jessie gave a pair of shoes to Buddy Lucas.
This is why I think police mid-handled this case. More evidence we cant do jack with now. So again....we cant determine this.



Jessie said Michael Moore ran way.
Who knows honestly. Maybe he had the most will to live, and they did crazy stuff with him. Killed the first two...went somewhere else, killed him. I wasnt there, so idk.



Jessie knew the boys pants were inside out.
Okay, I got no explanation here. This gives me chills honestly. One for the "offense," is all I can say. Supporters..help!



A carved stick was used to beat the victims.
Another comment that gives me chills. This is also something idk honestly, but it could have just been a good guess? Again...two in a row you got me.


Miskelley stated that one of the victims was moving in the ditch.
Well....for all I know police could have given him slight info to know this. Also....ill go with that excuse on the carved stick thing and the pants thing.

(
(Im going off defense here and gonna be a "real" person...here we go:

LOL...Im dying here this time, haha. Ill admit...some of this im starting to get more to 60-40 on the boys did it...Im still trying the best I can but all I can think is the police COULD have given him some slight info...IDK...but now Im beginning to lean the other way...but, Im gonna play defense still...BUT...still,, the jury couldnt use this to convict them. None of the confessions could be used on Damiens and Jasons trial. So...this also couldnt be used, so they so far did accuse Damien...Jason on circumstantional stuff as this info couldnt be used on the jury. Still....it is some chill-like stuff.)




Misskelley correctly identifies which injuries the victims had.
I read other reports the penis could have been taken off by animals. Again, he could have seen pictures and figured it out.




Jessie has never given a one-on-one interview since the murders.
I also find this odd, I must admit. Maybe he has a conscience, or maybe he is simply embarrassed that he implicated himself in something he didnt do? IDK, I cant read the dudes mind.



Off topic, final thoughts - Ill admit, the first one was fun and easy to do...this one gave me chills, Ill admit. Supporters, some of this stuff is eerie, Ill admit. Im still split...but while I went 40-60 supporting, im now going 60-40 to thinking it is possible they did it...but, I Have to be 100 percent to convict these 3. While it is eerie...I could say he got lucky once...but 3 times? IDK.....

reply

After this, Im gonna go eat and do a few things. So dont think Im quitting, 4/5 and 5/5 will be done.

FIRST, to scummyTattoo, I need your help my friend. You said Echols-Davis split and she wrote a "tell all book" HELP! I cant find jack nothing on their divorce, her book, anything. I went to yahoo, google, etc etc, nothing I type in:
Damien Echols-Lorri davis divorce / split
Lorri Davis writes tell all book
Lorri Davis writes book
Echols-Davis split......

I can go on, BUT NADA. So, Im asking for a favor...3 actually, and you can tell me go to to hell, because Im "playing defense" but remember, I am still an open vessel and if you see my replies...you can see my "60-40" stance is sliding further and further.

My 3 favors:
1. Where can I find this info about their split?
2. Where can I find this book?
3. THE BIG favor..can you give me some good details on what she said!? Seriously, it be so appreciated.

Also, if anyone else has any info on this, please!
Anywho, lets play some more defense!


Jessie has been accused of physically abusing his girlfriend and her children since his release.
THIS ISNT GOOD. A man who just got released should be a damn boy scout. He is beating kids and his wife!? Ouch, seriously, not good. Now again, beating-murder is different, but I dont get why he isnt back in jail? I thought if they did anything, theyd go back for...21 years I believe. (IDK if Im right-wrong, but I thought in that alford plea, if they did anything theyd go back to jail for awhile...I dont recall how long).

So why isnt he back in jail? Still.....he shouldnt be doing this but it doesnt make him a killer. It does make him a person who has learned nothing and an overall bad dude.

Jessie seems to disagree that Damien is a “good kid.”
I knew a lot of bad kids back in 5th-9th grade. Doesnt make them murderers, it makes them "bad kids."



Damien’s troubled past.

I knew people with troubled pasts and got into fights. Again, a troubled history doesnt mean youre a killer, it means youre a troubled young man.



Echols' own parents were frightened of him.
I knew a few kids their parents were "frightened" of. This doesnt make you a murderer, just, you need to respect your parents.


Echols documented history of blood-drinking.
This just means he has a fascination with blood, it doesnt mean he is guilty-per say. It just means he is someone who drinks blood. Is it odd...yes, but it doesnt = murderer. Also....with Jessie commenting he drank the boys blood...we will never know. Im sure Jessie had some idea that Echols was into what he was into.


Echols threatened to kill and eat his stepfather.
Well...he was drunk. Still, people say,"Ill kill you" in the heat of an argument. This phrase is used way too freely, I know my own friends when fighting with their parents would say,"ILL KILL YOU!" (I knew some disturbed people in my day!). Again, because I knew disturbed people, does it mean I am/was? No I was an A-B student, I just wasnt into the "cool" crowd, I more liked the outcasts. Still...none of my friends ever murdered their parents, and usually after the fight was over, theyd apologize and admit to being out of line. I know Damien probably didnt, but I know people who also probably dont apologize after saying that.




A drawing attributed to Echols appeared to show a baby/child sacrifice.
This is telling. She even says he is a coward and would not try to do it, and would get her to do it...but he can kill 3 boys? Now...again, would he do this? We will never know, but kids talk about crazy stuff all the time. Doesnt mean theyll do the stuff they discuss.




Numerous people had made statements about Echols’ cruelty to animals.
First, this is off topic, but IDC about rat skulls. Those little pests...ugh. My friend had a rat infestation and theyre douchey little buggers. Seriously, kill all the rats you want, IDC. I hate them, they can ruin your home! OK...rant done...

Now dogs-cats, WTH. Seriously, I am a big dog lover, I hate people who kill small animals like dogs-cats-frogs, etc. (Again, have fun killing rats, no sympathy here). But Ive watched a lot of serial killer documentaries and it is know that a lot of them do murder small animals before going to humans. Again....this is true with a lot of serial killers, but again..it doesnt mean he went this far. Still....first animals, next humans. Does this automatically mean he did it...no, but facts are facts, but it still doesnt mean he went to that point.



One of Echols reasons for claiming disability was that he was homicidal.
Someone can be homicidal and not commit homicide.




Echols expressed an interest in what it would be like to kill.
Well...a lot of people wonder things and how it be. Doesnt mean youre a killer, just curious. Again, it doesnt = guilt, but it = curiosity. Again, doesnt automatically mean he is a killer.



Damien’s letters to Gloria Shettles.
This is very odd indeed. Again, he does seem very disturbed, no doubt. IDK if this means he is a murderer, it does mean the kid needs some help.
Which also idk why he was to be put to death. IDK why he wasnt put into a mental institution honestly.




Damien confessed to his friends Kenneth Watkins.
Again, Ken might have wanted attention. A lot of people wanted that reward cash money. Also....according to wikipedia...Ill post it here,
Vicki Hutcheson recant -
Vicki Hutcheson recants
In October 2003, Vicki Hutcheson, who played a part in the arrests of Misskelley, Echols and Baldwin, but did not testify at the trial, gave an interview to the Arkansas Times in which she stated that every word she had given to the police was a fabrication. She further asserted that the police had insinuated if she did not cooperate with them they would take away her child.

She noted that when she visited the police station they had photographs of Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley on the wall and were using them as dart targets.She also claims that an audio tape the police claimed was "unintelligible" (and eventually lost) was perfectly clear and contained no incriminating statements.

So again, he could just have wanted to be a part of this huge case.



Damien was overheard admitting he killed the boys.
Now...Ive heard a few things on these softball girls. Again, they could have wanted to be a part of all of this. But again, this is "he said-she said" going on....



Now lastly, im going on wikipedia, people always ask for what is the new evidence. Well, this is what wikipedia says it is:

-The Knife of Byers
-possible teeth imprints
-Vicki Hutcheson Recants
-DNA testing and new physical evidence
-Foreman and Jury misconduct

SO Im guessing that is what supporters are saying is the new evidence? Just go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Echols

Again, Im still learning and am still trying to decide. Understand again Im just going on defense cuz I see no other supporters who have done this. Does it mean I think their innocent-guilty, no, Im just trying the best I can to debate and discuss the best I can. I hope you can even see, as in 2/5, some things do freak me out and Im a person.

Please be respectful and dont bash me. Im sure, almost certain I made mistakes. Please dont insult and be civil with me. Again, to predamorph, your post was still beast and I appreciate what you did.

Give me 60-120 minutes to get out parts 4/5 and 5/5, im gonna eat and do a few other things before finishing this! Thanks for taking time to read it and if I made errors, understand I didnt do it on purpose, I am still a "newb" but learning everyday. I did the best I could and that's all I could do. Supporters, you def can do this too, Im still very split, but as I was 60-40 on the supporters side...I must say Im starting to go 40-60 on the nons side. ATM, IM probably 50-50...but Im still a fresh mind and learning folks!

Thanks for taking your time out to read this and if youre respectful, I do appreciate that as well!

Again, predamorph, you made a fantastic thread here and I appreciate all the info. I know ive said this a few times, I just hope you dont completely bash me and at the least understand what Im trying to do my friend! Thanks again for all this info! It has given me a new prospective man!

4/5
5/5 coming up...

reply

Well...lets finish this...here is 4/5

Echols said he hardly knew Misskelley.
Sometimes people name their "aquaintances" as friends, but what kind of moron would name Jessie as one of his friends. What a dip $hit move.




Damien’s actions during the trial were far from those of an innocent man.
People react differently. The kid just seems like a typical douchebag, plain and simple. Again, I believe I said this before, being a douchebag doesnt mean youre a murderer, it simply means, youre a douchebag.




Echols admitted to lying about his alibi on the stand.
Again, no alibi doesnt mean guilty, it doesnt look good though. Again, if youre gonna lie keep your darn lie straight. Again, if we do the alibi thing, the we have to convict Hobbs, as his alibi is shady at best too. Again, a lot of people feel Hobbs is innocent, but what about his alibi? We are riding a slippery slope here.




Damien lied about living 10 to 15 miles from the crime scene.
This is all circumstantional stuff. Again, being close to a crime scene doesnt mean your guilty, but I believe this is more a "showing Damien is capable of lying" thing. Again, the dude is disturbed. IDK if being close or even 1 mile away from the crime scene proves much.




Did Damien name himself after the leper loving monk?
Im not sure how to comment to this really. Sorry. IDK how this proves if he did it or not, I do apologize for this.




Deanna Holcomb testified that Damien carried a knife similar to the Lake Knife.
He said/She said. We have to go on PROOF, not, well...it kind of looks, I mean it could be, maybe...possibly. That isnt guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Blood found on a necklace belonging to Echols was of the same genetic type as a victim.
If it cant be used on trail, this doesnt mean much. We have to figure out WHY these people convicted these boys. Not to stuff we know now. Again, I wanna know a few things...
1. Who did it.
2 Why did the jury convict them

So, if I was on the jury, or you, we wouldnt know about this and their was enough blood. So this is a lot of...maybes.



Witnesses saw Damien near the crime scene on the night of May 5, 1993.
This is confusing. Domini was at home but the witness said she saw them. So again, it is back to he said-she said. Also, if it was Domini, wouldnt she have been a part of the murders? Maybe he was covered in mud because they just had sex in the woods? Who knows, but again, this is What I say Vs What you say.




According to Damien, Ron Lax thought he was lying.
THOUGHT he was lying. Again, people THINK he is innocent, PEOPLE think he is guilty, all what we think, not proven facts.


Echols own attorney didn’t seem convinced of his client’s innocence.
Again, Ive said IDK what to believe. Again, this man knew all the evidence, I wish I knew what he thought one way or another. It is very telling, but also, this cant be used on the jury. More "thinking" and opinions.


Damien’s boogeyman comment.
Again, he is disturbed. Some people wanna be famous, no matter what. Does this mean he did it....no, it just means he likes the idea of people fearing him...


5/5 is coming up and Im done....Ill say this, these are some very scary and interesting details I must say.

reply

And here we go, 5/5. Ill say what I think at the end...

Luminol reacted positive for blood where Misskelley said the boys were murdered.
Im pretty sure where they died, luminol would react to that. Im not sure again if this proves they did it. Jessie, idk what to believe with this kid.



Three different types of knots were used to tie up the victims.
First, how the heck would anyone remember type of knots!? Seriously, Im not kidding here, I am surprised anyone would remember the knots people used. This to me seems like something police could have informed him on...honestly idk, I have a hard time believing anyone would remember knots!
Again...this is def puzzling and troubling.




Fibers found at the scene were consistent with fibers found in Echols and Baldwin’s homes.
Sad when someone who has passed cant defend themselves. SO again...this is a lot of, we dont knows. One says one thing, another says another. This case gives me a headache.




Two of the three convicted failed polygraph tests.
After being questioned, he probably just wanted to see his mom, so he told police what they wanted to hear so the kid could see his mother. SO he got what he wanted, and still denied.




Possible semen stain on pair of jeans.
Possible...so again, this cant be confirmed. I wish it could honestly, it give us a lot more insight.




A total between $10 and $20 million dollars has been spent on defense efforts.
I do think the police didnt handle this case well. Again, how they handled the bodies was very amateurish. Also, to not at the very least follow up on the mysterious "bojangles" man or even check Hobbs-Byers record, is shady. Again, in murders, the first people who are checked out is family members. You start in and go out. It seems they didnt even try to look for others. You gotta make sure you DO GET the right people!


The three pled guilty in August, 2011 and admitted that the state possessed sufficient evidence to convict them at a re-trial.
Again, youre in jail for 18+ years, you see a way out...put yourself in their shoes. You lawyer says he found a way to get you OUT of jail, at this point, youd almost wanna do anything to gtfo. So, if this is what you gotta do to get out, so be it!



Phew...this is everything.

So now, after reading all this, being "defense" etc, do I believe they were guilty.
-sigh- honestly, I now have doubts to them being innocent. I will admit, I dont feel the jury had enough information to convict them, and the lead guy needs to def be looked into if he provided more information. I know people always say,"you cant use that.." but if you hear it, it is still gonna cross your mind. You all know it, human nature.
The reason IM now leaning towards guilty, again, Im still not 100 percent on guilty, more like 55 - guilty/45 - not, but the reason I am now pushing towards guilty is Jessie.
Jessies actions and stuff he has said makes me really think. I didnt even THINK about the Alford plea how he never mentioned it. I do wish, I just wish one of them would just come out and say the truth. I wish someone would say the truth here.
Again, I still think that Bojangles man should have been looked up, Hobbs-Byers record should have been known, and the police handled all this much better.
Again, Jessies actions make me wonder. His crying fits, his "alford plea" the jeans info, all the stuff he knew, the knots, information, all that makes me wonder (honestly, idc about the bottle to be quite honest. I feel that doesnt prove much imho.)

But he sure did seem to know a lot. UNLESS a police officer comes out and tells us he force fed Jessie info, idk. Some of the stuff he said is very eerie. He seems out of anyone to have the remorse.

So did we just release 3 killers? Will they kill again? Only time will tell, but IF one of them kills again, it is on all the supporters heads. I hope they are okay for society. At the least, I wish someone would say the truth, and if they at the least tell us the truth, whatever, stay free with that alford plea, but atleast we would know.

SO this is where I stand and Im def subject to change. 45-55 is def not "confirmed one way or another." But...as I was 60-40 innocent, to change 15 points the other way is big imho.

Again supporters, Im still an open vessel. If you can explain the things I couldnt, like all the stuff Jessie knew (2/5 was def the hardest for me to defend!) than please help me out! Im open for change, as I hope this showed.

Lastly, I meant no disrespect by all these posts. If I came off rude, ignorant, arrogant, stubborn, or whatever I apologize, that wasnt my intent. I didnt mean to upset or make anyone mad. I trully hope everyone can see that.

Thanks for your time and I def hope to keep getting more information!

reply

"Jessie has been accused of physically abusing his girlfriend and her children since his release.
THIS ISNT GOOD. A man who just got released should be a damn boy scout. He is beating kids and his wife!? Ouch, seriously, not good. Now again, beating-murder is different, but I dont get why he isnt back in jail? I thought if they did anything, theyd go back for...21 years I believe. (IDK if Im right-wrong, but I thought in that alford plea, if they did anything theyd go back to jail for awhile...I dont recall how long)."


- I believe this allegation came about on a supporter forum. The girlfriends sister was making these claims. Later that night, the girlfriend got on the forum and didn't confirm this occurred.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Jessie has never given a one-on-one interview since the murders.
I also find this odd, I must admit. Maybe he has a conscience, or maybe he is simply embarrassed that he implicated himself in something he didnt do? IDK, I cant read the dudes mind.


- I personally would be very interested in hearing more from Jessie post release. He is keeping very closed mouthed. Look what happened the last time he opened his mouth... Is there financial incentive to stop him from giving interviews? I don't know, but apparently PJ picked up the bill for his electricity for 12 months...

When he was still in prison there was a supporter that formed a friendship/relationship with him. When she asked him point blank about his involvement in the murders, whatever he told her, she stopped being a supporter and revealed that after this conversation with him she was convinced the 3 were guilty. She never openly said on a forum what exactly he told her but she did invite people to personally message her for more information. I haven't been able to locate her, she quickly became hated by supporters and copped a lot of slander so maybe she's done with it.

reply

@shadyvsesham,

First of all let me say I understand you're only beginning to research, but many many of your explanations for the points I made are either irrelevant, uniformed or flat-out wrong. Some of them you seem to have just not understood, through no fault of your own. I won't go through them one by one as I said previously in another thread I have backed off the case almost completely. I will however leave you with a few thoughts for you to keep in mind when going forward with your research.


1. You are looking for proof beyond a "shadow of doubt", the court standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Proof beyond a shadow of doubt is almost always unattainable.

1. Over 80% of murder cases in America are solved with circumstantial evidence.
You mentioned Ted Bundy in an earlier post, he also was convicted on circumstantial evidence, along with Charles manson and many others. Circumstantial evidence is just that "circumstantial", but when in a case you have substantial amounts of circumstantial eveidence, then it becomes compelling evidence.

3. You keep claiming this and that couldn't be used at trial and in most of your examples you are correct, but we are not restricted to what the jury knew or were allowed to use at the time. That should not impede your view on innocent or guilt in 2013. You should have no reason not to use what they couldn't, the truth is the truth regardless. We have the benefit of not being back in 1993, use it!

4. Try not to dismiss things before you study them thoroughly. For example (and there are many) you dismissed Damien being overheard admitting to the killings as hearsay, but upon further research you will learn he later admitted he probably did say it even though he denied it in court, which was perjury btw.

5. You seem to have missed the entire point of my original post. Read the first paragraph "OCCAM'S RAZOR". It is not about each single point made, it is about the totality of them together and the odds of them all connecting innocent men to the crime.


Lastly, keep doing what you are doing and asking questions. The fact you are at-least unsure is a good thing imo. Too many people on here claim the WM3 are innocent, but anyone with an ounce of honesty can see there is enough in the case files that they cannot be ruled out, to claim otherwise is ludicrous.

I myself think there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction, and 24 jury members agree with me. Do I feel the evidence was 100%? No, but that is not the standard.


I will let my original post speak for itself, everything is linked and documented so there is no need for me to explain or defend what it contains, only for how people will interpret that information.

reply

I'm totally undecided on the case. I'm seeking evidence to form an opinion, but as of now I haven't been exposed to enough to form an opinion.

However, I'm going to comment on your use of Occam's Razor as a supportive argument. I will outline two competing hypotheses in order to better illustrate my point.

Scenario: Three boys are found in a creek, murdered in cold blood.

Hypothesis 1: Three teenagers with no personal connection to the victims murdered and tortured the children. The mutilated bodies suggest a ritual killing.

Hypothesis 2: Other unknown assailants, most likely personally connected to the victims, are the perpetrators. It was a crime of passion and not a ritual killing. Animal predation was responsible for the mutilation of their bodies.

Again, I'm not arguing for one side or the other here. I'm simply pointing out that of these two hypotheses, the 2nd one is the least complex explanation.

Statistically, the percentage of murders which are committed by teenagers, strangers to the victims, or involve 3 or more assailants, never exceeds 20% in multiple studies. (Sources: Murder in Large Urban Counties Study, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988 - Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers 1993-2010, Bureau of Justive Statistics, 2012 - Australian Crime: Facts and Figures, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012)

Not to mention, ritual killings in the US are quite rare.

These facts demonstrate that the first hypothesis, at least statistically, is much more complex as it features rather rare events. Of course this does not demonstrate innocence, or even guilt for that matter. My point is that your use of Occam's Razor does not support your argument, rather it does the opposite.

reply

[deleted]

1. Goof on my part, BUT, I still feel I need to be at the least 75-80 percent sure before I said, bam, they did it. I wouldnt wanna convict someone who didnt do it and destroy their lives. I feel some people (As atm IM LEANING towards guilty) but if they lean guilty-innocent, they go with that. I feel we really need to be more on the IM SURE theyre innocent, guilty.

2. I agree, but I felt BUNDY had a lot more to work with. More murders = more stuff to get him on. When someone commits ONE murder, youre stuck to that. If someone commits many, you got so much more to work with imho.

3. I know I am,Im trying to understand WHY this jury convicted them. Ill be honest, WHILE I feel theyre guilty, IDK why the jury said they were. When I wanna understand something, I wanna understand the entire pie, just not 3 slices of it.

4. The problem here is, "probably," which who knows honestly. Do I believe he could have said it, yes. But I cant be sure. Again, I was "playing" defense, so really, the only thing I had to those, were hearsay. REMEMBER, I was doing my best to "playing" defense. If you read 5/5, some of the things I claimed, I believe I stated IDK if I even believe that! Im not dismissing anything, I was just trying my best to go on the "defense."

5. If you read my 5/5, at the end, I said Im leaning towards guilty. Some things when I had to figure out "innocent" i was honestly gasping at straws. Some of the things you said I got incorrect, I knew. WTF can someone on the defense do with all that!? You really have to grasp at straws. Im not Perry Mason or a top lawyer, but still. With all that evidence, what other card do you have except hearsay? Cops planted it? Jessie was pressured?
Remember I was just going on "defense" does that mean I believe everything I said, god no. Im simply stating what I believe most people will say who believe their innocent. If you read my final post, again, Im going towards theyre guilty. A few reasons.

1. Jason and Damien seem to do the "talking." Why? They seem to not care. Jessie on the other hand seems to have some type of conscience. He never says anything. ThE Thing I loved the most, was the alford plea. Damien said it. Jason did. All Jessie said was,'I plead guilty" VERY TELLING. Again, you cant blame anyone for wanting to get out of jail. If idiots are gonna say youre innocent, why not go for it? I know that is harsh, but lets be honest. No one wants to spend life in jail.
2. All the things Jessie knew. Now, I believe anyone can get lucky once, but three for three? (On 2/5, youll see where I got chills). Now, I do believe cops COULD have showed him some info, yes, but, the stick, how he described it. How could any cop even give him that info? They couldnt because they didnt even know about that, how could they? Also, the pants (Inside out). I doubt cops would plant and tell Jessie about their pants where inside out. He knew who had what injuries and where, is telling. Again, could he get one right, yea, anyone could if they saw a picture, but all 3. The drowning thing. I can go on but I hope you see where Im going.
3. NOW, the two people Jessie says where there just happen to be....
3a. 2 disturbed young men.
3b. Two men with NO alibis
4. Damien and a few people saying they heard him admit he killed and his other issues. Lets all just be frank. He is a disturbed man. Info, tidbit after tidbit, now I believe people can be disturbed, but not all disturbed people get implicated in a murder. The sacrifice his baby thing, while yes he could just be talking, but when someone bs that isnt a fun thing to BS about. Wanting to get your boss fired or would like to punch him, wishing you were rich, etc etc, things people BS about. Sacrificing your child!? That isnt something to bs about.

Now, things that confuse me......(again, Im an open mind, but Im not gonna sit here and act like I KNOW for sure theyre guilty. Here are things that do get at me.)
1. The jury foreman. If he did give out extra info, that is also bad. But guilties admit he denies this. Think here guys. If he admits it, isnt that jail time? He is a smart, I believe, grown man with experience. He doesnt want jail time.
2. Why werent the families more interviewed.
If you watch any murder A&E or ID channel thing, youll see family members are first on the "guilty" list. The cops should have at the least, checked out Byers and Hobbs. See their history. Also, how the cops just lost the "bojangles" stuff, is just bad cop work.
3. How the jury convicted them.
Look, weve seen killers go free. Ill always say OJ and Casey did do it. I believe in Michael Baden. I believe OJ had someone with him, but cops moved in too soon. (heck, the Mendez bros almost went free). In this case, I am confused how the jury convicted them. Now, do I know everything, god no, I got a lot to learn and ive admitted this many times. Im not a sheep. I dont watch a "biased" documentary and go that way. I like documentaries, but so many are biased towards their views.

Lastly I know I got a few things wrong, BUT NO ONE who is on the "Innocent" claim did this, so I did the best I could. (Again, Im not even leaning towards innocent anymore, so I basically went against what I think now).
Im not gonna point sns out or anything like that, but I feel honestly it is irresponsible of them to claim "innocent" and not take each idea you said here and dismiss it. I said many times Im a "newb" and ill get things wrong. I appreciate you not flat out insulting me. Again, I dont believe things I said, I just went with what I could best explain. Please go read 2/5, and see how bad I struggled. 2/5 honestly made me go from 60-40 innocent, to 55-45 guilty. IN my eyes, that is a HUGE 15 point swing. IM sure I failed on many accounts, but atleast I tried to go up and beyond than what most "the WM3 are innocent" has claimed to do. They just say,"hearsay" instead of going by each topic. I think for any of these people who claim theyre innocent need to at the very least explain each thing youve posted.

Now, one last thing, to Predamorph, Im gonna ask you also for a favor. It isnt huge, but yea, actually It is. Pretend you "believe" theyre innocent. Now...when you see all the info what other excuse do the innocents have? Besides Hearsay or "cops gave him this info" or "Jessie is a psychic." Seriously, IDK. Really, what other excuse could you have? Admittely, Im no harvard scholar, Im not a lawyer, Im a simple man trying to learn this case as I did with the Zodiac, Jack the Ripper, Alphabet Killer, and so on. But again, IDK what other excuse to use. Now please, I know if you do this youre also "throwing the innocents" a bone, so if you wanna throw this to me in a private message, a different excuse I could use, please tell me! Maybe im simple minded, idk, but I honestly dont know what other excuse innocents have except hearsay or cops planted it, or maybe Damien is Jesus christ and wanted himself implicated in the murders for fame and saw all this happening (OK...now WE are stretching,lol!)

In the end, if I was a defense lawyer on this case, Id wanna quit. Seriously, all the info Jessie has, Damiens history, screw this! Im gonna be taking a loss on this.

Out of anyone, Id say I thought Jessie deserved to be free, as atleast he shows guilt, but now, if it is true he is beating kids and his wife, screw this dude. Wtf is wrong with him. Again, Ive also read Damien is going back to his old ways. Are you 3 really this stupid? I hate to say it, but seriously, are you. Look, if youre interested in the occult, etc, with all the money raised, etc, find a darn friend to buy that book for you. Someone you can trust, and have it on the dl. I even read Lorri is telling Damien he has to stop. He wont listen.

Again, action do speak words in my eyes. His actions out of jail show me a lot. I think Damien could put his "tools" in positive things. Ive read he does poetry and helped write songs. Go do that. Go put your life in a + light. Again, this is stuff Ive read in other sites, and if all these sites are blowing smoke up my rear, fine. If there is truth to these claims, then Damien is either...
1. Guilty as sin
2. Dumb as a box of rocks
3. Interested in odds things.
4. All the above


Again, tu to Preda for not completely bashing me. Thank you for Tattoo for showing how gullible I am (HMPH!...haha I kid), and thanks for everyone giving me info on all this case.
Thanks to everyone here!

reply

or maybe Damien is Jesus christ and wanted himself implicated in the murders for fame and saw all this happening (OK...now WE are stretching,lol!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

lol, not a stretch funnily enough. Damien DID actually think he WAS Christ.

66a Signs and symptoms of Mr. Echols’ mental illness also include depersonalization and derealizion (consistent with dissociative experiences). He did not recognize his physical appearance; he hallucinated that his “hands and feet are changing” and believed his body was being transformed from a human being to a superior being - Christ. He saw these changes as signs of his inevitable metamorphosis and followed command hallucinations to ready himself for this life changing event. He expressed frustration at having to take his medication because he believed it was preventing his transition:
I can see physical changes happening in my body. I can tell it’s getting ready. The abonations [sic] have already begun to be spit Forth from the Earth. I have seen some of them. I will become one soon. . . .My body is changing but that medicine is making it happen a lot more slowly than normal I am outgrowing my skin. I am eating packs of sugar and Kool-Aid to give my body the extra energy it needs to make its change. Soon People will be able to Know I am the Christ Just by looking at me.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html

reply

1. You are looking for proof beyond a "shadow of doubt", the court standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Proof beyond a shadow of doubt is almost always unattainable.


1. Goof on my part, BUT, I still feel I need to be at the least 75-80 percent sure before I said, bam, they did it. I wouldnt wanna convict someone who didnt do it and destroy their lives. I feel some people (As atm IM LEANING towards guilty) but if they lean guilty-innocent, they go with that. I feel we really need to be more on the IM SURE theyre innocent, guilty.


That is exactly my stance on this case. There simply is NOT enough evidence showing guilt. We know that the knife wasn't the murder weapon (even trying to link it to the WM3 was a joke, it was found in a freaking lake), we know that Vicki/Michael/Aaron and a slew of others lied, we know that every one of Jessie's confessions was filled with inaccuracies (even his first confession you can hear/read the police leading him on), we know that the Satanic theory is a joke and we know that the WMPD completely crapped the bed on their investigation. Had they not pursued the WM3, they would have been crap out of luck and had a town-full of residence screaming to the heavens.


1. Over 80% of murder cases in America are solved with circumstantial evidence.
You mentioned Ted Bundy in an earlier post, he also was convicted on circumstantial evidence, along with Charles manson and many others. Circumstantial evidence is just that "circumstantial", but when in a case you have substantial amounts of circumstantial eveidence, then it becomes compelling evidence.


2. I agree, but I felt BUNDY had a lot more to work with. More murders = more stuff to get him on. When someone commits ONE murder, youre stuck to that. If someone commits many, you got so much more to work with imho.


Preda, can you link me to a recent stat on your "80%" claim?

Also Preda, you really should look deeper into the Bundy case, there was little circumstantial evidence used at conviction. They had blood, finger prints, hair, shoe prints, masks, bite marks, witness id's, etc. Which is 100x more than we have with the WM3.

The evidence against the WM3 is laughable at best. We have a series of inaccurate confessions, hearsay and um...yeah...that's it...right?


3. You keep claiming this and that couldn't be used at trial and in most of your examples you are correct, but we are not restricted to what the jury knew or were allowed to use at the time. That should not impede your view on innocent or guilt in 2013. You should have no reason not to use what they couldn't, the truth is the truth regardless. We have the benefit of not being back in 1993, use it!


3. I know I am,Im trying to understand WHY this jury convicted them. Ill be honest, WHILE I feel theyre guilty, IDK why the jury said they were. When I wanna understand something, I wanna understand the entire pie, just not 3 slices of it.


The problem with the conviction is that the jury used evidence that they were not allowed to use! The trials were a complete farce, bringing in "experts" like Griffis, witnesses like Vicki/Michael Carson and so fourth.


4. Try not to dismiss things before you study them thoroughly. For example (and there are many) you dismissed Damien being overheard admitting to the killings as hearsay, but upon further research you will learn he later admitted he probably did say it even though he denied it in court, which was perjury btw.


4. The problem here is, "probably," which who knows honestly. Do I believe he could have said it, yes. But I cant be sure. Again, I was "playing" defense, so really, the only thing I had to those, were hearsay. REMEMBER, I was doing my best to "playing" defense. If you read 5/5, some of the things I claimed, I believe I stated IDK if I even believe that! Im not dismissing anything, I was just trying my best to go on the "defense."


Claiming he "Probably" said it and that he "Did" say it are two different things Preda. As for perjury, get real, if we were going to get into perjury, how many people that the prosecution presented would be sitting in a cell?


5. You seem to have missed the entire point of my original post. Read the first paragraph "OCCAM'S RAZOR". It is not about each single point made, it is about the totality of them together and the odds of them all connecting innocent men to the crime.


5. If you read my 5/5, at the end, I said Im leaning towards guilty. Some things when I had to figure out "innocent" i was honestly gasping at straws. Some of the things you said I got incorrect, I knew. WTF can someone on the defense do with all that!? You really have to grasp at straws. Im not Perry Mason or a top lawyer, but still. With all that evidence, what other card do you have except hearsay? Cops planted it? Jessie was pressured?
Remember I was just going on "defense" does that mean I believe everything I said, god no. Im simply stating what I believe most people will say who believe their innocent. If you read my final post, again, Im going towards theyre guilty. A few reasons.


It's funny that you say you were grasping at straws, the nons have been doing it for years. You have NO idea how many people they think were paid off to change their opinion, testimony or statements. It's sad, yet fascinating at the same time.

1. Jason and Damien seem to do the "talking." Why? They seem to not care. Jessie on the other hand seems to have some type of conscience. He never says anything. ThE Thing I loved the most, was the alford plea. Damien said it. Jason did. All Jessie said was,'I plead guilty" VERY TELLING. Again, you cant blame anyone for wanting to get out of jail. If idiots are gonna say youre innocent, why not go for it? I know that is harsh, but lets be honest. No one wants to spend life in jail.


Ever since they got out, Damien and Jason have distanced themselves from Jessie. They do not feel the need to have him included in their lives and I do not blame them. Had Jessie not fabricated up a murder confession (trying to get a reward to buy a new truck for his Dad), none of them would be in this mess.

I am not sure where you got that about Jessie and the Alford Plea, but here is a link to the plea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Ei7vnOesE&feature=player_embedded

Skip to 12:00 to see what Jessie Says.

2. All the things Jessie knew. Now, I believe anyone can get lucky once, but three for three? (On 2/5, youll see where I got chills). Now, I do believe cops COULD have showed him some info, yes, but, the stick, how he described it. How could any cop even give him that info? They couldnt because they didnt even know about that, how could they? Also, the pants (Inside out). I doubt cops would plant and tell Jessie about their pants where inside out. He knew who had what injuries and where, is telling. Again, could he get one right, yea, anyone could if they saw a picture, but all 3. The drowning thing. I can go on but I hope you see where Im going.


If you read the first confession, you can see where the police lead him through out the entire thing. Add into that, that what Jessie said was known to the public at that time (due to the crappy police work by the WMPD). Nothing Jessie claimed was unknown at that time, nor was it anything new. But once again, he got an incredible amount of information completely wrong (as he did in every confession he gave). The cops knew about a stick, because they plucked it out of the water (as far as my memory serves, it wasn't "carved" like Jessie claimed). Jessie has stated repeatedly that the police showed him crime scene photo's, so how would he not know that some pants were inside out when they were clearly visible? Even the injuries were not exactly as he claimed in his initial confession!

We know that rapes never happened, we know the time of day was completely off, we know that the 3 kids did NOT skip school, the list just keeps going, yet the cops decided that this joke of a confession was enough to arrest Jessie.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmjune1.html Go read it again, see how many times Jessie is led, see how many times Jessie says "uh..." like he is thinking of what to say next.

3. NOW, the two people Jessie says where there just happen to be....
3a. 2 disturbed young men.
3b. Two men with NO alibis


I will give you "disturbed" for Damien, but I will not for Jason. Jason was a good kid with a rough upbringing. He wasn't violent (although Non's love to cite the fact that he fought with his younger brother, guess they don't have siblings).

I have gone over the alibi's countless times. Damien & Jason were NOT the only ones who didn't have alibi's for the time of the murder. Neither did Terry Hobbs (not that I believe he is guilty, I am using him to prove a point).

4. Damien and a few people saying they heard him admit he killed and his other issues. Lets all just be frank. He is a disturbed man. Info, tidbit after tidbit, now I believe people can be disturbed, but not all disturbed people get implicated in a murder. The sacrifice his baby thing, while yes he could just be talking, but when someone bs that isnt a fun thing to BS about. Wanting to get your boss fired or would like to punch him, wishing you were rich, etc etc, things people BS about. Sacrificing your child!? That isnt something to bs about.


You have to take into account who claimed that Damien wanted to sacrifice his child. A scorned lover, who Damien rejected. There are COUNTLESS instances where a angry woman has made false claims about a boyfriend/husband that were later found to be total BS.

I know that non's do not like Jivepuppi, but frankly, there is an incredible amount of research on the "witnesses" like the softball girls and their statements.

http://www.jivepuppi.com/rumors.html

reply

Ignoring your outright lies and distortions and using defense claims as fact, I will reply to the following....

Also Preda, you really should look deeper into the Bundy case, there was little circumstantial evidence used at conviction. They had blood, finger prints, hair, shoe prints, masks, bite marks, witness id's, etc


You should really learn what circumstantial evidence actually is because everything you just listed is considered circumstantial.

reply

Ignoring your outright lies and distortions and using defense claims as fact, I will reply to the following....


Also Preda, you really should look deeper into the Bundy case, there was little circumstantial evidence used at conviction. They had blood, finger prints, hair, shoe prints, masks, bite marks, witness id's, etc



You should really learn what circumstantial evidence actually is because everything you just listed is considered circumstantial.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

I think we are both right on some parts and wrong on others according to that link on what Circumstantial Evidence is. With Bundy, the evidence that I listed falls into the Direct and Circumstantial categories. But even that evidence is stronger than anything they had on the WM3.

reply

I think we are both right on some parts and wrong on others according to that link on what Circumstantial Evidence is.


Nope, I think I am right and you are wrong. Did you even read your own link?

Just once it would be nice if you could admit being wrong, just once. I mean it is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

reply

Lol, funny you should say something like that. Considering I have before (about the wrong link being put up and believing Terry Hobbs was guilty).

But fighting over direct/circumstantial evidence in a non-related case is just another straw-man argument here. There was both direct and circumstantial evidence against Ted Bundy, witnesses are direct (which there was) and the rest of it was circumstantial (blood, bite marks, etc). So once again, we both were right and wrong. Either way, the evidence against Ted Bundy was much stronger than that used against the WM3.

reply

Witnesses to an the actual crime being committed is considered "direct evidence" witnesses to seeing a suspect with a murder weapon/near a crime scene, in the company of a victim close to time of death etc etc, are all considered "circumstantial evidence".

There was witnesses, but none of them were witnesses to Ted Bundy actually murdering one of his victims (direct evidence). He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, period, and rightly so.

So again I say, you were wrong. I know it and everyone reading this post knows it. You also know it, but are unable to admit it, either that or you truly do not understand the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Last word goes to you, because ya know... you always have to have it.

reply

So the testimony made by Carol Daronch do not count to you? Wouldn't that be direct evidence? So once again, I am offering you the "We both are right & wrong" deal I previously mentioned. Or are you to proud to admit when you make a mistake?

reply

Sigh,

I don't like to personally attack anyone in a discussion, but you really are asking for it in this thread.

Carol Daronch did give direct testimony FOR HER ABDUCTION. Here is a little tip, a survivor cannot give testimony for her murder. She did not give direct testimony for the murders of any of his victims. His murder conviction was acquired through circumstantial evidence.

Are you pretending to be this stupid? I do hope so.

For real this time...last word goes to you. I can't argue with stupid.

reply

Who said anything about murders only? Go back and read the first parts of this discussion. Carol Daronch's testimony is considered direct evidence that was used in putting Ted Bundy away (1-15 years for his crime against her). Now since you know you were WRONG you are trying to weasel out and claim that we were just talking about his murders? Are you kidding me?

reply

Last time, because this is too funny.

by putter_b

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said anything about murders only?


Yes putter, I was talking about that parking ticket he got when he was 16.
Seriously is that the best you could come up with to try and prevent that hole you dug from getting deeper? That has got to be up there with "my dog ate my homework".

Clearly I was talking about the murder trial and so were you, especially when we look back to the following post from you.

Also Preda, you really should look deeper into the Bundy case, there was little circumstantial evidence used at conviction. They had blood, finger prints, hair, shoe prints, masks, bite marks, witness id's, etc
.

Let us ignore that your above statement contradicts itself and move on.

The bite mark and shoe prints were evidence in his MURDER trial, not his kidnapping trial, and you were the one that brought them up. Now you are trying to say I was talking about a kidnapping on a board about murder in the hopes you can now claim you are not wrong, like I said, too funny. There is only one person out of the two of us trying to "weasel" out of the situation and it certainly isn't me.

And again to show that I was clearly talking about his murder conviction (obvious to everyone) let's take a look at my original post and the context I put it in, you know the one you felt you needed to reply to?

Over 80% of murder cases in America are solved with circumstantial evidence. You mentioned Ted Bundy in an earlier post, he also was convicted on circumstantial evidence, along with Charles manson and many others.


So not only are you wrong, but you are now lying rather than admit you are wrong. No surprise to most of us really, we see you lying in nearly every post you make.


Again, just for you.

Carol Daronch testified about her kidnapping in the KIDNAPPING trial by Ted bundy in 1975. She never testified in his murder trial, but let us imagine if she did. To use her testimony to link Bundy to separate murder events the jury would have to come to an inferred conclusion that her ordeal in some way connected Bundy to the murders. Her testimony in relation to her kidnapping was DIRECT, in relation to the murders to which BUNDY WAS ON TRIAL FOR, her testimony would have been CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

When you independently have to come up with a connection for evidence to connect it to a crime that evidence is circumstantial. The jury in the Bundy trial would have had to make that connection in relation to Carols testimony.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.


circumstantial evidence n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

There, I even tried to make that last bit resemble your coloring book in the hopes you finally understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct.


Everyone can see your original argument was there was little circumstantial evidence in his trial, implying lots of direct evidence. Then when you knew that to be false you moved on to arguing for a single piece of direct evidence using Carol Daronch in the hope of saving your pride. Now you are arguing that you solely were talking about his trial for kidnapping, which makes no sense on a board about a MURDER case. Pathetic.

Absolutely pointless to have a discussion with you and I will try not to bother anymore. Expect some lame attempt to argue semantics any moment now.

reply

[deleted]

Preda, don't get mad at me because things did not go your way. Instead of saying "Oh, you were right, there was direct evidence" you went on a complete rant (most of which I just glossed over) trying to say that you were still right and I was wrong. Proceeded to act like Jenkins and insult me and then glossed over the fact that you were wrong. Damn.

Do you even know how many trials Bundy had? If you did or knew anything about them, you would quickly realize that evidence I listed above wasn't for any one trial, but for all of them! Yet here we are, with you acting like a bull in a china shop, trying to save face. Good God man.

reply

I'm not mad bro. Actually very happy.


You were so right putter, no really. I bet when you said - "Also Preda, you really should look deeper into the Bundy case, there was little circumstantial evidence used at conviction." it was a genuine mistake on your part and you meant to type convictions.

I mean you really don't look like an idiot right now.

reply

First, Ive admitted Im wrong many times and Im still learning each and every day. Again, my MO is being thankful to everyone.

So putter, I know people have things against you, I dont. I WANNA hear from the "innocent" side, I dont wanna be a sheep and only hear from people who felt they were guilty, I do wish you would have added though to my post when I wrote things that confuse me on the trail. You went into my "guilty" rant, but you didnt touch my "confuse me-innocent" rant, which also, adds to your position. I would love if you would also add to those few topics that confuse me. The jury foreman, etc. I would have loved to hear you elaborate on those too. Again, I appreciate every post, even from those on the "non" side and "guilty" side, I got no qualms with anyone. Heck, one thing I wish is Predamorph and a few others to make their own documentary on these guys...ps if you ever get funding, lemme know, cuz Ill be watching that movie! Haha!

Now, remember, when I did my posts, I went on what I THINK the defense could use, it doesnt mean I believe that. I just never seen any innocents go to each claim, Putter, Ill point at you honestly. You imo, arent an idiot. If these other guys think so, fine, but again Im not here for fights. One thing I wished Putter is you did what I did, but you "seem" (Again, idk) to know some what about the case. I do wish youd make a 5 post, showing all the stuff he said in this post is bs or whatever. All I hear innocents saying is hearsay...prove it guys, take each topic of his and throw it out, show he is full of it. You did that with my post putter, do it with his....

(PS - {Predamorph and Putter, if I offended either of you please know this wasnt my intentions. I am trying to be respectful of all, this is how I work, this is my mo. If anyone has the time to check my posts, tell me ways Im wrong, they got my respect. I know Im gonna be wrong. I love learning something everyday, and being wrong imho, only makes me right later. So again, i hope I didnt offend either of you, and I hope you both get where Im coming from)

Now I gotta reply to putter.....

1. You are looking for proof beyond a "shadow of doubt", the court standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Proof beyond a shadow of doubt is almost always unattainable.


1. Goof on my part, BUT, I still feel I need to be at the least 75-80 percent sure before I said, bam, they did it. I wouldnt wanna convict someone who didnt do it and destroy their lives. I feel some people (As atm IM LEANING towards guilty) but if they lean guilty-innocent, they go with that. I feel we really need to be more on the IM SURE theyre innocent, guilty.


That is exactly my stance on this case. There simply is NOT enough evidence showing guilt. We know that the knife wasn't the murder weapon (even trying to link it to the WM3 was a joke, it was found in a freaking lake), we know that Vicki/Michael/Aaron and a slew of others lied, we know that every one of Jessie's confessions was filled with inaccuracies (even his first confession you can hear/read the police leading him on), we know that the Satanic theory is a joke and we know that the WMPD completely crapped the bed on their investigation. Had they not pursued the WM3, they would have been crap out of luck and had a town-full of residence screaming to the heavens.


1. Over 80% of murder cases in America are solved with circumstantial evidence.
You mentioned Ted Bundy in an earlier post, he also was convicted on circumstantial evidence, along with Charles manson and many others. Circumstantial evidence is just that "circumstantial", but when in a case you have substantial amounts of circumstantial eveidence, then it becomes compelling evidence.


2. I agree, but I felt BUNDY had a lot more to work with. More murders = more stuff to get him on. When someone commits ONE murder, youre stuck to that. If someone commits many, you got so much more to work with imho.


Preda, can you link me to a recent stat on your "80%" claim?

Also Preda, you really should look deeper into the Bundy case, there was little circumstantial evidence used at conviction. They had blood, finger prints, hair, shoe prints, masks, bite marks, witness id's, etc. Which is 100x more than we have with the WM3.

The evidence against the WM3 is laughable at best. We have a series of inaccurate confessions, hearsay and um...yeah...that's it...right?


3. You keep claiming this and that couldn't be used at trial and in most of your examples you are correct, but we are not restricted to what the jury knew or were allowed to use at the time. That should not impede your view on innocent or guilt in 2013. You should have no reason not to use what they couldn't, the truth is the truth regardless. We have the benefit of not being back in 1993, use it!


3. I know I am,Im trying to understand WHY this jury convicted them. Ill be honest, WHILE I feel theyre guilty, IDK why the jury said they were. When I wanna understand something, I wanna understand the entire pie, just not 3 slices of it.


The problem with the conviction is that the jury used evidence that they were not allowed to use! The trials were a complete farce, bringing in "experts" like Griffis, witnesses like Vicki/Michael Carson and so fourth.


4. Try not to dismiss things before you study them thoroughly. For example (and there are many) you dismissed Damien being overheard admitting to the killings as hearsay, but upon further research you will learn he later admitted he probably did say it even though he denied it in court, which was perjury btw.


4. The problem here is, "probably," which who knows honestly. Do I believe he could have said it, yes. But I cant be sure. Again, I was "playing" defense, so really, the only thing I had to those, were hearsay. REMEMBER, I was doing my best to "playing" defense. If you read 5/5, some of the things I claimed, I believe I stated IDK if I even believe that! Im not dismissing anything, I was just trying my best to go on the "defense."


Claiming he "Probably" said it and that he "Did" say it are two different things Preda. As for perjury, get real, if we were going to get into perjury, how many people that the prosecution presented would be sitting in a cell?


5. You seem to have missed the entire point of my original post. Read the first paragraph "OCCAM'S RAZOR". It is not about each single point made, it is about the totality of them together and the odds of them all connecting innocent men to the crime.


5. If you read my 5/5, at the end, I said Im leaning towards guilty. Some things when I had to figure out "innocent" i was honestly gasping at straws. Some of the things you said I got incorrect, I knew. WTF can someone on the defense do with all that!? You really have to grasp at straws. Im not Perry Mason or a top lawyer, but still. With all that evidence, what other card do you have except hearsay? Cops planted it? Jessie was pressured?
Remember I was just going on "defense" does that mean I believe everything I said, god no. Im simply stating what I believe most people will say who believe their innocent. If you read my final post, again, Im going towards theyre guilty. A few reasons.


First, to your first paragraph. Im on the fence here. Im 45-55, to guilty, only a 5 point swing to guilty. That means if Im on trail, I have reasonable doubt, yes? (BTW I just re-watched 12 angry men...such a fantastic movie, especially when dealing with cases like this).
Im still learning, like I said. Again, I wish you would do what I did, more details and show how all the stuff he said is a bunch of "bull." Im honestly pleading with you to do it, I promise, youll get my 10-15-25 mins or however long that post is, Ill read it all. So I hope you accept my challenge and go for it!

1. First, lets see ALL what Jessie said....
"Im pleading guilty...for NC Vs Alford In Arkansas rule, although Im innocent, this plea is in my best interest."

Lets check Damien
Your honor I am innocent in these charges...(No need to go further)

Lets check Jason
"Your honor, first of all Im innocent in murdering (Boys names..again lets not go further)

So...if we were playing whose statement is the odd man out, or, whose statement is MOST different from the three, can we at the least agree Jessies statement was A LOT different than Jason and Damiens? If we cant admit this, than (throws hands in air). Jessie said I PLEAD GUILTY...while the other two said theyre innocent of the charges, than went into it. Jessie def took a different route.

I will say, if I was Damien-Jason, id distance myself from Jessie too. I dont blame them either.

Im js it seems Jessie def went about the alford plea A TAD different than Jason and Damien. IF im Innocent, the first words out of my mouth would be more like Damien and Jason, not Jessie.

2. Do I believe cops COULD have showed him some info, god yes.
But the pants being inside out? Knowing where all the injuries where? Go read my 2/5 thing, and again, I wanna hear from supporters, which is why I will admit, I feel let down by you guys. I wish someone, a "supporter" would do what I did, and debunk all the info he gave out. (all I did was simply "play" defense, you guys could actually BE defense.)
Id really really love that, but so far, all I get is everything he said was hear-say. SHOW it...debunk all the things he said.
Do you have to do this, hell no. You dont owe anyone anything, but, it def give you more credibility here. I hope you do it man, I trully hope you do!

Again, you seemed to also totally miss the things that confuse me. You seem not to read any of my 5/5 debunk thing I replied, again I dont believe all I wrote, but I do believe there are some problems with this case. I believe police handled the bodies amateurish at best. I have more questions than answers, but Im gonna continue listening to both sides and make my own educated guess.
I know the kids didnt skip school, I also remember seeing no signs of rape. I also remember Jessie saying "uh" so many times. I am still 55-45 to guilty, but that isnt a huge swing to guilty.


3. NOW, the two people Jessie says where there just happen to be....
3a. 2 disturbed young men.
3b. Two men with NO alibis

I agree. Ive said a few times, ive watched a lot of those A&E and ID killer thingies. (I cant name them all. A few: Behind Mansion Walls, Nightmare Next Door, A&E Documentaries, Most Likely too, 48 hours, and there are so many others). One thing...when someone gets murdered, family are always the first to be "questioned." The police not even to check Hobbs-Byers history is shady. Again, I also said no alibi doesnt = guilt...it def help. It be nice for ONE of them to have some type of alibi, no alibi also doesnt = it helps my case. It hurts it.
Hobbs is one man...we got THREE dudes with NOT one alibi. Your telling me not ONE could have some type of alibi...JUST one. Hell Jasons lawyer didnt even come up with one seeing Damiens and Jessies alibi get crushed.

Now, one other thing. "Jessie was at a wrestling tournament" not one person at this tournament could come and say...hey, wait, Jessie was there!

4. Damien and a few people saying they heard him admit he killed and his other issues. Lets all just be frank. He is a disturbed man. Info, tidbit after tidbit, now I believe people can be disturbed, but not all disturbed people get implicated in a murder. The sacrifice his baby thing, while yes he could just be talking, but when someone bs that isnt a fun thing to BS about. Wanting to get your boss fired or would like to punch him, wishing you were rich, etc etc, things people BS about. Sacrificing your child!? That isnt something to bs about.


Yes, scorned lovers can make false claims. "He raped me...he beat me..." BUT...he wanted to sacrifice my child!? That is one hell of a false claim. Ill be honest, Ive never heard anyone make that kind of insane false claim. Now if she claimed false rape, lets talk. If she claimed he beat her, lets talk. (AGAIN, rape is NO joke, and I hope you dont think Im going there. But...I know women who if they feel scorned can do shady things. Men can as well.)
So...that would be one hell of a false claim to make!

Also, on wikipedia, I forgot her name, but one women claimed the police threatened to take her child away, unless she said they did it.


Also, I forgot, TINA! Tina, I know Damien claimed to be christ, but I think that is a hilarious joke, so I added that in here, haha! Still, I appreciate your comments too because you def seem to be learning like me! SO I always appreciate your comments, another great poster in my eyes!


So in the end, I still wanna thank putter, predamorph, scummy, and Tina, among others for helping me in this. I still am learning and hope to learn more. Will I be wrong in things I say during my quest, of course, and Ive admitted to thing Ive gotten wrong.

I just wanna thank anyone who replies and appreciate every reply.

reply

Here's the real "Big Picture"...

The West Memphis Three trial was a farce. There is no physical evidence linking them to the murders. Misskelley's confessions have been proven factually wrong. Overwhelming public opinion supports the WM3. They are walking the streets as free men and are going down in the history books as another case of social injustice.

Despite a few nons with an unhealthy obsession whose only outlet is an internet message board, this debate is pretty much over now. The three are free. Maybe it's time to move on with your lives.

---------------------------------
IMDB Boards©: Where intelligent film discussion goes to die.

reply

"overwhelming public opinion" public opinion counts for NOTHING, since the public doesnt think for itself. It just repeats propaganda.

Thanks for this thread is what i came here to say btw.

reply

[deleted]

Shadyvsesham, I am one of the very few "nons" who has not been run off this board by a few trolls. Usually Preda and I can go back and forth with some mutual respect", but this thread derailed fairly quickly once the whole Ted Bundy thing happened.

I am confident that I know more about this case than the majority of the posters here, which is one reason I still stick around here. Many people come here with questions and are accused of being a "sock" or just leave due to the actions of a slight few. Which is sad frankly. I try to deal only in facts on this board and will call out "nons" and "supporters" if they do not use facts, Preda has done the same as well. Once you weed through the bs, it's fairly easy to see what is real and what is not.

Either way, I have been very busy with work and I will get to your questions when I have time (hopefully this weekend, but it's my birthday tomorrow, so don't count on it, lol).

reply

Despite the whole Bundy thing, happy birthday, have a good one.

reply

[deleted]

"overwhelming public opinion" public opinion counts for NOTHING, since the public doesnt think for itself. It just repeats propaganda.

Most people believe there is an invisible man who lives in the sky and he has a set of rules that you need to follow or you will go to a very hot place for eternity.

reply

I don't want to (and am not knowledgeable or committed enough) to get into everything, but there's a few things you're saying that are jumping out annoyingly.

Jessie's statement about the clothes being inside out came after his trial. After he sat through all the presentations by the expert witnesses about the crime scene, the autopsies, and the lawyers' theories of the crime. After all the photos and diagrams were shown. That he still managed to get so much so very wrong is really amazing, since he basically just sat through a master class on the details. You should read/listen to the full confessions, pay attention to the information that actually comes from him, not the police, and decide for yourself how credible you think he sounds.

Now, one other thing. "Jessie was at a wrestling tournament" not one person at this tournament could come and say...hey, wait, Jessie was there!


In fact, a whole bunch of people testified that he was there. At least five, I think; I haven't read about it in depth. Apparently his name on a sign up sheet was from another occasion, but there were a lot of people saying he was also there on the date in question.

If you want to read a supporter engage with Damien's mental health history, juvenile records, and various related rumours (like the child sacrifice), just read all the links under 'Damien's Demons' on this page http://jivepuppi.com/the_convicted.html. His analysis makes sense of a lot of the mess.

The drawing with the tombstones and the baby was not drawn by Damien. It was drawn by his former girlfriend Deanna. Her signature is visible in the corner.

reply

Thank you for compiling the information and I appreciate the effort in your post. That said, the vast majority of the points you've made relate to confessions and the past actions of Damien and Jessie. The points about the confessions are cherry picked. Every detail Jessie gets right is proof he did it, but apparently, every detail he got wrong is irrelevant? If you're going to point out every detail that was accurate, why don't you compile a list of every detail Jessie gave in all of his confessions, and determine whether or not they are true, possibly true, probably false, or flat out wrong.

If most of what Jessie said was wrong, and the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, then the simplest explanation here is that these were false confessions. The "he was throwing off the police" explanation makes no sense. Why would a person confess if their intention was to "throw off the police?" I don't get that at all.

The individuals who Jason and Damien "confessed" to are very shady people. They have no credibility and many of them have said that the police gave them an incentive to say incriminating things about the suspects. Even if some of them are telling the truth, it's still not outside the realm of believability that a bunch of teenagers wanted to sound like real hard guys by confessing to a murder they had nothing to do with.

The fact that Damien and Jessie had troubled lives isn't even close to evidence. It may show that they were people who either were or could have become people capable of murder, but how many other people in West Memphis could you write equally damning things about? I bet I can find somebody who lived there with a much more violent history -- does this mean they were the killer?

What's left is the physical evidence you mention and the lack of alibis. The physical evidence, with what we know now, is agreed upon by both sides to be underwhelming and not enough for a conviction. The lack of alibis is the one thing that is, without a doubt, something that will forever lead to doubt in the minds of supporters. In my mind, at the age of 17 I wouldn't have had an alibi on any given day at 7-8 PM because I spent most of the time in the woods with my best friend smoking. The thought that we could have been found guilty of murder simply because of that fact is troubling to me, which is why I am not willing to believe that they are guilty based solely on this one point.

Overall, you've laid out the best case that can be made against them, and it still isn't enough to negate reasonable doubt. Could they have done it? Of course. Did they? I'm not convinced, and if the jury foreman hadn't illegally introduced Jessie's confession to the rest of the jury during Damien and Jason's trial, I'm curious as to whether or not at least Jason would have been found not guilty. If there's one great argument for Jason, it's the life he lives now and the words he speaks. If he's guilty, he's a better actor than any of his supporters.

reply

Predamorph: You rule!!!!

reply

I only check in here now and then, the case is closed so not much point except to point out when supporters lie to further their cause. (A lost cause)

What is sad is certain suppporter/s here have been caught lying or fudging the facts over and over again by me and others. It's kinda sad to see those same peope come back here after a few months and repeat their make-believe facts even after been proven to be liars. I don't mind correcting new members here if they are in error, but the trolls I am done with.

Anyway thank you all for the kind words and I will try pop in when I can and bump this so those new to the case may find this post of use. All I suggest is don't take what you hear about the WM3 as fact, but do your own research. The three kids (the real victims) deserve that.

reply

Those who believe they are innocent, why do you ignore this thread?

reply

[deleted]

I only check in here now and then, the case is closed so not much point except to point out when supporters lie to further their cause. (A lost cause)


Exactly the same as me. With traveling around for work, this place is not a priority for me, also there is very little new with this case. Although I am curious to see how Devils Knot turns out (I think that both nons/supporters are going to have issues with it).

What is sad is certain suppporter/s here have been caught lying or fudging the facts over and over again by me and others. It's kinda sad to see those same peope come back here after a few months and repeat their make-believe facts even after been proven to be liars. I don't mind correcting new members here if they are in error, but the trolls I am done with.


I am going out on a limb here and say that you are referring to me. Come on Preda, I thought we had a mutual respect here. We both have been here for years discussing this case and I have conceded when I was wrong (Terry Hobbs being the murderer being the most accurate one, although I can't find the thread anymore.)

I think after 8 years with this account and roughly 4 with the one before it (my first account "Putter" was banned due to a link that was deemed pornography when I was on the Courtney Love boards, that showed her as a drunken mess that I found comical). It's not so much a matter of make believe facts, it's a matter of items being considered evidence that I don't agree with. Much like the shoes that what's his name keeps going over and over about. It's like the Evans Williams bottle to me. The shoes were not part of the murder, there is no proof that they were worn that day and there is no connection to the crime (used as a murder weapon, etc). So going back and forth on them is a bit redundant in my opinion.

Anyway thank you all for the kind words and I will try pop in when I can and bump this so those new to the case may find this post of use. All I suggest is don't take what you hear about the WM3 as fact, but do your own research. The three kids (the real victims) deserve that.


If you do bump this, I think you should also consider editing out certain parts of it, such as the leading post discussing Michael Carson's statements about Jason Baldwin confessing to him, since we know that Carson recanted it. Or are we going to start debating that too?

Anyway, be well. Hope you have a great holiday season.

reply

[deleted]

This is a great post. People like Preda and F_Jenkins have no clue what reasonable doubt is...

reply

^Agreed. They just want attention. Most of their arguments are easily explained. Yet they are stubborn even though any reasonable person should realise that there is absolute doubt. Like they said, would the prosecutors allow an Alford plea if they knew they were 100% guilty? It is okay that these people suspect that the three could have done it, but it is ignorant to say they definitely 100% did it. The case was such a failure that the prosecution knew that without the lies of the first case, the new one wouldn't hold up.

reply

[deleted]

The smoking gun lies with Terry Hobbs. He claims not to have seen Stevie that day but a neighbour saw him around 5:30 pm with the kids calling his stephson. He also has no alibi for 2 or 3 hours that evening and he has not been examined enough at the time. I think if the cops would have questioned him more, he would have cracked. He seems to have dodged the bullit and let 3 innocent kids go to jail. If he killed them, he is the luckiest dumb bastard alive the way he slipped through the chaos.

reply

[deleted]

That does make Damien suspect, agreed. But I didn't see any physical evidence that links the 3 to the killings except the confession of a mentally challenged kid and the bragging of Damian and Jason to other kids that they killed them. Are Damian and Jason that stupid to admit the killings to other kids and mean it? Or were they trying to impress them? Gruesome way to impress someone but hey Damian was a trouble mind and Jason went along in his slipstream. That does not make them guilty.

Terry Hobbs on the other hand knows the killed boys, does not have an alibi, lies about happenings that day and was not put on the trialseat. Now his wife is accusing him of killing the boys as well. Also other kids in town claim that his nephew told them he killed the boys. I say, examine Hobbs and see where it leads.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Bumpity bump.

reply