105 thoughts on “Billy Sinclair responds to WM3 supporters”

    1. So if Misskelley confessed all of these times then why wouldn’t he confess on the stand and have most of his jail time taken away. Makes no sense. If it were true and he had no issues confessing and “wanted something to be done” he would have turned witness on the stand. He was offered a good deal to testify and didn’t. That stands out to me.

      When this most recent deal was offered Jason said no to it. This also tells me all I need to know. The death row thing being the reason it was accepted at all.

      Misskellys original confession was obviously fake. What 17 year old kid talks like a complete retard but then refers to kids that he barely knows by their first and last names. The amount of time between his story and naming them by their names show clearly he was reading from a script.

      The knife was planted the blood on the necklace was planted and it all was leaked to the press before the defense even knew it existed all in an effort to get the community opinion in their favor. These pieces of “evidence” were press props. Nothing more.

      Damien and Jason acted the way they did because they never thought they could be convicted for something they didn’t do and were instructed by attorneys to act civil so they could have a shot at a retrial. Misskelley honestly probably thought once it was over he’d go home and play nintendo. Even to this day that guy is mentally handicapped and looks to be a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome.

      Both the guy and girls who testified against Damien and Jason have come out and said they were lying.

      These crimes were not committed in the wooded area. This was a dump place. ZERO evidence to say this is where it took place. No blood on the scene. Please tell me none of you believe this is where it took place. Blind is one thing and stupid is another.

      These boys were uneducated, white trash small town rebels who loved all things heavy metal. I know there are many kids like this in every small town in America. Their fascination with Allister Crowly comes from the Ozzy song. Pentagrams were from Motley Crue and all the other is basic stuff these bands sing about.

      The tragedy here is that the West Memphis Pd DID NOT RESPOND to a call about a bloody man acting crazy in a public bathroom. WTF!? This is your killer boys and girls. I don’t think Mark or Terry killed these boys. The black guy in the restaurant did this.

      The police knew they dropped the ball here and the town wanted justice so they had to manufacture it out of the stupid Southern fear of Satanism. It was a good plan that would have worked if HBO hadn’t shown up.

      Everyone involved (investigator, judge, etc) should be charged and sent to prison. They were all corrupt, dirty and felt these boys were expendable to make their careers.

  1. I like Sinclair’s analysis — although I personally would probably of took the plea deal to get out of jail asap. But I’m pretty much a pussy. Anyway, I got to thinking about the case. I think I’m getting closer to solving it (unless things change.) Here’s what I have:

    There are only 7 people who know for sure who killed Michael Moore, Steve Branch and Christopher Byers.

    Three of them, sadly, are the victims themselves: Michael, Stevie and Christopher.

    There are only 4 people alive today who know for sure who killed those children.

    The state of Arkansas thinks it’s Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin. They arrested them, charged them with the crimes, and held two trials. Two juries convicted Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin for those crimes.

    the filmmakers of Paradise Lost were the ones who were brave enough to realize that something was wrong.

    The filmmakers assembled their own investigation and helped to rally the support of tens of thousands of people all over the world. If the state of Arkansas wasn’t going to find the real killers, the WM3 support movement was going to do it.

    To the shock of many of those who felt that Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin were guilty – the WM3 Freedom Effort was able to lure the real killer out into the open. The best part is, they caught it all on film. Anyone who watched Paradise Lost II can probably still recall the chill that ran up their spines as the reality sunk in. It made the ending of “The Usual Suspects” look like “Mr. Popper’s Penguins” — IMHO.

    John Mark Byers was the killer of Michael Moore, Steve Branch and Christopher Byers. How did we not see it? This guy was a time bomb waiting to go off. His stories didn’t make sense. He looked strange. He took medicine. He had a violent history. He was also a jeweler — the only person to possess the skills needed to remove penis skin in the dark.

    Once they matched his teeth to the hidden bite marks it was all over. But he was smart enough to have his teeth removed. His wife started to suspect that her own husband had killed Michael Moore, Steve Branch and Christopher Byers. But John Mark Byers wasn’t going to be caught. He killed his wife to keep her from coming forward. His arrest was only days away.

    Paradise Lost II had solved the case.

    EDIT: Oh, damn. Sorry — I just did a Google search. John Mark Byers has been cleared and has joined the WM3 freedom squad.

    Please disregard all the stuff about Byers being the killer. It’s wrong. There’s a new film coming out that will explain it. Not the second film, that explains the first film, but a third film that will correct the second. This will be the final film. (Unless that changes.)

    So who is the fourth person now.

    Terry Hobbs. He killed the kids at his house and hid them for a while why he made random appearances around the neighborhood. Then he drove the boys and their bikes to a manhole where he hid them before he could hide them again. (This guy has more hiding spots than Paradise Lost has films.) Then he shot the Bojangles guy… Okay, wait, now I’m confused.

    If it’s not Damien, Jason and Jessie who killed the kids, then it has to be Terry Hobbs, right? So only those four people know for sure. If Hobbs didn’t do it, then they did it, right? I’m confused.

    Has anyone here watched Paradise Lost Three (not the one where Byers kills the kids, the new one)? I need to know how this story ends!

    1. This is a great post. the WM3 can’t prove they are innocent because they did it so they blame other people. And fools keep believing it.

  2. I have been a long time supporter and just recently discovered this website and have been browsing around. I have a few comments to make.

    While there is no denying that your site raises a few interesting questions, and that a lot of your points are often ignored by supporters, you are also ignoring the mounds of evidence, documents etc that points away from the WM3 being the killers.

    In any murder case, there always some evidence that points to the person(s) on trial as being guilty. They would not be on trial if there wasn’t. You accuse supporters of ignoring facts and certain pieces of evidence. Fine. But the non-supporters are just as guilty in that sense. Non-supporters cherry pick the few bits of evidence and documents (out of over 10,000+) that shows that the wm3 COULD have done it, and ignore the thousands of documents/evidence (new and old) that shows otherwise.

    Anyone new to this case who chose to ignore both biased sides, and investigate on their own would have to sift through tens of thousands of documents in order to find just a handful that says they MAY have been guilty. And that says a lot, in my opinion.

    I am not delusional. I refuse to sit here and tell you that I know the true killer was Terry Hobbs or JMB or Jacoby Williams. Is there evidence that says that they COULD have been involved? Yes. Your blind if you cannot see that. But that evidence is circumstantial. Just like the circumstantial evidence against the wm3.

    I find it funny how non-supporters scoff at the Hobbs, JMB theories due to the evidence being circumstantial, but then use similar (and even more) circumstantial evidence against the wm3 as 100% irrifutable proof that they are guilty.

    Anyone who comes forward with statements and new claims against Hobbs is laughed off as “liars”, but if someone new came forward with a new claim about the wm3 being guilty, you would praise them.

    There is not one shred of evidence that proves that the wm3 are without a doubt the real killers and no one else could of possibly been involved. In fact, there’s much more compelling evidence that points to the POSSIBILITY of someone else commiting the crime.

    Is Hobbs DNA at the crime scene circumstantial? Maybe. But you cannot deny it is suspicious. And that’s another thing I would like to comment on. DNA.

    If ANY dna from ANY of the wm3 was found during the new testing, even if it was only a small percent match, non-supporters would jump for joy. You would be shouting about how “so and so’s dna was there, see…..told you they were guilty. Can’t argue DNA”. Ok. Fair enough. But why then does someone else’s DNA present NOT link them to the crime? This is what I do not understand. WM3’s dna is found, proof they are guilty. Hobbs and Jacoby’s dna found, means nothing. WM3 still guilty. This I just cannot wrap my head around.

    And this is more of a tip to non-supporters……if you wish to gain more people on your side, for the love of God please clean up the WM3 Hoax Message Board.
    I have spoken with both supporters who were starting to lean towards guilt, and those who just simply were not sure and were seeking answers. They were all disgusted by the wm3hoax forum. And I see why. The attitude over there is sickening. There is no room for questions, or healthy debate. Its your way or the highway. If the members over there get even a whiff of a possibility that you are in any way, shape or form a supporter, you are immedietely attacked with extremely foul and brutal language and banned. Its disgusting.

    I have seen female supporters over there simply asking questions in a very polite manner get told that their “children and whole family should die in a fire” and that they are “f$#@ stupid trailer trash C*NTS”. And worse.

    Do supporters and nons get into arguments at the supporter forum? Absolutely. But for the most part, nons and supporters have polite and healthy debates and questions from both sides are raised and discussed without any hateful comments spewed. This is not possible at the wm3hoax board.

    If I went there right now and posted that I was a supporter who had a few questions for nons, I would get no answers. I would instead get 15 replies from members telling me I should die and calling me every name in the book. And in the most vile and disgusting manner possible.

    Even if I went there posted that I was a supporter who was starting to rethink my stance, I would still get get no help or information. I would instead be told to “f**k off and die” and “come back when I am no longer a stupid, uneducated idiot who even remotely supports the wm3”.

    Just saying, this is NOT helping the nons out. You would get a lot more attention, and a lot more people on our side if you acted like adults and took the time to answer questions raised by supporters and were more welcoming to those who are “undecided”.

    1. I will not tell anyone to fuck off and die. Not my style. You can feel safe here.

      Jessie Misskelley’s confessions are not circumstantial evidence. To my mind, his 2/8/94 and 2/17/94 confessions are the key documents proving guilt. I just don’t see how anyone can read those and still have any doubts about the case. And I’ve never seen a reasonable explanation from supporters refuting them.

      I have made every effort to addres the best supporter arguments here, not just the wacko ones. Feel free to respond or to point out good arguments I missed.

      1. Thank you for welcoming me to this side of the spectrum. Its rare for a non to embrace a supporter with questions.

        As to the confessions you have linked me to, I am not sure what most supporters answers are to those.

        I do know what I think. Think being the key word. I am not saying this is definitely the case, but in my mind, Jessie learned more details about the crime considering he was on trial. So naturally, if he falsely confessed again then he would have more information this time around.

        Also, is there not still false information in all of his confessions? There was no physical evidence that showed that the boys had been raped. And his account of Damien or Jason putting their penis in one of the boys mouths while the other held them from behind….. wouldn’t you think that an 8 year old fighting for their life would think to bite down on their penis. Hard. I just can’t see that going down without getting bit, or having drag marks from their teeth.

        Does anyone know (considering the police thought the boys had been sexually abused), if Damien or Jason or Jessie had their penis’s examined for wounds?

        1. Thank you to Nathan for your well written post.
          Although I’m relatively new to the case, I too have considered myself a supporter. However, I want to get as much information as I can from as many different sources to form an intelligent and informed analysis.
          With all that I’ve read so far, I believe when all is said and done, I’ll end up a fence sitter.

          I have yet to visit the Hoax board and I’m reluctant to do so after Nathan’s post.
          I’ve only lurked on the WM3 board because again, I’m relatively new to the case and I’m still gathering information.

    2. Good points, Nathan. I’ve always wondered about the WM3 pushing for DNA testing — I mean, that is what happened right? If they pushed for DNA and it came back to them, well, then they’re screwed. Unless they already knew the answer somehow, which in this case I wouldn’t be surprised by anything.

      I thought these guys were innocent for a very long time, it was only on finding this site did I learn about Callahan’s site. It was here I first heard about the Bible confession and the confessions that followed. Those really changed my mind for whatever reason. If a supporter could explain to me in a rational, non-emotional, non-condecending way why and how Jessie gave these seemingly genuine confessions, please do! I’m all ears (and eyes).

      This site also lead me to Damien’s mental health records — I had no idea they existed.

      This site also pointed out the lack of alibis — something that really bothers me.

      I have doubts — whether they are reasonable, I don’t know. I just felt like I had been duped by the WM3 Freedom guys when I learned more about the case. Probably why I have a hard time with the Hobbs issue after the whole Byers did it mantra for the past decade prior.

      There’s a twist around every corner. Bottom line, this is a very polarizing case.

      1. I am such a fan of your posts….you have no clue.

        Anyway-don’t forget the case of Roger Keith Coleman. He was the anti-death penalty crowd’s cause until DNA testing came back proving he was guilty of the crime he had so ardently denied for years. Left many of his supporters with egg on their faces. He, in fact, pushed for DNA testing to be done. IMO there is just no limit to what exactly a narcissistic sociopath will lie about….they always think they can dupe the other guy no matter what.

        1. You hit the nail on the head with the narcissist label. I would ask supporters why DE sees so fit to lie about so much? He lies about stuff not even worth lying about “I had to relearn how to use a fork”. He does this in every interview.

          1. However, unlike the Roger Keith Coleman case, none of the retested DNA evidence has come back with even a possibility of the donor being any of the falsely convicted men. Damien and Jason both had long hair at the time of the murders. Yet, none of their hair was found at the scene.

            The only identified hairs most likely belong to Terry Hobbs (97.5% match) and David Jacoby (93% match). Those percentages are simply too high to be summarily dismissed. Hobbs denies that he even saw the boys on May 5, 1993 and Jacoby says that he only saw them from a distance. Both Hobbs and Jacoby deny having been to the discovery ditch.

            So, to quote JMB, how did the hairs get there? Did they fly on Harry Potter’s magic wand? Transfer won’t work. The shoelace under which the Hobbs’ hair was found was a foreign lace – not one from any of the boys’ shoes. Yes, the Jacoby hair was found later, but wasn’t the crime scene secured by the WMPD on May 6. 1993? The ONLY people who should have been at the scene after the bodies were discovered should have been LE officials.

            So, if you believe Terry Hobbs, his hair couldn’t have been innocent transfer as he did not have contact with the boys that day (and the lace under which it was found wasn’t even from one of the boys’ tennis shoes). Also, and IMO much more damning, how did the Jacoby hair get there? It doesn’t matter when it was found. What matters is that it WAS found and where it was found – on the tree stump by the ditch where the bodies were found.)

    3. Long time lurker, first time poster. Nathan, in response just by skimming your comment for the first time, you said this:

      “If ANY dna from ANY of the wm3 was found during the new testing, even if it was only a small percent match, non-supporters would jump for joy. You would be shouting about how “so and so’s dna was there, see…..told you they were guilty. Can’t argue DNA”. Ok. Fair enough. But why then does someone else’s DNA present NOT link them to the crime? This is what I do not understand. WM3?s dna is found, proof they are guilty. Hobbs and Jacoby’s dna found, means nothing. WM3 still guilty. This I just cannot wrap my head around. ”

      The most obvious reason to me there would be a difference is that neither Jason, Damien or Jessie lived with any of those 3 boys. It would be natural for Terry Hobbs’ hair to be found considering Stevie was his stepson. Any sort of evidence that is either J, D, or D’s would not have any reason to be there at the crime scene.

      1. Lucielle,

        The Hobbs hair wasn’t found on Stevie. It was found under a ligature used to bind Michael Moore. Additionally, Hobbs denies having been in contact with Stevie (or any of the boys, for that matter) on May 5, 1993. No evidence has been found at the discovery site that is irrefutably linked to Damien, Jason or Jessie.

  3. I agree 200% with Nathan. As a supporter who is slowly leaning towards the three being guilty, I too find the hoax boards to be disgraceful. I have never even made an account there because I know what will happen if I do.

    I once witnessed a young girl who joined because she was doing a paper on the case for a class in high school. Yes, high school. Meaning she was likely under 18. The members over did not take kindly to the questions she was raising. Even though they knew she was a high school student doing a paper, they told her that they hoped that she gets raped and murdered and that her parents find her mutilated and raped corpse in the woods. This type of sick comments went on for awhile and then she was banned.

    I also saw a member make a post saying that they were having second thoughts on the West Memphis Three’s guilt. This was a member who had been on the forum for quite a whole as I could see. He was immediately told by the members that they hoped that someone murdered his kid and then fucked their dead corpse in front of him before he was banned.

    Seriously, what is wrong with the people there? And they say non supporters are sick? And it’s not just a few bad apples. It seems to be the entire forum.

      1. Yeah, I’ve been a member there awhile and a lurker even longer. I think you made up the high school story. If it happened, a moderator would have deleted it.

        Yes, things can get rambunctious over there, but I look at it as a push to make sure I have my FACTS straight. If you come over with something stupid, you’re gonna get roughed up until you 1. Learn the facts or 2. Leave.

        By something “stupid” I mean posting something that through ignorance blames and/or hurts the families of the victims.

        I encourage you to post that link to the high schooler and hoax rape wishes.

        1. “By something “stupid” I mean posting something that through ignorance blames and/or hurts the families of the victims. ”

          Yet that board says bad things about both JMB and Pam Hobbs. I’ve seen them. To them, “facts” are only what they believe. Personally, I think the vitriol is to cover their sneaking suspicion that, given the wealth of information that has come out since the original convictions, they just MIGHT be wrong. Of course, discussing the Hoax is really moot now. The board is practically dead and has been since shortly after the three innocent men were released.

          Supporter leaning non, I have no doubt but that the high school story is true. However, I also have no doubt but that the offending posts have since been removed. That’s the way it works over there. If your posts disagree with their theory, you’re banned. If something disproves what one of the “Hero Members” says, it is removed. And if someone calls them on their nefarious and despicable manner of posting, the posts are removed and you are called a liar.

          1. Stop lying CR.

            To anybody who might believe this drivel, I encourage you to use critical thinking. Go over to the Hoax and read for yourself. You will see many posts where supporters and nons argue, and argue vehemently. It gets very rowdy.

            You will also see these supporters are not banned.

            You will also see supporters asking polite questions. They get polite answers back.

            CR, I have to say, you are without a doubt, flat-out the most blinded, gullible, sycophantic murder groupie I have ever seen in my life.

  4. Nathan you seem like a man who respects an intelligent debate so I’m going to give this a shot.

    “Is Hobbs DNA at the crime scene circumstantial? Maybe. But you cannot deny it is suspicious.”
    —It’s not suspicious in the lest. As a former supporter myself let me help you with this one. It is not suspicious in any way for a fathers DNA to be on his child. If something happened to my child my DNA would be present. My child an everyone who lives in my home could have trace amounts of my DNA on them. Most people I come in contact thru out the day could have trace amounts of my DNA on or around them.

    “If ANY dna from ANY of the wm3 was found during the new testing, even if it was only a small percent match, non-supporters would jump for joy.”

    1.The defense team would never reveal any DNA links that would impliminate their clients.
    2.There is NO reason for any DNA from the WM3 to be at that crime scene. None of the 3 claim they were there or even knew those children.

    “But why then does someone else’s DNA present NOT link them to the crime?”
    —No disrespect intended by this comment but you may need to get a better understanding of how DNA transfers itself from object to object.

    Good luck to you and your search for a better understanding of this terrible crime. This is a great website to help you.

    1. I understand how DNA transfers, but correct me if I am wrong…..was the “Hobbs Hair” not found in one of the knots? That I find hard to believe it was simply secondary transfer.

      And this is exactly the type of discussion I was looking to have. Both sides have great points, and I think a lot more could be learned and even proven (no matter which way it ends up going) if the two sides were able to have discussions like this more often.

      Even as a supporter, I feel that having a place for non supporters, is just as important to the case as a place for supporters.

      I meant what I said about the wm3 hoax forum too. I really think that now that they are free from prison, and more and more attention is being brought to the case, it would be a good idea to try and clean up that place a little bit. You are bound to have scores of new people interested in finding out about the case. As I pointed out, both sides have good points (I feel), and I also feel that in order for anyone to form an opinion on the case, they should investigate both sides of the spectrum and decide for themselves.

      However, the majority of people are going to be immedietely turned off of the non-supporter side once they visit the wm3 hoax forum. Do you guys really want that? Don’t you think you should be a little more welcoming to supporters who have genuine questions? I am not talking about trolls who may come there just to start shit. You have that on both sides. I am talking about intelligent people with real questions or who just are curious to see why the other sides thinks they arew guilty. These people should not be told to “fuck off and die” just because they are supporters.

      I see a lot of people who comment on here who say they are former supporters, just like I see people who say they are former nons and they now think they are innocent. Point being, it’s clear that it is possible for people to change their minds. Why continue to lose possible non supporters, all because the majority of members at that forum can’t see the word “supporter” without lashing out and telling them to die and then banning them? Clearly, some things need to change over there.

      I would be very surprised, and would probably join the forum and do more research on the other side if someone who had some power over there would make a post and try to talk some sense into the members over there.

      1. was the “Hobbs Hair” not found in one of the knots?

        I posed this question on the Hoax a while back:
        http://www.downonthefarm.org/wm3hoax/board/index.php/topic,9726.0.html

        The crime lab report labeled it simply “hair from ligature (Moore)”:
        http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_AA_04.jpg

        As for the so-called “Jacoby hair”, it was found on a tree stump near the crime scene 2-4 weeks after the murders. The DNA test narrowed its source to 7% of the population. Considering how many people tramped through that area before and after the murders, I see no reason to believe that the hair belonged to Jacoby or was deposited during the murders.

  5. thanks Respectfully……you summed up just about all the points I was going to make.

    “Hobbs and Jacoby’s dna found, means nothing. WM3 still guilty. This I just cannot wrap my head around. ”

    Quite easy to get a grip on, as Respectfully points out….Hobbs DNA on his stepson is totally reasonable. Any DNA from the WM3 being there would NOT BE reasonable. By their own testimony they were never at the scene nor had they ever had contact with the victims.

    If you really want something hard to “wrap your head around”….it’s lil Jessie’s 2/8 and 2/17 confessions somehow not pointing to the guilt of the WM3.

    1. Yes, those 2 other confessions are pretty hard to play down. Which is why it is not really spoken of. (From what I can tell with supporters) In fact, I had not heard of the other 2 confessions until I began to look into the possibility that they could be guilty.

      1. Please note that the Hobbs hair was found in/under the ligature of Michael Moore, not Hobbs’ step son. As to the Jacoby hair being from 7% of the population, it was mtDNA which comes from the maternal line. What that means is that 7% of the population shares a maternal ancestor with Jacoby. Children of the same mother have identical mtDNA. As a common maternal ancestor gets further away, the mtDNA reflects that distance. However, in any reasonable discussion, a 93% match is a pretty good indication of the donor, especially for mtDNA. Add to this the statement that Jacoby made for the Pasdar case (that Hobbs was in his [Jacoby’s] house from about 5:30 to 6:30 on May 5, 1993) and I believe that you can come up with a reasonable scenario.

        First, the Hobbs hair was actually two hairs – two auburn beard hairs. Consider the possibility that the ligature in question had to be cut in half (only one end of each ligature from Michael Moore had an aiglet). The person doing the cutting didn’t have a cutting instrument, so he used his teeth. A couple of beard hairs are dislodged and fall either into the knot or under the ligature. (There’s still some confusion as to whether the hairs were found entwined in the knot or simply under the ligature, trapped against the skin.) This person had been with his friend, who had long hair, earlier and picked up one or more of his friend’s hairs on his clothing. When he rested by the tree (after carrying two bodies from the scene of the crime to the discovery ditch), one of those hairs fell off and got caught on the tree stump to be found later by the investigators.

        If so many people were tramping through the crime scene, doesn’t that mean that the WMPD didn’t do their job? The scene should have been secured. If not, then nothing from the scene can be trusted as to have being placed there at the time of the murders. However, this particular tree stump was on a steep bank that was not easily accessible. The position of the stump is such that someone exiting the discovery ditch would likely use it as leverage to help them in getting out. It’s not a tree simply standing in the woods.

        1. Well done CR. Finally an inkling of doubt in my mind is raised.

          Please tell me more of this scenario. Why the hell would Hobbs and Jacobs possibly do this? More about Jacobs. Did he have a cast on his arm? What was his character like?

    2. Why is it difficult to believe that Jessie got more right in two POST CONVICTION statements than he did originally? He had heard the prosecution’s case presented, so he knew what their theory was. Even then (and, according to Dan Stidham, after having been questioned intensely by LE officials), he made critical mistakes. One such mistake involved the geography of the place.

      When shown a police map of the area (this is in the “Bible” statement), he said, “This is not right.” He didn’t recognize the supposed scene of the crime! Oh, you’re going to say that he was too drunk to remember. Then why should we believe anything he says? If he can’t identify the scene where these horrific crimes were committed from a police map, how could he possibly remember the supposed details that he gave in those two post conviction statements? Simple answer – he was never there.

    3. what im confused about is how you can participate/witness the slaughter of 3 8yr old boys and have 4 inconsistent “confessions”.you either remember exactly what happened or get your story cmpletely straight if you were in fact there.i think his neighbor who was on the search and rescue team and the officers questioning him perhaps gave him the skeleton of his story.he just added the meat.each time different.each time indifferent to the scene.

  6. “Also, is there not still false information in all of his confessions? There was no physical evidence that showed that the boys had been raped. And his account of Damien or Jason putting their penis in one of the boys mouths while the other held them from behind….. wouldn’t you think that an 8 year old fighting for their life would think to bite down on their penis. Hard. I just can’t see that going down without getting bit, or having drag marks from their teeth. ”

    Sadly as a career criminal investigator who deals with sexual assaults it’s not uncommon to see someone forced to perform oral sex on another. Imagine for a moment what pain and horror they were feeling at such a young age. Once a person has submitted to the will of another anything becomes possible.

    1. “Sadly as a career criminal investigator who deals with sexual assaults it’s not uncommon to see someone forced to perform oral sex on another. Imagine for a moment what pain and horror they were feeling at such a young age. Once a person has submitted to the will of another anything becomes possible.”

      That doesn’t explain why there were no signs of this supposed sexual assault on the bodies. Even Peretti had to admit that there were no signs of rape, sodomy, fellatio, etc. He said that the anal dilation was caused by the water, not by forced sex.

  7. Nathan, in my opinion a reason does not exist to explain Jesse’s repeated post conviction confessions. He placed his hand on a bible and swore he was telling the truth. You really need to think about this. Imagine the adrenaline as he was witnessing/participating in those murders. As is the case in extreme adrenaline fueled moments, car accidents, fights, etc. Remembering exact times details becomes a bit difficult at a later date. He got a ton of details correct, he knew Steve’s face had been cut badly and what side, he claimed he was the one who had beaten Michael and wasn’t going to “let them do him like the other two” and michael’s wounds were the least severe. He said he smashed an Evan Williams whiskey bottle by an overpass after the murders on his way home and the bottle was later found right where he said it would be. All 3’s alibis were found to be lies, proven so in court. Damien blew kisses to the victims parents, bahavior befitting an innocent on trial for their life would you say?

    It’s really just common sense, and if you get the chance, read Blink on crimes review of this case, all evidence and documents taken ito account by a woman hired by Depp’s assistant. She knew nothing of this case, Depp has been eerily quiet since she published her findings. These kids were submerged for 18 hrs, in 1993, and the crimescene was trampled before it was known it was even a crime scene. Evidence was mishandled, destroyed, and lost. Hobbs hair in the ligature? I tied my shoe the other day and a strand of my wifes hair was bound in the knot, because we live together. How about the blood on the pendant from Damien’s house that had blood consistent with baldwin and Steve Branch, Branch was mainlyBaldwin’s victim according to Jesse. The bottom line is when everything is taken into account, you are simply foolish if you think these guys are innocent.

    1. “Remembering exact times details becomes a bit difficult at a later date. ”

      I respectfully disagree. In a traumatic situation, I believe that people tend to remember vivid details, possibly for life. I know that I can give you very specific details about what I was doing, etc. on 9/11. Ditto with the Challenger explosion and the JFK assassination.

      “He said he smashed an Evan Williams whiskey bottle by an overpass after the murders on his way home and the bottle was later found right where he said it would be.”

      This is a bit of a sophistry. Jessie couldn’t remember under exactly which overpass he supposedly smashed the bottle. So, Stidham and some others went looking under overpasses. They didn’t go straight to the one Jessie identified (because he didn’t identify one), but they searched around until, lo and behold, they found a broken Evan Williams bottle under an overpass! (BTW, this was months, not weeks, after the crimes, and the bottle fragment that was found was never tested for fingerprints or any other evidence that would link it to Jessie let alone to the murders.) I believe that, if you searched under overpasses long enough, you could find one, too, provided that they sell Evan Williams where you live.

      “All 3?s alibis were found to be lies, proven so in court.”

      Jessie’s alibi witnesses, except for Louis Hoggard, were teenagers and were confused by cross examination. I don’t believe that makes their statements lies. I simply believe that it proves that the prosecutors were better at cross examination than the defense (who were inexperienced) were at redirect. Jason’s alibi wasn’t presented at the original trial. IMO, that was a failing of his attorneys. However, you can’t say that his alibi was disproved as it wasn’t presented. Damien got confused as to times, and his mother’s testimony allowed him to correct his time frame. The alibis weren’t lies. The problem was that all three were with friends and/or family during the critical time frame, and the jury chose to believe the spin put on the testimony by the prosecution instead of the honest truth. Maybe they should have invented better stories.

      “Damien blew kisses to the victims parents, bahavior befitting an innocent on trial for their life would you say?”

      Let’s say that it was behavior befitting a teenager who was naive enough to believe that he couldn’t be found guilty of something that he didn’t do. It was very foolish on his part. However, again, it doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that, at the time of the trial, he was a foolish teenager.

      “These kids were submerged for 18 hrs, in 1993, and the crimescene was trampled before it was known it was even a crime scene. Evidence was mishandled, destroyed, and lost. ”

      Yes, the WMPD did a bang-up job, didn’t they? Yet, you find it hard to believe that they were either incompetent or that they had a preconceived notion, going into the investigation, of who the killer was – and they simply sought out evidence to prove their theory (or rather Jerry Driver’s theory) of Satanic cult murders. A competent police department looks at the evidence and then forms a theory about the crime. The WMPD formed a theory and then manipulated evidence to attempt to prove their theory. IMO, it’s unethical, to say the least!

      “Hobbs hair in the ligature? I tied my shoe the other day and a strand of my wifes hair was bound in the knot, because we live together.”

      Again, the Hobbs hair was not in his step son’s ligature. It was in/under the ligature of Michael Moore. Even so, how did Jacoby’s hair get there?

      “How about the blood on the pendant from Damien’s house that had blood consistent with baldwin and Steve Branch,”

      Damien and Jason shared that pendant, although it was technically Damien’s. Jason’s blood could have gotten on it if he nicked himself shaving, for instance. The testing done (DQ-Alpha 1 testing) merely identified a sequence (of six genomes IIRC) that was identical for both Jason and Stevie. It doesn’t prove whose blood it was; it could have been either. Unfortunately, the sample was so miniscule that it was used up in the initial testing and further testing, which could have actually extracted DNA, could not be performed. In short, the blood testing proved nothing except that Jason and Stevie share six genomes in their blood. Hardly earth-shattering.

      “The bottom line is when everything is taken into account, you are simply foolish if you think these guys are innocent.”

      That is your opinion. My opinion is different. I believe that the foolish ones are the ones who believe the three men to be guilty.

  8. Lucielle, you just hit on one of the main reasons so many people think these guys are innocent, in my estimation 95% of supporters dont even know a single post conviction confession, let alone multiple ones even exists. Real funny how paradise lost never mentions this huge detail, and not one mention of them in the second one either. Who needs to bother with facts when there is an agenda, those two films are the most damaging thing in this entire fiasco, the bullshit about black clothes, heavy metal music, and misfits is literally still being spewed out today.

    1. Again, post conviction statements should be totally accurate because they follow the trial in which the “evidence” was presented. Jessie’s post conviction statements, although more accurate than his pre-arrest statements, were still woefully inaccurate. No matter how many times someone tells a lie, it won’t make the lie morph into the truth. Jessie’s statements were lies – all of them.

  9. I appreciate your in depth explanation of the other side Scott H, but of course as usual of the nons….I am “simply foolish” to think they are innocent.

    Is it at all possible for me as (currently) a supporter to seek further answers and information without being called an idiot or foolish or stupid?

  10. I will repost my argument to nons from year ago. I don’t understand why nons are making such a big deal out of the bible confession and such, like its some kind of Gotcha! moment. We’ve always known that Jessie made post conviction confessions in an effort to do a deal with the prosecution. This is just the statement taken by his defense attorney to see what Jessie would be willing to testify to in court. Were there really any supporters naive enough to be unaware that this statement existed??

    The contents of this one are as much of a Rorshasch blot as all the others, and he is still unable to give the police any verifiable fact that they didn’t already know. Show us a confession where Jessie correctly identifies where the missing clothes went to, or – with apologies for the grisly nature of this question – where he correctly identifies what happened to the missing body parts from Chris Byers. Show me any confession at all given after Burnett told him he wasn’t going to get his sentence cut in return. Any of those would be gotcha moments, this is just more of what we already knew.

    But I suppose nons need something to fight the science stuff with. So we have non-match DNA evidence vs. the inconsistent ramblings of a lying dumbass. December should be an interesting month. Here’s hoping Jessie testifies, if only for the comedy value.

    1. Hete ya go nathan, off callahan’s copied from a case file. This is one heck of a coincidence. You wanna know why I get pissed at supporters, it’s because after years of researching this case, I have to continually point things out to people like you who have formed an opinion of innocence about 3 child murderers without fully investigating said case for themselves. Feel free to explain how Damien had a necklace in his house with Baldwin and Stevie’s blood on it. Think maybe the defense was a litte worried about this tidbit at a potential evidentiary hearing, probably why they were all too eager to take an alford plea than attempt to prove outright innocence in court. This is why nons hate Ellington, he didn’t need to do this b.s., they weren’t going anywhere before his dumbass came around.

      EXHIBIT “B”]

      IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS

      STATE OF ARKANSAS  PLAINTIFF

      VS.   NO: CR-93-450

      CHARLES JASON BALDWIN  DEFENDANT

                AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN N. FOGLEMAN

      STATE OF ARKANSAS
      COUNTY OF CRITTENDEN

      Comes now the affiant, John N. Fogleman, and after being duly sworn, states as follows:

           (1) I am a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Arkansas.  I was duly appointed as Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to represent the State of Arkansas in this matter now pending before the Court

           (2) It is my recollection that on March 11, 1994, prior to the State resting its case, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office advised defense counsel that, on the previous evening, it had discovered the possibility that blood was present on a necklace worn by separate defendant Damien Wayne Echols at the time of his arrest and that the necklace had been sent to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory.  The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office further advised defense counsel at that time that the serologist from the State Crime Laboratory, Kermit Channell, had informed the State that there was blood on the necklace and, at the State’s request, he would send the necklace to Genetic Design for further testing to determine whether there was any evidentiary value of the blood

      EXHIBIT “B”
      [000517]

      found thereon.  This information was made known to the defense and to the Court prior to the State resting.

           (3) On the afternoon of March 15, 1994, after Court had recessed for the day, the State was informed at approximately 4:30 p.m. by representatives of Genetic Design in North Carolina that they had received a result which would be consistent with the blood of both the defendant Charles Jason Baldwin and the victim Steve Branch.  The representatives of Genetic Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to determine which person the blood came from.  Thereafter, the State attempted to contact the attorneys for each defendant to notify them of this development and to discuss a possible one-day continuance in the matter  After unsuccessfully attempting to contact the attorneys for each defendant, the Court was contacted because of the problem of notification of the jury in the event a continuance was granted.

    2. Tom,

      Your confusion about the value of this particular confession is understandable. Supporters for many years have refused to acknowledge that it even exists. Dan Stidham has refused for many years to admit that it exists. At the same time they rely on statements made by Dr. Ofshe (who has never personally identified a false confession until AFTER somebody else has done so) yet ignore the advice of people like Warren Holmes.

      Jessie provided new details that were not known to the investigators. Those details, particularly that Vicki Hutcheson had provided him with alcohol right down to the type, were not known to anybody else prior to that statement. To this day Dan refuses to admit that only hours later he sat in Gary Gitchell’s office and listened on a speakerphone while Vicki confirmed that she had bought “Evan Williams” for Jessie on the day of the murders.
      Unless you believe in psychic powers of defense attorneys or that Dan somehow managed to slip a message to Vicki (which would defeat his purpose in corroborating his client’s account), the only explanation left is that Jessie was telling the truth.

      That, Tom, is why that confession is valuable.

  11. Hey Tom, do you mean like this, with Stidham literally standing next to Jesse before he confessed yet again. Was there a secret deal Misskelley had with the prosecution without his own lawyer’s knowledge? You really don’t know what you are talking about do you. If there was a deal to be had please provide documentation, I guess he already knew about this phantom deal on his way out of the courthouse after he had been convicted when he spilled his guts literally as soon as he got in the police car in route to jail. You see Tom, there was no deal, Jesse wasn’t retarded, he wasn’t coerced, he simply is the only one of the three that had a semblance of a conscience. His own mother talked of him waking up screaming and crying in the middle of the night in the weeks following the murders, nother coincidence right? When Jesse was asked why he was confessing yet again, his own words were “because he wanted something done about it” why do you refuse to believe his reason?

    DAVIS: And that this statement will be tape recorded and a copy of that tape or that tape will be provided to defense councel 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 this statement.

    ________: There has been no negotiations whatsoever primarily due to Mr. Misskelley’s refusal to talk to us.

  12. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/holcomb.html
    have you read this from Deanna Holcomb – Damien’s ex. Interesting read. Esp. for all the supporters. I’m sure they wouldn’t have read it yet. You just need to do some reading of the actual facts to see Damien for the blatant liar he is. Like on Piers Morgan – he just makes stuff up!Lorri must know by now.
    a snippet “Damien could never hurt himself. He doesn’t love anyone but himself. He loves himself to much.
    Damien once told me that he had never killed anyone but wondered what it would feel like.”

    ” I found out that he plained to kill our first born if it was a girl. “

  13. I have read the Deanna Holcomb statements before. To be honest, I don’t believe a word of them. It comes off to me more as hearsay and lies. And no, I am NOT one of those supporters who takes every single word against the wm3 and screams “LIES”. Bu this one, I am more inclined to think is likely exageration or flat out lies. Any man who had an ex girlfriend in high school should know what I’m talking about. lol

    I do have another question, if someone would be so kind as to help me out on. Something that actually came to my mind once I learned that Jessie had declined to appear on Piers Morgan.

    Has Jessie ever made a public or recorded statement in which HE states that his confessions were made up and that the first confession used during his trial was forced? I am about to bring up the films, so please do not bash this for coming from the films, as its not information I am referring to. Just an observation.

    I noticed that although Damien and Jason in both Paradise Lost 1 and 2 proclaim their innocence to the camera and to others around them numerous times, the same cannot be said for Jessie. Even in Paradise Lost 2, Jessie never mentions in his interviews that he was forced to confess. In fact, from memory, I don’t recall Jessie in either film even utter the word “innocent”. It was always his lawyers and legal team. Even in the footage that took place behind closed doors, it was always the lawyers saying “Jessie said he wasn’t gonna lie on the stand” or “Jessie said they forced him to confess”.

    So is there any record of Jessie himself stating that he was forced to confess?

  14. If this case proves anything it’s: You see what you want to see. To illustrate the obvious…

    If you think the WM3 are innocent, then to you Jessie is simply retarded. You will never be swayed from your position.

    If you think the WM3 are innocent, then to you Damien was just a “typical angst-ridden teen.” 500 pages of medical records means nothing, never will.

    If you think the WM3 are innocent, then every crime scene is logically scattered with hundreds and hundreds of obvious DNA samples (or at least one single partial hair fiber.)

    If you think the WM3 are innocent, then you probably think 10am to 2:30pm is “over 12 hours.”

    If you think the WM3 are innocent, then I guess you don’t think that kids could do really random, stupid, vicious things. (Especially perhaps drunk kids with dead end lives who lived in trailer parks and had really, really shitty homemade tattoos that included E.V.I.L. on knuckles and BITCH on their chest.)

    Ok, you get the point — and yes, rope is NOT a shoelace (but it could be, sorta, if you’re…retarded)

    I guess what really illustrated this point was when I stumbled upon a chart/map from a supporter site I like that was trying to show how the crime scene WAS NOT NEAR Damien or Jason’s trailer parks.

    The map attached (from Jivepuppi) shows how logically there was no clear path between the two trailer parks — certainly not one that is anywhere near Robin Hood Hills. Now with that in mind look at the map:

    http://www.jivepuppi.com/images/paths_betweeny.jpg

    If you run a straight edge on the map from Lakeshore trailer park to Broadway trailer park it literally runs through the crime scene. The crime scene is the mid-point between their trailers. Even with the map assuming they are in a car and only using roads (ignoring the fact that they walked), the various paths still come within a block of the crime scene.

    How does this map show anything otherwise? Am I insane?

    Again, you see what you want to see.

  15. To possibly better explain my post above — The caption below the map linked above reads:

    “Lakeshore, upper left, home of Jason Baldwin and Domini Teer. Broadway Trailer Park, lower right, home of Damien Echols. The most direct connections along city streets are highlighted in yellow. These would have taken Baldwin and Echols through the neighborhood of the victims – but not near the crime scene. ”

    The key words being BUT NOT NEAR THE CRIME SCENE. Really?!? How is that not near crime scene?

    Map image found here — bottom of page: http://www.jivepuppi.com/case_for_innocence_baldwin.html

    1. Let’s not forget that Damien lived in the Mayfair Apts. as a child, which overlooks the crime scene. There’s a good chance he knew about this cut through. Also there were past eye-witness accounts of him in the neighborhood. Dana and Todd Moore say he was nearby the morning after the murders…

  16. Yes I agreee, the discovery site is right near Lakeshore. (sounds a bit posh doesn’t it) couldnt get much more of a direct route. But as you say, all the evidence is in front of them but they have blinkers on. -Just don’t want to know. Suckers. Hopefully more and more supporters will start to do some research – thinking something just doesnt add up.

  17. I’m a” non”and wm3 hoax still hasn’t activated my account — so maybe they aren’t accepting new members period.

    I’ve read alot of threads there and have learned much. I’ve seen some contention between supporters and nons, but not the viciousness claimed here. Meanwhile, every time I debate w/ a supporter, I am insulted and ridiculed. So has my “mother”, for whatever reason.

    It goes both ways, I suppose.

    1. I have only been following since I saw Peter Jackson supporter them and donated money. The case caught my eye as there is a similar one here. Only read a few pages on Callaghans and I was sure of their guilt.
      The only person I wonder about is Terry. The abuse allegations and reaction after the murders weren’t good (reading family testimonials) and the marks on one of the boys that seems to have crosses like he has fallen on a pole perhaps. Anyway still think the three are guilty and it’s only a matter of time before they get tripped up.

    2. Hey Eva –

      The hoax board shut down the membership due to overwhelming spam – I was just allowed to join a few weeks ago, although I registered a couple of months ago – but if you let me know what your screen name is you registered as – I’ll let someone know on the board so you can get approved.

      Thanks!

      1. Hi Christina! I tried to register at the WM3 Hoax too . My screen name I attmpted to register with was CJinTX. Thanks for your help!

        1. Hi CJ –
          Sorry for the delay – after I made the offer – I forgot to check back to see if anyone was interested – whoops!

          I just sent a message for you. Hopefully it won’t take long to get you registered.

          Thanks!

      2. I tried to register too. Can you help me as well. I found the hoax after reading so many supporters boards and wanted to hear the non supporters side. Reading the post there and reading the info on Callahan’s really helped me see that the three were not wrongly convicted.

        1. I don’t remember what screen name I had chosen. I think it might have been loss4words. I think it is the way I felt because I tried to register about the same time they were released from prison.

          1. Hi Cindy –
            They said they can’t find where you registered as loss4words. Can you re-register and let me know when you do? Then I’ll forward that info.

    1. This dickheads Girlfreind is black and he is calling Obama a coon.
      And Billy Boy.. Obama wasn’t in power when these boys where killed. I bet you can’t tell me who was though can you… idiot…

    1. BILLY BOY MARTINDALE had 15 seconds of fame because he appeared in a newspaper. he will now do absoloutley anything to try to get his ugly fat mug in the paper or to get any type of attention possible.

  18. just wanted to add, Jessie could have been easily persuaded by the west memphis police to make a confession to be made out to look like a hero, there are several accounts where people have given false confessions, I heard about how Jessie didnt even know a thing about “satan” or what it was, there is not a chance these three boys could have killed the boys, understand all the blood that would have been seen, but there was not a drop found anywhere around the scene of the crime, i cant see how these boys just stumbled upon these boys, brutally murdered them and left not one drop of blood, because that is exactly what Jessie confessed and said, that they found the boys in the woods , since the nons seem to be so set on the confession when more than half the things were bogus or inconsistant….just wanted to add my point

    1. Welcome to the forum AJI.

      Misskelley didn’t confess just once, he made several confessions. And there was blood at the crime scene. A Luminol test showed several spots in the woods with blood . Luminol testing was new and wasn’t admissible in court in Arkansas back in 1994.

      Go to the top left of this site to read the evidence against the WM3, you may just change your opinion on their innocence.

      1. None of Jessie’s statements agree with the evidence from the discovery ditch. I don’t care how many times one tells a lie, it is still a lie. All of Jessie’s statements were lies.

        All but some very small areas in the immediate area of the discovery ditch that reacted to the Luminol were spots where the WMPD placed the bodies after recovery from the ditch. The areas that reacted to the Luminol that were in the immediate area of the discovery ditch appeared to be areas where the hapless WMPD officers tracked blood from the bodies. A larger area that reacted to the Luminol was further down the trail – kinda like someone was carrying the bodies from the murder scene and laid them down for a minute to rest.

        Luminol is not blood specific. It reacts to many other things, including rust and urine. That’s why it’s not admissible by itself. The WMPD should have retested the areas indicated by Luminol with another chemical. Instead, they retested with Luminol. Sometimes I think Jessie’s IQ is higher than theirs.

        1. None of Jessie’s statements agree with the evidence from the discovery ditch. I don’t care how many times one tells a lie, it is still a lie. All of Jessie’s statements were lies.

          All but some very small areas in the immediate area of the discovery ditch that reacted to the Luminol were spots where the WMPD placed the bodies after recovery from the ditch. The other areas that reacted to the Luminol that were in the immediate area of the discovery ditch appeared to be areas where the hapless WMPD officers tracked blood from the bodies. A larger area that reacted to the Luminol was further down the trail – kinda like someone was carrying the bodies from the murder scene and laid them down for a minute to rest.

          Luminol is not blood specific. It reacts to many other things, including rust and urine. That’s why it’s not admissible by itself. The WMPD should have retested the areas indicated by Luminol with another chemical. Instead, they retested with Luminol. Sometimes I think Jessie’s IQ is higher than theirs.

  19. The only fact is nobody knows the truth and you never will. They even got away with being able to say “im guilty and innocent” this entire circus is a once in a lifetime event. But riddle me this im still wondering why noone talks about the fact that a black man was bleeding and muddy in the area of the crime and a negroid hair being found at the crime scene and somehow this guy vanishes and the blood sample vanishes ? Blows my mind. Also why didnt they take a stool sample from echols he probably consumed the removed testicles.

  20. I discovered your site site on google and check a couple of your early posts. Preserve inside the top notch operate. I just extra up your Feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking for toward reading far more of your stuff afterwards!…

  21. You can definitely see your skills in the article you write.

    The world hopes for more passionate writers like you
    who aren’t afraid to say how they believe.
    All the time follow your heart.

  22. Hello I am so delighted I found your site, I really found you
    by error, while I was researching on Bing for something else, Nonetheless I am here now
    and would just like to say kudos for a fantastic
    post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design),
    I don’t have time to read it all at the moment but I have book-marked it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the excellent work.

  23. That is a really good tip especially to those
    new to the blogosphere. Short but very precise info…
    Thank you for sharing this one. A must read article!

  24. Been looking at this case for years. I just want to spew a few points relative to the ‘new’ finding of Hobbs’ hair in a ligature…

    From the ORIGINAL forensics tests:

    2 foreign hair fragments recovered from Steve Branch were microscopically similar to pulled head hairs from Mr. Echols.

    Hair collected from the lower leg of one of the victims, exhibited microscopic characteristics consistent with the known hair of Mr. Echols.

    Hair recovered from the ligatures that bound Chris Byers was found to be microscopically similar to known head hair samples from Jason Baldwin.

    A shirt found at the residence of Jessie Misskelley tested positive for blood. DQ Alpha type DNA testing showed that the blood was the same DQ Alpha type as Michael Moore.

    Then there is the Echols necklace with blood on it. The Baldwin blue candle wax.

    A couple of the most obvious things:

    Supporters saying that Echols was non-chalant and careless because how could one think they could be convicted of something they didn’t do? It fits better that he was daydreaming and non-chalant because he new he was guilty and ‘done’.

    Echols testified under oath that the ‘softball girls’ were lying, then, in a much later interview says, if he said such, it was a joke.

    Echols testified he lived in Broadway Trailer park. He now says he rarely ever went to West Memphis and never lived there.

    Misskelley confessed multiple times, in multiple different forums, even with his hand on a bible and his lawyers pleading with him not to.

    It is amazing that WM# supporters have latched on to the single Hobbs and Jacoby hairs, yet, forsaking the several Echols hairs? His constant lying/cover-up? Paradise Lost he is holding his kid, is aked, what do you think his first words will be – “not guilty”? Echols’ response – “no – capital murder”. Look at the clip where Misskelley’s family is awaiting verdict – they are bitchin about keeping his head down and how Echols is looking all over the place – Misskelley’s sister says, “Damian is a good boy” – look at the reaction and look Misskelley gives her. The clip where Misskelley is flirting with his girlfriend over the phone and she says, well, you can come do me when you get out – his reaction – “when I get out? [I ain’t never getting out – I am busted for capital murder]”.

    I could go on for a whole blog’s worth of stuff, and, will concede – I find nothing that is absolute against any one. Having said that, some baked dough with cheese, marinara, and pepperoni on it isn’t necessarily pepperoni pizza, yet, considering the ridiculous amount of coincidental circumstance (let’s not forget Misskelley’s confessionS are NOT circumstantial – that is real, actual evidence) surrounding the WM3, I’d say it is a pretty safe bet (so did 24 jurors in two separate trials) that the three did the crime as Jessie stated.

  25. Der Versuch, diese Vielfalt und die sprachlichen, kulturellen und religiösen Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen dieses Volkes zu respektieren, macht eine allgemeine Bezeichnung schwierig.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *