Updated profile page on Damien Echols

The Damien Echols profile page in the case history has been updated. It’s now much longer and more detailed, with page references to Exhibit 500.

Comments, suggestions, proofreading corrections, etc, appreciated.

98 thoughts on “Updated profile page on Damien Echols”

  1. You might want to check whether there ever was a final determination made on Echols’ disability application. There is no final determination letter in the 500; the defense counsel said it happened but the State–which had easy access to determine such–did not attempt to rebut. I don’t think it even checked. The bottom line is it appears no such final determination ever was made. It would have been breathtaking in speed and unlikely, and once incarcerated Echols was ineligible.

    This is likely in error although I realize you got that from unchallenged defense claims.

    Otherwise solid work although I will check for other errors later.

    1. I looked into this question a while back. Addict steered me to several documents from Echols 2001 “Writ of Error” petition.

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

      Scott Davidson: “I have been informed that at the time Mr. Echols was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death in 1993-1994, the Social Security Administration had determined that he was 100% disabled due to mental impairments.”

      Val Price: “I have been informed that at the time Mr. Echols was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death in 1993-1994, the Social Security Administration had determined that he was 100% disabled due to mental impairments.”

      George Woods: “Mr. Echols’ mental illness was established before the offense and subsequent legal proceedings. The Social Security Administration determined that Mr. Echols was 100% disabled due to mental impairment and granted him full disability benefits.”

      James Moneypenny: “Although I was provided with a good deal of background material about Mr. Echols, I was not informed that the Social Security Administration had determined that Mr. Echols was 100% disabled due to mental impairments and, thus, did not take that fact into account when I conducted my evaluation.”

      1. I’m not out in left field but this still doesn’t hang right. I will note the SSA Mission District letter indicates exactly what you wrote and apparently was relied upon for the affidavits, but it raises several questions.

        Echols began application with the state disability determination section in January, 1993, and his paperwork was completed around late February, 1993. This is available through the 500. He was assisted while in the state mental hospital, quite common. He was arrested and incarcerated in June, 1993. The Mission District letter indicates he received SSI payments from January 1993 until his conviction in July 1994. I understand he would have been eligible for backpay from the date he applied, but the county jail incarceration period would have terminated the benefits from at least June 1993 onwards as a matter of law.

        If his initial application was approved before his arrest and incarceration in June 1993, this was an unbelievably speedy turn-around.

        Further, the state disability determination section’s approval letter is nowhere to be found unless I overlooked it here and I know it isn’t in the 500.

        It would have been the state, and not the feds, at the initial stage where this was approved so the determination letter would have been easily ascertained.

        Something always has bugged me about this. I obviously don’t dispute what was provided, but it seems at odds with the law, facts, and circumstances of his application.

  2. I promise you won’t like what I have to say. However, I will say it anyway. As you have the right to opine on Exhibit 500, so do I.

    I am a retired public school teacher, and I have taught countless “Damiens” in my 25 year career. They make outrageous statements. They “act out” in bizarre fashion. However, they usually do it for attention. I had a student once who, during a parent conference, with both parents , all of his teachers, his assistant principal and his counselor present, told his parents, “If it’s the last thing I do, I’ll kill you! I’ll kill you some way that hurts you a lot!” That was the first parent conference of the school year. It was punctuated with his back pack being flung across the room. Later ones were no better. He was hospitalized several times during the school year in a mental hospital. Finally, he was “labeled” as “Emotionally Disturbed” and sent back to school. He acted strangely around most of his peers, except a couple who he considered close friends. He was a loner, and he constantly kept others away from him with his bizarre behavior. Once I heard him tell another student, “I worship the Devil, and, I’ll put a spell on you if you don’t leave me alone.” In short, he was very much like Damien in action. There was one difference. He came from an affluent home. Damien came from poverty. (BTW, just like Damien, he never killed anyone. He eventually graduated from high school and is a businessman now.)

    Most people won’t believe what I’m going to write next, but it is the truth. There is a section of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) called Section 501, if memory serves, that covers people who, although not certifiably mentally ill, have mental health problems. When these people are students in public schools, the teachers are required to implement “accommodations” very similar to the “modifications” implemented for students with learning disabilities. What this means is that a teacher sometimes must change the way he/she teaches or the assignments he/she gives to these students (both SE and 501) to make it possible for these students to be successful in the classroom. The 501 students are really unusual cases. For instance, if the students “act out” in class, we must report it on a special form or to the counselors. What happens next is really unbelievable, but it’s true. The government pays the parent extra money because the child is “acting out” in class. The kids call it their “crazy check” and often are told by a parent to “act up” just to get it. Believe it or not – it’s true.

    When Damien returned from Oregon, he was planning to live on his own. Not being able to return to school, he had few opportunities for a job. So, he applied for SSI Disability. (Whether or not he got it is immaterial to what I have to say.) He would have to get recommendations from medical doctors if his disability were physical, but, for a mental disability, he would need recommendations from mental health professionals. I have had social workers admit to me that, in similar cases, they have “exaggerated” symptoms and made innocuous statements seem otherwise in an effort to “help” someone get the SSI payments. No one will go on record with this admission because it’s unethical if not illegal and would cost them their job. However, it’s true. I have no doubt but that someone “helped” Damien in this way. I believe that it’s also possible that the examinations that lead to his admission to Charter Hospital might have contained exaggerations as well. The family was struggling. Damien did not get along with his step father. He needed a place to stay and a motel was out of the question. The same was true in Oregon, although I think he got along a little better with his biological father, but not much! Can I document this? Of course not! As I said, the good Samaritan who acted in this way would lose his/her job!

    So, Exhibit 500 is simply not worth the paper upon which it is written. It was an attempt by the defense to exaggerate Damien’s problems in an effort, during the penalty phase of the trial, to remove the Death Penalty from the table. Burnett didn’t believe that Damien was mentally ill enough to escape the Death Penalty, and none of his hospitalizations were lengthy. I guess you could say that Damien’s mental problems were not that serious after all. It seems that he outgrew them, so maybe they did stem from teen angst after all.

    Additional, Damien had no psychotic episodes while incarcerated for over 18 years. People as mentally ill as you want to make Damien would not have been able to go that long without a psychotic episode. In short, these spurious claims are just an attempt to justify your belief that Damien murdered those three little boys. He didn’t. If he had not been so poor as to not be able to afford an attorney, I believe that he would have been found not guilty. His only “crime” was to be poor, a teenager and an aficionado of heavy metal music and black clothes. That made him seem different in the small towns of Marion and West Memphis. That made the citizens look at him askance. Given the “Satanic panic” of the time, he was an easy target, but, although I agree that his behavior should have made him a person of interest, evidence that he committed the murders is woefully missing. He is innocent of these crimes, and so are his co-defendants, Jason and Jessie.

    1. Those are some good points, and I agree with several. Maybe you’ve heard of the Columbine High School massacre. Maybe you should google it if not. Maybe those two were just “acting out” to get some free money too. His only crime was “to be poor, a teenager and an aficionado of heavy metal music and black clothes”, really….gee and you claim to be a public school teacher. I’m the same age as these killers, I remember all kinds of poor kids liking metal with a taste for black clothes. I would love to see how you defend their alibies. I guess you also believe that MissKellie was questioned for 17 hours, and he’s retarded.

      1. Ok,

        You need to shut up plain and simple. Jason, Damien and Jessie ARE NOT Dylan nor Eric. I have not only seen the video of the massacre and seen victims. I am from Colorado and my sister worked with mother of a son who was there that day. He had to walk over his friends BODIES. And from your comment you have NO idea about anything the Columbine MASSACRE. I am so angry with people like you.

      2. Nothing you say, Yeah Right, can change the truth. I did teach public school for 25 years, and in inner city schools, not schools like Columbine. I am well aware of the Columbine massacre and all the outbreaks of violence that followed. They have nothing to do with this case. Dylan and Eric were disaffected RICH kids who went wrong. Poor kids are different – and I’ve taught both although most of my experience is with poor kids. You see, the problem here is that I actually experienced the things I experienced. They are not “testimony” or “celebrity hype” or anything else. They are FIRST HAND EXPERIENCES. Sorry, but you can’t change my experiences, no matter how much you want to.

        As to Jessie Misskelley, he is BORDERLINE MENTALLY RETARDED, as the link I provided points out. He was in custody for approximately 12 hours before he was arrested. Although he was not interrogated for the entire time, the mere fact that he was being held is sufficient for someone of his mental disabilities to be confused. One thing about people of Jessie’s IQ level (which Burnett tried hard to keep from the trial) – they are highly suggestible. As such, the questioning and the fact that Jessie was being “caged up” led to his false confession. There are a plethora of sites that discuss false confessions. Two things that consistently produce false confessions are youth and lack of intelligence. Jessie had both. Add in the leading questions and you’ve got your false confession.

        As to the alibis, after 6:30 pm, Damien was with family. After 6:30 pm, Jason was with family. After 6:30 pm, Jessie was wrestling in Dyess or on his way there. The fact that the prosecutors were able to discombobulate Jessie’s alibi witnesses on the stand doesn’t surprise me one bit, or make me disbelieve them. They were scared teens at the time. The prosecutors weren’t able to shake the story of Louis Hoggard, though.

        ( http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/lhoggard1.html )

        He was an adult and he stuck to his story. The sad truth of this case is that the three innocent teens were convicted because the town wanted the case solved. That way they could go on about their business without fear. The three were easy targets because they were “throw away” kids who stood out. I’m glad that they’re free, and I look forward to the not-too-distant day when they are exonerated.

        1. Compassionate Reader,I am trying to follow the logic here. You state that you have encountered many students that acted out in threatening manners and bizarre behaviors for attention. How do you know when to take the threats seriously? I do not see a clear picture in this comment section that shows what signs one would look for in determining acting from a true threat? It almost sounds as if you determined Damien as faking his mental illness simply because he came from a poor household. After reading the 500 along with statements like the ones listed in the above post a frightening picture of Damien Echols most definitely emerges.

          1. Cindy,

            Those who need to be taken seriously are usually NOT the ones who “act out.” Seriously violent teens are generally model students. Gang members come to mind. One thing that they are careful about is NOT causing trouble in the classroom. What usually gives them away is the “tagging” on their notebooks and schoolwork.

            A teen who would be capable of killing three eight year old children would probably not exhibit any outward evidence of his intent. Think Ted Bundy or Dennis Rader (the BTK killer) or Jeffrey Dahmler. Usually, the threats to be taken seriously are NOT the ones made publicly but the ones that few people hear. I’m not saying that Damien’s history should have been totally overlooked. I’m saying that it should have made him a person of interest, but it’s not enough to convict him of murder.

            No, I’m not saying that Damien is faking a mental illness. I’m saying that the mental health professionals exaggerated his condition. The social workers did this to get Damien admitted to the hospital. The hospital was preferable to his home life. He live in abject poverty.

            Most of us will never truly understand what that means, but, if you read Damien’s first book, “Almost Home,” you’ll get some idea. The social workers recognized that Damien was depressed and realized that one major cause of that depression was his home life. So, they exaggerated that depression into a condition that would, at least temporarily, get him out of that home. The hospital exaggerated the conditions in an attempt to keep him there and away from the home. Finally, the psychologist that testified exaggerated his condition to try to avoid the Death Penalty. That’s why such a “frightening picture of Damien … emerges.” That was the intent.

            Let’s stop for a minute and consider what, beside Exhibit 500, leads one to believe that Damien committed these murders. Jessie’s statements? That’s another problem with this case. I’m not going to claim that he was interrogated for 12 hours. However, he WAS in custody for about 12 hours before he was actually arrested (picked up between 9:30 and 10 am and not arrested until about 9 pm). Even if he wasn’t being interrogated the entire time, he was in custody. That means he was in a stressful situation. And he’s only 17 years old and had NO ONE with him who was on his side. I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure that I wouldn’t have confessed in order to get out of that situation!

            He’s slow – borderline mentally retarded based on his full scale IQ score – which makes him suggestible. When he first made a statement, he said that he heard that Damien and Robert Burch committed the murders. That wasn’t good enough to get the reward money (because he thought that by turning Damien in he would get the reward), so he elaborated.

            Again, from my teaching experience, I understand how the mind of someone in Jessie’s IQ range works – not just through coursework but by ACTUAL EXPERIENCE teaching students (high school students, BTW) in that range. When confronted with questioning, their primary objective is to make the questioning stop. They will say whatever they think the questioner wants to hear that will make the questioning stop. So, Jessie’s statements were coached. He was so naive that he believe that he would be going home, even after he implicated himself in the crime! Again, this is typical of someone who is borderline mentally retarded.

            What other evidence is there against Damien? The tweens at the softball game? IF Damien made those statements, it was said sarcastically. That type of statement, said sarcastically, is just exactly what a kid like Damien would say in order to be left alone by his tormentors.

            Again, IF the statement was made, I don’t think it was unprompted. I think that many people in the town suspected Damien of the murders because that’s how small towns work (I grew up in one). IF the statement was made, I think it all started when someone asked, “Hey, did you kill those little boys? Everyone’s sayin’ you did!” Then, it’s possible that Damien SARCASTICALLY answered with the statement that the tweens OVERHEARD. Remember, they weren’t part of the conversation; they were eavesdropping. Also, one of the mothers (the one that was there) has since said that she didn’t think Damien was serious.

            What does that leave? A fiber that could have come from his little brother’s Garanimals shirt that was found at the scene? Remember, even Lisa Sakevicius admitted that none of the fibers could be conclusively said to have come from any items in the defendants’ homes. The defense is still retesting those fibers with newer methods that should help resolve this mystery.

            As you can see, there is no evidence against Damien that a reasonable jury should have accepted as “proof” of guilt. The “Satanic panic” of the time, along with the desire to find the killer quickly, led to a rush to judgement on the part of the jury. So, the jury found them guilty.

            They had help, however. In the Echols/Baldwin trial, they had a foreman who illegally introduced Jessie’s statements into the deliberations. That SHOULD have led to a mistrial. However, the foreman’s actions didn’t come to light until years later, and Burnett wouldn’t listen to the arguments at that time, saying that it had been too long.

            In short, there is NOTHING that proves that Damien killed those little boys. He should have been presumed innocent, but he was presumed guilty – by the jury and by the town in general. Jason was convicted because he was Damien’s friend. (I don’t buy that LSD freak’s story for one minute.) Jessie was convicted because of his own false confession.

            But to get back on track here, Exhibit 500, the mainstay of this “profile” of Damien, is simply an exaggeration of a depressed teen – a victim of poverty and a small town’s unwillingness to accept someone who was “different” from what they considered to be right. It doesn’t prove that Damien killed those little boys any more than his profession of innocence on the stand proves that he didn’t.

            So, there is NO PROOF in the original trial that Damien is guilty, and he should have been found not guilty by the jury. This miscarriage of justice is why we have an appeals process in this country. Although that process was tainted because Burnett kept denying the appeals, just as soon as Burnett was out of the picture, a new judge with a fresh perspective, acting on the direction of the ASSC, saw this blight on the State of Arkansas and did what he could to release three innocent men. The politics of this situation are much more frightening than Damien!

          2. Those who need to be taken seriously are usually NOT the ones who “act out.” Seriously violent teens are generally model students.

            Do you have a citation for this claim? Plenty of exceptions come to mind — Rod Ferrell, Christa Pike, James Riva, Melinda Loveless, Robert Butler Jr.

          3. Yes, Compassionate Reader’s suggestion seems like something out of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22: Seriously violent people will not betray any sign of being violent. So, attempting to claw out the eyes of a fellow student, setting multiple fires, threatening to stab and eat a parent, and reportedly stomping a dog to death become signs of the truly non-violent?

            And the serial killers CR mentions did reportedly give some indication of their sociopathic future selves. As youths, Dennis Rader tortured animals, and Jeffrey Dahmer cruised neighborhoods for dead animals to dissect. It would seem Echols’ penchant for frog stabbing, dog stomping, and skull collecting would fit right in. Animal torture and fire setting are two elements of the Macdonald Triad, a set of three behaviors (bed-wetting is the third) that are commonly associated with sociopathic behaviors.

          4. The actions of Rader and Dahmer were not seen as outrageous by those around them. Damien was perceived to be “weird” by the town in general. He was presumed guilty, and that was wrong.

            As to Damien’s “dog stomping” and “frog gigging,” IMO these are tales told by teens who wanted their fifteen minutes. Sometimes people who live in small towns are attention-starved and often come out of the woodwork in a situation like this in order to be seen and heard. Damien’s father said that he was gentle with children and animals.

            As to the animal skulls, I agree that is a strange thing to collect, but it doesn’t make Damien a murderer. I’ve heard of people who collect dead butterflies. I don’t understand the thrill in that, either. As a poor youth, he couldn’t collect stamps or coins. He collected something that he found laying on the ground and was free.

          5. The thing is, for Echols to be innocent, it would mean everyone’s lying about him, and he’s telling the truth. Doesn’t probability alone suggest the opposite is much more likely true?

            So, Joe Bartoush lied about witnessing Echols stomp a dog to death. Mental health facility workers lied about or exaggerated Echols’ condition. School officials lied about his setting fires and attacking a fellow student. His parents lied when expressing fear for their own safety and the safety of a young child in their household. His ex-girlfriend lied about Echols expressing a curiosity for murder and a desire to sacrifice a child. The softball girls lied about overhearing Echols admit to the crimes. Detective Bryn Ridge lied about Echols offering self-implicating statements about the nature of the crimes and the wounds visited on the boys. Similarly the police lied when they claimed to have competently administered a polygraph exam to Echols, which he failed. Holly George lied about not talking to Echols on the phone that night. Jennifer Bearden lied about Echols’ grandmother reporting him as “out” at 8:00PM, lied about not being able to reach him until 9:20 or 9:30PM, AND lied about Echols telling her he’d just returned from his and Baldwin’s being driven somewhere by Baldwin’s Mom. And Baldwin’s Mom lied about working until 11:00PM that night. The Hollingsworths lied about seeing Echols, a boy they knew on sight, on the service road in muddy clothing. The state correctional facility would later lie about providing inmates with a plastic spork to eat with, an an outdoor exercise area for their use. And of course, the biggest liar of all, Jessie Misskelley, lied over and over in three lengthy detailed confessions which implicated Echols.

            No, no, clearly you’re right. I pity Echols, a good boy forced to grow up in a town filled to the brim with lying liars who lied. In fact I’m sending his application for sainthood to the Vatican. After all, he’s already taken part in two miracles: getting out of jail, and having much of the world go along with his suggested narrative. So far.

          6. Sorry. I put my response in the wrong place.

            OK. Let’s look at your points one at a time.

            “Joe Bartoush lied about witnessing Echols stomp a dog to death.”

            Yes. He was seeking his 15 minutes IMO. Do you seriously believe that, had Damien killed a Great Dane, the owners wouldn’t have reported it? Those dogs are expensive.

            “Mental health facility workers lied about or exaggerated Echols’ condition.”

            They exaggerated his condition. They did it with good intentions, however. They saw it as a way to get him out of an increasingly untenable home.

            “School officials lied about his setting fires and attacking a fellow student.”

            No. That probably happened. I’m not saying that he was a saint. I’m just saying that these teen behaviors don’t PROVE that he became a murderer.

            “His parents lied when expressing fear for their own safety and the safety of a young child in their household”

            His parents, although meaning well, simply didn’t understand him. It’s part of why the mental health professionals found a way to get him into the hospital, at least for a short time. If you read his first book, “Almost Home,” you will understand better about his miserable home life.

            “His ex-girlfriend lied about Echols expressing a curiosity for murder and a desire to sacrifice a child.”

            She could have been vindictive over the break-up. However, IMO, it’s more likely that she, like so many others, misunderstood his sarcasm. Or, he could have said those things – for shock effect. Remember, “expressing a curiosity for murder and a desire to sacrifice a child” is not a crime. Doing those things is. However, proof of the actual murders should be required. IMO, there was no proof that Damien murdered anyone.

            “The softball girls lied about overhearing Echols admit to the crimes.”

            IF he made such statements, they were said sarcastically. These modern-day Abigails were too young to recognize the sarcasm.

            “Detective Bryn Ridge lied about Echols offering self-implicating statements about the nature of the crimes and the wounds visited on the boys. Similarly the police lied when they claimed to have competently administered a polygraph exam to Echols, which he failed. ”

            I see lying on the part of the police as a distinct probability. It happens all the time in small towns all over the country if not the world.

            “Holly George lied about not talking to Echols on the phone that night. Jennifer Bearden lied about Echols’ grandmother reporting him as “out” at 8:00PM, lied about not being able to reach him until 9:20 or 9:30PM, AND lied about Echols telling her he’d just returned from his and Baldwin’s being driven somewhere by Baldwin’s Mom.”

            Holly was probably telling the truth. Damien probably got confused as to which girls he was talking to that night. Damien probably asked his grandmother to tell Jennifer that he was “out” when he was in. Then, Damien lied to Jennifer about being out with Jason. The truth was probably that Damien was either talking to someone else or was just relaxing for a while when Jennifer called at 8.

            “And Baldwin’s Mom lied about working until 11:00PM that night.”

            No. She worked that late. Since Damien and Jason didn’t go anywhere together, that doesn’t matter.

            “The Hollingsworths lied about seeing Echols, a boy they knew on sight, on the service road in muddy clothing.”

            The Hollingsworths said that they saw Damien and Domini, their own niece who they should have known better than Damien. However, somehow Domini morphed into Jason when the police told the story. Who was lying, the Hollingsworths or the police? Both can’t be telling the truth. Yes, they lied in order to remove suspicion from their son, LG.

            “The state correctional facility would later lie about providing inmates with a plastic spork to eat with, an an outdoor exercise area for their use.”

            If you are trying to call Damien a liar because he said he hadn’t eaten with a fork in years when he had been eating with a plastic spork (which probably broke most of the time), that’s ridiculous. The way a real fork feels in your hand is much different than a spork. I totally understand Damien saying that he had to get used to using a fork all over again because he hadn’t eaten with one in years. As to the “outdoor exercise area,” there was no sunlight, and it was for the individual use of one prisoner. I believe that prison officials can and often do exaggerate the amenities provided to their guests.

            “And of course, the biggest liar of all, Jessie Misskelley, lied over and over in three lengthy detailed confessions which implicated Echols. ”

            Yes. Jessie lied in each and every one of his statements to the authorities. He wasn’t there, and neither were Damien or Jason. His “detailed” statements simply don’t match up to the known evidence found at the discovery ditch. No matter how many times you tell a lie, or how many details you give, it doesn’t morph into the truth.

          7. May 5, 1993, 8:00PM
            “Damien, dear — your friend Jennifer is on the phone!”
            – “Oh, grandmama, will you kindly tell her I’m out! I’ve had a particularly heavy day of brooding!”
            Settling back in his chair, the young Echols brings a warm mug to his lips, the letters E-V-I-L clearly displayed along his knuckles. Taking a moment to savor the aroma of chamomile, he then allows a free hand to drift towards the stereo, one sharpened fingernail extended to press the largest button. The Carpenters Greatest Hits resumes play…

          8. Why are my comments going to the wrong place? Oh, well . . .

            No, more like, “I don’t wanna talk to her right now. Just tell her I’m out.” Then resume play of “And Justice For All.”

          9. This is the same grandma whom Echols told he would slit his mother’s throat, correct? Maybe his Mom should be glad the guy never calls her these days…

            Baldwin’s grandma offered up even better quotes, at the time of the crimes.
            From “SHY AND ARTISTIC, BUT INTO ‘THAT DEVIL STUFF’, The Commercial Appeal, 6/5/93:

            Baldwin’s grandmother wasn’t so sure of Jason Baldwin’s innocence.

            “I thought in my own mind when those boys were killed that my grandson is sorta superstitious about that devil stuff,” said Jessie Mae Baldwin. “He was always catching lizards and snakes, I thought something was going on in that child’s mind.”

            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.

            “Even though he’s my grandson he should get the death penalty if he did it. Whoever done this should be caught and tortured like they done to those kids, and it don’t matter if it’s my husband, my boy or my grandson, whoever it might be.”

            SOURCE: http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2809#.Tv0YSWXJbLs

          10. Read the whole article. Grandma’s perception doesn’t agree with the people who lived with him and interacted with him on a regular basis, not just a few days during the summer.

          11. Grandma Baldwin wanted to be Judge, Judy, and executioner!

            I do find it interesting that his own grandma was like, “That boy ain’t right.”

          12. I saw a case on the Investigation Discovery channel just last night where the whole town thought this man (last name something like Strom or Storm) killed his wife. Turns out it was someone else, who then tried to say that the husband paid him to do it! So, people’s perceptions don’t prove someone to be a murderer.

          13. You really believe that this:

            “I thought in my own mind when those boys were killed that my grandson is sorta superstitious about that devil stuff,” said Jessie Mae Baldwin. “He was always catching lizards and snakes, I thought something was going on in that child’s mind.”

            is a credible affirmation that the kid was a satanist?

            Let’s look at it for a moment, shall we?

            “…superstitious about devil stuff.”

            Could granny be more vague?

            My family is from Eastern Europe. I’d have to say everyone that I grew up with (at least in my family) was superstitious about devil stuff. It doesn’t mean they were satanic practitioners. They were the opposite, constantly crossing themselves, grabbing the rosary beads, etc.

            Being superstitious is not the same as an advocate or practitioner. Now, if grandma thinks that boys who pick up lizards and snakes is into devil stuff I’d have to say she’s the superstitious one.

          14. Expect to hear from CR about those sharpened fingernails, Fred. She adamantly refuses to believe it.

            There are photographs of Damien’s long fingernails. Actual photographs. There are references to his “long fingernails sharpened to points” in Exhibit 500. He tried to claw out a classmate’s eyes with those fingernails. Even most supporters, when not ignoring the subject, will concede this point (no pun intended).

            But CR? Absolutely not. She has told me over and over again that Damien did not have long fingernails. The level of denial that she exhibits is simply astounding.

          15. No, I have told you over and over again that they were not SHARPENED TO POINTS. They were long, especially for a male, but they were not sharpened to points.

          16. He collected something gross, abnormal and able to give him a dark thrill. Collecting dog skulls is different than butterflies based upon the cultural attachment and association to pet animals in the US, ie “the family dog”, aka “man’s best friend”. I mean, come on! Don’t stretch when you’re onto something. People in the US put sweaters on dogs and leave them in animal hotels.

            Free dead animal skulls? This isn’t like free pressed flowers or free shiny rocks, CR.

            However, being a sick and morbid teen isn’t a crime. That’s what people are forgetting. Just because someone is guilty of one crime, doesn’t make him or her guilty of another. Just being a dark and obnoxious teen doesn’t mean you will also be able to pull off a triple murder involving sexual mutilation in front of two witnesses, one of whom was supposedly too drunk to stop you from cutting and giving head to a child.

            Echols was a seriously deranged kid, but I still doubt he pulled it off–or at least pulled it off with Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb as his accomplices.

          17. I was speaking based on my 25 years of teaching teenagers, and I was referring to classroom behavior. There are always exceptions. I am simply stating that IN MY EXPERIENCE, the teens who exhibit bizarre behavior around their peers, especially in a classroom-type setting, are NOT the ones who commit heinous crimes like triple child murders. I was responding to Cindy’s question as to when you needed to take the bizarre behavior seriously. In my experience, the bizarre behavior, done publicly, is for attention or shock value – nothing more.

          18. Noteworthy exceptions do not create standards. Rather than use examples that make the news for their heinousness I would suggest you read what pathologists at the FBI or other FLAs have to say based on statistical data.

      3. Apples and star fruit. The Columbine killers fit a distinct profile and followed it to the letter. Why didn’t their lawyers argue for ADA? Oh, yes! Because they continued to follow through in the TB profile by killing themselves after their premeditated, systematic, well-planned and executed killing of their classmates.

        As for your “17 hour” hyperbole to mock the mockery of others about the length of the questioning…just as you were exaggerating to make a point, perhaps so were they? People do that, you realize yes?

        The defense said that Misskelley had an IQ of 70 and the prosecution HAD to find someone to raise the estimate to 80 (or was it 88?). This is all legal posturing that has to be done. I ask you to average the two and he’s probably around 75-77, functional but still the village idiot (sorry).

        I read Misskelly’s “confession”. Not only was it contradictory, but it sounded like he was ‘coached’ in what he should say and kept forgetting because he’s pretty much Forrest Gump. There were enough details accurate and too many “not at all accurate” to tell me that he had no idea what he was talking about. Also, his insistence that NOW he was not lying because he had his hand on the Bible (yes, naturally no one ever lies about participating in the killing of children if their hands are on the Bible. **eyeroll** ) I also noted that his ‘confession’ absolved him of any killing. He was “too drunk”, yadda yadda. He also didn’t seem to understand how “anal sex/rape” worked. The guys asks him: so he raped him? And his response was something like: “No, he just put it in one time and pulled it out”. Uhh, that would be rape then, jackass.

        From someone working in the criminal defense field I can tell you that his “confession” that excluded him from killing anyone, with screwed up details, and leading questions smells like someone told him: “If you want to not get the gas chamber, too then say this:_______.”

        Personally, I think this is yet another incident where the cops picked a bunch of losers because cops, themselves are not ‘winners’. The critical thinking skills of some of these dunderheads makes me amazed that they can walk and chew gum at the same time, but its okay because jury’s are filled with people willing to accept whatever BS story gets them home the quickest. They picked people with 1) no motive (Satan? Puh-lease), 2) no history of this type of violence or cruelty, 3) without the ability to pull off a caper as easy as stealing chips from Wal-Mart (don’t tell me that they are poor students who are dumb enough to get caught stealing chips from Wal-Mart and then expect me to believe they are also well-organized enough to pull off a triple murder) and somehow sold an entire town that these kids were the next Charlie Manson family.

        And now all of you that believe they are “guilty, guilty, guilty” because they lied about potato chips or boning some dude in prison. Yes, no one lies. You’ve certainly never lied to anyone–not your boss, your mom, your school teacher, right? And when faced with the electric chair you’d always tell the truth, yes? Read about the science of lying. Everyone has lied several times in their life and if they say they haven’t they’re either lying or have the world’s worst memory.

        Some of the “burn them” folks remind me of that scene in Monty Python: How do you know that she’s a witch? Because she looks like one!!! Burn her!!!!!

        I don’t think these fellows are particularly nice or saints or anything. Damian Echols as a teen was exactly the type that I would have looked down on from my grade-grubbing perch as a loser. I wouldn’t put their contributions to society on the level of a Gandhi, but when the cops who are supposed to be the good guys fudge stuff–even a few tiny little things I know the whole case is baloney.

      4. Yeah right

        Sorry they did the crime and then killed themself .( Columbine HS) and they were abused children . They had been bullied past their breaking point SM3 would have not been found guilty in any other state. Sorry Damein had all the clasic signs of wanting attention. And with his medical records he was diagnosed with Bipolar disorder. That doesnt make you a killer

        Actually, it’s 5.7 million adults , over 18, suiffer from Bipolar Disorder.

        2.4 million age 18 are disgnosed with Bipolar disorder.

        That’s alot of people. You don’t know who you’re talking to these days. It doesn’t make them weird or someome to be afriad of. So many famous people have It too. Patti Duke takes Lithium as does Dom Delouise, Edgar Allen Poe. I won’t list everyone.
        ting attention. What they said was his mental disorder was bipolar.
        .

        1. Look at the profile people that is all you have to do. How many times was dameim in the hospital . Several ……..

          Setting a fire is no little thing of . Yes it is.

          I am not seeing 3 innocent children here. And if not for looking up the info I wouldnt have know the facts because they sure were not in the movie. And the next movie is worst. It isnt facts it is just what they want you to see. Nothing more. Maybe everyone was worked up because he got the death penalty. I think they caught the killers. They changed a lot in prison from the children that went in there. Not one of them cried or was shocked that they got life and the death penalty. And Dameim even waved to the camera and smile on his way to prison.

    2. Google …………The story of Robin Gecht & the notorious Chicago Ripper Crew

      Really Satanic Panic ………….check out what happened to us in Elmhurst IL .

      You might not park your car so far. You might think twice going to the park and walking in the part from view . And read all the way through it. Because their defence sounds the same. And what it doesnt say they accused other many of crime after they were found guilty But they made the mistake of thinking one was dead. And didnt have a month to get rid of evidence

      DNA evidence against someone that has the children over their house to play. Really ! And try putting 3 carusses and see if that turtle made all those gashes. Turtles dont travel in packs and they are territorial. And that turtle would most likely still been there in the morning. They dont leave their food source easy. We have some around are state too. Ok and Mrs Pam Hobbs statements …………She is getting paid for making this film and others. Check out how she acted in part one when she found out she was going to be on TV. She has made servel accusations against her Ex on diffrent subjects through the court systems. False ones . Mr Byers jumping on the bandwagon. Money …attention ………and more money . We are not talking about few dollars here and there. We are talking about thousands . From someone that is poor.

      Look at all the evidence not just what the film wants you see. And things they couldnt put in because they couldnt link them to it.

      WM3 wont look so innocent to you then. We thank god that Getch and his Crew didnt have a Dream Team and Film that only showed what they wanted you to see.. Money can buy you freedom. There are so many exports. And you find many will not agree on what they found. They will be the best of the best in their field. Look at the OJ trial.

      I grew up in Elmhurst and never knew what happened. People hate to talk about it. They healed and moved on. I was sure WM3 were innocent too after watching the movies. I was I thought things like this just dont happen.But after I talked to someone that had a family member that was killed in Elmhurst. Read what happened. I decided to read through all the evidence and records on WM3. Then listen to the tapes. Listen to what Jessie said he was getting caught up in making light of what he did . He knew stuff about what a cults does. How would he know He didnt read any books . He never read the book about Aleister Crowley.

      Now the new movie points the fingers again. And because it is movie people will believe it. Or will they …remember the OJ trial and how every expert the best of the best change on what really happened.

  3. I am a supporter and responded to the post by DAVE at the WM3 support board. I would welcome a conversation about everything said here. And anyone else who would like to discuss it. I am going to say a warning however. I am not some supporter who was “lured” into the case by the movies, celebrities nor a website. My late father showed me Paradise Lost in 1996. And I have been studying the case closely for that long. When celebrities got involved I thought it was a good thing at first. But then realized it was not always. I do not believe they muredered anyone. But that is NOT because of the movies nor web. It is because I have spent 15 years researching and asking an attorney friend to go over it with me. Because honestly I came into looking at it with the eyes that I could discover they did do it. And after all this time I know they did not. So if you want to talk. Openly and no fighting I am all for it. And do not come at me believing I am a brain washed moron.

    jameslars27@aol.com

  4. I didn’t see anything about the ghost of the dead woman (“Rosie”?) that was speaking to him. Or am I thinking of something else?

    1. Hi T-Rog,

      Rosey is included, via her reference in the following passage:

      “Damien relates that a spirit is now living with him. The spirit was put inside him last year… This is reportedly a spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband…”

    2. “Rosie” and “the old man” come up in Echols’ jail writings. I decided to focus this page on the period before the murders.

  5. OK. Let’s look at your points one at a time.

    “Joe Bartoush lied about witnessing Echols stomp a dog to death.”

    Yes. He was seeking his 15 minutes IMO. Do you seriously believe that, had Damien killed a Great Dane, the owners wouldn’t have reported it? Those dogs are expensive.

    “Mental health facility workers lied about or exaggerated Echols’ condition.”

    They exaggerated his condition. They did it with good intentions, however. They saw it as a way to get him out of an increasingly untenable home.

    “School officials lied about his setting fires and attacking a fellow student.”

    No. That probably happened. I’m not saying that he was a saint. I’m just saying that these teen behaviors don’t PROVE that he became a murderer.

    “His parents lied when expressing fear for their own safety and the safety of a young child in their household”

    His parents, although meaning well, simply didn’t understand him. It’s part of why the mental health professionals found a way to get him into the hospital, at least for a short time. If you read his first book, “Almost Home,” you will understand better about his miserable home life.

    “His ex-girlfriend lied about Echols expressing a curiosity for murder and a desire to sacrifice a child.”

    She could have been vindictive over the break-up. However, IMO, it’s more likely that she, like so many others, misunderstood his sarcasm. Or, he could have said those things – for shock effect. Remember, “expressing a curiosity for murder and a desire to sacrifice a child” is not a crime. Doing those things is. However, proof of the actual murders should be required. IMO, there was no proof that Damien murdered anyone.

    “The softball girls lied about overhearing Echols admit to the crimes.”

    IF he made such statements, they were said sarcastically. These modern-day Abigails were too young to recognize the sarcasm.

    “Detective Bryn Ridge lied about Echols offering self-implicating statements about the nature of the crimes and the wounds visited on the boys. Similarly the police lied when they claimed to have competently administered a polygraph exam to Echols, which he failed. ”

    I see lying on the part of the police as a distinct probability. It happens all the time in small towns all over the country if not the world.

    “Holly George lied about not talking to Echols on the phone that night. Jennifer Bearden lied about Echols’ grandmother reporting him as “out” at 8:00PM, lied about not being able to reach him until 9:20 or 9:30PM, AND lied about Echols telling her he’d just returned from his and Baldwin’s being driven somewhere by Baldwin’s Mom.”

    Holly was probably telling the truth. Damien probably got confused as to which girls he was talking to that night. Damien probably asked his grandmother to tell Jennifer that he was “out” when he was in. Then, Damien lied to Jennifer about being out with Jason. The truth was probably that Damien was either talking to someone else or was just relaxing for a while when Jennifer called at 8.

    “And Baldwin’s Mom lied about working until 11:00PM that night.”

    No. She worked that late. Since Damien and Jason didn’t go anywhere together, that doesn’t matter.

    “The Hollingsworths lied about seeing Echols, a boy they knew on sight, on the service road in muddy clothing.”

    The Hollingsworths said that they saw Damien and Domini, their own niece who they should have known better than Damien. However, somehow Domini morphed into Jason when the police told the story. Who was lying, the Hollingsworths or the police? Both can’t be telling the truth. Yes, they lied in order to remove suspicion from their son, LG.

    “The state correctional facility would later lie about providing inmates with a plastic spork to eat with, an an outdoor exercise area for their use.”

    If you are trying to call Damien a liar because he said he hadn’t eaten with a fork in years when he had been eating with a plastic spork (which probably broke most of the time), that’s ridiculous. The way a real fork feels in your hand is much different than a spork. I totally understand Damien saying that he had to get used to using a fork all over again because he hadn’t eaten with one in years. As to the “outdoor exercise area,” there was no sunlight, and it was for the individual use of one prisoner. I believe that prison officials can and often do exaggerate the amenities provided to their guests.

    “And of course, the biggest liar of all, Jessie Misskelley, lied over and over in three lengthy detailed confessions which implicated Echols. ”

    Yes. Jessie lied in each and every one of his statements to the authorities. He wasn’t there, and neither were Damien or Jason. His “detailed” statements simply don’t match up to the known evidence found at the discovery ditch. No matter how many times you tell a lie, or how many details you give, it doesn’t morph into the truth.

    1. These modern-day Abigails were too young to recognize the sarcasm.

      This is one of my all-time favorite supporter arguments: 12-year-old girls are unfamiliar with sarcasm.

      1. Maybe some twelve-year old girls are familiar with sarcasm, especially those living in a less restrictive environment. However, I don’t believe these particular twelve-year-old girls could recognize sarcasm because of the milieu in which they lived.

        1. What does this mean:

          However, I don’t believe these particular twelve-year-old girls could recognize sarcasm because of the milieu in which they lived. (??)

          Are you saying that because they live in the South that they somehow are so dumb that they are unable to comprehend sarcasm? Say what you will about Bill Clinton but the man was a genius and, yes, from Arkansas.

          Furthermore, why would you necessarily think it to be sarcasm? Maybe he did it for attention? Most kids who dress like Edward Scissorhands or Count Dracula in the 80’s 90’s (pre-Emo craze) were attention seekers (not that Emo’s aren’t). He could have taken credit just to create an aura of mystery and danger about himself, like…wow, I’m so evil and dark that I could kill kids and never blink!

          Or maybe he did it and said he did it to create an alibi? As in who would believe someone would confess to murder? Hadn’t Basic Instinct just come out? Or is my timeline wrong?

          I’m not above thinking this person capable of attempting to murder children. He seemed to be seriously afflicted with both Borderline, Narcissistic, and Dissociative Identity Disorder. I just don’t credit him with being either a genius (bright, not overly so) or brave enough (he seemed like a punk) to kill someone.

          Yes, I’ve met my share of killers, accidental and purposeful, and all of them were able to cross that line of fear to kill. Fear of Hell, fear of jail, and even fear of no longer being a part of humanity.

          That and I think the three kids could have taken him. I don’t even say this sarcastically.

          The other two…I have no doubt were incapable of being able to execute a crime of this nature. Because of them…I just don’t buy it. Now, I have considered the possibility that Echols did it with other accomplices or maybe was an accomplice himself. He has that sexually molested look to him. I dunno. He’s very sketchy so you believe he’s guilty of something, but what…I don’t know.

          1. Read the records on the other two. They are really not choir boys. They just dressed up for court. and Damiem didnt And both were followers not leaders. None of them acted like they were shocked they were found guilty They just dressed up for court. Damiem acted like he didnt care he got caught. Like wanted to be known for something. Not shocked from being put to death and made sure he waved to the camera and smiled . Was kinda happy he would be called the boogy man.

    2. “If you are trying to call Damien a liar because he said he hadn’t eaten with a fork in years when he had been eating with a plastic spork (which probably broke most of the time), that’s ridiculous. The way a real fork feels in your hand is much different than a spork. I totally understand Damien saying that he had to get used to using a fork all over again because he hadn’t eaten with one in years. As to the “outdoor exercise area,” there was no sunlight, and it was for the individual use of one prisoner. I believe that prison officials can and often do exaggerate the amenities provided to their guests.”

      I just wanted to touch on this since it’s fresh on my mind. Who said the spork was “plastic”? The quote I read said that the DOC reused and sterilized these over and over. Since utensils have to (normally) be exposed to high temperatures to be sterilized it would make sense they would be metal.

      And as to your quote on the “outdoor exercise area”. Care to quote your source? Because prisoners have to be allowed out. I believe the quote I read (the same one about the spork) said 1 hour a day, 6 days a week. So you have something to back this up, or is this just your opinion?

      1. Damien talked about the “exercise area” in his first book. As to the spork, if it was metal, I’m sure it was cheap metal, bendable and possibly breakable. It’s just not like a regular fork – not by a long shot. And again, I don’t accept as gospel truth what the ADC says that they do for their prisoners. I think that they exaggerate the amenities provided – especially on Death Row.

      2. Based on information garnered from DOC by a non: the spork provided is a high-grade plastic, thicker than standard plastic utensils, that is indeed made to hold up to washes/sterilizations between uses. And yes the outdoor exercise area is available for prisoners one hour a day, 5 days a week, if I recall correctly. Based on his accounts, Echols evidently elected to use neither.

        Echols’ post-release talking points — e.g. the struggle to relearn use of a fork, and to walk properly without shackles — sound dubious. The complaint that he ate with his hands for 18 years implies that the prison didn’t grant another option, when it did. The notion that relearning use of a standard fork would present any notable difficulty strains my belief. As does the contention that he was shackled all the time, and must relearn walking properly. His statements serve to elicit (undeserved) pity and admiration, making the story about his hardships, rather than about the murder of three boys.

        1. As a convicted murderer (although unjustly), Damien can’t discuss the murders because of the Son of Sam laws. He can, however, discuss his living conditions while on Death Row. Since he is the only person ever to leave Death Row in Arkansas, IMO his descriptions of the conditions there should have merit. Of course the ADC officials will say that they provided prisoners with the daily necessities. As I’ve said repeatedly, I simply don’t believe that the conditions in Arkansas’ prisons are as wonderful as the ADC personnel would lead us to believe.

          Unlike you, I think that Damien DID have to relearn to walk and to use a fork. Even if he were embellishing a bit, he had suffered sensory deprivation for about 10 years prior to their release, except for the one hour walk in the dog run where he couldn’t see sun or sky. I have no doubt but that there were many things that all three had to relearn, but Damien had it harder than the others.

          1. “As a convicted murderer (although unjustly), Damien can’t discuss the murders because of the Son of Sam laws.”

            Correction: he can’t PROFIT off the murders. That is what the Son of Sam law is about. Truth is, most of us here would LOVE for him to truthfully talk about the murders…especially since he would just dig his own hole deeper and deeper by lying to cover up his other lies.

            “…IMO his descriptions of the conditions there should have merit.”

            That’s your opinion. An opinion you can’t back up with a single fact.

            “…I simply don’t believe that the conditions in Arkansas’ prisons are as wonderful as the ADC personnel would lead us to believe.”

            1st, nothing they’ve said really sounds “wonderful”. An hour of exercise 5-6 days a week and eating with a spork doesn’t sound like Club Med.

            2nd, I’m not suggesting “wonderful”, but maybe “constitutional”.

            “…I think that Damien DID have to relearn to walk and to use a fork. ”

            Key word there is “think”. No proof, nothing to back the story. Just what you “think”.

            “Even if he were embellishing a bit…”

            And here’s the kicker. You acknowledge that he might be lying but you simply DON’T CARE. You’re a murder groupie, plain and simple. This and any other page can bury you in the facts of the case and you simply don’t WANT to see the truth.

            It’s ok for Damien to lie. It’s ok for Marie to lie. It’s ok for wm3.org to lie. That’s your argument. You wouldn’t know the truth if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.

            Want to prove me wrong? Pick 1 fact you can back up with actual evidence. Otherwise, just admit what you are. Seriously.

        2. Wow.

          This:

          His statements serve to elicit (undeserved) pity and admiration, making the story about his hardships, rather than about the murder of three boys.

          Let’s just say there, Mother Theresa, that you were wrongly convicted of being a child rapist and killer and stuck on death row for 18 years…you’d feel pretty darn sorry for yourself. I’ll bet you feel sorry for yourself when the significant other complains about something you didn’t do that you know you did do–everyone practices self-pity. Everyone.

          Now, the quibbling over sporks versus forks, direct sunlight, versus indirect sunlight as to “proving” the “honesty” of someone in regular context is ridiculous, moreso when that benchmark is also set to prove whether or not that person could rape, brutalize and end the lives of three children.

          Let me ask you this: if Damien Echols is so smart, charismatic and savvy why didn’t he take care of the loose ends? You have your best friend watching you rape and kill two kids, okay I guess that can happen though most killers of multiple victims work alone– BUT now you have someone you barely know who didn’t do anything all that bad and you let him leave the crime scene alive? Doesn’t say much for his cleverness.

          1. Let me ask you this: if Damien Echols is so smart, charismatic and savvy why didn’t he take care of the loose ends?

            Very few criminals are the brilliant, detail-oriented master criminals always three steps ahead of the cops that you see in movies. Echols and Baldwin were smart enough to hide the victims’ bodies and clothes in the creek and to spash water on the murder site. That’s about it. No one claims they were brilliant master criminals. Psychopathic killers are capable of taking basic steps to conceal their crimes, but they also tend to be impulsive.

            Echols and Baldwin are not the first thugs who mistakenly trusted an accomplice to keep his mouth shut. It’s actually quite common. Again, no one claims Echols was a criminal genius who never made mistakes.

            most killers of multiple victims work alone

            Seriously? I can think of 50 counter-examples off the top of my head. Columbine. Manson family. Chicago Ripper Crew. Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes. Rod Ferrell and friends.

          2. WM3Truth,

            I’ll reply to myself since I cannot reply to you. Gangs and cults notwithstanding… is what I should have said.

            My point remains which is that Echols, although petulant, slightly narcissistic and surly, does appear to have some intellect–at least enough to not bring a tagalong to a murder scene. The groups you mentioned were less concerned with not getting caught and more concerned with making history in a sense. You don’t bring along “guests”–especially people who are barely acquaintances and dullards at that–along when you are about to murder boy scouts. Let’s pretend this is some Satanic ritual as you all seem to believe, why bring in an unbeliever that might have a bone of human decency and attempt to thwart your nefarious deed? IF he did not participate in the killing he is then a liability and should have been killed, too.

            That’s what the other groups you mentioned would have done–everyone was an active participant, creating the scheme of all for one, one for all. In this case Echols supposedly did all the dirty work and let the others either help or watch. I just don’t believe it.

            The criminals we see are either too smart for these loose ends or dumb enough to leave more evidence behind. Unlike many of you, I speak to criminals every single day and I don’t have the faith in them that all of you seem to.

            Echols is thoroughly unlikeable. I don’t buy his butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth schtick, but neither do I think the facts presented, knowing what I know of cops and ADAs, show me that he and his two brainiac friends were capable of this. There is reasonable doubt in my mind and that is all the legal reason anyone needs.

  6. No, more like, “I don’t wanna talk to her right now. Just tell her I’m out.” Then resume play of “And Justice For All.”

  7. How does Compassionate Reader know he didn’t have a psychotic episode for over 18 years while in prison? Unless Compassionate Reader witnessed him not having a psychotic episode for over 18 years while in prison, she believes but does not know.

      1. I am not so sure. Sometimes it is: What happens in prison, stays in prison. Please also remember a lot of people are not interested in him or his case. He is very important to some people (obviously). He is not known or of interest to many people. I met someone the other day who thought Damien Echols was the lead singer of The West Memphis Three. People who I have met seem much more aware of and interested in Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony. In the spirit of 2012, may everyone have a happy and safe New Year.

        1. I imagine that, if Damien had had a psychotic episode in prison, the prison officials would have been sure to let the prosecutors in West Memphis know as they are desperate for any little shred of information implicating the WMFree. The prosecutors, in turn, would have “leaked” it to the media, and the media would have publicized it from hell to breakfast, just like they did with Jessie’s original statement and other supposedly “unknown” things in this case. So, the absence of such a report speaks volumes.

          1. The way I see this (and I could be wrong), a lot of people are invested in being “right” about the case. It is not always about truth, justice, etc. No one likes to be wrong and especially to be proved wrong. Yet, clearly, one side is wrong and the other is right in this case. With some people, it is about truth, justice, etc. For other people, though, it starts to become “It is so because I have to be right.”

            I admit to the weakness. It is a painful first step towards seeing yourself for who you are. I have communicated with one WM3 supporter who wrote, “I just want Damien to be innocent.” That was honest. It must have hurt. I respect the follower more for it, however, than any partial/biased interpretations of facts.

            I wrote back, “And I really just want Damien to be guilty as sin.” I don’t want my gut feelings to be wrong just like she didn’t want hers to be. I would like to believe it is my faith in our societal institutions (law, police, psychologists, medical, prison). I want my belief to be rooted in what I perceive as fact-based guilt. I still cop to it may be as easily about “I just want to be right and really want Damien to be guilty as sin,” too.

          2. Hubris,

            There was no “reply” link below your post, so I’m replying above.

            “The way I see this (and I could be wrong), a lot of people are invested in being ‘right’ about the case. It is not always about truth, justice, etc. No one likes to be wrong and especially to be proved wrong. Yet, clearly, one side is wrong and the other is right in this case. With some people, it is about truth, justice, etc. For other people, though, it starts to become ‘It is so because I have to be right.'”

            Yes, some people MUST be right. The State of Arkansas MUST be right, which IMO is why they have refused to look into this case with any diligence. I guess you’ll have to take my word on this, but I really am in search of justice in what I perceive to be a terrible case of injustice.

            “I admit to the weakness. It is a painful first step towards seeing yourself for who you are. I have communicated with one WM3 supporter who wrote, “I just want Damien to be innocent.” That was honest. It must have hurt. I respect the follower more for it, however, than any partial/biased interpretations of facts.”

            I don’t feel that I am incorrectly interpreting facts, obviously. Also, I am not one of those people who has to be right all the time. At first, I thought that JMB killed the little boys, but I was wrong. In that situation, I relied on the correct interpretation of evidence by certified forensic pathologists. At first, the mark on Stevie’s face was said to be a human bite mark. That led people to suspect JMB as the three were ruled out by impressions. Then, when certified forensic pathologists examined the evidence (seven of them, mind you), they said that the mark was from animal predation. So, I don’t back my heels and insist that things have to be as I originally perceived them to be. I am open minded.

            “I wrote back, ‘And I really just want Damien to be guilty as sin.’ I don’t want my gut feelings to be wrong just like she didn’t want hers to be. I would like to believe it is my faith in our societal institutions (law, police, psychologists, medical, prison). I want my belief to be rooted in what I perceive as fact-based guilt. I still cop to it may be as easily about ‘I just want to be right and really want Damien to be guilty as sin,’ too.”

            I, too, like to believe that the police are right – most of the time. However, I simply cannot accept anything from LE as gospel truth. That’s why we have an appeals process in this country. Sometimes LE is wrong, and sometimes juries believe LE and are wrong, too. Personally, I think that, for the most part, LE does a great job. It’s just that every now and then there is a case like this where corruption lies with moral outrage and produces a miscarriage of justice like this case. But that’s my opinon.

          3. @Hubris Humbles

            You said: The way I see this (and I could be wrong), a lot of people are invested in being “right” about the case. It is not always about truth, justice, etc. No one likes to be wrong and especially to be proved wrong. Yet, clearly, one side is wrong and the other is right in this case. With some people, it is about truth, justice, etc. For other people, though, it starts to become “It is so because I have to be right.”

            One of the first things you will hear in law school is that what you are going to learn is about the law, not justice. Justice is not for one man to decide so don’t concern yourself with it. Do your job and the greater good will be served in the end.

            Almost everyone here, with the very best intentions of seeking justice, has provided plausible theories. Everyone’s theories contain holes in the argument that they inwardly acknowledge but disregard because of the emotional nature of human character. CR has some good points, but it is also obvious that she will disregard the more dangerous aspects of Echol’s character needlessly because of what she believes to be the ultimate truth. HH has good arguments but ignores errors on the part of LE because of what he believes is the ultimate truth.

            The problem is that “Truth” has a mythological element to it. Facts are better.

            Most of you are coming at this case from the perspective of a search for guilt or innocence, a determination of sorts. You are each partial in what you believe, based on life experience. I am jaded by what I see each and every day, and my experiences have caused me to become almost too detached and removed. I no longer look for ultimate innocence, I look at what kind of argument can be made.

            By following the dictates of law, yes, many guilty people will be set free, but you will also prevent the wrongful incarceration or death of an innocent. Far too many people on the other side of the aisle (and jury box) forget this.

            Ultimately, I am a believer and I think that there is always justice in the end. No one ever really gets away with anything.

  8. T-Rog,

    “Correction: he can’t PROFIT off the murders. That is what the Son of Sam law is about. Truth is, most of us here would LOVE for him to truthfully talk about the murders…especially since he would just dig his own hole deeper and deeper by lying to cover up his other lies.”

    If he is paid for an interview, the State of Arkansas might try to take the money from him if he tried to discuss the murders because of those Son of Sam laws you referenced. Also, I suspect that his attorneys have advised him to not discuss the crime. However, since he was not present when the murders were committed, I doubt that he could shed any light on them. If you want to know more of what he has to say, wait until his second book comes out. He’s writing it now. I’m sure that you and most of the others on this site won’t buy it, read it or believe it. That is your problem. I look forward to its release.

    “That’s your opinion. An opinion you can’t back up with a single fact.”

    FACT: There was absolutely no physical evidence that irrefutably linked any of the WMFree to this crime.

    FACT: There was mtDNA which excluded all of the WMFree but did not exclude Terry Hobbs, the step father of one of the victims.

    FACT: The WMPD never considered Terry Hobbs as a suspect.

    FACT: All three of the WMFree had alibis, but, because the alibis were provided by family and/or friends, they were considered “suspicious.” (Question: If they were with family and friends, what should they have said? Should they have lied and provided a “less suspicious” alibi, although it would have been false?)

    This site, and most sites on the web where this case is discussed, is a collection of people’s OPINIONS on this case. My opinion is just as valid as the opinion of anyone else. Anytime someone interprets what the evidence means they are giving their opinion. Just because two juries found them guilty, based on their interpretation of the evidence presented to them and the “Satanic panic” of the time and, in the case of the Echols/Baldwin jury, inadmissible evidence, simply doesn’t make them guilty. The only people who really know who is guilty are the people who were at the scene of the crime. Unless you were there, your interpretation of the evidence (opinion) is no more valid than mine.

    “1st, nothing they’ve said really sounds “wonderful”. An hour of exercise 5-6 days a week and eating with a spork doesn’t sound like Club Med.
    2nd, I’m not suggesting “wonderful”, but maybe ‘constitutional’.”

    I don’t know about you, but what Damien described in “Almost Home” and in some post release interviews doesn’t sound too pleasant to me. I’m betting that most people would take a deal to get out, especially if they are in pain and cannot get proper treatment. I wasn’t implying that the conditions were wonderful. I was simply stating that it is entirely possible that the amenities were exaggerated by the ADC. That happens all the time. If you were to interview a Death Row inmate on any Death Row in America and compare his description of his living conditions to the “official” descriptions of the Department of Corrections, my guess is that they would differ greatly, and that the description of the DOC would be much more “pleasant” than the description of the inmate. The accommodations are probably “constitutional,” but they certainly don’t seem too agreeable to me. If you are unjustly imprisoned, I would imagine that the conditions would seem even more harsh to you than to someone who is actually guilty of the crime for which they are in prison.

    “Key word there is ‘think’. No proof, nothing to back the story. Just what you ‘think’.”

    EVERYONE on this blog is expressing his/her opinion (stating what they “think”) about the evidence in this case. I’m entitled to do the same.

    “And here’s the kicker. You acknowledge that he might be lying but you simply DON’T CARE. You’re a murder groupie, plain and simple. This and any other page can bury you in the facts of the case and you simply don’t WANT to see the truth.”

    No, I am not a “murder groupie.” I simply believe in correcting an injustice. It might surprise you to learn that I am in favor of the Death Penalty in cases where it is warranted. You need to realize that “facts” are open to interpretation. As I said before, unless a person was present at the scene of the crime, all he/she can do is to interpret the “facts” presented and form an “opinion” as to what happened. My opinion is different from yours.

    “It’s ok for Damien to lie. It’s ok for Marie to lie. It’s ok for wm3.org to lie. That’s your argument. You wouldn’t know the truth if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and started to wiggle.”

    You seem to believe that anyone who doesn’t interpret the “facts” the same way you do is lying. Mara (I presume that is who you meant when you said “Marie”) investigated this case in great depth. I believe that she knows more about it than the WMPD, who simply didn’t investigate properly or we wouldn’t be discussing it today. Yes, I easily recognize the truth. The truth is that the WMFree are free. My opinion is that they are free because some of the officials in Arkansas recognize that they are innocent (although they can’t admit that or they’d lose their jobs) and saw the Alford plea as a way to release them and save face for the State at the same time. It is also my opinion that people who don’t realize that the WMFree are innocent are the ones who can’t see the truth.

    “Want to prove me wrong? Pick 1 fact you can back up with actual evidence. Otherwise, just admit what you are. Seriously.”

    I am a supporter of the innocence of the three men freed from unjust incarceration on August 19, 2011. I intend to continue doing what I can to ensure that these three innocent men are exonerated and that the REAL murderer is investigated, arrested, tried and convicted of the crime for which the three men served over 18 years unjustly in the Arkansas Department of Corrections. That’s what I am as far as this case is concerned. As I said before, I am not a murder groupie or a Damien groupie or really any kind of groupie except a groupie for justice. Nothing that I would present to you would change your mind. I could discuss how I have come to my opinion in this case until I was blue in the face, but your mind would not be changed. I am firmly convinced that, if a video of the murders existed, time stamped on May 5, 1993, which showed that Damien, Jason and Jessie were NOT present, most nons would say that it was something made by Peter Jackson and therefore cannot be believed. I don’t trust the WMPD to be telling the truth. You do. That’s the long and the short of it, I’m afraid.

    1. “However, since he was not present when the murders were committed, I doubt that he could shed any light on them.”

      24 jurors might disagree with you on that. Not to mention the appealant courts.

      FACT: There was absolutely no physical evidence that irrefutably linked any of the WMFree to this crime.- There wasn’t any physical evidenec that irrefutably linked ANYONE to the crime.

      FACT: There was mtDNA which excluded all of the WMFree but did not exclude Terry Hobbs, the step father of one of the victims.- True. But there was an obvious reason for his DNA to be there. He also had an alibi. And what about the other hairs that do NOT exclude the 3? Funny you leave that out.

      FACT: The WMPD never considered Terry Hobbs as a suspect.- Maybe because he had an alibi?

      FACT: All three of the WMFree had alibis, but, because the alibis were provided by family and/or friends, they were considered “suspicious.” (Question: If they were with family and friends, what should they have said? Should they have lied and provided a “less suspicious” alibi, although it would have been false?)- They weren’t “considered” suspicious. They fell apart during cross. http://wm3truth.com/failed-alibis-for-misskelley-echols-and-baldwin/

      “This site, and most sites on the web where this case is discussed, is a collection of people’s OPINIONS on this case.”

      The problem is, you can’t back up anything you say. It’s the same spiel that’s been disproven over and over.

      “I don’t know about you, but what Damien described in “Almost Home” and in some post release interviews doesn’t sound too pleasant to me.”

      Just for the record, “wonderful” was YOUR word, not mine. And don’t get me started on “Almost Home”. For your sake, I hope you’re thin, attractive, and intelligent since Damien doesn’t like “fat, ugly, or stupid people”.

      “EVERYONE on this blog is expressing his/her opinion (stating what they “think”) about the evidence in this case. I’m entitled to do the same.”

      See above point about the same spiel with nothing to back it up.

      “No, I am not a “murder groupie.” I simply believe in correcting an injustice. It might surprise you to learn that I am in favor of the Death Penalty in cases where it is warranted. You need to realize that “facts” are open to interpretation. As I said before, unless a person was present at the scene of the crime, all he/she can do is to interpret the “facts” presented and form an “opinion” as to what happened. My opinion is different from yours.”

      Nothing I can say about the “injustice” since that’s your opinion. I find it funny though that you completely ignored my comment about you admitting he’s lying and you just don’t care.

      “Mara (I presume that is who you meant when you said “Marie”) investigated this case in great depth. I believe that she knows more about it than the WMPD, who simply didn’t investigate properly or we wouldn’t be discussing it today. Yes, I easily recognize the truth. The truth is that the WMFree are free.”

      1st, thanks for correcting me on Mara’s name. As far as “I believe that she knows more about it than the WMPD”…then why is there so much she left out of the book? Compare the book to the transcripts, she left out a LOT of witnesses. To save space? Possibly. But it’s odd that the witnesses cut pointed towards guilt, not innocence. GO ahead…compare. I’d do it for you, but it’s a LONG list.

      “I am firmly convinced that, if a video of the murders existed, time stamped on May 5, 1993, which showed that Damien, Jason and Jessie were NOT present, most nons would say that it was something made by Peter Jackson and therefore cannot be believed.”

      And I’m firmly convinced that if a video of the murders existed that showed DJJ DID do it, you’d write it off as unbelievable too. Just like the fiber evidence, the lack of alibis, exhibit 500, 4 confessions by Jessie, witnesses hearing Damien and Jason confess, the failed polygraphs by Damien and Jessie, ect, ect ect.

      1. “FACT: There was absolutely no physical evidence that irrefutably linked any of the WMFree to this crime.- There wasn’t any physical evidenec that irrefutably linked ANYONE to the crime.”

        And that is why in most unbiased jury pools people are set free every day–or, DAs and ADAs know to wait until there is evidence to take a murder case to trial.

        You need:

        1) Motive –even if Echols were Anton LeVays son and leader of the West Memphis Chapter of Satanic Youth, Baldwin and Misskelley were not and had no motive. Peer pressure for murder usually is in indoctrinated communities/environments like gangs, etc. not when three people are hanging out after school drinking juiceboxes and Jack Daniels down by the river. What was Dumb and Dumber’s motive? Seriously, to participate in a fun and thrilling sexual mutilation of a child for some kind of street cred with the Satanists?

        2) Physical Evidence of Some Kind

        This should normally go without saying but for some reason its okay to throw out the very basis of our legal system when we feel self-righteous about something.

        Ahhhh, America.

  9. One of the quirks of the followers is how so many were completely convinced Byers was the murderer. Now they barely mention him. Suddenly Byers morphed into Hobbs. I love Fred’s sense of humour. “That boy ain’t right” is exactly what she was implying. Just like when Jessie’s sister (?) said Damien was a good kid, then the look Jessie gave her was “You’ve got to be kidding or crazy to believe that.” There’s often truth in candor.

    1. I can’t speak for all supporters, but I follow the evidence. When evidence supporting Terry Hobbs as the perpetrator came out, I investigated and came to the conclusion that he is now the most likely suspect. It’s as simple as that.

      1. What official evidence supports it is Terry Hobbs? By pointing the finger at him, you are doing what you claim was done to Damien Echols. What and how did you investigate? It’s not as “simple as that.” If there was overwhelming evidence, there would have been a new trial.

        1. Of course there is no “official” evidence. That’s because the State doesn’t want the case reopened because it would expose the piss poor investigation that the WMPD did back in ’93 and the bias of the original trial judge and the bias of the juries and the towns involved. It could end careers and besmear the name of retired detectives and State Senators. It could make the AG’s statement (you know the one I mean where he said that Arkansas doesn’t convict innocent people) look like the BS that it is.

          What convinced me that he is the killer only started with the hairs. Then, there’s the whole Pasdar deposition. Have you read/seen that? ALL of it? Then, the WMPD interview (long overdue) and some of his actions around the time of the murders. Why did he make sure that he was nowhere around when the police wanted to interview him? (Why did the police not follow up?) Why did he leave his wife for a while only two weeks after she had lost her son? Why did he quit his job? Why did he shoot his wife’s brother (who later died from complications of the gunshot wound)? I realize that this is circumstantial evidence, but it is just as valid as the circumstantial evidence against the three like Exhibit 500, the fibers and the bogus statements that Damien and Jason “confessed.” What is NOT circumstantial against Terry Hobbs is Mildred French’s declaration.

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

          That is direct evidence of the violent nature of Terry Hobbs. She is reporting what Terry Hobbs did to her. Why? Because she reported to the police that Terry Hobbs was abusing his first wife and child.

          Where is the evidence that Damien shot someone? Terry Hobbs shot Pam’s brother when Jackie, Jr. came to protect Pam from Terry. The only reason that he wasn’t charged with manslaughter is that it took more than a year for Jackie, Jr. to die. He DID die, however, and it was a result of the gunshot wound. There’s more, but I’ll stop for now.

          Why was there no new trial? BECAUSE BURNETT IS AS CROOKED AS A DOG’S HIND LEG! No, I can’t prove it, but it’s pretty obvious to me from the way he conducted the trials. Then, he gets into the State Senate and tries to get a bill passed that would make a confession the only evidence needed to convict someone! You don’t see a problem with that?

          Since Burnett’s election to the State Senate, what has happened with the case? The ASSC ruled that a new evidentiary hearing should be held. Judge David Laser was appointed as the judge for the case. The prosecution lawyers and the defense attorneys met, talked and came to an agreement regarding the Alford plea. The original verdicts were vacated, a new trial was held and the three were released for time served. Time served for three heinous murders! You can’t see what that means? NO ONE would release three murderers for time served. Judge Laser (and for my money Ellington, too) looked at the case and saw it for what it was – a horrible miscarriage of justice. He actually thanked the supporters on August 19, 2011, when the three were released. I didn’t hear him thanking the nons, BTW. You STILL believe that Burnett wasn’t manipulating things? If you do, I’ve got some swampland in Arizona that I’d like to sell you.

    2. See, this is how I’m different than all of you…I don’t speculate on who did it without evidence, so Hobbs to me is innocent until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

      I also don’t believe that the WM3 are “innocent”, I just don’t believe they are guilty because it wasn’t proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. Our firm has seen quite a few criminals who are awful people (just not guilty in that particular case) be beaten and threatened into confessing to things because cops are allowed to lie about, well, anything. This happens all the time in major cities everywhere. Cops are as crooked (in general) as a barrel of snakes.

      I would love to live in a world where all cops were “Andy Taylor” of Mayberry or those guys on NYPD Blue, but mostly they’re the bullies of high school, C + to B- students in school, certainly not Einsteins able to light the world on fire with their intellect (in general). Those geniuses interested in criminal law tend to go into the FBI or they are in forensics departments. But I’m probably just cynical because of my job.

      If it makes you feel better, I don’t think Echols is a long-suffering Messiah and he is being overly adulated for just being someone who got a raw deal in court. Maybe he did do it…they would have to prove it to me and they haven’t. I personally am envious he gets to hang out with Eddie Vedder and Johnny Depp and think there are a million kids in foster care or women in battered women’s shelters who deserve celebrity attention but won’t get it because they are a dime a dozen and Echols is high profile.

      I certainly don’t think Baldwin and the disabled guy participated in a killing though. Misskelley’s story has all the markings of being coached. Lawyers routinely coach confessions when it allows their client to accept a deal or have a lighter sentence. If he were there, sincere about righting wrongs he would have gotten all of the details correct or at least 90% of them without being led.

  10. “24 jurors might disagree with you on that. Not to mention the appealant courts.”

    The two juries that convicted the WMFree were swayed by the “Satanic panic” of the time and the Echols/Baldwin jury was tainted by a foreman who was predisposed to convict and who illegally introduced Jessie’s statements with no chance for the defense to cross examine because he introduced them during deliberations. The appellate courts were following Burnett’s lead, as appellate courts generally do. The ASSC finally did order the evidentiary hearing, and I am confident that Judge Laser’s court would have overturned Burnett’s bogus verdicts. I fear that, back in 1993-94, the Second District was corrupt.

    I was beginning to believe that this case would have to be taken out of the State of Arkansas and to the Federal level before relief was granted. I’m grateful that wasn’t the case. All of this, however, is why we have an appeals process in this country. Juries CAN get it wrong, as can appellate courts on the State level due to local corruption. That’s why capital cases are usually appealed to the Federal level unless they are overturned by the lower court which, as I stated before, is very rare. That’s not because the lower courts are always right. It’s just a result of the way the “good ol’ boy network” works.

    1. “FACT: There was absolutely no physical evidence that irrefutably linked any of the WMFree to this crime.- There wasn’t any physical evidenec that irrefutably linked ANYONE to the crime.”

      There was no physical evidence except the fibers that could POSSIBLY be tied to the WMFree. I am confident that the newest round of testing will exclude the items taken from the defendants’ homes as being the source of the fibers. The fiber evidence is not as strong as the mtDNA evidence. You seem to discount Terry’s hair as “innocent transfer” but you say nothing about David’s hair. How did it get there? He denies having EVER been near the discovery ditch.

      “FACT: There was mtDNA which excluded all of the WMFree but did not exclude Terry Hobbs, the step father of one of the victims.- True. But there was an obvious reason for his DNA to be there. He also had an alibi. And what about the other hairs that do NOT exclude the 3? Funny you leave that out.”

      There was no obvious reason for Terry’s hair to be in MICHAEL’S ligature. Terry’s alibi has been called into question by David Jacoby, the very person who Terry claimed as his alibi. Read David’s Pasdar declaration.

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

      As to hairs that do not exclude the three, in the latest round of testing, ALL HAIRS excluded the three. In the initial testing, one hair was said to not exclude Damien Echols, but more sophisticated testing has excluded him. There was some unknown male DNA found on Chris’ shoes, but, again the three were excluded as its source. All DNA that has been tested has excluded the three as its source.

      “FACT: The WMPD never considered Terry Hobbs as a suspect.- Maybe because he had an alibi?”

      His alibi fell apart. See the link above. Additionally, the WMPD didn’t even question Terry Hobbs until 2007. They questioned Mark Byers. They questioned Todd Moore and ruled him completely out as he was out of town. Why did Terry Hobbs get a free pass?

      “FACT: All three of the WMFree had alibis, but, because the alibis were provided by family and/or friends, they were considered “suspicious.” (Question: If they were with family and friends, what should they have said? Should they have lied and provided a “less suspicious” alibi, although it would have been false?)- They weren’t “considered” suspicious. They fell apart during cross.”

      As I explained before, just because the prosecutors were able to confuse the teenaged witnesses and the defense attorneys weren’t able to properly redirect doesn’t prove the teenaged witnesses were lying. It just proves that, at the time, the prosecutors were better attorneys than the defense attorneys were. The three were with friends and family. Even though that is considered a “weak” alibi, if it is the truth, that’s where they were. Again, Louis Hoggard’s testimony wasn’t impeached, although the prosecution tried diligently to do so.

      “The problem is, you can’t back up anything you say. It’s the same spiel that’s been disproven over and over. ”

      Again, we have different interpretations of the evidence. Just because you see the evidence differently than I do that doesn’t disprove my interpretation. And just because the juries agree with your interpretation of the evidence doesn’t prove that your interpretation is correct, either. Juries can be wrong. It’s why we have an appeals process in this country. And local corruption (which makes the State’s appellate courts agree with the local courts) is why that appeals process eventually goes outside the State to the Federal level. No, my position has not been disproved. Neither has yours been proven to be correct. IT’S ALL OPINION.

      “See above point about the same spiel with nothing to back it up.”

      I don’t think you’ve backed up your position any better than I have. I know that here my opinion is in the minority, but that doesn’t make it wrong. The majority cannot change day to night. The majority might believe day to be night, but that wouldn’t make it true.

      “Nothing I can say about the ‘injustice’ since that’s your opinion. I find it funny though that you completely ignored my comment about you admitting he’s lying and you just don’t care.”

      Damien described his experiences in prison as he remembered them. I don’t think he intentionally lied or tried to garner pity by making the experience worse than it was. Again, if you read “Almost Home” his descriptions there are pretty depressing. If he had a spork made out of heavy duty plastic, I can understand how eating with that for over eighteen years, which was as long as he had eaten with regular cutlery (longer, really, as he didn’t use regular cutlery as an infant), would make him “forget” how to hold and manipulate a fork. As to the exercise, IIRC, he chose not to go out because the conditions in the dog run where he was to exercise were totally disgusting. Yes, exercise was offered, but the conditions where he was to exercise simply weren’t conducive to exercising. That’s not lying, IMO. That’s making a point about the conditions.

      “1st, thanks for correcting me on Mara’s name. As far as ‘I believe that she knows more about it than the WMPD’…then why is there so much she left out of the book? Compare the book to the transcripts, she left out a LOT of witnesses. To save space? Possibly. But it’s odd that the witnesses cut pointed towards guilt, not innocence. GO ahead…compare. I’d do it for you, but it’s a LONG list.”

      I’ve read the trial transcripts and the pretrial hearing transcripts and the Rule 37 proceedings and the Pasdar documents and all pertinent legal documents in this case. IMO, there are not ANY witnesses that prove guilt. The only witnesses that I remember that “point to guilt” are LE officials and other witnesses on the State’s payroll. I simply believe that they are either outright lying or embellishing the truth to suit their theory. As to why Mara left out what she left out, you’d have to ask her. She was writing a book to help right a wrong. She included things to prove her point. Nothing she left out proves, IMO, that the WMFree are guilty of the murders.

      “And I’m firmly convinced that if a video of the murders existed that showed DJJ DID do it, you’d write it off as unbelievable too. Just like the fiber evidence, the lack of alibis, exhibit 500, 4 confessions by Jessie, witnesses hearing Damien and Jason confess, the failed polygraphs by Damien and Jessie, ect, ect ect.”

      As to your first point, you’d be wrong. I have changed my mind as to the guilty party in this case once because of new information. So, I am open to examining whatever surfaces and seeing where it leads. Are you?

      The fiber evidence was inconclusive. Even the State’s witness, Lisa Sakevicius, said so. The defense is currently retesting the fibers using newer methods and I hope the results are revealed soon. What will you say about the fiber evidence when the new tests come back proving that those garments the State insisted were the source of those fibers aren’t the source?

      As to alibis, I believe the alibis. You don’t. I don’t know how to “prove” the alibis as you don’t want to accept what was said. Jason’s alibi was not presented in court. Jessie’s alibi was several teenagers who were confused on cross (which DOESN’T mean they were lying). Damien’s alibi was friends and family that you don’t believe and I do. In short, I believe the alibis; you don’t. If the police hadn’t led the defense to believe that phone records were unavailable, there could have been documentation for Damien’s phone calls at least. Just another of many examples of the ineptitude of the defense attorneys at the time.

      Exhibit 500 was put together by the defense in an attempt to avoid the Death Penalty for Damien. As it didn’t work, apparently it doesn’t really prove that Damien is as crazy as you purport. However, even if he were crazy as a loon, THAT WOULDN’T PROVE THAT HE MURDERED THOSE LITTLE BOYS.

      Jessie’s statements are all error-filled, including the two post conviction statements which should have been dead on accurate. Also, seven certified forensic pathologists have stated that the wounds on the little boys were caused by postmortem animal predation – not by knives or fists which refutes all of Jessie’s statements.

      I believe that Damien’s so-called “confession” was nothing of the sort. IF he made the statements, he was being sarcastic. It was one of his defense mechanisms and is a normal response for many teenagers.

      I don’t believe Michael Carson for one minute. If Joyce Cureton hadn’t been told to be “unavailable” for the trial, she would have countered Carson. Also, if Carson’s counselor had been allowed to testify, he would have testified that he told Carson about the case, and that Carson’s testimony was simply a rehash of what his counselor told him.

      Polygraphs aren’t admitted as evidence because they are unreliable. Warren Holmes said that Jessie only showed deception on the question about drug use, and he was the one who taught Durham his job! Damien could have been (probably was) nervous when he took his polygraph, which would have caused the false readings. The bottom line – polygraphs are meaningless, unless they are backed up with evidence.

      So, IMO, none of the things you listed “prove” that the WMFree committed these murders. However, I am willing to look at all new information presented. I don’t unquestioningly believe LE. I believe that LE officials can (and, in this case, did) lie on the stand. And I believe that the three men released from prison on August 19, 2011 are innocent based on all I have read and seen about this case.

    2. That’s your entire argument, huh? It’s someone else’s fault. It’s “satanic panic”. It’s the “good ole boys network”. It’s “the Second District was corrupt”.

      Do you not hear yourself?

      You literally have to explain away a mountain of evidence, coincidences, facts, judgements, witnesses, and plain old asshattery by DJJ to convince yourself they’re innocent.

      One confession? Ok. Four confessions? You’re reaching.

      One tainted juror? Ok. 24 of them? You’re reaching.

      One crooked cop? Ok. Everyone at the WMPD, the Sheriff’s department, AND the Arkansas DOC? Again, you’re reaching.

      One wrong verdict? Ok. Every verdict? Are you seeing a pattern?

      One lie by the supporter movement? Ok. The entire list? Yep…reaching.

      Do you not hear yourself? seriously, step back for just a moment. You’re literally trying to drive from Miami to New York via Dallas here. It would be laughable except for the fact the 3 men you support killed 3 innocent kids.

      Seriously. Think about it. If they were truely innocent, would you REALLY have to even try to explain away the mountain you’ve been attempting to explain away.

      1. “Damien described his experiences in prison as he remembered them. I don’t think he intentionally lied or tried to garner pity by making the experience worse than it was. Again, if you read “Almost Home” his descriptions there are pretty depressing.”

        Wasn’t he STILL in prison when he wrote “Almost Home”?

      2. “One confession? Ok. Four confessions? You’re reaching.”

        Four confessions by a mentally challenged minor who had no representation, not even a parent, when he was questioned. No matter how many times you tell a lie, it will not become the truth.

        “One tainted juror? Ok. 24 of them? You’re reaching.”

        One tainted juror who got himself elected foreman and introduced evidence that Burnett had excluded. That’s all it takes. At least two of the jurors have since made statements saying that knowing about Jessie’s statement swayed them to believe that the three were guilty.

        “One crooked cop? Ok. Everyone at the WMPD, the Sheriff’s department, AND the Arkansas DOC? Again, you’re reaching.”

        You must not know very much about how small towns work. Everybody didn’t have to be corrupt, just those at the top. My guess would be Burnett, Fogleman and possibly Gitchell.

        “One wrong verdict? Ok. Every verdict? Are you seeing a pattern?”

        Yes, a pattern of corruption.

        “One lie by the supporter movement? Ok. The entire list? Yep…reaching.”

        Nope, having a different interpretation of the evidence. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your interpretation (or opinion) doesn’t make them a liar.

        “Seriously. Think about it. If they were truely innocent, would you REALLY have to even try to explain away the mountain you’ve been attempting to explain away.”

        They ARE innocent. That “mountain” IMO doesn’t point to guilt but to innocence. I’m not “attempting to explain away” anything. I’m stating my interpretation of evidence that you see differently than I do. It’s as simple as that – and as frustrating because of all of the “asshattery” by Burnett and his cronies.

        1. Four confessions by a mentally challenged minor who had no representation, not even a parent, when he was questioned.

          Misskelley didn’t have a lawyer for his 6/3/93 confession because he explicitly waived his right to a lawyer. The cops Mirandized him three times before his tape-recorded confession began. Many stupid criminals waive the right to silence and/or a laywer because they think they can bullshit their way out of trouble. Misskelley was a stupid criminal.

          His 6/11/93, 8/19/93 and 2/8/94 confessions came in private meetings with a defense lawyer. You can’t really claim he didn’t have representation for those.

          At the 2/17/94 confession, he had both defense lawyers present.

          1. He was not mentally competent enough to waive his right to counsel. We all know that if the original statements (remember, there were two statements on 6/3/93, the original one and the “corrected” ont that Judge Pal Rainey required before he would issue warrants) had not happened the others would not have happened. He wasn’t a stupid criminal; he was a mentally challenged youth, and I think it’s despicable that it is legal to manipulate someone of Jessie’s disabilities in the way the WMPD did.

        2. You do not know how every small town works because you have not lived in every “small town” in the world. You are trying to sell the same stereotypical image that you claim convicted three “innocent” guys.

          1. You’re right. Not every small town in riddled with corruption. However, if you read the testimony of Joseph Samuel Dwyer in the Rule 37 abstracts, you will see that the police were, in fact, targeting kids wearing black clothes. Jerry Driver, along with Steve Jones, had been looking for Satanists for about a year before the murders. The WMPD didn’t investigate Terry Hobbs until the defense held a press conference that made it mandatory that they do so and then, it was a friendly interview as opposed to an interrogation, but it was very revealing. However, it was not an honest attempt at finding the truth. In short, not all small towns are corrupt, but many are. IMO, some of the officials in this one are very corrupt.

      3. There is not enough evidence that had this case been taken to another town that a jury would have applied the reasonable doubt rule and still found them guilty.

        There is not mountains of evidence. Don’t exaggerate. One one hand you rebut Compassionate Reader for their being no physical evidence to link anyone to the crime and now there’s mountains of evidence.

        Testimony is unreliable. Always has been. Always will be as long as human beings are the ones giving it.

        The confessions can easily be written off how police routinely operate, and as someone having a lawyer with interest in saving his client’s life.

        There is no murder weapon, no motive, and no history of actual acts of sadistic violence–don’t give me the Great Dane story. Stepped on a mouse, maybe…yes. Killed a dog bigger than he is…doubtful. It would also go against the profile of picking on victims small and helpless.

        People think they did it because Damien Echols had that same sullen, obstinate expression that people foolishly believe is the face of a serial killer. Had he cried he would have looked remorseful, IE “he did it”. No, he looks angry because he is being accused of a horrific crime and gets to spend hours there listening to people talk about how horrible he is…

        Sorry for being grouchy, but I see guilty people and a few innocent ones go to court every day. Oh, the stories I can tell about how people act in the court room. One of the firm’s clients is completely 100% totally innocent. We can prove it with cameras (thankfully) from buildings, but to the cops he seemed guilty because of how jittery he was (parkinsons) and will hopefully testify the same way on the stand about how nervous he appeared so we can blow them out of the water.

        Anyway…

      4. I think you are as incredibly naive about the US legal system as CR is about Echols. The budget of that police department and DAs office in no way, shape, or form lends itself to airtight, mistake-free convictions and if you believe that cops aren’t willing to fudge information to get an arrest to stick you are living in fantasy disco land. I’m not saying that they all purposefully try to stick it to innocent people, but just like everyone else working in criminal justice they are jaded.

        I don’t believe anyone who says they’re innocent. It’s always: “I bought the car with the gun already in it”…or…”my pants were down because they were a size too big, I forgot a belt and then when I opened my trench coat to show people the lining the wind current made them drop in front of those women”.

        But there are legal standards that our FFs set on the presumption of innocence, no self-incrimination, and reasonable doubt that makes America one of the best nations in the world to live in. When we let go of those principles to get a conviction we set our feet on a very slippery slope to corruption. Once you do it once, you’ll do it again and again and again. Before too long you don’t think twice to fudging evidence to get a win, or finding someone guilty just because its expedient.

  11. “Wasn’t he STILL in prison when he wrote ‘Almost Home’?”

    Yes. I’m not sure why this is important. He described his experiences AS HE WAS EXPERIENCING THEM. Then, after his release, he provided more information. It seems that, while he was in prison, every time he had an interview the guards tossed his cell. So, after he got out, he might have added things that he was afraid to tell in “Almost Home” because of the possible reprisals from the guards. Of course, ADC denies that any of this happened. You may choose to believe the ADC. I believe Damien.

  12. To “compassionate reader”: Wow, really? You have been teaching HS for years and often have students who act like Damien, who also happen to be youir favorite students? Not likely. And what is all of this with the cracks about small towns. I grew up in small towns. One of them happened to have an active satanic cult operating in it. And the way that you throw around the term “satanic panic,” leads me to believe that you are working within one of these networks in order to dupe the general public into falsely believing that satanic cults either pose no harm, or do not exist. Damien admitted to being a satanist. He changed his name to DAMIEN–get a clue.

    1. “Four confessions by a mentally challenged minor who had no representation, not even a parent, when he was questioned. No matter how many times you tell a lie, it will not become the truth.”

      4 confessions by a 17 year old who signed a Miranda waiver, who’s parent knew where he was and that he was being questioned. I won’t even try to explain the “mentally challenged” part. A couple of people already have and you’ve just spun it your way.

      “One tainted juror who got himself elected foreman and introduced evidence that Burnett had excluded. That’s all it takes. At least two of the jurors have since made statements saying that knowing about Jessie’s statement swayed them to believe that the three were guilty.”

      Fact not in evidence, fact you cannot prove. Next.

      “You must not know very much about how small towns work. Everybody didn’t have to be corrupt, just those at the top. My guess would be Burnett, Fogleman and possibly Gitchell.”

      I live in a town 1/4 the size of West Memphis, Arkansas (population just under 30k in 1993 according to Google). So yeah…I do know. But again, a fact not in evidence. Just your attempt to rationalize.

      “Yes, a pattern of corruption.”

      Opinion you can’t back up…again. But ok, that’s your opinion. Keep sticking to it.

      “Nope, having a different interpretation of the evidence. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your interpretation (or opinion) doesn’t make them a liar.”

      Saying Jessie was interrogated for 12 hours when he obvious wasn’t is LYING. Saying Jessie wasn’t Mirandized is LYING. Saying the Softball Girls recanted is LYING. Saying Jessie only confessed once is LYING. All spread by the supporter movement.

      “They ARE innocent. That “mountain” IMO doesn’t point to guilt but to innocence. I’m not “attempting to explain away” anything. I’m stating my interpretation of evidence that you see differently than I do. It’s as simple as that – and as frustrating because of all of the “asshattery” by Burnett and his cronies.”

      No, you’re trying to justify supporting 3 convicted child murderers.

      “Yes. I’m not sure why this is important. He described his experiences AS HE WAS EXPERIENCING THEM. Then, after his release, he provided more information. It seems that, while he was in prison, every time he had an interview the guards tossed his cell. So, after he got out, he might have added things that he was afraid to tell in “Almost Home” because of the possible reprisals from the guards. Of course, ADC denies that any of this happened. You may choose to believe the ADC. I believe Damien.”

      THIS is why this is important:

      ““Damien described his experiences in prison as he remembered them. I don’t think he intentionally lied or tried to garner pity by making the experience worse than it was. Again, if you read “Almost Home” his descriptions there are pretty depressing.”

      If he was still in prison, he wouldn’t have to describe them “as he remembered them”. He’d STILL be living them. So yeah…he lied. That -points above- that is spin. Congratulations, you’re a full fledged supporter.

      1. “4 confessions by a 17 year old who signed a Miranda waiver, who’s parent knew where he was and that he was being questioned. I won’t even try to explain the ‘mentally challenged’ part. A couple of people already have and you’ve just spun it your way.”

        The “mentally challenged” part is the most important part. Jessie’s IQ consistently tested in the BORDERLINE MENTALLY RETARDED range. He didn’t understand his Miranda rights, so he should not have been questioned without counsel present. His father thought that he was going to be questioned about Damien and that he would get reward money for helping the police. (In case you hadn’t noticed, his father is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.)

        If you remember, at first Jessie said that Damien and Robert Burch committed the crimes. He only heard about that, so he embellished his story (in order to get the reward) and, in the end, he falsely implicated himself (and Damien and Jason as well) in an effort to make the police believe him so he could get the reward money. His stories simply don’t match the forensics. Therefore, they are not believable – unless you’re the Keystone Kops aka the WMPD.

        “Fact not in evidence, fact you cannot prove. Next.”

        Lloyd Warford’s Affidavit.

        http://www.wm3blackboard.com/board/pdfs/Warford%20affidavit.pdf

        This affidavit was presented to the ASSC during the Oral Arguments in September, 2010. It is the reason that the whole jury misconduct issue was being reconsidered.

        “I live in a town 1/4 the size of West Memphis, Arkansas (population just under 30k in 1993 according to Google). So yeah…I do know. But again, a fact not in evidence. Just your attempt to rationalize.”

        Do you really believe that the corrupt officials would permit proof of their corruption to be entered into evidence? Corruption is the kind of thing that is “proven” only by intelligent examination of a situation. It’s not a rationalization. It happens. I’m not saying that every small town is corrupt, but it seems that corruption is more prevalent in small towns (as I said before, Chicago, LA and New York are exceptions). Are you saying that corruption doesn’t exist?

        “Saying Jessie was interrogated for 12 hours when he obvious wasn’t is LYING. Saying Jessie wasn’t Mirandized is LYING. Saying the Softball Girls recanted is LYING. Saying Jessie only confessed once is LYING. All spread by the supporter movement.”

        I haven’t said any of those things. Jessie was in custody for about twelve hours before his real arrest (although the WMPD falsified the document to make it look like he was arrested at 2:44 pm – impossible since Judge Rainey didn’t issue the warrant until after 9 pm). Because of Jessie’s mental deficiency, he didn’t understand his Miranda warning. So, in effect, he wasn’t Mirandized. Just getting someone to sign that they understand doesn’t mean that they understand.

        One of the softball girls’ mother has made a statement since the original trials to the effect that she doesn’t believe that Damien was serious in what he said. I don’t care how many statements Jessie made. They are all error-filled. I am sure that these facts can get misconstrued. However, the non movement puts out a lot of misinformation of their own. Shall I paint you with that brush?

        “No, you’re trying to justify supporting 3 convicted child murderers. ”

        Again, this is YOUR OPINION ONLY. I examined the same documents, etc. that you did and came to a different conclusion. That doesn’t make my conclusion invalid nor yours valid.

        “If he was still in prison, he wouldn’t have to describe them “as he remembered them”. He’d STILL be living them. So yeah…he lied. That -points above- that is spin. ”

        Maybe I wasn’t clear so let me elaborate. His first book, “Almost Home,” was written while he was incarcerated. In that book, he described some of his experiences in prison. Included in his descriptions are the fact that he was repeatedly raped in prison and the guards didn’t properly investigate. Also in that book he described the “exercise area” as being more like a dog run, as having no sunlight and as generally not a place where a thoughtful, sensitive young man could exercise (my words, not his).

        Also, while he was in prison, he wrote letters that were posted on a website. One of the things he described in at least one of those letters was the fact that, after each interview he had with the news media, his cell was tossed and many of his personal possessions were removed. Of course, the ADC denies that this happened. However, I believe that it happened. As I have said before, I don’t believe everything that LE says as gospel truth.

        After Damien was released from prison, he commented about having to learn to walk without shackles and having to relearn to eat with a fork. I simply don’t believe he was lying about any of these things. Until you have lived in similar circumstances, I just don’t think that you should accuse him of lying. If you choose to believe the fiction put forth by the ADC, that is your right, but I choose to believe Damien.

        It seems that you are trying to imply that I was saying that he was out of prison when he wrote the book. I didn’t say that. If you inferred that, you were wrong. The quote “as he remembered them” was my words, not his. Maybe I should have said “as he was living them” in reference to the information from “Almost Home” and “as he remembered them” in reference to his post release interviews. What’s important is that his living conditions weren’t as agreeable as the descriptions of the ADC.

        “Congratulations, you’re a full fledged supporter.”

        And you are a full-fledged non. Do we win a prize?

    2. I didn’t ever say that the students who acted like Damien were my favorite students. I’m simply pointing out that his behavior isn’t as uncommon as many people believe.

      I grew up in a small town, too. Although police corruption isn’t limited to small towns (Chicago comes to mind), it does seem to flourish there, at least that has been my experience.

      I’m not promoting Satanism. The term “Satanic panic” was the expression used for the wave of hysteria that swept this country during the late 80’s and early 90’s. It was linked to heavy metal music. The most important thing about it is that TO THIS DAY there has not been one instance of murder as a result of sacrifice to Satan.

      Damien said that he studied some aspects of Satanism. Guess what? So did my husband. Damien changed his name in honor of Father Damien who worked with the lepers on Hawaii. You may not choose to believe that. I do.

    3. Okay, you had a satanic cult in your town. The Russian mafia is in Brooklyn. It doesn’t mean there is a Satanic cult in every town or that the Russian mafia is operating in Lexingon, VA. This is not even logical.

      Also, explain how to someone not believing in the satanic motive means she is part of a vast right wing–er, vast liberal conspiracy to dupe the public into believing that these cults don’t exist?

      P

  13. If Damien had looked like Jason or Jessie, he may have died years ago. I have yet to meet a WM3 supporter who does not appear to be enamored of Echols’ appearance. If he had not been “The Johnny Depp of Death Row,” there highly likely would not have been an HBO documentary.

    People care when bad things happen to good looking people, they say. It is similar to many people’s attraction to Ted Bundy’s story, along with Casey Anthony’s and Amanda Knox’s. I am very guilty of it. That’s probably why I can usually spot it clearly in others with the same affliction.

    1. “If Damien had looked like Jason or Jessie, he may have died years ago. I have yet to meet a WM3 supporter who does not appear to be enamored of Echols’ appearance. If he had not been ‘The Johnny Depp of Death Row,’ there highly likely would not have been an HBO documentary. ”

      I’m not “enamored of Echols’ appearance” at all. I simply understand his actions and don’t assume them to be the actions of a murderer. I will agree that the fact that Damien was facing execution for a crime of which he was innocent made the story much more gripping. However, I’m not so sure that the documentaries would not have been made if all three had been given LWOP. Of course, we’ll never know unless someone asks Joe and Bruce. I’ve never heard Damien called “The Johnny Depp of Death Row.” Did you read that somewhere or come up with it all by yourself? Interesting analogy.

      “People care when bad things happen to good looking people, they say. It is similar to many people’s attraction to Ted Bundy’s story, along with Casey Anthony’s and Amanda Knox’s. I am very guilty of it. That’s probably why I can usually spot it clearly in others with the same affliction.”

      I’ve never heard anyone who was sympathetic toward Ted Bundy because of his good looks. Personally, I don’t consider either Casey Anthony or Amanda Knox to be particularly good looking. I’m a woman, so that may color my perception. But, it’s possible that you could be right about that. Sometimes, it seems that the “beautiful people” can do no wrong. But, Ted Bundy WAS convicted so it doesn’t always shield them. (BTW, I believe Casey Anthony to be guilty of killing her child [probably accidentally but still at least manslaughter] and Amanda Knox to be innocent of the murder, [although I think she may have known more than she admitted].)

  14. I saw a case on the Investigation Discovery channel just last night where the whole town thought this man (last name something like Strom or Storm) killed his wife. Turns out it was someone else, who then tried to say that the husband paid him to do it! So, people’s perceptions don’t prove someone to be a murderer.

  15. Regarding all of the: “he saids”…

    http://www.livescience.com/15385-widespread-memory-myths.html

    Memory is notoriously unreliable even under the best of conditions. Add the titillation that occurs when drama unfolds and the chance of being on television and I would trust maybe 15% of what people had to say and throw the rest out on grounds of exaggeration, faulty memory, and flat out BS.

    I’m not Johnny Depp whose gonna pay for Damien Echols to go to Disneyland (I’m sure Jason is pretty confused about Capt Jack’s preference for the dude who got him into that mess for being a grade A pre-Emo-Emo weirdo), but I don’t think they did it. The evidence is just not there for me and I see this stuff all the time. This should have been an open and shut case for the defense and somehow they bungled a criminal defense where the ADA and DA rested their case mostly upon the “expert” testimony of a guy who thinks this was a black magic ritual killing (without all the cool ritual stuff) and the airtight confession of a kid who probably still ate crayons.

  16. Compassionate Reader: You’re certainly entitled to your opinions. However, you are a school teacher, not a public health professional. Several of the broad generalizations that you’ve uttered are outside your realm of expertise and, therefore, are not reliable opinions. For example, your broad statement that kids who “act out” are less predisposed to commit murder than kids who behave in school — you don’t know that. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t, but being a school teacher doesn’t qualify you to make that judgment. Not even close. How many of your students have committed murders? Of those who committed murders, how many were the “quiet ones,” and how many were of the “act out” variety? Did you clinically psychoanalyze any of your murderer students to determine whether there is a correlation between homicidal violence and the student’s quotient for disturbing class? Of course not, right? To your knowledge, you probably have never taught any student who committed murder.

    Your presumption to speak with authority on these issues is breathtaking.

  17. when iseen these movies and seen the young men that they were charging with the murders of the little boys i found it to be a bunch of crap they had nothing to go but a false statement that thay made jesse confess to all three of you look like very nice people and i never once thought you all did this and i find it to be bullshit that terry hobbs is still walking free when he should be were you guys were for 18 years the state in my opnion just did what they did to cover there own ass. terry hobbs is the one that needs to be on death row.he is a pieace of shit if you ask me .i am so sorry that you all lost most of ur livers because the police did not do what they should have done.they just wanted to pin it on someone but they got the wrong 3. thank you for letting me express my opnion. nikki dunnahoo

  18. At least they got away with a triple homocide and served a combined 54 years in Prison. OJ got away with a double and no Prison…..our system is the best there is, but there will never be any fool proof method of proving guilt or innocence

  19. Damien is not a psychopath. The PROVISIONAL diagnoses of psychopathy are not final diagnoses. If you went to the doctor with personality changes and memory loss and their provisional diagnosis was schizophrenia, but they found you to have a brain tumor, you would not tell people that you have schizophrenia. I am a medical records coder–not a biller, I actually code the records in depth–and we do not code provisional, differential, or r/o (rule out) diagnoses because those are not the final, official diagnoses.

    Further, nons cite his failed polygraph as evidence to support the guilt of the 3, but a psychopath would not fail a polygraph as they have no capacity to feel guilt or anxiety about lying.

    He also is not a sociopath. Sociopaths don’t call themselves sociopaths. Teenage boys who want to be shocking call themselves sociopaths.

    I’m not saying all this as some kind of proof that he’s innocent or that the case against him is weak, but I think you care about accuracy and truth on your site and saying that he is a psychopath is not the truth.

  20. ?? I think this is one of the most vital information for me. And i’m glad reading your article.sleek flat top rated and bottom part, without any indention or breaks.. The common rule for winterthroughout the winter season so as to keep hot with the advantage of additional alleviate..’s get plus reunites using their make significant other. A make composed the next report:
    ?? A fantastic read. I’ll definitely be back.I’ve recently started a blog, the info you offer on this site has helped me tremendously.I like the efforts you have put in this, appreciate it for all the great posts.”Money is the most egalitarian force in society. It confers power on whoever holds it.” by Roger Starr.
    ?? Dead indited content, regards for selective information. “You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it.” by Samuel Butler.Nice weblog here! Also your web site quite a bit up fast! What host are you the use of? Can I get your affiliate hyperlink on your host? I wish my web site loaded up as fast as yours lolKeep up the good work , I read few articles on this internet site and I conceive that your site is real interesting and holds bands of wonderful info .nourishment and superb energy to start your day..

Leave a Reply

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