36 thoughts on “New pages: Baldwin and Misskelley profiles”

  1. Haven’t read Jessie’s profile yet, but loved how you wrote Jason’s profile. I always thought of Jason as the first lieutenant type. He was to Damien what Charles “Tex” Watson was to Charles Manson, Dylan Klebold was to Eric Harris. No doubt the kid had to have been depressed in such a dysfunctional home. Probably true he was talented, maybe gifted, in art. Then again, Norman Mailer and Susan Sarandon found out that gifted writers can sometimes also be cold-blooded murderers. One doesn’t exclude the other. My guess is it would have taken more time for Damien to have murdered if it had not been for the supportive shadow of Jason. One of the first things that must have attracted Damien to Jason was the horror film connotation of his name.

  2. Let’s look at these profiles, shall we?

    “Sean Flynn recently wrote in GQ: ‘Jason, a slight boy of 112 pounds with small, crooked teeth and matchstick arms, went to school every day, got good grades, was a talented artist, and never did anything more sinister than shoplift a bag of chips.’ This is not true. Baldwin had a more extensive history of petty crime.

    At his 2008 Rule 37 hearing, Baldwin testified: ‘My experience with the court system and lawyers before 1993 was in the juvenile system when I was around eleven. I had been placed on probation when I was 11 years old.’ (That quote is from the official Abstract of the proceedings; the exact transcript does not circulate.) The offense which got him placed on probation is unknown.”

    So, you are assuming that whatever Baldwin did when he was “around eleven” was violent? Even you admit that the offense is unknown. However, for the purposes of this page, you imply that it was something worse than stealing a bag of chips.

    “Blood of Innocents relates another incident when Baldwin was 12 years old:

    On January 13, 1990, Jason and some other kids broke into a shop full of vintage cars and equipment. They broke the front, rear, and right-door glass on a front-end loader, two left-side door windows, and the side vent of a 1969 Cadillac, and all the glass on a 1959 Ford. Three other kids were supposedly with him. Jason, almost thirteen years old, later admitted breaking some headlights, but also pointed the finger at another kid. He was charged with breaking and entering and criminal mischief. (191)

    Mara Leveritt in Devil’s Knot offers Baldwin’s less sinister account of this incident (55): the ‘vintage car shop’ was actually an abandoned building full of junkers, missing a wall and overgrown with tall grass, which neighborhood kids used as a clubhouse.”

    Again, you are accepting the information from a book that was nothing more that a tabloid report about the crime over the information from “Devil’s Knot” which was a well-documented book written by a journalist from the area where the crimes occurred.

    “In November 1992, at age 15, Baldwin was caught shoplifting snacks from a local Walgreens. According to Blood of Innocents, he ‘was placed on twelve months’ diversion of judgment’ requiring him to ‘stay in school and out of trouble”'(191-192).”

    Hmmm . . . “shoplifting snacks” sounds a lot like stealing potato chips, like the GQ article said, to me. You have presented no “evidence” IMO that anything in Jason’s juvenile record is any more serious than stealing snacks.

    “After Baldwin’s arrest for murder, a friend named Jason Crosby told police that Baldwin had robbed him in 1992.

    About 1 year ago I had a knife stolen from a knife collection that my Dad had brought for me about 1½ before it had been stolen. I had heard thought rumor that Jason Baldwin had stolen this knife from me. When I asked Jason B. about the knife he said he had trade the knife & trench coat to his cousin or uncle in Mississippi for a bike. At the time the knife went missing Jason B. & Damien E. had spent the night a couple of times.”

    Again, this is not evidence, it is rumor. Nothing in this report states that Jason stole the knife, just that they were suspects. The report is a bit disjointed, and EVEN IF JASON STOLE THE KNIFE, it proves nothing.

    “Blood of Innocents mentions another crime that may or may not have involved Jason Baldwin

    Five years before the murders, Baldwin had lived in a seedy section of unincorporated Shelby County, north of Memphis. The Shelby County Fire Department was called to the house June 5, 1987, when someone inside set fire to a bedroom with a cigarette lighter. A room burned but no one was injured. (190)”

    Where is the proof that the arsonist was Jason? He has two younger brothers who could be responsible for the fire, too. Well, at least Matt could have. The younger one (sorry, don’t remember his name) was probably in diapers in 1987.

    “The most damaging thing said about Jason Baldwin came from his paternal grandmother. On June 5, 1993, the Memphis Commercial Appeal ran profiles of all three accused. The Baldwin profile was entitled ‘Shy & Artistic, But Into That Devil Stuff’ and included this passage:

    But in Sheridan, Ark., south of Little Rock, 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.”

    This I have seen and addressed before. His grandmother, who sees him a few days a year, makes these statements and you slurp them up like chicken noodle soup! If you read the entire article from which you pulled this snippet, you will see that no one else thought that about Jason. No one.

    “Family Life”

    This entire section could be applied to thousands of kids. It doesn’t prove anything except that Jason had a hard life. IT DOESN’T MAKE HIM A MURDERER. Period.

    “Jason Baldwin was the only one of the three accused killers still attending high school. WM3 supporters frequently claim that Baldwin was a good student who ‘got good grades’, but this was not true in the period leading up to the murders and arrests. The Blood of Innocents authors acquired Baldwin’s spring 1993 report card, which ‘showed him to be a rather indifferent student in most subjects. He had a D-plus in Algebra I and C’s in most other classes. However, in English, he was a borderline B student. And in art, he earned an A.'”

    He was passing every class. Maybe he’s no Einstein (although Einstein failed high school Algebra several times, IIRC), but he was doing well in English and art, making C’s (which means average) in everything BUT Algebra and passing Algebra. As a retired math teacher, I know only too well that math is the subject which seems to be the hardest for many students, especially, for some reason, those with unsettled home lives and those from meager means.

    “Everyone agreed that Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin were best friends, virtually inseparable. Psychiatric records and witness statements make clear that Damien Echols circa 1992-93 was a deranged, violent psychopath with homicidal fantasies. There’s no way of knowing what Baldwin and Echols talked about in the months leading up to the murder, but it’s safe to say that Echols was a bad influence.

    Forensic psychologist Katharine Ramsland describes a common dynamic among ‘team killers’:

    Many couples (no matter what gender) tend to follow a similar pattern. Two people meet and feel a strong attraction, or they are related and have established an intimate familiarity with each other that allows them to share fantasies — even violent ones. Typically one is dominant, and that one seduces the other into sharing his or her fantasy, and then into acting it out.

    Based on the incomplete information available, Echols and Baldwin’s relationship fits this pattern. Echols was the dominant personality, Baldwin the admiring follower. Echols’ violent fantasies were the driving force behind the crime. If he had and Echols had never met, Baldwin probably never would have committed such a horrific crime.”

    And this means that Jason (and Damien) were plotting and planning a murder? Sorry. I don’t buy it. I believe that neither of them committed a violent crime.

    “To answer an inevitable response from WM3 partisans: No, nothing on this page proves that Jason Baldwin was guilty of triple murder. There’s plenty of direct evidence of that elsewhere.”

    Really? Where?

    “Baldwin may well have been the shy, artistic, kind-hearted adolescent that his supporters describe. He was also a disturbed, angry adolescent with a history of petty crime, a severely messed-up home life and a homicidal lunatic for a best friend.”

    This is your opinion. Mine tends to fall in line with the first statement – Charles Jason Baldwin was a shy, artistic, kind hearted adolescent who was unjustly imprisoned for over 18 years of his life. The employees at the prison were so happy for him when he walked out that they applauded.

    1. Compassionate Reader, we’re aware you say you’re a retired math teacher with several years of experience. I’m not doubting you. What someone’s claimed occupation is or was does not make his opinion more valid than others on anonymous Internet chatting boards. I’m not trying to be rude or inconsiderate of your passionate feelings. Have a good night.

      1. No offense taken, Hubris. And, please, call me CR. That’s how I’m usually addressed on the boards.

        My experience as a teacher, most of it teaching kids like Damien, Jessie and Jason, I think does give me a little more insight into the teenaged mind than someone who has not had that experience. That is all. You have a good night, too.

        1. A teacher is not a psychologist and if you look at Dameins medical records he should have never been let out the institutions. Jason and Jessie were the profile of a follower. And adding up all the factors even tho the state couldnt prove it the finger points to them. Also I would like to add that with the time frame of the murders someone was in the woods already. And Jessie kept trying to say they were there early . Even tho there were gaps in time in someones alibi the killing took more then 2 hours. The one man killing 3 kids is just to way out there.Catching 3 kids would be so hard unless there was more then one person out there. And Jessie saying that he held one child from getting away fits what happened.

  3. Let’s look at these profiles, shall we?-No, let’s look at your replies, shall we?

    “Sean Flynn recently wrote in GQ: ‘Jason, a slight boy of 112 pounds with small, crooked teeth and matchstick arms, went to school every day, got good grades, was a talented artist, and never did anything more sinister than shoplift a bag of chips.’ This is not true. Baldwin had a more extensive history of petty crime.

    At his 2008 Rule 37 hearing, Baldwin testified: ‘My experience with the court system and lawyers before 1993 was in the juvenile system when I was around eleven. I had been placed on probation when I was 11 years old.’ (That quote is from the official Abstract of the proceedings; the exact transcript does not circulate.) The offense which got him placed on probation is unknown.”

    So, you are assuming that whatever Baldwin did when he was “around eleven” was violent? Even you admit that the offense is unknown. However, for the purposes of this page, you imply that it was something worse than stealing a bag of chips.-I have no clue where you got that from. Seriously. Nowhere in the above statement is anything that remotely even hints that the author believes Jason’s crime to be violent.

    “Blood of Innocents relates another incident when Baldwin was 12 years old:

    On January 13, 1990, Jason and some other kids broke into a shop full of vintage cars and equipment. They broke the front, rear, and right-door glass on a front-end loader, two left-side door windows, and the side vent of a 1969 Cadillac, and all the glass on a 1959 Ford. Three other kids were supposedly with him. Jason, almost thirteen years old, later admitted breaking some headlights, but also pointed the finger at another kid. He was charged with breaking and entering and criminal mischief. (191)

    Mara Leveritt in Devil’s Knot offers Baldwin’s less sinister account of this incident (55): the ‘vintage car shop’ was actually an abandoned building full of junkers, missing a wall and overgrown with tall grass, which neighborhood kids used as a clubhouse.”

    Again, you are accepting the information from a book that was nothing more that a tabloid report about the crime over the information from “Devil’s Knot” which was a well-documented book written by a journalist from the area where the crimes occurred.-Again…huh? He didn’t accept anything. He pointed out both stories. Fairly I might add, since he pointed one one account was more sinister than the other.

    “In November 1992, at age 15, Baldwin was caught shoplifting snacks from a local Walgreens. According to Blood of Innocents, he ‘was placed on twelve months’ diversion of judgment’ requiring him to ‘stay in school and out of trouble”’(191-192).”

    Hmmm . . . “shoplifting snacks” sounds a lot like stealing potato chips, like the GQ article said, to me. You have presented no “evidence” IMO that anything in Jason’s juvenile record is any more serious than stealing snacks.-Actually…he did. He confirmed the GQ article through another source. Are you just bored tonight? You know the Cotton Bowl is on right now? And it’s a pretty compelling game. Much more compelling than your argument anyway.

    “After Baldwin’s arrest for murder, a friend named Jason Crosby told police that Baldwin had robbed him in 1992.

    About 1 year ago I had a knife stolen from a knife collection that my Dad had brought for me about 1½ before it had been stolen. I had heard thought rumor that Jason Baldwin had stolen this knife from me. When I asked Jason B. about the knife he said he had trade the knife & trench coat to his cousin or uncle in Mississippi for a bike. At the time the knife went missing Jason B. & Damien E. had spent the night a couple of times.”

    Again, this is not evidence, it is rumor. Nothing in this report states that Jason stole the knife, just that they were suspects. The report is a bit disjointed, and EVEN IF JASON STOLE THE KNIFE, it proves nothing.-And he reported it as a rumor. He never said anything more than someone accused Jason of it. But he reported ALL the accusations. You know, he didn’t leave out half the story to make his side look good…like your friend Mara?

    “Blood of Innocents mentions another crime that may or may not have involved Jason Baldwin

    Five years before the murders, Baldwin had lived in a seedy section of unincorporated Shelby County, north of Memphis. The Shelby County Fire Department was called to the house June 5, 1987, when someone inside set fire to a bedroom with a cigarette lighter. A room burned but no one was injured. (190)”

    Where is the proof that the arsonist was Jason? He has two younger brothers who could be responsible for the fire, too. Well, at least Matt could have. The younger one (sorry, don’t remember his name) was probably in diapers in 1987.-In the 1st sentence: Blood of Innocents mentions another crime THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE INVOLVED JASON BALDWIN. Again, at least wm3truth reports the entire story and lets people decide.

    “The most damaging thing said about Jason Baldwin came from his paternal grandmother. On June 5, 1993, the Memphis Commercial Appeal ran profiles of all three accused. The Baldwin profile was entitled ‘Shy & Artistic, But Into That Devil Stuff’ and included this passage:

    But in Sheridan, Ark., south of Little Rock, 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.”

    This I have seen and addressed before. His grandmother, who sees him a few days a year, makes these statements and you slurp them up like chicken noodle soup! If you read the entire article from which you pulled this snippet, you will see that no one else thought that about Jason. No one.-Since you’ve “addressed” it before, I won’t bother. I’m sure it’s as compelling as the rest of your arguments. /sarcasm off

    “Family Life”

    This entire section could be applied to thousands of kids. It doesn’t prove anything except that Jason had a hard life. IT DOESN’T MAKE HIM A MURDERER. Period.-And again…who said it did?

    “Jason Baldwin was the only one of the three accused killers still attending high school. WM3 supporters frequently claim that Baldwin was a good student who ‘got good grades’, but this was not true in the period leading up to the murders and arrests. The Blood of Innocents authors acquired Baldwin’s spring 1993 report card, which ‘showed him to be a rather indifferent student in most subjects. He had a D-plus in Algebra I and C’s in most other classes. However, in English, he was a borderline B student. And in art, he earned an A.’”

    He was passing every class. Maybe he’s no Einstein (although Einstein failed high school Algebra several times, IIRC), but he was doing well in English and art, making C’s (which means average) in everything BUT Algebra and passing Algebra. As a retired math teacher, I know only too well that math is the subject which seems to be the hardest for many students, especially, for some reason, those with unsettled home lives and those from meager means.-There’s a big difference between “passing every class” and “got good grades”.

    “Everyone agreed that Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin were best friends, virtually inseparable. Psychiatric records and witness statements make clear that Damien Echols circa 1992-93 was a deranged, violent psychopath with homicidal fantasies. There’s no way of knowing what Baldwin and Echols talked about in the months leading up to the murder, but it’s safe to say that Echols was a bad influence.

    Forensic psychologist Katharine Ramsland describes a common dynamic among ‘team killers’:

    Many couples (no matter what gender) tend to follow a similar pattern. Two people meet and feel a strong attraction, or they are related and have established an intimate familiarity with each other that allows them to share fantasies — even violent ones. Typically one is dominant, and that one seduces the other into sharing his or her fantasy, and then into acting it out.

    Based on the incomplete information available, Echols and Baldwin’s relationship fits this pattern. Echols was the dominant personality, Baldwin the admiring follower. Echols’ violent fantasies were the driving force behind the crime. If he had and Echols had never met, Baldwin probably never would have committed such a horrific crime.”

    And this means that Jason (and Damien) were plotting and planning a murder? Sorry. I don’t buy it. I believe that neither of them committed a violent crime.- Of course you don’t believe it. I haven’t seen you believe anything that points to guilt yet. At least you’re consistant…I’ll give you that. What it means is that Damien Echols was more than capable of committing murder…if you believe Exhibit 500. Damien and Jason were best friends. Therefore…by process of elimination…since they were ‘best friends’ and would obviously have a LOT in common, it should make you wonder that maybe Jason is capable. Well, it would make most of us think.

    “To answer an inevitable response from WM3 partisans: No, nothing on this page proves that Jason Baldwin was guilty of triple murder. There’s plenty of direct evidence of that elsewhere.”

    Really? Where?-This entire blog.

    “Baldwin may well have been the shy, artistic, kind-hearted adolescent that his supporters describe. He was also a disturbed, angry adolescent with a history of petty crime, a severely messed-up home life and a homicidal lunatic for a best friend.”

    This is your opinion. Mine tends to fall in line with the first statement – Charles Jason Baldwin was a shy, artistic, kind hearted adolescent who was unjustly imprisoned for over 18 years of his life. The employees at the prison were so happy for him when he walked out that they applauded.-And my opinion is that…as usual…you’re once again reaching. But go ahead. You’re good at that.

    1. “I have no clue where you got that from. Seriously. Nowhere in the above statement is anything that remotely even hints that the author believes Jason’s crime to be violent.”

      Then why talk about it? The little boys were murdered – violently. I would think that any crime leading up to the murders would be a violent one.

      “-Again…huh? He didn’t accept anything. He pointed out both stories. Fairly I might add, since he pointed one one account was more sinister than the other.”

      He has quoted BOI before. IMO it is akin to the National Enquirer. It is one of those tabloid-style books that rushed to press shortly after the crime. It is simply not as well-researched as “Devil’s Knot” IMO, and that’s what I was pointing out.

      “Actually…he did. He confirmed the GQ article through another source.”

      That doesn’t make the incident described any more sinister than the “stealing potato chips” description in GQ.

      “Are you just bored tonight? You know the Cotton Bowl is on right now? And it’s a pretty compelling game. Much more compelling than your argument anyway.”

      Then go watch the game. My arguments must be pretty “compelling” to you as you replied very quickly after I posted.

      “And he reported it as a rumor. He never said anything more than someone accused Jason of it. But he reported ALL the accusations. You know, he didn’t leave out half the story to make his side look good…like your friend Mara?”

      He is purporting to be building the “profile” of a killer. I don’t see how discussing stealing snacks (or potato chips) is relevant to that profile. As I’ve said before, you would have to ask Mara why she excluded anything that she excluded. I doubt that it was to make her side “look good” though.

      “And again…who said it did?”

      And again . . . why include it in the “profile” of a killer if it doesn’t go to proving that the subject is a killer?

      “There’s a big difference between ‘passing every class’ and ‘got good grades’.

      He DID have good grades in English and art, and C’s aren’t bad grades. If the choice is between “good” and “bad,” IMO a C would be described as a good grade. So, he had one bad grade and the rest good grades. The statement didn’t say that he got good grades in all his classes. So, it’s not a lie.

      “Of course you don’t believe it. I haven’t seen you believe anything that points to guilt yet. At least you’re consistant…I’ll give you that. What it means is that Damien Echols was more than capable of committing murder…if you believe Exhibit 500. Damien and Jason were best friends. Therefore…by process of elimination…since they were ‘best friends’ and would obviously have a LOT in common, it should make you wonder that maybe Jason is capable. Well, it would make most of us think. ”

      And I haven’t seen you believe anything that points away from guilt. You’re consistent, too. Exhibit 500 was embellished, as I’ve said before, in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the Death Penalty. And, even if every word in it were the Gospel Truth, it is not sufficient evidence to prove that Damien is a murderer. And, unless there were similar medical records for Jason, it proves NOTHING about him. Yes, friends usually have a lot in common. However, that doesn’t mean that everything one does the other follows suit, not that either of these friends did anything heinous.

      “This entire blog.”

      Not in my opinion.

      “And my opinion is that…as usual…you’re once again reaching. But go ahead. You’re good at that.”

      You’re entitled to your opinion. As a friend of mine says, “You have the right to be wrong.”

      1. “He has quoted BOI before. IMO it is akin to the National Enquirer. It is one of those tabloid-style books that rushed to press shortly after the crime. It is simply not as well-researched as “Devil’s Knot” IMO, and that’s what I was pointing out.”

        Yeah, yeah. BOI=bad, “Devil’s Knot”=good. You’ve made your position clear. Nevermind how much Mara conviently left out to support her opinion…which is much more “tabloid” than BOI. Nevermind BOI didn’t accuse anyone or try to point a finger at another suspect…again much more “tabloid”.

        “That doesn’t make the incident described any more sinister than the “stealing potato chips” description in GQ.”

        And who said it did? Besides you I mean?

        “Then go watch the game. My arguments must be pretty “compelling” to you as you replied very quickly after I posted.”

        I did go watch the game, after I lost a few brain cells reading your expert opinion. And replied very quickly out of dumb luck… I happened upon it. Bad timing on my part, I’ll admit.

        “He is purporting to be building the “profile” of a killer. I don’t see how discussing stealing snacks (or potato chips) is relevant to that profile. As I’ve said before, you would have to ask Mara why she excluded anything that she excluded. I doubt that it was to make her side “look good” though.”

        He’s purporting to build a “profile” on Baldwin (in this case). Baldwin got caught comitting a crime. It’s really not that hard to see why it would be included. And I’ve already told you why Mara excluded anything. It made her side look bad. Don’t believe me? Compare what she covered to what she left off? Go ahead, I dare you.

        “And I haven’t seen you believe anything that points away from guilt. You’re consistent, too. Exhibit 500 was embellished, as I’ve said before, in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the Death Penalty. And, even if every word in it were the Gospel Truth, it is not sufficient evidence to prove that Damien is a murderer. And, unless there were similar medical records for Jason, it proves NOTHING about him. Yes, friends usually have a lot in common. However, that doesn’t mean that everything one does the other follows suit, not that either of these friends did anything heinous.”

        I used to be a supporter. Did you know that? Of course not. The difference is, I don’t like being lied to and the supporter movement does it all the time. Also, I can admit when I’m wrong. And when shown the actual documents, I admitted I was wrong.

        How could Exhibit 500 have been embellished if it contained incidents that were documented BEFORE the crime?

        And if they’re friends and do have a lot in common it would stand to reason something as big a murder would be something they would share. Damien was obviously capable, process of elimination Jason could be capable.

        “Not in my opinion.”

        Then why are you here if we’re so wrong? You could go to plenty of other places and be told how great and wonderful your delusions are.

        “You’re entitled to your opinion. As a friend of mine says, “You have the right to be wrong.””

        Yeah, but you carry that quote to a whole new level.

    2. Thanks T-Rog for replying to CR’s points. Unsuprisingly I agree with your counterpoints. CR you are of course entitled to your opinions. Where i’d take issue with your approach here is (1) your objection to inclusion of evidence of non-violent criminality (2) your objection to reports which are accurately offered, citing sources and noting those instances in which a report is not conclusive one way or another, leaving the reader to weigh it (3) your repeated objection that all such reports are not evidence of guilt in these crimes, when no one is claiming they are. The purpose of these profiles is to offer, as best as possible, a snapshot of what the three were like at the time of the crimes. It’s about going beyond the easy images of ‘sensitive, artistic, wore black, liked heavy metal’ and looking at documented, reported behavior.

      1. “The purpose of these profiles is to offer, as best as possible, a snapshot of what the three were like at the time of the crimes. It’s about going beyond the easy images of ‘sensitive, artistic, wore black, liked heavy metal’ and looking at documented, reported behavior.”

        That’s all well and good. However, IMO some of the information, like Jason’s grandmother’s assessment of him, are not really “documented, reported behavior.” It’s her OPINION, and most people in that article that was only partially quoted disagreed with her opinion. Therefore, IMO, the way it was presented is slightly disingenuous to say the least and probably downright misleading, as is much of the “information” on this site.

        1. In fairness: (1) it’s clearly her opinion, there’s absolutely *no* chance of confusion there; and (2) a link is provided to the article for those who wish to read the rest of it. And, (3) to your point about mentioning the opinions of his friends, there is this acknowledgement, right in the opening of the piece: “When he was arrested, friends, teachers and family mostly described him as shy, mild-mannered, artistic.”

          1. Here’s how I see things. This site purports to present the truth about the events of May 5, 1993. However, unlike Callahan’s, it doesn’t simply present facts and let the reader form his/her own opinion. You and others may believe that it does, but it doesn’t.

            Let me give you an example from the passage to which you are responding. Before quoting the part of the article from the “Commercial Appeal,” the author of this “profile” editorializes by saying, “The most damaging thing said about Jason Baldwin … ” That is OBVIOUSLY an opinion.

            I’m not saying that people aren’t entitled to their opinions or that their opinions cannot be expressed on blogs on the Internet. My objection, which applies to this entire site, is the hubris of saying that this site tells the “truth” when it is, as are most sites about the case, a collection of opinions and interpretations of events and documents. I hope this clarifies my position.

          2. This site is not intended as an alternative to Callahan. It is intended as an alternative to Paradise Lost, Devil’s Knot, WM3.org, Arkansas Take Action, Jive Puppi and assorted mainstream media documentaries.

            I invite everyone to read primary documents at Callahan, fact-check everything in my case history, figure out for yourself which side is telling the truth.

  4. On to Jessie Misskelley.

    “He was a ninth-grade dropout who worked odd jobs. He lived in a three-bedroom trailer with his father and his father’s latest girlfriend, though he frequently slept elsewhere. He got wasted most days. He had tattoos reading “FTW” (for “Fuck the World”), “AH” (an ex-girlfriend’s initials), “NWA” and “Bitch”, plus a skull & dagger.”

    Nothing here screams killer to me.

    “He had had numerous run-ins with law enforcement. At a pretrial suppression hearing on January 13, 1994, the prosecution documented four occasions when Misskelley had been read his Miranda rights: sometime in 1988, twice in late October 1992, and in March 1993. (There was no mention at this hearing of what exactly Misskelley was accused of doing on these occasions.) In 1988 he received probation for stealing flags from school (Blood of Innocents, 165). And his violent streak landed him in trouble with juvenile authorities on numerous occasions.”

    The only “crime” you’ve identified was “stealing flags” from school. The rest of his juvenile history you seem to want us to believe was violent, but you offer no proof.

    “History of Violence”

    Unfortunately, often people of Jessie’s IQ level can become violent, but they rarely turn to murder. None of these attacks were life-threatening. He usually attacked his peers, not children (although he hit a child with a rock or brick a couple of times, but nothing indicated a propensity for beating up on children as you imply). Remember he was described as “gentle with children” by those who knew him – an assessment with which I agree. Also adding to Jessie’s problems is his small stature. That alone often leads a male to feel it necessary to “prove” himself to be “manly.” IMO, that’s one reason Jessie liked to wrestle. In short, none of these incidents prove that he could have murdered three eight-year-old boys.

    “Drugs and Alcohol”

    Again, this section could be describing any of hundreds if not thousands of teenaged boys, especially if said boy has a low IQ. Gas huffing, although certainly not an advisable activity, was not something done by Jessie alone. There is no evidence that any of these activities would lead him to become a murderer. In fact, IIRC, smoking pot kinda mellows one out!

    “Like Echols and Baldwin, Misskelley had an erratic and dysfunctional family life. His father married Shelbia Misskelley when Jessie was 4, and she seems to have been a caring stepmother. But Jessie Sr. and Shelbia had split up by 1993, and his father had a new live-in girlfriend. Dennis Carter told police that Jessie wasn’t happy with the new arrangement:

    Dennis states that Jesse never says anything about his mother but does see her every now and then. States that he does not like his stepmother (Lee) at all — states that she stays drunk all of the time and so does Jesse’s dad. States that about 2 months ago he was spending the night with Jesse — when they came into the trailer around 6:30 pm — Lee was passed out on the couch wearing nothing but her panties. Jesse went and told his dad who didn’t say anything. States that Lee and Jesse’s dad both stay drunk all of the time.”

    So, Jessie’s father and step mom stayed drunk a lot. This makes Jessie a murderer? Again, this type of behavior is common, especially in trailer parks and among those living in poverty.

    “Misskelley told police that he had smoked a couple joints and was drinking a bottle of Evan Williams whiskey on the evening of the murders. This certainly fits his personal history.

    In his 6/3/93 confession, Jessie denied hitting any of the victims. In his many later confessions he admitted hitting Michael Moore, but he insisted that he didn’t know Jason and Damien planned to take things further than just beating up the three kids. This also fits his personal history. He just wanted to have some fun beating up kids, not torturing and killing them.”

    I’m sorry, but I don’t see the connection with this “conclusion” and the other information in the “profile” provided. Nothing says that Jessie beat up kids for fun. If anything, it shows that Jessie hits when he is angry. Was he angry on May 5, 1993? There is no proof of that. If Jessie smoked pot on May 5, 1993, IMO that makes him LESS likely to kill the kids. Pot mellows one out; it does not make them violent. As to the Evan Williams bottle, if he DID drink a fifth of that, he wouldn’t be able to do the things he described! Any eight-year-old would have been able to outrun him. He describes himself as “puking drunk” in one of his stories. No way someone THAT drunk could do what he described. So, IMO, your “profile” is not that of a child killer.

    Jessie in 1993 was simply a mentally challenged young man who was manipulated by the unethical actions of the WMPD into giving a false statement implicating Damien Echols in the murders of Christopher, Michael and Stevie. There is no evidence that he committed these murders other than his own error-riddled, disjointed statements. The Evan Williams bottle found under an overpass is a hoot! First, it has never been forensically linked to Jessie. Second, I imagine that, if you look under enough overpasses in an area where it is sold, you, too, could find an Evan Williams bottle. It’s not like Jessie told them, “It’s under that overpass by the McDonald’s.” He simply indicated that he threw it away on his way home. Stidham, et. al., went out to look for it, and, lo and behold, they found it! So, nothing in this “profile” screams killer to me.

  5. Something that might be worth adding to the Misskelley profile:

    The bit in Paradise Lost where Jessie tells his father about hurting his hand punching a commode. Though, yeah, maybe it’s too ridiculous sounding. His father’s response is telling: “You gotta learn not to hit them walls; hit somebody else.” Some Grade-A parenting, there.

      1. I agree that it wouldn’t be good advice – if Big Jessie had been serious. I think it was said jokingly and that Jessie’s response that there was no one around to hit (which elicited a chuckle from Big Jessie) was a humorous aside, too. What I find much more interesting in the exchange is that Jessie’s injured hand had not been examined. IIRC, several days passed between the injury and the phone call. I guess this is an example of the “constitutional” treatment that inmates in the ADC receive.

        1. There’s nothing whatsoever in Jessie Sr.’s demeanor to indicate he’s joking about his suggestion that his son hit someone else instead of a stationary object. The laughter starts one line after that point, when Jessie Jr. says there was no one around to hit. If only 13-yr-old girls had been sent to that correctional facility, he could have punched one in the face. (Joke.)

          1. I respectfully disagree. Yes, the laughter started one line later. It’s called reaction time.

        2. CR I am concerned for your mental health. I believe you are seriously suffering delusions.

          You have an excuse for EVERY single little thing that makes ANY of the wm3 and anybody associated with them look even remotely bad.

          Jeez, you need to put down the Kool Aid.

  6. WM3truth: I have looked for documentation of Jessie’s IQ. I haven’t been able to locate it, yet, though. Do you have any suggestions? I may have missed it in one of your sections. I will backtrack to see. Thank you in advance.

  7. I have read where court documents said Jessie’s IQ was between 84 and 88. I haven’t been able to directly access the court documents (if they are available).

    An aside: Joe Berlinger said, “And then later I sat down and met (Echols) and within five minutes of talking to him, not only did I feel he was innocent, but all that evil that I had projected on him washed away.” And Johnny Depp (although apparently not after having spoken directly with Echols) said, “I knew instantly that they were innocent.”

    Some insight into what Berlinger, especially, may have experienced. This is from EMOTIONAL VAMPIRES by Albert J. Bernstein, PhD, and checklist compiled by Dr. Michael Conner, regarding the Antisocial Personality Disorder, a psychiatric diagnosis (on Axis II as Cluster B personality disorder).

    Instant rapport
    Can turn on brilliant bursts of charm to get his way
    Despite (numerous) faults, he is the most exciting person you’ve ever met, and most people think the same
    May claim that a lot of people “hate” them, then when you ask why, they can’t explain
    Has an obsession with either being loved or adored by others
    Has a “conning” style in speech and manner; suave, smooth talkers
    May tell you only after a few lines of conversation, “You and I think a lot alike,” or “We’re so much alike, it’s eerie …”
    Seems too good to be true, despite all their faults, in various ways that make you overlook negative qualities
    Self proclaimed geniuses, “legends in their own minds”
    Can speak convincingly on social injustice and oppression, then the next moment makes racial slurs and talks about women in demeaning ways
    Sees no problem with lying to achieve a goal
    Has had legal problems or criminal behavior which he never got caught for
    Likes the illusion that they are powerful
    Draw you in with an “adorable” adolescent rebelliousness

    Features may fit most Antisocial Personalities, but not all Antisocial Personalities. Sociopaths and Psychopaths may exhibit the same traits.

  8. I’m writing this to you, not the world.

    FYI…I really believe that you are attempting to provide a counter-weight to the cause celebre opinions that are in favor of their innocence, and I have a feeling that like many who believe they are guilty a great deal of your dram and angst has to do with the celebrity, “liberal” supporters. I admit that it can be frustrating listening to people who create a cause so that they might become the next Bob Dylan, but it does not change the fact that their arguments are valid.

    The US legal system (that entity to which I currently owe my salary and lifestyle) is based off of the presumption of innocence, and the belief that it was better to allow ten guilty men to go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man. Every Founding Father, from Jefferson to Adams, supported a belief in a reasonable doubt for acquittal to prevent the innocent from being falsely convicted and injured.

    These men never had the presumption of innocence in the courtroom. The actions of those who represented “the State” already had strong opinions–everyone does. It takes a strong person to put them aside for the sake of principle. Working in the criminal justice system–yes, I work at a criminal defense firm, I see many, many “guilty” people each day to the point where in spite of my own job requirements I cannot help rolling my eyes whenever I hear someone say “I didn’t do it.” If my lifestyle is dependent upon believing and supporting these people in court and I have to fight to remain stalwart and not filled with apathy I can only imagine–no, I know for a fact that the other side is less convinced that anyone in the courtroom is innocent.

    I’ve also had the misfortune of serving on a jury in a murder case and I can tell you that in spite of the charge to see justice served people are more interested in dinner being served. Very few times do jurors actually listen to what is being said–you can tell that from the post-trial polls.

    And to top off my complaints about judicial apathy and misappropriations. Cops lie. A lot. They tamper with evidence–losing stuff adverse to their case, adding things they ‘remember’, coercing people they “know” are guilty with lies of better treatment–even lies of exoneration if they will just “tell the truth”, ie. say what we want you to say. They routinely threaten people, push and beat people.

    In other words…they’re people.

    You won’t see the legal equivalent of Albert Einstein in a low-paying job. It’s those kids who slid by during high school, couldn’t get what they wanted from their military recruiters, etc. The rare cop who is first rate deserves a pay bonus, trips to the south of France and every reward that could be heaped upon someone who does a great job in a world of fraternal silence, evidence fudging, and expediency.

    Where oh where are the Andy Taylors? Mayberry…where are you????

    Because you and everyone posting here do not have the benefit (?!?!) of speaking to criminals–really dirty, bad dudes every day of your life you, likewise, are basing your opinions off the assumption that everything should fall in a neat box and that criminals acted like Echols or that Jason’s record somehow fits that of someone who could support the spontaneous, Satanic (OH PLEASE) ritual murder of three children and commit the perfect crime (no DNA) evidence. Had this happened in a big city they would have brought in an FBI task force for a serial killer, not grabbed the biggest losers in town to pin what is a well-executed crime upon them.

    It’s amazing.

    Guilty people act very differently than those kids did. This I can assure you from experience. What you see as coldness…is the petulance and rage of being railroaded towards the death penalty. Should he have cared more at 18 about 3 8 year olds than his own life? Don’t expect kids from broken homes to be Jesus. They were on trial for their lives. Only guilty people could have drummed up tears. Watch Ted Bundy some time.

    Sorry, I had to write a blog post on the alford and stumbled across your website.

    As I’ve said…I believe you have a thirst for justice, but as someone who is jaded and cynical about people and the courts and has had to talk to people who have done truly horrible things…I don’t believe they did it. None of them were smart enough, brave enough, and savvy enough to pull off a crime like this. You’ve got Marilyn Manson, Renfro the Monkey Boy, and Daffy Duck as the culprits and somehow they were able to execute a crime like this?

    Yeh, no. Just…no.

    I could pick through this case and every bit of “guilty” evidence and cite examples from twenty different cases to prove my point as to why the prosecutions cases and the “guilty” arguments are just not realistic. Oh, sure for a lynch mob (pitchforks are a lot of fun to carry), but…just no.

    One quick example and then I’ll go back to my blog, but…you cited his expansive criminal past of petty larceny as proof of his criminal ways and his Grandmother’s “damning” indictment that ownership or fascination with snakes and lizards as examples of how he didn’t fit the sweet and innocent profile.

    Violence of the type done to those children is not something that statistically people do for shits and giggles. The FBI has task forces (look up their research sometime) that have committed to doing research on killer profiles. People who kill for money have one profile, people who kill indiscriminately fit another. The latter have pasts filled with acts of cruelty. Realizing that you think stealing cars is “cruel”, I have to break it to you…FBI investigators would disagree with you. If the FBI were looking for a serial killer (and they’re the ones with the resources that catch them) they have enough statistics to know to exclude people without a substantial history of violent acts towards animals and other people in their past. Killers of this type of brutality do not generally “self harm” as Echols did, btw. They are charming in most cases and …well, I’ll stop. This is turning into a dissertation and I’m tired.

    1. Rin, that large expenditure of words leaves me no better informed about the case, I’m afraid. It communicates only your opinion of innocence and your inclination to reference American history/pop culture figures… also your distrust of the police, and your presumptions about those who have come to believe in the merit of the convictions.

      I encourage you to read the articles here on wm3truth.com. Written with great clarity, they amply cite court documents and provide a compelling, well-supported argument for guilt.

      1. But you see…I don’t have to do any of that because I’m not stating that these three are innocent or guilty. I’m saying that there simply isn’t enough evidence for the convictions they received. I’m also stating that the US legal system has structures and rules in place to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and that those rules and guidelines were thrown out the window in this case by the police, the DA and ADA, the judge, and the jury. The fact that they are now released is proof of that.

        There was enough reasonable doubt and enough money to return to court and receive an innocent verdict with a different judge and jury. This is the only reason why the prosecutor offered the deal.

        Whether they did it or not to me is irrelevant to my argument that because of case mishandling potentially guilty people are now free, the “real” killers will no longer be sought due to the “coldness” of this case, and the parents of these children now must live with only more and more questions.

        If people would be patient and allow method, calm minds, and honest process to run its course more cases would have finite conclusions.

        No one should be convicted of murder–especially in a death sentence state if there is inconclusive or circumstantial evidence. Following the rule of law is the moral and ethical choice, and it was not followed.

        Now, when I stated I could pick through the evidence…I can. I don’t even have to be that good about doing it to provide reasonable doubt because the evidence is pretty much limited to testimony and when you put people on the stand and cross examine them you can get them into such a fluster that they will end up agreeing with you.

        Waiting, just waiting to see what turned up, what slips ups they might have made would have been far more prudent. Say Echols did do it, eventually he would slip up by going to check on the murder weapon or “trophies”, or maybe even try it again…who knows.

    2. CR, the FBI’s profiling unit has run into some snafus in the last 10 years. Their methods are most certainly not fool proof and their theories (largely) on serial killers has been disproven multiple times by many different killers. Their research is more than likely outdated and incorrect. Fact of the matter is you can’t just put ordinary people into a box that fits, stats or no. So you can’t do that with murderers, either.

      Also : ” I could pick through this case and every bit of “guilty” evidence and cite examples from twenty different cases to prove my point as to why the prosecutions cases and the “guilty” arguments are just not realistic. Oh, sure for a lynch mob (pitchforks are a lot of fun to carry), but…just no.”

      Please do so.

      1. CR, the FBI’s profiling unit has run into some snafus in the last 10 years. Their methods are most certainly not fool proof and their theories (largely) on serial killers has been disproven multiple times by many different killers. Their research is more than likely outdated and incorrect. Fact of the matter is you can’t just put ordinary people into a box that fits, stats or no. So you can’t do that with murderers, either.

        ***

        Yes, and that is with a budget probably 1000xs that of local law enforcement, and you are arguing that these local guys ran an accurate case without even the resources of the Feds.

        These cops based their motive off of early 90’s Heavy Metal hysteria, that’s a profiling snafu, as well.

  9. Rin,

    Thank you, just . . . thank you.

    Fred,

    The “large expenditure of words” by the author of this site likewise leaves me no more informed about this case than I was before – because it’s all the author’s interpretation of legal documents with no indication that the author is any better qualified to interpret them than I am.

    To those who won’t even consider the possibility that the three are innocent,

    What experience in your lives gives you more insight than a criminal defense attorney who deals DAILY with criminal types? As a retired teacher, I dealt daily with teenagers. Therefore, I can recognize their actions for what they are (teen angst, confusion, arrogant behavior covering insecurity) better than some. However, most of the people who post on this blog, seem to thing that their interpretations of legal documents are superior to those of us who interpret them differently. As a New Year’s Resolution, why don’t you take a look at the case for innocence, in an open-minded fashion, and see if it doesn’t make sense? Of course, I know most of you are totally convinced of their guilt and will not consider my proposition. Please consider this question, taken from a book of Christian philosophy called “A Course in Miracles.” That book tells us that, whenever in conflict with a brother (which means everyone else), to ask ourselves, “Would you rather be right or happy?”

    1. As stated, I’ve read your own theory, CR. And I tried to be helpful by advising that you copyright that story before it gets snapped up by Hollywood.

      Rin said he/she works at a criminal defense firm, but not in what capacity. It’s my guess Rin is not, as you state, a criminal defense attorney.

      But ultimately it’s the arguments that matter, not the person voicing them. I don’t care if one is a retired teacher, a paralegal, or an alligator wrangler. It’s the arguments that matter. How logical are they, and how well supported by case facts. I don’t know David K from Adam, and don’t know or care what he does for a living. I simply find his thought process logical and his presentation well-supported and compelling.

      1. “I simply find his thought process logical and his presentation well-supported and compelling.”

        I don’t. Also, I think that the qualifications of someone expressing an opinion have merit. That’s one big sticking point here. Most nons want to criticize supporters for following the lead of celebrities who, nons claim, know nothing about the case and who are, after all, just Hollywood celebrities. So, nons seem to believe that, for someone’s opinion on this case to be efficacious, it must agree with theirs. It’s not at all about “thought process.” It’s all about agreement with the non line.

        I’m not saying that supporters don’t tend to believe the people who agree with them. I’m just saying that, for me personally, I tend to feel that people with a legal background have a better understanding of legal matters that Joe Blow Blogger on the Internet. Unlike some people, I really DO look at who someone is before thinking that their opinion on this case has merit.

        1. I think the issue of supporters not knowing what they are talking about in the simplest manners of this case is where the criticism comes from.

          1. I disagree. We interpret the evidence differently than nons. So, nons believe that we don’t know of which we speak. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  10. What about the picture of jasons mud caked boots with perfectly,brand new,spotless laces? They found one lace that was probably a boot lace to hog tie the boys. Kind of strange that his mud covered boots had brand new laces on them after the murders. Jason is now free to walk the streets of seattle. Although he will always be a convicted child killer. What goes around,comes arourd.

  11. i think they were all involved.. because that man john. keps saying my babies.. plural.. only one child was his.. i think he had been molesting all of them.. started with damien and the other two.. they grew up.. so he needed new blood and had them three do that to the little boys because they were gonna tell on them

Leave a Reply

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