Paradise Lost 3 debuts on HBO tonight

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory debuts on HBO tonight. The reviews have been very positive, and it’s in the running for an Oscar “best documentary” nomination.

I don’t get it.

Paradise Lost and Paradise Lost 2 all but accused John Mark Byers of being the “real killer”, even though there was no real evidence against him.

Now 18 years later, the filmmakers switch gears. Forget about that guy who was the “real killer” in the first two movies. Now this other stepfather is the real killer. And none of the celebrities, movie reviewers or professional journalists express the slightest skepticism.

For the record: Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were not “wrongly convicted” even though there was “no evidence linking them to the crime”. They were rightly convicted based on solid evidence. Paradise Lost and PL2 were highly misleading account of the case; they simply omitted much of the key evidence and flat-out lied about key events.

Justin Theroux, Jason Baldwin, Joe Berlinger, Orlando Bloom, Jennifer Aniston
Justin Theroux, Jason Baldwin, Joe Berlinger, Orlando Bloom & Jennifer Aniston at a January 9, 2012, screening of Paradise Lost 3

But that hasn’t stopped celebrities from fawning over the guy who tortured eight-year-old boys with a knife for kicks, sliced open one boy’s face, sliced off another boy’s scrotum and penis skin, then drowned them in a shallow creek.

160 thoughts on “Paradise Lost 3 debuts on HBO tonight”

  1. Wish someone would make a documentary not only showing all the facts behind the murders, but explain the psychology behind this case becoming a cause célèbre. It’s so fascinating watching the likes of Orlando Bloom and Jennifer Aniston basically standing in solidarity with 3 child murderers–not to mention all the supporters. It’s like some form of mass hysteria or a well-oiled propaganda machine. Someone needs to bottle it.

    1. That documentary you requested showing the truth aired last night on HBO. It is called “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” and it tells the truth. One day the new information that the defense team has gathered will be released and the real killer will be convicted for his crimes.

      1. I’m afraid that’s not true Compassionate Reader. Are you even willing to consider the documentaries advance a particular interpretation of events?

        1. ALL documentaries advance the interpretation of the events that the film maker sees as the truth. Then, we must all interpret the information and see if we agree. I do, and obviously you do not. Are you willing to consider that the documentaries are presenting the truthful perspective?

          1. Let’s see, I just watched Misskelley and his lawyer Stidham repeat in PL3 that he caved to police pressure after 12 hours of questioning. 12 hours was just too much for young Jessie!

            We both know that’s a lie. But the films mostly lie through omission. By including mention of one detailed confession, rather than three. By omitting failed polygraphs and failed alibis. By including not one page of the five hundred page psychological profile of the chief accused at the time of the crimes. And by filling the freed up space with sympathetic, Metallica-backed profiles of the convicted murderers, when not desperately kicking up suspicion around one stepfather or another. But remember, Metallica isn’t good only for soulful profiling, it’s also good for showing distraught families and tortured, discarded bodies. I’m about to watch the second half of PL3, but I’ll take a break for my stomach to stop churning. It has a bad reaction to exploitation and propaganda.

          2. @Compassionate Reader Have you listened to the other confessions? Read about the evidence that was found at the crime scene? Read about who Damien Echols was at the time of the murders? Or is this all new to you?

          3. @Compassionate Reader So you’re saying you’re aware the Paradise Lost films leave out details, and that doesn’t bother you?

          4. If the documentaries were telling a truthful account of events, they would not have omitted Jessie’s many confessions PERIOD. At one time, I was a supporter, having only the films as a reference point. When I found out that there were multiple confessions, I felt stupid and I felt lied to.

            The entire premise of all 3 films is that the cops coerced a confession out of a retarded kid. The cops weren’t even there for the other confessions and one confession was to his attorney, the last person that would coerce him into admitting to the murders.

            The films are a farce. No mention of the reason Echols was looked at as a person of interest. Only that he was “different” because of his goth persona which EVERYONE (except Compassionate Reader here) knows is BS. They mention that the 3 had alibis but never bother to mention what they are. Gee, I wonder why they left that out?

          5. @Fred
            Jessie felt like he was being interrogated for the entire time he was in custody before his real arrest, you know the one after the warrants were issued, not the BS time of 2:44 pm (which is when the recorded portion began) which was AFTER 9 PM. Since he was picked up between 9 am and 9:30 am, that means that he was in custody for 12 hours, and he felt like he was being interrogated.

            I discussed the post conviction statements earlier. IMO, they are meaningless because they were done in hopes of getting Jessie to testify against Damien and Jason. He didn’t so those statements never saw the light of a court room. Therefore, they are meaningless. Polygraphs are meaningless, especially when the defense had a witness who would have testified that Jessie’s polygraph was misread – that he passed all but one question, the one about using drugs. Of course, Burnett did not permit Holmes to testify to that because it would make him (Burnett) look bad. As Jason didn’t present an alibi during the trial, you can’t really say that his alibi failed. Damien got confused as to times, and his mother helped him remember. The phone calls could have been verified with phone records if the prosecutors had not misled the defense attorneys by telling them that it was not possible to get the phone records. Jessie went to Dyess to practice wrestling. He went every Wednesday night. His witnesses got confused because they were young, but he went every Wednesday night. If May 5, 1993, wasn’t the particular Wednesday that the contract was signed, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t go wrestling that night. You know as well as I do that Damien’s psychological records played no part of his conviction. They were introduced by the DEFENSE during the penalty phase of the trial. Again, those records don’t prove anything except that Damien was a troubled teen. Guess what? THAT DOESN’T MAKE HIM A MURDERER! Obviously, the film couldn’t show everything. It’s slightly over two hours long as it is. There’s a lot that I wished they had shown, but IMO they did a good job.

            @Frank
            Yes, I’ve listened to Jessie’s statements – all of them. I know all about the fibers (that could have come from any of hundreds if not thousands of garments at the local Wal-mart). I’ve read the Non’s Bible, otherwise known as Exhibit 500. I still believe that the men are innocent. It’s simply that supporters interpret those things differently than nons. That doesn’t make supporters stupid or morons or any of those other things that nons call us. It’s just that supporters are willing to look at information that didn’t make it to trial, some of it because Judge Burnett excluded it and some of it because it was misinterpreted and some of it that was unknown at the time. As to leaving out details, IMO they didn’t leave out anything of importance.

            @Val
            I don’t see the importance of POST CONVICTION STATEMENTS that still contained errors. None of Jessie’s statements matched the forensics at the scene. No matter how many times you tell a lie, it won’t morph into the truth. All of Jessie’s statements were lies. It doesn’t matter how many he made or when he made them. If that is why you became a non, you must not have been a very convinced supporter.

            The premise of the films IMO is that three innocent teenagers were railroaded by a kangaroo court into convictions for crimes of which they were innocent. Jessie’s original statement was the impetus of those convictions. Therefore, it is the only one of import to the films.

            Again, Damien’s psychological history was not a part of the trial, except when brought in by the defense to try to reduce the sentence. It didn’t work, so I guess all that stuff didn’t really prove that he was crazy. I do agree that the films should have mentioned the specific alibis (which all three had), but I guess it was a time constraint thing. I hope that Sir Peter Jackson’s documentary, “West of Memphis,” fleshes out a few more details. Maybe what we need is an HBO mini series that can show everything.

          6. @CR, no one said Exhibit 500 played a part in Echols’ conviction. I hope you and your straw man are very happy together.

            If you can’t grasp that leaving out the extensive and alarming psychiatric history of the chief accused is blatantly biased and misleading, you are truly hopeless. Prosecutor John Fogleman reportedly offered the filmmakers the document when it emerged during sentencing, but they declined to include any mention of it in their films.

          7. @CR And as far as alibis, the Three had two things, jack and sh-t.

            Paradise Lost touches briefly on Echols’ alibi, when prosecutor Brent Davis gets him to admit he has moved around the time of his alleged visit to family friends, in order to cover the relevant hours. Beyond this detail the films never explore the alibis of the Three.

            Echols first offered an alibi only five days after the crimes – an alibi that was later upended by police investigation. Echols told police that after leaving the family friends’ house at 5:00PM, he returned home and was on the phone for the entirety of that evening, mentioning Holly George as his partner in a long telephone conversation. However, the lie was put to his claim by both Holly George and another Echols gal pal, Jennifer Bearden. George told police she’d briefly spoken to Echols around 3:30PM, but not at all during that night. Bearden gave a statement that she’d tried to reach Echols at 8:00PM that night and was told by his grandmother that he was “out”; she finally reached him successfully at 9:20-9:30PM — thereby granting Echols the necessary window to have been at the crime scene during the relevant hours. Finally, Bearden said that when she asked Echols where he’d been, he replied that Jason Baldwin’s mother had taken them somewhere, an assertion that’s contradicted by Baldwin’s mother, who told police she worked until 11:00PM.

            Echols Interview with police, 05-10-93 (five days after crimes): http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/dwe.html
            Statement of Holly George, 09-22-93: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/hollyg2.html
            Statement of Jennifer Bearden, 09-22-93: http://callahan.8k.com/images/bearden/bearden02.jpg
            http://callahan.8k.com/images/bearden/bearden03.jpg
            Statement of Baldwin’s mother, Angela (Gail) Grinnell, 09-23-93: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gail.html

            Similarly other elements of Echols’ and Misskelley’s alibis were contradicted by court testimony. Jason Baldwin’s lawyer, Paul Ford, declined to present alibi witnesses, later offering his reasons why: “I felt that if I was unable to establish an alibi, presenting an incomplete one was more detrimental than presenting one at all…… When we were in trial I realized that Echols’ alibi defense was ‘not very, very strong…’. It was like a house of cards… I tried to determine how to deal with…my concerns about how my alibi witnesses would hold up under cross examination.”

          8. @Fred
            The whole “alibi falling apart” argument is specious at best. What it all boils down to is that the defense attorneys were inexperienced and many of the alibi witnesses were young people who were easily confused by the more experienced prosecution attorneys. I know that you don’t accept that explanation, but that’s the way it was. As to Damien’s supposed lies, he simply didn’t remember his activities clearly on a day that, to him, was an ordinary day until hearing of the murders the next day. His mother ‘s testimony simply reminded him of what had happened and when. I know that, on occasion, I’ll be recounting some event and my husband will correct my recollection. That doesn’t mean that I was INTENTIONALLY lying at first. It simply means that I didn’t remember clearly and someone else refreshed my memory.

            The irrelevance of Exhibit 500 is not a straw man argument. First, I’m not the one that keeps harping on the thing. Second, it was not used to convict, so it doesn’t prove, to borrow your phrase, jack sh1t!

      2. CR, the main financier of that DNA testing says it was inconclusive, admitting “”Well, obviously we don’t know who killed these kids.” – http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52167

        If you are looking for the defense to release information that exonerates the Three or implicates without doubt another party (i.e. a felon or sex offender known to be in the area at the time of the crimes), you will be waiting a long time.

        Thanks for the laugh about PL3 being the truthful documentary, though.

        1. The DNA is a strong indication of who DIDN’T kill the kids, however. You know, truth should be absolute. However, my research on this case and my participation on various boards has proven to me that some people will call black white if it advances their agenda. IMO, “Purgatory” tells the truth.

          1. “[M]y research on this case and my participation on various boards has proven to me that some people will call black white if it advances their agenda.”

            On that we agree, big time.

          2. Even if the hair belonged to Hobbs, don’t’ you think it’s plausible the hair could have been picked up at the Hobbs’ home? A few months ago I argued the same point with a supporter. I bet him I could find hairs on my shoe right then. Sure enough there were three, and none belonged to me.

          3. @Frank
            The Hobbs hair wasn’t found on his son’s body but under the ligature of Michael Moore. Sorry, but “innocent transfer” doesn’t work for me, especially when you take into account that the ligature involved was NOT a shoelace of one of the victims but a longer, adult lace. How did it get there? Plus, there’s the Jacoby hair. How did that get there? Jacoby swears that he never went as far as the discovery ditch. I know that it was discovered later, but it was on the stump of a tree RIGHT BY THE DISCOVERY DITCH. It was a gnarled tree with what appeared to be a recessed area in the front, and I believe that the hair could have been there since the crime easily. However, the main point is that Jacoby says that he was never there. Now, that hair IS secondary transfer. IMO, Hobbs picked it up while at Jacoby’s playing guitars and deposited it by the discovery ditch when he moved the bodies from the manhole.

          4. As I understand it, the so-called Jacoby hair was narrowed to 7% of the population which did not exclude Jacoby, making the finding essentially meaningless.

            Manhole storage, animal predation… jesus lord almighty. Explain to us again the part where Hobbs retrieves a spare pair of boys pants for some purpose that only you imagine and understand. I wish your former teenaged students could read your zany theory and grade it.

          5. When Terry heard Pam describe Stevie’s clothes to the police, he noted that she said he was wearing jeans. When Terry killed him, Stevie was wearing red shorts (because Stevie had probably come home and changed while Terry was either taking Pam to work or shortly after Terry took Amanda to the Jacobys). So, since Terry had lied and said that he hadn’t seen the boys all day, he had to change the clothes to match Pam’s description or it would beg the question of why Stevie’s clothes were different but Terry had not seen him change (which had to happen after Pam went to work). Terry discovered the difficulty of dressing a dead body. He couldn’t get the jeans on which explains why Stevie’s jeans were found right side out and not as dirty as the other boys’ jeans which were found inside out because Terry stripped them, too, so that Stevie’s body wouldn’t be the only one nude (which would point to Terry as the killer).

        2. @Compassionate Reader But we don’t know who’s laces were used to tie each boy. And even if it was Moore’s lace, it too could have been picked up in the Hobbs’ home.

          1. It wasn’t a child’s lace. It was approximately 60 inches long, and the hairs (there were two of them) were auburn beard hairs. This long “foreign” lace was cut into two parts. From the mothers’ descriptions, we can determine that Chris’ laces (one of which was found in one of his shoes) were not used as ligatures and that one of Michael’s laces and one of Stevie’s laces were used to bind Chris and the other mismatched pair was used to bind Stevie. If the hair was picked up in the Hobbs home (highly doubtful as it was a beard hair), then it would have had to have survived being pulled through the eyelets during removal (again, highly doubtful). Sorry. I don’t see it as innocent transfer.

          2. @Compassionate Reader Maybe Michael or his parents put an adult shoelace on his shoe as a temporary fix. Maybe they did it to save money. Maybe the lace belongs to one of the WM3.

            And I don’t think it’s all that shocking that the hair was found on the ligature. Couldn’t the shoelace have come into contact with clothes that may have originally carried the hair?

            And wasn’t the hair that may have belonged to Jacoby found weeks later? Maybe he came into contact with someone who participated in the search. And the Jacoby hair is even less of a match then the one that may have belonged to Hobbs.

            I really don’t think those hairs mean much.

            You seem pretty convinced that Hobbs killed the kids. Why would he do it? Why would his friend Jacoby help him? From what I’ve read, Jacoby was more of an acquaintance.

            If Hobbs was molesting Stevie wouldn’t there be some indication he had done so prior to the murders? Was the night of the murders the first time he molested Stevie?

            Why kill his two friends? If he had planned on molesting Stevie that night, why not send the other two boys home?

            And I’ve read the time frame in which he could have murdered the three boys is very small. Wasn’t he watching his baby daughter too? Didn’t he have to pick his wife up from work by 9? How did he get the bodies to the woods? Didn’t two of the boys drown? Did he drown them in his home then take them to the woods?

            Could you write out your scenario of events? Thanks!

          3. @Compassionate Reader Oh wait, I see. You’re suggesting Hobbs did it himself, not with the help of Jacoby.

            I find that even less plausible. I really think there had to be at least two people to restrain the boys, probably three.

            I know some supporters are saying the the three boys were seen near the Hobbs home shortly before the murders. So you’re saying they entered the Hobbs home.

            For whatever reason Terry decided he wanted to molest Stevie right there and then. Maybe he thought molesting all three was even better. Or maybe the other two got in the way.

            So Terry got fed up and beat all three of them at once. Did he take turns beating them? Did the other two just wait their turn to get beaten?

            So then he drew a bath. He put two of them into the tub to drown. Wait! Did they all die in the house or in the woods?

            Meanwhile the search for them was going on. Oh, and who took care of his daughter?

            So while the search was going on he took all three bodies to the woods–maybe they’re living, maybe they’re dead. Did he take turns bringing their bodies to the woods or did he use a wheel barrow?

            So he’s dumped the bodies in the woods. He then goes back home. Who’s watching his girl? Cleans up himself and the crime scene. I imagine that would have taken sometime. Then took his girl, got in the car and drove off to pick up his wife.

            I don’t understand this scenario. I’m not trying to be cheeky. Please explain to me what you think happened.

    2. I agree. Some day, this phenomenon will be described in a textbook for a PR class. It’s fascinating and depressing as hell how effective this PR machine is.

      1. You DO realize that many law schools now use this case to show false confessions and improper prosecution, don’t you?

          1. @Compassionate Reader No, not really. If anything you’d think we’d fall in line like everyone else.

          2. BS.

            Nons get WAY more slack than supporters do.

            The PR machine has spun this case into something where interviewers are referring to the WM3 as “wrongfully convicted” even though they proved no such thing, and in fact, legally, confirmed that they were rightfully convicted with their guilty pleas.

            I know you’re not going to pretend that the majority of people who know who the WM3 are have done their homework.

            Back when I was a lukewarm supporter, I was SHOCKED, literally shocked to learn that there were people who believed them to be guilty.

            I believed the movies that said they were convicted on no evidence which is completely untrue.

            I think mostly everyone that stumbles on this case does so believing that they are innocent because it’s all they’ve been exposed to. If that’s the case, you have to believe that you were at one point gullible and naive if you question your previous opinion. And thats not something that’s easy for a lot of people to swallow. I had to admit that I was a gullible dolt who took the word of a filmmaker without doing my own research. And I had to admit to myself that I once supported and rallied for child killers. That is not something I’m proud of.

          1. @Val
            I don’t presume to speak for all supporters or even most supporters. I can only speak for one supporter, myself. I didn’t just accept what the documentaries presented. I investigated.

            That’s the way I’ve always done things in a situation where two “sides” are both loudly proclaiming that they are the ones telling the truth. Personally, I don’t see how anyone can read ALL the information about this case and still believe the WMFree to be guilty. However, I know that happens.

            I encountered the “other” side early on in my research. The wm3.org site has a blog, and nons post there as well as supporters. Well, they used to. I don’t know about now. I hardly go over there any more because most of the people don’t know very much about the case and I’m afraid I’d talk down to them. My point is that I heard the supporter side first, but I’ve heard both sides, and from an early point in my investigation.

            People talk about “all the evidence” of their guilt, and I don’t see ANY evidence of their guilt. The ONLY POSSIBLE evidence is the fibers, and even Lisa Sakevicius even said that they were inconclusive.

            I’m sorry, but the discovery of the mtDNA was the finishing touch for me. I know that, by itself, it won’t convict Hobbs. However with all the rest of the information we have about him, I just can’t get past the fact that the WMPD didn’t even question him until 2007. Even Gitchell said in his Pasdar deposition that, in a case like this, the first thing that should be done is the= clear the parents. This was never done.

    3. I think the main reason for their incredible popularity has its roots in
      the first Paradise Lost! Most people have no inkling of the astounding
      power of editing and editorial bias in a cleverly produced documentary.
      PL is the main source of info for the majority of supporters.
      Remember Riefenstahl`s Triumph of The Will?

  2. If I were a celebrity and asked to pose with the WM3 I would say something like “Sorry, I think you murdered those kids.” Wonder if that’s happened. Hmm. Who am I kidding?! This is Hollywood. They wouldn’t take the time to read up on something like the WM3 before they lent their support.

  3. What about the unkown dna that did’nt match either of the 3?Technology is more advanced then back in 93.Damien Echols is creepy.He seems like a sociopath with his dead eyes.The other two it seems it’s a case of guilt by association.They were kids with no future and were on the road to a life of crime.I wonder if just one or two were responsible.Who is responsible for killing those innocent children?If not them then who?Either way there is a murder(s) on the loose.

    1. If you’re talking about the DNA found on Christopher’s shoe through the latest round of testing, it could not have come from any of the WMFree. IMO, that’s pretty important. It needs stating, once again, that NONE OF THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE CAN BE LINKED TO THE RECENTLY FREED MEN.

      As to whose DNA it is, I, too would like to know. First, I’d like to know if it was tested against Terry Hobbs. Everything I’ve read talks about it not belonging to any of the victims or any of the defendants. It doesn’t mention Hobbs. However, it could be the DNA of some of their classmates. They were in school all day (not riding their bikes by the creek as Jessie claimed).

        1. That is not correct. ALL of the biological information that could be tested EXCLUDED all of the WMFree. As I said before, there is some unidentified DNA, but the three freed men have been excluded as its donors.

          1. Are you lying or are you really unaware that there were partial profiles obtained from a ligature and penilr swab that DID NOT EXCLUDE THE WM3? I don’t believe you’re unaware of this so what’s your excuse?

          2. @Fred
            That email was from the INITIAL testing in 2007. After Judge Laser ordered further testing, everything was tested again using the newer testing mentioned in the email IIRC. The WMFree were excluded. I don’t think that there is a link, but I’ll try to find it. I know that I read it somewhere.

            @Val
            See what I said to Fred. The retesting most recently completed DID exclude all three men as donors. I think that there is one allele that is so miniscule that all they know is that the donor is male. That’s hardly proof of anything. However, I could be wrong. That allele might have been part of the retesting. I do know that all biological material that was sufficient to yield enough DNA to test has come back as not belonging to any of the WMFree. The only unidentified DNA was that recently found on Chris Byers’ shoe, and the WMFree were excluded as donors for that as well. I’ll try to look into that allele, though.

    1. I find the constant refusal to see the truth disgusting. For the Moores, I can understand. They thought they had closure when the trials were over. They simply don’t want to open up old wounds. Or, maybe they know that the WMPD will never pick up “Teflon Terry” so they try to hold on to the false belief that the right guys were arrested originally. Like I said, I can forgive them their desire to remain ignorant to the truth. For other people, however, I am at a loss as to how to understand their insistence on the guilt of the recently-freed men when so much information points away from there three and toward someone else.

      1. “[T]he Moores… thought they had closure when the trials were over. They simply don’t want to open up old wounds. Or, maybe they know that the WMPD will never pick up ‘Teflon Terry’ so they try to hold on to the false belief that the right guys were arrested originally. Like I said, I can forgive them their desire to remain ignorant to the truth.”

        The Moores would surely have a few choice words for you, CR, but I hesitate to print them here. They were at the trials. They heard ALL the evidence. They’ve been briefed on any findings since then. You retired from teaching, watched some movies and spun a theory about snapping turtles and raccoons, pointing the finger at an innocent man who has grieved with his family over this crime. Can you tell whose opinions I find deserve more respect?

        1. I’ve read some of Todd’s “choice words” at the Hoax. IMO, he does his son a disservice with such disrespectful language. And the trial didn’t present all the evidence because Burnett excluded a lot of it. Read the pretrial hearing transcripts at Callahan’s. I have.

          1. “I can forgive [the Moores] their desire to remain ignorant to the truth… [Todd] does his son a disservice…etc”

            Your arrogance and disrespect has reached impressive levels. Must be all those years working with teenagers. You do disservice to basic decency by speaking about his family at all.

          2. No, the disservice to basic decency was done when the WMPD targeted Damien for these murders and then proceeded to build a case around their theory. They should have followed the evidence to see where it led and THEN come up with a suspect. Doing it backwards is a violation of public trust, a disservice to decency and fairness.

          3. Burnett actually gave the Defense a lot more leeway than the Prosecution. Another fact supporters choose to ignore.

        1. Obviously, I have “look[ed] through this website” and I have read the documents on Callahan’s. I see the truth. You apparently see something else.

          1. I could say the same to you. I don’t see how anyone can read ALL the case documents and all the other case-related items (some of which are NOT on Callahan’s) and still believe the WMFree are guilty.

          2. You’re a bit unusual, in my opinion most supporters know the case only through the films, they’ve not bothered to read more.

            @Compassionate Reader

            I first learned about the WM3 only when they were released a few months ago. Was outraged at first, couldn’t believe they had spent so much time in jail.

            Watched the first two documentaries, but also read supporter and non-supporter sites. The more I read, the more I believed they committed the murders. Was furious the films left out so many details, felt I had been lied to.

            How long have you been following the case? Do you think you may have so much invested in believing their innocence it’s almost as if you’re wearing blinders? Not trying to be condescending. Sorry.

          3. No offense taken. I’ve been studying the case since seeing the original documentary in 1996. As I’ve said before, I don’t rely on the documentaries or the celebrity support. I’ve read at Callahan’s and countless Internet sites. I’ve simply looked at all the information and come to a different conclusion than you have. I think I’m right and you think you’re right.

      2. You should be ashamed of yourself, CR.

        You think the Moores should have a change of heart about the scumbag who blew kisses to him as he was on trial for murdering his 8 year old? The guy who gloated and sneered while holding his newborn son to the parents of the kids he was on trial for murdering?

        Oh yeah, they should see the light, that Echols was merely “different.” I wonder why B&S didn’t include the footage of THAT in their films. After all, they were there and they saw it and they wanted to present an accurate portrait of the defendants.

        And you think Todd Moore does a disservice to his son because he says fuck sometimes on a message board? Unbelievable. All the parents deserved, and earned, the right to see Echols strapped to a gurney and getting the needle.

        1. As I have said elsewhere, the Moore have the right to be wrong. I would hope that I would want to see EVERYTHING about the case if my child were murdered. The fact that they choose to close their eyes to the new information simply boggles my mind.

          WHEN the evidence of innocence is presented, and it will be, I hope that you are woman enough to apologize to Damien for that last statement. I know that over at the Hoax you were all planning a barbeque for that day that will now never come, thankfully. I just hope that someday you will all “see the light” so to speak. However, you, too, have the right to be wrong.

        2. Oh yes, the “when all the evidence is presented you will see the light” has been parroted by supporters for years now.

          Please, CR, hold your breath while we wait.

  4. Actually the Moore’s refused to hear any of the new evidence. Todd Moore even proudly boasts about how he “laughed in the face” of one of the experts who approched them about the new evidence. Its clear Todd Moore has no intentions of hearing the new evidence. Even the woman who proclaimed that she wanted to rip Damien’s face off (Stevie’s grandmother) was willing to hear the new evidence. She also believes they are innocent.

    Todd is stubborn and when it comes down to it, downright nasty.

    1. “Todd is stubborn and when it comes down to it, downright nasty.”

      Unfortunately, this is true of most nons.

      1. Right, CR, especially the non who’s allowing you to use his forum extensively in a way that would never, ever, happen on a supporter site. Everyone here has been civil to you, even those of us who are rightfully repulsed by your half-baked, all-forgiving views on the wm3.

        1. This isn’t the only non board on the Internet. That’s why I said MOST nons. I have no complaints about my “treatment” here.

          I realize that you think I’m a disease that needs treatment. And, the way you feel about my views is the way I feel about yours. We both have read the same information and come to two different conclusions. We both are convinced that we are right. I can recognize that. Why can’t you?

          Hopefully you will never sit in a prison cell for over 18 years for a crime of which you are innocent. If you do, and if there’s a total lack of evidence against you, and if I find out about it, I’ll be just as outraged as I am about this case. I’m working for justice. Period.

          1. If I was accused of a violent crime, and…

            … if my buddy implicated me twice to friends, twice to police, and twice to his lawyer and prosecutors
            … if people who knew me on sight reported my presence near the crime scene in an implicating state of appearance (stained clothes)
            … if the people I listed as my alibi less than a week after the crimes disavowed my story
            … if I failed a police polygraph
            … if I had documented accounts of setting fires and cruelty to animals
            … if I displayed a pattern of deception and arrogance on the witness stand
            … if I were routinely insensitive to the families of the victims
            … if I was reported to routinely carry both type of weapons used in the attack
            … if police claimed I implicated myself by volunteering knowledge about the manner of the crimes
            … if an extensive psychological profile revealed my suicidal and homicidal impulses, my psychotic disorder, my belief in the power of blood drinking and witchcraft, my documented instance of blood sucking, my belief that the spirit of a dead woman lived within me and gave me power, multiple reports of my plans to have and kill a baby, my attempt to gouge out the eyes of a classmate, my history of abuse within my family, and my professed readiness to “blow up” and “hurt” other people

            And if, after all that, I was convicted by a jury of twelve, and proceeded throughout the years to bask in misguided public attention and point an accusing finger at family members of the deceased?

            Then you have my permission to let me rot for the rest of my hopefully shortened life, to die alone and, hopefully, ignored and uncelebrated. (Celebrating my death would be okay.)

          2. Compassionate Reader Could you do me a favor? I don’t think you’ve commented on these things, but correct me if I’m wrong.

            What do you make of Misskelley’s several confessions? Do you believe they were all coerced?

            Who do you think Damien Echols was at the time of the murders? Was he just a troubled teen, or was he violent and mentally disturbed?

          3. “Compassionate Reader Could you do me a favor? I don’t think you’ve commented on these things, but correct me if I’m wrong.

            What do you make of Misskelley’s several confessions? Do you believe they were all coerced?

            Who do you think Damien Echols was at the time of the murders? Was he just a troubled teen, or was he violent and mentally disturbed?”

            I think that the first statement was a result of leading questions if not coercion. I know that it’s “legal” for police to ask leading questions. However, I feel that, especially in the case of someone like Jessie with a diminished IQ, it’s unethical.

            Primarily, I think that Damien was a troubled teen. He may have been suffering from clinical depression, but he was not psychotic or a homicidal maniac. He was certainly different from most others his age, but he was NOT a murderer.

          4. What about the story of the dog Echols beat to death? Remember, it was Baldwin’s own cousin that told police that story–which makes me think it’s true. I understand you may not believe it, but for argument’s sake, let’s say it is true. Does that change your opinion of Echols? What kind of person do you think would do such a thing?

          5. I don’t think it is true. I think that Bartoush (sp?) was looking for his 15 minutes. The story didn’t make it into the trial. Also, I would think that the owner of the Great Dane, an expensive dog for sure, would have reported the dog missing and an investigation would have ensued. The fact that it didn’t leads me to discount the story as fabrication.

            Yes, it’s true that murderers often begin by torturing animals. However, not everyone who tortures animals becomes a murderer. To make that argument is called a fallacy, IIRC. An example from geometry: All squares are rectangles. This figure is a rectangle. Therefore it is a square. Compare that to : All murderers start by torturing animals. This person tortured an animal. Therefore, this person is a murderer. See what I mean?

            I don’t like people who torture animals or children. However, I don’t believe Damien did either, and even if I were to learn that the Great Dane story were true, that would not tip the scale to guilty for me.

          6. @Compassionate Reader But it was Jason’s own cousin that told investigators that story. Didn’t he make that statement after the murders? Why would he say such a thing? That your cousin like to hang out with someone who has a penchant for torturing and killing animals? Just doesn’t make sense.

          7. He was twelve years old. It’s possible that someone told him the story and he made it his own in order to get involved in the case. Like I said, it just doesn’t make sense that a Great Dane was stomped to death and the owners didn’t report it. And you can rest assured that, had it been reported, it would have been brought out at the trial. Personally, I think that a lot of bogus stories about Damien were circulating right after the murders. The whole town was convinced that he was guilty, and that’s how gossip in a small town works. When the whole town gets “down” on someone, the stories start and build and go all out of control.

    2. I only know Todd Moore from the message boards, but he is definitely knowledgeable and up-to-date about the case. He scoffs at the “new evidence” and the defense’s hired guns for good reason.

      If I had to put up with two decades of idiots telling me “the guys who tortured and killed your child are totally cool!!!!” I’d probably be grouchy too.

      1. He would not meet with the defense team and the other parents when the mtDNA evidence was found. As Nathan said, he has a “head-in-the-sand” attitude about any new evidence. He listens only to the WMPD, and they don’t always tell everything. However, as I said, I understand his attitude. If my son had been killed, I hope that I would have been more like JMB and Pam Hicks Hobbs and be willing to listen to all evidence about the murders and be intelligent enough to see the proverbial handwriting on the wall.

          1. All the parents were invited. IIRC, Pam and Terry were divorced by that time and Melissa was dead. Steve Branch may have attended, but I’m not sure about that. Likewise with Rick Murray. I believe Pam’s mother and her sisters were there. Jackie, Jr. and Jackie, Sr. were already dead, IIRC.

            This was in 2007, when the mtDNA information was released. The defense team, out of consideration for the families, wanted them to know the information before the public presser. Mark alluded to it in “Purgatory” when he talked about looking at all the evidence. Todd and Dana were invited but did not attend. It wasn’t a public meeting, so there’s no link. Not everything about this case is posted on the Internet.

        1. You clearly don’t understand the source of his attitude, CR. And again it’s arrogant to even pretend to. Strike “compassionate,” enter “condescending.”

          1. As I said before, I do understand that he is still grieving for his son. I think that he finds it easier to go on with life, as much as is possible, if he believes that whoever killed his son is punished. I don’t blame him.

            OTOH, I commend JMB and Pam for being able to get past their pain long enough to take a hard look at information not before available and then to reconsider their previously-held beliefs. That takes real courage. I don’t know if I could have done it.

            Again, Todd is doing what he feels he must in order to go on without Michael. His pain is tremendous, I’m sure. However, by not looking at all information, he is closing himself off to information that might give him even more peace in the end.

            I’m confident that one day he will be able to see the truth. It will have to be in his own time, however. As JMB says, I give him the right to be wrong.

          2. So translation you don’t know who did and didn’t attend this meeting but thought it was a nice way to take a shot at Todd Moore. Good for you.

          3. You don’t give Mr. Moore the right to do anything, CR. I have two words for you, and you can place them in whichever order you like.

    3. Yep, Todd is just nasty. Todd just thinks the new “evidence” (animals that survive underwater and tried to pull those bodies, snapping turtles that have a craving for penis and balls especially..) is bullshit.

      1. Out of all the supposedly new evidence the animal perdition was the most laughable of all. I seriously question ones common sense and abiltity to reason to even consider the possibility dogs, raccoons or turtles did any of the injuries on those poor little babies.

        1. I seriously question one’s common sense and ability to reason to not consider the opinions of seven certified forensic pathologists, all highly respected members of the profession, who all said that the injuries to the bodies were caused by postmortem animal predation and NOT knives and fists. People who won’t accept the animal predation theory are believing two pathologists, one who couldn’t pass his certification test in several attempts and the other who left a previous job in disgrace. Animals DO feed on dead bodies when given the chance. That is a fact. To deny that fact is ridiculous.

          1. Some of the wounds caused by predation? Sure. But Chris Byers bled to death. Why it’s more logical to believe that the murderers of these children did not leave any wounds, scratches, marks, etc. at all is baffling. Someone murdered these children, but let’s pretend they did it without leaving a scratch on them. After all, animals caused ALL of the wounds.

            Ridiculous.

          2. Oh shit, not knives or “fists?” Did the killers of these boys do it by osmosis? After all, they used no weapons or even fists.

          3. Blood seeped out of the wound when the turtle (or crab or other aquatic animal) degloved Chris. That’s why it appeared that he bled to death. You know that water draws blood out. Have you ever cut yourself in the water? Once the blood in a dead body no longer coagulates, it will seep out from a wound just like it does in a live body underwater.

            All boys suffered basilar skull injuries that were not caused by animals. IMO, those skull fractures caused their deaths. The skull fractures IN NO WAY fit into Jessie’s stories. However, those skull fractures leave NO EXTERNAL INJURIES only internal ones.

  5. Which expert claimed that the injuries were consistent with a dog thrashing them against a tree again, CR? Did he then explain how the dogs pushed the boys under the water for the turtle frenzy? I must have missed that part.

    1. I disagree with that, and so did the other pathologists. That was one pathologists theory as to the skull fractures. The others believed that the skull fractures were the only injuries caused by human hands.

      What I think happened is that the land mammals that were predating on the bodies in the manhole and which caused the scratches (except the “road rash” ones) were disturbed by a human returning to move the bodies. Then, the aquatic animals did their damage in the drainage ditch.

      1. That was a legitimate question, which expert was it because it’s escaping me right now? Was it Spitz?

        Odd that you are disagreeing with someone’s findings who is an expert in his field. Somebody much more qualified than you and I in the field.

        You disagree with it because it doesn’t fit in with your Hobbs did it theory. Don’t sugarcoat it.

        1. I believe it was Spitz. I disagree because, unlike the whole idea of animal predation (which ALL the experts agreed to) his idea of dogs causing the basilar skull fractures was his alone. So, I go with the majority who said that the basilar skull fractures were most probably caused by falling or being thrown onto a hard surface like concrete.

  6. There’s no reply button under this:

    All boys suffered basilar skull injuries that were not caused by animals. IMO, those skull fractures caused their deaths. The skull fractures IN NO WAY fit into Jessie’s stories. However, those skull fractures leave NO EXTERNAL INJURIES only internal ones.

    Misskelley stated that all three of them beat the boys with fists. How does that “in no way” fit with his accounts?

    1. Not that Val needs any help with her position but…

      “However, those skull fractures leave NO EXTERNAL INJURIES only internal ones.”

      I call bullshit.

      Signs and symptoms of a basilar skull fracture include (but are not limited to):

      ecchymosis of the mastoid process of the temporal bone (Battle’s Sign)
      periorbital ecchymosis (Racoon Eyes)
      bleeding from the nose and ears
      vomiting
      Hemotympanum (blood in the tympanic cavity of the middle ear)

      So…you want to try that again?

      Oh, and 15 years as a paramedic. I know what I’m talking about.

      1. Those things aren’t the scratches and claw marks that I was discussing. I should have been clearer, but I meant that the external injuries that were caused by animal predation are NOT injuries associated with basilar skull fractures. As a paramedic, do you honestly believe that someone could hit another person with their fist hard enough to cause a basilar skull fracture without damaging their hand severely? Remember, we have pictures of Damien the next day, and he didn’t even have bruised knuckles. I know that Jessie mentioned “big ol’ sticks.” Do you think that tree branches could cause basilar skull fractures? The branches would break. Tree wood would be embedded into the scalp. None of that was present. I’m sorry, but I believe the basilar skull fractures were caused when the boys were thrown (or possibly fell) down a manhole onto their heads. Wouldn’t that cause basilar skull fractures?

    2. From what I’ve been told by doctors, basilar skull fractures cannot be caused by fists. If someone could hit another person that hard, the hitter would break his hand. None of the defendants had broken hands. The top of Michael’s skull revealed wounds that appeared to be caused by something like rocks – maybe like what would happen if he were dropped on his head into a manhole. No, those basilar skull fractures weren’t caused by fists or “big ol’ sticks” either.

      1. ” As a paramedic, do you honestly believe that someone could hit another person with their fist hard enough to cause a basilar skull fracture without damaging their hand severely?”

        Sure. Professional boxers do it all the time. And considering Damien and Jessie’s tendencies to fight, I could see it. I mean, if Jessie’s punching comodes…

        But seriously. You’re asking if someone twice the age and size of the victims could hit them hard enough to fracture their skull at the basilar level? My answer is yes. Seen it more than once.

        “Do you think that tree branches could cause basilar skull fractures?”

        Yep. Definitely.

        “I’m sorry, but I believe the basilar skull fractures were caused when the boys were thrown (or possibly fell) down a manhole onto their heads. Wouldn’t that cause basilar skull fractures?”

        Would it? Sure. But it would also cause a multitude of other injuries, especially broken bones depending on height. You also neglect to mention that most manholes are made of concrete. How did the three kids get thrown down this manhole and not have any concrete embedded anywhere on their body?

        “From what I’ve been told by doctors, basilar skull fractures cannot be caused by fists.”

        Who’d you ask, a group of proctologist? There have been dozens of boxers killed by this. And their gloves are somewhat padded. Plus they’re similar in weight. Putting an 8 year old against a 16, 17, or 18 year old? Yeah, I can definitely see that.

        ” The top of Michael’s skull revealed wounds that appeared to be caused by something like rocks – maybe like what would happen if he were dropped on his head into a manhole.”

        Or like what would happen on the side of a creek/ditch? Pretty sure there’s plenty of rocks there too.

        1. Look at the pictures of Michael’s scalp. Those injuries weren’t caused by the rocks on a creek bed. It was a grainier surface, like the concrete in the bottom of a manhole. Boxers are professional “hitters” and, as such, their hands are registered as lethal weapons and they are trained to hit in a manner to cause maximum damage. None of the teens were trained boxers. Sorry, being in fights at school doesn’t qualify.

          You didn’t address the fact that, had Damien and Jason been hitting the boys hard enough to cause basilar skull fractures, their hands would have been at least bruised. We know that Damien’s weren’t because we have a picture of him taken on May 6th or 7th. I don’t know of any pictures of Jason, but I know of no evidence that he had bruises.

          There were injuries that appeared to some to be similar to the “road rash” which occurs when something is dragged across concrete. But there was no evidence of embedded bark in the skulls or skin of the victims. The injuries, IMO, simply don’t indicate a beating, either with sticks or fists.

          1. “None of the teens were trained boxers. Sorry, being in fights at school doesn’t qualify.”

            There’s no secret to how to properly throw a punch. Seriously, you can learn in about 5 minutes. And my point (which you ignored) was that considering DJJ were at least twice the size of their victims, yeah they could easily do enough damage to that kind of damage.

            “Look at the pictures of Michael’s scalp. Those injuries weren’t caused by the rocks on a creek bed. It was a grainier surface, like the concrete in the bottom of a manhole.”

            And just like your argument that there should be wood from a tree branch embedded in the skin, why wouldn’t there be components of concrete?

            “You didn’t address the fact that, had Damien and Jason been hitting the boys hard enough to cause basilar skull fractures, their hands would have been at least bruised. We know that Damien’s weren’t because we have a picture of him taken on May 6th or 7th. I don’t know of any pictures of Jason, but I know of no evidence that he had bruises.”

            I didn’t address it because…unlike you…I try to not comment on something I can’t back up. I have yet to see a picture of Damien or Jason the day after the murder. So don’t include ME in your WE above. A link would be nice.

            “There were injuries that appeared to some to be similar to the “road rash” which occurs when something is dragged across concrete.”

            Or sand, rocks, gravel, ect, ect, ect.

            “But there was no evidence of embedded bark in the skulls or skin of the victims.”

            Or concrete.

            And finally, just because I’m curious…

            “Boxers are professional “hitters” and, as such, their hands are registered as lethal weapons and they are trained to hit in a manner to cause maximum damage.”

            You’re kidding, right?

  7. No reply button again.

    I don’t see the importance of POST CONVICTION STATEMENTS that still contained errors. None of Jessie’s statements matched the forensics at the scene. No matter how many times you tell a lie, it won’t morph into the truth. All of Jessie’s statements were lies. It doesn’t matter how many he made or when he made them. If that is why you became a non, you must not have been a very convinced supporter.

    @CR-

    I wasn’t. I had nothing but some documentaries and some news snippets or articles here and there as a reference. Like MOST supporters.

    Or are you trying to say that the celebs and “reporters” interviewing them since PL 3 have actually researched the case in depth? Every thing I heard on the radio or saw on the TV has been celebs mentioning how these films impacted them. I’ve yet to hear “and then I read the trial or pre-trial transcripts” from a single one of them.

    Maybe they read Mara’s book though I haven’t heard much of that.

    You are aware that most supporters have no frame of reference but some films that tell a very one-sided story, aren’t you? Oh yeah, never mind, you believe the films aren’t biased. My guess is A LOT of people would be interested in knowing about Misskelley’s several confessions but just don’t have any inkling they’ve been duped. To you, they’re not important. To me, they were. Touché.

    1. Val,

      I can’t speak for all supporters, but I wasn’t impressed by the celebrity “supporters” at all. In fact, I dislike the Dixie Chicks. Pearl Jam and Eddie Vedder are certainly not among my favorites. I’m from the Beatles generation. I don’t like heavy metal music, although my son does. In short, the celebrities had NOTHING to do with my support of the innocence of the WMFree.

      As to other supporters, I will say this. The ones that I associate with the most, those on the Blackboard, seem to want to investigate every aspect of this case and learn as much as they can. And everyone there knows about Jessie’s statements as you know, having posted there as a non yourself. All of the statements are available to be read on that site.

      From my experience, those statements seem to be available on all supporter sites. Also, all supporter sites seem to provide a link to Callahan’s. So, I think it’s unfair to paint MOST supporters as being uninformed. Are some uninformed and simply drawn in by a certain celebrity? Possibly. However, to imply that the bulk of the supporter movement is of that ilk is disingenuous, IMO.

      One more thing, I have said that the documentaries, as is true of all documentaries, reflect the bias of the film maker. You can’t make a documentary without exhibiting bias, unless you simply follow someone around with a camera. Any sort of editing is exhibiting a bias. These documentaries are no different. They set out to show how three teenagers were railroaded into murder convictions. IMO, they succeeded in their intent .

      1. Just to further reiterate my point.

        I was listening to Berlinger (I think, maybe it was Sinofsky) and Baldwin on Opie and Anthony the other day.

        Opie, Anthony & Jim Norton were under the impression that Misskelley confessed one time, under extreme duress after 12 hours of questioning, and he immediately recanted. That’s the same exact impression I was under when I only had the first 2 films as a reference.

        These people believe that, because it’s the only thing the docs show. Had they been aware that Misskelley continued to confess, and also that he admitted to lying about certain aspects to throw off the police, they might feel different. Maybe they won’t, I don’t know. For me, personally, I felt much different once I knew that.

        Maybe supporters that are fighting on message boards know about the other confessions. But Jennifer Aniston, Orlando Bloom, and all the other celebs appearing at PL3 award ceremonies undoubtedly don’t.

        If you want to pretend that Hollywood doesn’t impact naive and gullible people, particularly young people, that’s on you. But it seems to me that the directors and convicts are perfectly content with not telling the whole story.

        I won’t pay a dime to see Jackson’s doc or the DK film, but when they are on cable or posted on YouTube I’ll watch. It seems you are hoping that Jackson’s film shows some of the stuff the PL films don’t. I’m curious to see if either one attempts to clear up the “1 coerced confession” BS that PL has propagated.

        1. @Val, @Compassionate Reader
          Agree, most supporters are unaware of the multiple confessions. If they were, it would definitely change their opinion of the WM3. It’s an important detail, and unethical for the filmmakers not to mention them.

          1. I don’t care how many times you tell a lie, it’s still a lie. Jessie could have confessed daily and it wouldn’t make it true. False confessions happen much more frequently than many people believe.

            In Jessie’s case, I believe that the post conviction statements were taken in an attempt to get more evidence on Damien. Remember, this was before Damien’s trial. Ask yourself, if the initial statement was sufficient to convict Jessie, why did they need another statement from Jessie? Obviously, the second statement couldn’t be used unless Jessie testified, so why were the prosecutors so persistent in wanting another statement?

            Could it be that there was something wrong with the first statement and they wanted to cover their butts for an appeal? I know that they gave Jessie use immunity, but I think that they thought that eventually they’d break Jessie down and he’d testify against the others on an appeal. If that happened, the glaring errors in his initial statement just might be a stumbling block. So, they needed another statement.

            Personally, I don’t think that anyone who believes that Jessie’s first statement was a false and/or coerced confession would be upset to discover more of the same, no matter how many more. That’s my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. However, just because you believe that knowing about the multiple statements would make a difference to the viewers of the documentaries doesn’t make it so.

          2. @Compassionate Reader “Personally, I don’t think that anyone who believes that Jessie’s first statement was a false and/or coerced confession would be upset to discover more of the same, no matter how many more.”

            But that’s what changed my mind. Especially the third confession, the one where he goes on about that whiskey bottle. It’s as if he’s insisting he’s telling the truth. I would have liked to have known about that from the documentaries, and I think it’s deceptive of the filmmakers to leave it out. Maybe they left it out because they knew their audience might not feel the same about their innocence.

          3. I don’t know why they left it out, but a whiskey bottle under an overpass and a popular brand? Yeah, that’s really damning. Were any fingerprints found on said bottle? Was there ANYTHING except Jessie’s statement to link it to the crime? You know, it’s possible that Jessie DID place the bottle there – when he was watching, from the overpass, all the police activity on May 6th. In short, the Evan Williams bottle fragment is irrelevant as it hasn’t been linked forensically to the crime or the discovery ditch.

          4. @CR It seems you dismiss all the evidence that points to their guilt. Everyone is either lying or incompetent. As if everyone was out to get the WM3. I admit there were mistakes made during the investigation, but I believe they got the right guys and the evidence shows that. I don’t see who else could have done it. I guess that’s what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Everyone is looking for a ‘smoking gun,’ there is none.

          5. Nons tend to dismiss anything pointing to innocence, like the hairs, for instance. As to a “”smoking gun,” I think there is one. I think that the defense has it and will present it to Ellington when they have an air tight case against the perpetrator. I don’t think any of us want another miscarriage of justice.

  8. Sorry. No reply button.

    “So translation you don’t know who did and didn’t attend this meeting but thought it was a nice way to take a shot at Todd Moore. Good for you.”

    I DO know that Pam and Mark attended. I know that the Moores were invited but didn’t attend. I know that, since they were divorced, Terry did not attend. I know that Melissa was dead and didn’t attend. The only parents that I’m unsure about were the two biological fathers that were not really a part of their son’s lives, Rick Murray and Steve Branch. I was NOT taking a shot at Todd Moore. I was stating a fact. When you insult me, you’re simply showing how weak your argument is.

    1. Would you blame Laci Peterson’s parents for not attending a meeting set up by Scott Peterson’s attorneys to further prove his innocence?

      What about the victims of Wayne Williams. If his appeals attorneys invited the victims’ parents to attend a meeting to discuss how their client is innocent, would you blame them for not appearing?

      Seems to me you expect an awful lot of people who are not obligated by any means to participate in the attempt to free the people convicted of murdering their son.

      1. My point is that JMB and Pam went. They lost children, too. I am applauding their courage and determination to learn EVERYTHING AVAILABLE about their sons’ murders. Although, as I said, I understand the position of not wanting to reopen old wounds, it DOES limit your knowledge. If it were me, I would hope that I would want to be sure that the actual guilty party was punished for my son’s murder. If information came to light after the trial that called the convictions into question, I would hope that I would be open to hearing that information.

    2. “I DO know that Pam and Mark attended. I know that the Moores were invited but didn’t attend. I know that, since they were divorced, Terry did not attend. I know that Melissa was dead and didn’t attend. The only parents that I’m unsure about were the two biological fathers that were not really a part of their son’s lives, Rick Murray and Steve Branch. I was NOT taking a shot at Todd Moore. I was stating a fact. When you insult me, you’re simply showing how weak your argument is.”

      “All the parents were invited. IIRC, Pam and Terry were divorced by that time and Melissa was dead. Steve Branch may have attended, but I’m not sure about that. Likewise with Rick Murray. I believe Pam’s mother and her sisters were there. Jackie, Jr. and Jackie, Sr. were already dead, IIRC.”

      No, you were taking a shot at Todd More. Read your 1st statement. Steve Branch MAY have attended. LIKEWISE with Rick Murray. I BELIEVE Pam’s mother and her sisters. You were trying to make it sound like the Moore’s and/or Terry Hobbs were the only ones that scoffed at the meeting, then backpedaled so it sounds like only JMB and Pam Hobbs and family showed up.

      It’s not an insult to question your statement when you don’t back a single thing up and obviously make guesses. And if I really wanted to push it, I’d call you out on taking a shot at Rick and Steve too.

      “The only parents that I’m unsure about were the two biological fathers that were not really a part of their son’s lives, Rick Murray and Steve Branch.”

      Steve Branch has been one of the most vocal at voicing his anger at the Alford Plea.

      I’ve kept my mouth shut about your stupid manhole theory. I’ve kept my mouth shut about you’re constant accusations without the documentation to back it up. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you take shots at a bunch of grieving parents just because they don’t agree with you. I haven’t insulted you yet, I can assure you. Because if I had, you’d know it.

  9. CR, I believe that JMB, Pam Hobbs and her sisters and mother attended. There are photos on the blackboard somewhere of Pam and her family arriving at the meeting. I also am unsure about Steve Branch or Rick Murray. I believe that Byers new wife/girlfriend attended as well.

    Also would like to comment, a frequent argument the nons now make about Byers is that he “jumped on the bandwagon” of the supporters so that he could get all the attention and be involved in Paradise Lost 3……

    This is simply no true. Byers agreed to participate in Paradise Lost 3 back in 2005, when filming actually began. At the time he still believed in the wm3’s guilt. The “bandwagon” of the wm3’s innocence had been going on since 1996. When Byers started work on PL3, he still though they were guilty. It wasn’t until 2 years later in 2007, when he met with John Douglas and attended the meeting for the families about the new evidence that he saw that the wm3 were innocent.

    I don’t get what everyone’s issue with that is? Seems pretty simple to me. Byers believed from 1993-2007 that the wm3 were guilty. He could of “jumped on the bandwagon” as you put it, anytime. He didn’t believe they were innocent until he heard all the new evidence. Some of which we don’t even know about yet, as not everything has been made public.

    Point being, by the time Byers had heard all the new evidence and believe in the wm3s innocence, he had already been involved in Paradise Lost 3 for over 2 years. So the argument that he just changed his mind so he could be the center of attention and be in PL3 is not valid.

    1. That’s one way to look at it.

      Or he could’ve jumped at the chance to take the focus off himself as alternate suspect #1, regardless of the fact that the way to do that is to do to someone else exactly what was done to you.

      1. I DID have that thought at first. Then, as I said before, I read all the information about Terry Hobbs. I read about his sexual assault on Mildred French. I read Stevie’s aunts’ statements in the Pasdar case. I read David Jacoby’s statement and saw Terry’s alibi collapse. I watched both the WMPD interview and the Pasdar deposition of Hobbs. I read the Manhole Theory. In the end, I was convinced that my initial thought was simply a knee jerk reaction and that JMB was suspected, just like D, J and J, because of bizarre behavior UNRELATED TO THE CRIME whereas much of Hobbs’ behavior (all of which I didn’t list above) was directly related to the crime. Therefore, I made the educated conclusion that Hobbs is the main suspect, in fact, the ONLY suspect. All pieces fit if he is the killer. No loose ends. Case closed. I have every hope that eventually the State of Arkansas will reach this conclusion, too.

        1. Just because some guy on the Internet wrote what is essentially trashy crime novel (the manhole theory) does not mean he “solved” the case.

          I can actually LOL at the “no loose ends” remark.

          The defense themselves stated that their case against red herring #3 is far from conclusive. Didn’t stop them from throwing someone else under the bus, but hey, there is a valid explanation for the reputation of defense attorneys.

          1. We will have to agree to disagree about that one. I know you’ve seen the Manhole Theory and the supporting documents because I remember you when you posted, albeit briefly, on the Blackboard. I don’t see how you can honestly dismiss it and call it a “trashy crime novel.” IMO, the only “trashy crime novel” in this case is “Blood of the Innocents.”

            What loose ends are left by accepting the Manhole Theory, as refined from the first attempt? Or, didn’t you stay around long enough to see all the refinements? Sorry, I’m not meaning to be disrespectful. Paid DID refine his theory (and his timelines) from his first posting. Have you read all of the information?

            Terry Hobbs is the ONLY person in this case who is linked with any level of acceptable evidence to the discovery ditch. Too bad the WMPD didn’t investigate local manholes and instead repaired one so that the scrape marks on the bodies couldn’t be compared to the trowel marks on the manhole. I guess that’s what you call a cover up.

            What’s more interesting about that repair job is that a large hole in the side of the manhole was left as it was and other manholes in the area, in worse need of repair, were untouched. Only this one manhole was given a facelift. When the BB comes back up, I’ll give you a link to what I’m talking about here.

  10. Nathan,

    Yes, you’re right about Mark’s new wife. She was there, too. She has been a great help to him throughout all of this.

    It’s so frustrating that the Blackboard is down for maintenance. Hopefully, it will be up later today. If not then, no later than tomorrow I believe.

    I know that there is more information that has not yet been released to the public. That’s why I know that eventually the three freed men will be exonerated. It’s maddening that we don’t know everything yet, but I trust the defense team to reveal everything when the time is right.

    I was thinking that the new documentary “West of Memphis” might reveal more. It makes sense that, since his money financed so much of the testing, Sir Peter’s documentary would be the one to reveal some of the new information. From the clips I’ve seen, it appears that Michael Carson has recanted and that David Jacoby believes the freed men to be innocent.

    Mark was quite a character in the two original documentaries, it’s true. However, the 2007 revelation changed him considerably. I applaud his courage to admit he was wrong and to work for justice.

    Pam is another story altogether. From the fact that they have chosen a big name actress, Reese Witherspoon, to portray her in “Devil’s Knot,” it may be that “Devil’s Knot” will tell her story of shifting from believing in guilt to believing in innocence. We’ll just have to wait and see on that one!

    I don’t know where I saw this, but somewhere out there is a video of JMB and Jessie Misskelley, Sr. burying the hatchet. They apologized to each other and shook hands. I wish I could find it, but sometimes my “searching” abilities are fruitless!

  11. @ CR

    “That is the prosecution’s theory. Do you disbelieve the prosecution’s theory?”

    http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closefogleman.html

    “Now I wanna talk to you a minute about motive. This motive area, it’s something that’s inconceivable. And it’s something that–it’s not something that you anxiously look forward to putting on that kind of evidence relating to motive, in this particular case especially. And why is that? This satanic stuff–satanic picture in and of itself does that mean they’re Satanists or anything like that? No. This mean in and of itself, Satanist? No. But, why present it? Why present this stuff? And by the way this doesn’t have anything to do with Wicca, doesn’t have anything to do with it. The reason to present it, is that to try to inflame you all and make you all so angry because it’s something different–because it’s something different and something we don’t understand? Is that why we would present it? No, not at all.”

    1. He never explained the why, did he? That leads one to believe that all the “satanic stuff” WAS the motive. If not, why present Dale Griffis? The ONLY reason ol’ Foggie spun it like that in his summation was because Griffis had been destroyed on the stand. So, he had to try to make the jury believe that there was something else, “something different and something we don’t understand.” It was his only shot, and, because of the rampant “Satanic panic” of the times, he got away with the Satanic motive DESPITE the collapse of his ONLY WITNESS TO IT. IMO, this is proof that the jury (and the region) were predisposed to guilt from the time Gitchell proclaimed that the case against the three was “an eleven.”

  12. I think this:

    Compassionate Reader January 16, 2012 at 2:54 am
    That is the prosecution’s theory. Do you disbelieve the prosecution’s theory?

    Is a gross oversimplification/exaggeration of the prosecutions case. Further, I think Berlinger and Sinofsky knew that and I think you know it too, CR.

    I dont think that this was a sacrifice to the devil. I think it was a thrill kill, essentially a bullying gone horribly, horribly wrong by a couple of kids who expressed an interest in Satanism/all things evil. I don’t think there was any part of that night where the 3 killers held up the boys bodies and yelled out for Satan to come reward them for their sacrifice. I think that they were into occult things because they were a couple of mean, disturbed and/or mentally ill people who wanted to hurt others because of their own frustrations.

    For the record, I think Griffis was a hack. I believe they presented that stuff for a few reasons. One being that it countered the choir boy image the defendants’ attorneys were relying on, particularly Baldwin’s baby face. Second, I believe that they underestimated the importance of Misskelley’s testimony and so they didn’t offer him anything worthwhile for it. He was already convicted, his attorney Stidham was more interested in HBO screentime than his client’s best interest, he probably didn’t want to let his father down by admitting to him he was guilty, and since he had nothing to gain for it, probably didn’t want to go to prison with a snitch label on his back. His attorney probably fed him all sorts of BS that they could get his conviction overturned of they play the coersion angle, and there you go.

    Ultimately, my point is that I don’t think the WMPD or the prosecution did everything perfect, although I scoff at the idea that they knowingly framed 3 kids. I think they were in over their heads, particularly because of the presence of HBO filmmakers as opposed to journalists. I do think that had they offered Misskelly a good enough reason to testify, they wouldn’t have had to resort to Griffis’s BS and a Satanic sacrifice as a motive. I’ll tell you one thing I firmly believe: if Misskelley was offered a reasonable deal for his testimony, there wouldn’t even be a West Memphis 3 and Echols would be worm food by now. Berlinger & Sinofsky knew that too and that’s why they gave so much screen time to the Satanic stuff, while omitting the continued confessions, failed alibis, the scene with the blood on the pendant that we know they filmed, the failed polygraphs, the Hollingsworth testimony, etc.

    1. @Val,

      I don’t care about the motives of Joe and Bruce. I looked into this case – all the documentation, etc. – ON MY OWN. Yes, my interest was tweaked by the first documentary and I have watched all of the shows on television about the case as well. (BTW, I’ve never seen one that comes down on the side of guilt, And, don’t say that’s because the ratings are higher for a miscarriage of justice. Shows like “48 Hours” and “True Crime” show plenty of stories where the RIGHT guy is in prison.) I have come to my conclusion based on my own research, not based on the documentaries, the celebrities or anything but my interpretation of the facts in the case.

      I’ve already discussed somewhere on here the whole “lost” footage about the necklace. There were TWO different blood types on the necklace. One was Damien’s. It was his necklace. The other was Jason’s OR Stevie’s. They have the same type. You know that there are only 8 blood types in the world, right? Granted, they are not equally divided, but blood TYPE has NEVER been able to do anything but EXCLUDE someone as a donor. Damien and Jason were not excluded. Stevie was not excluded. Now, there is a more sophisticated test that they performed – A DQ-Alpha 1 test. The way I understand it, it’s akin to DNA testing in that, if you can get a complete sequence, you can further narrow down the donor’s identity. The sample from the necklace was so small that the best they could do was to match a six allele sequence that could be either Jason or Stevie which eliminated Jessie and Michael who also had the same blood type. It’s not conclusive at all. So, the necklace really didn’t establish anything. It was a rather lengthy clip which may account for why it wasn’t included in the film. Again, that’s a question that Joe or Bruce would have to answer.

      As to polygraphs, you know as well as I do that they are inadmissible in court because they are so unreliable. Damien was scared which could account for his failure. According to Warren Holmes, the professional who taught Bill Durham to read polygraph reports, Durham misread Jessie’s report. According to Holmes, Jessie PASSED the relevant questions failing only on the question about drug use. Of course, Burnett didn’t let him testify to that in court.

      The Hollingsworths testified that they saw Damien and DOMINI on the service road, but somehow the prosecution convinced the jury that they recognized Damien alright but that it was JASON with him. Domini was their own niece! Let’s not forget that their own son, L.G., was a suspect for a short while. So, they had a vested interest in providing an alternate suspect, too.

  13. CR, I’ve seen the West of Memphis trailer and I got a similar impression of Michael Carson. But supporters have been saying for 18 years that he’s a career criminal,frelimo who used the system for a get out of jail free card. But if he is in the newest film recanting his testimony, suddenly THAT would be believable. Am I right?

    1. It certainly calls into question the credibility of his original testimony. Now that he’s an adult, and supposedly off of the drugs, maybe he’s more credible now. Regardless, it was always a question of credibility with Carson. The recantation tends to call than further into question IMO. However, what convinced me that Carson was lying was NOT his lack of credibility but the Rule 37 testimony of Joyce Cureton, the former employee at the juvenile detention center who was told to be “unavailable” to testify at the Echols/Baldwin trial and who would have refuted Carson’s testimony.

      1. From Joyce Cureton’s testimony at the Misskelley/Baldwin Rule 37 hearing, being cross-examined by Brent Davis:

        There was an occasion on which one juvenile had been discovered to have committed suicide, but the juvenile’s death had not been ascertained before several hours had passed. So there were times when things happened that the staff did not monitor.

        http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_cureton.html

        1. More from Joyce Cureton’s testimony:

          “I cannot recall ever seeing Michael Carson with Jason Baldwin. Baldwin
          stayed to himself. He was a quiet kid who avoided trouble. He did interact with some of the African-American inmates. If Carson and Baldwin had talked during the night, it would have been written down by the staff. Carson never told me that Baldwin had said anything damaging about his case. My viewpoint is that Michael Carson was a smart-ass and a troublemaker.”

          from same link as above.

  14. Could not agree more with Val and her thrill kill post and bully theory. Just sooooo spot on. This IS what happened. Cr you do realize that the marks on the boys were the knife tip not a turtle, my god man a turtle… what!!!!!

    1. How many killers use a knife to SCRAPE their victims to death? No, there was a turtle bite mark, initially thought to be a human bite mark, and claw marks on the bodies which were caused by postmortem (or maybe perimortem) animal predation. Seven certified forensic pathologists independently agreed to that interpretation. Peretti was in error and Sturner just rubber stamped Peretti’s lousy work. He didn’t examine the bodies that closely. Besides, thrill kills are usually left on display, not hidden.

      1. As for the stabbing vs. the scraping with the knife.

        This was their first kill. I think it takes a lot of guts (terrible word) to actually stab someone with a knife. I wouldn’t be able to do it. It’s like the movies where a person is being attacked and they have a gun and they can’t bring themselves to pull that trigger. Maybe they just didn’t have it in them to actually plunge a knife into somebody.

        1. Kinda like the possible attempted rape. I imagine that actually penetrating a resisting child is difficult and so maybe they tried, the kids resisted, and so they moved on to something else.

          1. And just to further reiterate something. It’s not possible or even necessary to determine EXACTLY what happened in those woods in order to have 3 just guilty verdicts. We want to know for our own reasons but knowing every single detail of the crime just about never occurs in real cases, unless the guilty party decides to share that information. Even then, there are cases of serial killers who admit to several murders but deny their involvement in others, even though we know they did it. Who knows why they do it?

          2. Do you seriously believe that you can kill a person by SCRAPING? There were no stab wounds. Do you seriously believe that these Satanists would balk at stabbing? Sorry. That is ridiculous.

  15. The irrelevance of Exhibit 500 is not a straw man argument. First, I’m not the one that keeps harping on the thing. Second, it was not used to convict, so it doesn’t prove, to borrow your phrase, jack sh1t!

    No reply button.

    @CR-

    This is a cop out argument. I think that most of us here are not just debating the merits of the trial, we are debating guilt vs. innocence.

    Some things not introduced or deemed I admissible at trial are incorporated in this debate. Polygraph results, luminol results, etc.

    You yourself have brought up Baldwin’s supposed alibi even though Ford chose to not present it. All means all, right?

    I think the 500 is absolutely relevant to who Echols was in 1993 which has to do with the guilt vs. innocence debate regardless if it was used at trial or not.

    1. I will concede that point. However, I still contend that much of the information contained in Exhibit 500 was exaggerated for the purpose of making Damien’s condition appear worse than it was. That has always been my contention about the history. IMO, it is simply not a reliable predictor of future behavior.

  16. @ Fred:

    If you can’t grasp that leaving out the extensive and alarming psychiatric history of the chief accused is blatantly biased and misleading, you are truly hopeless. Prosecutor John Fogleman reportedly offered the filmmakers the document when it emerged during sentencing, but they declined to include any mention of it in their films.

    That’s probably because the directors decided within 5 minutes of meeting Echols that playing the innocence angle was more lucrative than the guilty one. Ooops, I mean that Echols was innocent.

    1. We all form first impressions upon meeting someone. Often they are right. However, in this case, they didn’t just talk to him for five minutes. They interviewed him extensively, and forming opinions of people is part of their job. If they weren’t good at it, they wouldn’t be very successful as film makers.

      1. But they publicly stated that they knew within “five minutes” that Echols was innocent.

        Although last week on O&A , one of them said they believed they were guilty for awhile.

        They can’t even decide which story they want to go with yet you are defending them.

  17. @cr come on! Wm3 beat them, cut them, scraped them and drowned them. I am so mad I saw the films and read Devil Knot. Can’t stop thinking of the little boys. Just makes you want to cry, soo sad. I just can’t see any other way they were killed. CR how do you explain the hog tie which also is so brutal. 3 types of knots. Common sense just can’t see Hobbs and friend even if they had gun doing this. Just too far fetched that Hobbs would do this as adult male. I know bad people are out there but wm3 thrill kill drunk and drugged with Damien leading the way just soooo much easier to believe. Again Jessie had the guts to finally tell what happened. I also would unlike WM3 be knocking on Obama door screaming about what happened to me for years!! Now out I would be going crazy every day how I got screwed… Why aren’t they doing this.. Because they know they did it just look in Damiens dark eyes please just look CR!

    1. Again, it wasn’t three different TYPES of knots. That’s a prosecution spin. All of the ligatures were tied with one or more half hitches, the most common type of know. Some call it a loop. If the knots were truly unique, like sheep shank knots or something, you might have a point, but half hitches? No way. They’re way too common to be able to make them seem different.

  18. @CR-

    What’s more interesting about that repair job is that a large hole in the side of the manhole was left as it was and other manholes in the area, in worse need of repair, were untouched. Only this one manhole was given a facelift. When the BB comes back up, I’ll give you a link to what I’m talking about here.

    Oh come on! This is getting ridiculous. You think that the WMPD wanted to frame 3 kids so bad that they knowingly let someone else get away with a brutal triple child murder? That they know that the killings took place in a manhole and instead of solving the case they framed some teenagers for fun?

    In my town, the DPW paves streets that aren’t that bad and leaves ones that you can’t even drive on without bottoming out on potholes for years. It’s just the way it is. Not everything is a conspiracy!

  19. @CR-

    Do you seriously believe that you can kill a person by SCRAPING? There were no stab wounds. Do you seriously believe that these Satanists would balk at stabbing? Sorry. That is ridiculous.

    I never said they were killed by scraping. They were beaten, mutilated, and drowned. Tortured by scraping sounds plausible though.

    Unlike you and other supporters, I don’t pretend to know exactly why the killers did eveything they did. I don’t know why they hogtied them and I don’t know why they castrated Chris. Scraping with a knife did not kill these boys, but these boys were also tortured. Or don’t you consider what happened to them torture?

    1. “hesitation” wounds are typical of suicides, but can be present in a homocide and indicate an attempt to build courage for a final act. i believe these three had only killed animals before this and so were more inclined to beat and torture with a knife blade before losing all control and killing the victims.

  20. I am on neither side the supporters or the non supporters but I do think these guys were innocent after reviewing the evidence in the case. Not getting caught up in the hype. This happened alot in the pre DNA era of evidence. Do you really think the state would release 3 killers if they didn’t feel these guys were tried fairly. They also made all 3 guy sign things so they would not sue the state. The state knows it was wrong. And it seemed kind of crooked how the same judge was always re assigned to the case every appeal. I think there is a lot more to this case then meets the eye. Even what we know now. Between jury tampering, evidence mishandling, and even the WMPD was under investigation for something in connection with a drug ring. They refused help from the state police. Something right there shows this trial was messed up.

  21. <You seem pretty convinced that Hobbs killed the kids. Why would he do it? Why <would his friend Jacoby help him? From what I’ve read, Jacoby was more of an <acquaintance.

    And yet you have no problem believing that Damien had an acquaintance – Jessie – join him in committing triple homicide. Because that's all Jessie and Damien were. Acquaintances. Yes, Jason and Jessie had been friendly when they were children, but they had fallen out quite some time before the murders took place over a girl. So you truly believe that Damien and Jason chose as their acccomplice a third boy that one of them barely knew and that the other one was not on good terms with at the time. This is who they chose to trust with a secret of such monumental importance. Come on.

  22. Supporters wouldn`t accept the truth if it hit them over the head! There is no
    new evidence to exonerate the three murderers, period. The hair in the knot
    that matched Hobbs DNA was caused by secondary transfer. When I was
    a teenager, I heard of some boys who did some very evil things (not murder).
    I later met them. And when I think back on their behavior and personalities,
    I`m struck on how much they remind me of the team-killer psychology of
    Baldwin and Echols. The pathological lying, the psychosexual domination
    of one over the other, the lack of affect during the trials, the artistic inclina-
    tion, intelligence, symbolization, paranoia, and morbid fascination with
    blood present in the dominant partner; the homicidal fantasies, the obsession
    with guns or knives, the suicide pact (yes, I guarantee you they had one), the
    threats to kill family members, and the psychological early warning signs of
    animal torture and killing, present in one or both men, should have switched
    on a big light bulb in the heads of celebrities who support them. They would
    do well to look up Mary Bell/Norma Bell, Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka, and Matthew Hardman, just to name a few.

  23. These were unplanned spur of the moment murders; a perfect storm of rage, opportunity, and bloodlust (piquerism). Misskelly simply made mistakes in
    his confession, as all confessors do. He even admitted trying to throw the police
    off to diminish his role in the slayings. You supporters have been completely
    hoodwinked. Wake up! Hobbs would need three hands to hold three panicked
    boys and a fourth hand to do the killing, and all because his stepson was late for
    supper? Oh, I forgot. He had Jacoby as an accomplice. Oh wait. That was yesterday. No hold on. That was Byers. No, Mr. Bojangles. Anyone but the WM3, because they
    are preparing for sainthood and everyone else must have lied but them. In all my born days, I have never heard of three killers being given more benefit of the doubt than these guys. Honestly, c`mon folks.

  24. If only every man and woman could get to work in a mental institution for one year. I
    think they`d be astounded at the extremes of human behavior which exist there. It
    would enable them to see through people like Echols in a heartbeat.

Leave a Reply

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