Paradise Lost 3 open thread

I haven’t seen Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory yet. No HBO. For those who have, discuss amongst yourselves.

(Please do not post links to torrents. I’m trying to keep this site lawsuit-free as long as possible.)

350 thoughts on “Paradise Lost 3 open thread”

  1. Here’s my short review.

    They gathered all videos of Terry Hobbs seemingly smiling/laughing about being questioned for the murders. Made him seem like a cold calculating dick. They also tried to show he was lying about seeing the boys on May 5th by interviewing the neighbor. (The one who recently “saw the light” years later when she saw the tipline billboard)

    JMB had his homemade chart listing pros and cons of Terry actually committing the murder. The cons were “secondary transfer” and “it would be hard to carry all 3 kids” but that it was possible.

    NEVER mentioned Jesse’s second and third confessions. Big surprise there.

    Kept going on about no DNA at the crime scene. Yet has anyone tested the DNA on Damiens necklace?

    Kept showing clips of Jason acting shy and passive. Jason could not possibly have committed these murders. I’ll admit, Jason tends to get to me. Hard for me to imagine him committing anything like this. I know that he could, but damn, he is a good liar and puts on a good show.

    At the end, justice prevailed.

    Oh God, somebody please make a documentary for the other side. What celebrity could we get????


    1. No matter how many times a lie is told, it doesn’t morph into the truth. Jessie’s statements were all lies. I don’t care how many times he told them, they’re still lies.

      I’ve seen the entire Pasdar deposition and the police interview. They didn’t have to search for clips to make Terry look bad. He looked bad all through both interviews.

      The blood on Damien’s necklace was destroyed by the initial testing so no further testing is possible. If you watch that “lost” scene from “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robinhood Hills,” (you know, the one all the nons are salivating about), you’ll see that the blood could only be tested for type, and that Jason and Stevie have the same type. So, it’s highly possible that the necklace had Damien’s and Jason’s blood on it. How did it get there? Well, probably because neither boy had been shaving that long and they nicked themselves. The amount of blood on the necklace was extremely small.

      Jason is not a liar. He is coming out of his shell quite a bit now that he is being interviewed more and more. IMO, he does quite well. Can’t you consider the possibility that he’s telling the truth instead of being a “good liar?” That IS a possibility, you know.

      At the end, the three innocent men were freed. Nothing changes that. They WILL be exonerated, too. It will just take a little more time.

      1. The blood on Damien’s necklace was destroyed by the initial testing so no further testing is possible. If you watch that “lost” scene from “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robinhood Hills,” (you know, the one all the nons are salivating about), you’ll see that the blood could only be tested for type, and that Jason and Stevie have the same type. So, it’s highly possible that the necklace had Damien’s and Jason’s blood on it. How did it get there? Well, probably because neither boy had been shaving that long and they nicked themselves. The amount of blood on the necklace was extremely small.

        You don’t seriously think they shared this necklace and both cut themselves shaving and drops of blood just happened to land on this necklace? That is a stretch.

        Jason is not a liar. He is coming out of his shell quite a bit now that he is being interviewed more and more. IMO, he does quite well. Can’t you consider the possibility that he’s telling the truth instead of being a “good liar?” That IS a possibility, you know.

        I still think he’s a good liar. Too much evidence.

        1. This necklace is not good evidence. The blood was of two different types. There are only eight types worldwide. If the hair from TH isn’t sufficiently linked to him because it could be 1.5% of the population, how can you link this blood to Jason or Stevie based on blood typing alone? According to the autopsy, Stevie’s blood type is A+, which is shared by 33% of the Caucasian population, second only to O+. You want to discount TH as the donor of a hair that comes from 1.5% of the population but yet believe that Stevie is the donor of this blood that comes from 33% of the population. Now, THAT’S a stretch – of monumental proportions.

          Blood typing can only exclude someone as a donor. They went so far as to perform DQ-Alpha1 testing on this sample. The best that they could do was to match a string of six alleles that BOTH Jason and Stevie share. There is no testing that links this blood irrefutably to EITHER Jason or Stevie. It COULD be either ( or literally thousands of other people with that six allele string). It simply cannot be determined whose blood it is.

          Since it was Damien’s necklace, his blood on it is of no evidentiary value. If the other sample could have been proven to be Stevie’s, then the necklace would have been important. It couldn’t. The blood is equally as likely to be Jason’s as Stevie’s. And, yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that Damien cut himself shaving while wearing the necklace at some point and Jason cut himself while shaving and wearing the necklace at another time. Remember, the amount of blood was so miniscule that it was initially overlooked. The prosecution had to get a continuance to get it tested – after they had rested their case!

    2. This has been bothering me for ahwile. I consider myself a great judge of character. I have watched the three PL’s several times and read countless websites, some neutral and some pro and con.

      The demeanor of the three in the first PL, tells it all. These are not the demeanors of “kids” who are wrongly accused, these are the demeanor of people who have been caught, licked, beaten. Damien is pretty defiant in the first PL. As in saying, “Yeah I did it, so what?”. The other two are CLEARLY frightened of Damien and look rather remorseful, Jessie, with his head down almost the entire time looking very remorseful. Not to mention the “jokes” by Damien on PL’s when his life is in the balance. Look, if I was wrongly charged for something this horrible, I would have made so much noise, verbal and otherwise, especially knowing I was going to get the death penalty.

      In PL2, their demeanor changes a bit, at first, Damien with his long hair, looks really bad, he is being raped in prison and hassled. This is what he said. But it is my understanding that people on death row are on constant lock-down 23 hours in solitary confinement and are only allowed one hour of excercise ALONE in a small caged area, so I am not sure I believe the rape thing, but he is clearly not well. His demeanor changes as he is forced fed words by his attorneys, who are not getting paid but are seeking notoriety, which for a lawyer, trancends to money and free advertisement, but he is forced fed words by his attorney to keep quiet becausee they are now in the age of Forensic evidence as being in the forefront. and surely, with LACK of forensic evidence, they will and can get off. This is when even Jessie, the conffesor, who wants really, really bad to go home, starts lifting his head up in interviews and acts real sure of himself.

      I don’t know anyone in prison who will tell you they are guilty of their crimes. Almost always most of them believe they are innocent. And, after years in prison, you tell them they can get off because of a lack of evidence, I don’t know any criminal who will not change their stories and demeanor and attitude just to get out.

      The WM3 supporters really bug me. Most, are twenty something females who were not even living when these horrible crimes were commited. They are knee-jerk youth that will ride the tide of popularity, just because it is popular. To them, Damien, I suspect, seems alluring. And they are right, he is alluring and that shows that he was able to command and hold those other two. But the supporters are not interested in FACT, they are only interested in aesthetics. They just look at the “innocent” faces of the three and go “awwww, they’re so cute” Well, not all criminals are old balding men with warts on their noses. These supporters are mainly “childhood rejects” because they themselves, when growing up, dressed funny and so all they see is that these “kids” were persecuted because of what they wore or what they believed in and so they think their individuality is going to be judged in the same manner. More often than not, THIS is their reason they give for believing they are innocent, not fact. And the Dixie Chicks? Well, they are only trying to repair their image from the fallout of their anti-american comments. Since these comments, their popularity has waned and so this is a way to get back into the limelight. And Johnny Depp? He dressed funny as a youth and was taunted, his explanation. his reason, also for supporting these three, not the facts. Depp doesn’t even live in the U.S. anymore.

      I will admit, one of the detectives made an error, when he stated he thought because Damien read Stephen King, that it was obviously a worry. HBO really harped on this, because in reality, King’s work is less about Withcraft and more about suspense. He is a New York times bestseller. I have been reading him since I was a kid and I haven’t a criminal bone in my body, so this goes to show that HBO manipulated the documentary to such a degreee, that for the mere simpleton, they were obviously innocent.

      The “Free Wm3” which is now, “” was started by Wiccans because they believed that their “religion” was being stained by this trial. So at first, it became their quest to clear “Wicca” from these three accused and when it was not possible, they decided to go further and make West Memphis police and it’s people look ridiculous by focusing on getting the three off all together, to clear Wicca. Wicca, in simple terms is white witchcraft. I went out with a Wiccan for five years. They believe in doing good and being closely in tune with nature. Damien, which I am sure changed his name because of the movie “The Omen” and not because of his catholic BS story, looked up to Aleister Crowley. Crowley is “black witchcraft” those who believe in Wicca, denounce Crowley. Most people, like the person I went out with that aligns with Wicca, usually grow out of it by their mid-20’s because they realize it’s just all a spin on the basic rule of life “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” and so they abandon the rituals and their celebratory holiday Samhain and either float toward christianity or really nothing at all. It is mainly a teens “religion” as they often use it to find themselves and try to look and seem different, most are harmless and are just doing it for the shock value, to shock their parents, others etc. This has been teenagers since the dawn of time. However, there are some, that go toward the dark side of withcraft, like Damien, and cause destruction. I still contend that if West Memphis police had left out the whole “Human Sacrifice” angle to these murders, these three would still be in prison today, it is only because they ruffled the feathers of some Wiccans living in La La Land, that became the reason they are free today. Money is power.

      WM3, stands to make great money, and they have, from the release of the three. There are movie deals and books in the works and although these three cannot directly gain financially from the murders, they can, and have, receive financial support from WM3. WM3 STILL has a donate button on their site, why? They are free. You got what you wanted. Where is the money to raise to CLEAR their name if they are so innocent?

      The supporters keep saying that evidence is what freed them, but they MUST understand that it was a lack of evidence pointing to them, it was a lack of evidence pointing to anyone, it was a lack of evidence period. If I decide to kill someone (which I wont) and I clean up every evidence left where no one can come after me, I am still guilty of the crime, I am just lucky. These three were lucky, the first PL opens with a big machine dredging and emptying the creek, there goes the evidence. The kids have been long buried and by the time the three get caught, 30 days later, their bodies are rotted and evidence gone. Anyone will tell you that the first 48 hours of trying to solve a murder is the “hottest” time. The police failed here. The FBI should have been called out right away, before the creek was dredged. I didn’t see any FBI in the trial. The local police screwed up by not calling them, it was a pride thing, but that pride thing eventually was their down fall.

      I would like to ask a question here, are those three registered as sex offenders? if not, why? It was crimes against children and they plead guilty, they should be registered. if they are not, maybe we can all get together and make sure they are.

      I don’t hate anyone. Not even these three. I don’t know them personally, but reading faces and body language and demeanor and attitudes is what I do best and in my opinion, along with a lot others, these guys are guilty. But I am not going by facial expressions alone, the confessions tell alot. That Jessie is a simpleton is obvious, so because he screwed up the time-line, lawyers heavily capitalized on this. Jessie even taunts this a bit when he gets a tattoo of a clock on his head, he says it is for marking the time he gets released, but again, anyone can really tell what he is really saying here with that tat.

      If Misskelley becomes an old man, I will bet, almsot anything, he will confess again. He is the weakest of the three. Jason is still a follower and still fears Damien. The fact that Jessie confessed that one of them ran away and he caught him and held him until the other two came, really sticks in my mind. That is description and lawyers contend that it doesn’t jive with evidence, so if it didn’t jive with evidence, why would the cops MAKE HIM say something that would easily be deflected at trial? Wasn’t one of them found further away from the other? Was this Michael Moore?

      And good old Mark Byers. Mark seems like some of the people I have met in life. Lying backstabbers. I do not think he did it, I think he likes to be in the spot light and so he is just riding the wave of what is popular also. He likes to be hailed as someone important and looked up to. He found he could no longer sustain this by thinking these three did it, so he finally got on their bandwagon. He is a terrible actor. I think he was really upset by his wife dying but much less so about his kid being murdered. if my 8 year old was murdered and found in the conditon that Chris was, I would lose it. I would lose it to the point where I probably wouldn’t want to talk to anyone for a very long time. The fact that Mark and his wife were on drugs, probably helped.

      And lastly, the supporters contend that the kids were not raped. Two of the three their anuses were “open” although I forget the correct term. This matches with what Jessie said, although the M.E> said it could have just been natural after death, but the other one’s was not, to my understaning. And it could actually be that these kids were never penetrated, that from Jessies distance, it SEEMED like they were screwing them, but I suspect maybe Damien and Jason tried and could not penetrate, though it would seem like from Jessie’s distance and the fact that these two were laying in the water for so long could easily wash away any semen or other evidence. We now have the technology today to look for skin cells etc, we didn’t back then, so the evidence got buried and or was washed away.

      It bums me out more that the memories of these kids and their horrible deaths are fading away with no solid answers and instead, these three are heroes. Where is the justice for these three kids? Who speaks for them now? If I was Damien, I would do everything I possibly could do clear my name, he is not. He is in New Zealand inking a contract for a movie with his wife, the weirdo architect. What about the girl with hsi kid that was supposed to stand by him forever? What happened to her and her kid? I didn’t see it in PL3. What happened with that relationship? HBO chose not to show it for a reason, I am guessing it is not very flattering toward Damien and this to me, is the essence of this whole case; perception, not facts. I feel for the parents of these kids, even almsot 30 years later, their memories have been turned into a media circus and much, much money has been made off their deaths. This, is America today.

      1. @ Gary
        Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the lack of loud protestations of innocence is because their attorneys TOLD THEM TO ACT THAT WAY or rather to not react. Jessie said in one of the docs that his attorney told him to look down all the time. I certainly don’t see either Jason or Jessie being afraid of Damien. Sorry.

        Of course you don’t believe Damien’s stories of rape. Nons don’t. Damien said that there was a hole in his cell which permitted the rapist access to him. He said that he reported it to the prison guards, but all they did was “investigate” and guess what? They said that Damien was lying! When you investigate yourself, it’s a foregone conclusion that ou won’t find fault. You choose to believe them. I choose to believe Damien. Yes, even on Death Row with the 23-hour lock down and solitary confinement, rules are broken and some prisoners find a way to get what they want.

        No one changed their story to get out. All three have maintained their innocence from the beginning, with the exception of Jessie’s ridiculous and, if not coerced, most definitely led stories that don’t match the forensics. Did you know that Jessie’s false statement and in fact this whole case is now studied in law schools as an example of a false confession and the effects of one?

        I’m 63. Most of the supporters that I know on the Blackboard are not twenty-somethings. Some may be, but definitely not the majority. Some people are drawn to this case because they were outcasts, like Damien, when they were teenagers. I would say that the average age for the supporters on the Blackboard would be mid to late thirties. That’s just an estimate, mind you, but I can guarantee that it’s not twenty-something! As to Damien being “alluring,” I don’t find him to be alluring. Most of the time during the trial I wanted to slap his face for his arrogant behavior. But that doesn’t make him a murderer. That just makes him a teenager. As to the whole celebrity thing, the celebrities don’t convince me of anything. I make up my own mind. Are there supporters who got interested in the case because of a certain celebrity? Possibly. Are they a significant number? I doubt it.

        Neither Damien’s taste in literature nor music make him a murderer. It shouldn’t even make him a suspect. You recognize that the whole idea that reading Stephen King makes you a murderer is bogus. The same is true of listening to heavy metal or reading books on strange religions. When we were in college, my husband read the Satanic Bible. I guess it was a good thing that no horrible crime was committed because, if we had been in West Memphis (which we weren’t) he might have been a suspect! He has also studied just about every religion extant, including Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism and Scientology. He is a Christian, and has always been one. Studying a religion doesn’t mean that you embrace it, and Wiccans are not Satanists anyway. was started by Burk Sauls, Kathy Bakken and Grove Pashley. They were shortly joined by Lisa Fancher. I have never seen anything stating that any of those four are Wiccans. Although, it wouldn’t matter if they were, that was NOT the impetus behind the organization. It has always been about seeking justice. There were Wiccans that supported Damien, but I believe that they were local. was started in California. Of course you don’t believe Damien’s account of why he changed his name. It’s much more salacious to believe the whole movie thing because that supports the ridiculous Satanic cult murder theory concocted by the prosecution. I believe Damien. I know for a fact that many Catholics take a new name as their Saint’s name (confirmation name), and if Damien chose to use the name he would have taken had he joined the Catholic church instead of the name with which he was born, there is absolutely nothing sinister about it. Please read Damien’s testimony at his trial, specifically the cross examination. In it, he explains that he knew who Aleister Crowley was but that he had never read his books. He certainly didn’t look up to him. BTW, Damien apparently outgrew the whole Wiccan thing. He and Lori were married in a Buddhist ceremony.

        Because the State of Arkansas would not admit that they were in error in convicting these men, they still stand adjudged guilty of crimes that they did not commit. Money is still needed to work for exoneration. If you were falsely convicted of murder and then freed but not exonerated, wouldn’t you want to clear your name? Remember, no one is being force to contribute.

        Some “evidence” survived the immersion in water and the ineptitude of the WMPD, however. For example, they recently discovered DNA on one of Chris’ sneakers. Then there are those pesky hairs. Although the hairs aren’t enough to convict Terry Hobbs, they are one more piece of evidence that fails to implicate the freed men. Oh, BTW, do you know why the WMPD didn’t want the FBI involved? Because the Drug Task Force of Crittitenden County was under investigation by the FBI because some drugs taken into custody had … um … disappeared.

        The three are not sex offenders. The crime was not sexual in nature, even though at first blush it might have appeared to be. Even that idiot, Peretti, admitted that the anal dilation could have been caused by immersion in water. No semen was found, and no sexual crime was ever proven. They are NOT sex offenders. They aren’t murderers, either.

        That whole bit about Jessie is ridiculous. He’s too slow to be able to think that abstractly. He told the truth about that clock tattoo. He said that, for him, time stopped when he went inside and it would start again when he got out. (BTW, he got the hands tattooed; they read 1:00)

        Yes, Michael was found separated from the others. However, the separation wasn’t all that great. About 20 feet IIRC. I don’t know why you think Jessie will confess to something that he didn’t do. And, you say that Jason is afraid of Damien. That’s a real laugh! Have you seen them together? They’re still best friends. They requested that the attorneys get their SIS documents to allow then to see each other.

        Did you see the first two documentaries? He DID lose it! Big time! He realizes now that his actions in the first two films were most of the reason that he was considered a suspect. Yes, he was devastated by Melissa’s death, but he was equally devastated by Chris’ death. He wants justice for his son and the other two boys killed. And he knows that the State of Arkansas did not give him that justice back in 1994 or to this day.

        Nobody supports the premise that the little boys were raped any more – not even Peretti. There was not a sexual attack. There was no Satanic ritual killing. There was only an angry stepfather who lost control momentarily and killed his step son and then had to eliminate witnesses.

        Damien went to New Zealand to help finalize Sir Peter Jackson’s documentary that, from what I’ve read and seen, may be a more powerful piece to show what really happened behind the scenes than any of the “Paradise Lost” films. This new documentary, “West of Memphis,” premieres at the Sundance Film Festival on January 20th. I don’t know when the general release date is, but I think it won’t be in general release until 2013. We’ll all have to wait to see what it reveals. According to Damien and Lori, it reveals a lot:

        The supporter movement is working hard to see to it that the REAL murderer of those three little angels is investigated, arrested, tried and convicted. And, Damien has a relationship with his son by Domini, Seth. However, he wishes to keep the specifics private. I won’t pry. During his incarceration, he tried to keep his family out of the spotlight as much as possible because he wanted them to be able to live their lives normally. Now that he is released, everyone is getting nosy about his personal familial relationships. He has asked for privacy in this matter, and I intend to give it to him. You’re totally right about one thing – this case is all about perception, not facts. West Memphis perceived Damien to be an evil, devil worshiping murderer. There were no facts to support this view, but he was convicted anyway. That is horrible.

        1. Nobody supports the premise that the little boys were raped any more – not There was not a sexual attack. There was no Satanic ritual killing. There was only an angry stepfather who lost control momentarily and killed his step son and then had to eliminate witnesses.


          You’re trying and convicting someone based on crappy evidence. It doesn’t exonerate the WM3 by accusing him, nor does it serve justice. Maybe more evidence can be found, but…jumping to conclusions in a criminal case isn’t fair.

          1. @Rin I don’t think anyone on this site believes the killings were part of some sort of satanic ritual. They were a thrill-kill.

            You’ve pretty much tried and convicted Terry Hobbs on some very weak evidence. Even the defense for the WM3 has said they could never get a conviction on the hairs.

            And the Manhole Theory seems like a real stretch, is that what you truly think happened?

        1. @ VS

          Yeah, considering that Damien could have been fried. And or that all of them could have been shot after their release which I hope someone does soon so we can end all this crap.

      2. I think I talk to too many criminals daily to be on boards like these.

        Teens and YOs when falsely accused tend to be 1) angry, 2) scared, and 3) angry. They aren’t wise enough to be sympathetic. Teens that run in circles that make them police targets are usually already angry at the world (and usually guilty of something else at some point).

        That is exactly what Damien acted like. Baldwin acted like his attorney put him on meds (it happens), and Misskelley looked like a deer caught in the headlights, re to #2 above.

        Guilty people look sad, pliant, remorseful. They may cry and espouse how they weren’t able to do it, blah blah. They are also more rehearsed, calmer, etc. I used to believe guilty people all the time at first. Even if I thought they did it, I felt they had been changed by the experience. Within four months of being with the firm, watching people play you to get out of paying their bill, not valuing your time, etc and you start to patch up the bleeding heart to the point where the clients look like “$” signs and their cases become a problem solving game and not a thirst for justice.

        When a truly innocent person walks through your door you cling to them like their the last lifeboat off the Titanic.

      3. The only disagreement I have with you is that Damien`s new wife is weird.
        I think she is the most taken in of them all, and due to her profound naivete, would never accept her husband`s guilt, even if he were to confess it on the altar of
        St.Peter himself! I give the marriage a few years at the most, not because of any lack of attentiveness on her part, but because Damien`s mental illness is far too much for any woman to contend with. And that`s another thing, I have always
        been astounded at the public`s misunderstanding and outright ignorance of what goes on inside the minds of the mentally ill. Having lived with a schizophrenic for
        the first fifty years of my life, I can tell you that Damien is a textbook case of a man who should be in a high security institution, not out running around where he can harm himself and others.

  2. One more thing. When I saw the “Scratches” from all the animals (wolves, raccoons etc who dive underwater to retrieve bodies?????) they looked exactly like hmmm… Damiens talon long fingernails maybe? You just have to look at the nails before the trial (and in jail) and realize they could cause some major scratching damage.

    Damien also writes to Gloria Shettles while he was in jail that he could just use his long talons to kill himself easily. Hmmm… And that nobody could stop him then because he is in control of his fingernails.

    Look at the scratches on the boys skin. Eerie. I think its more proof Damien was there with his claws. sorry, turtles and underwater raccoons couldnt have done these scratches!

    1. I believe that the animal predation occurred in a manhole. Manholes don’t always have water in them. And, the level of water in a manhole would not prevent land mammals from being there.

      Those scratches didn’t look like fingernails to me. They were too deep, even if the nails were sharpened to points, which they weren’t. They were just long. From time to time, I have had long nails, and I have scratched myself. It didn’t look a thing like those scratches.

      Sorry, the scratches were from animals, land dwelling and water dwelling animals. When the testing on the animal hairs found under the bodies comes back, we will know just what animals. We simply don’t have all the information needed to determine which animals YET.

      1. I believe that the animal predation occurred in a manhole. Manholes don’t always have water in them. And, the level of water in a manhole would not prevent land mammals from being there.

        I don’t think the manhole theory supports the animal predation either. Hard for me to believe that these animals scratched the victims and didn’t do further damage. As for the localized damage on the face and the penis – I cannot believe that the predators would have just stopped at certain parts of the body and just scurried away.

        1. The animals could have been disturbed while they were predating – both in the manhole and in the ditch. The bodies weren’t in the ditch/manhole long enough for there to have been EXTENSIVE predation.

      2. @Compassionate Reader I’m sure you’re familiar with Occam’s razor. Some of the theories put forth by supporters are a bit fanciful. Do you really believe animals caused those wounds? Seems so contrived to me.

        1. C’mon Frank, Occam’s Razor? Yes, I believe in Occam’s Razor. IMO, it is much more likely that predatory animals did what predatory animals do. They attacked three dead bodies. What’s contrived is to believe that a knife which could not be matched to the wounds (despite Foggie’s poor grapefruit) was used, not to stab, but to SCRAPE the victims to death. Talk about contrived.

    2. You do realize that if the boys were scratched with human fingernails, Echols DNA would be embedded in the wounds… right? You just want to believe that they did this. I keep reading “overwhelming evidence” “mountain of evidence” when in fact… the evidence doesn’t tie ANY of them to the scene. This is sad. You are sad.

      1. The real sadness are those little kid’s death, let’s not forget that. Your idols are still alive, those kids are not. The other sadness is the supporters drinking from the same Kool-Aid and throwing their money when the evidence is NOT overwhelming of their innocence. If it really was that cut and dry, don’t you think the Federal Government would have intervened by now in any way? Don’t you think there would be more celebs joining the fray than there really is? If it was that obvious, something would have been done, even a Presidential pardon just to settle the matter, if it was that cut and dry. That a bunch of posers and mainly washed-up celebs are trumpeting for these criminals, does not make them innocent. Think about that.

    3. One more thing. When I saw the “Scratches” from all the animals (wolves, raccoons etc who dive underwater to retrieve bodies?????) they looked exactly like hmmm… Damiens talon long fingernails maybe? You just have to look at the nails before the trial (and in jail) and realize they could cause some major scratching damage.


      So you think the original prosecutor and cops who said it was obviously a knife are dumbasses for thinking it was a knife? Or do you think they were reaching because they happened to find a knife in a pond behind the kids’ house?

      Which is it? Knife or fingernails?

      You don’t have to have particularly long fingernails to leave scratches. You’d have to have Edward Scissorhands to cut off a penis with your nails. I’m not saying this to be crude, but the mutilation went beyond scratches, hence the animal ref by the forensics person.

      1. It was a knife and fingernails. They had to tie them up. They also had to hold them still, so I’m sure there was some scratching involved. Scratches could happen from A LOT of things… not just wild animal claws.

        Where did I say I don’t believe that a knife was used???

  3. I’m a supporter of the WM3, but more levelheaded than most. I just want to ask non-supporters a few questions. Keep in mind I haven’t gone through all of the information on this site (quite a bit of it, but not all), so it is possible I will be ignorant to some information.

    -The physical evidence against the WM3 is no more than it is for Terry Hobbs. The only physical evidence against the WM3 is fiber evidence, that is obviously incredibly unreliable because it could literally be attributed to anyone that the boys had come into contact with. The physical evidence against Terry Hobbs is about the same, meaning hair evidence that could be attributed to several people and that may not have actually been transferred to one of the boys during the crime. So I ask you, keeping all biases and strong beliefs aside, why would you consider the WM3 better suspects than Terry Hobbs. I don’t want to here anything about psychological past, stories that may or may not be truthful, and testimonies given by unreliable sources.

    -Why do you continue to claim that the boys were killed in the woods, when there is no physical evidence to prove so? It was claimed that an area had been washed down, but an officer involved in the case that still works for the WMPD claims that there was nothing of the sort.

    -What is your opinion of the jury tampering in the Echols/Baldwin trial? I don’t want to hear, “Well it should have been used in the first place.” It wasn’t supposed to and if it hadn’t, there is a chance they might not have been convicted. Why? Because there was nothing else linking them to the crime other than testimonies from people who have since claimed that they falsely testified.

    -What do you think of Hobbs’ allibis that have proven to be inconsistent by his good friend David Jacoby?

    Anyway, I don’t want this to turn into a pissing match, I really don’t. I just want you to do what Mark Byers has done and step back and look at the facts (physical evidence, alibies, and the inconsistencies between Jessie’s so-called “confession” and the crime scene. There is just way too much inconsistency to not give the evidence another look.

    I’m not 100% convinced that the WM3 are innocent, I just don’t think there is enough linking them to the crime to take the opinionated and generally factless articles on this website seriously.

    1. Hi Brock. I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can.

      -Arguing the physical evidence I admit is probably my weakness in this debate. However, multiple fibers vs 1 hair? I would give that just a bit more weight. You also didn’t mention the necklace that wasn’t allowed in the previous trial.

      Your last sentence bothers me to be honest. You don’t think psychological past that points that someone could be capable of murder is relevant? Stories I won’t argue. However if by “stories” you mean “testimony that the defense couldn’t refute” I would argue there’s more to weight than you give credit to. And as far as “testimonies given by unreliable sources”…the defense couldn’t poke holes in them. So how unreliable are they really?

      -The claim the boys were killed in the woods is continued because it’s the most likely scenario. As far as the banks being washed down, crime scene photos back this up. The phrase “slicked off bank” is used multiple times. As far as the officer you’re referring to…who? If you have a name and/or a source, I’d be interesting in reading it.

      -The jury tampering issue? Suspect. The reason is, the man that is bringing it up IS a lawyer. He claims his client admitted to this and he didn’t report it during the trial. That would be like a mechanic claiming to not know a car won’t run without gas or a doctor claiming they doesn’t know you should ask a patient’s allergies before prescribing a medication. Had this been reported in 1993, it would hold a lot more weight.

      -Hobbs’s alibi? If you’re referring to Hobbs’s taped alibi, you have to remember it was taken years after the night in question. So I’m not surprised there are inconsistancies.

      Most of us here have looked at the facts, physical evidence, and Jessie’s MULTIPLE confessions. But since you brought up Jessie’s confession I’d like to point something else out. Supporters focus on what Jessie got wrong, but not what he got RIGHT. Specifically which boy had been cut on the face, which had his genitals mutilated, and which hadn’t been cut at all. For a breakdown, read here:

      Hope this helps.

      1. “You don’t think psychological past that points that someone could be capable of murder is relevant?”

        Again, you could say the same thing about Hobbs. Criminal history, accused of molseting a 4 year old child, amonger other things. Being capable of murdering and actually committing a murder are two very different things and using his psychological history is a thin argument when there are several other possible suspects (including family members, who should have been the first individuals investigated) all with violent and criminal pasts.

        “Had this been reported in 1993, it would hold a lot more weight.”

        True, but there’s no denying that an individual with an extreme bias becoming part of the jury and eventually leading the jury is just unacceptable. The crossing out of the confession on the guilty side of the chart and then finding it in the notes of a jury member are a huge red flag.

        “Hobbs’s alibi? If you’re referring to Hobbs’s taped alibi, you have to remember it was taken years after the night in question. So I’m not surprised there are inconsistancies.”

        I’m not sure when the recording of the alibi took place, but claiming to be with people for a significant period of time when they all claim they never saw you is troubling. And if the neighbors can be believed, saying that he never saw Steve that day is also a load of crap. It wouldn’t surprise me if the police never asked them, it was a half-assed investigation.

        “Supporters focus on what Jessie got wrong, but not what he got RIGHT. Specifically which boy had been cut on the face, which had his genitals mutilated, and which hadn’t been cut at all.”

        Yes, but how do we know that this information wasn’t fed to him? In the recorded confession he was fed information, who knows how much was fed to him in the hours of interrogation that came before it?

        1. -No, I can’t say the same thing about Hobbs. Does he have a criminal history? I believe he does. But nothing documented against a child.

          Now, let’s examine the accusation of molesting a 4 year old girl. If I remember right (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) you’re referring to Stevie Branch’s younger sister who’s name escapes me at the moment. Terry was never questioned, never arrested, never convicted and has never been registered as a sex offender. These accusations have come (again correct me if I’m wrong) by those that believe he’s guilty of murdering Chris, Michael, and Stevie…his ex wife. So let’s examine. I only see 1 of 2 possible scenarios.

          1. He didn’t do it and they’re lying. And considering he’s now Pam Hobbs’s ex husband, it’s a possibility.


          2. They’re telling the truth. In which case, they’ve covered up the fact Hobbs was a child molester for years instead of turning the bum in.

          So regardless, I see a major credibility issue.

          -There’s plenty of denying. Again, you’ve got no evidence of such except the statement of a lawyer that either is lying or is a really lousy lawyer. The crossing out of the note is a lot easier to explain than the WM3’s lack of alibis, Jessie’s 4 confessions, Damien’s psych history, both Echols and Miskelley failing polygraphs, ect, ect, ect.

          -I think you might be confused here. The only people who claim Hobbs did see the boys that day only came forward 17 years later. Every other witness interviewed immediately after the murders backs up Hobbs alibi.

          -Fed to him? Between the interview notes, testimony, and the fact Jessie’s lawyers have never claimed he was cohersed I honestly don’t see where this theory holds any water either.

          1. “They’re telling the truth. In which case, they’ve covered up the fact Hobbs was a child molester for years instead of turning the bum in.”

            This guy was clearly an intimidating force (shooting a guy in an argument), so I find it to be a bit offensive to suggest that it was just as easy as “turning the bum in”. There are reasons why many instances of sexual abuse go unreported for years. And I’m not even sure this was unreported, he was just never convicted for it.

            “There’s plenty of denying. Again, you’ve got no evidence of such except the statement of a lawyer that either is lying or is a really lousy lawyer. ”

            Why would it be a “lousy lawyer”? I prefer that lawyers would tell the truth. Clearly someone was tampering. Why else would the jury have listened to the confession tape?

            “The crossing out of the note is a lot easier to explain than the WM3?s lack of alibis, Jessie’s 4 confessions, Damien’s psych history, both Echols and Miskelley failing polygraphs, ect, ect, ect.”

            Their alibis are no better or worse than that of Terry Hobbs. As for the confessions, the first one clearly shows the investigator feeding information to him, and there is so much information we didn’t hear from that interrogation that it makes it difficult to take seriously. The one that does trouble me is the confession to Stidham, but even that one is full of inconsistencies. There was a club house that the boys built… oh wait, I was just imagining that because of some other club house I have seen in my life. In the first confession he says they all got in the water, then in this confession he starts off saying none of them got in the water and then says just Damien got in the water. The details are just all over the place and few of them make any logical sense. He got so wasted that he could barely hit, yet he could chase Michael Moore down and then go to a wrestling match? WTF? He also had unauthorized conversations with the prosecution, so who knows what kinds of crap they fed him.

            “I think you might be confused here. The only people who claim Hobbs did see the boys that day only came forward 17 years later. Every other witness interviewed immediately after the murders backs up Hobbs alibi.”

            David Jacoby’s claims do NOT support Terry Hobbs’ alibi. He also claims he was with JMB and some others at one point, which never happened.

          2. -Fed to him? Between the interview notes, testimony, and the fact Jessie’s lawyers have never claimed he was cohersed I honestly don’t see where this theory holds any water either.


            Because they would be disbarred? I dunno…sounds like a good reason not to admit to that. Lawyers do a lot of things they shouldn’t do. It’s shameful. They will ask friends to contact witnesses (big no-no). Public defenders will forget to show up at court or lie about what a plea means just so they don’t have to go to trial…

            I really wonder about how some of these yoyos passed the bar exam.

        2. What you dont talk about is why Jessie would make a confession which when his attorney is begging him not to! That in itself is very confronting, you cant argue false confession for the bible confession! So what would he do that, how many confessions can a person make? Especially with a lawyer present! As for supporters, a lot of us feel burned by the Alford Plea? Why not wait for exoneration and then sue for punitive damages?

          1. They couldn’t wait for exoneration because by the time they got the hearing, Echols would have been executed. Do you read?

          2. Be serious. The execution was stayed pending the outcome of the hearing. He most certainly was NOT going to be executed within the next four months.

          3. Cupcake I do agree that Damien wasn’t going to be executed waiting on the hearing. That wouldn’t have been done. It’s silly to even think something like that. In the entire time he was in prison he wasn’t executed, so he surely wasn’t going to be then.

          4. What ………they were going to get a new trial and Echols would have been off of death roe.

          5. My guess is that the cops told Jesse that he would get gassed if he didn’t help out. He had some things wrong, some things right and managed to give a confession that left himself out of any killing that took place.

            His confession is what sunk it for me.

            Let’s say for a moment that Damien is a satanist cultist and so is Baldwin and Jesse is the type that cares about what is said when his hand is on a Bible (ie, good Christian boy). I don’t care how drunk you are if you are God fearing enough to tell the truth because your hand is on a Bible you’re probably wigged out by the sex acts being performed by Damien on a little boy enough to call him a homophobic slur (this is the 90’s) at the very least and stop him (best case scenario). You’d also try to stop the murders–especially if you barely knew these dudes as he purported.

            If a Bible’s gonna make you tell the truth then your beliefs would have made you attempt to stop the murder.

            Its hogwash. Sorry. You want to believe it, so you believe it. I see the old “I swear to God” and “I’ll swear on a stack of Bibles” every day.

            Jesse didn’t want to die. The police probably told him they would fry his ass if he didn’t help. Yes, this happens.

          6. He made the confessions after he was sentence. His lawyers begged him not to. They kept telling him he would get a retrial

      2. @Brock Landers By now maybe you’ve read about the Luminol tests, should be a link on the left. A Luminol test was performed in the woods and it showed areas with blood at the crime scene. A supporter tried to argue with me once that perhaps an animal had killed prey there recently. Seriously. Luminol testing was new at the time and not allowed in Arkansas court.

        1. Luminol testing wasn’t allowed because Luminol is not blood specific. There are several other things that will react to Luminol, like urine or rust, for instance. And, the reactions to Luminol, except in one area along the trail from a manhole to the discovery ditch (where a weary killer could have temporarily laid down the bodies to rest briefly), were areas where the WMPD laid the bodies after recovery. There WERE some smaller spots, too, but they were determined to be created by the police tramping around in the crime scene and picking up blood on their shoes. For Luminol testing to be efficacious, the areas that react to Luminol should be retested with a blood specific agent. This was never done. So, really, we don’t know WHAT the substance was. It could have been blood, or it could have been urine, either from an animal or a transient in the area.

      3. The reason you can’t focus on what Jessie got right in his confession is because nobody knows what the police told him in the 11+ hours before the tape recorder started. He has stated that they told him everything. He had ALL the information necessary to make the confession. They told him what to say, then they hit record. He still got times and stuff wrong.

        At the time of the confession, the police still believed the boys had been raped. Curious that his confession says Damien was “screwing them and stuff.” Later it was shown that the boys were not raped. But the police had told him they were, so when he confessed, he just said what they told him happened.

        And the necklace? Have you even read the facts? The police have photos of both Jason and Damien wearing the same necklace. Teenage boys. Shaving. That’s why it wasn’t used in court, because it wasn’t evidence of anything.

        I get that some of you just wanna believe this. But there is NO evidence that they did it other than an obviously coerced statement. Do you really think that ONLY YOU have read the true MOUNTAIN of evidence, and some of the most respected FBI profilers in history have donated their free time to study the evidence, and are convinced of their innocence? But hey… you know what happened!!! Good for you. They are free…

        1. Wow. Here we have someone who believes 11 hours passed before the tape recorder started. That lie has been debunked for over a decade now. You might want to read callahan’s instead of Also you might want to consider his multiple post-conviction confessions, including to his own attorney.

          Please link the photo of Jason wearing that necklace. Oh that’s right. It doesn’t actually exist.

          It’s ironic that you say “I get that some of you wanna believe this” ….

          1. I’ve seen people confess to things they didn’t do for the same reason healthy people take their own lives, just to make it all stop.

            They say 11, the cops say 4-6…anything over 2 is excessive.

          2. @Rin Yes, but a forced confession three times? A confession to his lawyer who begged him to stop? Confessions to friends in and out of prison? Don’t buy they’re all false.

        2. Why don`t you listen to Jessie`s confession again if your so convinced he was coerced.
          You can`t hear even a modicum of stress, anger, or defiance, in that boy`s voice, let
          alone resentment or hatred at having been forced into admitting to something he
          supposedly didn`t do.

    2. You hit the nail on the head, you are NOT convinced 100% they are innocent, yet you call yourself a supporter. Most on here are not yelling and screaming for these three people’s heads. Me, personally, I am just saying that a lack of evidence does not mean they are innocent and I refuse to laud these three and pay for them to go to Hollywood etc when I didn’t know for sure. had an agenda, to get these three out of prison because they believed they were wrongly accused because of people’s perception of them, not the facts. The fact that there was NO forensic evidence, is what they have used to get them off, not that they were innocent, because, really, they cannot say that, only those three, at this point in time, know the truth, and you know what? They don’t want to be in prison anymore, so the truth may just die with them.

      And it bugs me that most of the supporters are just kids who don’t know the case other than the PL movies or what their friends are saying. To ME, ME personally, I FEEL they are guilty, but I am not going to go out and hunt them down and make them pay, just like his supporters should not carry them on their shoulders in parades, because we REALLY DO NOT KNOW, right? Do you know? You said you didn’t, so why support them? Now that they are out, why is still have a donate button? Why all these books and movie deals? This is strange, very strange.

      If I were you, you would be better off neutral than pro or con. You will sleep better at night.

  4. As was mentioned above, 15 years, 3 documentaries, still not a single mention of Jesse’s multiple confessions. If you take these films at face value, it paints a picture that Jesse confessed one time, under pressure, and that was it. Yet we all know here that he continued spilling his guts, on tape, hand on the bible, several times after the initial confession. Can any supporter here please defend Berlinger and Sinofsky’s decision to exclude these enormous facts? Love how they show Baldwin’s attorney (Ford) saying how you could watch Jason during the trial and just know he was innocent, as if to say, well, O.J. Wasn’t running around judge Ito’s court slashing throats, so obviously he was innocent. How can an attorney make such a foolish statement?

    Another low point for me in PL3, the celeb/supporter cash appointed team of forensic pathologists, lawyers, FBI profilers (seriously, there are so many you struggle to keep track of who the fuck is who) stating the beloved animal predation theory, even though no animal tracks were photographed at the scene. You would think something would have left a track if they were attacking the victims under the water causing those horrible wounds. Perhaps the turtles and dogs have a team of cleaners that mop up after their attacks.

    Terry Hobbs scenes in the film are edited so heavily you can’t help but feel sorry for the poor bastard, hearing the Dixie Chicks lawyers corner him and twist his words is pretty difficult to watch.

    They also have a portion about Pam, and how she believes Terry could have killed the boys, convienently leaving out the fact she recently stated she just doesn’t believe there is any way he could have done it.

    All in all, just a really depressing portrait about what can happen when careless film makers put out trash (PL1) celebs with no attachment to reality looking for a cause (Depp, Maines, Rollins, Veder etc. etc. ad nauseum) see it, shoot their mouths off, hundreds of thousands of sheep fall in step , a lunatic woman falls in love with a convicted child murderer, and of course one of the most important factors, millions of dollars are made off three dead boys. What a tragic and horrific end to this story, I wonder if these three pieces of trash lay awake at night, staring at the ceiling and think,
    “how the fuck did we get away with this?” my personal opinion is Berlinger and Sinofsky shoulder the majority of the blame for this abortion of justice. But lets not forget, that idiot Peter Jackson has his “documentary” about this case coming out soon, his chance to suck the cash teet a little bit I guess, maybe recoup some of the ten million he poured into Echols defense. I don’t know if there is a heaven, but if there is, I really hope Chris, Mike, and Steve are ignoring this disgusting circus.

    1. Jessie made two statements to the police on 6/3/1993. He made the second statement because the first statement was so error-filled that a judge would not issue arrest warrants. Let me rephrase that slightly. The second statement was elicited from him by leading questions, etc. so that the WMPD could arrest their prime target, Damien Echols, whose only crime was in being different. All of Jessie’s other statements were post conviction so any additional facts he got right can be attributed to having heard the prosecution’s case during his trial. None of the convictions were based on his post conviction statements, so why should they be discussed in the films? It doesn’t prove anything because all of Jessie’s statements are error-filled. The important thing is that he was questioned without an attorney or even a parent present and he was in custody for about twelve hours before being arrested. I can defend the decision of Bruce and Joe by the irrelevance of the post conviction statements. That is why they weren’t mentioned.

      The number of respected certified forensic pathologists who all reached the same conclusion – that the injuries attributed to a knife were, in fact, postmortem animal predation – is the point. If only one pathologist had reached that conclusion, the prosecution would counter that their pathologist reached a different conclusion. With SO MANY pathologists, all respected in their fields (unlike Peretti and Sturner), reaching a different conclusion from the one presented at trial, you should have the establishment of reasonable doubt as to how the wounds occurred. The reason that no animal tracks were found at the ditch is because the predation by land animals occurred in a manhole. If any predation occurred in the ditch, it was by turtles or other water dwellers who wouldn’t leave tracks.

      The Dixie Chicks’ attorneys were good attorneys. It was their job to make Terry Hobbs look bad. They didn’t have a very hard job, however, because Hobbs did it all on his own. If you watch the entire Pasdar deposition and see the total disrespect Hobbs showed for the female attorney, you will see that the clips shown are of some of Hobbs’ BETTER moments. The fact is that Terry Hobbs has several glaring holes in his alibi for May 5, 1993 into May 6, 1993. If he hadn’t been stupid enough to have brought this lawsuit, these discrepancies might never have come to light. We might not have ever learned of his mtDNA or that of Jacoby or any of the other things (Mildred French, Hobbs’ suspicious behavior after the murders, the shooting of Jackie, Jr. and much more) that we know. It’s a pretty damning list.

      Pam is still struggling with a lot of things. One thing has not changed, however. She no longer believes that the WMFree are responsible for her son’s death. Although she may find it hard to face the fact that she lived with her son’s murderer for some years after the crime, she is astute enough to realize that three innocent men were imprisoned for the crime.

      I agree that the ending is horrific. Three innocent men had to plead guilty (under Alford) while maintaining their innocence in order to get out of prison where they should never have been anyway! If they lay awake at night, it’s from remembering the horrors of prison, not asking the question you posed. They are innocent, and one day it will be made abundantly clear.

      1. @Compassionate Reader Don’t think Jessie was led on when he made his other statements. Could you point out parts of his second confession you believe were forced? I also think that Jessie will confess one more time. Maybe on his deathbed when we’re all dead and gone ourselves. No will remember the WM3 then. Also wanted thank you. Most supporters are really uncivil and resort to name calling. You’ve really been level-headed.

        1. I don’t think Jessie was “led” in the 2/17/94 statement. I think he was “rehearsed’ beforehand. I don’t have any proof except Stidham’s statements in an interview with Paragould Press after the release, IIRC, where he discusses how the prosecutors hounded Jessie right after his conviction.

          I think the only deathbed confession in this case will come from Terry Hobbs – if the police refuse to investigate him. He had a fundamentalist Pentecostal preacher for a father so, I think that training will “kick in” in the end. Of course, I’m hopeful that he’ll confess when the rest of the evidence is made public. However, sociopaths seldom do.

          As I’ve said before, people here are civil. Thank you. However, I really haven’t seen too many supporters becoming uncivil. But, I don’t post on many non boards!

          1. I know you post on WM3 related boards, but if you knew about some Facebook boards, you’d take that back. There are supporters on Facebook pages that are taking nons pics, creating fake accounts with their names, and posting non’s pics and reposting them on their own pages calling them fat, ugly, liars, cunts, and also admitting to calling their employers. I’m not saying you are in any way related to those people but they are showing to any level headed person that they are nothing more than groupies and cultists.

          2. What do you think Hobbs’ motive was? Do you really think he’s a child molester? Why would he kill all three? Why would his friend Jacoby help him?

            From what I’ve read, the time period in which he could have killed the boys is very small. He had to pick up his wife later that evening and he was watching he baby daughter.

            Two of the boys drowned. Do you believe he drowned them in his home then took the bodies to the woods? How did he get the bodies to the wood without anyone noticing?

          3. @Val
            If that is going on, it is despicable. However, the actions of supporters, no matter how heinous, have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the WMFree. Just as Damien “acted out” during the trial, this sounds like some people (my guess is teenagers) “acting out” on the Internet.

            It is my theory (supported in chief by the Manhole Theory) that it was discipline gone wrong. Then, once Stevie was dead, he had to kill the witnesses. Here’s a possible scenario:

            Terry comes back from taking Pam to work and finds Stevie and his friends at home with Stevie eating supper – well, eating green beans. Stevie begs Terry to let him go back to playing with Michael and Chris. Terry agrees (he wants to go over to David Jacoby’s and “play guitars” – IMO a euphemism for doing drugs of some sort) and Stevie leaves with the other two. Jacoby saw them from his door when he let Terry back in.

            Jacoby’s statement says that Terry was at his house from 5:15 or 5:30 until about 6:15 or 6:30. He had Amanda with him. He leaves with Amanda at about 6:15 or 6:30 to go see if Stevie had gotten home. This is when the neighbors see the boys playing in the yard and hear Terry yelling at them to come back.

            So far, this is from the Manhole Theory. Here’s where I go a little off the reservation. Pam mentioned that, when Stevie got home from school that day, he kept saying, “I love you, Mom” a lot. It is my theory that something happened between Stevie and Terry on May 4th that was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Stevie.

            According to statements from two of Pam’s sisters, Terry had been punishing Stevie for soiling his pants by making him play “dead cockroach” where he had to lay on his back with his arms and legs in the air for inordinate amounts of time. (These women, and Pam’s mother, testified to other things as well, but they aren’t germane to this situation,) It is my contention that, for whatever reason, Stevie had had enough of Terry. He had previously begged his mother to leave Terry according to her family. So, he goes to school and plans to run away, soliciting the aid of his two friends, Chris and Michael.

            That afternoon, all three boys end up at the Hobbs house after school. Pam was busy getting supper and didn’t notice, but Stevie was packing a backpack. The plan, as any eight-year-old boy will tell you, was to stay in the “secret hideout” (a manhole because they were all three “into” Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles who live in Manhattan’s sewers). I think Stevie gave either Michael or Chris (maybe both) his grandparents’ phone number and told them to call his grandparents and tell them where he was so they could come and get him. I think that his reasoning was that, by doing this, Pam would see that he was serious about wanting her to leave Terry and his grandparents would help him convince her.

            So, they put the plan into action. Stevie and Michael packed while Chris was watching Muppet Babies with Amanda (and keeping an eye on Pam to make sure she didn’t see the other two packing). Stevie asked Pam if he could go ride bikes with Michael (Chris doesn’t have a bike) and the two of them left to go to the manhole to put the supplies there. Stevie was supposed to be back at 4:30. Muppet Babies was over at 4:00, so Chris left and went to join them.

            Stevie had no intention of returning. However, he soiled his pants and had to go home to change. While he was doing this, Terry returns from Jacoby’s and sees the boys. They run from him because they don’t want him to know what’s going on.

            It’s possible that, when Chris left after the Muppet Babies, he wasn’t going to the manhole He was at home at about 5:30. That’s when Mark had disciplined him for riding his skateboard down the middle of the street on his stomach. Chris could have decided to run away, too, and, when Melissa’s back was turned, he left to join the other boys at the manhole. So, the three were all together when the neighbors saw them.

            After the boys ran from him, Terry, who was angered by the disrespect, went back to Jacoby’s to drop off Amanda so he could go get the boys. All the parents knew about the TMNT thing, and I believe Terry knew which manhole was the hideout, but that’s not critical to the situation. Jacoby insisted on helping Terry “look” for Stevie, so they drove around for a while. Finally, Terry took Jacoby home, saying he was going to look in a couple more places.

            By now, it’s about 7 pm. Terry goes to the manhole where he suspects the boys are playing. He either calls Stevie to come out or he goes down into the manhole. I suspect he calls Stevie out. Stevie is hesitant, but Terry (probably high on meth) sounded so angry or maybe was brandishing a gun to frighten them, that Stevie came up.

            Terry hits him in the face and knocks him back down into the manhole. Chris and Michael are too stunned to run or yell for a moment. Then, they begin to exit the manhole to run for help. Of course, Terry can’t allow this so he knocks them back down the manhole, too. He may have placed a weight on the manhole cover to preclude their running away. He may not have done that believing them to be dead.

            He left them in the manhole, dead or dying, and went to tell Jacoby that he couldn’t find Stevie. Jacoby goes again with Terry to look for Stevie. They drive around the same area. Then, Terry takes Jacoby back home to get flashlights. Jacoby thought that Terry would come back for him, but he didn’t. Now it’s about 7:45 and the other parents are beginning to worry about their boys. Terry joins the search, carefully being sure that he is the only one to search in the area of the manhole. He also manages to avoid the police as no MPR was filed until later.

            At one point, when Ryan (Chris’ brother) and his friend got too close, Terry frightened them away by throwing rocks into the bayou or maybe even by firing the gun into the air. Finally, he has to go get Pam. He picks her up late (about 9:15 or 9:20) and goes in to call the police. He had never told her that Stevie was still missing from 5 pm until he picked her up at 9:15 or so and he had never told the police either.

            The police arrive to take the missing person report on Stevie having already taken reports on the other two boys. Terry hears Pam describe Stevie as wearing jeans. He knows that Stevie had on red shorts, having changed pants earlier unbeknownst to Terry.

            Now, he has a problem. He gets a pair of Stevie’s jeans and goes back to the manhole planning to dress Stevie in the jeans. He discovers that it’s very hard to dress a dead body. So, he strips all the bodies, not wanting Stevie to stand out. He knows that he can’t allow the bodies to be found nude in the manhole. So, he hog ties them in preparation for moving them. He submerges the bikes in the nearby drainage ditch and hurries back to the search thinking that he hadn’t been missed. He had.

            He realizes that there is a lot of evidence in that manhole which is why he knows that he has to move the bodies. He waits until he is sure that everyone else is home asleep and then he moves the bodies about 200 feet from the manhole to the discovery ditch.

            He caries two bodies on one trip. laying them briefly beside the trail which creates the blood stains away from the discovery ditch He places the bodies of Chris and Stevie in the discovery ditch and returns to get Michael and the clothes. (This is why Michael’s body was a short distance away from the other two.) After everything from the manhole is in the ditch, he goes home and tries to continue acting normally until the bodies are found the next day.

          4. @Compassionate Reader Thanks for the scenario. Again, it seems fantastical. So he killed them all because Stevie pooed his pants?

            I guess the manhole theory has been circulating around a while… right? That manhole must have been what Jessie was talking about when he said the kids were meeting at a fort or something in the woods. Forget which confession it was.

            Again, thanks for writing about what you think happened, but it does seem like a stretch. I’ll reread though.

          5. @Frank
            Not because he messed his pants but because he disobeyed. When Hobbs called to the boys, they ran. That angered him, and he wanted to teach Stevie a lesson. It got out of hand.

            There is also a tree house/fort in the story. Aaron Hutcheson mentioned it and even took the police to it. It had been torn down. The boards are currently being tested IIRC. I believe that tree house is the “fort” to which Jessie referred. From what I understand, it was more like a deer blind.

          6. lol sorry but that is just crazy. Terry Hobbs never beat that child before no signs of abuse on him. Then beats him because he disobeyed him? What about the wittness that saw the 3 kids at 6:45 near the park . They didnt see a truck ! Terry jogged there ? Dont want to read the facts blick breaks it down for you. Oh by the way fiber is used all the time to solve crimes. Not all crimes has DNA


            Also I would like to add that christopher was at the Hobbs house a few hours with Pam before she went to work waiting for the other boys.

          7. @CR Well, it still seems implausible. I can’t believe Hobbs could get so mad that he would kill all three children. But you’re allowed to have your theory.

            I still think the simplest explanation makes the most sense. The three teens were in the woods (none of them have proven where they were that evening). The three boys stumbled upon them. At first they only messed around with them. One thing led to another, and they wound up murdering all three.

            Oh, and is there any evidence Hobbs was physically abusive to Stevie?

          8. Frank
            Hobbs hair on the shoe lace was secondary transfer. Christopher was at the Hobbs with Pam a few hours before the murder. And the shoe lace funny how Jason had only one new shoe lace on his boots. If you look at Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold you would never have believed they would have done the killings either .

          9. @CR Well, it still seems implausible. I can’t believe Hobbs could get so mad that he would kill all three children. But you’re allowed to have your theory.

            I still think the simplest explanation makes the most sense. The three teens were in the woods (none of them have proven where they were that evening). The three boys stumbled upon them. At first they only messed around with them. One thing led to another, and they wound up murdering all three.


            Let me preface this with saying I think CR is stretching, but so did the WM3 prosecutors.

            How is “yours” a simpler scenario? It involves satanic cults, ritual killing, alcohol yet with enough presence of mind to clean a murder scene but not stop it form happening…

            Here’s simple (and it doesn’t require a satanic cult): a single dude with a predilection for hurting children abused them, killed them, and dumped them. He is someone they knew and weren’t afraid of, he knew their habits, tried to molest them, and then had to kill them because he was afraid one of them would talk.

          10. It was a trill kill for WM3. Echols wanted to make a name for himself and he did.There is so much in this case that people are missing . You know the knife that Echols had but lost it in the move .

            DENNIS: I remember him talking about, oh, the boys were talking to him, Matthew had been talking about a, some kind of knife that his dad had given him or his dad, Larry, had given him a knife. Some kind of survival knife.

            RIDGE: Okay, describe it

            FOGLEMAN: What did you say about the handle? What did you tell us about the handle.

            DENNIS: I was just saying it being a survival knife, I think I had seen one laying around the house at one time, that had a little old compass on it. A little old thing, where you stick your survival matches into.

            FOGLEMAN: How did you get into the part where you put your matches?

            DENNIS: You would screw it off, you screwed it.

            RIDGE: How long would that knife had been? About how long was it?

            FOGLEMAN: Just estimate

            DENNIS: I don’t know. I ain’t gone say or not. I remember seeing a knife. I don’t ever remember ever seeing one there. I’m telling

            FOGLEMAN: I thought you just said, you saw one around the house?

          11. @Rin So, you’re saying it was one person that killed the three boys. Can you explain how this killer could corral all three?

      2. Hey Compassionate Reader! What animal bites its prey, then stabs the
        center of the bite mark with a knife twice to make an X ? An X is a sign
        used universally, either by people who can`t write or anyone who wants
        to let people know they were there but at the same time remain anonymous.
        X is also used in the occult, because the sound mimics the word ‘hex’.

    2. Very well said. Who speaks for the three kids now? Their deaths have totally been disrespected, while Echols goes to New Zealand and Jason enjoys the sights of Hollywood. In the begining, this was about a group of Wiccans, Free WM3, who were pissed because these three were “persecuted” for their perceived Wiccan beliefs, and whenWM3 started to make money off this, they ran with the ball. So now that they are free, why do they still have a donate button on their website? Are these three registered sex offenders? If not, why?

      1. @ Val, that is bullshit, the nons have been behaving just as badly reporting nonsense posts and started the whole facebook war! Lets not forget the disgusting comments you made to Jason’s mother/ comments you makes about Lorri Echols/ truthers attacking and humiliating Jessie’s partner and of course, putting up photographs and laughing about how fat Jessie and Susie are, discussing Amanda H record, uploading her photograph, so lets not pretend its one sided, it started on the truth page and there were retaliations but it was a 24 hour thing/ it stopped and your mob are still going! BTW how many times have y’all pack attacked a person who asked questions! Then named and shamed then, you give as good as you get – so lets not b/s each other! Some of the supporters hve been stock piling copies of posts made by NONS for years Its hardly appropriate for Mr. Moore to be calling ppl cunts / begging for money from non support groups and I cant be bothered listing all the eg, its too petty.

  5. One more thing that was hypocritical.

    The filmmakers talk to Jesse while he is in jail cell. Jesse is perfectly coherent, and seems to know what he is talking about. (Probably remembered everything his lawyers told him to say) He almost sounds halfway intelligent, and no different that anyone else. Immediately after he talks, a loud voice comes on –

    Jesse is mentally retarded.
    HUH? I could see if he had just said something stupid, or off the wall. But saying he is retarded after he seemingly said what he “was supposed to say” they still have the gall to him “retarded”.

    1. The voice said, “Jessie is mildly retarded” IIRC. Jessie IS borderline mentally retarded according to his IQ, 72.

      Just look at how he struggles to make the simple statement at the August 19, 2011, hearing. In the interview that is discussed, to me he seems slow. In that interview, however, he is telling the truth which makes him slightly more comfortable than when he is lying during his statements.

      1. Ok I only watched them take the August plea one time so correct me if I’m wrong.

        It seemed to me that Jessie was having a hard time saying the sentence about being innocent. I don’t remember where, but I distinctly remember a pause.

        But, of course, that’s cause he’s too retarded to read a simple sentence. Yet he’s smart enough to have absorbed obscure details from his trial in order to make his post conviction confessions.


        1. Personally, I think Jessie lost his place in the printed script in August. BTW, that wasn’t the first time he professed his innocence. One interview where he did so was in “Purgatory” IIRC. The point I was making there is that he had to read from a script. IIRC, although Damien appeared to read his statement, it appeared to me that he didn’t really have to read it, he chose to read it. Jason, however, spoke off the cuff. He may have memorized it, but it came off totally sincere. That doesn’t mean that the others weren’t sincere. I was just very impressed with Jason’s.

          I’m not sure that all those details from his trial were absorbed sufficiently to regurgitate in the post conviction statement. I believe he had help, like the help that Stidham constantly gave him in the “Bible” statement. According to Stidham, the prosecutors “interviewed” Jessie several times post conviction, even after Stidham specifically requested that the prosecutors stay away. So, anything he didn’t remember, I’m sure that the prosecutors were willing and able to drill it into his head.

          1. Jessie also says he was interviewed for 12 hours and then he repeated what the po-leece wanted him to say. Jessie specifically says 12 hours. We know that’s not true. So why should anyone believe the rest of that statement?

          2. Jessie was in custody for about 12 hours before his actual arrest (despite what the arrest report says – the time it states is when the recording began). To him, it was the same thing as being interrogated.

      2. If you watch PL1, you can see Jesse reading a birthday card. He sure as hell doesn’t READ like a 5 yr old. He actually gets all the words right! Miracle!

        But when he reads his “Guilty” plea he suddenly can’t read again (retarded, “mild”) because he paused or stumbled over a word.

        Another “Give me a break”

        1. Stacia,

          The reason he could read the birthday card so well is because he had read it so many times , he practically memorized it. If you watch that scene again, you’ll notice how he proudly displays it and treasures it. It’s one of a very few links to his home and family. And there’s nothing to do in prison so I’ll bet he read that card at least 100 times.

      3. 72 is his lowest score ever. The test was administered by a tester hired by the defense. The tester testified at trial that Jessie appeared to be trying to fail.

        Prior to that, Jessie scored an 88. Upon his release, he got married to someone else who is not retarded. He also enrolled in college.

        What seems to be happening here?

        1. What seems to be happening here? You’re counting all the angels dancing on the head of a pin and deferring to experts that match what you already believe. This is the human condition.

          1. @Rin Well, DogIsYourName is right about the IQ test. Misskelley had scored as high as 88 on parts of a test he had taken prior to the murders. And there’s evidence he may have deliberately answered questions wrong to lower his score on the test conducted by the defense.

            Agree. Don’t think that he’s married to someone who’s not retarded, or that he’s going to college means much.

            Never heard that expression “angels dancing on the head of a pin.” What does that mean?

  6. I agree that they should have included the subsequent confessions, but even those are hard to take completely seriously. They are inconsistent with his other confessions and he mentions things that couldn’t possibly have happened.

    Again, I’m looking for a non-emotionally charged argument that will convince me that they did it. No jury in their right mind would ever convict these again guys today. Maybe they did it, but there is nothing definitive to indicate that they did.

  7. Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that Terry Hobbs shot Pam’s brother after Terry struck Pam in the face. I’m not using this as an argument, but simply pointing out that it is the same as using Damien’s psychological history as an argument.

  8. Stacia, your post shows just how desperate nons are. Nons fight to the death about the animal predation and claw marks/scratches on the bodies as not even being possible, and swear up and down that Perrettis original report was right and the marks were caused by a serrated knife. Now you say that IF they are claw marks, then they MUST be from Damien’s “talon like finger nails”….. give me a break.

    If you look at the photos of the wounds, its evident just how small and close together those marks are. If those marks were done by a human with sharp nails, they marks would of been much larger, wider, and further apart.

    It would be like if a cat scratched clawed someone and left 4 scratches on them, and that person trying to say this tiny, close together scratch mark was caused by someone wearing a Freddy Glove.

  9. And everyone bitching about the Hobbs deposition footage. I didnt see anything wrong with what they showed and how they showed it. Its not like its hearsay or anything. Its Terry Hobbs speaking UNDER OATH.

    I have seen all 10 hours of the deposition, and trust me……theres a lot worse stuff they could of used if they wanted to. Like Hobbs telling them initially that he never shot anyone, then saying someone was shot, but he didnt shoot them. Then saying that “a bullet was fired from a gun, and that bullet hit someone, but I didnt fire the gun”. Then admitting he shot him and laughing about it.

    Or Hobbs testifying under oath that the only drugs hes ever taken in his life was prescription drugs prescribed by his doctor. Only to later say “Ok. So I smoked some weed a few times. Big deal”. Then swearing under oath that weed and pills were the only drugs hes ever taken. Only to later say “Ok so I tried some cocaine and crystal meth before too.”

    So much more stuff too…..the numerous times he changed his story about what happened that day. The allegations of sexual abuse against his daughter. The hospital report that showed that Amanda was examined at age 4 (because they suspected Hobbs was abusing her) and the doctors found that she had penetrated vaginally and anally.

    So much stuff they could of used. The stuff they used was actually pretty tame and simple it thought.

  10. Nathan, just looked at the animal “claw marks” on the bodies again. I scratched myself and it seems absolutely possible to me. How do you know how far apart his fingers were?
    If you try it on youself, or on a piece of fruit (with your fingers close together) it looks exactly like those “dog” “raccoon” scratches. I really doubt the expert knew about Damien’s sharpened to a point, long fingernails.
    I tried it on myself. It is very possible. It is also very possible his fingers were that close together if he held him down or even when he picked them up to throw him in the water.

  11. As far as the fingernails being “wider” . Did you see Damien’s nails when they are sharpened to points? Why would pointed fingernails make a wide fingernail mark?

  12. Uh oh Stacia….you self mutilated your self. You must be capable of a murder!

    I love how this site and the corrisponding FB page claims that supporter questions and comments are welcome and “everyone” can feel safe and be open here. Yet I was quickly banned from posting on the FB page after raising a few simple questions…..hmmm….

  13. Love that they dig up every bit of JMB and Hobb’s past. But supporters better not investigate Damien’s past because that might go against how Damien was just “experimenting” in goth and liked Metallica.

    Can’t say anything bad about Damien. He is a poor, troubled soul who thought he was a God and had to decide when he would show himself as the “third coming of a God” Him and the spirit living inside him (rosey) had a lot of trouble deciding if it should be Halloween, or as he contemplates, “Maybe before Halloween, just haven’t decided yet” “Better eat my koolaid packets”

    And this is all AFTER the murders. Supporters say these were the writings of a very intelligent and depressed man. Just beautiful!

    1. The big difference, at least to me, is that Damien’s “past” was as a teenager. Teenagers are prone to saying some pretty outlandish things. That’s one reason juvenile records are sealed and expunged upon reaching majority. What you quoted was sarcasm for the most part, BTW. Can’t you recognize it?

      The events mentioned about both JMB and Terry Hobbs were things that they did as adults. IMO, that is a very big difference. I’ve never seen either Hobbs’ or JMB’s juvenile records discussed.

  14. I am not gonna say I am an expert on raccoons/wild dogs, but why would they start to claw the boys while they were underwater and then just walk away after 1 feeble attempt? Can’t imagine why a ravenous animal would just do a scratch, then walk away. Why don’t they drag the boys out with their mouth and proceed to do what ravenous wild dogs would do? Why would a snapping turtle solely go for the most private part of one little boy, then decide he’s full after JUST the penis and testicles are eaten away? Give me a break.

    1. It’s possible that the land animals were disturbed by the killer returning to move the bodies from the manhole to the discovery ditch. That would explain why the predation wasn’t more vicious. As to snapping turtles, there’s a story somewhere on the Internet of a man who lost his penis to a snapping turtle while he was skinny dipping. Maybe the penis is interesting because it is relatively small and dangling.

  15. I promise I’m done. I’m not nearly as experienced at debating as the others on this site.
    I do agree if they re-tried this case the possibility of being found not guilty is a lot stronger today then in 93. Juries today tend to ignore circumstantial evidence, and want the hard facts.


  16. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with circumstantial evidence (see Atlanta Child Murders), but it needs to be a lot more solid than it was for this case.

    1. @Brock Landers I agree too, especially in light of what happened with Casey Anthony. We’ve all watched way too much CSI.

      Also, Misskelley later said he lied about some of the details of the murders as part of a ruse to throw investigators off. He wanted to downplay his involvement. Can’t remember which confession, but he’ll say something like “and then I left,” only to go on an explain what happened next with the murders. He also knew things that had not been made public.

  17. I’m sorry, but this:

    The second statement was elicited from him by leading questions, etc. so that the WMPD could arrest their prime target, Damien Echols, whose only crime was in being different.

    has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen on any WM3 related page ever. His only crime was being different. ROTFLMFAO. This takes the cake.

    History has been rewritten here.

    Damien was the only kid in West Memphis is 1993 who liked heavy metal and the goth scene, I guess.

    Being different. So that’s what they call majorly mentally ill people who torture animals, start fires, threaten murder, hear voices, believe the spirit of a murdered woman lives inside them, chases a child with an ax, gets institutionalize three times by his own family who is scared shitless he’s going to hurt someone, wears a necklace made out of dog intestines, professes a desire to sacrifice his first child, threatens to kill his father, attempts to claw the eyes out of a classmate with his sharp talons, eats kool aid packets so he can become God, suck the blood out of a stranger’s wound, and revels in the notoriety of being convicted of child murder because he’ll live on as the bogeyman.

    No need to worry if you know a kid like that, everyone. He’s just “different.”

    1. Damien wasn’t the only kid in West Memphis who liked heavy metal or who wore black. According to the testimony of Joseph Samuel Dwyer in the Rule 37 abstracts, the WMPD had been following ALL of the kids who wore black and making them very nervous. What made Damien stand out was his arrogant attitude along with the black clothes, long hair and heavy metal music. You realize, don’t you, that Jerry Driver had been trying for over a year to “get” Damien? Driver had a fixation on Satanism and was convinced (probably because sarcastic Damien told him so) that Damien was a devil worshiper. So, Driver had Damien in his sights for a year or so before the murder. IMO, part of the reason that Driver focused on Damien is because Damien didn’t perform sexual favors for Driver. Driver was known to threaten the juveniles in his charge with jail if they didn’t, you know.

      As to all of the other stuff you wrote about Damien, most of it is either exaggeration or outright fabrication. For instance, Damien never wore a necklace of dog intestines. The stench alone would preclude such an event from occurring.

      Some of those other things that you mentioned were either blown out of proportion or Damien’s own attempt to either remain in the mental hospital (where he was away from a miserable home life) or the exaggeration of mental health personnel attempting to be able to keep him there to escape his miserable home life. None of his hospitalizations were of very long duration. So, I don’t think that anyone in the hospitals believed that he was the seriously deranged person that you are attempting to make him out to be. Just more NONsense.

      1. No matter which side of the fence you’re on, Echols is a liar. If you’re a non, he’s a liar for obvious reasons. If you’re a supporter, he lied about claiming that he wasn’t at the softball field making statements about killing kids. He also lied to get SSI, according to you CR.

        But, if he says Driver was out to get him because he didn’t give him a blowjob, well then that must be true! After all, it’s in Almost Home. A death row inmate writes a book from prison proclaiming his innocence and you use it as a reference in a debate. Priceless.

        As for the list of Echols behavior, of course you have an excuse for every one of them. Are some exaggerated or made up? Maybe, I’ll concede that. But you have an excuse for every single one of them. Much of it was documented before the murders so there must have been a lot of people in WM with psychic abilities who just knew that someone else would murder some kids so they jumped on the “let’s get Echols” bandwagon before it even happened. Fascinating!

        As for the blackboard allowing dissenting opinion: LOFL. I just saw a poster of yours get booted for not towing the line and actually asking questions that counter the resident expert, Paid. Excuse after excuse was given for why that poster was banned but anyone with a 72 IQ could see right through that BS.

  18. Forget it. I suppose I was foolish to come on this site and expect a level headed conversation. I’ll be sure to look elsewhere when trying to find some legitimate facts from some nons.

    1. Good luck with that, Brock. I have never been able to find a non who will engage in a civil conversation. Wait a minute. Try Websleuths. Both sides of the issue post there. The conversation is civil, and the nons at least attempt to answer you truthfully.

      When the Blackboard is back up (down for maintenance right now, should be up in a day or so), please join us there for an in depth discussion of the case. You can ask questions there, but it is a supporter’s board. There are a few nons there, but they are civil or they get banned. The link is:

      Hope to see you there and/or on Websleuths.

      1. “I have never been able to find a non who will engage in a civil conversation.”

        We all have been exceedingly civil to you on recent pages here, CR. That you don’t credit us with civility makes me very, very, angry, because it has been very, very difficult, considering your half-baked theories and disrespect toward the Moores. I’m for supporter participation on this site, but if you cannot give us credit for civility, then I personally would rather this page to be the last you are granted posting privileges. Your statement is a Berlinger & Sinofskyesque lie.

      2. Do you have a facebook page because i am interested in discussion but the WM3 Truth page attacks everyone / bans / ect so I want a place to debate issues even tho i believe the men are guilty without fearing my account will be reported and or being humiated publicly. Its pathetic.

        1. @Jenny

          The Blackboard Facebook page is a closed group. However, you can register at the new Blackboard discussion board:

          You’ll have to wait for approval because it’s not open enrollment, but once you’re approved, you can pose your questions there. You can even ask one of the administrators about joining the Facebook page.

          Additionally, there are a couple of sites that ARE open enrollment sites where you can post and pose questions until your Blackboard approval comes through. First is the YUKU discussion board:

          In the past, both non-supporters and supporters posted there. However, since the release, it’s been dominated by supporters. It is the “original” supporter board, but over the years some non-supporters have crept in.

          Then, there’s Websleuths:

          My link will take you directly to the WM3 forum. They discuss all kinds of cases. Again, both non-supporters and supporters post there. The admins will not allow name calling, so the discussion always remains civil.

          Hope this helps!

        2. Double yawn.

          Stop pretending people are persecuting you. In fact, I doubt anyone here even knows who you are, let alone gives enough of a shit to “censor” you.

      1. Out of respect (you’ve been more level-headed than any other non) I replied to your last post. However, that’ll likely be my last post. I’m just quite busy and would rather let the dust settle and see if any new evidence pops up over the next little while.

  19. Hmmm. Let’s see.
    1. Three teenagers with NO history of violent behavior (all of them actually has pets they cared for and showed no sign of typically psychotic behavior) who are just weird.
    2. Three 8 year olds are seen here as entirely helpless, and yet they have the nerve to tell off parents, ride all over the wooded areas without fear, one starts fires and has excessive behavior problems, and would clearly not listen to teenagers if they wouldn’t listen to adults.
    3. No physical evidence whatsoever implicating three defendants
    4. Whoever did this crime was wise enough to either have killed all three boys in the water (therefore no blood on ground near scene) or did so in a secluded area and then transported the bodies there. Well planned ending it seems–are these three kids smart enough?
    5. Why would three 8 year olds playing even stop to talk to three weird teenagers? really? Would they really stop to talk to a black man with a cast that they don’t know in an all white neighborhood? And as pointed out, could he really corral all of these boys with one hand? Clearly people don’t know 8 year old self-interest behavior.
    6. But, if an adult, known by the boys, demanded their compliance, they would freeze out of fear–just enough time to take them all out physically and do them horrible harm.

    7. Our only physical evidence? A wisely cleaned body dumping area. A belt mark or a bite mark on each child. A removed set of teeth in a step-parent. Confirmed beating of one child earlier that day by parent with a belt for his behavior. Skin removed from a boy’s penis intentionally. A step-parent who (instead of thinking of how his son suffered) says he is reminded by this of memories when he was tortured by five people when young. Hogtying of children and torture (which implies true heinous behavior being somewhat inherent in the murderer, not just a supposed “satanic” ritual) done with shoelaces wrapped with one step-parent’s hair.

    8. Our players? A judge with political aspirations. A police department with a public in fear who need a fall guy. A dumb kid who will say anything to get himself out of trouble and too stupid to realize it got himself into deeper trouble. A dumb kid who dresses and speaks in such a way to get attention because he’s so insecure, and disrespects all authority and believes arrogantly that he can ride out this case with sarcasm because he knows he didn’t do anything wrong. A dumb kid who made friends with the last dumb kid. An arrogant defense attorney who shows his disdain for the community with as much contempt as Nichols and therefore can’t move a jury toward reasonable doubt. A proven abusive husband & stepfather (who shot his brother-in-law) whose wife “kissed a Mexican” and wanted revenge to inflict pain somehow on her (“he doesn’t get mad he gets even” wife said). A neighbor that saw 3 boys being called by Hobbs to his house at the time of disappearance. A mother who left this husband (Hobbs) and now for some reason thinks the boys are innocent. Another wife (Byers) whose death is still in question. A dead child (Byers) who needed Ritalin and exhibited clinical behavior typical of an abused child, and yet behaved as though he wasn’t receiving his medication according to doctors. Another step-father (Byers) who acknowledges beating his child and is later convicted of selling prescription drugs. And finally, a jury foreman who brags about knowing their guilt and introduces Misskelly’s testimony direct to the jury without legal permission.

    Kids with alibis, however lame, and adults with none…And to the idiot who thinks above that a new trial would take 4 months? Really? LOL. Try years…I’d take the plea and leave prison now as well. And the State, and Burnett’s political career, doesn’t favor another trial.

    1. Three teenagers with NO history of violent behavior

      Echols and Misskelley both had extensive histories of violent behavior.

      1. Terry Hobbs shot his wife’s brother and laughed about it as if it were a joyful memory. He also had a history of drugs, and possible sexualand physical assault. JMB was known to abuse his child, sold drugs, and held a kid at gunpoint so that another kid could beat the shit out of him. This is after his son had been beaten to death.

        I’m not saying either of those guys killed the boys, but if you’re going to use “violent history” as an argument, look at the violent and criminal histories of other potential suspects.

    2. Billy Bob

      1. The three did have history of volatile behavior, but it was more along the lines of ritualistic, in closed circles, not out in the open for all to see.

      2. How dare you stain the memories of those three defenseless kids, you’re basically calling them creeps. They were typical 8 year olds who talked back to parents because they knew they really wouldn’t be harmed, but when confronted with “bigger kids” they felt threatened. Don’t you remember when you were that age? It wasn’t adults you were scared of so much as you were “big kids” because they were unpredicatble. Don’t ever smear these kids again. Ever.

      3. No physical evidence period. Again, a lack of physical evidence does NOT make them innocent, just lucky.

      4. Those kids were smart enough, or at least Echols was. The rest, mainly Jason, was just a follower wanting to please Damien and afraid of him also. Jessie split. Why did you leave, Jessie? Jessie’s biggest problem was he didn’t know what time it was, and it seems like he still doesn’t because he put a clock tattoo on his head when what he really needs is a watch on his wrist.

      5. I suspect 8 years olds are curious, more so if you are a boy. Here they are in a setting they have probably been in hundreds of times without incident and this time they encounter three “big” kids. I suspect they lured them over somehow. It wouldn’t be the first time. Most abductions are of people luring kids to their car in the promise of candy or helping find a lost puppy etc. Kids, unfortunately at that age, are pretty gullible because their experience at that age is to try and trust their elders. Kids that small want to be accepted by bigger kids, so they generally comply with whatever demands were made. Again, I remember before going to junior high after finishing elementary. I was petrified because these were going to bigger kids. If some big kid have come to me and said “Hey, come here!” I probably would.

      6. If it was an adult known to them, they wouldn’t freeze. If perhaps it was a known adult trying to fish or whatever, it would be normal for the kids to encounter that. Remember, there were obvious pathways to were they were found, so it seemed like a popular hangout. I can only suspect that if those kids went there regularly, they must have at some point encountered others without incident. On this ocassion, they did, unfortunately.

      7. Yeah, but don’t forget the confessions and failed polygraphs and other things also. The three are extremely lucky that the evidence got washed away. Didn’t you see the begining of PL1 when that big machine was draining the water out? Put a few drops of blood in a glass of water and mix it. Do you still see the blood? It’s diluted and hard to see. Similarly, put some blood on a ground and then splash water on it, do you still see the blood? Dig the dirt up after you have splashed water on it, now do you see it? No. Back in 1993, we could not take a soil sample and extract forensics from it. No we can. If this terrible crime happened today, these three would be on death row.

      8. We can investigate all the players and come up with all kinds of factual and non-factual background information. This is mostly smoke and mirrors. The defense attorneys are never interested in the truth, they are only their to get their clients off by whatever means necessary. Since when are criminal attorneys expected to be truthful? Their job is to take the evidence and twist it to their advantage and make the prosecutors look inept. A win on cases like these will ensure that they get repeat business in the future and affords them free advertisement.

      Yes, the cops and prosecutors fumbled miserably, by contrast, these so-called experts for the defense making assumptions that they call scientific evidence off of photographs, doesn’t hold water with me. The belt buckle mark on the kids forehead would jive with what jessie was saying that Echols was force feeding his penis into the boys mouth and while he was, his belt buckle lay on the kids forehead and made the bruised impression. I can only suspect, this is what happened, but to me, it seems obvious.

      Nothing is cut and dried here. My only beef is that the are making these guys out to be heroes when in fact they do not know if they did this or not. It bothers me that the main base of support for the WM3 are teens and twenty something females basing their opinions off the slanted HBO series and what their friends are saying or what they read or Facebook and especially that Echols is “cute”.

      It disturbs me that Echols is in New Zealand inking movie deals and Jason is in Hollywood sightseeing all from monies from, because we know, Jason’s mom who lives in a single wide, could not afford such a trip on her own. So now that they are freed, I am not sure why keeps having a donate button on their site, it would seem to me their mission is accomplished, but I suspect they are reaping the rewards from the death of these three boys.

      We can go back and forth all day, every day for the rest of our lives. You are right and I am wrong and you are wrong and I am right. Only those three really know what happened that day and I suspect, Jessie will eventually fold as his conscious gets the best of him, but he if he does confess, it will be on his death bed as he does not want to go back to prison. There is no forensic evidence, jsut circumstantial and I will admit, that in the begining it was driven by a police department, a town that was reeling from murders suspicious of witchcraft. Everyone was shocked beyond belief, and they embraced the withcraft thing because who would kill three innocent little boys in cold blood? It would certainly have to be occult in nature because these kids could not possibly have any enemies at eight years old, how could they? So naturally, given the times too. something purely evil would have to have presented itself to kill 3 little innocent boys and hog tie them naked. Had they just been beaten to death and left their with their clothes on, then maybe the town would not have freaked out so bad, but because of how they were found, this was clearly the work of someone or several people that are purely evil, hence they naturally went in that direction. Even when Jason was asked in PL1 did he think Damien could do such a thing, he hesitated for a long time, he never did answer, he was interrupted by one of the producers and said “THEY, certainly make it seem like he did, huh?” Talk about coercion.

      Like I said, we can go on and on. Youngsters, pick your heroes carefully. As usual, you tend to look toward others for your acceptance and not with fact. I believe twenty years from now as these supporters today grow up and see what the real world is like, they will change their minds a bit and say to themselves “Hmmm, maybe they did do it. And I sent them money, too”. We all have to live with our mistakes in life, but this is one where the last laugh is on the supporters. And Damien and friends are laughing all the way to the bank. ’nuff said.

  20. Billy Bob, you’re about 10 years behind with your arguments.

    JMB didn’t do it anymore. Now Terry Hobbs did it. Quick,, solve this case cause you’re running out of stepfathers!

    Echols couldn’t have done it cause he loved his kitten. Gotcha.

  21. BillyBob, I take it you are generally new to this case so I mean no disrespect. Peruse the rest of this site and then come back and tell us the convicts had no history of violence, particularly Misskelley.

  22. I know the WM3 are guilty because a retard made confessions that made no effin’ sense… oh yeah, I forgot about the dog intestine necklace.

  23. I like to drink and drive and kill people! Yay!

    [WM3truth editor’s note: Obviously not posted by the real Dana Moore, just some murder groupie who enjoys taunting the parents of murdered childrenm.]

  24. I’ve seen all three documentaries and have been following the case for a very long time, studied it and have yet to see them cry.

    If I was accused of murder and sentenced to death for something I know I did not do, you better believe I’d be crying my eyes out, pleading.

    Do they EVER show any emotion for something they’ve never done?

    Have you ever seen them cry or shed a tear?

    I was for them, but after reviewing the case a bit more, I’m very skeptical. Damien is evil, just like his knuckles say.

    The coincidences are far too great to overlook.

    1. Damn straight.

      Most of my posts are about case facts, but allow me one to make observations about their behavior in 1994 as observed in these films.

      In Paradise Lost: There’s the long, long, drive-a-truck-through-em pauses when Baldwin is asked what he’d say to the families. And again when asked if he thought Damien was guilty. There’s Damien with his throwaway line “no more beer!” (Misskelley’s confessions have Echols and Baldwin drinking beer before the crimes.) There’s Damien’s “West Memphis boogeyman” closing. There’s Jessie with his head hung low throughout his played confession. There’s also the complete WTF look Jessie shoots his sister(?) when she suggests Damien is a sweet kid — as if she’s absolutely nuts for suggesting such a thing.

      And no, they’re never shown getting upset. There’s a cold resignation to Baldwin’s and Echols’ attitudes as the verdicts draw nearer. Totally agreed, Anon: actually innocent kids would likely go out of their minds with protests and emotion. Everyone reacts differently to immense stress, but to my eyes and ears their behavior fits much better with a guilty scenario than an innocent one.

    2. I, like CR, have experience working with troubled, ‘disadvantaged’, and challenged teenagers – 30+ years, to be exact. Teenagers do not have the social and emotional skills that most adults have to deal with a perceived wrong committed against them, particularly when the “wrong” cuts to the very core of who they consider themselves to be as a person.
      They are unable to step back from a situation and calmly respond in instances where the accusation of serious wrong-doing is so foreign to their view of themselves as people. When confronted with an accusation of a horrendus murder, an innocent teen would visably and strongly respond verbally, emotionally and often physically.
      I don’t see any of that in the documentation or in the PL series from Jason or Damien. There are hints of Jessie showing some expected emotional response (crying in his room and to friend) but never the indignation and agression that would typically be the response from a true innocent of his age and mental ability – only what seems to be some regret.

      1. susan,

        My experience with teenaged boys is that they simply don’t show emotion in public. It isn’t considered “manly” to do so. I have no doubt but that they were emotional outside the public eye. That the emotions weren’t caught on camera doesn’t mean that there were no emotional reactions.

        Jessie, being mentally challenged, might react differently. IIRC, the crying fits right after the murders could have been attributed to the fact that Jessie thought Susie, his girlfriend, was moving away. That he cried in his room, alone, is further proof of what I’m saying about teenaged boys and not wanting to show emotion in public. Even with his mental deficiencies, Jessie was private about his grief. It was not guilt; it was grief over the possibility of Susie moving away.

        Another explanation for the lack of emotion portrayed by Damien and Jason is that they had total trust in the judicial system. They thought, naive as it is, that, since they were innocent, there was NO WAY that they could be found guilty. So, there was no great show of emotion because, being innocent, they didn’t believe they could be found guilty. I’m more inclined to believe in my first explanation, but the second is a possibility.

        Another thing to consider is that the situations that you were discussing when teenagers react with indignation and anger about a perceived wrong are not nearly as serious as a charge of murder. I’ve seen those little skirmishes that you’re discussing. It’s usually about personal situations – someone making time with another person’s significant other or someone accusing another person of stealing a possession. Yes, in situations like that, teens tend to overreact. IMO, this is totally different, and I believe that Damien and Jason did not show emotion in public because they thought it wouldn’t be “manly,” not because it was any proof of guilt. Again, I refer to Lindy Chamberlain. Her failure to show emotion at her trial was part of what got her convicted.

        1. “I’ve seen those little skirmishes that you’re discussing.”
          CR, please don’t presume to know what kind of situations I’m referring to. I have worked with teens in a public high school and in a locked-down juvenile facility. I know the difference between reactions to another teen stealing a girlfriend and reactions to being accused by authorities of a very serious crime. Emotional responses by Jason and Damien were not only not caught on camera, but I don’t believe they were described anywhere in the documentation of this case. The fact is that teenaged boys want to act “manly” but do not have the emotional/social skills to fill the bill in extreme social/stressfull situations where they feel threatened by wrongful accusations from society and law enforcement. In this case, I believe the three teens did not respond as expected to a “wrongful accusation” because, in fact, the accusations of murder were true. To me, it is telling to watch Damien smirk and to watch Jason’s tentative looks at Damien (the alpha-male) in the courtroom scenes of PL. Only Jessie (“the confessor”) keeps his head down in what appears to be shame. Jessie’s crying jags were not the result of grief at losing a girlfriend, they were the result of grief that he had really gone too far this time.
          Lindy Chamberlain was a thirty-something adult with some life experience under her belt. I don’t believe you can in good conscience compare emotional reactions, or the lack of reaction, to this case.

          1. Everyone reacts differently in different situations. Just because you have seen kids in a juvenile facility react violently doesn’t mean that all teens will react that way. Again, my experience with inner city teens is that the males are hesitant to show emotions.

            Damien and Jason, being best friends, are apt to react similarly. Jessie kept his head down because his attorneys told him to. Jason’s looks at Damien weren’t “furtive” IMO but were more like “What is going on here? We’ve done nothing wrong, but they’re treating us like we did.” Sorry. I see it differently. As to Lindy Chamberlain, it IS the same, not because of her lack of emotion but because she was convicted partially because of that lack of emotion, and the same is true in this case.

          2. And I’ve seen them in court…wow, we’re all “experts” in teenage sullenness and reactions in our own ways.

            Maybe you’ve seen them post lock down, and maybe she’s seen them in the classroom, and maybe I’ve seen them around cops and in front of a judge with their freedom on the line…how they acted has no bearing on whether they are guilty or not. They could be horrible criminal people…but did they kill these three kids?

            Where is the physical evidence?

            I think the cops grabbed Echols because the kid was a mean-spirited little s**t and the mutilation made them think it could be ritualistic. I think Damien didn’t say anything sarcastically, I think he bragged that he did it because it made him look cool in his own warped head.

            I don’t think they did it because without a weapon like a gun pointed at the kids those kids would have fought back and Echols would have been bruised. Eight year olds aren’t so tiny that they can’t defend themselves at all. Every creature will attempt to defend itself. Kids will UNLESS they had a reason not to: priest, cop, parent. Even still some fight back.

            I don’t think they did it because for all Echols swagger he didn’t seem shrewed enough to accomplish a clean murder. Its harder than one supposes.

            Misskelleys testimony (to me) feels like he was trying too hard to convince people that he knew about the murder. no one does that even with their hands on a Bible.

            Baldwin has a) no guile, b) no history of violence, c) no history of being able to pull off even the smallest caper.

            I dunno…its all in my gut based on my own experiences as I’m sure is the same for both of you.

          3. @Rin I have an 8-year-old nephew. I could kick his ass. I actually have three nephews. Pretty sure I could clean the floor with all of them… don’t think I could take them on all at the same time though.

            Agree/disagree that the WM police targeted Echols for the crime. But even if they did, that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

            And I don’t think it’s all that surprising that little physical evidence was left. The kids were dumped in a drainage ditch and had been underwater for 17 hours.

        2. @ CR:

          Teenage boys don’t show emption openly? They do, and they even do it on camera. Have you watched the show “Beyond Scared Straight” A lot of these kids break down openly on camera. And these are “hard” kids from hard neighborhoods that make West Memphis look like Disneyland. HBO took great pains to make one of the first things they did for PL2 was explain Echols’ boogeyman statement which they closed with on PL1 and obviously did Damien’s credibility a lot of damage. in between Pl1 and Pl2, is when there was great interest in freeing these three by the group started by Wiccans, Free WM3. It was only then, with interest money being waved in HBO’s face, that they did PL2 to slant it more toward these three being innocent and make Mark Byers look like a complete idiot which came naturally to him anyway.

          1. Those boys were in a situation where the whole point was to elicit such an emotional response. That’s why they called it “scared straight.” I totally understand their reactions.

            I don’t think Damien’s credibility was “damaged” by the boogeyman statement. I think people that understand the arrogance of the teen years got what he was saying (which was really saying that he was scared, but doing it in a manner that made it look like he didn’t care) and people who don’t understand teens won’t ever get it. No amount of explanation will suffice.

            I get it that you don’t like Wiccans, but like I said before, I’ve never seen anything to indicate that Burk, Kathy, Grove and/or Lisa ARE Wiccans. Not that it would matter. We DO have freedom of religion in this country. However, whatever they are religion-wise, they started to seek justice, not to defend the Wiccan religion. And they continue to raise money to use to exonerate the freed men.

            As to JMB, I thought that the FIRST documentary made him look guilty. Bruce and Joe DID point the finger more strongly at him in the second film because they were convinced of the innocence of the three and, at the time Mark was the most viable suspect. As any lawyer will tell you, one way to cast reasonable doubt on your client is to present a viable alternative suspect.

            Nons always make fun of supporters for “changing horses in mid stream” (switching from JMB to TH). However, all we are doing is following the evidence. It happens from time to time that a suspect initially looks guilty when in actuality it is someone else altogether. That’s why the focus has shifted. New information has revealed a different suspect.

  25. There is no way, NO EFFING WAY, that an innocent teen, particularly one with a mouth on him like Echols, would not protest loudly to a random kid telling police he raped a little boy. Baldwin does not ever scream and shout “Jessie, you fucking liar, I did not castrate and kill a little boy!” There is none of that. No record of either of them ever saying “WTF, why did this guy involve US in this!?”

    With all the talk about Echols and his sarcastic, angsty teen mouth, he’s awfully silent when another kid in the neighborhood accuses him of heinous child murder.

    1. It’s possible that he was listening to his attorney who probably advised him to remain calm and not react.

      1. Did Echols attorneys tell him it was ok to blow kisses and sneer at the families and smile at the cameras as he’s being taken away from the trial in a police car?

        I have a sneaking suspicion his attorneys probably asked him to knock that off.

          1. @CR But if Echols would do something like blow kisses at the victim’s families, then why not go off on Jessie?

          2. @Frank
            Because he doesn’t blame Jessie. He realized how intense the questioning was and that Jessie, given his limited mental capacity, would be no match for the intensity. I imagine that Damien was well aware of Jessie’s propensity to agree with whatever was told to him.

        1. “…as he’s being taken away from the trial in a police car”

          Think on that one long and hard and then explain why an innocent person wouldn’t be bitter and hate the whole world at this point.

      2. @ CR I dodn’t think you could ever tell Echols to shut up. Even if his attorneys told him to shut up, he would have been the type to yell something out during the reading of his sentence. He didn’t say a word. Why? Because he was stunned because he was beaten and being sent to his death. I don’t care what my attorney says, if I am standing up and hearing this judge tell me the chemicals that are going to go through my veins to kill me over something I didn’t do, I am going to scream innocence! I am sure his attorney told him a death sentence carries an automatic appeal. There would have been nothing for me to lose by screaming out “I AM INNOCENT!!”

      3. I deon’t buy that, counselor. Because Misskelley also had his head down when cops where leading him away in cuffs. He didn’t have an attorney then. For attorneys telling their clients to keep their heads down, if they did, is to hide something. In this case, it was to hide Jessie’s obvious shame and guilt. Also, Jessie’s crying jags were well documented and told by Jessie Jr’s girlfriend of him waking up days after the murders crying supposedly abotu his girldfriend moving away. Come on, I can see whimpering a bit during the day about someone you love taking off, but waking up the whole house screaming and crying? Like I said before, out of the three, he has the most heart. His mistake was going after Moore and holding him down and bringing him back. If he had let Moore run away, Damien would have been fried right now, like he should be and the other two punks would be either in the slammer still or joining Damien in hell. I sincerely hope that ill come to all three and their families and for generations to come too.

        1. I apologize for the grammatical errors and I also meant Jessie Sr, when refering to saids girlfriend. I forget the twat’s name.

    2. @ Val

      Well, Val, supporters will probably tell you Echols was on medication during the trial and his emotions were subdued by anti-psychotic drugs and that’s why he didn’t yell. It’s like the whole Misskelley retardation thing, they used it back and forth in either direction to fit their excuses. Either he was retarded and didn’t know what he was saying or doing or he wasn’t. Which one supporters? He can’t tell what time or day it is from any given moment in his life then all of a sudden he goes to prison and becomes a Rhodes Scholar because he starts to communicate effectively about his innocence? Come on…

      1. Even someone with Jessie’s IQ could regurgitate a story that was pumped into him at every turn by guards and prosecution attorneys.

          1. His own attorneys didn’t pump a story into him. They tried to listen to the disjointed story he told and make some sense of it. At first, Stidham was told that there was a confession. He thought he was just going to negotiate a plea deal, and he had never tried a murder case before. It wasn’t until Stidham had gained Jessie’s trust and Jessie had finally told Stidham the truth that Stidham realized that Jessie was innocent. Plus, since Jessie has never testified in court, when and where is the statement that the attorneys pumped into him? Stidham DID question Jessie somewhat during the “Bible” (2/8/94) statement because Jessie asked him to do so. Jessie has trouble telling a story without help, especially when it’s a lie, which is why the prosecution had to work so hard with him to elicit the 2.17/94 statement.

      2. He can’t tell what time or day it is from any given moment in his life then all of a sudden he goes to prison and becomes a Rhodes Scholar because he starts to communicate effectively about his innocence? Come on…


        Wow, that’s a shocker! Oxford, really?? See, I was under the impression he enrolled in a community college or some place that takes everyone with money regardless of grades.

    1. You want to see a real sociopath? Look at Terry Hobbs’ WMPD interview and Pasdar deposition. He laughs at inappropriate times and is totally emotionless – a true sociopath.

  26. I would invite those of you who believe that the fact that someone shows no emotion in public is in any way “proof” of their guilt to study the case of Lindy Chamberlain, the Australian mother who was tried, convicted and sentenced to life at hard labor for the death of her infant daughter. She insisted that a dingo took her baby, but the police (initially) found no evidence to support her story. She was later exonerated when they found a matinee jacket that was her daughter’s which supported her story. Sadly, she had spent several years in prison and had had a child (she was pregnant at the time of her trial) while there. However, one of the reasons that she was convicted was the lack of emotion that she showed at trial. Oh, and she was a member of a religion that was misunderstood by the general populace. So I don’t see the lack of public emotion from three teenaged boys as any indication of their guilt.

    1. @ CR

      Come on, chief, this is way different. This is someone that not only is accused of killing a child BUT that child happens to be hers. The kids were no relation to the WM3, matter of fact, Damien had anomosity toward smaller kids and had run in’s with those three in the past, so they could be quite detached from the situation.

      The mother with the dingo eating baby, not only had to fend off these accusations, but still contend with the loss of her child. When my 19 year old nephew died in a car crash one night, it was such a shock to everyone. No one cried until about three days later at the viewing and we all wailed…

      1. Sorry but it’s the same principle. Some people don’t show emotions the way everyone else thinks they should. We need to stop expecting everyone else to act like we would and, if they don’t, then they’re dangerous or guilty or whatever.

  27. This is how nons work. If they didn’t show emotion, they’re insane. If they did show emotion, they’re insane. Yelling at people giving testimonies is NOT going to help you in any way, shape or form. It just gives more fuel for the jury, judge and prosecution.

    Again, these are just more pathetic, unreliable arguments from nons. You can’t say someone is guilty because they didn’t act the way you expected them to act. Jesus Christ.

    I still have yet to hear any form of evidence or explanation as to why the WM3 are definitely guility. Why? Because none exists.

    Let me ask you this. If Jessie Misskelley had never sought out a $25,000 reward and therefore had never been coerced into giving a confession, do you think these guys would still have been convicted? Not a fucking chance.

    1. Way to straw man, Brock.

      No one ever said they should have been screaming at witnesses on the stand.

      A huge chunk of the first PL was made up of interviews that did not take place in court.

    2. Do you think Alyssa Bustamante could have even been charged if not for her confession? Besides her confession, there’s nothing but hearsay connecting her to her murder.

      Sometimes there’s no physical evidence available. Period. This is not CSI or Law and Order. Cases sometimes have to be made without it. It doesn’t take a criminal mastermind to dump some bodies in some water, burn them, bury them, etc.

      1. However, when there IS physical evidence available, shouldn’t it count? I’m not saying that circumstantial evidence is always wrong. I’m just saying that, IMO, physical evidence trumps it.

      2. Sometimes there’s no physical evidence available. Period. This is not CSI or Law and Order. Cases sometimes have to be made without it. It doesn’t take a criminal mastermind to dump some bodies in some water, burn them, bury them, etc.


        No, cases do not HAVE to be made without it. They WILL make cases without it, but it doesn’t make it RIGHT.

        You CAN wait to see if more evidence will show up, etc. if there are similar crimes in other states, if more murders occur even in your own town/county/city. That is the moral and ethical obligation of law enforcement, to see the right people brought to justice legally and with due process and that, in many cases, takes more time than a community will allow.

        1. @Rin So you’re saying a crime can’t be solved without forensic evidence. So with crimes when the science just wasn’t there, do you feel guilt/innocence wasn’t proved?

    3. “You can’t say someone is guilty because they didn’t act the way you expected them to act.”

      No one suggested causation, Brock, except for you. No one was saying, “because they acted or didn’t act a certain way, they are guilty.” The suggestion was that their behaviors and body language fit better into a guilty scenario, than an innocent one, in our opinion.

      1. In my opinion, their behaviors don’t reflect guilt or innocence. They reflect their personality or maybe even the way their attorneys told them to act. The point is it shouldn’t be considered AT ALL as any indication of guilt. By bringing it up, it appears that you are using it to support your belief in guilt. If not, why bring it up at all?

    4. @ Brock

      I could see one of them not being emotional, but all three? Actually not really, PL1 show Jesse with head down, that’s an emotion, it’s called shame. We lay our heads down in shame. Jason shows emotion too, anger. Anger at Damien. When asked if he got out would he see Damien again or be his friend he said “I wouldn’t be his enemy, but I probably wouldn’t see him again”. Well if you are guys aare all innocent, why not hang out again, I say. It wouldn’t deter me. It would bring me closer to support my buddy who’s going through it. But he said this because he is scared of Damien and rightfully so and he is pissed that Damien got him into this mess. But he thinks before he says this because he wants to say the right thing. It’s a chickenshit answer that requires intelligent people to read between the lines and unfortunately, most supporters being young awe struck by Damien females, they cannot read between the lines.

      1. Again, Jessie’s attorney told him to keep his head down. He said that in one of the docs, PL1 IIRC. Jason is still friends with Damien,BTW. When Jason made that statement, he was scared. He saw what the prosecution was doing, how they were twisting Damien’s words and making him look guilty. He wasn’t scared of Damien. I’m not young or star struck, and I don’t see that at all.

  28. How I’d expect them to act? I’m not saying that the way they reacted is an absolute indication of guilt, but it’s certainly suspect.

    I stand by my statement that no teen boy, especially one like Echols, would not react loudly to being accused of raping, castrating and killing some kids.

    In the pretrial footage, when all 3 of them are together, Echols and Baldwin do not so much as shoot a dirty look at Misskelley.

    There is no way, NO WAY IN HELL, that a teenager would let another teenager say something about them like that without reacting.

    CR, did Chamberlain taunt and blow kisses during her trial? Didn’t think so. Can you at least concede that that was an evil, heartless, and generally sociopathic thing for him to do? Or do you just chalk that up to him being “different?”

    And please don’t reply with “that’s not proof he murdered anyone” because I’m not saying it is.

    1. Even he admits that, like Lindy Chamberlain, his actions were, at least in part, responsible for his conviction.

      1. That wasn’t my question. Can you admit that those particular actions were pretty damn evil, if not sociopathic?

        Do you think someone who’s only “different” but not actually mentally ill would behave that way?

        1. Damien himself admits that his actions were wrong. However, I think that they were the actions of an arrogant, scared teenager, not a dangerously mentally ill person. To be clear, yes, I thought it was wrong, but I don’t see it as proof of guilt or even mental illness, just the inappropriate actions of an arrogant teen.

    1. @ Tom

      Sorry, Tom. He is currently enjoying himself in New Zealand inking movie deals with support money from Check out his Facebook page. What a dick.

      Can someone tell me what happened to his girlfriend from PL1, you know, the one that said she would never leave his side and would be waiting for him with his baby when he got out? I suspect the baby is what about 18? Somewhere between PL1 and PL2 this architect, a strange lady, dumps everything in NY and goes to Little Rock to be with Damien. I think she saw dollar signs too. But what happened to the girlfriend and baby?

      1. I believe Domini moved on with her life after a year or two and I dont blame her one bit for it. Damien said his son came to visit him a few times but as far as I know, that was it.

        Domini was the one who said, in the films, that she didn’t even feel sorry for the victim’s parents. And if the Hollingsworths (Dominis relatives by the way) were telling the truth, and I believe they were cause they had no reason to lie, especially about their own family member and her boyfriend) Damien and Domini, not Jason, were walking the service road together on the night of the murders. If that’s true, and I’m sure CR will come along with the reason they lied or were mistaken, then Domini knows EXACTLY what happened that night. She’s probably the key to the whole thing, but something tells me she won’t ever admit what she knows.

        I tend to believe that it WAS Domini that night. Maybe Jason was there also but not seen or maybe he was already home at that point and Damien was showing Domini his work or she helped him cover his tracks, I don’t know.

        1. The Hollingsworths were trying to get their own son, L.G., out of the “hot seat” as he was a suspect for a while. They were willing to throw their own niece under the bus to do so, IMO. In short, I don’t think Domini knows anything useful about that night. IIRC, she and Damien separated at the laundry mat and didn’t see each other again that night.

        2. I wish Domini would tell the truth there are so many lies being told i think that the confessions and failed polygraphs of D & J are telling.

  29. I tried going to the blackboard site, it is down for maintenance. It also led me to a facebook page which is a “closed” forum.

    1. Hopefully, the BB will be back soon. I’m sorry, but I can’t tell you how to get onto the facebook page.

  30. CR, please tell me you didn’t just reference the “manhole theory” not even the two people most responsible for freeing the 3 child murderers (Berlinger Sinofsky) for all there clever story telling and fact neglecting have ever went so far off the reservation and mentioned such a ludicrous theory. It is only slightly less likely than an aliens being responsible type hypothesis. Also, nobody here said court room behavior was proof of guilt or innocence, it’s just proof that Echols isn’t this wounded warrior stoic type many supporters have painted. The motherfucker taunted the parents of three murdered 8 year old boys in court, guilt/innocence aside, unless you want to look like a complete moron, don’t ever attempt to pass that behavior off as anything other than what it is, fucking evil. My opinion is Echols was reveling in the attention he was getting, as most self confessed sociopaths would. He wasn’t misunderstood, he wasn’t singled out, and he wasn’t playing murder trial because he thought he couldn’t be convicted. He was, is, and always will be a sick twisted fuck.

    1. Scott,

      That is your opinion of the Manhole Theory. Mine is different, obviously. I think that it explains all of the wounds and all of the timelines very well. I hope that you will look at all the information about it when the Blackboard comes back up. Yes, it is down for maintenance. Hopefully it will be back up tomorrow. Keep checking, if you’re really interested in a civil discussion of the case. If you are rude, you will be banned. Just a warning.

      As to Joe and Bruce, whether or not they believe the Manhole Theory is totally irrelevant to my beliefs. As I have said before, I don’t base my beliefs solely on the documentaries. I don’t know any supporters who do. There may be some, but I don’t know them. On the Blackboard, everyone questions everything and discusses every aspect of this case. People over there haven’t come to their opinions based solely on the documentaries or the books but by long hours of reading and research.

      As to your opinion of Damien, again, you’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine. I see him as a troubled teen who was railroaded by a bunch of adults who were advancing their own political careers and saw Damien and his friends as handy scapegoats so that they could “close the case” and make the townspeople happy. Some day maybe you will open your mind and see the truth, although it’s doubtful.

      1. CR:
        You are correct, the vast majority of supporters probably have never even seen the documentaries or even read one web page about it. Go to on Facebook. Scroll down and check out all the people who have joined. Face after face after face more often than not belong to young girls from late teens to mid twenties who didn’t even live or were way too little when this case originally came up. Also look at the followers of Echols, Jason and Jessie on FB. Again, face after face after face are young giddy girls who think they are “Cute” and STILL call them kids even though they are approaching 40. The begining was different, it was Wiccans pissed that their “religion” was being persecuted, now it’s an Echols fan club, little girls that want to lay him because he looks so “innocent and hot”. Tell me it’s not true. I don’t know, maybe you have feelings for Echols.

        1. Not all supporters post their pictures and not all pictures are of the poster. My hubby uses a young Cary Grant as his avatar. So, all those pictures don’t represent all supporters, and all supporters don’t necessarily post pictures of themselves. What I feel for Damien is joy that he has been released, sadness that he lost so much of his life incarcerated for a crime that he didn’t commit and hopeful that he will soon be exonerated.

          1. CR:
            Well, for your sake, I hope in your lifetime you didn’t see how this will play out in the end. I suspect that Misskelley will have another attack of the guilts and come clean yet again, for the 5th time. But of course, he will be poo-pooed away because of his IQ. You supporters can’t have it both ways and in general, that’s the whole thrust of the supporters motto, having their cake and eating it too.

            I don’t know you personally and I suspect I never will. One of the great things about this nation is we can have discussion and arguments and not get jailed for it.

            My initial reaction after watching PL1 was that these three did it. Upon watching PL2 in a passive mode, I thought, huh, maybe they didn’t, but then I went to the websites and that reinforced my feelings that yes, these guys did do it.

            Echols is diabolical, misleading person, you can tell it in his character. Jason, no matterr how shy or pretty some may think of him, deep down, he’s not the angel others think. Misskelley I think has the biggest heart of the three, his concious got to him several times and it was only after his lawyers kept telling him to can his confessions that they may have found the loophole to get them out, did he start raising his head out of his “shame” state because honestly, 18 years is a long time in prison.

            Even though they are out now, I am not angry. I feel they almost spent twenty years in prison and their young adult hood was shackled though the childrens youth were robbed completely, at least these three were incarcerated for a great deal of time.

            I believe time will tell and all the supporters eventually will walk away with egg on their face. Just my take. I respect your opinion too, it just differs from mine. You won’t be able to sway me just like I suspect I wont be able to sway you. We remain, in the end, completely in the dark with who REALLY did this, and we just carry our own thoughts of the evidence before us.

          2. However, I believe it is the nons who will eventually walk away with egg on their faces. Some day, hopefully soon, all of the information that the defense has will be made public. When it is, I feel strongly that all non sites will quietly disappear, that the State of Arkansas will exonerate these men and will hopefully pursue the REAL killer of those precious little boys.

    2. If he was innocent (Echols0 then a death sentence conviction is also the murder of an innocent…not many people are cheery about going to an undeserved death. I volunteered for hospice and I can tell you not all terminal cancer patients act like Jesus. People are bitter when their lives are about to be robbed from them.

      An already bitter teen would only become more, not less, angry and bitter by this experience.

      1. @ Rin:

        But honestly the only thing Echols felt really remorseful about was being raped in the yammi in the pen. I see the images of him with his long hair in PL2 and he looks really whipped. If I were being raped in prison, especially after being sentenced for something I didn’t do, I would be on my knees begging for someone to help me get out. Crying and begging. It appears though, that he has the look of someone of guilt and “street” justice being paid to him.

  31. It’s true. I am just as guilty and just as horrible a person for drinking and driving and killing an individual as whoever killed my precious baby.

    Now excuse me while me and my husband continue to ignore any evidence that doesn’t support our view.

    1. Whoever writes this fake “Dana Moore” stuff is a terrible waste of human life. I think if my child was found in the way Moore was, no matter how well balanced mentally I was before the murder, I am sure it would change my life and not for the better either. In my life, I can honestly say I have had about a total of 3 beers a year, if even that, or maybe a glass of wine or 1 glass of champagne on New Years Eve, if that. But if my child was found like them, I think I would have to find a way to cope, meaning some sort of substance abuse. That has to be really, really hard to have to deal with.

      Have some respect, whether you are a non or supporter, for what these families have gone through. Feel blessed that nothing like this has occured in your family and stop trying to judge the ones that have had something like this happen.

  32. Has anyone studied Aleister Crowley? He is the one he wrote in secret alphabet right under his most important people – His own name, his son’s name, and Jason’s name. Then who else pops up? Aleister! The sweetie. I copied something on Aleisters page that is down right creepy. Remember, Damien did this BEFORE the trial, so I think they should have at least looked up what the Crowley person believed in.

    “In this vein many of Crowley’s more audacious and outright shocking writings were often thinly veiled attempts to communicate methods of sexual magick, often using words like “blood”, “death” and “kill” to replace “semen”, “ecstasy” and “ejaculation” in the yet puritanical sexual environment of late 19th/early 20th century England. Take for instance the highly repeated quote from his thickly veiled Book Four: “It would be unwise to condemn as irrational the practice of devouring the heart and liver of an adversary while yet warm. For the highest spiritual working one must choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force; a male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory.”[139] Author Robert Anton Wilson, in his 1977 The Final Secret of the Illuminati (aka Cosmic Trigger Volume One), interpreted the child as a reference to genes in sperm. Crowley added in a footnote to the text on sacrifice, “the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result.”

    I know supporters will say this is more of Damien’s harmless dabbling, but the “male child of perfect innocence and intelligence” part gives me the heebies.

    1. Do you believe that Damien devoured the heart and liver of the kids? You tend to pick and choose what part of the quote you believe, don’t you? Also, is there any proof that Damien read that quote?

      He said that he knew who Aleister Crowley was but not that he had read any of his books. Of course, you’ll say that he was lying. Was any evidence presented, besides the writing of Crowley’s name in a secret alphabet to pass the time, to show that Damien had read Aleister Crowley’s books? This is from Damien’s cross examination:

      Q. You’re familiar with a fellow named Alister Crowley?

      A. I know who he is.

      Q. He is a guy who kindly professes — he is a noted author in the field of satanic worship, right?

      A. I know who he is, but I have never saw any of his books personally.

      Q. Not much of a follower of his?

      A. I would have read them if I had saw them.

      Q. But Alister Crowley is a guy that based on his writings believes in human sacrifice, doesn’t he?

      A. He also believed he was God so —

      Q. He also had writings that indicated that children were the best type of human sacrifice, right?

      A. Yes, sir.

      Q. But Alister Crowley doesn’t have any particular significance to you?

      A. I know who he is. I have read a little bit about him, but I have never read anything by him.

      So, Damien knew of Aleister Crowley, knew a little about him, would have read his books if they had been available (because of his curious nature, IMO) but had never read his books. Therefore, I think that your introduction of the inflammatory passage above is simply for shock value and to imply that Damien was a follower of Crowley which made him believe in child sacrifice. That is not true, at the above testimony indicates.

      1. His testimony???? You’re kidding right? Sure I believe his testimony. Damien has NEVER read his stuff, he just doodles it while sitting around his jail cell. Cuz he’s bored and that name just popped in his head after he wrote the names of Jason and his son. You really think he knows Nothing about him?? He is just some name that came to him after the sacrifice of 3 innocent boys?

        What a coincidence!!!!

        1. Aleister Crowley is familiar to anyone who likes classic rock. The Beatles even had him on their Sgt Pepper album cover and rock God Jimmy Page bought his Scotland house. I can tell you tons of stuff about Crowley just from reading Hammer of the Gods, but have I read a single book of his? Nope.

          This was pre-Internet as we know it and books like Crowleys were out of print and collector’s items so I have no doubt some podunk teen could get his hands on one unless he had a lot of money at the time. Satanic bible, yes. Crowley no.

          1. I agree w/Rin on the point that Crowley’s books/writings were very rare in the midsouth area out of the hands of collectors in 1993.
            I know this for a fact because I did have to go to great lengths to get them in Memphis for studies I was doing at the University of Memphis in world religions.


        Yep, Damien sure as heck don’t know anything about Crowley or human sacrifice.

        1. He said he knew of him and even some of what he wrote but that he hadn’t read any of his books. Knowing one quote or belief doesn’t mean he has read the books.

          1. @CR Really, this is one of the damning things I’ve read about Damien.Why was he even familiar with Crowley?

            Q. He also had writings that indicated that children were the best type of human sacrifice, right?

            A. Yes, sir.

            How did Damien know that?

          2. Why was he even familiar with Crowley?

            I don’t find this suspicious. There were many teenagers in WM interested in occult stuff, Wicca, magic; they all probably knew who Crowley was. It’s like knowing who Babe Ruth was if you’re a big baseball fan.

          3. @wm3truth But if he was familiar with Crowley, why is it such a stretch to believe he was also familiar with his writing?

          4. You are more intelligent than that Fred it seems to me that using a stretch as a yard-stick invites a certain degree of assumption as opposed to fact.

          5. I agree. It’s almost a rite of passage for teenagers to question and even resist popular religions such as Christianity and delve into alternate religions. This follows people generally even into their 20’s.

            That the three were interested in the occult, is almost normal teenage “stuff”. However, a person looking into witchcraft, USUALLY leans toward Wicca or white witchcraft. Very few, except for the emotionally unstable like Damien et al, move toward the black magick side of withcraft. Not saying that they don’t, but most “normal” teenagers see it as scary and taboo. Those that do, tend to gravitate toward icons like Ozzy Osbourne and the such and can’t really tell that it is mainly schtic to sell records and make money, but they none the less hold these people up as representatives of the occult.

            To me, the question has never been that these three were targeted because of a witch hunt, I think it was due to rumors and of course seeing three naked dead boys tied up and mutilated. A natural reaction would be one of witch craft etc because how can anyone in their right mind do these things to such young and innocent children without some sort of gain to the perp, especially if it wasn’t overtly sexual in nature? Even if someone has a beef with one of the parents.

            To me, and I believe quite a few others, this crime scene is one of bad timing for those little kids. I don’t believe this was planned. I believe you had three little kids that stumbled upon three drunken teenagers, teenagers with thoughts in their minds of the occult and things went very over the top and out of control.

            When I was a teenager, back in the 70’s, I was never a big fan of Black Sabbath all that much. I liked their music ok, but I preferred Kiss and Lynyrd Skynyrd, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Sones etc because to me, Black Sabbath just seemed a little strange for MY tastes. It just didn’t make me very comfortable, however I did like their music, it’s just that one wold never find me with a “Sabbath” t-shirt on, but I had friends who did and I didn’t ride them about it. To me it was to each their own, really.

            In my 20’s, I fell in love with a lady and after dating a while, the whole religion thing comes up. She turned out to be Wiccan in her beliefs. I never rode her about it, but naturally, myself going more toward Buddhism back in those days, I had questions. She came from a very small town, so small, that they had one stop light and that was installed in the late 90’s. She admitted that her initial gravitation toward Wicca was a self-defense mechanism against people who thought she was “weird” so, in a very small town, a coal mining town no less, word gets around real quick that she was into witchcraft and she was left alone. As soon as she turned 18, she left that town quick and moved to the big city, go to college and thus we met.

            Although she still called herself Wiccan, she rarely practiced or celebrated. I believe that this may have been the same with Damien in some ways, but not really in others. Yes, Wm is a small town, but it’s right over the bridge from a large city, Memphis. My girlfriends town, you had to wind down from narrow mountain roads for at least two hours before you got to a bigger town and another hour from there to get to a big city. If Damien was found weird in WM, it was because he wanted to be found weird and relished in it. So he brought a lot of that witchcraft “hype” on himself, because he took great pains to construct it that way.

            But that he was arrested a month after the crimes, does not convince me that the WMPD just nabbed him because of his beliefs. Seems to me they did investigations first instead of grabbing the obvious weirdo of the city which many supporters think is what they did. They didn’t. If I was a small town cop investigating this crime and believing it was witchcraft and it could happen again, I would have picked up Damien right away instead of a month later. To me, being the cop, it would have been a bigger stain on my reputation as a cop to have this happen again under my jurisdiction than to wrongly arrest someone out of hype.

            This is what got the attention of those Wiccans in L.A. that eventually formed “Free Wm3”. This organization, at FIRST, had their intentions in the right direction, removing “Wicca” from the crimes. That was their goal from the begining, way before they were called FreeWM3, it was that they did not want Wicca attached to these crimes. It was only after HBO’s success, did they finally see a means of reaping great tons of money from this case, and they did and they still are. This is the real injustice. The amount of money that has been generated in the name of the three little kids, not the three criminals. It was through the bloodshed of those little kids that I have to see pictures of Jason and his family enjoying the sight of Holloywood with his dorky, smiling face that gets my wheels spinning. I believe a full exoneration is impossible just as I beleive that their return to prison for these crimes is not possible, unless they all confess at the same time. Would you? So I just hold out hope for street justice, not by me mind you, but hope street justice inflicts their own death penalty against these three.

          6. There had been gossip (and let’s be honest, this is a very small town where gossip is believed as truth most of the time) that there was occult activity in the town way before these murders happened. We know someone gave Damien’s name to the police and he was investigated for various occult actions just a week prior to the killings. So the climate was ripe for someone to possibly see an opportunity to pin an unplanned crime of passion (homicidal rage at the 3 boys) on the occult. It’s really quite plausible that someone killed one boy in a fit of anger and then killed the other two to cover it up because they witnessed it. The murderer knew people were borderline hysterical about the alleged occult activity so he/she could have mutilated Chris’ penis afterward and hogtied them simply to make it seem like occult activity. I don’t find that difficult to believe at all.

          7. @Jennifer That scenario seems so fantastical and there’s nothing to back it up. The simplest explanation is the correct one… three drunk and troubled teens killed three boys.

          8. Sorry, Frank, but drunk teens would have left a lot more clues. A drunk ADULT would have left a lot more clues, for Heaven’s sake. I find your explanation pretty fantastical myself.

          9. My reply appeared up in the thread about something else so I copied it here:

            I don’t believe that Echols and Baldwin were drunk that night. Misskelley said he had that whiskey and the other two had some cheap beer. Misskelley stated that he got drunk that night, he didn’t say Echols and Baldwin were drunk. That may explain some of his inconsistencies in his many confessions.

          10. Echols’ “no more beer” comment in PL leads me to believe he was drinking. Pure speculation on my part because I admit I’m biased in that I think he killed the kids.

          11. You don’t think it’s far fetched that a step parent (cause I’m sure that’s what you’re implying) killed some kids in a fit of panic and then was both level headed and demented enough to come to the conclusion that mutilating one of their genitals would point fingers elsewhere?

          12. I’m not implying it was a step-parent but it could have been. It also could have been someone else in that neighborhood. There was a case not too long ago in a similar small town where a little girl went missing. She was gone almost a week before they found out that a neighbor had killed her. She wasn’t sexually assaulted and that wasn’t the motivation for the murder. She had wandered onto a man’s property and he saw her standing on the ladder of his pool. He killed her in a fit of rage. Why or how some people lose it like that is beyond a lot of us but it does happen. And, yes, when someone comes out of that state of rage they certainly have the capacity to become level-headed again and are more than capable of planning and carrying out a scheme to cover their a*ses. I wouldn’t consider the mutilation of genitals demented in the case of someone who is trying to cover up a murder. I actually consider it quite calculated (but personally, yes, it’s a demented act that I or you and most people think of as demented).

            I don’t think Damien, Jason and Jessie were good people AT ALL! But I also don’t think that a lot of the other characters (yes, including the step-parents) in that town were beyond reproach either. And we simply don’t know about the rest of that town’s inhabitants. But I bet there were quite a few others who probably (and unfortunately) got overlooked.

          13. Hey Jennifer, welcome to the site. Don’t you think Jessie’s several confessions mean something? Also, where were they that evening? None of them have proven their whereabouts. And why did Echols tell friends he killed the three? And don’t you think it would have been hard for one person to kill all three boys?

          14. I’m posting this very long response again, Frank. Sorry, I’m not used to this site and my replies keep going in weird places:

            Thanks, Frank, for the welcome. Re your questions –

            1) I think Jessie’s confessions mean that the first one was clearly coerced. The next two were, IMO, brought about by his panic over just being convicted – he was caving to the pressure that the Prosecution was putting on him to testify against Echols and Baldwin for reduced time. I believe his lawyer and family eventually talked him out of his panic as evidenced by the fact that he ultimately never testified against the other two.

            2) How thoroughly did the police check their alibis? did they follow up on phone records? did they wait so long to check them that people couldn’t remember details? In any event, I don’t think their alibis are any more solid than some of the family members or other suspects.

            3) Frank, do you honestly think that if someone committed a murder they’d actually tell people? Their “friends” or kids on the street or ANYONE? That sounds like the behavior of a stupid person and whoever killed these kids doesn’t appear to be a stupid individual.

            4) I really don’t think it would have been hard for one adult male to kill those children if he held a gun to their heads initially and then subdued them. Yes, it would be easier with two people and that could be a possibility.

            My point is…none of us know for a fact who killed these kids. And as I’ve stated, I probably wouldn’t like Damien if I met him on the street and chatted with him, even if I didn’t know about the alleged cult activity, just based on his personality. But I just don’t see how they could convict these kids on such flimsy evidence and what appears to be not top notch detective work.

          15. Hi Frank,

            Yes I know his 3rd confession came after he was sentenced which is exactly why I talked about him in panic mode and wanting to go against the other two to receive a deal to lessen his time in prison. The prosecution was still offering it to him. Here’s a youtube link to PL where the prosecutors are talking to the victims’ families about hoping to give Jessie a deal if he testified for the them – this takes place AFTER Jessie’s conviction (starts at 03:10 in the video):


            He never did testify against them because he couldn’t face Damien and Jason in court and lie about them. Why else wouldn’t he take a deal that would substantially lessen his time in jail?

            Why didn’t the police tape ALL of Jessie’s first interview and confession with them? And how could they POSSIBLY have lost the evidence from the Bojangles guy? He may have had a cast on his arm but who says he wasn’t an accomplice to someone else? You yourself said it would be difficult for one person to kill them.

            No. All this tells me the cops were too focused on DJ&J and they were negligent with respect to seriously and thoroughly looking at others.

            As for the Hobbs theory that you mentioned about soiling pants and stuff, it’s not my theory so I can’t really comment. But again, Hobbs could very well be the murderer, I’m just not saying he is for a fact.

            You mentioned “beyond a reasonable doubt”. To me the jury got it wrong. In my mind, there is VERY reasonable doubt.

          16. Jenn
            That would have been great but there was no deal on the table at the time he makes the confessions. In the confession they even made it clear . Nothing was promised to him.

          17. You obviously don`t remember the naivete related to being a teenager.
            Teens typically believe that other teens don`t divulge secrets to the enemy (adults).

          18. I’m sorry, but there is nothing here to imply “ritual”. Fetish killers do these things, too. If this were occult there would be magical “script”, not scratches. Hell even the Masons have that.

            You don’t have to stretch your argument so far as to jump to conclusions about other people’s jumping to conclusions. This does not look like a ritual killing at all. Even those fake vampire kids in NW VA awhile back had all of the ritual stuff down pat AND (for all those who believe multiple murderer theory) were all friends, into the same gig, and showed far more signs of capability than these three knuckleheads.

            IF Misskelley were a good friend to both, also into the occult, if they (all three) had more occult paraphernalia …maybe, but its still a far stretch from thinking about killing a human (much less children) to actually doing it. Serial killers of children are usually diagnosed with comorbid disorders. They tend to have some sort of compulsive disorder, pedophiliac tendencies, as well as, NPD, BPD, SID, etc. The only one who really fits this is (maybe) Echols.

            Not to say they couldn’t be the rare few that don’t fit the type, but then after listening to them speak I’d have to say that none of them (even Echols) seemed savvy and/or clever enough to save their own lives much less take the lives of others.

          19. Damien was curious about lots of things. He said that he had read ABOUT Crowley but never read anything BY him. I don’t see anything damning in that. As I’ve said before, my husband read the Satanic Bible. That doesn’t make him a Satanist! Some people are just curious about all sorts of things. My husband is one. Damien is another.

          20. @CR But Echols did say he knew that Crowley believed killing children made the best sacrifices. Don’t you think that could have been going through his mind as/if he killed them?

            Again, I don’t think the murders were part of some satanic ritual, but I do think Damien must have thought “here’s my chance to make a really good sacrifice. Now I’ll be really powerful and the girls will love me.”

        2. Are you saying you’ve never heard this stuff before this case? You weren’t very curious about anthropology, ancient religions, etc then.

      3. CR:

        Again, you would make a terrible attorney. He contradicts himself here. At first he says he knows who Crowley was, but never read anything about him. Then he is asked if it is true what Crowley states about sacrificing children and Damien says yes. Then he later states he has read some about him, but not a lot. Well, which one is it? None or a little? My wife can’t get a little pregnant. Either she is or she isn’t. He fumbles here and tries to be strong in the begining, but he falls to prosecution trickery. This is classic prosecution at it’s best. That’s like me saying to someone, there was a murder at the bakery this morning, where you there? No, I wasn’t. What time where you there? Oh about noon. Same thing here. No, I never read anything. Yes, I read some. Yeah, you read more than some. The internet was not happening that much back then, especially not in the trailer of this scum bag, so he picked up a book somewhere. You can’t just read a bit. I suspect that again, if this happened today, forensic police would go into his computer and find all kinds of stuff.

        1. Damien’s first response about Crowley was: “I know who he is.” When the prosecutor tries to draw him out further he says: “I know who he is, but I have never saw any of his books personally.” His final statement about Crowley was: “I know who he is. I have read a little bit about him, but I have never read anything by him.” I’m sure that his attorney had advised him to be as brief as possible with his answers. The prosecutor, on cross examination, gets him to be a little more expansive each time, but I see no contradiction. He never denied knowing who Crowley was or knowing about him. He only denied reading any books by him. He said he had read ABOUT him but nothing BY him. Also, the phrase “a little bit” is not very quantitative. For a voracious reader like Damien, “a little bit” might mean several books whereas for an idiot like Fogleman or Davis, “a little bit” might imply that he had only read an article. Damien never denied knowing who Crowley was or having read about him. Did you misread that second statement? Again, it was, “I know who he is, but I have never saw any of HIS books personally.” (caps for emphasis) He’s saying that he has not read any books authored by Crowley. He is consistent in this statement throughout. Again, where’s the contradiction?

      4. I believe the code of language that Crowley used was a form known as Enochian. Referring to history he had in the Golden Dawn and its’ offshoot the OTO.
        Enochian and similar codes are not easy to learn or to remember.
        Did Damien have a book with this code in it while he was writing the names awaiting his trial?
        Again it’s not an easy code to memorize for anyone and Crowley’s writings are very difficult to understand. Certainly not easy to write your own name in this language or the names of others unless you had the code in front of you or had spent a considerable amount of time studying it.
        Crowley fashioned his own set of tarot cards completely different from the common ones. I studied world religions and have read almost all of Crowley’s writings. In the end, I believe he died after drinking the blood of an infected cat.
        It’s been a long time since I read any of his works or his history, but I know that he proclaimed himself to be the “Great Beast” and encouraged the use of every type of drug and debauchery. He most certainly is not the kind of person any normal person would choose to follow.
        I know Damien checked out several fairly innocuous books from the library on witchcraft and other beliefs. I know that the local library didn’t have Crowley’s writings available to be checked-out. He is mentioned in other books, but to really get a grasp of his true beliefs and to understand how to write anything in the coded language he used one would have to study him in much more depth than any book available in the local library in Arkansas in 1993 could have provided.
        just my opinion

  33. CR, I second what you said about the blackboard. I was a “lurker” for a long time and only just recently signed up and began posting. Everyone on there has been extremely kind and helpful with every question I ask. It is an exhaustive site to say the least.

    Yes it is dominated by supporters, but the time and research over there is remarkable. Every single aspect and minascule detail is questioned, examined, and discussed till it cant possibly be discussed anymore, and then the discussion STILL goes on.

    I think that nons have it backwards. Obviously, there are a few nons out there who have ventured over to Calahan and done some research. But the discussion is just not there. What nons seem to do is this: “This is what I think happened. And what I think happened is the TRUTH. And here’s a few Callahan documents that prove what I think is the TRUTH.” Not so much with supporters, especially those at blackboard. Blackboard takes every piece of info, notes, transcripts and documents and says “Here it is. Discuss”.

    Nons constantly say that anyone who thinks the wm3 are innocent have not researched the case outside of the documentaries. That is simply not true. Blackboard is proof positive of that. You’ll find that there are literally hundreds, possibly thousands of threads on there dealing with every aspect and every detail of the case. Are there threads about Paradise Lost 1, 2 and 3? Yes. But you’ll find that those are only a few pages long, where as a thread about a specific wound on the boys, or a police document, or a witness statement are often 20 to 30 pages long of discussion.

    Quite the opposite of this, and other non sites and pages where 99% of the posts are about the documentaries! Go over to the hoax board…..they don’t even know what research and discussion is. It’s all bitching over there. A topic about a scene in Paradise Lost 1, 2 or 3 will go on page after page after page after page. All bitching and complaining about it. But a topic about an actual detail of the case or police document usually only gets a handful of “remarks”. Not so much discussion as it is 5 or 6 members chiming in to say “Damien is evil”, “Jessie is not handicapped”, “who cares? they are guilty”….etc…..

    1. Which is why I don’t post at the Hoax. It’s pointless. I don’t mind civil debate, but civility is nonexistent over there. I just hope the BB comes back up soon. I’m having withdrawals. LOL

  34. Me too. And in defense of what nons say about the blackboards “rules”…..its actually quite lenint over there. Non theories and statements are not disregarded and ignored. As we have stated, everything has been and is discussed over there. However it is simply a fact that most nons are not open other theories or interpretations or discussion.

    Look at the wm3 truth FB page. They proclaim that all questions and civil debate from supporters or those on the fence is “welcome”. Yet any supporter or even anyone who is leaning more towards being a supporter is quickly blocked from posting there and all supporter comments deleted. Its pathetic. Its the same 5 or 6 people talking to eachother over there.

    1. As a “non”, I have never stated that these guys are guilty and it’s my way or the highway. My main argument is why hold these three up as heroes when NO ONE (except maybe the three) and I mean NO ONE knows the truth? It’s ok to form a cause to release someone becuase of lack of evidence, I would want that if I ever got accused of something I didn’t do, BUT that has been achieved, so why is still in business and accepting donations? Why are there book deals and movie deals that which proceeds will not go to the victims (boys’) families, but will eventually be funneled to these three? You know, I will be the first to admit, if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit, BUT the only people I ever saw celebrating OJ’s release were black people in general. And then he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar in Vegas and those same supporters ate crow. They are released, you guys have won and unless these three do something stupid in the next ten years, they will be freed probaby for good. So, if you think it’s all good and you won, why even debate? Why just not say fuck-it and move on?

      I will tell you why, because deeeep down, you guys are scared that maybe you made a mistake, and so you feel the need to defend yourself. Look at those three. They are remaining quiet mostly about the case, for now. They are not debating. is their mouth piece. I was booted off the Facebook page because I voiced a dissenting opinion. I never cussed or disrespected anyone. I was just blocked. Now you tell me, was that fair? No. They didn’t want my opinion read because this whole thing has been a gold mine for and HBO. Nothing but money, money, money. Meanwhile, these three boys have a small memorial at their old school and as far as I know, that’s it.

      All that money, and where is the respect toward these children, which really, made all their money, if it wasn’t for them shedding their blood. Have they put any of that “donation” money toward a respectable memorial for these boys? Nope. Instead they fly Damien to ink deals in New Zealand and Jason for a grand tour of Hollywood. What about these boys? They will never be able to enjoy Hollywood.

      Support them if you must. They are free. You won. Why do you feel the need to stick around and defend yourselves? Let us “nons” disprove you and maybe some day in the future, we may be a viable threat to these three freedoms by coming up with new evidence, but let’s be frank, it’s been a long time, the chance of finding anything new now is probably not going to happen, so why doesn’t dismantle then? You know why. Because they are still manipulating the public into giving them more money. So why not keep it open. Basic math. All I am saying is keep the boys in mind and remember that a lack of evidence doesn’t means that they did not do it. It just means there is a lack of evidence. If I murdered someone tommorow and erased all evidence, I am still a crminal, I just got lucky and got rid of everything, but I am still a criminal. Remember that point. It is very basic, yet very compelling.

      I am not going to come here every day to defend myself over everything I have said. I have better things to do in my life then to lurk here or on Blackboard to play a game of mental tennis with people. I saw all three shows, i read extensively on the web, I made up my mind, and I voice my opinion. You can shoot arrows through my opinion all you want, at the end of the battle, I will still stand with my opinion intact, so to me, it’s a waste of time to come on here every day and keep playing these debate games. I would rather be out riding my motorcycle to be honest. So I just wanted to come here and read and reply and I did and now, I move on. Ocassionally I will glance in here or Facebook or newspapers etc and I will read stuff about the case, but it will not change my life like it did those little boys, so why waste my energy?

      Good luck to you guys. if I had the means, I would probably start a group to help dimantle so they can stop reaping the rewards of these three kids’ deaths. How they sleep at night, I sure will not know.

      1. @Gary
        It’s not over because the three still stand convicted for murders of which they are innocent. It won’t be over until they are exonerated and the real killer is incarcerated. That’s why money is collected. The three victims are NOT forgotten. Exonerating the falsely convicted men is the next step in this fight. Following that will be the conviction of the REAL killer. Believe me, we have some very dedicated people working for both of these goals.

        General supporter funds did not finance Damien’s trip to New Zealand. Peter Jackson did that. And, Eddie Vedder financed Damien’s trip to Disneyland. Likewise, general supporter funds didn’t finance Jason’s trip, either. The monies contributed into the various funds are used as specified. Back around Christmas time, there was a special fund set up for the families of the victims. (As usual, the Moores refused money, although Todd is now begging Farm for money over at the Hoax from what I’ve been told.)

        Believe me, I’m not posting on this site because I think I’m wrong. I post to be sure the truth as I see it is available when someone new stumbles on a site that is spewing what I consider garbage. That is my right. If you don’t want to discuss, no one is making you. Go on. Live your life. However, I am sure that one day soon the three falsely convicted men will be exonerated. Then, I am equally sure that the REAL killer will be convicted. Until that time, I will continue to post wherever I please. As to who knows the truth, obviously the killer does. Someday, hopefully soon, it will be abundantly clear to everyone.

  35. Have seen all three films read Devil knot and will always have gut feeling WM3 guilty.
    The way the bikes were placed by the 3 boy’s could not have been staged. Just too perfect. Jessie told the truth we know this. Damien just dark vacant eyed evil freak clearly. And yes I went to Harvard and MIT. I know how to read the mind and body. Classic case of Damien having power over Jason and Jessie just tough enough to bail at the end and tell the truth. Love the fact that the rocker celeb types.. Who’s iq vedder the wino 72 I’m sure.. Natile dumb fake blonde and Chain smoking Depp support wm3. If you are not smart enough after watching the films and reading the book to not realize Damien is and was a freak and killer.. You should move in with Jessie and read his clock!

    1. @ Evil Three

      I also believe in their guilt. However, it is my understanding that the bikes were found in the creek and later placed on the pipes/bridge by the cops. This is not your fault, these are the producers of the PL series which wanted you to see what they wanted you to see. Go to Callahan site and there is a wealth of information, that in my opinion is rather mainly neutral because they document everything from this case right from the begining from court records etc. Jivepuppy is another sight, but they are somewhat slanted toward supporters in my opinion. In the end, read it and make up your mind.

      That reminds me, didn’t Misskelley in one of his many confessions say that one of the bikes was NOT a boys bike and sure enough, it wasn’t? If I remember seeing the bikes on the pipes, one did look like a girls bike. I guess have an IQ of 72 affords you sometime psychic ability.

      1. The coverage of the bikes being pulled out was on television before Jessie was arrested. As you pointed out, it’s obvious that one of the bikes is a girl’s bike. IMO, that’s how Jessie knew that little factoid. It’s also possible that he heard it around town. Knowing small towns like I do having grown up in one, there is NO WAY that the townspeople didn’t discuss the murders from the time the bodies were found forward. Much of the information in this case became public knowledge, some of it through members of the search and rescue team who were called in to help and some of it through the Memphis, TN, newspaper, “The Commercial Appeal” which acted inappropriately in releasing some things. I know that we the people have a right to know, but there needs to be a limit!

        1. @CR
          Yeah, but on that point. I didn’t catch it about the “sex” of the bikes until AFTER I read Jessie’s confession where he mentions it, out of the blue mind you. I suspect if you put the PL films in front of people who have never seen it and later ask them, what color were the bikes and whether they were boys or girls bikes, they probably couldn’t answer, and so you have me to believe that a “mentally deficient” guy like Jessie is going to zero in on that fact during a news report on tv? This is classic of supporters using his “retardation” both to your advantage and disadvantage. The dude is either retarded and don’t know shit, or he is clever. Which one, CR?

          Was he in special ed? Did he receive treatment or special attention from organizations at schools because of his “retardation”? IDK about you guys.

          The last thing I want to mention, let’s say for arguments sake the animal predation is true and correct. Ok, well, the animals didn’t bash their heads in and tie them up with shoe string. I have a very smart dog, and I have been trying to teach him to hogtie me, and I just can’t seem to do it. (Not really, but you know what I am trying to say) So let’s say, yeah, ok, the animals nipped the kid’s wee wee off, still doesn’t mean that any of those three didn’t do anything else to them, it just happened to be covered up by the predation.

          As I said before, those three were LUCKY that most forensics were washed away, lucky. Today, we have more intelligent criminals because they watch shows like Forensic Files and CSI etc, so most criminals know how to cover their tracks and TRY to circumvent science, most stumble because they are idiots and something gets picked up sppner or later, mostly by their big mouths in some way. But back then, the science wasn’t there like today, and the fear from criminals wasn’t there because of the lack of forensics, so these three were lucky.

  36. As for the may documentaries and movies now being made, and the money not going to the victims families……to be honest we dont know that non of it is. The families were all paid for the first Paradise Lost. They could of also received something for PL2 and PL3, but Im not sure. I dont know what the contracts stated. They very well could of signed a contract that gave HBO Documentary Films the rights to the story indefinitely and to make as many films about it as they wanted.

    We also know that the families of the victims who met with Dimension Films about the WM3 movie, sold the rights to their life story so that it could be used in the film.

  37. No reply again.


    Jessie was in custody for about 12 hours before his actual arrest (despite what the arrest report says – the time it states is when the recording began). To him, it was the same thing as being interrogated.

    LOL ok. Come on now! You have an excuse for EVERYTHING. According to you, the WM3 did absolutely nothing wrong, the WMPD did absolutely nothing right, and the PL films, the defense attorneys, ATA & were completely, 100% honest in both their tactics and their statements.

    You don’t think this view of yours is irrational?

    1. The WMFree DID make some mistakes. Jessie confessed when he was innocent. Damien acted like a prick at his trial. However, I do believe that the WMPD thoroughly botched the investigation. It is possible that they were “helped” in this by someone above them. This is just my opinion, but I think that someone in authority KNEW that Terry Hobbs was the killer and had to protect him. (Terry once said that the WMPD had to protect him.) I don’t know why, but for some reason, Terry has been “hands off” since the beginning of this case. That’s why I sometimes refer to him as “Teflon Terry.” It’s the only thing that makes sense. Why wasn’t he interviewed until 2007? Mark was. Todd was. Why not Mr. Hobbs? When someone can show me irrefutable evidence that Terry Hobbs did NOT commit these murders, then I will stop accusing him. The WMPD never cleared him, and parents are the most likely suspects in child killings when the child in under twelve. I just feel like Shakespeare, “Something’s rotten in the [city of West Memphis]” and it ain’t three trailer trash kids who took the fall for the REAL bad guy!

  38. I just watched a trailer for “West of Memphis”

    They found Michael Carson! And he recants!
    Here is my impression of Michael:

    “Uh, yeah, I was on LSD. I don’t know what I said… Hey are you positive I’m going to be in this movie? Ok. Yep, I was on LSD. Don’t know what I said. “

    1. @ Stacia

      That whole Michael Carson thinkg bugs me, too. Defrense attorneys painted him ass an LSD addict, well, I am here to tell you as a former LSD consumer myself, about 30 years ago, first, LSD is not addicting. Second, LSD is not something you can nor would want to take every day, you simply cannot fucntion on constant LSD. If I took LSD tonight, depending on strength, purity etc, I would expect to be in LA LA land for about 12 hours. If I wake up the next day and take it again, chances are it’s not going to “take” because you have to let it pretty much get out if your system complete (if that is even possible) before you can egenrate the same effect as yesterday. LSD is not like drinking or doing coke or smoking pot, it is very difficult to go about normal tasks such as working or school while you are tripping, so it is usually done in a very controlled enviroment. So that the defense called him an LSD addict, is wrong on many fronts.

  39. Ok, sooo @CR and Celeb -rocker idiots… we have only a few options on what happened to the 3 beautiful boys that night.

    Truck driver goes into woods alone for some reason.. Sex out of cab, or drugs etc. Not a chance he could kill all three by himself – a cast on arm no way – or no cast still not a chance. Just saying truck driver has to be an option but just don’t see it.
    Step dad take your pick now, I guess Hobbs … Kills all three boys at the site and ties them up by himself.. Not a chance. Adult thinking mind crazy or not… No way!

    How did the three boys die… Soooo sad. But One real freak Damien, two other very sad cases Jason and Jessie. Damien lime the devil had transfixed the other two into doing what he said. I again go back to Jessie who just had to tell the truth. Sure he left some things out changed his story a bit but felt so evil he had to let go and tell. WM3 like OJ. They will never look or find the killer but money pays and a great lawyer can get you off. In this case follow the $ that is what it took. Get a life @ CR and think about Damien, Jason or Jessie never losing their mind about this case and just sitting their.. Know why.. Not because they are dumb or young but because they did it. Damien you will get what is coming to you….

    1. Hobbs, being a step parent, could have easily controlled all three boys, especially if he had a gun. There is no reason in the world why they should listen to or go with three teenagers. If the teenagers jumped them, like Jessie says, they would have yelled. Hobbs, by his own admission, was in the woods from 6:30 until at least 8:45. The other parents were in the woods from about 8:00 until about 3:00 am. If the WMFree had done this the way Jessie says, and if Hobbs’ statements are all true, then why didn’t one of the searchers see what happened? Those woods only cover less than three acres. That’s not that big. Think about it.

  40. I read some interesting comments (the PL debuts thread) and found myself very confused about the DNA tested at Bode.

    Does anyone here know whether or not the WM3 were excluded from being donors of any of the DNA evidence tested by Bode. I’ve read that the alleles on a penile swab and on a ligature does not exclude the WM3 and that the WM3 were excluded from all the DNA evidence at the crime scene. I was under the impression that Bode excluded the 3 from the hair evidence (where originally there seemed to be a “similiar” hair to one of the 3) but that the final report was that the 3 could not be excluded in the DNA evidence of the penile swab and ligature.

    Do you know what was the final result by Bode on the DNA and the hairs?

    Thank you for the excellent work you do here, WM3Truth. It’s much appreciated out here.

    1. I wish there was an edit option (sorry)

      I didn’t make it clear that I was speaking of two opinions that I’d read.

      I’ve read that the alleles on a penile swab and on a ligature does not exclude the WM3 and I’ve also read that the WM3 were excluded from all the DNA evidence at the crime scene.

      1. All biological material from which DNA has been extracted has excluded the WMFree. The one allele on the penile swab is insufficient to obtains a DNA profile. All that can be determined is that it is male. I don’t think that even the victims could be ruled out as donors. It’s just too small a sample.

        1. I can’t link to it right now but will later. 1 of the samples, if I recall correctly did exclude Baldwin. So it’s not a case of just not excluding because they are male or something like that.

          I’m running late for an appt but I’ll come back to this later.

          1. Val, what I believed was that the final Bode testing in the case of the material on ligature and a penile swab (I cannot remember which child) was that the lab couldn’t positively identify anyone but it also could not exclude the 3 from being possible donors of that evidence? Thank you for looking.

            I’ve tried wading through the Bode letters and evidence determinations at Callahans and I was left with a blazing headache from all the sample numbers and testings.

        2. @CR

          Not only did it exclude the three, it excluded millions and millions of other. Again, these guys were lucky and the lack of forensic evidence does NOT mean they are innocent, just lucky. You supporters ride this like it’s a great triumph and I am not sold.

          Like I have said before, if I killed someone (and no, I won’t and never will) but if I killed someone and erased every speck of evidence does that mean I am innocent? Not at all, is still means I am a murdering thug, but I got away with it, that’s all. So this whole DNA stuff not making them guilty, to me, doesn’t mean they are innocent either.

        3. You are wrong about this. The allele did not provide enough information to “match,” but it did show a mixture at one loci (three numbers instead of two). The mixture contained foreign DNA that was not from the victim. And lo and behold, the same convict that Jessie said attacked that victim had the matching number at that loci.

          Terry Hobbs does not “match” either, but there were multiple loci he was consistent with, and one loci where he was not that they have postulated could be a mutation.

  41. No reply button:
    CR-you wrote:
    “However, I believe it is the nons who will eventually walk away with egg on their faces. Some day, hopefully soon, all of the information that the defense has will be made public. .”

    CR, the *Best* place for this evidence to be shown is/was in a court of law. It really doesn’t matter until it is vetted and cross examined. *Not* a documentary or TV show.

    1. They were going to do just that. Then, through a series of discussions that began with Benca and McDaniels having lunch together and discussing the case and progressed to a sit-down with all attorneys from both sides and culminated with the Alford Plea, the necessity of a trial was eliminated. I don’t fault the WMFree if they didn’t want to trust the State of Arkansas to give them justice. They were trusting when they were teenagers, and they ended up in prison for murders which they did not commit. The State had convicted them unjustly once; they weren’t going to give them another chance to take more of their lives.

      I’m confident that the rest of the information will come out, though. Some of it my be in “West of Memphis” and some may come out in some other fashion. It WILL come out, and it will be astonishing.

      Why do you think the State allowed the Alford Plea? The WMFree were already in prison so they didn’t need to accept the plea to get them in prison. Ellington told us the reason in his GQ interview. He KNEW he would get his a$$ handed to him at the evidentiary hearing and at the trial which he was convinced would be ordered. So, he chose to eat the “maggot sandwich” in order to avoid multimillion dollar law suits.

      Why did the defense attorneys take their case to the public through television and film? Because the corrupt justice system in this case (mainly David Burnett) wouldn’t let them present all of the evidence in court. However, the Arkansas State Supreme Court said, “All means all.” They heard all the evidence available at the time and they determined that it was sufficient to order an evidentiary hearing (which Burnett had denied).

      Don’t you find it interesting that the ASSC released their decision ONE DAY AFTER BURNETT WON THE STATE SENATE SEAT? I guess that’s just another one of those little coincidences, huh?

      1. Because they didn’t trust the State of Arkansas to give them a fair shake. They had been in prison for over 18 years and were innocent. They knew just how corrupt the system was. They saw a chance to get out, and they took it. All three are working diligently to exonerate themselves.

        1. Do you know this personally? For a fact? If so, please share with us how they are “working diligently” to prove their innocence. Anything besides Damien going to Peter’s house and putting his name on another slanted “documentary”?? If they were really working diligently then I would think some of that enthusiasm would leak onto their facebook pages or the wm3 page. All I see there is appearance notifications, or new t-shirt designs, or trailers for upcoming fairtale documentary films. Please enlighten us nons.

          1. I don’t know which Facebook pages you’re looking at, because Damien has three and Jessie has at least two. I think Jason only has one. Damien and Jason have been interviewed quite a bit. They usually mention it in these interviews. I have seen some statements on both of their Facebook pages to that effect. Jessie is still uncomfortable about giving interviews, but his fiancee, Susie, posts on his Facebook page and says the same things. Yes, they are all three doing whatever they can to establish their innocence. The defense team is also still working. And Peter Jackson is financing it all.

        2. These were no longer 3 unknown teensagers, CR. There has been tons of publicity regarding this case in the last 18 years. They would have more than gotten a fair shake. And if they truly thought that theyweren’t going to get that fair shake, why wait as long as they did to take the plea to the State? WHy sit in prison for months waiting for this hearing only to decide to plead guilty?

          1. The plea was only offered days (maybe a week) before they took it. The ONLY hold up was Jason. At first, he was willing to remain in prison until he could be exonerated. He wanted to reject the plea. However, when he learned that Damien’s physical condition was steadily worsening, he took the plea for Damien’s sake.

            The whole plea deal happened because one of the attorneys on Damien’s team, Patrick Benca, went to law school with Dustin McDaniel, the Attorney General of Arkansas. Benca was a recent addition to the team. He decided to see if he could get a lunch meeting with McDaniel and discuss the case. That lunch meeting lead to a meeting with Ellington which lead to a meeting of all attorneys from both sides which lead to the Alford Plea.

          2. no reply button
            CR – as is said: “please share with us how they are “working diligently” to prove their innocence” HOW is the question. Public appearances and all of their facebook pages are done to further their support in the form of $$ since they don’t work, not to ‘exonerate’ since they’ve added absolutely nothing in the form of proof of innocence when they talk to the media or post trivia on their pages . I believe if the defense team were truly ‘working’ on something here that had any merit, they would have presented it by now (18-plus years into the ‘investigation’). All they have is a transfer hair from an innocent step-dad. It seems You work much harder trying to explain away their guilt than They do.

      2. @ VAL

        Oh, but didn’t you hear, sweet little ol’ Jason wanted to save his friend Damien’s life so they all decided to plead guilty so poor Damien wouldn’t fry. Isn’t that sweet of Jason? And Jessie, poor Jessie, during their pleadings of guilt and the after interviews, he really looked sad at that table, like he wanted to stand up and confess….AGAIN!

        1. but really gary, didn’t you see them bring damien out to the press conference on a gurney due to his ‘worsening physical condition’? After all, the man couldn’t even eat with a fork anymore due to the unjust treatment on death row, not to mention the pain he must have been in from multiple rapes by guards and another inmate committed through a hole in his death cell wall. jason is a true humanitarian. Haven’t you heard him talk about the sorrow of these killings and express his concern for the kids and their families (not sure you can make out his words though on his latest page video of him playing hackysack in hollywood).

          1. I am not a doctor, nor do I have any medical training, but I have seen a lot of sick people in my life and to me, it appears Echols may have contracted Hep or something else in prison. Just my feeling. I have worked with very sick people in my early life, and thats what hits me right off the bat.

  42. @CR

    I agree. I also think its telling when you read all the Hollingsworth clan documents and statements and interviews, there is some very clear confusion about exactly when, and where they supposidly saw them on the service road. Many of the Hollinsworth’s in the car gave different accounts, some even questioning what others were saying.

    Yet at the end of it all, the WMPD decided that they were all confused and “mistaken” about everything….EXCEPT for the part of seeing Damien.

  43. @CR

    I agree. I also think its telling when you read all the Hollingsworth clan documents and statements and interviews, there is some very clear confusion about exactly when, and where they supposidly saw them on the service road. Many of the Hollinsworth’s in the car gave different accounts, some even questioning what others were saying.

    Yet at the end of it all, the WMPD decided that they were all confused and “mistaken” about everything….EXCEPT for the part of seeing Damien.

  44. @cr thing for me that really just makes me think wm3 guilty is the hog tie. Sorry about the bikes forgot after reading Devil Knot they were pulled out of water. I just can’t see with or without a gun one person or two Hobbs friend doing this. So hard to believe that they would do that to 3 children know matter how rotten they are as men. Also 3 different knots! What I can see is three evil drunk and drugged out boys the wm3 thrill kill doing this. I mean really CR common sense just does put the guilt on wm3, no?

    And more common sense why aren’t WM3 going crazy about this. I would be running around the world screaming about how I got screwed. Shoot I would be on the White House lawn asking to be let in and demand an answer from Obama about what happened to me!!! They know they did it CR.

    1. Why aren’t they going crazy? That’s not how you get exonerated buddy. They are compiling evidence, finishing up WoM (which premieres this Friday) and laying low so that nutjob nons don’t try to kill them. Don’t worry, the evidence will come in soon, at which point all nons will have wasted several years of their lives for nothing. Well, they already have, but this will make it official.

      1. That evidence means nothing if not presented in a court of law. A documentary doesn’t count. A 48 Hours Special doesn’t count. One gets exonerated primarily by proving they did not commit the crime in question, usually by proving someone else did. And let’s be honest, if these guys had that evidence, they would have presented it in open court for the world to see.

    2. It wasn’t three different knots. That was prosecution spin. A square knot is two half hitches. All of the knots were a series of one or more half hitches. They weren’t “special” knots like a sheep shank or a noose. The hog tying was done with a series of half hitches, the most common way to tie a knot.

      “Going crazy” wouldn’t help. They are proclaiming their innocence at every turn. Believe me, they are working diligently to get themselves exonerated. As to Obama, this wasn’t a Federal crime, so the president can’t pardon them. A pardon would have to come from the governor of the State of Arkansas.

  45. i have spent a fair amount of time checking out this site and have truly maintained an open mind in reviewing the info . after doing so i have to say most on here completely miss the point of how and why the wm3 were treated unfairly and have used the same myopic view the authorities did in their judgement of who committed this crime .

    to be honest i am stunnded at the lack of sophistication displayed by many on this site . it’s hard to imagine grown adults accepting hysterical rumor as truth to the degree they have on this site . i read through a lot of infomation you’ve presented only to find a sad amount of ignorance behind it .

    for starters anyone who says their courtroom behavior in pl1 is proof of guilt has no clue and isn’t worth talking to . those people only reinforce the supporter’s position that this was about outward appearance , period . go ahead and disagree it won’t change the fact that you are LOOKING AT SOMEONE AND JUDGING THEM BY HOW THEY LOOK .

    jessie’s multiple confessions can be summed up with widsom from another famous idiot , forest gump : stupid is as stupid does ! we already knew if someone asked him a question more than once he’d give them the answer they want so they would leave him alone . nothing new just more of jessie repeating what he heard .

    what i found most distressing was so many adults taking the words and actions of a teenager at face value . maybe in a post columbine world it’s reasonable to believe that every threat from a teen aimed at a teacher is real ? maybe it’s acceptable to view rumors or outlandish statements as truth rather than a kid looking for attention in today’s world ? so much of what is on this site is nothing more than a misguided teen getting attention any way he could . kids will say just about anything especially when it gives them power . echol’s bizarre behavior was about having control in a world he didn’t really fit in . the crazier he acted the more control he had , simple as that . the fact that adults actually believed even a third of the shit he said is pathetic . sacrifice his first born , are you retarded ? drinking blood from another’s wound like some blood thirsty demon ? yeah that definitely in no way says “HEY LOOK AT ME” . that he was possessed , really people ? it is flat out childish to honestly believe he meant any of that . also it’s offensive to say he tortured animals on the word of one 12yo . skulls aren’t proof that he hurt a dam thing and saying he did cause some little kid offered up a story after echols was arrested is far from proof .

    the biggest problem is that the cops didn’t look at anyone else , namely the family . you can’t argue that hobbs and byers aren’t worth a look . gitchell wouldn’t explain why hobbs was ruled out , why is that ? if he know’s terry hobbs didn’t do it why refuse to answer the question under oath ? if the case was so strong why fear the answer you give could result in a new trial ?

    1. we already knew if someone asked him a question more than once he’d give them the answer they want so they would leave him alone

      So how do you explain Misskelley’s 2/8/94 confession in a private meeting with Dan Stidham? Was he just telling Stidham what Stidham wanted to hear?

      1. actually yes he was . his lawyer was there about his confession to the cops that were transporting him . read the transcribed portion of the recording his lawyer made and you’ll see his lawyer will say something misskelley will repeat it as fact and go on from there . here are some examples –

        STIDHAM: Well, what happened after everybody started hitting on
        the kids?
        MISSKELLEY: Um, uh, Damien choked – I don’t remember which one.
        STIDHAM: Now you know, you heard during the trial that the
        medical examiner said none of the boys were choked.
        MISSKELLEY: He didn’t choke him – “choke choked.” Just, you
        know, just say like just hold their head and choked, not hard
        enough, just holding him. .

        this may seem minor but had he not interjected there is no way of knowing what misskelley would have said .

        STIDHAM: What happened to him?
        MISSKELLEY: Well, he – he – he was knocked out.
        STIDHAM: Who knocked him out?
        MISSKELLEY: I did, I was hitting him. Just hitting him, steady
        hitting him.
        STIDHAM: Did he fall down and not get up?
        MISSKELLEY: He just fell down and didn’t get up. I just – I
        knew he wasn’t dead, cause I, you know I went over there and
        touched him and he was still breathing.

        again the lawyer interjects and misskelley is given an answer before he could describe it on his own . misskelley quoted his lawyer word for word at certain points .

        1. So he confessed to his lawyer just to make him happy, or so that he’d stop questioning him? I just don’t buy that. I don’t think he’s that stupid. I know he’d been questioned by police for some other small crimes. I would love to hear those or read the transcripts. Wonder if there are any.

          “to be honest i am stunnded at the lack of sophistication displayed by many on this site .” Really? Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

          1. He talked to his attorney on 2/8/94 because the prosecutors called his attorney and told him that Jessie wanted to make a statement. When Stidham got there, he wanted to interview Jessie alone, which is his right. This statement is that interview. In the end, Stidham realized that, if Jessie were to make this statement, he would be committing perjury and he (Stidham) would be suborning perjury. That’s why Stidham convinced Jessie NOT to make a statement on 2/8/94. It took the prosecutors nine more days of pressure on Jessie to get him to agree, once again, to make a statement. This time, however, they only allowed Stidham about five minutes alone with Jessie before they rushed into the room and demanded that the statement be taken. Of course, the prosecutors deny that any pressure was placed on Jessie, but Stidham says that Jessie told him that he was interrogated quite a bit during those nine days. I choose to believe Stidham. Of course, all of these statements of Jessie’s don’t stand up to scrutiny and don’t match the forensics. So, it’s all really moot anyway.

          2. @CR But why give even more details? Why go on about that whiskey bottle? Why say things like “I’ve gotta get this off my chest.”

    2. Fair Minded:

      You talk about intelligence, yet you are not even intelligent enought to use proper sentence structure. Capitalization commas. Learn it. Live it. To me you are indicative of most supporters, willing to be swayed by the hypnotic eyes of Damien, irregardless of your own educational endowments or lack thereof.

      1. so because i don’t care enough to make sure there are no typos or begin each sentence with proper capitalization i’m stupid ? at least i can see through high school rumor and small town hysteria . feel free to insult me rather actually consider any of the content that was written . for the record i think echols is a creepy sob .

      2. FYI – there is no such word as “irregardless”. “Irrespective” or “regardless” could have been used, though 🙂

        1. @ Jennifer:

          This is from Wikipedia:

          Irregardless is an informal term commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as “nonstandard” or “incorrect”.

          So pardon my less than formal words, but it is a word. Whether it is correct or incorrect, depends on who you ask and what dictionary you are reading. Sounds awfully familiar with the subject matter at hand. Irregardless, I will continue using that word, if it pleases the court…..Next

          1. I’ve yet to find a dictionary that says it is correct, however I agree that some dictionaries do say the word exists although they go on to say it is not proper usage of the English language . They think it was a bastardization of the words “irrespective” and “regardless”. In any event, the word is redundant and a double negative and IMO is slang at best. So just because a word exists, it doesn’t mean it’s correct.

            It’s unfortunate you chose to make a snarky remark about “pleasing the court”, but then again, judging by your very defensive reply the Court reference makes sense. I simply stated a non-judgmental fact. And FYI the reason I mentioned it in the first place was because you made a judgment on these public boards about people “lacking education” and their poor sentence structure and whatnot. I found it a bit amusing that you would then go ahead and use a word like “irregardless” in the process of insulting someone else for their lack of education or poor sentence structure. People in glass houses…that’s all. Good day.

          2. @ Jennifer:

            One could argue that the english language used in the U.S.A. is mostly informal, right? That’s what the Enlgish say about us. What about Ebonics? That is even a more informal use of the English language, but it is accepted none the less. It becomes formal after repeated use. I never said I was Harvard graduate or anything, but if you come to pontificate on a sight that welcomes debate of an intelligent nature, at least TRY to use correct grammar and punctuation to help support your argument.

            I was only trying to point out that capitalization in the begining of sentences etc is something most people learn in grammar school and that frankly, the lack of such, just solidifies in my mind, that most supporters are just knee-jerk unintelligent beings that will go and buy a yellow rubber bracelet at 7-11 to support the three criminals simply because their friends have the bracelet, irrespective, (ahem) of their own knowledge of the facts.

        1. I totally agree. He is butt-ugly. When I was a stupid uneducated supporter I thought he was butt-ugly. I just do not see the appeal.

          1. Well, to me and you he is butt ugly, but if you look at the Facebook page and look at the list of supporters and their faces, almost all of them are young girls. I am not saying these young girls are unintelligent, I think most of them are just sort of “groupies” that have twisted the reality that this guy, Echols is a hideous creature into a sex symbol of sorts.

            Look at David Caruso, star of CSI Miami. He was, I believe, once named sexiest man of the year, again, I believe in People Magazine. HUH??? To me, he loked like a red-headed monkey. Illusions become “reality” after many people start believing, no matter how unreal it is, like Caruso, it becomes real. Much like these three being innocent. Even if the glove fits, they still tend to overlook or not even delve into the evidence and just join the fray because it’s “cool” to do so. You can read some of the comments left on Damien Echols Facebook page, and you will see how they are holding him up to be the next coming of Christ almost. This is fools adoration, and Echols isn’t the first and won’t be the last.

            Another one that comes to mind is the “Teflon Don”, John Gotti. Here is someone that is a master criminal and has engineered the death of quite a few people, yet, at one time, most of us liked Gotti and because in general public opinion of Gotti was fairly favorable, the FBI found it hard to convict him through juries. Sure, some people have said it was Jury tampering, but, it stil does not change the fact that a lot of people still liked Gotti, the Dapper Don. We, meaning society, took a murderous thug, and transformed him into a fairy tale hero. This really irked the FBI and eventually, they built a case where even the people who were awe-struck by this gentleman simply couldn’t over look evidence and sent him to prison the rest of his life where he died. BUT WAIT, don’t order yet, because we have chosen to keep his fable alive by reality shows on the Gotti family and now like Mob Wives. In the case of these three, wm3, the backers like Peter, all expect a return on their invesment, and they will get it when their film gets released next year to the general public. I read that Misskelley had to move out of the house he was staying in because a child was there and he had still not acquired a job so he was having financial problems finding a place to live. Here comes Peeter and his money and helped Jessie witha place to stay and money for utilities etc for to get him going. How sweet of Peter. Least he could do in my opinion. I envision a society that will produce WM3 action figures, board games etc. Think I am off my rocker? Well weirder things have happened in my opinion in this great nation. We will see.

      3. How can you correct capitalization and punctuation, and then use “irregardless?” FYI irregardless is not a word, the word you are looking for is regardless.

  46. After watching PL3, I’m sad that someone is not making a documentary about the 3 little boys and their families. Why not see the world from their point of view?

    Honestly, the conclusion to all of this is that if the WM3 did indeed commit the crimes, in the end, they will pay for what they did. Not by a justice system or prison, but by living life in the free world with a conscious of killing 3 boys.

    If they are truly innocent, they need to help and find the real murderer(s) since they are free. Honestly, after living in prison for that long and knowing I’m innocent, once I was free, I would be doing everything in my power to help the families find the killer.

    All in all, God be the judge. He knows who really did this awful crime.

  47. The Bode DNA testing results are posted, simplified, on WM3Truth Facebook page. Thank you. Is that document going to be available here to make it easier to read exactly what is in that report?

    So some of the alleles could have been contributed by the 3. So the WM3 are not excluded from that evidence after all.

    I guess the report is inconclusive enough to be able to benefit both nons and supporter arguments?

    Thanks again for finding the report and breaking it down so that it is more easily understood.

    1. I think I might question the qualifications of whoever explained the Bode report. It’s just possible that they’re giving their slant on the Bode information. Unless you understand it, you can “explain” it to appear that it says something that it doesn’t.

      1. Sorry, hit submit by mistake. The report discussed on the Facebook page is not the more recent report, the one that came out after Laser ordered the additional testing. I don’t think that has been made public yet. If it has, I haven’t seen it. The report discussed on Facebook is the 2007 testing, which was still inconclusive.

        Also, as someone said, the defense couldn’t test the blood on the necklace because it was destroyed by the prosecution’s initial testing.

        It is my understanding that the 2011 testing did, in fact, exclude all of the freed men from being donors of any biological evidence capable of identification. Anything from which they cannot be excluded is evidence that cannot exclude anyone! I will admit that I am basing that opinion on the report of the defense on the final Bode report on DNA. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that, if any incriminating DNA results had been reported, the State would not have accepted the Alford Plea so quickly.

        1. I see that differently, Compassionate Reader. The defense would never have asked for the Alford Plea if they had such certainty in all the DNA results. If you can go into court with proof that not one bit of evidence collected at a crime scene matched you at all, then why would you offer the state an Alford Plea less than 4 months before the evidentiary hearing? It must have been that the 3 couldn’t be excluded as donors for some things. There was no positive identification but some of those alleles matched some or all of the 3 were in the swab and ligature. It wasn’t that anyone couldn’t be excluded from that evidence, it was that the WM3 couldn’t be excluded from the samples. Their attorneys felt a deal was the only option left to them. And they entered guilty via Alford Pleas in August 2011.

          States release guilty felons all the time: time served, on parole or in exchange for giving information about another crime, crowded prisons, good records while in prison. The 3 were sentenced to time served, 18 years, plus 10 more years on probation. The state of Arkansas believes them to be the killers of Michael Moore, Chris Byers; and Steve Branch and Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley signed their names to each charge of guilty and will be legally recognized as felon child killers for the rest of their lives. By taking the plea, they said they were the killers, and the state closed the case of the murders at Robin Hood Hills. Of course, the 3 still say they’re innocent but they choose not to prove that in a court of law. They didn’t even try.

          1. Because they were eager to be out of jail and jumped at the first chance? Retrying the case would literally have taken a year or more. People seem to be under the impression that prison is like a resort or something and not a scary, dirty, enclosed, and uncomfortable place.

  48. Coen and CR as I said in a post above I just in the last six months viewed all three films and read Devil’s Knot. I also am not a nut job as I went to Harvard and then MIT. I have a wonderful job, wife and two young boys. What I am saying is common sense leads me to feel that this was a bully-thrill kill by 3 very evil young men high on booze and drugs with the Devil – Damien leading the way. It took three to do this we all know that. Jessie explained what happened thank god. Glad they had to admit their guilt. Would say like OJ Jessie will be in Jail before July 4th. Damien will most likely kill himself in next year or two. And Jason well he really has convinced himself he was not involved so not sure what will happen to him. Not quite Columbine oh yea that’s right those two boys also dressed in black hated life were depressed and yea that’s right they went into a school and killed dozens of children. On second thought maybe wearing black, hating your parents and lying all the time and cutting school drinking and drugging this could happen. Guess what it did. In rural West Memphis and affluent Colorado. Does not take much to see and feel evil in someone. Damien like Dylan in Columbine just have that look don’t they….

  49. @CR –
    When were these statements taken? I know Terry’s was many years later. The neighbors made their statements 16 yr later. What about Pam and Jacoby? When did they make these statements of their whereabouts on May 5th? The next day or also years later?

    I have 2 boys, and I can’t see them at age 8 thinking this elaborate scheme. Only Chris “kept an eye on Pam while the others packed?”
    Terry IS the only parent who knew of the manhole? Why didn’t other parents know? Or even Chris’s older sibling? Just Terry out of everybody. Hmmm…
    Then suddenly Chris tries to run away? They play in this dark manhole for at least an hour? He moves all 3 bodies while a search is going on? Did the police investigate the manhole? Also, you are saying that Terry hit each child in the head, forcing them to fall in the manhole and they all had skull fractures? Or it just knocked them out long enough for him to hog tie them? I’m also surprised he took the time to take the boys’ clothing and secured them in the mud underwater with sticks?
    And during the search, NOBODY notices him doing this? I find it hard to believe Terry is that slick.
    Also the “greenbeans” argument. There is no doubt in my mind Pam made Stevie eat some greenbeans before he could play. I have never heard of an 8 yr old boy voluntarily eating greenbeans when nobody is home. That is something MOMS make kids do.

    1. First, the statements were all made in connection with the Pasdar suit. So, yes, they were made later. However, as I have stated before, when you are involved in a traumatic event, you tend to remember it forever. I can still recount to you my personal events on November 24, 1963, which is when JFK was assassinated. That event occurred almost 20 years before these murders, and my only personal connect to JFK was the fact that he was the President of the United States in which I live. Pam, Terry, Pam’s family and even David Jacoby as a family friend would all have vivid memories of these events. So, I have no reason to doubt their veracity.

      Chris had a crush on Amanda. That might have been the main reason he was watching television with her. My supposition that he was also watching Pam is mine alone, and it is not critical to the story. If you don’t want to believe that, it doesn’t really hurt the scenario at all.

      I think all parents knew about the fascination with Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles, but Terry mentioned it in one interview. However, at the time I was discussing, Stevie was the only boy really missing. The other parents didn’t really begin to worry about their boys until at the earliest 7 pm. Dana Moore had said that Michael was to be home by dark. Sunset that day was 7:50 pm. Melissa and Mark had seen Chris at 5:30 and started looking for him around the neighborhood at about 6:45 because they were going out to eat. They wouldn’t have even considered the woods until 7 pm. Ryan, Chris’ older sibling, DID, according to Terry, mention the possibility of them playing in the manholes, but, according to Terry, he searched and they weren’t there. Shock, shock!

      I said that Chris MIGHT have considered running away as, by his own admission, Mark had spanked him for riding his skateboard down the middle of the street. Again, it might have been their plan to all meet up at the manhole. Either way works. If you don’t want to think that Chris was running away, that’s fine. Again, it’s not a critical part of the story.

      They didn’t play in the manhole. They were storing things there. And it wasn’t totally dark. Some light would have filtered in from the opening. Also, some of the supplies that they took would have included flashlights or maybe even candles. Remember, candle wax was found on one shirt.

      He didn’t move the bodies while the search was going on; he waited until everyone had stopped searching and had gone home to get some sleep. That’s when he went back to the manhole and moved the bodies to the ditch. My guess is sometime between 3 am and 5 am.

      All we know about the police investigating the manhole is an odd report in the Commercial Appeal about a week after the murders IIRC where the police said that they investigated the sewer system and collected some evidence. However, this evidence was not brought out at trial or even specified anywhere as far as I know.

      The search was done IMO because Deanna Holcomb, Damien’s former girlfriend, mentioned that sometimes Damien liked to hide in the sewers. Again, although the police said that they recovered evidence from the sewers, none of it was presented at trial. It makes you wonder WHAT they recovered and WHO it implicated, doesn’t it?

      I don’t know exactly how they got the skull fractures, but I believe that he hit them and they fell into the open manhole. First would have been Stevie. Then, when Chris and Michael emerged, one at a time, he would knock them back down, too.

      There is evidence that Michael was hit with an object never found, possibly a hammer. So, my thought is that Chris emerged first with Michael behind him on the ladder. When Chris fell back down into the hole, Michael fell with him. Chris was the more severely wounded because Terry physically hit him. Michael was merely knocked unconscious and Terry probably had to complete the job when he returned with a hammer.

      It’s possible that Chris fell all the way to the floor of the manhole, next to Stevie and Michael fell on top of Chris. Michael may have still been breathing shallowly when Terry returned to move the bodies. So, Terry hit him with a hammer.

      They were hog tied after death. There was no indication that they struggled against the ligatures which indicates that they were already dead when they were tied. He took the clothing because he wanted to remove all evidence from the manhole, including the bodies.

      As to the green beans, Pam has said that, unlike most kids, Stevie loved green beans. They were one of his favorites. So, he would eat them of his own accord.

      1. CR-
        to use your words in a subsequent response on this page:
        “But none of Jessie’s stories are supported by the evidence. I don’t care how many times you tell a lie, it doesn’t become true just by the retelling.”
        you have a mildly enteraining fairytale here, but not a shred of reality….

      2. I thought that the autopsy reports showed that one of the boys did have wounds on his ankles and wrists showing that he was struggling while tied.

  50. I have visited some “supporter” boards and they DO dissect and analyze every bit of evidence there is. Because that is all they have, some fictional manhole story that Paid had to invent. That took a lot of work.

    I think the reasons “NONS” don’t necessarily have to review and discuss everything to death is simple.

    Jesse has confessed 3+ times. He even proves he was there with the Evelyn whiskey bottle. Nobody coached him on that one. There is also the confession to the police after his trial. It was eerily similar to his 2/17/94 bible confession. There was no time for anyone to tell him what to say in that confession. He wasn’t coached, and he sure as hell did not memorize the trial figured out how to put his own spin on it. Even I couldn’t do that. Remember, Jesse is mildly retarded.

    1. But none of Jessie’s stories are supported by the evidence. I don’t care how many times you tell a lie, it doesn’t become true just by the retelling.

      Wow! Jessie knew that there was an Evan Williams bottle (a popular brand in the South) under an overpass! That’s really astonishing! No forensic evidence ever linked that bottle to Jessie or the crime. And, it’s not like the searchers went straight to one overpass and found the bottle. They searched several overpasses. I have no doubt but that if you searched enough overpasses in a Southern city you’d find an Evan Williams bottle.

      As to the police car incident, I have no doubt but that those cops were told to try to get Jessie talking. It is highly likely that they fed him information. Sorry, just because a police officer says something doesn’t make it true. They can, and do, lie at times.

      The “Hand on the Bible” statement was on 2/8/94. The 2/17/94 statement was the one made to LE. Even a mildly retarded person can remember a story that has been drilled into him for nine days.

      All the police ever had in this case was Jessie’s statement. If it can be disproved, and it can, the whole case falls apart. Why do you think Burnett severely limited Dr. Ofshe’s testimony about Jessie’s statement?

  51. What urks me is that we cant use your facebook page because whoever is running it bans/removes comments & then reports posters & comments about the bans. If you are serious about spreading the truth then why have such a facebook page which engages in this way. There are so many of us newbies that would like to pose questions but seemingly not on your facebook page.

    1. @ Jenny

      It goes both ways. I have also posted dissenting opinion on the Facebook page using no disrespectful language or obscene language, and I was told it was a support page only and I was booted and banned. So what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, love.

      1. The difference is that org is a fan page, Gary, whereas the WM3 truth page is about speading the truth, so in effect its inviting ppl to discuss the case, and i fail to see how calling someone a moron constitutes banning. When read the comments from Admin L, you have to wonder why noone is allowed to ask questions without being removed! Shows that truth is not what you are interested in, particularly when nons get banned also because they are not eloquent enough! Bring back admin A

  52. I dont think the occult has anything to do with it, its more likely that they wanted to see what it was like to kill someone the satanic panic has confused everyone when all one has to do is look at the Exhibit 500.

  53. Regarding the scratches, I’m a bit conflicted about whether or not they came from animals. I recall that in PL2 the criminal profiler Brent Turvey stated that the fact that there were no mosquito bites on the boys supports the theory that the boys were killed somewhere other than at the woods. So if we are to believe that animals got to the boys, how could they not be subjected to bugs as well? Mosquitoes would get to the boys much much quicker than animals. Or is it possible the investigator assumed there would be mosquitoes that time of year when in fact there may not have been? I live in an area where we don’t get mosquitoes until June/July. As we know the murders happened in early May.

  54. @CR

    I tried remembering the most traumatic thing that has to me personally, not something that everyone “remembers what they were doing” (9/11, Kennedy)

    Mine was 13 yr ago. I can remember every feeling, everything I saw and heard. The only thing I cannot remember are the exact times it happened.
    I know it was in the morning… thats it. So I am not surprised that Terry’s times are allover the place. He knew he was going to be questioned, and he didn’t bother to memorize the search times? Hard to believe. I also do not believe Pam and Jacoby’s times are correct either. Sorry, but 16 yr later? No.

    Would be interesting to polygraph all 4. But if the results did not come out in supporters’ favor I’m sure there would be some excuse.

    If the WMPD investigated the sewers, it makes me more certain that nothing happened down there. No blood spatters from the head wounds? I’m sure Terry did not clean the walls. What did he do with the flashlights, candles and backpacks?? This is A LOT of work for someone to do. Did anyone notice Terry gone between 3-5am? I don’t think Terry would have the power to keep everyone away from the sewers.

    Who said they had backpacks? (I really do forget this!) Was it one eyewitness? Or more? The eyewitness that said he saw Stevie in shorts could easily have been mistaken about one child. Who would memorize what kids were wearing if you saw them riding their bikes?
    I don’t care about the greenbeans, either. He could have eaten when Pam was there. If the boys were dead when he threw them in the ditch, how did they die from drowning? From the little bit of water in a sewer?

  55. To me the first documentary really shows the wm3 for who they are. You never really see them act as if they were innocent, even after being convicted. I know I would be raising holy hell that it wasn’t me if it wasnt. Then the 2nd and 3rd documentarys I feel are just there to throw blame at everyone and anyone they can. First it was Byers dad cause he replaced his teeth etc etc. Now in PL3 its the other dad. Why didn’t the makers of the original doc, if they were really so convinced of their innocence, conduct their own investigation after PL1 to try and find the truth? I’m sure they could have gotten HBO or other celebrities at the time to donate money for another private investigation. Bring in well known experts like Michael Boden who has done HBO specials before and really try to find the truth. Why? Because there is no other truth to be found. Its easy to just throw a bunch of theories out there and hope one of them sticks. But none ever have. The most telling thing to me is Jessie M Jr confessed, not once not twice but 3 times. And even after being convicted. Why would anyone fabricate a confession and make themselves a part of the crime knowing then they would be in trouble too. A coerhersed confession to me would have been something like ok Jessie just confess that you saw damien and jason doing this and you didnt take part and we will let you go. Why would he implicate himself unless it was true and he was telling it like it was.

  56. @CR

    Have you heard the recording of the bible confession?

    I think even the most intelligent people could not answer all the questions as quickly as Jesse did.
    Even *IF* he memorized everything in court, and the police told him exactly what to say, he never takes a pause in this confession to t hink of the right answer. If Jesse is mildly retarded how does he memorize this “whole made up” confession?
    If it were me, and I had to recite something I memorized –

    I would still PAUSE to think about the answer I am supposed to say. There is no way Jesse knew all the information based on a trial or people telling him stuff. They would have to sit with him for hours, getting him to memorize their script. That is a damning confession. Never once did I hear Jesse take his time to think about a question. That is a LONG made up story. How did he answer questions in that confident “I know what I am saying” manner? Regurgitating the whole “story” like he did bumps his IQ up to about 140.
    And saying that it was all after the trial so it doesn’t matter? That is just a lame excuse for supporter to dismiss Jesse’s detailed confession.
    Really, listen to the audio.

  57. Sorry, Frank, but drunk teens would have left a lot more clues. A drunk ADULT would have left a lot more clues, for Heaven’s sake. I find your explanation pretty fantastical myself.

  58. I would like those convinced of their guilt to explain this:

    During the confession, Jesse tells the police that Damien was “screwing them and stuff.” At the time of the confession, the police still believed the boys had been raped anally. Ultimately it was concluded after the fact that none of the 3 boys had been raped. It’s interesting that Jesse would say they “screwed” them, when nothing like that happened. He was interrogated for hours before the police hit record. Then he has details of the scene, but still kept messing up times, etc. The police walked him through the confession, and I’m sure they gave him the entire run down of the crime before they hit record. Including telling him the boys were raped. Explain why he would say that? Why would he admit to them screwing the boys (something the police thought had happened) when they didn’t. Even if they did it, and he was confessing, you would think he would say: “Yeah, we did it… but nobody raped them!”

    Some of you keep saying “why would you confess to something you didn’t do?” Ask yourself this: “why would you confess to something that never happened?” He did.

    Maybe he just wanted to go home. He had the mental capacity of a 5 year old. They told him to say he did it and he could go home. He did.

    Why would he say they raped the boys when the boys weren’t raped? Unless he was just told the boys were raped, and went along with the story.

    1. @John I think it was in a later confession that Misskelley claimed that Echols didn’t actually penetrate the boy, was more like motioning as if he were raping him. There are people on this site who could better clarify this.

    2. I agree with Frank. From Misskelleys stated vantage point, it just “appeared” that the poor kids were being raped. I would think, that even for the most formidable Pedo freak, that this would be difficult to do even under controlled settings as it seems that it would not only leave tell-tale signs of penetration but that the kids would scream like holy hell, tshirt or no tshirt in their mouth and that they would squirm so violently that it would be difficult. Perhaps Damien and Jason tried, but found it futile and from Jessie’s view, all he saw the kids being mounted from behind and Jessie with his simpleton type mind saw this as intercourse. But we still have to think about two of the anuses being dilated and the only one that wasn’t was Moore’s, if I am correct, which is in synch with Jessies confession when Jason went to check on Moore, Jessie told him to leave him alone although he stated that Jason stuck a finger up Moore’s “butt”. This may have left skin cells, but again, these kind of tests were not really happening back then. A rape kit just looks for scarring and semen and blood.

    3. If supporter still contend that Jessie’s mentality was that of a child, then you fail to keep in mind that children, more often than not, tell things like it is. Sure they tell fibs, but more often than not, you ask a child what he thinks for example of the shirt you are wearing and if it is hideous, he/she will more than likely tell you it’s hideous.

      On the lighterr side, when I was a kid, me and mom when to visit my grandparents in Europe and they gave us some food and some wine to take back with us. When we arrived at JFK ( I was around 8 years old then) and went through customs, they asked my mom did she have anything to declare and was she bringing back any fruit, food etc. She said no, but I quickly said “Yeah you are, mom. The wine and the food, remember?” LOL!!!! My mon flipped out. The food was tossed and she had to pay on some other items.

      The thing about kids, is that they tend to blurt out the truth at a time when maybe the truth is not appropriate. That’s my argument about Misskelley. He had a concious, more so than the others it was eating him up, literally.

  59. I don’t believe that Echols and Baldwin were drunk that night. Misskelley said he had that whiskey and the other two had some cheap beer. Misskelley said he got drunk that night, he didn’t say Echols and Baldwin were drunk, and that may explain some of his inconsistencies in his many confessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. @Bill I’ll let other nons address most of your comment, but I’ll talk about the crime scene vs. dump site theory. We know two of the boys drowned. So what you’re saying is the boys were drowned elsewhere then brought to the woods. You’re also suggesting the bodies of the boys were brought to the woods while a search was going on for them. Seems highly unlikely.

      Oh I’ll talk about “Mr. Bojanlges” as well. He was wearing a cast on his arm. How could he possibly restrain three boys? He was also sick and bleeding. How did he walk a mile from the crime scene to the restaurant.

      I don’t think even most supporters believe he is the murderer.

    2. Oh Bill, Bill, Bill, don’t tell me your also taken away by Damien’s bedroom eyes and Jaosn’s soft spoken demeanor too? Not that there’s anything wrong with it. But anyway,

      1. It’s a common stratefy for defense attorneys NOT to have anyone involved in the cases to testify, because it can really hurt their chances. Even after Jessie’s conviction, he did not want to testify against the others, because number one, he is scared shitless of Damien and number two, he was talked out of it by his defense attorney. They may have been different attorneys, but they were all basically working with the same team. This is a no brainer.

      2. Of course Jason said no to it. This is common defense attorney theatrics, to say no and then change his mind for the sake of saving his best friend, Damien. Like someone offering me a piece of pie after dinner: No, I shouldn’t really. Oh, ok, why not. Please.

      3. That’s because Jessie is not a complete “retard” as you put it, like he and his attorneys want to make him seem. If I never read anything or see anything about this case for the next 5 years, I think I will be able to remember those three little kids names. I don’t think I will ever forget it. Not to mention that Jessie vividly remembered that one of the bikes was a girl’s bike. Some people may not be very smart, but they can have good photographic memories. The reason why Jessie flipped-flopped a lot on some of the details like time of day, was because he was experiencing Post Traumatic Stree Disorder because of what he was involved with and reading on PTSD tells me it is typical to not recall some items from a trauma exactly and remember others. This is why they say same some children of abuse cannot remember the event well, but remember the event.

      4. The knife was planted by whom? I have always contended that when they found the first kid that they should have stopped, secured the crime scene and call in the FBI. Of course, police department egos prevented this, which is natural, but in my opinion, a crime of this magnitude was beyond the scope of a local police deparment and the feds should have been called in.

      And you say that the blood on the necklace was planted? Very weird and very difficult. I don’t believe the WMPD had to go that far. I also do not believe the shaving scenario. I believe more of a “blood brother” type of scenario if we are to call it innocent at all, which we will never be able to call it anything anymore. That’s a dead issue now because we do not have anymore of the blood that we can test it with today’s technology. Back then, all we could get was type instead of specific DNA info, so lay that piece of evidence to rest, because it’s gone just like Mr Bojangle’s blood.

      5. The three acted the way they did because they knew they could get busted for it. As a supporter, your general argument is that they were persecuted because of their dress and actions and now you say that they weren’t? I hardly think Damien taunting the families of the dead boys and blowing them kisses is civility.

      6. I don’t think every witness has recanted but for the ones that did, remember, in a small town, there is pressure because you have to see these people, meaning the accused and their family almost at every turn almost every day of the week at grocery stores etc. Who would want to testify and put their own lifes at risk which is exactly what happens in these small towns. Testify against my son, and you and your family will get it. That’s their mentality.

      7. Oh Billy, I think at this point you are just playing with us. You say there is no evidence that this was the crime scene, but you don’t state any evidence to support this. Again, this is just anotherr supporter going with what’s popular for popular’s sake. Forensics was just not big back then. How can you haul three hog-tied kids and two bicycles from a car and not expect to be noticed or even have the balls to expect not to be noticed? What about the washed up bank? Many experts have said that this is the crime scene, just because that joker from PL3 just laughed that it couldn’t possibly be it, doesn’t support anything. If he had laughed and made some intelligent argument, maybe. But he just laughed. I can laugh to, and you don’t have to pay me $3,000 to do it.

      Again, their beliefs and musical tastes are not on trial here. There may have been some allusions to that in the begining, but this what quickly dismissed. This says nothing and something all in one.

      Billy, I don’t think I am going to respond to you anymore. I can see I wasted my time here. Again, now you are blaming Mr Bojangles. Another dead issue that will never be able to be proven or disproven because the blood samples are gone. You really can’t sit here and tell me this guy did it, you have, nor does anyone have, any proof absolute about this. I think you are just throwing darts to see where they land, I am not saying you’re not intelligent, but you need to do some research BEYOND those PL films, which is where you are basing everything I have seen you say so far. PLEASE read callahan site. Read transcripts, testimonies, case files, read everything, then come back here.

      In regards to your last two paragraphs, I am simply mentally exhausted to go any further with your points. I really think you managed to take 5 years off my life and now I can kick myself for ever taking up your arguments. Yes, everyone in the South is racist and hating witches. You are right 100%. Their are still lynchings and crosses being burned every day and we still have plantations. I will give you that one only because I am about to jump out a window if I have to argue your last two paragraphs. READ, don’t watch YOUTUBE videos and HBO mocumentaries, READ READ READ.

      1. Don’t have time to respond to this whole thing right now and I am fairly new to investigating this evidence as I am trying to make up my mind. However, one question how is it that Jessie remembered the boys names for the first confession and you think they are likely burned into his mind… then how do you explain that he didn’t know them for the subsequent confessions including the bible confession?

  61. Hi. I’m Ronny from Norway. I had a Paradise Lost Marathon yesterday. I had never heard of this case before I saw the documentaries. I have to say that i’m not a big fan of the justice department in USA. The courts are sometimes at the same level as a stone age kinda justice.. Death penalty is disgusting, and in a country like USA, that is so Religious and always the comment “God bless the United States of America”. What is the first thing Jesus tried to learn his followers….. forgiveness. Now how religious is the families to those poor children. Listening to the rant of John Mark Byers, self proclaimed christen who wants to kill the three obviously innocent teenagers. Shooting on a pumpkin while talking to himself, fantasies about shooting them to bleed out and suffer.. I’m not a religious person myself, so i find it kinda funny every time a practising religious guy like that swear revenge like that man does. He is totally insane. I think he is over compensating from day one. I think he is some kinda demented guy who likes the attention. I remember one scene in part 2 where he holds a photo of his kid and a bible, and tells the 3 are going to hell and he “loves” it. Religious? my ass…. What ever happened to jesus word, Forgiveness.
    Pisses me off.. That man John Mark Byers, has something to hide. No doubt..

  62. @ John-

    John January 19, 2012 at 11:47 pm
    They couldn’t wait for exoneration because by the time they got the hearing, Echols would have been executed. Do you read?

    BS. The hearing was 4 months away. If the case against them was as weak as you claim, new trials wouldn’t have even been ordered, their convictions would have been overturned. They were not going to execute him while his appeals were still happening.

    Pure hyperbole.

  63. CR-

    I know it sounds better to say the plea was “offered” to them, and I know that word is casually thrown around by supporters so that they can keep rewriting history, but I’d appreciate it if you’d show enough integrity to at least say that they sought out guilty pleas, and were not “offered” them.

    1. And that’s a nice little story about Baldwin holding out, but I don’t buy it. I think he jumped at the chance. His word means squat to me since I think he’s a killer.

  64. To all WM3 supporters:

    Please help. This gang member has been charged with shooting and killing a 6 year old child. Please help him. He needs money. He states that he is absolutely innocent of these charges. I know this board is primarily about the WM3, but I feel the supporters must expand their horizons and help anyone who states that they are not guilty of any crime. This is just one case, I will get you 180,000 others. Please, help this gang-banger now! He is innocent! HBO, are you listening? CR?

    1. WM3 supporters:

      Here is another case for you guys. The murder and decapitation of 6 year old Adam Walsh in 1981. Ottis Toole confessed but later recanted. The blood stained carpet from his car was lost, crucial evidence. Please, since Ottis has been dead for quite some time, please help his family clear his name. It is unfair that he was never tried for the case but convicted in absentia. You must help clear this poor man’s name who confessed to hundreds of murders but later recanted. He is obviously innocent. You must take up more cases of child killers and set them free, it is what these children would have wanted.

  65. Ok guys – I am a true “Non” officially.

    Checked the kid’s and husband’s shoes today. Sure enough, the 5th shoe I inspected (which is my 10 yr olds pair) had a piece of my long hair!! The only other hair I found was our black dog’s hairs.

    I actually feel sorry for Terry. I can’t imagine having a made up story accusing me of murdering 3 8 yr olds, based on small amounts of time he was “unaccounted” for, made by 3 people and 2 children (at the time) 16 – 18 yr later. Nobody is going to check their watches while they are frantically searching for their children. I know I wouldn’t give a shit what time it was. Pam and Jacoby would not be checking and remembering exact times Steve was gone and when he came back. And now he is “guilty” because of only ONE hair in a shoe lace. Damien’s psychotic delusional history makes more sense than Terrys. I personally used to have a drinking problem, which is under control now. I’m sure supporters could use that to justify killing 3 kids. Maybe I was so drunk I don’t remember killing them.

    Different subject. – As far as Damien only writing Aliester Crowley’s name instead of … well, ANYTHING else (Oh, except his best friend’s and his son’s name), all this just because Damien is SO intelligent and he was bored in jail. That was the only other name he decided to write in secret alphabet because he only “knows who he is, but never read his books”. My theory is Damien did indeed think of him self more “powerful” because of the sacrifice. Because of this, Damien believed he was in charge of the Apocalypse- he just can’t decide which day he is going to do it. Did anyone check to see where this alphabet came from? I’m sure it is from satanic, “black magic” book. I don’t think Wiccans read these books.

    I would challenge anyone to think back of your own traumatic event and remember multiple exact times throughout out the day.

    Also, didn’t Damien do an interview where he states “I don’t know what I believe anymore”. Poor Damien – his wish of becoming another God obviously didn’t happen, even though he was following the “rules”.

    1. @Stacia Only a few weeks ago I was in a discussion with a supporter and bet him I could find hairs on my shoelaces right then. Sure enough, there were three. And none belonged to me. One, I suspect, was even from a dog that hasn’t lived in my apartment for 4 years. The other two were fairly long and I suspect belonged to women.

      Oh, and welcome.

      1. So true. I 0nce found a hair on a bedsheet after it had been through the washer and dryer. It was an old hair. I had changed my hair colour a few months before and the hair was my former colour.

        1. And let’s not forget Anita Hill and Justice Thomas with the pubic hair in the Coke.

          …..Need a little humor once in a while. For those under 35, you may not remember this incident. Try Wiki.

  66. I hope someone could answer this question for me – regarding the Evan Williams bottle that was found under an overpass.

    Was the overpass in which the bottle was found located in an obvious place that Jesse would have passed to go home?

    1. @Stacia I think it was along the route the three may have taken home that evening, but I’ll let WM3Truth clarify this. Wait, I think Jessie may have left the scene earlier than the other two. Maybe they didn’t all take the same route.

  67. @CR-

    Because he doesn’t blame Jessie. He realized how intense the questioning was and that Jessie, given his limited mental capacity, would be no match for the intensity. I imagine that Damien was well aware of Jessie’s propensity to agree with whatever was told to him.

    I thought Echols barely knew Misskelley???

    I’m calling BS that he’d be so understanding and so quickly.

    You’ve used up half this page explaining why Echols flipped his lid over being falsely accused. But the guy who actually told the police he murdered the kids? Yeah, I’m sure he would immediately understand and empathize.

  68. Thanks, Frank, for the welcome. Re your questions –

    1) I think Jessie’s confessions mean that the first one was clearly coerced. The next two were, IMO, brought about by his panic over just being convicted – he was caving to the pressure that the Prosecution was putting on him to testify against Echols and Baldwin for reduced time. I believe his lawyer and family eventually talked him out of his panic as evidenced by the fact that he ultimately never testified against the other two.

    2) How thoroughly did the police check their alibis? did they follow up on phone records? did they wait so long to check them that people couldn’t remember details? In any event, I don’t think their alibis are any more solid than some of the family members or other suspects.

    3) Frank, do you honestly think that if someone committed a murder they’d actually tell people? Their “friends” or kids on the street or ANYONE? That sounds like the behavior of a stupid person and whoever killed these kids doesn’t appear to be a stupid individual.

    4) I really don’t think it would have been hard for one adult male to kill those children if he held a gun to their heads initially and then subdued them. Yes, it would be easier with two people and that could be a possibility.

    My point is…none of us know for a fact who killed these kids. And as I’ve stated, I probably wouldn’t like Damien if I met him on the street and chatted with him, even if I didn’t know about the alleged cult activity, just based on his personality. But I just don’t see how they could convict these kids on such flimsy evidence and what appears to be not top notch detective work.

  69. Hey again Jennifer.

    1. Jessie had already been sentenced when he gave his third confession to his lawyer, so I don’t think he made that statement as some sort of bargaining chip. I guess you’ve heard this confession by now. If not, listen to it. His lawyer pleads with him not say anything. But Jessie insists on his guilt, says things like “get this off my chest,” even goes on to give more details.

    2. Their alibis were all disproven in court. Baldwin didn’t even bother providing alibi witnesses at trial. I don’t think they’ve come forward with new witnesses.

    3. I think someone who is crazy might brag about the murders. Echols was definitely mentally ill.

    4. Maybe if Hobbs had a gun he could corral them all, but I just find this theory a real stretch. Someone on this site commented that Hobbs may have killed the three boys because Stevie was incontinent and he disobeyed Hobbs. Really? Who took care of his daughter while he did this? How did he clean up and compose himself in time to pick up his wife? Doesn’t seem plausible.

    I agree Jennifer, we can’t know for a fact who killed the boys, but I believe the state proved the WM3’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  70. Believe in the wm3’s innocence? I don’t, but it’s too late, theyre free and can’t even be tracked like sexual offenders can. Why aren’t they on the sexual offender registry? These kids were found guilty for several reasons. Witness testimonies, several confessions, conflicting alibis, psych evaluations(Damien’s is right up there with the worst of the worst sickos) I think Damien was cocky then and he is cocky now because he is an arrogant narcissist and he sees himself as smarter and of more value than the rest of us. He doesn’t now or didn’t then ever expect to be executed. He cares only about himself. He is not capable of remorse.

  71. I have honestly seen less biased documentaries from Michael Moore. My wife and I were watching it and we were laughing throughout the entire thing, at this point I am not sure what the film makers are honestly thinking. How do they discard so much of the incriminating evidence and still think that these guys are innocent?
    The section “ALL means ALL” was probably the most laughable of all of them. I was thinking yes ALL does mean ALL so that means we should use ALL of Jesse’s confessions, the roadrunner petro bag, the broken whiskey bottle near the crime scene, the luminol evidence, Jason’s ice pick knife trade, Damien’s Necklace, Jesse getting rid of his shoes and the rest of it.

  72. I fell for PL3….for about a minute, then I read Jessie Misskelley’s confessions….

    Jessie Misskelly is mentally retarded? Corky from ‘Life Goes On’ is mentally retarded. Jessie Misskelly is a dumbass.

    Jessie Misskelly got some details wrong in his confession? No kidding. He was drunk during the murders. And he’s a dumbass.

    Jessie Misskelly got some details wrong in his confession, pt 2? Jessie Misskelly tells lies. And he was drunk. And he’s a dumbass.

    Jessie Misskelly was coerced in the first confession? Yes, because in most police interrogations everyone sits around on bean bags and just talks about their feelings.

    Jessie, on the way to prison…..
    Jessie was asked how the boys were kept under control while being raped and not tied yet and he stated “They were like puppies, when you whoop a puppy and tell it to stay, it will.”
    “…when you whoop a puppy and tell it to stay, it will.” That’s not something a mentally retarded kid is coerced into saying by the police. That’s instead the voice of an experienced bully.

    Jessie Misskelly is a lying, dumbass bully who got drunk and took part in a thrill-kill.

  73. Awwww…boo hoo…they didn’t win the oscar tonight…OMG, could it be that Damien’s popularity is waning and too?!?!?

  74. SUCKED IN BRUCE AND JOE. Man, I am SO glad their stupid mocumentary didn’t take home the golden statue tonight.

    SO SO SO SO SO glad.

  75. yeah, manhole this : I kill you and cant get it up to screw you so I go Criminal Minds on you and castrate you as a result…….I think I AM a satanist because the rehab TELLS ME IAM….and then I cowardly hog-tie you so you cant SWIM away and tell on me later…..these boys set the stage for “Comlumbine” type BS and we ALL know it…
    The proof wasn’t the confession(S) bit the very fact that the 80’s seethed of the dementia yet to come thanks to Grand Theft Auto boys…….

  76. why do they use the Misskelley ”wrestling” alibi in the wm3 documentary when its been proven there wasnt wrestling on that particular night ?

  77. Bojangles guy could barely walk and he was bleeding. He also had a cast on his arm. Do you really he could have taken down 3 50 to 60 pound kids? There is so many fact people are missing .

    Echols on the stand lied and knew to much about the crime just 4 days after the crime .Details about the crime that was not made public yet.

    Fiber that match on the children’s bodies.To the Jason and Echols

    Jason shoe lace only one had been replaced.

    Echols being seen the same night near the crime scene.

    Jessie confessions that he couldn’t had that knowledge of facts like one of the children was drowned and might have been conscious at the time. These confession were made after he was already sentence to life without parole.

    Jessie crying right after the murder all night and weeks to come.

    I can continue but all I can say just look through them. Look through exhibit 500 and see who the real Echols is.

    WM3 killed these children but now what will they do after the fame is gone?

    There is a lot of evidence in this crime against the WM3. They just didn’t put it in the movie. Someone made a comment about his ex girlfriend lying. She was afraid of Echols. He threaten to kill her and her family .Attacked her new boyfriend and tried to gouge his eyes out

  78. Echols jailhouse confession to Jessie Hurst, where he calls himself a witness hiding
    in the bushes while watching Jason Baldwin and Mark Byers kill the boys, reminds
    me of that dire warning from The Exorcist; “the Devil would like to confuse us Damian” .

  79. After watching the three parts of Paradise lost and West of Memphis plus some additional reading I want to contribute with one thing I think can be excluded; the alleged guilt of Jesse Misskelley. This because of three main reasons. Miskelley psychologically challanged and by that he cannot be acountable of his own statements in official matters in the first place. Secondly, it is clear that his answers in the “confession” aren’t statements of his one, they are repetative affirmations of what is being said to him by the officers. Third, in any justice system, an “indicium” cannot consist of a single testimony alone, but a chain of foremost technical evidence backed up by a testimony. Hence, the acceptance of Misskelley’s testimony as an indicium was a fundamental juridical error that shouldn’t have been approved by the court during his trial.

  80. ???????????? ?? ?????????!
    ? ??????? ????? ????????!
    ??? ??????? +79632346055
    ????????? ? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????
    ?????? ??????, ?????, ?????, ? ?????? ?????…
    ?? ???????? ??????? ???????
    ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ????

    Skype: dashunea110585

    ???????? ?? ?????????? ??????????!

  81. ???????????? ?? ?????????!
    ? ??????? ??? ?????????? 🙂
    ??????? ???? ?????????, ?? ?
    ?????? ?? ??????????? ???
    ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????????? ???
    ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ? ????
    ??????? ??? ? ?????, ???????? ?? ???????
    ? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ? ????????
    ????? ???? ???????? ? ??? ??? +79632346055
    ??????? ??????, ?????? ? ????? ????? ??????
    ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ???
    ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????
    ?????? ???? ??????????? ?? ???????? ????
    ??? ??????? ? ????? ?????

    Skype: dashunea110585

  82. ???? ??????? ? ?????!
    ?? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ????? ? ??????, ????????, ???????.
    ? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??????
    ?? ?????, ?? ??? ??????!
    ???? ???????? ????????? ? ????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????, ? ?????? ? ?????? ?????????. ????? ????????????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????????? ??????????? ? ???????????.
    ? ??? ??????? ???? ? ?????? ? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????! ?? ???????? ????? ? ??????????? ? ?????????? ????? ? ??? ??????!

    ??? ??????? ?????? ? ??? ??? ??????????? ???????: ????-?????, ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?????????, ???-?????????? ??????? ??????? ??? ? ????? ????????.

    ??? ???? ????????? ? ?????????, ??????? ????? ? ????????.

    ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ? ????? ???????? ???????? ? ?????.

    ????????????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????! ???? ???, ??? ? ????? ??????????? ????? ?????????! ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ???????!

    Skype: y7724120

  83. ?????? ?????? ???? ??? 2011 – ????? ??? 1 ??????? ?????????????
    ?? ???:
    ?????????? – 1011274
    ?????????? – 19466
    ???????? – 4454
    ?????????? – 1216
    ???????????????? – 277
    ????????????? – 58
    ???????????? – 7

    ???? 2000 ???

    Key: ????? ???;???? ??? 2011;???2012 ?????;????? ??? 2011;????? ??? ???;??? ? ??? 2011;? ? ? 2011;??? ? ??? 2011;????? ??? 2012;2011 ???;???? ?????? ???;???? ??????????? ???????;mmm 2012 ???????;??? ??? ???;?????? ????;?????????? ??? 2011;??????? ???;????? ?-?-?;?????? ??? ?????;???? ???;????? ???2011;???? ??????????? ???????;?????? ???? email;???????? ??? 2012;??????? ???2011;??????? mmm 2011;??????? ???? ??????;??????? ? ???;???? ????????? ?????;??????? ???2012;???? ??????? ????????;base mmm;???? ???;??????? ???? ???;???? ??? 2011;???? ?????? ???;???? ?????????? ???;?????? ???? ???;???? ??? 2011 ???????;???? ?????? ??? 2011;???? ?????? ??? ???????

  84. ???????? ? ????????? ??????.

    ???????? ?????? ????? ?????????.

    ???? ??????? ?? 50 ?.?
    ??????????? ???? ?? 200 ?.?.
    ????????-??????? ?? 200 ?.?.
    ?????? ?? 150 ?.?.

    ????????? ??????
    ?????????? ? ??????? ???????????, ????????? ? ????????.
    ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? (????????, ??????).

    ?????????????? ?????? ? ??????? ???????, ???????????? ??????????, ?????? ????? ?????????? ??????.

    ????? web_studios1
    icq 670938935

  85. Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before but after browsing
    through some of the post I realized it’s new to me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely delighted I found it and I’ll be book-marking and checking back often!

Leave a Reply

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