New witnesses point to Terry Hobbs; old witnesses still point to Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley

Entertainment industry website Deadline prints a press release from the Echols defense team.

Terry Hobbs’ nephew, Michael Hobbs Jr., allegedly told his friends “my uncle Terry murdered those three little boys,” according to declarations under penalty of perjury recently given to Damien Echols’ defense team. The three new witnesses were polygraphed about what they stated Michael Hobbs, Jr. told them.

“One day Michael picked us up in his truck. He was very quiet and upset. Michael then said to us, ‘you are not going to believe what my dad told me today. My Uncle Terry murdered the three little boys.’ According to Michael, his dad called this ‘The Hobbs Family Secret’ and he asked us to keep it a secret and not tell anyone.”

Another witness stated, “One night last winter, Michael and I were playing pool in his basement when the third friend asked about the West Memphis Three case which had been in the news. Michael responded by saying, ‘My uncle killed three kids in West Memphis.’ Michael was dead serious when he said this.”

* * *

A third witness stated that he was at Michael Hobbs Jr’s home in 2003 or 2004 when he was told by Hobbs Jr. that the two of them could not go down to the basement to play pool because Michael Hobbs Sr. was down there having a conversation with Hobbs Jr.’s uncle. The witness said that he “ listened with Michael Jr. at the top of the stairs. I heard two men talking. One appeared to be very upset even crying and he said ‘I am sorry, I regret it.’ The other man was trying to console him and said, ‘You are in the clear, no one thinks you are a suspect, those guys are already in prison.’”

WM3 supporters are already trumpeting this as proof that Terry Hobbs was guilty and that Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were innocent.

To my mind, this just demonstrates the fanaticism and double standard of WM3 supporters.

The first two are fourth-hand statements: some guys claim that Michael Hobbs told them something, which Michael Hobbs had heard from his dad, which his dad called a “family secret”, original source unknown. And these “friend of a friend whose dad told him a rumor” statements pop up eighteen years after the fact. But WM3 supporters automatically consider them reliable.

The third guy tells a Nancy Drew-style tale about overhearing an actual Terry Hobbs confession. He keeps it to himself for eight years, then tells defense lawyers and filmmakers, who include the story in a press release on the day their movie premieres at Sundance. But WM3 supporters automatically consider this guy reliable.

Meanwhile, WM3 supporters have consistently dismissed the many direct confessions and secondary confessions pointing to the WM3’s guilt, nearly all made within a year of the crime.

Direct confessions:

  • Jessie Misskelley’s original 6/3/93 confession
  • Jessie Misskelley’s continued admission of guilt to his defense lawyers until late September 1993, including documented confessions on 6/11/93 and 8/19/93
  • Jessie Misskelley’s confession to police officers on 2/4/94
  • Jessie Misskelley’s tape-recorded confession to defense lawyer Dan Stidham on 2/8/94
  • Jessie Misskelley’s tape-recorded confession to prosecutors and defense lawyers on 2/17/94

Secondary confessions:

  • Damien Echols’ bragging about the murders at the softball park, reported to police by five different witnesses
  • Damien Echols’ alleged confession to William Winford Jones
  • Damien Echols’ alleged confession to Ken Watson
  • Damien Echols’ alleged bizarre story to Jesse Hurst in prison
  • Damien Echols’ alleged bragging about the murders at the skating rink, reported by Brandy Wilson
  • Jason Baldwin’s alleged jailhouse confession to Michael Carson
  • Jessie Misskelley’s alleged confession to Buddy Lucas
  • Jessie Misskelley’s alleged confession to Kim Floresca
  • Jessie Misskelley’s alleged confession to Michael Johnson in prison

Indirect reports:

  • Jason Baldwin’s mother accused his stepfather of turning in Jason for the reward money, on the night of 6/3/93 when Jason was arrested
  • Friends and family of Buddy Lucas told police that Lucas discussed his knowledge of Jessie Misskelley’s involvement in the murders
  • Jessie Misskelley’s possible prison confession to “TrueRomance78”
  • Jessie Misskelley’s rumored continued confessions in prison

I don’t necessarily believe all these accounts. The Johnson, Wilson and Floresca statements are shaky. But their stories are more direct (“I heard Jessie say …” and “I heard Damien say …”), and they didn’t wait eighteen years to talk. There’s no honest basis to dismiss Johnson, Wilson and Floresca but to accept these “new witnesses”.

The closest parallel to these “new witnesses” against Terry Hobbs might be the long-ago witnesses who relayed a rumor that Jason Baldwin had told his friend Garrett Schwarting about the murders.

Laura Maxwell told police on 5/18/93: “Garrett told Jason Frazier that Damien & Jason (Baldwin) always have their devil-worshiping meetings in that park & those little kids were riding over there & they saw something they were supposed to of seen so Damien killed them. Garrett said he heard this from Jason Baldwin who was supposed to of been there.”

Police interviewed Jason Frazier on 6/11/93:

Jason Frazier – [Garrett Schwarting] said that uh, that he was studying to be a psychic and he knew this and him and this guy was studying it, and that uh, he said that uh, Damien and uh Jason did it, but Jessie’s name wasn’t involved, so uh they was practicing their witch craft and, he didn’t say how the boys got there, or anything, he just said, they did it and that’s where they practiced there witch, their satan stuff.

Detective Bryn Ridge – Okay, and you’ve known Garrett for a long time?

Frazier – Yes sir

Ridge – And, basically what he told you, you believed at that time?

Frazier – Yes sir

Ridge – Okay

Detective Mike Allen – Was there anyone else present with you when this conversation took place?

Frazier – Yes sir, my cousin, Jeff Hood

Then police took a handwritten statement from Jeff Hood on 6/15/93: “It had to been on a Saturday it was after the murders, me & my cousin Jason Fraizer were in front of the old belvedere apartments, it was in the morning time about 11 or 12 and Garrett Swarting was on a bike & he pulled up on his bike & asked for a cigeretes & started talking about White Which Craft & said the Jason Baldwin & Damien Echols did the murders. He studied which craft & said it came to him. When he told me I didn’t belieave him.”

Non-supporters rarely mention this alleged Jason Baldwin confession to Garrett Schwarting. The reports are third-hand or fourth-hand (Jason B told Garrett, who told Jason F and Jeff, who told Laura) and sketchy. Schwarting himself denied ever telling Frazier and Hood any such thing. Why bother arguing this confession when there are so many direct and secondary confessions from Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley available?

But the Baldwin-Schwarting story is still more reliable than these “new witnesses” against Terry Hobbs. Maxwell, Frazier and Hood all talked to police within six weeks of the murders. Schwarting was well known as a close friend of Baldwin. The “new witnesses” popped up two decades later to pass along indirect reports of a “family secret” which might or might not trace back to anything Terry Hobbs ever said.

WM3 supporters will reject any evidence, however obvious, that points to guilt. They’ll accept any evidence, however flimsy, that helps frame someone else for the crime. It would be comical if the results weren’t so horrible.

UPDATE: The Memphis Commercial Appeal has more: New sworn statements implicate Hobbs in West Memphis Three case.

So what do Michael Hobbs Jr and Sr have to say about it?

Contacted today, Michael Hobbs Sr. laughed upon hearing the allegations, calling them “made up stuff.”

He said his son and the three friends had a falling out and this is their way to get even.

He said his son, Michael Hobbs Jr., sent him a text message today saying, “You think people are going to believe that (expletive)?”

The elder Hobbs said he is convinced the West Memphis Three are the real killers and that the defense team is determined to pin the murders on his brother.

“How they got three killers out of jail, I don’t know, except the all mighty dollar,” he said.

Cue supporters calling Michael Hobbs Jr and Sr liars in 3-2-1 …

133 thoughts on “New witnesses point to Terry Hobbs; old witnesses still point to Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley”

  1. “WM3 supporters will reject any evidence, however obvious, that points to guilt.”

    Nons will reject any evidence, however obvious, that points to innocence.

    Nons have no evidence that points to guilt. Stop wasting your time. Yes, you’ve wasted 18 years of your life for nothing. It’s better to move on now than to waste the rest of your life.

    A pardon or exoneration will be coming soon. You can’t bet your ass on it.

    1. @Coen I wouldn’t call seeking justice for the three murdered boys “18 years of waisting your life.”

      I also don’t think an exoneration will ever come. Why do you think they’ll be exonerated? Have they proven their innocence?

      Could you address some of the points WM3Truth made in their post? Do you agree this new witness evidence is flimsy?

  2. “Cue supporters calling Michael Hobbs Jr and Sr liars in 3-2-1”

    Not at all. They are upstanding citizens of the United States of America who speak only truth and are victims of 3 friends who had a “falling out” with them.

    Listen to yourself.

    1. OK, lay it on me. This site has a mixed readership of nons & supporters, and you have an open mic. Explain why these three guys (I haven’t seen their names yet) are more believable than Michael Hobbs Jr and Sr.

      1. None of them are believable because they are humans. Humans make errors in judgment and memory. Depending upon who is doing the cross examination even people telling the truth will “break” and not be able to recall or contradict themselves.

        You have only to play the “phone” game as a child to see how well memory works or look at all the women in battered womens shelters to see how well humans can judge character.

        Human opinion and recall should only be used to support an already airtight physical evidence case, when used in lieu of physical evidence you are entering the realm of witch hunt (and in this case, literally).

        I’m not sure what happened other than three children were murdered. Could it be Echols? Sure. It just wasn’t proven to me. It could be Chief of Police or a local minister. When there is physical evidence AND testimony…I’ll feel better about a conviction that leads to the death penalty.

  3. Good to see they actually CONTACTED Hobbs’s family instead of just running w/the story!

    New sworn statements implicate Hobbs in West Memphis Three case
    By Beth Warren

    Originally published 11:51 a.m., January 20, 2012
    Updated 12:23 p.m., January 20, 2012

    Attorneys for former West Memphis Three death row inmate Damien Echols today sent prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington a package of information they say points to the real killer of three eight-year-old boys.

    They secured sworn statements from three people claiming Terry Hobbs confessed to his brother that he killed the boys. The statements came from three friends of Hobbs’ nephew.

    Hobbs — stepfather of one of the slain boys, Stevie Branch — has repeatedly denied having anything to do with the murders. Police have never labeled him a suspect.

    The new defense witnesses – who the attorneys say passed polygraph tests about their assertions — claim Hobbs’ nephew, Michael Hobbs Jr., told them “my uncle Terry murdered those three little boys,” according to declarations recently given to Echols’ defense team.

    The nephew heard about the confession from his father, Michael Hobbs Sr., according to the attorneys.

    Contacted today, Michael Hobbs Sr. laughed upon hearing the allegations, calling them “made up stuff.”

    He said his son and the three friends had a falling out and this is their way to get even.

    He said his son, Michael Hobbs Jr., sent him a text message today saying, “You think people are going to believe that (expletive)?”

    The elder Hobbs said he is convinced the West Memphis Three are the real killers and that the defense team is determined to pin the murders on his brother.

    “How they got three killers out of jail, I don’t know, except the all mighty dollar,” he said.

    The three friends of his son could be subject to perjury penalties if the statements are false.

    Echols’ attorneys are asking Ellington to reopen the investigation in the 1993 deaths of Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers, who were stripped, bound and beaten before being thrown into a muddy reservoir in a wooded area.

    Echols’ attorney, Stephen Braga, said in a press release that he is asking Ellington to review the information, but he also hopes members of the Hobbs family are compelled to come forward on their own.

    “If this is the Hobbs Family Secret, then what a horrific cost that secrecy has imposed on the lives of so many people – perhaps most significantly Pam Hobbs who deserves to know what really happened to Stevie on the night of the murders, as do the Byers and Moore families,” Braga said. “With the secret now out, let’s hope that someone in the Hobbs family has the heart, the soul and the courage to come forward to tell the truth directly.”

    In 1994, Echols and his friends, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr. were convicted of murder. Defense attorneys successfully pressured Ellington to free all three in August based on new DNA evidence that matches someone else.

    Two hairs identified by an independent lab in 2007 matched Terry Hobbs and one of his friends. Echols’ defense team has alleged in court documents that a hair found in a shoelace that was used to bind Michael Moore’s wrists to his ankles is consistent with DNA from Hobbs. The other hair was found on a tree stump near where the bodies were found and is consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby, whom Hobbs visited about an hour before the boys’ disappearance.

    Echols’ attorneys said Hobbs could have picked up one of Jacoby’s hairs when he sat with him and played guitars inside Jacoby’s home. Hobbs has maintained that the victims could have picked the hair up from his house since they often played there.


  4. So Misskelley confesses 4 times and is either lying or co-erced every single time. But now, they will take the word of the friends of the son of the brother of Terry Hobbs as scripture. Amazing you idiots talk about a witch hunt back in 1994 while simultaneously conducting one in present day.

      1. It’s not that all supporters believe Terry Hobbs is guilty without a doubt, the point is that there is more physical evidence pointing to Terry Hobbs’ guilt than there is against any of the wm3. The witness testimonies don’t matter.

  5. I will be the first to tell you that I have no clue as to who is guilty. 5 years ago, the tangeled web was weaved around John Mark Byers and now it has shifted to Terry Hobbs. But in all honesty, if you divorce yourself from emotion and forget whose “side” you might be on, it will only lead you to one logical conclusion. That being, there is ZERO physical evidence linking the WM3 to the crime scene. No shoe print imprints, muddy clothes, fingerprints, hair fibers, no return home wet or bloody and muddy…Nothing.

    The only thing placing them at the crime scene is the (INADMISSABLE) testamony of a young man with an IQ of 72. The national IQ in America amongst non-college grads is around 90. For a cute frame of reference, the younger Forrest Gump in the movie had an IQ of around 76. Miskelly would have admitted to killing JFK if they had kept him there long enough.

    In order to believe the Miskelly’s confessions, you have to believe that the West Memphis police dept was squared away and textbook in their entire investigation. A fact we already know is not the case.
    1. The Mr. Bojangles lost blood samples
    2. The police not showing up to Bojangles to investigate a bloody black man in a stall in the womans room. Why? because it wasn’t in her ward. Not because it wasn’t in her jurisdiction, but her ward, know the difference.
    3. Miskelly was “interviewed” for 12 freaking hours with no legal representation present. This makes ANYTHING he has to say inadmissable as it would be difficult for a person with that IQ to fully understand his Miranda rights and his right to not self incriminate and need for legal support.
    4. They didn’t start with the families. You always work from the inside out, this is where you find motive, intent and capibility/acccess to the victim.
    I could go on and on about the shotty job the WMPD did. Any person educated about this case could tell you how badly they botched this whole thing.

    My point is this. I am not going to jump on the “Hobb’s is guilty” bandwagon because 3 kids from the past dropped some “he said she said”; I am jumping on the “Hobb’s is guilty” bandwagon because those 3 kids from the past volunteered this info and signed it “Under the Penalty of Perjury” and all 3 passed a polygraph. Does anyone else know what that means? Well allow me to tell you…

    If you lie under a sworn statement, knowing you lied to affect the outcome of a case, that is called PERJURY. These 3 guys signed papers with the Echols’ defense team stating that what they were saying was true, if found otherwise, THEY themselves will be jailed. I don’t know anyone that loves Echols enough to do time in jail to clear his name or to “get back at an ex-friend”. Why would they lie to the Echols defense team and risk jail time? Why the waited nearly 10 years to come forward? Who knows? Guilt, disbelief in what Michael Hobbs said, fear for their on lives or fear of not being taken seriously are just a few reasons to stay silent. Perhaps they figured it pointless to come forth as there were already convicted men in the case.

    Michel Hobbs today stated, ” We had a falling as friends so those guys are trying to get back at me and my family.” This is called damage control. Michael Hobbs Jr is eventualy going to see his uncle and his father, and they are going to know that he spilled the beans. Of course he is going to deny having said these things to his old buddies…Until the cops show up at his door requesting sworn statements that might perjure himself. Dimes to dollars, somebody is going to testify or turn states evidence on Terry Hobbs.

    I am trying to reserve judgement but it’s getting hard. Hobbs hair/DNA at the crime scene, his erratic behavior, his absence of an alibi at critical times, washing all the clothes in the house at weird hours, witnesses that linked him the boys right before they vanished, his violent past (he freaking shot his brother in law, Pam’s brother, during an altercation), his knowledge of the West Memphis terrain and refusal to go past a certian location while searching for the bodies. I believe he said he felt evil spirits down there and refused to go further. The area he wouldn’t enter is exactly where the bodies were found.

    I will steal from the state prosecutor’s own closing statements about Echols in convicting the WM3…
    “Anything wrong with wearing black in and of itself? No. anything wrong with the heavy metel stuff in and of itself? No. Anything wrong with the Book of Shadows in and of itself? No. But if you look at it together, you get to see inside Damien Echols and when you look inside there is not a soul in there.”

    I feel the same way about the evidence coming forth about Hobbs. One item here or there, whatever. But it’s the combination and mounting of evidence that is looking shady. If you really and honestly feel Hobbs is totally innocent, invite him over for dinner tonight and let hime watch your kids.

    1. The fact that you completely dismiss all of Jessie’s confessions, even to his own attorney — yet you “are trying to reserve judgement but it’s getting hard” with regard to triple hearsay about Hobbs….

      pretty much says it all.

      1. I see.

        1) Do you feel that the rambling, riddled with inconsistencies “confession” that exonerates Misskelley of murder with aforethought and places it squarely upon the other two made in the presence of his own attorney and prevents him from receiving a death sentence is the type of testimony that is more believable than one made by people without motive (either fear or reward)?

        2) Do you not find it slightly possible that maybe his attorney coached him in regards to a testimony that would keep him from being executed and then said: Roll the tape?

        3) Do you not believe that this happens daily, weekly, monthly, yearly at criminal defense firms across the country?

        4) Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?

        I think that testimony 17 years after the fact (sorry Echols supporters) is useless. This is a cold case. It is an unsolved murder. Just like Congress feels they have to make more and more laws to show they are “working”, police officers have to make a quick arrest to make the public feel like they’re doing a good job. It is better to take your time and make sure you’ve got a round peg for that round hole. Unfortunately, they don’t always do that.

        In this case, they profiled and then found evidence in testimony to make up for a lack of physical evidence. Personal and witness testimony has put more innocent people behind bars than any other type of so-called evidence.

        1. Rin –

          1) There were multiple confessions – not a “confession.” They do not exonerate Jessie of murder – especially the last few. But I will say that I do not think Jessie knew the kids would die. Which is part of why he confessed. He did not intend to kill anyone that day, and probably feels the other two guys are mostly to blame.

          2) His attorney definitely did NOT coach him before his bible confession. In fact, he begged him not to confess. This is all documented on callahan’s. And he certainly would not coach him to avoid “being executed” because Jessie had already been tried and convicted. Jessie even pointed Stidham to the whiskey bottle to try to convince him of the truth of what he was saying. Dan was worried and did not know what to do, because he had just finished trying the case instead of entering a guilty plea — and he could’ve looked very foolish in Paradise Lost for doing so if the directors hadn’t decided to go a different direction with the film.

          3) Not sure what you are talking about. You may need to go back and read what happened in the events surrounding the post-conviction confessions.

          4) No.

          1. There were multiple, conflicting confessions all of which appear to have inconsistencies and at times are in direct opposition to the evidence. Attorney’s publicly make advisements in criminal cases while managing the event differently behind closed doors. At the first read of the confession that was my opinion based upon how slanted the confession was in favor of his client being absolved of murder in aforethought. As I read through the other documents I am now of the opinion that the cops promised this kid something for his confession.

            His confession portray the other two as nightmares and evil, murdering btards, and himself as a drunk partier who might have gotten rough with the kids but not a murderer. He also received the lesser sentence because of his “confession”, rambling though it might have been.

            Cui bono.

    2. The 12 hour interrogation myth again? seriously? Do you not do any research on your own?

      I really wish these people that keep trying to hold on to that myth would explain why, when its been proven (to anyone that can actually read and do so simple arithmetic) to be less than 5 hours.

    3. Jamieson
      Look at the case before you say they have no evidence. Damein record and the confession from Jessie times. And Jessie wasnt retarded . Sorry that doesnt fly.He even confessed after his lawyers begged him not to. And lets see Mr Byers yesterday . Mr Hobbs today . Who next ……….. Who ever killed those poor 3 boys were in the woods. Who said they were hiding waiting in the woods ? Oh now I remember ……that was Jessie’s confession and he added he had been drinking a lot. That is why he doesnt know every detail. And sorry there was blood at the sight that had been washed away. Do you really think Mr Hobbs could have killed the children. Hid them and then the next day in daylight drop the kids in the water. Facts of the case ………and none of them make sence about Mr Hobbs.

  6. u can say what u like about these witnesses being credible…but the truth is there was reward for info leading to an arrest…i dont think any credible witnesses can be had…even Jessie himself was persuaded by detectives with the promise of a reward so he could buy his dad a new truck….U people are completely delusional!!

    1. Please link to where Jessie was persuaded. Was he still being persuaded after his arrest? What about when his own attorney begged him not to confess and made him put his hand on a bible — was he being persuaded then?

      1. of course he was . the reason his lawyer begged him not to confess is because he knew it was a lie . on 2-17-94 both his lawyers stated that they believed their client had just committed perjury after he made his confession . unless they honestly thought he was lying they had no reason to do that . the state convinced jessie that he needed to confess if he wanted a deal to get done .

        1. “Of course he was” – please link to something to support that.

          Stidham did not know what to do – he actually said “I do not know what to do now” – after Jessie confessed to him with his hand on the bible. Stidham and Crowe offered the opinion that Jessie was purjuring himself in part to cover their own asses. After all, they had just gotten done taking this guy to trial when he originally planned to enter a guilty plea and testify against the other two. If they believed he was being truthful in confessing, it would have been an ethical violation for them to take him to trial.

          Some of you need to take a step back and realize how far you are going to try to explain all of this away. You were tricked by the documentaries, plain and simple.

          1. that argument doesn’t make any sense on several levels . ever hear of attorney client privilege ? the only ethical obligation they had was to represent their client to the best of their ability with in the bounds of the law . misskelley’s guilt or innocence was for the jury to decide , not his lawyer .

            even if it was an ethical violation , which it’s not , they still had nothing to worry about . why ? remember that confession misskelley gave to his lawyer ? the one that jessie swore to on a bible ? yeah , that took place 4days after the trial ended . they could have easily made the case misskelley didn’t admit guilt till after he was convicted .

            the ethical violation they could have committed would have been to allow misskelley to give a confession they knew to be false . that’s why they begged misskelley to not confess . once he did his attorneys would have no choice but to implicate him in crime .

          2. I haven’t watched a documentary. I just went to that website with all of the documents. I don’t find Echols engaging, interesting, or handsome. I don’t like the selectivity of celebrities endorsing causes. There are many wrongly incarcerated individuals in this country. They were three white kids wrongly incarcerated in a podunk town that allowed liberal fears of a Gothic South to proliferate into a movement. I think the Echols groupies have serious issues.

            I could go on and on and on about all of the things I dislike about the free the WM3 movement, but for as much as the WM3 balladeers annoy me I am more annoyed, more angry at the breakdown of the very fundamentals of blind and equal justice.

            The presumption of innocence, sound mind confessions, reasonable doubt…all of these were thrown out because someone felt that they knew better than the system.

          3. Staylor –

            1) You cannot represent a client that pleas not guilty if you know he is guilty.

            2) Probably more importantly, Stidham was likely worried he was about to look like an idiot on national television. This confession made it pretty clear that he should’ve counseled his client to plead guilty in the first place and testify against the other two for a reduced sentence. He did not do that. He failed to represent the best interests of his client, and the whole thing was being documented for a movie. Luckily for Stidham, the film-makers left out these other confessions, the Judge replacing Stidham with a neutral attorney because of Stidham’s bias effecting his judgment regarding Misskelley’s best interests, the whiskey bottle, etc.

          4. I just want to say that this is one of the top five dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet.

            If defense attorneys were not allowed to defend clients they knew were not guilty, huge numbers of defendants would be without legal representation. Every defendant in the United States has the legal and constitutional right to representation, no matter how strong the case against them is and how guilty everyone involved, including the defense attorney, believes them to be.

            Do you honestly think public defenders don’t know most of their clients are guilty?

            You’ve watched one too many TV shows. Maybe you think allowing a client to plead not guilty when you know he’s actually guilty is suborning perjury or something, but a since a plea doesn’t take place under oath, and since “not guilty” is a legal term that ultimately has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence, you could not possibly be more wrong.

            Try learning some actual facts about the way the criminal justice system words.

          1. dog-
            for starters i have no link for you at the moment . misskelley mentions something about getting the 30,000 dollar reward to buy his daddy a new truck in pl3 . i’m willing to concede this point to you and say it didn’t happen unless i come across another source . it wouldn’t be fair to take everything misskelley said as gospel with nothing to corroborate it and at the same time call him dishonest .

            i’m not sure why you think a lawyer can’t plea a client ng if he’s aware of their guilt ? lawyers most certainly can and do every day . they can’t allow anyone to knowingly perjure themselves , but they can defend clients they know to be guilty .

            i’ll give you the embarrassed angle as a very reasonable argument . beyond that everything else bs . stidham wasn’t replaced do to any bias and it’s ridiculous to suggest it . saying he should’ve plead his client guilty from the start is a matter of opinion and actually out of his hands . the client decides how to plead not the lawyer .

        2. The reason his lawyer begged him not to because that would kill any appeal for him. Jessie knew what he was doing . He wanted to confess the truth. The first confession he tried to make it as tho he didnt do anything. Made light of what he did.

          1. DogIsYourName January 24, 2012 at 10:03 am
            Staylor –

            1) You cannot represent a client that pleas not guilty if you know he is guilty.


            And yet they do it all the time.

  7. I don’t understand why this site always deletes my comments. And I’m usually just asking questions.

    This one to me seems like something that should to me be pursued. If I’m reading this story correctly, it says the kids took polygraphs. Now I know those can be beat and deceived. I never took one but it still seems like that would be a little hard to do for somebody let alone 3. I also don’t see why 3 people would be saying it for absolutely no reason. But true people have done worse things.

    I would love for justice to be done and to have proof beyond reasonable doubt. But that doesn’t seem likely. At least for me. I know this site has everybody in absolute no doubt they are guilty. I disagree. And my main feeling in all this is that I don’t believe that the trial was at all fair. And I will get attacked for that belief here. But it’s what I feel.

    I keep reading about the confession of Jessie’s. I have a mentally handicapped cousin. And I know that he went thru a long period in his early teens where he was mislead by some kids in the neighborhood. And he was ringing doorbells etc…Nothing major. But it took my uncle a while to figure out what was happening. Mainly because he told them he was doing it by his own freewill. But it turned out there was some coaxing involved. And my cousin wanted to fit in and hang out with the kids in the neighborhood. Granted this is to a much lesser extent. But it just sits with me that this crap happens. Bullies etc. So I find it very possible that a kid with a low IQ could be manipulated by the police. So building off that is thin.

    And I did read that a few people have recanted their testimony from the trial I don’t know if that is true. And I think that I read on this site, but I could be wrong, that there were several people that could have testified against them but didn’t. So if that’s true, it seems strange. I mean why wouldn’t they? Or why didn’t the DA want them to testify. I know a couple of them were drug addicts. Or at least I read that. It’s hard to know whats true and what’s just manipulated from each string I read. It seems as complicated as the evidence in this trial.

    There just seems to be some things to give me doubt. So adding this new ripple does nothing but give me pause. And I think it should at least be followed up on. But it’s just me.

  8. First I would like to thank wm3truth for presenting the “other side” of the story since is now almost a forgone conclusion that the 3 are innocent and to this point none of us know for certain that is the truth.

    Second I have to make the point that if Echols was guilty why would he want his defense attorneys to pursue reopening the case? It seems to me that reopening the case would do more harm then good. Today the 3 are free and the widespread perception is that regardless of innocence or guilt that the investigation and trial where somewhat of a sham from shoddy police work to jury misconduct there is no way they would be convicted again.

    Perhaps Echols attempt to reopen the case is like OJ Simpson’s “attempt” to find Nicole Brown’s real killer. It sounds like he’s more innocent and he probably has nothing to lose because the state of Arkansas has no intention of reopening this case. They actually are so concerned about how mishandled that case was that they let the 3 out of prison to avoid further investigation. Prosecuter Scott Ellington said he and the state still consider them guilty and the case is closed. Mr. Ellingtion might be the smartest man in the state of Arkansas.

    You have to wonder if Damien had been committed for all his metal health issues instead of being let go due to financial reasons if those three 8-year-old boys wouldn’t be alive today.

    1. Second I have to make the point that if Echols was guilty why would he want his defense attorneys to pursue reopening the case?

      Echols cannot be tried again for the same crime. He has already pled guilty and been released on time served.

      Perhaps Echols attempt to reopen the case is like OJ Simpson’s “attempt” to find Nicole Brown’s real killer.

      It’s kinda like that. Except OJ Simpson’s lawyers and fans never tried to frame Fred Goldman as the “real killer”.

      1. That is not exactly true.

        You cannot be retried for the same crime if you were found innocent the first time or if you were found guilty and served your time to completion. Meaning, the prosecutors can’t keep coming after you if you were found innocent–or if you served your time, obviously, they cannot retry you to make you serve more time.

        However, if you are willing to take the chance and retry your case by withdrawing an earlier plea you can be found guilty twice, technically. In this instance, Echols, Balwdin, and Misskelley could be found guilty if they rescind the Alford Plea in order to have the case retried.

  9. One method of expunging a record is to withdraw an earlier plea because rarely do prosecutors make the attempt to retry a cold case. Witnesses are either gone or have forgotten their earlier testimonies. Sometimes they remember things differently. Its always more difficult to try a case later…or even try a case years after the fact.

    If I were Echols and I DID do it, I would call the bluff and force them to reopen it. A jury of today would find them innocent because people take reasonable doubt more seriously now in the wake of shows like CSI or Bones. It’s true. Look at the statistics. Jurors expect airtight evidence these days due to advances in forensic science.

    1. Rin
      Since Echols gave them more evidence exhibit 500 . I don’t think he would have been released. If you look at all they had a against them you will find lots of evidence. Just not the one you are looking for DNA. There is a lot of crimes solved Without DNA. Fiber is evidence it links one person to another.

      Echols and the rest took the deal instead of a retrial. They pleaded guilty. The alpha plea is to plea guilty and you just get to say your innocent. But in the end they are still pleading guilty. That is a big hint of guilt right there. The fact that Jason cried they are trying to Damien was strange. RETRIAL……….Off death roe during the retrial. I think what he was saying is they have enough evidence to hang Echols. Because he did open his mouth to the police. Because Judge Bennett was being fair to the defense a lot wasn’t allowed in .

  10. I have seen all of the Documentaries and i am shocked that all along that Todd have lied that he was not with the boys and a neigbor witness him calling them down to his home and that was the last they were seen. Honestly when i looked back the camera’s showing him he looks very blank and just withdrawn. I swear something must happen in that house that night while the mother was at work and then he took the bodies and dumped them with help late that night. These days we have all kind of ways of finding out in that house even though it is a cold case they can use florensic to find old blood and etc even though he tried to clean up behind his self i think that the ex wife should think back that day at home if anything seem different and not right. You never know i put nothing pass this man.

    1. Stacey
      But I think he liked a man that felt guilt. He didnt look as hard as he should have for his stepson. I dont think anyone of them ever thought something like this could happen to their children,

  11. First off, this whole Hobbs thing does sound a little ropey, like some pathetic attempt to try and cash-in on the whole case. If it is, then its sick, and the ones perpetrating it need to go to jail themselves.

    But secondly, you quoted Jessie Miskelley’s confession as evidence that the WM3 “did it”. Have you actually listened to the confession, or at the least, read the transcript for it?

    12 hours of interrogation, only 42 minutes recorded, and the entire thing is led by the police questioner. Jessie starts off by “confessing” that only Damien killed the kids, and during the daytime, and over the course of the interview, the police lead Jessie on and by the end of the confession, it happened at night-time and all three of them were present.

    All spurred on by the police. Give it a read/listen. Makes for a compelling time.

    Then theres Jason having an alibi for his whereabouts (playing videogames at Walmart, having someone behind him waiting for a turn), which I believe the police knew but never chased up as they had this “confession” from Jessie…

    Theres no doubt the original case was a big ball of fuck, and that the ones who were dealt the biggest blow of injustice were Stevie, Michael and Chris. You might have reservations about the actual innocence of the WM3, and thats fine. Thats your opinion.

    Its wrong, because you’re only looking at the “evidence” the police supplied, and not the evidence they ignored/lost/never presented/never chased up, and that will only indeed lead you to your conclusion. But I strongly suggest looking at the case as a whole before you start spreading such malicious “gossip”, because you might find yourself somewhat surprised when you discover just how much the police screwed the pooch on this case.

    1. But secondly, you quoted Jessie Miskelley’s confession as evidence that the WM3 “did it”. Have you actually listened to the confession, or at the least, read the transcript for it?

      Yes, many times.

      12 hours of interrogation, only 42 minutes recorded, and the entire thing is led by the police questioner.

      The “12-hour interrogation” never happened.

      If you think I’m wrong, please tell us when the “12-hour interrogation” began and when it ended.

      You write “confession” singular. Misskelley actually confessed many times. Read the 2/8/94 interview between Misskelley and his defense lawyer. Read or listen to the 2/17/94 confession.

      These are the key documents pointing to the WM3’s guilt. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again — I honestly don’t understand how anyone can read those two documents and still have the slightest doubt that the WM3 were guilty as charged.

      Then theres Jason having an alibi for his whereabouts (playing videogames at Walmart, having someone behind him waiting for a turn), which I believe the police knew but never chased up as they had this “confession” from Jessie…

      There’s a page here about the alibis.

      The police did interview Ken Watkins, the guy who Jason’s family claimed was with Jason at Wal-mart between 6 and 7 pm. Watkins did NOT back up Jason’s story about going to Wal-mart.

      The police also tracked down Don Nam, another kid who was supposedly at Wal-mart playing videogames. Read his statements, tell us if Nam backed up Baldwin’s story.

      1. 12 hours of interrogation, only 42 minutes recorded, and the entire thing is led by the police questioner.

        The “12-hour interrogation” never happened.


        Would you feel better had they said:

        Over 10 hours in police custody and they only recorded the 45 minutes of it that were beneficial to their own case?

        The police had a murder suspect with a documented low IQ (rightly or wrongly documented as such) in their custody without providing him with an attorney was stupid, it is yet another way he could have gotten out on appeals (different than retrying a case, appeals is all about trial and legal conduct) because a good attorney would have argued that he was not of sound mind and did not understand fully what was happening to him.

        People under the influence of illicit narcotics have had their testimony thrown out, despite having willfully chosen to engage in the unauthorized use of an illicit substance.

        Police do justice no service when they break rules. It can put innocent people behind bars and get guilty people out on technicalities.

        1. “Would you feel better had they said:

          Over 10 hours in police custody and they only recorded the 45 minutes of it that were beneficial to their own case?”

          Not really. I don’t expect the police to have a camera or a tape recorder on everyone for every minute. Pretty sure that in some cases that would constitute unreasonable search and seizure. Plus, Jessie had confessed after roughly 5 hours in police custody. Why would they continue to tape him afterwards?


          “The police had a murder suspect with a documented low IQ (rightly or wrongly documented as such) in their custody without providing him with an attorney was stupid, it is yet another way he could have gotten out on appeals (different than retrying a case, appeals is all about trial and legal conduct) because a good attorney would have argued that he was not of sound mind and did not understand fully what was happening to him.

          People under the influence of illicit narcotics have had their testimony thrown out, despite having willfully chosen to engage in the unauthorized use of an illicit substance.

          Police do justice no service when they break rules. It can put innocent people behind bars and get guilty people out on technicalities.”

          They attempted to provide him with an attorney. He signed a waiver of his Miranda rights. And this wasn’t Jessie’s 1st rodeo, so saying he didn’t know any better doesn’t fly either. Also on the tapes, you can hear them make it clear that he signed that Miranda and he acknowldged as such. Also, they had his father’s permission too…another myth lies about.

          I don’t understand the narcotic debate, since neither Jessie, his attorneys, nor the supporter movement have ever made that accusation.

          What rules were broken during this again? He was picked up because they thought he might have information. After an hour of questioning (he’s not a suspect) they believe he’s lying. They drive him back to his dad (in the front seat of the car unhandcuffed I might add) and get a signed polygraph authorization form. He was driven back to the PD and polygraphed. The results showed he wasn’t being truthful…he confessed…they rolled tape. From then on, he’s in custody because he confessed, not because he’s a suspect.

          I think I’m missing your point?

          1. If an individual is perceived as being unable to understand the ramifications of a confession, motion, action, or plea and sets in motion a particular chain of events detrimental to his own case 8 out of 10 times, regardless of his emphasis of agreement and/or capitulation, the judge will throw it out.

            The courts tend to treat those with lower IQs very similarly to that of YOs or the drug addicted. My reference to drug addicts was to show (poorly) that even those who have purposefully put themselves into a state wherein their judgment is impaired are still given that leeway by the courts and usually their testimony is disregarded (if they have a decent attorney).

            This is an individual who had already been labeled by educators as someone without the IQ to make the type of judgment that would lend itself to self-protection.

          2. Rim,
            I would also advise to see how the IQ test was preformed . They had let Jessie know that these were for proof that he had a low IQ. Even the doctor said on his report that he thought there was deception on Jessie’s part( when the state pick holes in his testimony ) and in some parts of the IQ test he tested 81. And even with the 74 they said he had a mind a 14 year. Not 5 year old. He understood every word they were telling him. Matter of fact Jessie is going to college to be a mechanic. They forgot to put that part in the movies.

        2. Would you feel better had they said:

          Over 10 hours in police custody and they only recorded the 45 minutes of it that were beneficial to their own case?

          No, I’d say that didn’t happen either.

          Misskelley showed up at the police station at 10:00 am. His tape-recorded confession took place between 2:44 and 3:18 pm. Where is this 10 hours you speak of?

          I agree 100% that police should have started tape-recording (better yet, video-recording) Misskelley’s confession earlier. Having a recording of the 12:40-2:30 pm interrogation session would have been very beneficial to the state’s case. The police also should have recorded Damien Echols’ interrogation on 5/10/93.

          without providing him with an attorney

          Misskelley waived his right to an attorney, despite the police fully Mirandizing him three times before his tape-recorded confession began. It’s not the police’s responsibility or right to force a defendant to exercise particular rights.

          Misskelley did have several appeals, on the grounds you cite. Those appeals failed.

          1. How can somebody honestly listen to or read the original confession by Jessie and NOT see it is full of leading questions? It could be used as a textbook for “how to ask leading questions”…

            I’m on the fence about the whole case, and actually leaning to the side that the WM3 are guilty, but if someone seriously listens to or reads that confession and still claims there are not leading questions asked they are delusional and really need to back out of the argument and let the rational adults take over.

      2. wm3truth ,

        i’m curious as to why you find the 4-8-94 and 4-17-94 confessions so compelling ? there so many ridiculous claims in the 4-8-94 confession it’s mind boggling . seriously , you honestly think him putting his hand on a bible changes anything ? it’s clear in both instances that misskelley’s lawyers didn’t believe his confession . it’s very likely misskelley was made to fear prison for a child killer and convinced that confessing was his only hope . he was told that a confession couldn’t get him in more trouble and he could explain that it was the other two that killed the kids .

        1. I would say there are so many things he got right is mind boggling. If you look at the autopsy report you can see that the things Jesse said that happened match the injuries. Nobody else would know that.

          Personally, the first confession did it for me. Jesse admitting, “I ran after the boy and brought him back.” If he was being led, why would he put in a tidbit that the police had no clue about? The rest of his confessions just solidified my belief.

          I know WM3truth can tell you the things that Jessie could not have known unless he was there.

          1. stacia-
            you’re absolutely right , they in no way led a borderline retarded person through a confession . i mean it’s not like they showed him a picture of the victims with the names of the victims under them . nor did they repeat each name while pointing at the corresponding victim . it’s not like after doing all that they pretended he knew them by name and face later in the recording ,right ?wait , yeah actually that’s exactly what they did as evidenced by gitchell saying “ok,so you know them by name and face, well enough to call them by name ?” and misskelley answering in the affirmative . see this a clear example of the cops feeding info to misskelley that they later use to solidify his false confession . maybe they didn’t even realize what they were doing , but they most certainly did it .

            also, if they thought misskelley was of sound mind why the hell would they ask him “DO YOU KNOW WHAT A PENIS IS ” ? they actually asked him twice ,which would suggest they honestly didn’t know whether or not the 17 yo misskelley knew what a penis was . now i don’t know about you , but i would call a 17yo that didn’t know what a penis is MENTALLY RETARDED .

          2. stacia- sorry if my reply comes off as disrespectful and condescending , that wasn’t my intent . after reading it back i realized how prickish i sounded .

  12. I am sorry earlier the correct name is Terry hobbs not Todd Moore. I really think that Terry Hobbs had something to due with the boys death.

      1. Well watching the Paradise 3 i think his story did not add up right that day just did not add up with his where abouts . Even his neigbor said that she saw him around 6pm she lives three houses down and saw him calling steve to come to the house and the boys was following him that was the last she seen them. Terry lied and told the police that he did not see the boys all day.

        1. Well all that same stuff exists as evidence against the WM3, plus even more. None of them have an alibi. All of them lied to police.

          Big difference – Jessie confessed multiple times. Hobbs did not. And Hobbs was actively searching that night, as has been confirmed by numerous people. These holes people are trying to poke in his whereabouts are based on statements he made 18 years later. And the people poking the holes are all being paid by the film makers. The gaping holes in Damien’s alibi, in contrast, is from a couple days after the murders. And Damien admitted on the stand he was making up his alibi to fit the facts.

          The Moore’s actually saw Damien walking near the crime scene that next morning. And Jason’s mom went to give her condelences to the Hobbs’s the next day. Jessie cried hysterically at night, and blamed it on the fact his girlfriend was moving away. And she never did move away.

  13. 3 things I want to know so if there is information then enlighten me.

    1. Damien Echols’ psychiatric records from prior to the murders are well documented on this site and elsewhere. What about psychiatric evaluations from after the the arrest, conviction and subsequent jail time? Surely they were conducted and their results documented.

    2. Byers and Hobbs are all over the documentaries and other media but what happened to Michael Moore’s parents? What is there take on the events that have transpired recently?

    3. Is it possible/legal to reopen a case where a conviction and subsequent guilty plea have been secured? Reopening a case in and of itself is an acknowledgement that the state has not definitively found a satisfactory resolution. It would seem to me there would have to be a law that states exactly what criteria must be met to reappropriate tax dollars for a case that has not only secured a conviction but also secured a guilty plea thus confirming closure. When they agreed to the Alford pleas they essentially agreed to close the case and certainly the attorneys were aware of that condition. Entering that plea and asking to reopen the case is a unity of opposites. Please reopen the case we just agreed to close. In other words you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    1. what happened to Michael Moore’s parents? What is there take on the events that have transpired recently?

      Todd and Dana Moore have always believed in the WM3’s guilt. They have both been active in arguing the case online, trying to counter “free the WM3” disinformation. So why aren’t any of the news media or documentary filmmakers interested in their take? Good question.

  14. Coan
    Never there are so many people that dont think they are innocent. I was on the band wagon I will confuss. I dont know if they are guilty or innocent . But I agree if that is the deal they took it should stick. Why didnt they have a new trial ? Damiem health was failing ? He said on the 3rd movie that he really had a good life. The confession always bothered me. But I thought they didnt have a fair trial. Mr Hobbs and the turttle theory was dumb . What their was 3 turttles that night and a monster one at that . I dont believe one thing that comes out of Pam Hobbs or John Byers. Read all of the claims she has made and all of them has been proven false but the movie makers dont bring that up. John Byers they never did find out what happened with his wife. And he has lied and lied in the 2nd movie. But they dont go over that . Sad that the WM3 didnt do something good with their freedom.
    They are just casting blame and pointing fingers and creating a trial in the media.
    OMG sounds like a witch hunt ……Sorry no more donations to WM3 to start their new life .

  15. I think the reason why this is not let go is because the WM3 want justice either way i think they feel that they wasted their time for nothing. Believe me i think they have enjoying their freedom but they can’t seem to put the horrow behind them. I will never forget that when i saw the Paradise 1 i thought that they did it and it was terrible what was done to those three beautiful boys. Now watching 2 and 3 i feel that i take back everything that i felt they had nothing to do with it they were just teenagers that like rock music etc. and was profile due to their difference in clothing. I am the same age of these men and i am from Jacksonville,Florida i went to a school called Douglas Anderson School Of the Arts and there were so many backgrounds of people the Gothic and Homesexuals and honestly they were profile at times i was always told that i went to a school of freaks and etc. Honestly these people were cool , real and sweet. They are human too just express though their artist ways. I think those men are innocent and they real killer is out there now i think Terry Hobbs had alot to do with it and he is not going to ever talk about that night it is haunting him inside and people like that will also take it to their grave. I hope he ask forgiveness before judgement day because hell will have a place for him. All of his hair is on those kids not the WM3. That is the real truth

  16. The supporter movement has beclowned itself too many times to count: the seamless exchange of red herring suspects, non-existent bit marks, trained snapping turtles, ad nauseum.

    But THIS is their most pathetic moment yet: triple hearsay that would be inadmissible in a traffic ticket case. This obviously is a promo for the films and yet these cretins believe it. Braga, Sinofsky, Berlinger and Jackson must laugh their asses off at night when they pour a Scotch and think how easy it is to manipulate the stupid and ignorant.

  17. New information in this case was given to Ellington on January 19, 2012. I believe it included the three affidavits in question. I also hope that it included information about a fiber found in the hinge of one of Terry Hobbs’ many knives. That particular fiber has been tested and, according to family members, the fiber is an EXACT MATCH to the ligature binding Michael Moore. Notice that I said an exact match, not merely “microscopically similar” like the fibers from the clothing taken from the defendants’ homes. No, this hasn’t been made public yet, but this has:

    I find it interesting in your focus on the “truth” you have not reported this item. It is my understanding from someone who was present at the Sundance Film Festival that the information regarding the test results of the fiber was revealed to family members at that time. I think that if everyone just keeps their ears and eyes open, you will hear of this evidence very soon.

    1. Your link doesn’t say anything about this new fiber. If it hasn’t been made public yet, it hardly seems fair to accuse me of dodging the issue.

      Meanwhile, tell us your thoughts on the Maxwell/Frazier/Hood statements from May-June 1993. Why are they less convincing than these three friends of Michael Hobbs Jr who popped up 18 years later?

    2. Why would they have to do it in a movie? Isn’t that a trial in the media ? Why bring evidence to a movie ?Why accuse someone in the movie?. Why not just come out with the facts to the DA and they can make a statement to the press? Oh wait they want you to pay to see the movie . It is all about the money . And they want the public to believe one side to put presure on the court system. OK buying your innocents! This is just sad ………….. The suporters have turned into something that is so wrong it is JOKE. Justice they dont want justice.. They want to manipulate the court system. The suporters are so anti justice ………………….

  18. Why were these knives not checked in 1993? I swear the police work was horrible. You have nuclear family members who own knives but the only ones who voluntarily turned one for testing was HBO? If I’m investigating murders where victims were cut I’m searching everyone for knives. This is just criminology 101 people. The WMPD have themselves to blame for all the doubt in this case.

  19. Ask yourself this question? If Damien, Jason & Jesse Jr. were born and raised in your hometown, would that change your opinion of the guys?? You do not know the truth NOR does anyone care about what YOU think. Freedom of speech, yea, yea… There is no justice, point. blank. period. People in WMPD did highly disturb the trial of these three guys; however, are you a judge, attorney or have u taken a walk in thier shoes… probably not, so before you start accusing everyone (like your doing already with the wm3), stop and LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!!!!! You know nothing about this town, the wm3 or thier families. HBO did not show who they truly are. What if that was your son on death row and days away from recieveing the death penalty?? Use your mind before you open your mouth and if your mind doesn’t work as quick as your mouth then keep it shut!

    1. Well said! In a way i guess we never know what happen that day only god and believe me who ever did it will pay if not legal it will be internal. You can go only so far health and etc. i hope it eats them up alive i am not going to point fingers anymore. I pray for the childern familie’s because they are the one’s have to live with this tradegy.

    2. Who
      They were found guilty by a court and a jury.Put myself in the victims family shoes I can do . But the WM3 I cant . I cant imagine ever killing 3 children . Blowing a kiss at the morning parents. Saying half of the stuff he said on the stand. I feel bad for Mrs Echols I do. She knew her son was sick and violent . But still it wasn’t her fault.


    If Jason Baldwin was actually guilty then why did he willfully choose to remain in prison FOR MONTHS after the State approved the Alford Plea deal?

    Common sense states it’s because he’s INNOCENT and on principle alone for being wrongfully imprisoned for 17 years he was refusing to admit guilt and wanted a retrial to prove his innocence.

    The approved deal would have let him immediately walk free for life. They could never try him again for the murders even if a videotape surfaced showing him committing the crime! SO WHY DIDN’T HE TAKE IT? Why on earth would anyone risk them taking the deal off the table and him spending the rest of his life in prison?

    The answer is the most obvious: HE’S INNOCENT.

      1. Did you not READ what I posted? My point was crystal clear…

        If Baldwin was truly guilty he wouldn’t have risked losing the opportunity to get out of prison and being free for the rest of his life. Only an innocent man would refuse a plea deal that would let him walk free after 17 years in prison.

        CASE CLOSED.

        1. @RealityCheck I don’t understand your comment either.

          “If Jason Baldwin was actually guilty then why did he willfully choose to remain in prison FOR MONTHS after the State approved the Alford Plea deal?”

          Your comment reads as if Jason wasn’t released with the other two. Don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say. I think you’re talking about Jason not originally wanting to agree to the Alford Plea. But he did.

          Why didn’t he wait for the evidentiary hearing in December is a better question. The three may have had an opportunity to completely exonerate themselves if they had just waited four more months.

          1. Correct. He rejected the deal and stayed in prison, knowing he was innocent. Yes, he eventually agreed to the deal, but only after his lawyers convinced him it was in his best interest, as well as the risk that Echols could be executed.

      2. He didn’t go for the retrial because his friend, damien Echols was on death row and it could have been years until they were granted a new trial. Obviously he chose to preserve another’s life rather than get the justice he deserved. The fact is that these are people’s lives we’re talking about. You all sound like a bunch of shitheads assuming they’re guilty and making smart ass comments. We don’t know the truth and probably never will, in the mean time stop being so disrespectful. You can share your opinion without acting like a total asshole.

    1. Check
      Jason was thinking they had the best lawyers money can buy and they would beat the charge. Jessie and Echols did so much damage to their case . There is no way they would have been found innocent. All in all I think all 3 wanted to take the deal. I think that was just a line that Jessie only took it for Damien. And no one knew what the new Judge would let into evidence

      There was a lot of evidence not put in the case.

  21. @RC

    You do realize Echols hadn’t even started his federal appeals, right? He was still several years away from a possible execution date.

  22. Let’s not confuse an aquittal with exoneration. Just because a jury doesn’t find you guilty doesn’t mean you didn’t commit the crime. Just ask O.J. Simpson. If the WM3 had been granted a new trial the issues of jury misconduct and sloppy police work most likely would have resulted in an aquittal but that in no way fully exonerates these guys of the crime. The only way to prove their innocence is to find the person/people who did kill those boys if in fact it wasn’t the WM3. Acquittals just mean there was reasonable doubt not that the defendant(s) were not guilty.

    1. What ? They would have a new trial ? They would have been able to clear their name . No if they didnt take the plea …………they would have been able to have a new trial.

  23. Hey Reality check, take your own advice about common sense, and then use your screen name and give yourself a reality check. Common sense? What does common sense say about a person who confesses 4 times to a murder he didn’t commit. You want to use co-ercion as an argument for the first confession? Fine, you want to say he wanted a reward for Daddy for one of them, fine. But use your common sense, and tell me why Jesse confessed with his lawyer screaming at him to shut his mouth, use common sense and tell me why Jesse confessed on record AFTER HE WAS FOUND GUILTY? Please, in all your infinite wisdom, explain to me why an innocent man would confess after being found guilty, is serving a life sentence, and has nothing to gain. Have you read the bible confession? Nobody leads Jesse, and he is constantly correcting Stidham about location and events without provocation. Why the hell would Jesse do that? Reality check? Common sense?

    1. scott ,
      you do realize the reason misskelley’s lawyers told him not to confess on 2-17-94 was because they believed he was lying . this is supported by the fact that misskelley’s attorneys stated , on the record , they believed misskelley was perjuring himself . this is after the bible confession , that one of the attorneys took himself , and they still believed he was innocent .

      as for the bible confession , read the ENTIRE transcript on calahan8k and you’ll see why so many people don’t think it holds up . misskelley makes ridiculous claims in addition to parroting his lawyer at times .

      common sense tells me that the two officers that drove misskelley to prison probably made mention of what life was gonna be like for somebody convicted of killing three little boys . we know for a fact that misskelley was told what ever he said couldn’t hurt him . keeping that in mind don’t you think it’s likely they told him to come clean and explain it was the other two while he still had the chance ? that going on the record and letting people know it really wasn’t him that did all the sick stuff would go along way in prison ?
      it’s completely reasonable to believe they scared that kid shitless on the ride out there and ran a cop game on him . i’m not saying you have to agree with it , just that it’s a reasonable possibility .

  24. I don’t know if Terry Hobbs was left or right handed but a good question. I just watched the 2 paradise lost and i have a question the news said that there was no DNA in the WM3 from the 3 boys ok if that is the case why can’t they get Terry Hobbs DNA and see if there is a match? I know they found hair on one of the boys but they claim that is still not enough to pin him.

    1. Well Said

      It wouldnt be uncommon for a hair from the Hobbs. The children played at his house What is strange is no one mentions the fiber that was found.. What would be a good question is Damiem or Jason right or left.

      1. It would be strange because it was found in a ligature mark on one of the boys, coupled with the fact that Hobbs claimed not to have seen the boys at all that day. It is unlikely that a hair from Hobbs would be on the boy that doesn’t live with him. The hair could belong to about a million people, that’s why it’s not enough. I guess Arkansas is trying a new thing called not convicting people and putting them in prison for years without real physical evidence.

        1. It is unlikely that a hair from Hobbs would be on the boy that doesn’t live with him.

          This assumes that each boy was tied up with his own shoelaces. We know this is not true, because Byers and Branch were each tied up with one black lace and one white lace. Moore was tied up with two black laces, but there’s no reason to believe those two laces both came from Moore’s own shoes.

  25. Right S.Taylor26, you are missing the point. I don’t care if Misskelley’s lawyers thought he was telling the truth or not, I care that he was insisting on confessing with his legal representation telling him not to, with nothing to gain. What they thought about him doesn’t matter, what Misskelley said does. Unless Jesse is secretly Perry Mason, he had no reason to confess yet again, try as you might, you can’t explain this one away. It’s no coincidence it has never been mentioned in 18 years by mainstream media, national interviews, and 3 documentaries.

    1. scott-
      might the reason it’s never been mentioned in the mainstream media be because the state is well aware it’s horseshit?

      evidence the 2-8-94 confession was in fact horseshit —-
      jessie misskelley stated, with his hand on the bible, vickie hutchenson bought him and a friend 2 bottles of evan williams . as court documents show members of both the state and the defense went to find misskelley’s bottle as evidence that misskelley’s confession was in fact true . they did find a bottle matching the one misskelley described where misskelley stated it would be .

      PROBLEM- vickie hutchenson was a state’s witness and testified at misskelley’s trial . in a statement to police hutchenson said on the day of the murders she went to the grocery store around 5:30 with her son . she also said she got something to eat and didn’t return home till around 8 . how did she buy misskelley’s infamous bottle ? better yet how the hell did she not mention that she bought the accused a bottle on the day of the murders when she was on the stand? don’t even try and say she forgot , here’s a little q & a when she took the stand-

      Q: When did you move to Highland Park in relation to the murders, approximately?
      A: Approximately April. Like the second week of April.
      Q: After you moved to the Highland Park area, did you become acquainted with the defendant?
      A: Yes, I did.
      Q: And how did you become acquainted with him?
      A: Jessie and I became really close friends.
      Q: After the murders, were you also friends with the families of any of the victims?
      A: Todd Moore, who is the Cub Scout – – leader over the Cub Scouts – – both of my boys were in the Cub Scouts troop.
      Q: You were acquainted with – –
      A: With Todd.
      Q: At some point after the murders, did you decide that you wanted to play detective?
      A: I thought I would play detective.

      no mention of buying a bottle for misskelley at all , explain it!! don’t you think when she decided to play detective she may have considered her own interaction with the alleged killer the day of the murder ?

      1. i put vickie’s courtroom testimony in there for another reason . this is could be where misskelley got details of the crime . in her own words she decided to play detective after the murders . considering she worked with police and her son was interviewed multiple times , she likely knew the details of the crime . keep in mind she also knew at least one murder victims parents and could have gotten the information through them as well .

        1. s.taylor26

          Sorry I dont buy it . There was to many details that fit what Jessie said. Unless Vickie did it . Is she going to next on the list of people ?

          1. are you kidding me ? she was working with police and had access to a whole lot of info the public wasn’t . hutchenson not with standing , the cops were feeding misskelley info on tape . there is no telling what was said before recording .

          2. Yeah, we don’t know what was said before the tape was turned on. BUT, we do know what was said on tape. Stidham asked Jessie “You’ve been lying to me for the last seven months”? Jessie – “Yes.”

            It was Jessie feeding him information that he didn’t want. Also, Vickie has come out now and said she was lying about everything back then. So … who do we believe?

            The two post-conviction confessions (three if you count the police car) are the most damaging and why I can’t give the WM3 a pass. And the one to his lawyer is the clincher. You can see Stidham throughout the confession trying his best to trip Jessie up and make him look foolish, but Jessie keeps correcting him and saying – no, this is what happened, and no this isn’t right, etc. etc.

          3. BUT, we do know what was said on tape. Stidham asked Jessie “You’ve been lying to me for the last seven months”? Jessie – “Yes.”

            And we know that Stidham was lying here too. Stidham and Greg Crow both testified in the Rule 37 hearing that Misskelley continued confessing from early June to late September. Then in late September, Misskelley suddenly switched to saying he was innocent.

          4. another good point. If we take away the confessions and just concentrate on direct evidence and the lack thereof or circumstantial evidence I can go back and forth but never come down on either side of this case.

            BUT, with these confessions and especially the ones confessed to his lawyer are the key. Want to argue that the first one was coerced or a false confession?? Fine. But can the supporters explain all of the other confessions and explain how A.) they are a continuation of the so-called false confession of June 3, 1993 and B.) how they were forced or coerced?

            Then, take these confessions and insert them into this case with the evidence and a supporter should be able to understand why someone could believe the “West Memphis Three” are guilty of murder.

  26. Stewart

    What I heard is someone trying to make light of what his part was in the murders. His last confession (with his lawyer there) is where he tells the whole truth and what happened. And the reason he doesnt remember every detail is because he was drinking . ( a lot )

  27. s.taylor26

    Maybe you didnt read or listen but Jessie said that he smashed the bottle . The state never went looking for the bottle. They would have gone through a lot of bottles because there were plenty down there.

    1. actually they did go out there with stidham . you’re missing the point , misskelley didn’t have vickie buy him a bottle on the day in question as his confession stated .

  28. why wasnt the byers home and property searched where they lived with their son,and why hasnt terry hobbs home and properties searched for blood or tissue and also his brother to be cleared or convicted so the familys can have some peace.

    1. Why didnt they use the necklace in the case ? It was very important. Sorry I think the WM3 are guilty and only in America would people send money to suport them. Not one drop of the money went to the victims and their family .I heard that WM3 are all living off the donations made. When I look at all the evidence ……….sorry I cant see anyone but them. What would have happened to the movies if they believed WM3 were guilty?. Imagine all the money they would have lost.

  29. I have a question ? I just got talking to one of the suporters and the theory that a turtle did all the damage to the children. Then how did one of the children bleed to death ? They wouldnt answer that 🙁 Does anyone know the theory ?

  30. I think about how the little boys were tied…it makes me wonder who the boy scout leaders were. Maybe that needs to be investigated because I don’t believe Byers, Hobbs, the black guy or wm3 did it.

  31. Everyone has a right to their opinion regardless of what you think.

    However I have been reading the documents the website

    While yes there are some damning things there not brought into any of the documentaries there IS NOT anywhere NEAR enough to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that these three guys committed this crime.

    Thats what everyone seems to be forgetting. PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT…….THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION…….So far from what I’ve read…..NOT EVEN CLOSE…..

    Hell we all know O.J. did it, but the prosecution couldn’t prove it there either and he walked…..AS HE SHOULD HAVE……

    No one will probably ever TRULY KNOW who is guilty of this horrible crime, and even if they are guilty (ALTHOUGH I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT) IT DOESN’T MATTER….THEY DID NOT PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT…..


    1. It’s worth distinguishing two arguments made by WM3 supporters: (1) The WM3 did not commit the murders, they were wrongfully convicted; and (2) the WM3 probably committed the murders, but I wish they had gotten away with it.

      This website is devoted to debunking argument #1.

      As to argument #2, I don’t know how to respond.

  32. It astounds me how supporters can even face themselves in the mirror! They`ve
    helped make media darlings out of cold-blooded monsters! Why is it they
    continue to cast aspersions on everyone but the real killers? If it`s not Terry Hobbs,
    David Jacoby, Mark Byers, or Mr. Bojangles, it`s some other poor slob. I`d really
    like to know why so many have fallen head over heals for these murdering
    con artists. Does anyone have an explanation? I`d love to hear it!

    1. They’re not media darlings. There are tons of people that still believe they are guilty and tons of people that say horrible things about them, on this site for example. The thing is, no one knows the truth but everyone passes judgment. It takes just as much energy to believe they are guilty as it does to believe they are innocent. Obviously most people with opposing view points will never see eye to eye. Just because you may believe (believe being the operative word because none of us truly know) that those three men are guilty, does not make you right and everyone else wrong and vice versa.

  33. I am not here to debate whether the WM3 are guilty or innocent. I can have my opinion, but that means nothing because I wasn’t there. I do not know any of the people connected to this case, so to constantly judge their every move, or to paint myself as some all knowing being who can decipher if someone’s soul is black or white would be shameful. What I do feel a lot of times while reading the “nons” and “supporters” is a great deal of sadness. People seem to have ignored that irregardless of what we think they have done or not done, their rights were violated. The trial that convicted them was a trial that took away constitutional rights. The prosecution, judge, and jury hiding behind the “corrupt by good intentions” boulder is pathetic. Corrupt is corrupt no matter what it is you think you are fighting for or who you are fighting for. Doing it dirty, being dishonest, and ignoring another person’s rights will usually come back to bite you in the end. If the prosecution was so absolutely sure these three boys killed those three babies, they should have taken the proper steps and built a strong case surrounded by platforms of honor, truthfulness, and the mind set that everyone is supposed to be not guilty until charged and only AFTER a fair trial has been done. The law states that if it can be proven that one’s constitutional rights have been violated during a trial that convicts them they have a right to either have the charges dropped or gain a new trial. As far as I am concerned they were able to prove that and rightfully asked for a new trial. The prosecutor decided he did not want to take that route for whatever reason’s so the next step was throwing away all charges or coming up with a deal. People who are angry at the outcome should be angry at the way this case was fought. The investigative team and prosecution at that time did not run a tight ship, and knowing the law like I would assume they would have to know it being in their positions, they still took huge risks and gambled with the future outcome of this case. We are nothing without our principles or good morals…..nothing. The law is nothing if we chose to ignore it or manipulate to fit our needs when necessary. There was not enough evidence to convict them. There was more than enough reasonable doubt and the jury convicted the two by evidence that had been deemed fruit from the poisonous tree by the judge who was following the letter of the law. This case should have been thrown out all together. I first heard about this case back in 95′ while in high school and decided to do a paper on it for my sociology and american government classes. I did not choose it as a subject because of it’s examples of “what all is right ” either. I will pray as much as I can for those babies. My heart shatters when I think of what was done to them. I cannot imagine the pain their true loved ones felt. I am a mother and this case is my worst nightmare. I am sure it is a lot easier for me to say that I would have demanded fairness for these boys if I thought they did that to my babies because it has not happened to my babies. Reading about some of the parents who felt they never heard convincing evidence that these kids did it and the fact that they had doubts troubles me. Terry and Pam Hobbs made several comments on it. Accusing people of wanting to make money off of their children’s deaths just because you don’t understand their actions is sickening. To the people who have done that I want to know what gives you the authority to do that? I have never come across a recipe on how one is supposed to act when their children have been brutally murdered. I have also never seen one for teenagers facing life in jail or loosing their life. I would love a definite answer to what happened to those kids, but that may never come. I put most of that blame on the wmpd, prosecution, jury, and judge. THEY failed those little boys that they felt they were seeking such swift justice for. The Alford Plea was their penance. Okay, I am done with my rant now. Thanks to those who took the time to read it.

    1. I put most of that blame on the wmpd, prosecution, jury, and judge.

      I put all of the blame on the people who tortured and killed the children. Every other offense in this case, real or imagined, pales in comparison to that act.

  34. If anyone has read any FBI profile books like John Douglas they would know…who ever killed these boys had extensive knowledge of the area the boys were found…the WM3 did not know this wooded area!

    Since they were not sexually assaulted, this was a staged crime scene and the boys were killed for another reason and at another location. Where they were found is called a dump site. When someone is killed and dumped their killer is very knowledgeable and comfortable at the dumpsite, especially when it is the first time they kill…it is someone local, very local.

    Also, there is no way the boys crossed the pipe bridge over the channel with their bikes, so the killer had to have access to or own a vehicle to bring the bikes to the location where they were found. This is also called staging.

    There were animal bites on all three victims and they were found in a creek…this means they were left out in the elements for some time before they were dumped at the Beacon Woods creek…

    There is so much more…

  35. I just read Mark Byers police interview from a week after the crime and…
    1) He neglects to tell them that he first went out to search for Chris by himself after 6:30pm. When he returns he has already decided that his boy was missing and the police should be called. He calls them first at about 7:00pm and they tell him to wait till 8:00pm since the boy was not missing all that long at the time. Did Mark already know that his step-child would not be coming home?
    2) He tells them about people he searched with that first evening but this is not corroborated by the people he says he searched with. Mark searched the woods by himself alone most times. Was he looking for a place to dump the boys?
    3) When he first makes contact with Officer Moore that evening (no relation to Michael) he is exiting the woods by himself.
    4) And this is most important, he neglected to tell them that he was behind the truck wash (near where the boys and their bikes were found) at 4:40am the following morning. This came out at a later interview…Why did he not tell the police during the first interview?

    Other important facts are that Chris told his friend Bob Posey he was tired of his step-father beating the hell out of him and was running away. Chris had a friend that lived down the street from Posey that had moved away and the house was abandon. Mark Byers said he checked out the house and he was alone when this happened, but he says he checked it later in the evening. Being that Mark spoke to Posey during his first search of the night when alone, did he go directly to the abandon house that was right down the street?
    Remember, Chris was the only one of the boys that had scars on his body from past beatings by Mark Byers. Mark had also said before the murderers that he wanted to put Chris up for adoption…he wanted to get rid of the kid!

  36. Mark Byers seem ready to jump on and accuse anyone other than himself as a suspect…first the boys and the ridicules Satanic Cult theory, now Hobbs and the sexual abuse theory. The sexual aspect of this crime is a staged event and did not happen. And it appears that all of the accusations about Hobbs is from his x-wife and her family…a woman scorned.
    The experts say Chris Byers was the main intended victim.

    To the people that have said that one person alone could have never attacked the three boys and not have at least one get away do not live in a real fact based world. One adult could easily attack, with a bat or club, two full-grown adults and take them out in seconds, with the element of surprise. Three small children would take less effort, as each blow would cause considerably more damage.

    Steve Jones: worked for Crittenden, County as an assistant juvenile probation officer. It was he who discovered the floating shoe that led to the discovery of the bodies. He immediately connected the murder to one of his parolees, stating “Looks like Damien finally killed somebody.” Then, as an officer noted, he suddenly became ill and left.
    Jones, along with his supervisor, Jerry Driver believed that there was devil worshipping and Satan-based crimes occurring in Crittenden County. For over a year they patrolled the county looking for signs of cult crimes. In particular they were concerned about human sacrifices taking place on the nights of full moons…they never found any evidence of this…they were on a witch hunt for over a year.
    The day after the bodies were discovered Steve Jones accompanied police lieutenant James Sudbury to visit Damien Echols at his trailer. They took photos looking for scratches on his torso (none were visible). They took notes about what they considered odd answers to their questions. The investigators had already determined this was occult related and concentrated their efforts on this theory causing them to ignore other important leads at the murder scene, as well as question more intensely other possible suspects.

  37. This case is the perfect example of why people who believe in talking snakes and men who live in whales should never be appointed, or elected to positions of power, as their mental disability will cause them to reject facts and reason and even go to the extreme of planting phony evidence to prove that their belief is true.
    This has happened since the days of Galileo who was threatened with death since he proved that the earth was not the center of the universe and contradicted the Church teachings of the day. The religious leaders of the day than passed a law, punishable by death, that no one can look through a telescope.
    Their goal, as it is today and in this case is to repress science and facts or anything that disproves their belief.

    If this crime had happened in any other city besides the Bible belt, the juvenile officer and detective out searching for devil worshipers for over a year would have been fired and institutionalized. And an actual investigation would have pursued the facts, that the killer was a local and knew the victim(s).

  38. I have a bachelor of Science in Social Science and this case and trial has ALWAYS bothered me. I have studied psychology and study forensic psychology on my own and I think it was someone who kept souvenirs of his victims. The Byers boy was the object of (the murderer’s affection) because Byers was emasculated while the other two just had their underwear taken. It leads me to believe that one of the boys was knocked unconscious (Moore) and that is the reason why he did not put up a struggle. This was to incapacitate Moore. Also, the lack of blood at the scene leads me to believe that they were killed elsewhere and the bodies were dumped. The other explanation is that the murderer took his time and allowed lividity to set in or the water washed away some blood. Once one boy was incapacitated by a blow to the head and the other was drugged left time for the first one to be drowned, then thee second. One of the boys (Byers) had carbamazepine (Tegretol) in his system, but not therapeutic (which means it was an overly high dose). It may have kept him in a docile state so the murderer could get to the other two. It may have been administered at the time of the abduction and while the one boy was out it did not have time to move through the body (reduce to half life) for you chemistry majors. I believe that Branch was the first to be assulted and murdered based on what I have read and seen about this case. Moore was the second because he was just knocked out and the murderer wanted more time with Byers who was the object of his affection. The murderer was prone to fits of rage which is evident by the marking on the boys, but why was Chris Byers the object of his rage? Did the boy remind him of himself? I do believe it was a male.

    One of the teens charged was said in the first WM3 movie by his own father that he had an I.Q. of 70-77. He could have been coerced by other people, but he was not able in my opinion to be any kind of “mastermind” in this case. It would have been very sloppy, if he could do it at all. He had the mind capacity of the boys who were murdered. Jessie was still at the latent stage of developement according to Freudian theory and would not have understood what was happening. The other two accused young men I would have to do more research on and about, but it would take more knowledge for them to do it and since the internet and google were not widely instituted at the time it would have been difficult for them to do and they would have had access to carbamezapine.

    I think the “occult” theory was to throw investigators off because a blood cult, according to my research is that they need a live person to bleed and not a dead person because it would not mean anything. Also, in order for a witch to “fly” they need the fat from an unbaptised male child and they were not skinned.

    My question is who had a prescription for carbamazepine (Tegretol) at that time? It is used to treat seizure disorders.

    Misconduct, both legal and evidentiary is prevelant in this case. Violations all over the place on the part of not only the investigators, but the prosecution as well. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT? I do not know for sure, but it does seem to me as though proper procedures were not followed in this case.

    1. You sound absolutely ridiculous. If you have the degrees listed, but it in a context that others might understand. Your explaniation (are you suggesting one killer, and apparently John Byers) is not sensible. Please elaborate.

  39. I find it interesting that there isn’t a comments section on all of the hyperlinks listed. Why is the author of this blog so afraid of debate and discussion?

  40. THEY’RE INNOCENT! End of story!! It was Terry Hobbs – now leave it alone and get on with your lives. *facepalm*

Leave a Reply

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