YouTube video: What Paradise Lost Left Out

I don’t know who made this YouTube video, but it’s spot on.

The scrolling yellow text is hard to read, otherwise kudos.

244 thoughts on “YouTube video: What Paradise Lost Left Out”

  1. LOL… polygraphs, luminol tests, confessions, whiskey bottle, shoe laces, dog killing, the necklace, Exhibit 500 and the prosecution actually presenting a good case.

    Call me when something of importance is put on the table. Same goes for supporters.

    1. You do realize that there have been a number of studies connecting animal abuse and mutilation to violent crimes later in life.

      Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-year-old boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs? rectums and strung up cats.
      Albert DeSalvo, the “Boston Strangler” who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.
      Carroll Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.
      Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs heads, frogs, and cats on sticks.

    2. Would you be so unconcerned about the dog killing, if it was your dog? Some people consider their animals as part of their family and would be completely distraught by it’s brutal killing and mutilation.

    1. Effective at spewing useless details, maybe.

      It’s crap like this that makes people look down on nons (that and their completely uncivil discussions on the hoax board).

      Seriously, if you guys want to sound like you have any credibility whatsoever, look into stuff like the ice axe. That is honestly the best piece of evidence that nons have and even that was scrapped by the prosecution and there are inconsistencies in the wounds that were claimed to have been made by the ice axe.

      Quit the broken record nonsense that can be easily be refuted.

        1. Christina, I know you didn’t ask me, but I think Michael Mann used this song to far greater effect in Miami Vice.

          You should Netflix it. Seriously.

        2. Jessie Misskelly did not fail the polygraph, the police lied about that.

          Luminol showed blood at the crime scene, WHO’S BLOOD??

          That video was so stupid. LOL

          1. they failed him because he said he never smoked weed and he did so that is why they said he lied. Cme on he knows it’s not legal to smoke weed so he is going to lie about it. But we are talking about murdering 3 boys. No evidence, no dna, no murder weapon, nothing and they are saying they did this. TH AND HIS FRIEND DAVID JACOBY HAVE MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM THAN THE 3. But they are going to reopen the case, and Amy Berg is putting the movie off a lil’ bit to put this in there. THere is even more evidence, and they are reopening to investigate more. YAY

      1. What ? How can you refute records ? And sorry I bet they can a dozen experts say different things. I never seen all these facts. They are kinda scary. And this was put up by someone that wants the truth to come out. Not what you see in the movie. What I would like to know why dont they put all the facts in the movie and dipute then ? Why give one side.? What are they trying to hide? This is scary that they wouldnt .Wow now I know how OJ got off .

        1. They never got off because of a documentary. Hmm the first one came out in 96, they were locked up then, never got out, they had 2 more docs. since then one before they got out and one after, so tell me again how it was because of the doc they got out? Most ppl believe that Mark Byers did it after the first doc. There is nothing to me in any of the docs. that would make me believe that anyone did it. They just showed the facts, and that is how you should come up with your own conclusion. IT’s ok to read theories and things but I believe everyone should research and find out for themselves. If you watch the documentaries it shows the bad things those boys did. Like DE doing things in court that he shouldn’t of done. He knows now he shouldn’t of. THe cops screwed this case up from the get go, they had ppl lie, they questioned an under age kid for awhile without parents consent and didn’t read him his Miranda rights, not right away anyway. They had ppl lie, some of the witnesses lied and then later said they did. They never questioned any parents except Byers. He even passed a poly. What about Mr. Bojangles, and other POI’s that weren’t really investigated. This case was just messed up from the get go. All the new evidence points to another suspect, and makes the WM3 look more and more innocent. THey didn’t do this….

  2. Polygraphs are unreliable. People get nervous just taking them, which can drastically alter the results.

    The luminol tests don’t prove anything. Even if there was significant amounts of blood in the woods, that doesn’t mean the WM3 killed them. It just means that the blood of something (human or animal) was there and if it was human, it just means that whoever killed them killed them there.

    The confessions, of course, should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone with half a brain who has taken a course in social psychology knows how easily a false confession can occur and how easily multiple false confessions can occur. Even people with genius IQs have the ability to falsely confess.

    Are there picutres of the whisky bottle? Who found it? Was it the exact kind that Misskelley claims to have had? It’s quite common to find broken bottles under overpasses. This has never been emphasized enough by anyone for me to take it seriously.

    The shoe lace thing is crap and is the worst kind of circumstantial evidence. Didn’t Hobbs have double laces in each shoe and a family member noticed that one was missing? Not that I believe it, but you’re dealing with the same amount of plausibility. There was also a fiber from Hobbs’ lace found on one of his knives, which could have been transferred, but seems like more substantial evidence than Baldwin apparently having new laces.

    The dog killing thing is pure rumor. Could be true, could be false. No one will ever know. And killing a dog doesn’t mean that he killed the three boys. I suppose it makes him look like he would be more able (like the Exhibit 500), but the “killing an animal is the gateway to killing humans” thing is a drastic generalization.

    The necklace thing is bullshit. I saw a video of Fogelman saying he was going to say it was 100% Steve Branch’s blood when he had been told two seconds earlier that it could have been Baldwin’s (who was known to wear the necklace). If they had used it, it would have just been another thing to add to their abundance of lies. I’m not saying the WM3 are innocent, but there’s no denying the prosecution was absolutely full of shit and may have potentially thrown out the best piece of evidence they had.

    And the guy in the video claims that the prosecution gave a good case? Even if the WM3 are guilty, they did a terrible job. They made it look like a witch hunt and used that knife as evidence when it couldn’t have possibly been used to commit the crimes based on the wounds. The only thing that makes sense based on the wounds is the ice axe, but even that doesn’t even really make much sense.

    1. Uh… I’d have to disagree that elaborate confessions like Misskelley’s (e.g., two hours’ worth to his own attorney) can be easily written off as false confessions. Most false confessions are along the lines of “… I must have blacked out…” And the chances of a false confession plummet when the same basic story is the subject of multiple confessions over a period of years. Misskelley has confessed to just about everyone – prosecutors, his defense attorneys, cops who transported him, friends, his counselors in prison, etc. To completely discard this as worthless evidence is pretty dumb in my opionion. 12 jurors and the Arksansas Supreme Court agree.

      Yet it was not in the movies.

      1. And I guess I should clarify — the jurors and Arkansas Supreme Court did not even consider all these other confessions that we have the luxury of knowing about.

        As for the Evan Williams whiskey bottle, they definitely found it. Stidham was there and he does not deny it. They took it to a liquor store and matched it perfectly to the distinct shape of an Evan Williams bottle. The fact that you don’t know this indicates you really haven’t looked into the evidence of guilt that seriously.

        1. “The fact that you don’t know this indicates you really haven’t looked into the evidence of guilt that seriously.”

          I certainly have and I was aware of the whiskey bottle, but kind of brushed it off when it was found A YEAR LATER under an overpass. Have you ever been under an overpass? There are tons of broken bottles. Fuck, there were probably multiple Evan Williams whiskey bottles there for all we know. And wouldn’t it have been smashed? How would they go to a liquor store and match the shape?

          The fact that you bring up crap like this over the ice axe really destroys your credibility.

        2. “Most false confessions are along the lines of “… I must have blacked out…””

          Bullshit. Give me some evidence of this.

          1. Oh, I know Ms. Sarcasm. Apparently they are of such high intelligence, just like all of you witch hunters who just swear they’re guilty even though ALL of the prosecution’s evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL! What happened to the blood & sunglasses from the “brother” @ Bojangles??? They never tested it & LOST it! Also, I do believe they are innocent, but come on people … Misskelly is 1/2 way retarded! Those pigs pounced on him to get a confession & be heroes! Where are the rest of the taped confessions??? Oh, that’s right they only had those 45mins. Where are the other 675 mins of the interrogation??

          2. you really need to do more research love cause you’v got alot wrong here. FIRST of all… jessie wasnt retarded like they say.. alil dumb but certainly not retarded!! and this is a FACT because investigators looked back at he’s iQ from when he was in school and he passed as average.. the truth is that after confessing the defence team thought it a good idea to make him out to be more stupid then he was and tried to pass him off as retarded.. he even enrolled in college while in prison and passed! and the Bojangles theory is the most dumbest thing you pro’s have ever come up with!! it’s laughable cause if you read the notes from witnesses youd realise it would of been impossible for bojangles to do it and I can tell you why.. 1, the blood he had on him was coming from a wound on his arm and the other arm was in a sling so how the hell did he manage to kill 3kids all at once with one arm!?. 2, it was miles from the scene and the guy didnt even have a car so how the hell did he have the time? what is he super man!? 3, he went into the ladies bathroom.. why would a killer draw attention to himself by going in a womens cubical!? 4, according to a waitress he seemed under influence of drink/drugs and could barely talk and looked as though he’d been in fights previously.. so how do you explane that he killed 3kids under the influence of drugs/drink in RAPID time? beat them,moved there bikes,tied them individually and then walked for miles n miles to a cafe.. all of this with just one arm and no help and without leaving a inch of evidence and then being stupid enough to walk into a cafe and draw attention to himself in every way possible and yet still get away with it.. waw he must be pretty impressive if you ask me! wake up!

          3. 1. The blood he had on him was coming from a wound on his arm and the other was in a sling? This could not of possibly happened during the crime could it? 2. How do you know he did not have a car? Hasn’t this guy never been found? 3. Walking into a ladies bathroom can be easily done especially when….4. under the influence of drugs and alcohol! Oh and grisly murder is never committed while under the influence is it? I mean how many murders are committed by people who are high? That sort of thing just doesn’t happen does it? LOL And you have the cheek to tell people to wake up!

          4. excuse my Laura? I guess you don’t know how education works. First of all his IQ was around 72 which is on the borderline of slow/normal. But there are ppl with way higher IQ”s that make false confesses. how do you know this about Bojangles?

          5. also while in school no matter where you can get an education with a low IQ, all they do is give you the homework/schoolwork that would accommodate his IQ because it’s against your civil rights to not get a fair education.
            So him passing HS/College has no bearing on his IQ.
            He was mildly slow, but the thing is this. He thought he was going to get the reward money and he was telling them what he had heard from media/etc. And mixed it in with we did this and that. He thought they would believe him and he would get that money.
            He changed his mind later because he figured out they lied to him. They did lie, they told him one thing and did another. He lied all the way through his confession, like the time, how things happened, and what they used to tie him up with….


    2. I want to make a reference to the whiskey bottle. Apparently you don’t have all the facts. Jessie Misskelly told them where to find the bottle. They picked it up in the exact spot he said it was in. AND, like you, they weren’t 100% behind it being the actual bottle. But they did take it to a liquor store and compare it to the brand Jessie said it was and the bottle matched the description, and the brand, that Jessie told them it would be.

      Here’s my thing. IF the confessions were supposedly falsified then WHY did he keep adding more details to the story? The confession to his lawyer he even states that he didn’t have his hand on the Bible and that’s why he didn’t tell them everything. That was the FIRST time he even mentions a bottle, direct evidence that could be linked back to Jessie, so if he’s telling a story HOW did he even know that type of bottle would be there if HE wasn’t the one who dropped it?

      1. I have recently started studying this case, it is really quite overwhelming. Was the bottle tested for prints or any other possible evidence?

    3. Hans
      Polygraphs are unreliable. People get nervous just taking them, which can drastically alter the results

      But you said about the 3 new witness are because of Polygraph.And they are 2nd hand stories . The nephew told me.

      1. Madonna,

        People who are being treated as suspects may be nervous taking a polygraph, true or false?

        People who are coming forth and volunteering evidence are not treated as suspects, therefor probably not nervous, true or false?

        Or, how about this one: Yeah, Jessie’s polygraph demonstrated deception. About the question of whether or not he smoked pot — NOT whether or not he was involved in the murders.

        Guess you’re just a material girl in a material world.

        1. Where is the document proving Jesse passed his polygraph?

          If you think that you flunk a polygraph because of “nerves”? Thats just an excuse for people who didn’t pass it. West Memphis PD did numerous polygraphs on many people/kids etc that were in the same ‘white trash’ area.
          I’m sure they were all nervou.
          Jesse was not a primary suspect. He was a rumor, just like all the other “rumors” that the PD polygraphed and let go.

          1. Right here, Stacia:


            Maybe you think Warren Holmes isn’t very good at what he does, but being that he conducted polygraph examinations on little cases like the JFK and MLK assassinations, I’d say he’s at least as qualified to assess the results of Misskelley’s test as was Durham. Maybe even a teency-weency bit more.

          2. I don’t understand why people like Joey take defense experts as gospel. They are being paid to say what they are saying. You can find an expert to say literally anything. This case comes down to ignoring the hype and just using common sense.

          3. If you’re saying that Warren Holmes is in fact very good at what he does because he conducted polygraph examinations on the JFK and MLK assassinations, you’re using two terrible cases pertaining to his experience. MLK was killed by Memphis Police Department Lieutenant Earl Clarke. The Kings (MLK’s wife and kids) won a civil suit in 1999 that basically proved James Earl Ray was innocent. And who killed JFK is also very questionable and highly disputed.

    4. “The luminol tests don’t prove anything. Even if there was significant amounts of blood in the woods, that doesn’t mean the WM3 killed them. It just means that the blood of something (human or animal) was there and if it was human, it just means that whoever killed them killed them there.”

      There’s been a number of people claiming the crime scene was dump site instead of the actual crime scene. It proves this was actually the crime scene and stopped the defense from claiming there was no blood found at the crime scene. It refutes a large part of their defense. It proves the boys wouldn’t have had to be transported, with their bikes and clothes to the location where they were found.

      “The dog killing thing is pure rumor. Could be true, could be false. No one will ever know. And killing a dog doesn’t mean that he killed the three boys. I suppose it makes him look like he would be more able (like the Exhibit 500), but the “killing an animal is the gateway to killing humans” thing is a drastic generalization.”

      A drastic generalization, with many examples throughout history. Anyone that can deem any life as worthless isn’t far from deeming human life the same. “Childhood cruelty toward animals occurred to a significantly greater degree among aggressive criminals than among nonaggressive criminals or noncriminals.” Now I will agree that showing a correlation does not prove that anyone that abuses animals will be come a serial killer, but it does show a pattern of a lack of remorse, aggression and a lack of the importance of life to Damien Echols. It shows a pattern of psychotic behavior, along with setting fires, attacking his peers in an attempt to gouge out his eyes, and threatening to kill his parents. The dog killing was reported by Baldwin’s cousin, not a random stranger or some one with a personal beef with Damien.

      Stidham was present for the search of the bottle. But you are right though, it’s still pushing it a little. It’s circumstantial. But you add all these the circumstantial evidence up and you start to get an idea of who may have committed the crime. It’s common in cases where there is a lack of physical evidence like this.

      The necklace, I’ll agree, is pretty weak. There wasn’t enough to determine much, other than one spot shared the same blood type as Damien, and the other shared the same blood type as Baldwin and Branch (as well as a large chunk of the human population).

  3. “The confession to his lawyer he even states that he didn’t have his hand on the Bible and that’s why he didn’t tell them everything.”

    I suppose that would be the first time someone has lied with their hand on the bible.

  4. Geez Louise, as for what I’ve read, no the bottle wasn’t tested for prints. But, two points, this was in ’93. That’s the first point. How much WAS tested for fingerprints? Second, the bottle had broken when it hit the ground. I don’t know if it COULD’VE been tested for them.

    Hans, I’m not saying that he could’ve have lied with his hand on the Bible. What I’m saying is JESSIE stated he hadn’t told the entire truth up to that point because his hand hadn’t been on the Bible.

    1. Thanks for the reply Lori. I did not know if there had been any known testing on the pieces, if they attempted prints, or what size the pieces of glass were for that matter. I believe I read that he had it in a paper sack, so it is possible the glass was never touched except for the cap and the top of the bottle by mouth. Again, thank you for responding.

  5. Also, Hans, I commented the first time before I saw the YouTube video. Here’s my question to you after watching it.

    You said the luminol test doesn’t prove anything, right? Do you not find it ironic at all that the defense kept stating there was no blood found at the scene until the judge told them that if they kept saying that that he would allow the luminol test to be introduced into evidence and THAT is when they shut up about it?

  6. Can anyone advise me as to a good place to start. I have limited knowledge of this case, but have read up a little bit. I am aware of exhibit 500 and am drawn reading it, if I am correct, that is DE’s psych reports? However, I fear it may prejudice how I interpret evidence and information. I am not minimizing its importance, just not sure of my ability to apply the information within it properly. Does that make any sense lol. Any guidance would be appreciated 🙂

    1. I started out new to this case (although it happened when I was 30 and I remember some of it in the news). I watched the documentary Paradise Lost 3 and noticed they were trying to railroad someone for the crime. This seemed strange to me as their major complaint was they claimed the three then teens were railroaded. I decided to look into all the websites both for and against until some mentioned a wonderful website that has all the documents of this case on file:

      I started out with the actual transcripts of the first trial (against Misskelley):

      I noticed the demeanor in the courtroom was a bit different than described by supporters. Many issues are brought up, and the forensic specialist has top credentials.

      I had heard about Misskelley’s confession and only thought it was the one he gave the police. I found out he confessed to his lawyer after his trial (which cannot be used against him in court), and was amazed at how detailed it was:

      Misskelley’s graphic account made me sick to my stomach. I do warn people about it before they read it. I can’t get the images of what happened out of my head. To me, that speaks volumes.

      The site is big and there are many documents in there:

      You may want to start with the statements made and the read all the confessions. I also think the transcripts of the trials are very interesting, but they are also quite long.

  7. I dont want to fall into this…
    translated by James Murphy
    All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

    —Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

    no matter what side I may come down on.

    1. Great quote.

      Start with Callahan, then to see people discuss, present and debate evidence, go to the Blackboard and Blink on Crime. DO NOT visit the hoax site. Nothing but a bunch of ill-tempered and closed minded individuals who refuse to even look at evidence that doesn’t support their opinion. At least the Blackboard presents evidence against the WM3 and discusses why it, for the most part, isn’t good evidence.

      1. That being said, Blink on Crime isn’t great either. She presents things in a very precise and convincing manner, but succumbs to emotion far too often. She also thinks she has solved the Zodiac murder case, when the woman who claims her father was the Zodiac killer is a certified loon and also once claimed that JFK was her father. So take that site with a grain of salt, but there is a good compilation of evidence there.

      2. The blackboard is the worst of all the boards. They literally BAN you if you do not tote the “Terry did it” party line… I would not waste my time there. It’s just a bunch of preaching to the choir.

        The reason people like Hans Linda do not like the Hoax is that all the supporter arguments have already been defeated there multiple times. I got harrassed for a long time on the Hoax but utlimately was able to find the truth there.

  8. Honestly no matter what any of us think. We will never truely know what happened. You can believe what you want….either side. For or against but we really don’t know what happened and the way this case was handled makes it even harder to decide.

    1. Bingo. Probably the most intelligent words ever spoken on this site. The only way we will ever know is if the WM3 didn’t do it and the person who did do it confesses. If the WM3 did do it, there is no way of ever knowing.

      1. Thats what I say, we will never know. Evidence seemed to mishandled greatly in this case. Between Jury tampering, leading the witness, the judge evident dislike for the suspects. I can only tell you I am on neither side. The state would not have released these 3 guys if there was an CONCRETE evidence against them. We can make up our own theories. Another thing is the state made sure they could not sue them by having them sign something because of the mishandling of the case. But in all reality none of us will ever know. And if these guys did it they will eventually have to answer for it.

      2. So if someone else confesses, that would prove it for you.

        But six confessions by Jessie Misskelley, plus a bunch of people who said they heard Damien or Jessie or Jason admitting the crime — that means there’s no way of ever knowing what happened.

      3. @ Hans Solo
        That’s ridiculous. Of course there is a way we can know. If the WM3, spilled their guts, agreed to all three come forward and recount their story and confess seperately, then we will finally know what happened.

        But then would go out of business and maybe even be sued. Not to mention that after all these years in the can, the three do not want to go back or go through another trial. Would you?

        I believe that Miskelley will spill his guts again. I can see that in him, out of the three, that it is eating him up inside. It’s really killing him. While Damien goes to New Zealand and Jason visits Goofy in Disneyland, Jessie is at home depressed laying on the couch watching TV and still can’t find a job. Why? Because he is depressed. His concious is killing him. If I would ever buy a book from the three that did it, I would buy Misskelleys.

        The three guys did it. I am positive of that. But, unless they come out an tell the truth, then we may never know everything. The hows and the whys.

        1. Misskelly feels guilty. I know because I know and I know because I’m such a brilliant criminal profiler. He confessed…not once, but a bunch of times! Ho-ho! Case closed. Next!

  9. In most circumstances (and I stress most) the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The overwhelming issue with this particular event is that there is no real simple explanation. The case did not begin with the parents as suspects which nearly every child molestation/murder case does. It defys logic that Mark Byers, Terry Hobbs and Todd Moore were not immediately suspects. They all own knives, shoes and clothing that should have been thoroughly cataloged by police.

    Once the parents were cleared and the police decided to move on to minors with mental health issues (Jessie Misskelly and Damien Echols), any interviews should have been video taped and recorded for 1 prosperity and 2 for additional evidence. Having quality video interviews can reveal so many additional details. People make certain facial reactions when they lie or become angry. Experts can pick these things out easily.

    People act like 1993 was the middle ages. I see comments of people asking if they had the ability to collect finger prints. Come on 1993 was not that long ago. There were computers, video cameras, DNA testing and of course fingerprinting.

    Things I don’t know…
    Who is guilty
    Why evidence was lost
    Why correct protocols were not followed

    Things I do know…
    Jessie Misskelly is a liar and an idiot – I know the kid confessed like 6 times and it’s very likely that based on the details of at least one confession that he is telling the truth. However if I had a conversation with him today I wouldn’t believe a single word out of his lying mouth.

    Damien Echols is a troubled man. This might be a huge understatement but it’s the simplest way to put it. What is shown in the Paradise Lost franchise of films is that Damien never seems to show regret or anger at where he is. He seems delighted that for some reason any reason he is important and that gives him a sense of accomplishment. He said something to the affect of he know’s he’ll be remembered. He didn’t care that it could have been for a horrific child murderer and whether he’s guilty or not there is something very wrong with that attitude.

    All three of these men got smarter in prison. Misskelly finally learned to shut up. Damien learned to stop smiling at inappropriate times and to undertand the gravity of the situation he was in and Jason Baldwin went from a kid who barely spoke on camera to a smart eloquent speaker (the glasses are a nice touch too).

    1. Hi Justin. I believe I may have misled in one of my earlier posts. I wondered if there was any known testing done. I did not mean known, as in known to man, but known by the public in regards to the bottle specifically. If they had even attempted to lift prints ( I have no idea how big the pieces of glass were). Sorry for any confusion.

  10. LB, congrats on doing exactly what nons want everybody to do. Ignore the ridiculous PL films and start at square 1. If a person does this, (not just says they have like most supporters will do, as you will see in the follwing posts) and it quickly becomes apparent how much bullshit and spin this this case has been through. You begin to see just how obvious their guilt really is. Unfortunately, the vast majority (even national news outlets like 48 hrs) regurgitate falsehoods and more and more ignorant sheep lap up the lies so much warm milk. Reading the Misskelley bible confession, really makes you realize that he isn’t lying, and I’ve seen multiple former supporters come to the horrible realization because of it that those three bastards really did butcher the three

  11. Case in point about the confessions being useless:

    Aaron Hutchison confessed to being at the scene of the crime more times than Misskelley.

    1. May the force be with you, Hans. These idiots don’t give a rats ass about anything that doesn’t fit the narrative.

      The West Memphis PD did such a great fucking job? Gitchell is a saint? They FUCKED with little Aaron Hutchison. Google him and his 2004 comments. He’s still fucked up because of the police coercion that was going down, like most kids of the Satanic Panic era.

      1. I don’t remember reading anywhere that the West Memphis PD did a great job on any website I’ve been to. I will be the first to admit, during my research, that the entire department should have been investigated. Losing evidence, not recording all evidence, botching reports by handwritten statements instead of typing them, all is cause for questioning.

        BUT….That doesn’t mean that the defendants in THIS case wasn’t guilty. The police may not have done a good job getting the evidence, but you have to admit that the prosecutors did a bang up job when it came to the trail. The did the best with what they had and got the conviction in spite of the crappy job the police did by doing their own research into the case, getting their own testimony, and by cross examination top experts who DID NOT do any testing as you stated with Dr. Holmes. He didn’t re-test Jessie on a polygraph. He interpreted it to make it look like Jessie was telling the truth. And even HE was questioning his own testimony after the prosecution was through with him.

    1. So his ability to say some things that match up with the crime scene should be written off? Thanks for further proving my point.

      1. Aaron said almost nothing that matched up with the crime scene, was 8 years old, made drastic changes to his story each time, and never implicated himself. He did not continue to confess to his own attorney after being arrested and convicted. The prosecutors did not use Aaron’s account, but they did use one of Misskelley’s (and Jessie’s only got more detailed after that).

        Quite a few differences, the main one being that Aaron wasn’t confessing to murder.

  12. Like when Aaron described chasing Michael Moore down, and bringing him back to the scene of the murders? Oh wait, that was Jesse, maybe it was Aaron who accurately described all 3 victims wounds? Nope, that was Misskelley as well. You have no point to be proven.

    1. No, like where Aaron’s MULTIPLE statements to police are treated with a great deal of credibility until they realized they were doing with him what cops across the entire fucking country were doing with kids in the early 90s — encouraging them to make up bullshit!

      Kinda like Jessie, come to think of it. Ever heard of the Satanic Panic, you fuckwad?

  13. Is there any evidence or research out there about false confessions that were not coerced and that we’re given by the same person multiple times without being coerced? I doubt it.

  14. Ya know, I think what Jesse’s confessions come down to:

    “The little boy tried to run away but I went and got him.” This is something Jesse thought of entirely on his own. I can’t imagine him lying and lying about this one fact. It has been in EVERY confession.

      1. Oh, brother. Don’t even talk to me about “imagination” with all the stories supporters come up with. I read a little bit of the “manhole” theory. I felt a little sorry for y’all because you really need to figure out how Terry did it.

        If the first confession was coerced (and I think some it was), I found it interesting that Jesse “made up” that one detail about going after Michael- the boy with the least injuries. His mental handicap went out the door if supporters think he could come up with “Chasing after Michael” on the VERY FIRST CONFESSION.

        1. Oh, Sister Stacia. I know you don’t like to use your imagination, but just close your eyes and try with me for a moment…

          …Jesse is in the police station…the police are teeing him up to implicate Damien and Jason…they show him crime scene pictures, they ask leading questions, they don’t record everything, in fact, they record very little…just when he’s ready to speak.

          Is it possible, perhaps, even a 1 and million shot, that they gave him a little leading information just before HIS VERY FIRST CONFESSION?

          1. “All it proves is you’ve got no imagination.”

            “I know you don’t like to use your imagination…”

            The repeated imploring to engage imagination would seem to imply that, for one to believe the 3 are innocent, one must indeed do this repeatedly. That is telling.

  15. I finally get it now. After all this time. Holy shit.

    Mental teenager + “We tied them with brown rope” + Boots with new laces + Glass bottle under bridge + Satanic cult + Photo of victims in briefcase + A very impartial jury foreman + Some random crazy black dude w/blood randomly all over randomly less than a mile from the crime scene at around the time of the murders + Parents/Step-Parents who are such saints they don’t need to be investigated + Mega millionaire (at least a hundred times over) “Hollywood” director wanting the spotlight + Evil Jewish Commie Sociopathic Satanist documentarians and their brainwashing trilogy = WM3 GUILTY!!!!!!!

    Tell you what finally did it for me, it was those laces on Jason’s boots. He thought he was SOOOOO clever…

    1. Joey…lmao..You finally summed it up! It’s cheaper to buy NEW shoelaces, than new boots, especially if the boots are still good AND HAVE BEEN WORN AT A CRIME SCENE!? (that’ll fool ’em). And the print the WMPD found was ..what kind? Oh yea..LA Gear! The same kind of shoes found in a filled in pool, BEHIND, none other than Terry Hobbs house. He said the landlord didnt want to fix the pool and had it filled in instead…so WHY DID TH THROW HIS SHOES IN IT?… WOW…always wondered about that too!
      I believe Jessie having 72 IQ and being interrogated the way he was…promised to be let go, (maybe even get the truck for his Dad?)
      IF he’d JUST TELL THE TRUTH.. that that has stuck in his mind ..a mental block ..if you will..that he “confessed” so many times, even after being convicted..thinking about it all in his cell… if I JUST tell them what they want to hear, GET IT RIGHT…(the polygraph..remember?) I will be let go! Just think of it from that IQ base… So he added the Bible into it…to make it more FINALLY get it RIGHT, so they’d LET HIM GO!.. And as for his demeanor in court..he said he was told..”to keep his head down”. (show no facial expressions). Jason just seemed totally dumbfounded through out the whole trial? And Damien..ah yes, he did do some really dumb ass things in and out of court He admitted himself he was just a dumb teenager, not realizing the impact of his actions! He did say, he acted *aloof(my word)…because he didnt see how they could convict him, when there would be no evidence of his guilt! So he became OVER-CONFIDENT? And acted as he usually did, without regard to others or how his behavior would be looked at and frowned upon! As for others statements, I only believe, that since,”nothing ever happened in WM” (quote), that when this occurred..THIS HUGE, everyone in the entire community was frightened but then, decided this is big news, and there’s a reward,(we’re all poor), (Individually/or collectively), we might be able to cash in, if we can come up with “things” that maybe the WMPD would consider? Vicki Hutcheson? (her 8 y/o son?). So on, etc. and all the others who gave statements! Some of the younger kids were afraid of Damien.(the BB girls and skating rink kids,ages 11 and up)? He had said things in the past, that were weird, and sick… (boogeyman effect)… and he got attention for it! The WMPD, did a *bang-up* job okay…from touching evidence, bagging evidence into paper sacks, to l0sing evidence..and making sure the MEDIA put out the Satanic Panic…first and foremost…and Gitchell’s “cocky” 11…? The police LED the the direction THEY wanted…not where evidence took them! Cause THEY had none! A knife..found in a lake behind Jason’s house, doesn’t mean it was his or used in ANY murder? And the GRAPEFRUIT… WOW, yea that cinched it! All the things Prosecution, used was for show(leading/pursuasion))! And to finalize this… If they let them out of prison because they had the evidence to make the first conviction STICK… then they are STUPIDER, THAN STUPID to let them go! No, NO , AND NO! They let them go, to SAVE FACE, to not admit they screwed up and not pay ANY compensation! And the ALFORD Plea was the only way they could do this! Sure, they could have kept this going for another 5-10 yrs. going to court and kept them all in prison, JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT! BUT IT DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE they “knew the evidence” was NOW there, to get them OUT anyway! You don’t let 3 GUILTY men out of prison…for the HELL OF IT,either! And say sentenced served! They just wanted it to ..ALL GO AWAY! But, there are too many people LIKE ME… that won’t let it JUST GO AWAY! Someone killed those 3 little boys and I for ONE, want to stick with this to the end!Possibly…find or the REAL KILLER(S)..come forward? Wherever that takes me! I read EVERYDAY…everything I can about this case..good , bad, indifferent! (AND YES EVEN THE NONS STUFF). Actually, really curious how it will turn out, too, as in my nature! I feel for all the families, (victims/accused)…what a MESS!

  16. Hey Fuckers —

    The boys are out and about and making up for lost time. Thank God only 3 lives were ended by all this, not 6. You don’t like it? I got a number for you to call:


    1. Joey, I’ve missed you. I was on the Letter to AMPAS page, and all this time you’ve been over here. “1-800-Wah-Wah-Wah-Wah.” Joey, you’re much too clever for that.

      1. I’m sorry, Frank, didn’t mean to leave you high and dry. It’s the nature of this website, I mean, the Letter to AMPAS page was soooo two days ago!

        Per the 1-800-Wah-Wah-Wah comment, I disagree, I happen to think it’s very clever, but I can’t take credit for it myself. It comes from a movie called It’s Pat, which is one of the more underrated films of the 90s. I think an appreciation of this film is something both nons and supporters can rally around.

  17. joey-
    you sound incredibly intelligent. that must be why you need personal insults and the word “fuckwad” to make your points. this is a discussion, by the way, not a smackdown… grow up.

    1. Thank you for the compliment, tom, I just…

      …wait a second, that wasn’t a compliment, was it?

      Is this a discussion? It’s funny, because most of the time I post a point that merits discussion I get no response, but what I get all cussy on y’all, that does seem to earn your attention. But I appreciate you making your point. And I’ll seriously take it to heart.

      And if this WAS a smackdown, you’d be a real fucking lightweight, you fuckwad.

  18. NPR interview on 1/20

    BALDWIN: “Well, the only reason that I took the deal was to save Damien.
    …I hate to ask Damien to spend one more day in that place, where he was at.”

    then later in the same interview BALDWIN says, “I turned a deal down at first and – but, you know, I was told Jessie had taken the deal. Damien had taken the deal, and the only way the deal would be good is if all three of us took the deal.”

    Let’s see, which was it Jason? Were you trying to help save your buddy, or did you realize that Damien was out to save his own ass and you simply followed his lead (just like you followed his lead as a teenager). I have to give you credit though Jason, the martyr role you tried to get us to believe has some believing you’re something above an animal.

    1. See now, call me crazy, I want to give you folks the benefit of the doubt, chalk all this up to difference of opinion between two sets of rational, thoughtful people who just have a healthy, all-American different perspective, you know? But then I read something like this. SUSAN’s brilliant, Perry Mason/Columbo/Sherlock Holmes-esque deduction…

      Jason says he takes the deal to save Damien. He then says, in the same interview, he heard Jessie took the deal and Damien took the deal and the deal would only be good if all three of them took the deal. In other words: TO SAVE DAMIEN HE NEEDED TO TAKE THE DEAL. How fucking stupid are you? Newsflash to nons: You don’t have to be fucking stupid to make your limited range of half-decent points. Stick to those. This flat-earth shit makes you all look really, really bad. And you should speak out against it if you want to retain any credibility.

      Susan also sounds like a crazy bag lady when she addresses Jason like she’s talking to him. Bad news, honey bunch: Jason ain’t reading this board ’cause he don’t give a fuck what you got to say.

    2. It AMAZES me to read articles like this and then think they weren’t newspaper articles but were broadcasted on national radio! I mean, really? Do they really think we’re that stupid?

      Here’s an excerpt from the interview with one of the producers of PL3:

      “BERLINGER: Well, three eight-year-olds were found in a wooded area off the interstate in West Memphis, Arkansas, in a creek, in a bayou. And they had been hogtied, and they had wounds on their bodies that we now know some of those wounds – I mean, these kids were obviously murdered, but some of these wounds were horrific. We now know that those wounds were caused by post-mortem animal predation. You know, the animals found these bodies after they were dumped in this site. But at the time, those wounds were attributed to satanic ritual by three local teenagers. The alleged ringleader was a guy named Damien Echols who, you know, dressed in black and likes Metallica music. You know, that type of thing, but…”

      Here’s the ONE question I have for everyone who believes in the innocence of these three, now, men.

      I’ve lived in the South my entire life. Born, raised, and cornbread fed in good ole Southern traditions. I live five hours West Memphis. Have a grandmother who lives in Little Rock. So I know my state and Arkansas thanks to family vacations as a kid and as an adult. And if there’s one thing I know better than most is the bayous, creeks, and waterways of the two states.

      For the life of me I can not think of ONE animal that could do the damage that is reported to have been done to these boys after they’ve been murdered. The defense wants to make it sound like the bodies were on the bank when they were discovered. Most people forget they were found in the WATER.

      So, here’s the question to all those who really want to believe the WM3’s twist on the scene. Can you name an animal that lives in the WATER that could do this much damage to those boys? Because I can pretty much tell you that turtles wouldn’t do it. West Memphis isn’t known for it’s crabs. And with it only being two and a half feet deep I don’t see any fish that could do this amount of damage.

      Besides it was the DEFENSE who first stated that it was done after the boys had died. So I don’t hold much regard for what they have to say in order to get their clients off a murder sentence.

      1. @ Lori

        That’s a good point, Lori and one that I have been scratching my head about for awhile when supporters keep throwing the “animal” deal around. They were in the water. I myself am from Ft.Smith and I have been camping since I was knee-high to a grasshopper and I also cannot figure any type of animal that would do this, especially the skin of the penis of ONE kid. And why stop at the penis if I was some animal?

        This case has never been nor will never be clear-cut. The saying were too many cooks spoil the broth, comes to mind for me on this case. I’m not going to list all the reasons why I still believe and will always believe that these three did the crime, you can read that elsewhere on this site. But my feeling is that if these three were CLEARLY innocent, we would have seen more action from the legislature of this country aside from the Arkansas State courts and more celebs that are not so washed up come to the the table. Johnny Depp, well, he can stay on France for all I care and bulk of his fame has been the “Pirate” series movies which, honestly, the last two totally sucked anyway.

      2. I don’t know the animal types that exist in that part of the country, but I’m from the Northeast and we have raccoons, gophers, otters, beavers, rats, opossum, skunks, squirrels, coyotes, bears, deers, snapping turtles, hawks, falcons, cats that are a part of the wild in our area and this is in areas less than 10 miles away from Manhattan. I don’t know the full scope of the “animal” theory, but it has more plausibility than you’re giving credit.

        Besides all of that, please answer me ONE question. What types of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE am I missing that CONCLUSIVELY CONNECTED the suspects to the crime? PHYSICAL, NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL??

  19. Joey’s above post is a perfect example of the double standard thought process (I use the term thought loosely) psuedo-intellectual supporters love to use. On one hand they will tell you Mr. bojangles was bleeding all over the place, while in the next second tell you how there was no blood at the scene. Damien and Jesse failed polygraphs, (Jason’s lawyers told him not to take one, wonder why?), which is explained away by supporters as polygraphs being so unreliable. Yet, 18 years after the fact, the friends… of the son… (stay with me now) of the brother… of Terry Hobbs magically come forward right before the premiere of the West of Memphis film and say they once heard Michael say his uncle killed the boys. The three passed poly’s allegedly, though of course they were not administered by law enforcement like Jesse’s and Damien’s. We’ll just say a third party gave them, from probably not the most impartial party. Supporters are ready to use the “unreliable” poly tests as proof to suddenly exonnerate the three idiots who plead guilty to the triple murder. Huh?

    They like to tell you about Hobbs violent past all of the sudden, while ignoring 500 pages of serious mental health issues and violent behavior of Echols.

    You see Joey, had the three really been innocent, one of the three probably would have been able to come up with a solid alibi no? Just another coincidence right? Why have supporters had to jump from Bojangles, to Byers, to now Hobbs/Jacoby as the perp?

    You brush off the Evan Williams bottle being exactly where Misskelley said it would be as what? Coincidence? No alibis, coincidence? Echols courtroom behavior as what, coincidence? 2 failed polygraphs and another refusal to even take one, coincidence? All 3 confessing at different times, coincidence? 3 victims, three admitted killers, three different methods used to hogtie, coincidence? Luminol photos showing blood where Misskelley said the murders occured, coincidence? Who is the fuckwad again?

    1. OK, Scott H. Challenge accepted. You made some points and I would like to address them without resorting to name calling.

      Mr. Bojangles WAS bleeding everywhere, and there was little evidence of blood on the scene. Not NO evidence, little evidence. Keep in mind luminol doesn’t just glow if it reacts to blood, but to many other substances as well, including urine, and yes, animal urine, of which there is probably a bit of, considering this is a forest. Hence it’s inadmissable in court. Not just because it was “new” technology in those days. But because it’s inconclusive and you can draw your own inferences from it. Mr. Bojangles, if he was the killer, which I’m not saying he was, though I am saying unlike you I’m not so closed-minded that I won’t even consider it a possibility, Mr. Bojangles could very well have been bleeding at the murder site, rather than the dump site. Maybe some of his blood was at the dump site as well, hence the luminol reaction, and maybe not. I don’t know. But frankly, no one else does, including the West Memphis PD who didn’t give a shit about this guy who was their BIGGEST immediate lead.

      Jason’s lawyers did tell him not to take a polygraph. They also told him not to take the stand. They were young and inexperienced and were far from the best counsel. Jason is currently happy to take a polygraph and do any and all DNA testing. Terry Hobbs, on the other hand, is not, he won’t do nothing. You’re so hung up on alibis, why aren’t you even slightly interested in the fact that Terry Hobbs has no alibi for that night? That everywhere he says he was, or everyone he says he was with, doesn’t stack up, and is contradicted?

      Hindsight is 20/20, but come on: the night the West Memphis PD got missing person reports for the 3 boys was the same night they got the Bojangles call, in the same small area. Should have investigated that night. They didn’t. When they finally looked into Bojangles, they were highly disinterested, not taking his sunglasses and promptly losing the blood scrapings. That’s really bad. OK, the most obvious immediate suspect is off the hook. Who’s next? Statistically, you’d want to look at Mark Byers, Todd Moore, and Terry Hobbs. Byers they actually did look at long and hard. I think they were able to clear Moore rather handily. But Hobbs…who promptly dumps Pam and skips town (and hires a lawyer)…is never vetted. NEVER VETTED. When asked about it in 2009, Gitchell says he can’t comment on that because he was afraid if he did what he said would be used as evidence to prove the WM3’s innocence. Wow…a little suspicious. In other words: WE FUCKED UP AND WE’VE BEEN COVERING OUR TRACKS EVER SINCE.

      This post is getting long and unruly, and people tend to skip posts like that. You brought up many points, Scott, and I would like to address them all, so in due time.

      P.S. What does the H stand for? Hernia?

      1. @ Joey

        This was not a “forest”. This was a wooded area, which I might add was extremely close to the interstate and surrounded by businesses and homes. When I was a kid, me and my friends would spend a night in a tree fort and on the ground of an area like this. When we did, we hardly saw or ecountered any animals because it was fairly populated next to this wooded area and this scares most animals away. This is was hardly a forest. Look up the definition.

  20. “They like to tell you about Hobbs violent past all of the sudden, while ignoring 500 pages of serious mental health issues and violent behavior of Echols.”

    That’s not exactly true, Scotty. I suppose in some cases it may be, but very few supporters that I know of ignore Damien’s 500 pages of serious mental health issues. However, yes, we are far more interested in Hobbs’s background. Why? Because Hobbs is far more likely a suspect, both statistically, and anecdotally (when taking into consideration his sociopathic behavior). If this case went down today, say, in New Jersey, there would never have been a Damien Echols…at least not until Terry Hobbs and everyone else who was far more likely to have done it would have been cleared as suspects. The reason Damien got pulled into this to begin with is because this went down in the south in the early 90s. Geraldo and Oprah and Sally Jesse were on TV every day telling America that Satanists were indoctrinating America’s youth and committing all sorts of horrible ritual murders. We now know that there were no organized cults committing Satanic murders, but back then it seemed very credible because it was everywhere, and people were being arrested alllllll over the country because of allegations of the like. Dale Griffis made a whole cottage industry out of this ridiculousness. And Jerry Driver was CONVINCED that Damien was a murderous Satanist long before the crimes. Divorced from the context of these uncertain times, the WM3 aren’t even questioned. In the context of these uncertain times, Terry Hobbs isn’t even questioned.

    If you don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, I think there’s something wrong with you.

    1. Damien proves he is into “satanism” many times. If you read everything Damien has said or wrote it starts to come together.

      – His name!! Thats the first lie right there. “Uhhh…yeah…Damien was a saint for lepers….yeah…I’m cool…”

      – Studying Aleister Crowley. (Damien appears to know “the younger and more innocent – the more power)

      – Daydreaming and doodling Crowley’s name along with his cherished loved ones.

      – Underlining passages in a Satanic book pertaining to sacrifice.

      – Planning when he (himself, the anti-christ) would come back and take over.

      Even if he wasn’t part of a cult-group, the guy is pretty fucked up – delusional.

      You Idiot!

      Does anyone know why The Hoax isn’t accepting members? What is a good debate board that is equal for nons and supporters?

      1. Now Stacia, calling me an idiot isn’t going to accomplish anything…

        …particularly if what I said wasn’t idiotic. I suppose I am biased, but I’m pretty sure it’s not idiotic.

        Did I ever say Damien wasn’t interested in Satanism? No. He was interested in Satanism. And Metallica. And Stephen King. And animal skulls. That may sound crazy to you (particularly the animal skulls part) but it’s really not. Not arguing that he was a well adjusted teen, I’ll grant you he was clearly fucked up, but I’ve known a lot of fucked up teens — really fucked up teens — who didn’t end up murdering people.

        To say Damien was deeply disturbed and remarkably fucked up is still not to say he murdered these kids. Do you think he was the most fucked up person in all of West Memphis? There are a hell of a lot of mental patients, drug addicts, pedophiles, and criminals whose “exhibit 500″s would’ve been waaaaay worse, I can promise you that.

        I never said he wasn’t delusional either. I’m sure he wasn’t the only one in West Memphis who was delusional at the time.

        Delusional satanist does not a murderer make.

        My only assertion was that during this time period, it was widely accepted that murderous satanists were holding cult meetings and sacrificing babies and young children. All across the country, news reports about this happening was prevelent, it was accepted as fact. People “confessed” to such. People who “survived” testified about such, in incredible detail. It took us a few years (and a little hindsight) to realize that it was all bullshit! Never happened! Frankly…much of the country was delusional! In the context of this being a “real” phenomenon, I would be highly suspicious of a Damien Echols. In the current context of knowing that these things weren’t happening, and were the product of rumor, fear, and Christianity-run-amok, I would be no more suspicious of a teenage satanist than I would any other troubling figure…like, for instance, a certain abusive step-father.

        1. Frankly yes, he was the most fucked up teen in WM.

          He was taking pictures of kids. That is weird. He told doctors he was possessed. He licked/wiped blood off people.

          I would consider the stepfather deal if it made any sense AT ALL.

          1. Well now, Stacia, I’d say you’re letting your emotions get the best of you. There’s is no indication whatsoever that he was the most fucked up teen in WM. Unfortunately, in lower income areas there tend to be a lot of fucked up teens, and for you to say he’s the worst is for you to suggest you have at least one iota of an idea of what you’re talking about. Is this assertion based on any evidence whatsoever? “Exhibit 500” doesn’t count. We’re not disputing that the kid had some serious issues. You’re the one suggesting he was unique and his problems were extraordinary.

            Was he taking pictures of kids? What is your evidence for this? Are you aware of the fact that no photos were ever found? Who said he was taking pictures? I say: Bullshit. Never happened.

            Terry Hobbs as a possible suspect makes no sense to you AT ALL? Why? Here are a few Terry Hobbs “fun facts,” you tell me why these should all be discounted outright and don’t warrant further interest:

            *He was never interviewed by the WMPD about HIS STEP-SON’S MURDER, at least not until 2007.

            *He claims to have been with David Jacoby, Pam Hobbs, Mark Byers, Dana Moore, Officer Meek, and various search parties during times each of the others has indicated he was NOT with them. He bogusly says he went to the WMPD a number of times that night.

            *He claims to have seen a soaking wet black bum (with Pam) wandering around just hours before they found the bodies…he claimed this in 2007, having NEVER told anyone about this before. Pam has no idea what he’s talking about.

            *He told his ex-girlfriend that he found the bodies of the kids buried in the water the night of the search.

            *Two weeks after the murders, Hobbs ditched Pam and skipped town. Didn’t come back until after the WM3 had become “the guys.”

            *Beat up Pam, then shot her brother. Her brother later died due to complications from the wound.

            *Hair from Hobbs found in the ligature of Michael Moore’s shoelace knot. David Jacoby, who was his alibi for most of the evening (despite Jacoby saying Hobbs awkwardly left a couple of times), a hair matching his DNA was found at the site. This is the closest we have to good physical evidence in this case, and lo and behold it doesn’t link up to the WM3 (whose defense team has been TIRELESSLY searching for physical evidence for years…which is more than we can say about anyone else), but Hobbs. Who refuses to be polygraphed. And would only answer questions when he had to thanks to his failed Dixie Chicks lawsuit.

            *Hobbs worked at a slaughter house when he was younger. Hobbs sexually molested Mildred French, an old woman. There have been numerous accounts of him beating and/or molesting his kids. We know he’d beat Stevie.

            *An eyewitness puts him with the boys just before their disappearance. He claims never to have seen them that entire day. If you doubt her, you should doubt every other witness in this case.

            *David Jacoby, Hobbs’s good buddy and ALIBI says he saw Hobbs with the kids that evening. Hobbs claims to have never seen them that entire day. Well that’s strange…

            *Ah, yes, and almost forgot that Hobbs caught Pam cheating on him, beat up the dude, and swore he’d get even with Pam. This was maybe two weeks before the murders.

            *Pam’s entire family is sure that he did it. Pam is suspicious. According to three of Hobbs’s nephews friends, Hobbs’s nephew has revealed that the murders are the “Hobbs family secret” and that he has heard his uncle confess. These guys were polygraphed, and passed, and the best anyone can say to dispute their testimony is “they’re getting back at the nephew for something.” For what? Who knows! They testified to this, under oath, and if you don’t want to believe them, you have no reason to believe any of the other hearsay witnesses who testified against the WM3.

            If you have a problem with the WM3 due to problematic alibis, you have a problem with Terry Hobbs. If you have a problem with the witnesses against Terry Hobbs, you have a problem with the witnesses against the WM3. If you have a problem with Jason Baldwin not taking a polygraph, you have a problem with Hobbs not taking a polygraph. If you have a problem with Damien’s psychological status, you have a problem with Hobbs’s psychological status.

            Anything less would be cognitive dissonance and highly selective thinking based on your own pre-determined prejudices.

          2. A resounding silence.

            Perhaps I should just rent Nosferatu, that would give me better insight into this case than actually looking into things. Damien liked to suck blood — ba-bam! Case closed.

            Kristi…will you marry me?

          3. “A resounding silence” Lmao. I admit I am obsessed with this case, but you wrote quite a long post to respond to.

            Your first comment about me knowing if he’s the most fucked up lower class teen in the south ..blah blah blah. It is my “opinion” that he was indeed delusional enought to commit this murder. Too bad people cannot actually measure other peoples’ fucked up – ness. Most probably this type of thing is going to happen again, and I bet the next murderer will have a similar delusional fucked up-ness. I agree that not everyone who is as fucked up as Damion commits murder, most of them are helped and medicated by the mental health community. Unfortunately Damien’s meds weren’t enough. If you think Damion’s problems aren’t unique and extraordinary I have the right to totally disagree with you. Who the fuck do you know that is similar to Damien? I mean besides being “goth” and liking Metallica? I grew up in a lower class, hick small town myself. So I am entitled to have an opinion. Why doesn’t exhibit “500” count? WTF?

            I am not saying Terry Hobbs makes no sense as if stepfathers and a violent history means they can’t murder his child. But Terry’s time table and what he had to accomplish makes no sense. “Nons” do not have to make up and elaborate timetable to make things match up. Jesse’s confessions match perfectly. Everything is explained. Terry’s “Failed” alibis for his half hour time slots here and there just doesn’t cut it. Asking people about where they were at exact times 16 yr later?? Give me a break.

            I am assuming you can show me where Terry said he saw a black bum and he also discovered the bodies in a ditch. I DOUBT this simply because if Terry claimed he found the bodies in a ditch before the police did, the police would have questioned him further to clarify what the hell he is talking about. Just like you do not believe that Damien was taking photos of kids, I think this is bullshit.

            Two weeks later Hobbs skipped town. Yeah, because he had to watch his wife lose her mind and he couldn’t handle it. Beat up Pam and shot her brother – he was definitely violent, doen’t mean he would kill 3 kids.

            A hair found on a shoelace? So what? I found my hair on my son’s shoe also. I don’t know why Hobbs refuses to be polygraphed. Maybe because it could be biased? If the WMPD issued the test and he passed, then supporters would say they lied. If the defense lawyers gave Hobbs the polygraph and he passed, supporters could just find another “expert” to say he lied.

            Hobbs worked at a slaughterhouse? Byers was a jeweler? Why does this make them experts at stabwounds? Damien killed a dog, does that make him an expert?

            Yes, I doubt the neighbors “testimony” of seeing Hobbs with all the kids. It’s 16 yr later. I don’t remember specific days from 16 yr ago.
            Same with Hobbs and JAcoby remembering specific times from fucking 16 yr ago. I couldn’t do it either.

            Uh, he was jealous of his wife kissing another guy and this proves he killed 3 kids? That’s a stretch…

            Yes, I have a HUGE problem with all these witnesses/failed alibis coming to light YEARS later after a fucking hair is found in a shoelace. Give me a break. All of a sudden Hobbs’ family has all these “breakthroughs” they didn’t have at the time of the murders. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, that’s all it is. If I saw the WM3 hanging out with Jennifer Aniston and Orlando Bloom, I would figure if they got rich, maybe I can get rich!

            About the alibis – the only reason I have a big problem with Hobbs is that is years later. I am a genius and even I don’t remember events of a particular day. Like I told CR, on the most traumatic day of my life I DID NOT keep looking at the clock and remembering times. You would think Damion, Jason, and Jesse could at least remember what they did A FEW DAYS AGO.

            Go back to make believe land with manholes and candles and flashlights and backpacks and turtles.

            Yes, there was a girl that saw Damien take her picture, he was hiding behind a bush. Chris Byers also saw a man in black take his picture. I will look this up at Callahan when I have more time.

          4. Oops, forgot about the molestation charges. Even if that were true, how are molesters known murderers? Don’t know too many of those.

          5. Your “opinion” and my “opinion” are diametrically opposed to one another’s, so I guess it’s a wash.

            I find it amusing that supporters are primarily concerned with the evidence of the case (or lack thereof) whereas nons are far more interested in their own opinions. I think both of our opinions on the matter are pretty uninteresting.

            Who the fuck do I know whose fucked-up-ness is as bad as Damien’s was? Would you like names? What’s the point, I’m sure you wouldn’t believe me. Of course you have every right to disagree, but have you ever looked into it? Have you ever worked at a mental health facility, or asked someone who has, what kinds of people they tend to work with on a day-to-day basis? I’m not interested in getting into the specifics of my life, and I don’t care about yours, but I submit that you have not done much research, you are choosing to believe that Damien was the most fucked up kid in West Memphis, and based on no evidence whatsoever, refusing to believe that there are any number of people who were just as fucked up, if not more so. Do you deny that there were violent ex-cons in the area? Drug abusers? Convicted sex offenders?

            It’s interesting to me (but perhaps it’s not at all interesting to you) that the FBI’s first, and most famous (helped catch the Unabomber, Wayne Williams, and was an inspiration for The Silence of the Lambs), criminal profiler, examined this case thoroughly, and concluded that this was not a teenage thrill-kill, but the work of a lone sociopath with a degree of criminal sophistication, and one who in all likelihood had a close connection with at least one of the victims.

            If you want to further embarass yourself by crying, “But but but he’s only saying that for the money/attention,” you might want to recall that Gary Gitchell submitted this case to the FBI for a profile in the early days of the investigation, and in 1993 the FBI profile didn’t reflect a teenage thrill-kill, and the prosecution and Gitchell tried very hard to pretend this profile didn’t exist so that the defense wouldn’t find it…they ultimately did, not that it mattered. The WMPD also approached the FBI about their “Satanism” angle pre-trial, and the FBI said, “Don’t even mention it! We just did an exhaustive study on the subject of satanic murders and found it’s totally bunk. Use your forensic evidence.” Being that there was none, the prosecution stuck to the Satanism…sure they said, “We’re not SAYING it was Satanism, we’re just presenting all this Satanism stuff because it helps to paint a picture for you. Don’t REALLY consider all the Satanic sacrificing stuff we just put into your heads.”

            “He was definitely violent — doesn’t mean he would kill 3 kids.” Did you really just say that?

            Did you really just say that Terry Hobbs would beat up his wife and shoot his brother n’law (at point blank range, only to get up and shout at his father n’law “I’ll shoot your fat ass too,” only to never demonstrate any remorse or regret, even after his brother n’law died from complications due to the wound)…but it doesn’t mean he would kill 3 kids?

            But Jason Baldwin having a petty shoplifting conviction, and Jessie getting into school yard fights, and Damien being “the most fucked up teen in West Memphis” means that they absoultely killed 3 kids?

            Lady, you got tunnel vision.

            A hair found on a shoe lace? So what? You’re daffy as a duck, it would be funny if it wasn’t so pitiful. It’s called forensic evidence. And there’s more forensic evidence implicating Terry Hobbs than there is the WM3. Not saying it’s totally conclusive, but to just brush it off like it’s no big deal, I mean hey, we ALL have beard hairs on our FRIEND’S shoe laces…then again, if it’s just to be totally dismissed because of how common and expected it is that one of Terry’s beard hairs were found in the ligatures of Michael Moore’s shoe-lace knot, how come they didn’t find any other hairs…you know, like from Todd and Dana, or Byers, or Pam? Just Terry. You can’t even admit it’s remotely questionable, can you?

            “I don’t know why Hobbs refuses to take a polygraph test. Maybe because it could be biased?” Did you really just say that? Weren’t you the one railing on Jason for not taking the test? Don’t you think he may have been a little scared that it could have been biased? Are you also admitting here that a polygraph isn’t a perfect recitation of truth, and that they are interpreted, and that the interpretation can be biased? Then why do you put so much stock in Damien and Jessie’s original tests? I love how everyone who doesn’t find the results you want to hear is biased and corrupt. Don’t tell me it cuts both ways — I say they ABSOLUTELY can be biased and corrupt, therefor between Damien and Jessie’s original tests being called “deceptive” by the original guy who looked at them, and being called “truthful” by the nation’s top polygraph examiner later doesn’t necessarily tell us much of anything…although if I have to take one guy’s word for it, I’ll take the best in the nation, thanks.

            “Damien killed a dog.” Love that, especially when in the next sentence you’re all like, “Why should I believe that neighbor’s testimony about Terry Hobbs???” Dog thing ain’t based on evidence — it’s based on testimony. School yard rumor, I say, you want to choose to believe it, fine. You believe everyone who said, “Damien said he was guilty,” but you don’t believe anyone who said, “I saw Terry Hobbs with the boys,” or “Terry Hobbs’s nephew told me their murders are the Hobbs Family Secret,” or anyone who said, “Terry Hobbs molested his daughter,” or any of the other hearsay accounts we have? I say, you take it all into consideration, hard evidence is all that matters, screw the hearsay. You say, “Hearsay is wonderful when it involes the narrative, but BS when it contradicts the narrative.”

            A jealous husband killing 3 kids is a stretch, but it’s no more a stretch than a teenage thrill-kill. Sorry. The reason profilers looked at this case and said the killer was probably someone who knew the kids well, maybe even a parent or step-parent, isn’t just empty conjecture. It’s because, statistically, that tends to be the case. For one stupid reason or another (are there ever really good reasons?) a father or step-father will kill his kid/step-kid. In this case, there is a scenario where he goes too far with his abuse (we already know he beat Stevie) and then has to cover his tracks because of the witnesses. If you want to call it a stretch, that’s your business, but no one was considering it a stretch in the early days, especially because they were so interested in John Mark Byers early on. Why not Terry Hobbs…who the fuck knows. Not me, not you.

            Chris Byers saw a man taking a picture of him…so? Chris Byers also used to play with feces. I mean, seriously, what the fuck does that mean? If it happened, it certainly doesn’t mean, “Ha ha! Must’ve been Damien!” And whether or not some girl said it was him, more school yard hearsay. There’s quite a bit of hearsay going on here. Do you believe Michael Carson’s hearsay? He’s recanted. Oh yeah, he’s just thinking about the $$$$ and partying with Jennifer Aniston.

            Stick to Tee-ball, Stacia. You won’t strike out as often.

          6. OH WOW! Guess you haven’t read JAMES KENNY MARTIN’S PAST THEN? That one is a real sicko! He even gave his IDEAS of THE USE OF THE SHOELACES and why they would have been used? Maybe not as young,(was young once)? but definitely messed up as much or worse! And there were some others being accussed of killing the boys … besides the Wm3, by people that had messed up backgrounds? You can read about them…they all have been reviewed!

  21. Per the Evan Williams bottle…

    I left a cigarette butt, Marlboro, up on Cielo Drive, you know, where the Tate/Manson murders went down. I was there that night. And if you find that butt, well that’s clearly proof-positive of such.

    Disregard any inconsistencies in my confession about taking part in the Manson murders…stuff like “it was the morning” or “brown rope” or “they were in the water”/”they were not in the water” or “they were screwing them and stuff”/”they stuck their tips in, but not all the way”…or the fact that I wasn’t even born when they happened. But take that bottle of Evan Williams very, very seriously. There can be no other explanation for that bottle whatsoever, except the one that says we killed those boys.

    1. For anyone with lingering doubts about the multiple confessions…

      …please do a little research. This really isn’t so novel. It happens. We know it happens. There are plenty of people out there who fully convince themselves that they did something…I mean, can you imagine if Jessie was STILL confessing all these years later? While it would certainly make things more difficult for supporters, it still wouldn’t mean he was guilty.

      Please Google The Norfolk Four. It’s an incredible case…and it’s still up in the air…but I think if you look at it you will find that it is pretty clear that all kinds of wacky things can go down when it comes to confessions and interrogations and threats of life in prison, if not the death penalty. People will implicate themselves, implicate others, multiple times, it happens and we know it. It’s inconceivable to a lot of us (because we feel we never would do such a thing) but it happens. It’s science. It’s fact. Don’t be a flat-earther.

      I’m actually very curious what non-supporters (like you, Scotty-too-hotty) think about the Friedmans, whose story was highlighted in Capturing the Friedmans? Do you think that was another case of a liberal-Commie-Jew-Hollywood filmmaker being intellectually dishonest and painting guilty men as innocent? Do you accept Jesse Friedman’s confessions in the courtroom (and Geraldo) as fact? Or do you appreciate that when someone is dealing with facing hard jail time, when given the opportunity to mutter a few words in exchange for a few years of life outside prison, they might have motive to take that deal?

  22. Having just started reading in depth all of the documents, starting with Mr. Misskelley, I found myself researching the phenomenon of false confessions as there is a lot of controversy over JM’s confessions. While they are the exception to the rule, they happen far more than I ever thought and it is frightening. I was reading about one man who confessed to killing one of 4 girls who were in a yogurt shop, Michael Scott. He gave details and seemingly knew undisclosed information about the crime, details that were said only the perpetrator would know, yet it was false. He underwent several hours of video taped intense interrogation.
    I am not saying that JM’s confessions are false, I know too little and have not yet formed an opinion. I also have no idea how many times Mr. Scott confessed, or statistics regarding multiple false confessions to different people. I simply find it scary and disturbing that it does happen.
    Was all of JM’s interrogation taped? I know his time was broken up by eating, going to get permission or something from his parents(father?).

    I found this so scary
    For more than 24 hours, Cope vehemently asserted his innocence despite persis- tent charges and accusations (e.g., “I swear before God, standing right here . . . I did not do anything to my daughter”). During that time, he waived his rights, volunteered to be examined, and five times offered to take a polygraph test: “So you have faith in the poly- graph test?” he was asked. “Yes,” he replied. The next morning, after spending the night in jail, without food or drink, bewildered, still separated from family and friends, and without counsel, Cope was administered a polygraph test by a police examiner who re- ported to him that he failed (in fact, a leading researcher who later scored the charts indicated that Cope had actually passed). Devastated by the result, Cope wondered aloud if a person could commit such a heinous act without knowing it—an idea sug- gested to him the previous night by his interrogators. According to the examiner, Cope broke down and admitted that “I must have done it.” He then allegedly followed this admission with a full narrative story of how he molested and strangled his daughter, cleaned up, and went back to sleep.
    Cope spent the next two and half days in jail, alone, still lacking contact with family, friends, or an attorney. He then handwrote a second confession in which he said that he had sexually assaulted and killed Amanda within the context of a dream. At that point, the police took him back to the house, where he reenacted on videotape—and in vivid and gruesome detail—how he had awakened in the middle of the night, molested and killed Amanda while in a dissociated state, suddenly realized what he had done, went back to sleep, forgot what had occurred the next morning, then once again recalled his actions. This reenactment was followed by a fourth, even more detailed, confession typed by one of the detectives and signed by Cope.

    1. Thank you for bringing all of that up, GL, it’s something people tend not to believe until they’ve really looked into it.

      Paul Ingram is another one of these bizarre cases ( It certainly doesn’t prove anything about Misskelly, specifically, but all-too-often I hear from non-supporters “Nanna Nanna Poo Poo, Misskelly confessed 4 times! End of story. Case closed.”

      God forbid there be nuance in a case. LOOK PEOPLE: 18 years out, we’re still debating this. The WM3, who were to be executed/locked away for life, are now free, but still considered guilty. They pled guilty, but in the same sentence proclaimed their innocence. There is nuance here. There are intricacies.

      All else being equal, Echols was fucked up, Hobbs was fucked up, Byers was fucked up, Bojangles was fucked up, Kent Arnold was a dick, Paul Ford wasn’t a great lawyer, Gary Gitchell wasn’t a great detective, Dale Griffis was touring the country spreading Christian propoganda under the guise of “occult cop,” Misskelly was an idiot, Echols blew a kiss, Todd Moore blew the head off a pumpkin, Byers’ wife died mysteriously, Terry Hobbs caught his wife cheating with a Mexican and two weeks before the murders swore he’d get revenge on her, Hollingsworth saw Damien and Domini near the crime scene, Michael Carson swears Jason bragged about the murders, Michael Carson recants, a knife was found in a lake, a knife was given to HBO, a knife was taken from Stevie, a knife killed a grapefruit, etc.

      THERE IS NUANCE. Anyone who is happy to accept Misskelly’s confessions at face value and disinterested in the possibility that something else may be at play has their head so far up their ass they’ll drown in their own shit.

      1. Thank you Joey, I will read your link. I also want to read about the cases you posted in your previous post that I just saw a few minutes ago.

        I want to say that I appreciate all of the knowledgable posters and I thank you all for dealing with me as I post things and ask questions that are probably so old and worn to many of you.

  23. There really isn’t a need anymore to defend the wm3’s innocence anymore except for the wm3 themselves or their close friends and family members because they are already out of prison and aren’t going back, EVER. So all supporters of wm3 need to find a new cause. Non supporters as well if you think about it, unless there was a way you could put them back in prison. Maybe there is, I don’t know. Now the parents, all of them, need to be ruled out by DNA or any other available source. Jason, Damien, and Jessie don’t need anyone’s help or pity anymore, they are free and traveling the globe.

        1. @ Joey

          I will admit, that was funny as hell.

          @ Kristi, it goes both ways. Why are these three still reaping rewards from the death of these kids? You are brainwashed like most supporters. You CLEARLY do not see that the ones who WANT this to continue are et al. They will do ANTHING to keep this controversy alive and well for many generations to come simply because of one word: MONEY.

          The blood from these three kids have lined many pockets and continue to do so thanks largely to people like you. The families of these three poor kids were suckered long ago into selling the rights of the souls of their dead kids. Go ahead, give them more money. appreciates you very much for fattening their lifestyle. So don’t blame non’s for keeping this in the spotlight, we don’t have the kind of financial support that supporters do. This whole thing has been a complete joke and the joke is on the supporters and Echols has triumphed in the same fashion that Hitler felt he triumphed sending the jews to the gas chamber. Only today, it’s the supporters being loaded in the trains headed for their demise, and it’s their dignity headed for the gas chamber.

          1. Really? I’m a supporter of THE WM3 and I DON’T GET ANY MONEY FOR IT, NOR DO I GIVE THEM MONEY! I see no evidence credible enough to say they did it…and I DO want the case reopened.. the people that should have been looked at…families of the 3 little boys . I DO want the real KILLER(S) FOUND! That’s all I want! Believe me, had I lived there and had REAL tips or proof to give them… I would… with out a PROMISE of money!
            I have 4 children…grown now but I can FEEL… the pain it would cause me!
            But you have to see it from ALL sides… I WOULD AND DO WANT THE REAL PERSON(S)..THAT DID THIS TO BE LOCKED AWAY. Not just ANYONE!

  24. While all this “missing info” from the documentaries certainly adds to the “what if” thoughts about them possibly committing the murders, let’s examine a few things…

    If this “Exhibit 500” document is to be a real “indication” of the type of person Damien Echols was, and what he was capable of, AND if he did choose to murder the 3 boys, why would he choose to murder them by simply hitting them hard in the head (the cause of death) and then tying them up and throwing them in the water? Why not cut them all up like a “satanic sacrifice”? Why not slash them up really good? Why not ‘crush their heads like the Great Dane that he killed’?

    It’s a fact that the way the boys were killed does not fit the profile of the type of person that many are saying Damien was — even if he WAS that way. If he was truly ‘evil’ and into satantic workshop and capable of “slashing his mother’s throat” and all of those other accusations, again… why would he finally commit murder only to kill his victims with blunt force to the head? Why not something more violent and with more blood involved?

    The way the boys

    1. I am still learning this case, to do it properly, it will probably take me quite a while to fully read everything. I wanted to hold off on reading this exhibit, and failed. I am currently only on page 243 so only can address my thoughts as they pertain to what I have read. I did not see this exhibit and think well this guy did it, I see this exhibit and in my opinion it shows atypical thought processes of someone who is not mentally healthy or stable. There are some alarming things about this personality that may be indicative of someone more inclined to have done this. It does not necessitate guilt, but should not be discounted or minimized. I imagine as I get further into this case that there will be red flags regarding other people, but I am only talking about DE and this one exhibit.
      exhibit 500 is a piece of a puzzle.
      I think profiling is interesting, it can be an interesting and useful tool. Im not so sure that I would agree with you that if A then B.
      All MOO
      ETA that I had written a long post, went in to delete most of it and deleted some that I did not intend to leaving this post somewhat disjointed.

    2. @ The Truth…

      Didn’t you hear? The NEW truth is that Damien trained the animals do go after the kids after they had left the crime scene. He was trained by Doctor Doolittle to talk to the animals.

      Sniff sniff. I really, really love Damien Echols. As Howard Stern would say, he shits gold bullions. And Poor Jason, he went into prison looking kind of cute and left looking like the biggest nerd I have ever seen. And Jessie, that clock tattoo on his head makes my mouth water.

      What’s my point? IDK. I thought I would write something really off the wall like someone else I know….TTFN

  25. Posting here is about as useful as tits on a bull.

    The best anyone could do to refute any of my points is, “Haha, you said ‘imagination,’ well you NEED imagination to to think the world is round, I mean to think we evolved from apes, I mean to think there’s global climate change, I mean to think the WM3 are innocent!”

    1. Joey, I think some of your points are good. It would be so easy for me to become enamored by the WM3 (not that you are!) and find reasons these three are innocent.

      Damien comes off as intelligent and charming, Jason is pure child-like innocence, Jesse is trying to live life without confessing again.

      I would love for Jason to do a polygraph. Maybe it could be “set up” by the directors just like JMBs! Doubt that would happen.

      Anyway, I can understand why it is so hard to think of these three as guilty.

      1. Thank you for giving me a little more credit than to think that I’m just enamored by the WM3.

        Honestly, my interest in this case is not so much about being convinced beyond all shadow of a doubt that they’re innocent, it’s about finding nothing particularly convincing that speaks to their guilt. There’s really a huge difference.

        People who are convinced of their guilt (based, I would suggest, on paltry evidence that’s mostly circumstancial) seem completely adverse to strongly (and objectively) looking long and hard at other suspects…as if that notion is offensive to them.

        Perhaps pre-2007 one could consider that acceptable. But now that we know what we know about Terry Hobbs (which no one even CONSIDERED before then, not Berlinger and Sinofsky, not Mara Leveritt, not even the WMPD, apparently) there is no excuse for that line of thinking. At VERY LEAST there is equally enough evidence (circumstancial and otherwise) that points to his potential involvement as there ever was for the WM3. Honestly, I think there is far more compelling evidence, but that can be decided by the individual.

        And not to sound like a broken record, but Bojangles is still very troubling to me. I mean, is it a coincidence that a muddy blood covered transient was staggering around a mile from the dump/murder site right around the time of the murders? I suppose it could be…but that alone, and its botched follow-up, would have been enough shadow of a doubt for me to not sentence someone to death.

        Once again, just my opinion.

        1. I totally get not being convinced of their guilt. I think that is why this case is so interesting – it COULD go either way. Due to the lack of direct, concrete evidence many of us “nons” (not all) would gladly accept defeat if Terry Hobbs admitted the “manhole theory”.

          Bojangles has always been very troubling to me too. Was he there? Weird.

          My gut tells me the WM3 did it. But since there is the lack of physical evidence, it is debatable.

          1. I’m glad we can agree to agree then…even if we disagree!

            But, by your rationale, the WMPD and the state of Arkansas should still be interested in seeking the truth, don’t you agree? Because the fact is, they’re not. They’re content to let it all go away and never hear about the mess again.

            That troubles me.

          2. I think the state believes the WM3 committed the murders, therefore they do not have to investigate.
            If there had been more child murders(of this nature) after the WM3 were convicted, they would be investigating their butts off. But there isn’t. We all wish there would be more physical evidence either way, but it is what it is. I don’t think we will ever get a for sure answer. Either way, they won’t kill again.

    2. @ Jason

      I actually think tits on a bull is useful. That’s where Schlitz Malt Liquor comes from.

      We can all go back and forth all day every day. You say blue, I say green. You will always say blue and I will always say green. The answer REALLY lies with those three corn dogs that should still be in prison. I still contend that when Jessie is on his death bed, he will yet again confess, if not sooner. But as always, it will be discounted because of the three, he’s the self-proclaimed idiot of the bunch. If I was stuck on a deserted island with those three, the only one I could trust would be Jessie.

    1. Nah, I’ll stick around here for a little while longer, Tom. I get kicks out of watching your hick-ass trying to put together a coherent setence.


  26. Just one question for everyone. If you saw three kids murderd, and you were going to prison for life,and you get offered a smaller sentence to testify against. What would be reason not to testify if you honestly saw the murders? I know if it were me and I really saw it,hell yeah I would testify…unless??

    1. unless you were afraid that you’d be beaten, raped, killed in prison for being a snitch. isn’t that the code followed by prisoners? also, don’t prisoners who admit to child killings fall to the bottom of the food chain in prisons? he was probably scared of what was coming without making it worse for himself i would guess.

    2. If it is being filmed for a movie, your family says you better not get up there and testify, and your attorney begs you not to and tells you that you will win on appeal. I believe Paradise Lost altered things — Dan Stidham was no longer thinking of the best interests of his client; he was instead thinking of how to advance his career. And it worked out for Dan (not Jessie), thanks in part for Paradise Lost leaving the post-conviction confessions on the cutting room floor.

      1. @ Dog

        You hit the nail on the head where a lot of supporters are so blinded and brainwashed by, HBO and Peter.

        This has turned into a gold mine for these three organizations and people. There has been so much money made off these poor dead kids. wants to keep this going as long as possible since the money is still coming into their organization and why not? They must live a very good life. worst fears would be to find a definitive end to the big question of who REALLY did this. In my mind, it’s still the three, BUT wants to keep this question going so they can keep lining their pockets. Ditto for HBO, Peter and the defense lawyers. For the lawyers, it’s free advertisement and recognition.

        The supporters just keep throwing their money and these thieves keep taking it. I sincerely believe the question will never be answered to the satisfaction of both sides, ever. I just don’t think the evidence exists, the type of evidence needed these days, to send these guys either back to prison or clear their names.

        But that’s ok for and their ilk, as long as the question still stands, they stand to make more and more money and the faces of the three children are faded into distant memory while these three creeps faces are everywhere and touted as heroes. The joke is on the supporters. These three creeps are stunned they not only “got away with it” but that they’ve become folk heroes to boot. As P.T Barnum once said “There’s a sucker born every minute” and one only needs to look at WM3 supporters to know that’s true.

    3. I would think it is not always so cut and dry. Maybe for some personalities testifying would be simply too difficult. Being new to this I obviously am not up on all of the facts yet, but if Jesse was easily influenced or intimidated by DE and JB, the actuality of getting up in front of them and facing them and testifying against them could have simply been too much. And while it seems to go against the whole self preservation thing to pass up getting a reduced sentence, at face value, so does a false confession.
      People are strange and complex creatures.

      1. Geez Louise, I’m not sure exactly where it’s at, but there’s a mention of Jessie actually getting immunity during one of his confessions. They actually had a hearing on it. Do you know what stopped him from taking the deal? The fears you just mentioned. Were he granted immunity the judge said the prosecution could call him as a witness and he’d testify in DE and JB’s trail. No matter if he wanted to or not, immunity would have opened him up to having to testify.

        Now the supporters say he didn’t take the deal because he was lying during the “confessions.” The nons say he didn’t take it because he was scared of what would happen. I tend to fall into the latter category. I think he was scared of what would happen to him if he were to stand before Damien and Jason and tell the truth. That is backed up by the reports that he was silenced during the screening of PS3.

        NO ONE wants Jessie to talk. If he opened his mouth there’s a chance no one will believe him if he actually did confess again. So no one wants to hear what he has to say. And THAT is why I think he’s the one who has been done wrong too.

        I’m NOT saying he’s worse off then the kids. I don’t believe anyone is. But it makes me compassionate toward him. I still say he’s guilty. But my heart goes out to him because he TRIED to correct the wrong he did. Just, by the time he did it and was completely honest about it, no one wanted to hear his side of the story. They were more focus on how “innocent” Damien and Jason were.

        1. Do you tend to fall into the latter category, Lori? That’s fascinating. Please go on, I’d love to hear more about what categories you tend to fall into. Of the categories “Douchebag” or “Twat,” which do you tend to fall into? The former or the latter?

          1. You are s0 funny, Joey! Everytime I read one of your acerbic responses to what a non has posted, it makes me giggle. Then you include profanity, to further insult the poster – genious! You should really put your little adages together and publish them. I’m sure you’ll find a market within the supporter groups – since they tend to fall back on insults when attempting to dispute facts.
            I look forward to seeing how you’ll respond to my post – hopefully it will include a vulgar word or two – maybe throw in a blasphemy for good measure – since it would appear you have an issue with God, as well (nothing wrong with being a diverse hater!) – thanks in advance!

          2. Well, Christina, I aim to please.

            Look…I’m being reactionary to what I view as ignorance. You’re right, name calling doesn’t help my case, but what can I say, it gives me a chuckle. I have no doubt you think I’m ignorant for feeling you’re ignorant, but let’s take a closer look, shall we:

            I called Lori a twat because nowhere in her long post does she actually make a point worthy of discussion. She presents her opinion, not facts, hence the insult. It’s not that I can’t think of any way to dispute her facts, it’s that there’s nothing one can say to sway one’s staunch opinions, so why bother?

            Example: “I think he was scared of what would happen to him if he were to stand before Damien and Jason and tell the truth.” (opinion)

            Example: “NO ONE wants Jessie to talk. If he opened his mouth there’s a chance no one will believe him if he actually did confess again. So no one wants to hear what he has to say.” (opinion stated as fact)

            Example: “I still say he’s guilty. But my heart goes out to him because he TRIED to correct the wrong he did. Just, by the time he did it and was completely honest about it, no one wanted to hear his side of the story.” (opinion and opinion stated as fact)

            I submit that Lori isn’t interested in disputing facts, she is interested in asserting her opinion. I therefor assert my opinion that she is a twat. And if you disagree, I assert my opinion that you are a vagina. Feel free to disagree.

  27. Originally the producers of PL were going to film the teenage killers. It wasn’t until they started filming that they realized they were innocent. Then to hear all the people the testified to see devil worshipping or to hear a confession from Jason were all lying.

    1. @ Bridget

      You are incorrect. At FIRST the Pl producers were making a film about three teenagers “seemingly” getting a bad shake because of their “supposed” ties to withcraft and because they liked Metallica. got on the bandwagon also to try and seperate good withcraft from bad witcraft from the case so people will not think “witchcraft” in general is not a bad thing.

      It was only after a while did see a goldmine to line their own pockets, which they are still doing as a “for profit” business. PL producers were only out to make the people of this small town, including their police, look like complete idiots and they also saw it as a goldmine for themselves. You need to really, really think about this.

      Aside from that, I am late to this thread and the video is no longer accesible. Would have like to see it. What happened to it? Law suit fear?

      1. Lawsuit fear is probably right…the band who provided the music for it probably said, “We don’t want our song being illegally used for this shit.”

        Gold mine? Are you fucking serious? There’s about as much money in documentary filmmaking as there is in the theatre, which is to say…not much. The idea that Berlinger and Sinofsky have been working on this series on and off for EIGHTEEN YEARS is because of money is preposterous. Do you realize how remarkably stupid that is? La Mara? Do you realize that you’re an idiot if you really believe that? I’d go one farther, do you realize that you’re a fucking idiot of you really believe that? La Mara? Just curious.

        1. Actually, Paradise Lost really launched their careers because of the controversy it caused. That would not have happened if the movie seemed like an open and shut case. Now they are attending premiers with Jennifer Anniston, as an example.

          Have you seen My Brother’s Keeper — Bruce and Joe’s documentary they made right before Paradise Lost? About a murder trial where the defendant is retarded and falsely confessed? Hmm… sound familiar?

          1. Yes, I have seen Brother’s Keeper. Actually, I’m surprised you have, being that THAT’S what launched their careers.

        2. @ Joey

          I wasn’t talking so much about the money HBO made with the docs. That was pure chump-change to HBO. I am talking more along the lines of raking in the cash. This was an organization that was started by Wiccans who saw these three getting small-town bashed because of their “supposed” ties to “witchcraft”. There was no effort on the part of the townsfolk or the cops to seperate “good” witchcraft from “bad” hence enters which was, at the time of the first PL1, just a bunch of concerned Wiccans. Once they figured out they could make Tshirts and sell them, the world was their oyster.

          And as for your use for vulgar language to make your point, in my mind, only underscores the fact that your penis is of minuscule proportions. Make sure you read everything and stop twisting things like supporters are famous for.
          I won’t be baited by your insults because you are insignificant not only to me, but I am sure to bet most of the world as well.

  28. I just have a question,,,, if u were going to murder your child, why would you murder two other people’s children? Why wouldn’t you wait until u had your child alone? Wouldn’t that be much easier? If u accidentally killed your child, and there were 2 friends that saw it, why wouldn’t u just tell them it was an accident and be done with it? Just wondering,,,,

    1. Statistically, this crime does not point to a parent of one of the children. Criminal profiling is interesting to me, my husband is a money manager, and we have great conversations as the two are very similar. Both are fatally flawed in that they deal in human behavior, which is not absolute. Statistics, logic, common sense, and a fair amount of guessing, its still gambling. You can place the same bet 100, 500, 10,000 times and get a reliable return, and on the 10,001 time, make a bad call.

      Being a betting person, I would place this bet.

      1. lol, geez I suck at this whole ‘communicating effectively’ thing. I should clarify, I would bet against parental involvement.

        1. Hey Kristi…

          …if Terry Hobbs is the killer, it’s possible that whatever altercation went down in the woods, it started with abuse, then got out of hand. If Hobbs took things too far, it’s possible Stevie could have accidentally been killed, and the other boys would have to be silenced.

          May sound far-fetched to you, but it’s far more likely that the murders were committed by someone who knew the boys than three random townies who decided on a thrill-kill.

    2. Really? That’s your question? Are you for real?

      “I’m sorry, boys. I didn’t mean to hit him so hard that I killed him! I was just mad and couldn’t control myself. It was an accident. I should have waited until later when I had him alone. Now, you just go on home now and let’s just be done with it, OK?”

  29. I’ve been reading “Almost Home”.

    Damien goes on for quite a bit about reading and studying Aliester Crowley. So which is it? Another lie on the witness stand or lying in the book?
    He also clears up the rumor he tried to gouge someones’s eye out. Yes, he was in a fight with a kid that supposedly Deanna gave sexual favors. He says he left a scratch on the kid’s face. I’m betting that scratch looks some predator predation.

    1. You can read the other kid’s account of the “fight” here:

      Shane Divilbiss: “He threatened to kill Deanna threatened to kill several of my family members just not my uncle but several others. He threatened to kill me and then later came up behind me in the hallway while I was at my locker I knew he was back there so I just started to walk I didn’t look at him or anything he jumped on me from behind draggin me down to the ground and clawing at my face with his fingernails.”

      1. Shit, you mean Damien got into a fight with someone? Threatened to kill someone? Well fuck, he must’ve been the only hick in West Memphis with that in his profile. I can’t imagine anyone else in West Memphis who could have possibly committed these murders, being that Damien got into a fight and threatened to kill “several others.”

        Especially when everyone else close to the victims was so Goddamn squeaky clean, now I can see why certain people weren’t even investigated.

    1. Yeah, Tom! You stick it to ’em! “Digusting.” Don’t know how you argue with that.

      Hey, Tom, I have an idea, why don’t you write another post telling us how disgusting you think the WM3 are? I think it’s an interesting point, dare I say, even a new way of looking at the case. I eagerly await your next post, Tom. Please don’t let me down.

  30. Tom, my guess is you can take the boys out of the trailer park, but you can’t take the trailer park mentality out of the men who they’ve become.

  31. Wow. Next time Compassionate Reader comes here and tells us how anti-social, abusive and nasty nons are, can sombody please direct her to Joey’s posts?

    1. Being that precious few nons out there are willing to engage in legitimate debate, or honestly consider aspects of the other side, I resort to fucking around. It’s all in good fun, I swear. And if you don’t like it…bite my balls.

          1. Then it would excite you a little? Are you bi-curious, Tom? Not that there’s anything wrong with that at all, I’m perfectly tolerant, and I would hope everyone on this board is as well.

  32. Not really relating to actual guilt or innocence, what was the local climate after the WM3 were arrested and charged? I would imagine that until there was an arrest(s), that there would be a panic, especially with families with young children, especially boys. A sense of (false?)security that the monster(s) is off the street.
    How far away did the jury come from? Im not positive it would ultimately matter though, especially with such a horrifying crime, especially where it involved such vulnerable people, little children. Wanting someone(s) held responsible, held accountable, punished. Wanting some form of justice. It had to have been a terrifying time. I really am not quite sure what I am trying to say.
    I think any defendant would be disadvantage with a crime like this. While I am not sure it would have ultimately mattered, I do think a local jury, locals who live in the thick of things, brings its own prejudices. I really hope that is not taken the wrong way.

    When a child local to where I am, was taken from the sidewalk in front of his house into the woods near his house (he managed to get away safely), my town was a wreck, people were scared. When there was an arrest, things pretty much went back to normal, kids were allowed back out, and so resumed life, people felt safe again. That bubble of illusion of safety that had been pierced had now been mended as they got the bad guy. Local’s would not be heard asking if they got the right guy, but rather expressing relief that they had caught the guy. Hell, we didn’t need a trial, there was never any talk of presumption of innocence. Too much emotion was involved, the monster was too close, people were too scared. There was no talk of impartiality, how could there be, we lived here, it was our town and we wanted to feel safe. We needed to believe they got the right guy.
    I promise I will work on being so wordy. I tend to get lost in my thoughts (not a pretty place lol). And like I said at the beginning, this is not really about actual guilt or innocence, but unintentional leanings or prejudices a local jury may have.

    I also feel there are issues with how to try multiple defendants. Is a jury impacted by knowing a verdict of one of the defendants? Is it possible? Even on some minute level, I would think it has to have an impact.

    Would it have made any difference with a different jury? I am not saying it would have, I have no idea. I don’t believe anyone wants to punish the wrong person, I just think its very complicated.

    I have been learning this case for very little time, yet I have already on several occasions have had to step away. Many times already I have questioned my ability to look for facts and not let emotion run rampant. Its really hard. Im a pretty bad armchair jurist.

    Question regarding the 3 different types of knots. Were they common knots? I would think this points toward multiple people being involved, it could be one person trying to make it look like multiple people, though many things so far have led me toward multiple. I know a few different knots, but will generally just do one. I’m not sure this would matter, but I am wondering if they ever connected or tried to connect each knot to one of the 3. Not that it would be necessarily evidence, I am more just curious if they were able to introduce any evidence that each one had an inclination for certain knots and if it matched up with the knots on the boys.

  33. Hi Geeze Louise,

    The WM climate in the wake of the murders was frenzied, to say the least. The community was, indeed, collectively horrified and there was a great deal of pressure for the police to find their man — or men, as it were. The book “Blood of Innocents,” released a year or so after the trials gives a good recounting of the initial investigation and the many blind leads and dead ends the authorities faced. Of course, what it doesn’t sufficiently address, what no one has been able to sufficiently address, is why Terry Hobbs was seemingly not even investigated in the least, to the extent that he was never formally questioned. I mean, it seems like the WMPD were questioning EVERYONE. Their lack of curiosity regarding a step-father (who, as it turns out, had a highly questionable past, a problematic alibi, and who skipped town and got a lawyer shortly after the murders…not to mention who had caught his wife cheating on him and threatened revenge shortly before the murders) is, frankly, astounding.

    But, all of that aside, you’re right, it would be hard to find a completely unbiased jury. Still, that said, the actions of Kent Arnold, jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial, acted HIGHLY unethically…I’m no lawyer, but I submit he acted CRIMINALLY in getting himself placed on the jury and jockeying for the position of jury foreman, all the while plotting and planning on finding them guilty from the outset. He was WELL aware of the Misskelly trial and was consulting with an attorney DURING the Echols/Baldwin trial about how to find them guilty, and venting his frustration that the Misskelly confession couldn’t be admitted. He took a vigilante attitude about the whole thing and decided it was HIS JOB to take justice into his own hands and guarantee that the jury would find them guilty. Sorry, but that right there pokes a very big hole in the nons continuing chant of “a jury of their peers found them guilty!” There was juror misconduct at play here, and had this been known at the time, there would most certainly have been a mistrial.

    Per your question about the knots, the fact is this: they were all half-hitches. Different types of knots? Not really. Just varying in how many “hitches.” Some knots were one half hitch, some knots were two half hitches, some were three. You can characterize them any number of ways, but there’s no compelling reason to believe they weren’t all done by the same hand. For instance, in the trial, when trying to suggest there were three types of knots, one was characterized as a “double half hitch.” This is the same as “two half hitches.” Per the trial transcript this was corrected, I’m not making it up.

    1. Good morning
      Thank you for your response. I will be sure to check out the book you recommended.

      I thought I was going to be at an advantage coming into this case. I thought that I would be able to simply look at the transcripts, the evidence presented, and walk away with with my own clear cut verdict. Since I knew so little, have not followed current media and seemingly may be one of only a handful who has not seen Paradise Lost, I thought I could be more objective

      I have read so much, and really have just only touched the surface of all the transcripts and documents. Trying to work my way through the trial chronologically, I always seem to wander off with questions or thoughts that pop up that take me off my desired chronological path.

      I think it is important to gage the climate, to as best I can, feel the atmosphere. Strike that, more than important, I believe it is critical. And so here I am, attempting to get this ‘feel’ so I can read all this information in a more full, complete context. (not sure how much sense that makes)

      What you wrote about the jury foreman, that is very disconcerting. When did that information come to light? There is so much, its not just about the verdict and if a proper or correct verdict was reached, but how it was reached.

      I am learning that I am not objective, and am struggling. I had asked about the jury, about hearing a verdict of a codefendant and its effects. I realized that I have come into this with my own prejudices which were not known or realized until I started thinking about the jury, that I came into this with a leaning toward guilt. With knowing so very little about the case, I conclude my leanings are as a result of the guilty verdict, a verdict that upon learning, I did not question. Somewhere I simply accepted the verdict of guilt as fact of guilt. This was not done on a conscious level, but I believe it was done quickly and quietly in the recesses of my mind, not to be discovered until recently in thinking about the jury. I am going to have to keep this in mind as I learn more about this case.

      Thanks for reading

        1. I have only read two articles so far, but it is interesting to read the local press coverage from around the time Christopher, Michael and Stevie were murdered. I am not trying to gather facts via the press, but more using it to help get a feel for the general atmosphere.

          1. It’s very interesting to look at the general atmosphere surrounding this case. In the micro sense, you can look at the Commercial Appeal and AP articles about West Memphis, but in the macro sense, you should look read about the Satanic Panic, which had the whole country gripped in fear from (roughly) the mid-80s to the mid-90s. Geraldo’s special on the subject is particularly lurid and ridiculous:


            When you get around to reading “Blood of Innocents” (which was published before Paradise Lost aired, and which doesn’t dispute the “guilt” of the WM3), you’ll find that in conducting their interviews, the WMPD kept hearing about Satanists and cults, which caused them to narrow their focus. A little research on the Satanic Panic will show you that Satanic cults (specifically, ones that kill people) don’t exist, despite the fact that during this decade they were supposedly responsible for killing THOUSANDS of people. THOUSANDS. TENS of thousands. HUNDREDS of thousands, by some accounts. Can’t make this stuff up.

  34. I am more inclined to believe that these three are guilty of the crime.
    I say wait a year or so and watch the marriage of Lorri and Damien fall apart and see what happens from there. Wait for the donations to dry up and watch what happens.

  35. Doesn’t sound like you’re seeking answers, Seeking Answes. Sounds like you’re inclined to wait until the marriage of Lorri and Damien falls apart (which would, like, so totally prove he’s guilty) and then wait until donations dry up (which would, like, so totally lead to Damien robbing a convenience store). Then, like, Lorri will so totally come forward and say something that implicates Damien.

    I wonder if you got this idea because of the damning things Terry Hobbs told his ex, Sharon Nelson. You know…about discovering the bodies of the boys during his search in the woods that night?

  36. Used to be able to connect with Jessie’s Facebook page directly from Facebook. Now can only check Jason’s and Damien’s. Hmmmm? Wonder why that is.

  37. Joey, I don’t believe Damien, Jessie and Jason were murdering these children as part of a Satanic ritual, pleez!!!! Deanna herself said that he was into vampires. In one of Jessie’s confessions he said one of them had their face in the area of their genitals, and this would back up The statement that Stidhams expert profiler made about the bite marks around the thighs and genitals, also in Damien’s 500 mental profile he tries to or succeeds to suck the blood out of someone’s wound after he attacks them.

    1. You’re right, Fogelman should have trotted out Bram Stoker instead of Stephen King.

      One problem with your theory: He changed his name to Damien, not Vlad.

  38. If Sundance was a harbinger of things to come, look for these match-ups taking a less than kind turn: Kathy, Grove and Burk vs. Lorri, Capi and Brent. Joe and Bruce vs. Sir Peter and Amy. PL3 vs. West of Memphis. Damien and Jason vs. Jessie.

        1. Please let me know when that happens, Stacia. I look forward to it as much as you do.

          As for you, Word from a Bird, or whatever the hell your name is…I think you’re far too clever for your own good. Your handle makes no sense. Your comments make no sense. Just speak in coherent sentences, please, that we may all know what you’re trying to say.

          “When you cry for justice, be careful with what you’ve wished for”? Meaning…justice will be served? I’d have a better idea of what you were talking about if it at all related to your first post. Does it have anything to do with your first post? Do you even know?

    1. Well, let’s see, Kristi. Being that no one waved a magic wand, there must be a reason.

      Could it be because…they were a few months away from proving they didn’t commit the murders when the state started to shit a brick, realizing that they would be sued for millions and would, in all probability, lose, therefor it was in the state’s interest to dangle freedom in front of their eyes in exchange for a swift (and cheap) alternative?

      “But, but, but,” cry the nons, “if I was really innocent I would NEVER plead guilty.”

      I love how everyone knows exactly how they would react to the situation, being that it’s doubtful they’ve ever spent 18 years of their lives in prison. It’s so easy to be so strong and principled from outside of a prison cell.

      If I spent 18 years in the pen (particularly death row) for something I didn’t do, and I had a trial a few months away, I’d take the deal and get out of dodge. Then, like the WM3, I’d continue to fight for exoneration from the outside.

      If you think it’s not possible for an innocent person to take an Alford Plea and call it a day, you probably also believe innocent people never confess to crimes they didn’t committ. In which case, you’re a sap.

      (was that PG enough for you, Stacia?)

      1. Joey–

        You might as well save your breath. As educated and informed about the case as you are, others on this “discussion” are so caught up in their own delusions that 3 teenagers that, as they say, are so fucked up that they have years and years of evidence proving so therefore they must be the killers, that they can’t even stop for one second to realize that those same fucked up teenagers were apparently so good that they cleaned up the scene, the bodies, and the entire area and left NOT ONE SHED OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE behind. Hmm…I would think that 3 irresponsible trailer trash thugs who were out for a thrill “sacrifice” couldn’t possibly have had the smarts about them to clean it up that well. Not only is that stupid, it’s impossible.

        And, to Lori above—you may have visited Grandma every summer in AR but I LIVED in AR for the first 12 years of my life and lived in Memphis when this happened and I can tell you this—I have seen and been snapped at by some pretty huge turtles in my lifetime. My dad used to come home from hunting, having caught one of them and it literally took up half of the back of his truck. And they were MEAN. So, yes, I think it IS possible for some animals, either in the water or out of, to have done some damage. No one ever said the animals did ALL the damage. Someone beat the crap out of those kids first. But, in response to your post, the whole “turtle” theory is quite possible. I’ve seen it with my own eyes!

        See Joey–no matter how much evidence you tell these people that points not necessarily to Damien, Jason, and Jessie’s innocence, but to the fact that there are others, particularly one, that had the opportunity, the means, the background knowledge of the area, the kids and the hogtie technique, and most importantly, THE MOTIVE, the more they seem to bring up all the silly crap that was reported during the confessions and the Satanic theory. I realize that they think PL was the reason for everyone’s support of the WM3, but they are the ones quoting everything said during that fake witch trial with Elmer Fudd sitting on the bench. They are the ones leaving out all the evidence that has come out since then. They are the ones reading in to everything that a child with an IQ of 70 said so that he could get the reward money and buy his Daddy a truck.

        Here’s the thing–you were right when you said that AR let them out because of money because—what State, Court, or Judge lets someone walk off of death row if they think they are truly guilty? Even Ellison himself said that if he went to trial with the evidence now that he would have his ass handed to him. Alford Plea or not, the state of AR was trying to save their ass and their pocket books because they KNEW they didn’t have anything substantial. I grew up (and my paternal side of my family still lives) only 3 miles from Cummings and Varner and I have been around that prison and the people that work there my whole life. I am telling you that there is no way that if they had even one thing, as small as it may be, against them that they would have been allowed to walk out.

        Did they kill those kids? Maybe. I don’t see how or why they could have and done such a clean job but anything is possible, I guess.
        Did the Bojangles dude have something to do with it? Maybe. The fact is that he should have been thoroughly investigated and we could possibly know for sure.
        Did Terry Hobbs have motive and the temperament to do it? I don’t think that even has to be argued as it has been proven time and time again that he does.

        Anyway, Joey–I have ranted enough. I agree with you 100% but it was frustrating me to read everyone else’s comments back to you because it makes them all appear so stupid. No one knows for sure what happened but we do know that there is more than one person that could have done it. Why can’t they see that? I don’t know either!

        Word of advice to others: Follow the PHYSICAL evidence from the beginning of the case. Don’t listen or read into any of the rumors or opinions. Look at the testimony of Damien, Jason, Jessie, and Terry Hobbs and then compare that with the physical evidence. IF you can open your mind long enough to do that, I think you might have a change in opinion.

  39. Joey, do your homework, Braga was the one who brought the idea of the Alford to the state, not the other way around. Lucky for him Ellington was less than fully educated on the nuances of this case, weird that Braga wouldn’t just wait a little longer if they were so certain a re-trial would occur, where all evidence would have been presented, and they could have finally gotten their precious not guilty verdict everyone says they wanted so badly. Why pick the alternative which says ” we accept enough evidence exists to convict us a second time” and in the eyes of the state, remain guilty? They are not going to be pardoned, this case is closed, they are seen as guilty in the eyes of the law, regardless of whether they still “profess their innocence”. Though they can use the excuse of chasing a pardon as a tool to continue to lap up the millions of dollars they have accumulated off the three dead boys.

    1. I think most of what you just said there is factually correct. Keep in mind, that Ellington has said that the state would open itself to lawsuits in excess of $60 million if the convictions were overturned, and the WM3 had to sign agreements that they would never sue the state before they were released.

      The case is closed in the eyes of the state, but there’s money and a will to see the WM3 receive their exoneration, and to see the “real” killer/killers brought to justice…or at least the truth to be known. So we’ll see if the coming months/years yield anything further.

  40. So understanably, I am being sucked in by the intrigue surrounding this case. Suprisingly, I first heard abut it a few weeks ago when I watched it on the HBO documentary. Isn’t the HBO documnetary supposed to be in support of the 3 teenagers? Because after watching it, I came to the conclusion that they are guilty. I didn’t just stop there…I’ve read the police reports and other website materials that give the other intersting theories about the two step fathers and mr. bojangles. I keep coming back to one thing. Jessie Misskelley. Why did he confess not once but 3 or 4 times? Some say it was to get a reward but, the first time he was questioned he denied involvement. Why did he again confess AFTER he was convicted and sentenced? That part intrigues me. I think we should watch for Jessie to make another confession later in life. Sure, he recanted his confessions when he was doing hard prison time and was labeled a snitch…thats survival…anyone would have done that. I think Mr Jessie has a conscience.

    1. Yes, he is the only one who has a conscience. Unfortunately, he could confess hundreds of times and supporters would just keep calling him retarded.

      1. No, we keep calling YOU retarted, Stacia.

        I’m just kidding. You’re not so bad.

        Now SHARI, on the other hand…

        …I’m just kidding, Shari. I know you’re new to the case and just feeling your way around. Might I direct you to Google, wherein you should run a search on “false confessions.” The Norfolk Four is a particularly interesting case to look at, but you should familiarize yourself with the general case history of false confessions, and the fact that they are unfortunately much more common than you would think. Just because YOU are pretty certain you would never confess to something you didn’t do, doesn’t mean NO ONE would ever confess to something they didn’t do.

        1. Learn to spell “retarded” you retard. And it’s not retarded anymore as the twenty-something on the blackboard will remind you it’s “mentally deficient”.

  41. Forgot to mention in my last post that Terry Hobbs sounds incredibly guilty also, unfortunaetly the damning things about him involve alot of heresay and no actual evidence.

    PS to respond to the other posts above. They are probably disassociating themselves from Jessie publicly becasue they know he’s a loose cannon. BTW Jessie and Damien are FB friends.

    1. Yes, there is an awful lot of hearsay about Hobbs. And there’s actually a pesky little beard hair of his that constitutes THE ONLY shred of DNA evidence in this whole case. Look it up. It’s more “actual evidence” than they got on the WM3.

  42. Does anyone know if anything has ever been said at the trials or on this board about the knots used to bind the victims being boy scout knots? I don’t know enough about knots to know how common boy scout knots are.

    1. All the knots are half-hitches or reverse half-hitches, some knots are double half-hitches or triple half-hitches, and referred to differently, hence the misrepresentation of them as different kinds of knots. These are pretty standard, simple knots.

  43. Word from a bird is right! I’m hearing Jessie going to spill it on the WM3 again! Can’t take the guilt and coming forward soon…. Sorry Joey looks like NYT has got him on tape again during interview in Utah. Be careful Joey… and lock your doors WM3 could be in your neighborhood soon…. Spooky just like that freak Damien the WM bogeyman…

    1. @ Evil

      If this is true, I predicted this long ago. He cant live with the pressure or the guilt. It would be beyond funny. Here is Damien in New Zealand (or?) and Jason waving to Mickey Mouse and Jessie is back home and misses getting horned in the ya-ya, so he wants to go back to prison and make love, not war.

      I’m starting to think Joey was his bunk mate. And who calls themselves Joey after their 30 years old? Makes me assume that Joey here is another Prius loving 20-something with a rubber “Free WM3” bracelet around his wrist that he got from 7-11. I thought I could refrain from slamming Joey-Blowey, but I find that I am completely bored and need amusement.

      It is evident thst Jessie is the ugly step-child in this whole thing. He, among the three, is the least interested in celebrating his release. He among the three, is the least interested in reaping financial reward from this fiasco. Although, Peter Breath did help him get an apartment, Jessie out of the three is the one that wants to detach himself from this carnival ride the most and just go on with his life, but there’s one problem: the guilt is eating him up like you wouldn’t believe.

      Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a plane to catch. Vacation time. I plan on going to South America and seeing how my banana farm is doing. See you when I see you, and if I don’t see you, see you!

      La Mara Salva!

  44. WM3 are really lucky that they were released on the DNA evidence. After all, not much DNA was collected that could be tested. The DNA that was tested all belonged to the 3 little boys except for the hair found in the knot of the shoelaces.
    In 2008 a request for a retrial was denied, citing the DNA tests as inconclusive. The hair found in the laces was “not inconsistant” with Terry Hobbs but analytical results didn’t actually show that it was from Terry Hobbs…just that it was “not inconsistant”. I believe that they performed mtDNA which would have pointed to other relatives of Terry Hobbs as well.
    The fact that trace DNA evidence of one of the step-fathers was found is not a huge mystery. On any given day, at any given time, we all carry trace DNA evidence of the people (and pets) in our circles.
    And yes JOEY, LOL of course I read about the DNA evidence. I’ve read police and lab reports. I myself work in an analytical laboratory with instruments not unlike the ones used to do the DNA profiling so things of this nature interest me.
    What about Damien’s necklace? Unfortunately, no trace evidence remains (or not enough) to do further testing.
    I was particularly interested in the info about all 3 failing lie detector tests. Yes, polygraph doesn’t hold up in court but it’s pretty darn interesting. Also, isn’t it odd that the witnesses that were polygraphed all passed?
    This case isn’t about 3 poor picked on teens that were singled out and picked on because they lived in ‘the bible belt’ area, wore black Metallica T-shirts, listened to heavy metal music, and occasionally dabbled in the occult. I believe that’s exactly what the campaign to free the WM3 is trying to make it look like.
    As a side note: I grew up listening to Metallica with a predilection to wearing black clothing and drinking. That wasn’t Damien’s problem. He had much bigger problems.

    1. The DNA that was tested all belonged to the 3 little boys except for the hair found in the knot of the shoelaces.

      I don’t think this is true. My understanding is that much of the DNA tested did not match anyone specifically, not the victims or the killers or the parents or any other specific individual. But I confess the DNA stuff still confuses me. The DNA reports are here (exhibits P through W):

      Also, there’s no evidence that the matching hair was “found in the knot”. The crime lab documents called it simply “hair from ligature (Moore)”. The claim that it was found wedged in the knot is an embellishment by WM3 supporters.

      On any given day, at any given time, we all carry trace DNA evidence of the people (and pets) in our circles.


      I was particularly interested in the info about all 3 failing lie detector tests.

      Echols & Misskelley both failed. Baldwin never took a lie detector test.

      1. Thanks for the info and comments on the DNA, shoelaces (in the knot), and the polygraphs. I respect your posts and so I appreciate you clearing up the misconceptions. There is so much info to weed through that sometimes it’s hard to get to whats true and whats conjecture. I’m going to read the DNA report you linked to your comment.

  45. I’m asking WM3 truth to remove my statement above. It’s inaccurate. When I say:

    *6 pieces of DNA did not match the victims or Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley.

    This is incorrect.

    It should read:

    *6 samples that were analyzed did not match the victims DNA (mtDNA); specifically, the report said that the below items are not consistent with each other or any other evidence tested at that time. (Note: They did not do mtDNA testing on Echols, Baldwin, or Misskelley)
    -03Aa – Hair from M. Moore ligature
    -15 – Hair from C. Byers ligature
    -18A – Hair from sheet described as negroid hair fragment
    -21B– Hair from scout cap
    -23 – Hair from tree stump
    -27 – Dyed hair from white sheet used to cover S. Branch

    Since the report says that these are outliers (the 6 samples above) and cannot be attributed to the victims, lets hope that they tested these 6 samples against Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. I’ll keep reading and let you know what I find.

  46. This entire video still showcases no physical evidence that guarantees the guilt of the WM3. You cannot (or should not) convict based off of all this non circumstantial, second-hand “evidence” of 1) polygraph tests that are not court-worthy, accurate nor absolute tests; 2) luminol tests that show there was blood at the scene in the exact location of where three bloody bodies were found; 3) coerced partial confessions and multiple statements from an individual with an IQ of 72; 4) the fact that three teenagers without much of (or any) scheduled commitments don’t have a solid alibi – remember when you were a teen?; 5) a whiskey bottle found by the highway… really??; 6) longer, adult-sized shoelaces used to tie one of the victims…so what?; 7) a great dane killing storied by a teen cousin; 8) blood on a necklace that matches blood from over 13% of the population (including Damien’s and Jason’s) – ever hear of “blood brothers” amongst friends?; 9) Exhibit 500 has no direct linkage to the murders or the murderers, it’s all second hand. What a shame – those poor little boys and those three teens who all lost their lives to this case. And what a shame that there’s not more being done to use the physical evidence to find the real killers… absurd!

  47. .. There’s a reason that polygraphs are not used as evidence.
    .. They are not the only people to fail a polygraph relating to these crimes
    .. Jessie is not the only person to “confess” to the murders
    .. Terry Hobbs also has no solid alibi & tried to lie about it
    .. The part about the skull found is in the special features of Paradise Lost.. that means NOTHING. my boyfriend has all sorts of animal skulls from hunting, fishing, and becuase he’s a guy. that does not mean he worships satan and killed them for that reason.. or that he killed them at all.
    .. the blood found on Damiens necklace is significant but not the blood found on Byers’ knife? double standard?
    .. As for Damiens violent behaviors.. what about Terry Hobbs beating Pam & shooting her brother?

    .. Not to mention.. if someone truly believes in satanism & is hardcore into enough to actually sacrafice people for it, they will stand up for their beliefs in court. if they honestly thought that what they were doing was right.. to the point where they could kill someone.. they would have no problem defending that.

    1. Abby, have you seen Paradise Lost? I don’t think PL is a good factual source for evidence and truth about this case but your comment “if someone truly believes in satanism & is hardcore into enough to actually sacrafice people for it, they will stand up for their beliefs in court. if they honestly thought that what they were doing was right.. to the point where they could kill someone.. they would have no problem defending that.” just made me think about Damien’s behavior during trial. He isn’t apologetic and is almost boastful in his remarks and behavior.

  48. A few months ago I watched “Paradise Lost” & took an interest in the WM3 case. I have read a lot of material since then & checked out the different websites to see the opinions. Definitely a lot of hard core reactions on both sides. One thing that I can through into the fray is on the FBI profiling by John Douglas. His profiling was used in the wrongfull conviction of Guy Paul Morin for a 1984 murder of a 9 yr old girl in Queensville, Ontario, Canada. Morin was eventually found innocent once DNA testing was available. A Commission that reviewed the case found the following with respect to profiling.
    “The Commissioner found that the information investigators provided to Douglas may have been contaminated by their pre-conceived views. This highlights the wisdom of not conducting a profile once a suspect has been identified.”
    It seems that the recent profiling by WM3 supporters may be flawed for this reason.

  49. I spent time in rehab in the late 80’s. I heard all the stories about how so called “satanic” kids were going around killing people…..I thought it was COOL. I was 15 years old. I read about Rickey Kasso and how he killed his pal and brought people to see the decaying body….and how the other kids in his school were too scared to report it to the police….I am 100% convinced in my now “old age” that for some little doucher-goth-boy to decide to CHANGE his name to the same name as the boy in “the OMEN” to sit and find himself in the middle of a chance to KILL (like he was… by HIDING in the bushes as the 3 boys rode up on their bikes with his 2 other friends)
    and I am CONVINCED that the other parties were terrified (I.E. Jason and Jessie Misskelly) to act in opposition and I am also CERTAIN that in the end we have a PRE-COLUMBINE type assault that is NOT linked to satanism, is NOT linked to occultism, but is simply linked to THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW……I think that “Damien” which has for years been a JOKE to me that ANYBODY actually CALLS HIM THIS, it is NOT HIS NAME… is the name of the boy in the OMEN and a MADE UP name for our dear little friend…….and it is a totally OBVIOUS matter of fact that little so called “Damien” would reach out in his “satanic” powers that the 80’s afforded us to make his act seem like a step UP into the real of dungeons and freakin dragons that surrounded his white trash ass……. I am too full of contempt to make sense…I am absolutely CERTAIN that these 3 boys did this murder. So called “Damien” in particular

  50. My question is how do we explain the MULTIPLE confessions that Jessie made? I could understand the “Oh, the poor, mentally retarded kid was bullied into making a confession to the police” had than been the ONLY confession he made. Instead, he confesses to his lawyer, the police, Davis, and countless others………Why? And reading through them, they sound pretty convincing…..

    1. convincing ? jessie repeatly pariots what the cops and his lawyer say during the confession .he was fed info and that can’t be denied .

      answer me this – if they had beaten the kids with their fists why didn’t anyone notice brusies on the hands of the wm3 ? they would have been swollen , brusied , and scraped .

  51. But why keep confessing…even AFTER he was convicted he STILL confessed. At that point, there was nothing more to prove. Again, one confession, OK. But multiple? To his lawyer? The cops after he was convicted?

    And did anyone check for bruises on the fists of the WM3 immediately after the murders??

    I am not claiming they did it, but there ARE things the beg answers.

    1. Jessie, with nothing to gain and everything to lose in his last confession, says he did it because he wanted the truth to come out. He knew since he was in prison, he might get called a snitch, child murderer, if he wasnt already. Some supporters laugh at the bible confession because of his alleged occult membership but most believe he was just a follower not a leader and his roots were to God, not Satan. I feel, he held back in all of his confessions and didnt come totally clean though because I still think he had that fear of payback whether it be from legal consequences in the earlier confessions or prisoners code in the bible confession.

      1. In regards to ‘did anyone check for bruises on the fists of the WM3 immediately after the murders?’ and other related comments:

        Remember, these were 8 year old children that were being hit. During one of the confessions of Miskelley, he said that the children were easily subdued and made some reference to them being like ‘puppies’ or something like that…he painted a picture that the children were scared and docile. It doesn’t take much force to slap or punch around a child of 1/2 or 1/3 of your size. I seriously doubt that it would have left noticeable marks on the perp unless of course they were bitten or scratched by the children. By Misskelleys ‘confession’, none of the children scratched or bit.

  52. This thread alone proves that there is doubt. In the United States, you must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the boys committed this murder. This thread alone shoes the boys should have gotten off originally.

  53. The state of Arkansas obviously believed there was doubt when they released the WM3. If they had thought for one second that they had actual evidence that the WM3 did the murders they would have NEVER let them out of prison, let alone one of them off death row. This case was such a farce from the beginning. The WMPD needed to arrest someone….anyone…so they could say they solved the most horrific murder in their county. They knew they had three easy pickins’ when they arrested Damine, Jason and Jesse. Shame on them!

  54. Stacia,
    I been reading your comments here, well I been reading everyone’s but you asked Joey about TH and his timeline and what he did that day and here is my take on that.
    Think about this, you said a hair on a shoelace? so what I find my son’s hair on my shoelaces all the time.
    First of all it was not Stevie’s ligature that the hair was found on it was the other boy MM I believe that his hair was found on.
    Supposedly he didn’t see the boys that day, so if that is true then how did his hair get on MM’s ligature that MM was tied up with the day of the murders?
    If it was secondary transfer than TH lied about being with the boys that day. So, why is that so hard to figure out? Either way it makes TH look very suspicious, he lies about everything. Jessie Misskelley’s confessions were all bogus. He doesn’t remember crap, and it was less than a year later that he confessed to his lawyer about the crime scene and murders. it didn’t change that much from the 45 mins. we got to know about until 9 mos. later.
    What I find ironic is that we are to believe the only hair that is at the crime scene besides DJ’s, was TH and the WM3 were the ones found guilty, and convicted of this crime and none of their hair was there?
    Neither was the victims, their parents, their siblings or friends. Just 2 hairs, besides the negroid hair they found later on the sheet covering one of the victims bodies.
    And D.E.’s, J.B.’s, and J.M.’s, wore their hair long at the time, and not one of their hairs was at the scene?
    Just too ironic for me.
    This case should of been tossed out when the jury foreman’s lawyer wrote the courts about him, and what he had done to get on the jury trial, and become the foreman and used the infamous confession by Jessie, to find them guilty. That should of been a done deal and those men released then.
    Our country is SUPPOSED to be founded on innocent until proven guilty and to trust others for a fair trial. These men did not have adequate counsel, they were found guilty on nothing at all, not even good circumstantial evidence, there was jury tampering, they still spent more than half of their lives in prison, and did not get a fair trial.
    Our justice system sucks, period! The alford plea is stupid, it’s not justice, like Jason said, they lock me up when I say i am innocent, and let me go when I confess guilt.
    How is that justice?
    Someone asked on here where to go for a place to discuss this case, a good place for nons, and supporters.
    the best place in my opinion is
    no arguing there, great discussions from both sides of this, chat, all the court documents, all links to all sites for this case, like jivepuppi, callahan,, and the like. Great board for theories, and other discussions, and the infamous rebar/manhole theory.
    The member that wrote that theory wrote it there and he is a very intuitive smart guy.
    Anyway I may cont. to read here if I remember, bad memory.
    I hope we can haev some good discussions hagn all,

  55. Ok. First time here. Im not sure what happened to those kids. On one hand i think damien is cool and different and on the other hand he seems like he could be sick and kill children.
    So anyway, damien was at the revolver golden gods award show a couple days ago with Depp and Manson and others. You can you tube it. He speaks and is weird.
    Also, its cool yall are into this case and passionate about finding justice.
    This case is really gonna be mega huge after the new movies and books come out. We will be able to keep up with much more new stuff as the business will cause drama.
    And Joey, you are a dickface:)

  56. those who site miskelley’s confession as evidence towards the guilt of the wm3:
    are you going to ignore the fact that although miskelley did give a (coerced) confession, the details were totally inaccurate? miskelley claimed that he witnessed echols and baldwin rape the victims. this, however, is refuted by the evidence. the boys were not raped. why would miskelley implicate himself and two others in a crime they did not commit while adding erroneous testimony? clearly because he was mentally incompetent and unaware of the serious repercussions of his confession. not a credible witness. mostly due to the fact that he was not present when the boys were murdered or he would know the details of it! it is also clear throughout the taped confession that the police are urging him to change the times he’s given them to fit the timeline of the crime and he does because he had been held for like 9 hours and just wanted to go home. the only thing miskelley’s confession proves is that he was totally unaware of the actual details of the crime, details which the murderer would obviously be familiar with.

  57. Angela you clearly aren’t up to speed on any of this. Misskelley gave SEVERAL confessions. The best one was AFTER he had already been convicted & he gave this one directly to his OWN lawyer against his lawyer’s legal advice.

    In order for the WM3 to be innocent, this means that several people have lied about a lot of circumstantial evidence. (evidence that by itself means little, but added up it tells a story)
    -such as Echols & Baldwin being seen walking back within 400 meters of the crime scene all dirty at around the time (9-9:30) that’s corresponding to Misskelley’s Bible confession
    -Luminol test helps to establish a crime scene rather than a dump site
    -blood from Damien’s necklace is close match to one of the victims
    -such as blue candle wax being on both victims shirt & in Echols bedroom
    -knife found in lake behind Baldwin’s house
    -such as failing a polygraph (Echols & Misskelley) (these are 95% accurate) (this accuracy does take into account for nervousness, heck most people are nervous in these situation, but that’s not what the machine is looking for)
    -such as all three of the WM3 have given off the record confessions & the jailhouse confession of Baldwin witness took a lie detector test & passed
    -such as the brand new shoe laces on Jason’s muddy boots (because one of the laces was used on the victims)
    -three different type of knots which means three different people making them
    -failed alibis such as saying they were at home during the time, when they have witnesses (girls) that tried to phone them, but they weren’t home
    -May 5th is of significance to the occult calendar, just Goolge “old beltane”
    -Echols doesn’t deny his connection to the occult
    -One of the primary reasons for why they likely ended the killing earlier than they planned was because Jessie Misskelley decided that he had enough & took off. Echols & Baldwin likely didn’t think it was wise to stick around any longer with the risk that Jessie was going to go snitch on them.

    I believe that I could go on, but it’s just too much circumstantial evidence & that in order to maintain WM3’s innocence you must believe that EVERYONE else is making this up. I am no lawyer, haven’t been following this case until last week actually. Started with watching all three of the HBO films, then started looking into the facts on the internet.

  58. Attention all supporters: There’s a huge difference in being profiled based upon outward appearance & an actual documented psychological profile which is based upon fact of witnessed behavior patterns.

    It makes me sick that the folks at HBO made it seam like the WM3 were “witch hunted” based upon black t-shirts & heavy metal. This is simply not the facts.

  59. My son is 21 I’ve been married to his stepfather for 10 years meaning he has been with this man also for 10 years. Last month he purchased a plane ticket for me to return from Seattle to N.H. then went on duty (he is active duty Navy). He bought the plane ticket in my previous name and I was unable to board the plane. My point is that young men have absolutely no consept of time, days or even weeks let alone knowing what his own mother’s name is. We can also suspect that these young men may have been under the influence of something perhaps. As for not passing the lie detector it measures HR, BP, adrenaline, fright or flight, ect… all of which are out of control in all teenage boys let alone when there nervous. Where is the evidence against Jason Baldwin? No matter how hard or where I look I can’t find anything on how this poor man was convicted. Just Jason can anyone out there tell me? He deserves a multimillion dollar law suite and I hope and pray every day that he will get it and for his poor mother.

  60. @Joey

    If Pam’s entire family thinks Hobbs is guilty & she’s so suspicious, how come she still pals around with him? Check out the text message she sent him, not long ago. She hasn’t claimed she didn’t send it. Check out the pictures of her & him, “goofing off”.

  61. Here in Australia we have just had all the mockumentaries air.

    This is the third time I have seen PL1 and have looked and looked but can’t see Damien blowing kisses to the parents.

    Did the two buffoons who made the film cut it out after realising how bad it made their star killer look?

  62. Great work! I bet hans would accept these facts if vedder said it was true. Write a book, amigos!!! The tortured 8 yr old murdered little boys deserve it.

Leave a Reply

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