Johnny Depp options movie rights to Damien Echols’ memoir

Since the surprise August 2011 release of the West Memphis Three, there have been rumors that Johnny Depp was no longer a WM3 supporter. I couldn’t find any confirmation of this rumor either way.

Today’s news should put that rumor to rest. Johnny Depp’s Infinitum Nihil Options Forthcoming Memoir By West Memphis Three’s Damien Echols.

Johnny Depp and his producing partner Christi Dembrowski and their Infinitum Nihil production shingle have yet another interesting project in development. They’ve optioned film rights to the soon-to-be-published and as-yet-untitled book by Damien Echols which reveals his experiences on death row after his wrongful conviction and subsequent wrongful 18-year imprisonment for the 1993 murder of three 8-year-old boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. The memoir will be published in September 2012 by Blue Rider Press, an imprint of Penguin Books. … The actor and his producing partner have long been wanting and waiting to explore this story and will develop the narrative as a feature film with Echols and his wife Lorri Davis, who will be executive producers.

The Deadline article is written by Nikki Finke, one of the most prominent and powerful journalists covering the entertainment industry. Like most professional journalists covering the case, Finke has no clue what she’s talking about and can’t be bothered to do the slightest bit of research or fact-checking. So much easier to just take what celebrities and mass murderers’ PR reps say as gospel truth.

UPDATE: On February 8, I left a comment on this post at It was civil, short and on-point. As of the morning of February 9, had deleted my comment. There are other anti-WM3 comments left up, so I’m not sure what that site’s admin found especially offensive about my comment.

Here’s my best recollection of what I wrote:

The West Memphis 3 were not wrongly convicted. The evidence is overwhelming that they were guilty as charged. The only injustice is that they were released.

Echols’ memoir will no doubt be a fascinating read. Anyone who wants to know what Damien Echols was really like around the time of the murders, as documented by psychiatric records and statements by people who knew him, should read this first:

Is that so bad? Their comment policy states, “Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don’t go off topic, don’t impersonate anyone, don’t get your facts wrong, and don’t bore me.” Maybe I bored her, otherwise I’m stumped.

1,079 thoughts on “Johnny Depp options movie rights to Damien Echols’ memoir”

  1. This is joke right ? Do they really think that America is going to want to see another movie ? This has been done before. This just getting crazy and more crazy. But if they want to ride the bandwagon and milk more out of this story. They should just move on and do something really important . Like the homeless and people starving in their own country. People loosing their homes because they lost their job.(of no fault of their own ) Wait that wouldnt give Depp the media attention. I use to like him as a actor but I since changed my mind. But the idea of the movie is really good reflextion what kind of person Depp is really like.

    1. Know what Pru rhymes with? Boo. And that’s what I want to say after I read each and every one of your ridiculous posts. Booooooo. You disgrace the intelligent and well-spoken nons who frequent this site.

      1. Of course we knew there had to be something in it for Depp to continue to align himself with baby killers. I’ll never watch him again.

        1. Johnny Depp is a moron, I used to boycott his films long before I knew he supported silly devil worshippers.
          When I see him moving this zombie makes me want to puke.

    2. West of Memphis is – more than any of the other documentaries – the Damien Echols Show. Indeed, we hear virtually nothing from the other two members of the WM3 until the last 10 minutes in a few brief post-release scenes. What we are treated to is an Echols/Davis love story against all odds. Echols/Davis married in 1999, but we never learn what happened to Damien’s girlfriend, Domini, and his newborn baby paraded out in the aftermath of the trial in the first documentary.
      Where is Domini? Did Echols EVER compensate her for the child she raised on her own? Does he help victims of missing children?
      He stated that he needs to charge money for interviews, give me a break. His West of memphis peter jackson collab was worth millions. He is a money hungry Narcissist. does anyone else think he may have NPD? Narcissistic personality disorder?

  2. Never have seen Depp when he hasn’t seemed stoned. A lot of money and big egos are on the line. Those men seem to be enjoying their “celebrity” status. All that is not well will not end well.

        1. Do you honestly believe Johnnie Depp investigated this crime? When did he get his homicide detective badge? CSI training? Movie rights and ratings is all he cares about. I hope everyone boycotts his movie he makes about devil child Damien. What will he say when Damien kills that wife of his? Oh dear, I was wrong?

    1. Clearly you have no idea what being stoned is like because Johnny depps characters are the furthest thing from stoned. I hate you Christian conservatives. Stop beating up these innocent people

  3. How many different ways can they possibly sell this story?

    I guess the one silver lining is that maybe eventually the only aspect of this story left to be told will be the actual truth about what happened.

  4. Are any of them working regular jobs? I have heard Jessie has returned to school. Good for him if he has. While in prison, were any of them educated (other than “self-educated”)?

    1. Damien was on death row. Don’t think much education goes on there other than self-education.

      Jason studied up a great deal on the law and wants to pursue helping innocent men get out of prison.

  5. It is very bizarre to think that in addition to the 3 PL documentaries, WOM, & the upcoming Devil’s Knot film, we may now have this one…

    …my guess is it will never happen. Depp may even be using it as an excuse to give Echols a bunch of money, without making him feel like he’s just giving him a bunch of money. Who knows. Or he will use it as the basis for telling a deathrow story that is not necessarily “The Damien Echols Story.” Again, who knows.

    What I do know is that Johnny Depp is THE highest paid actor in the history of Hollywood. His estimated 2010 earnings were $100 million, which is more than Steven Spielberg. You know, you can think these guys are guilty as sin and still have a grown up discussion about the case, and its peripheral facets. To suggest that Johnny Depp is “milking the cash cow” is utterly inane. He has better things to do and many more ways to make much more money. Clearly, like many many people (I hate to state without having a poll to refer to that it’s the NONS who are in the significant minority now, but I’ll state it anyway, feel free to disagree) Depp believes they’re innocent. To suggest that anyone who does is a brainwashed stoner who wants to be an Echols groupie is to do damage to your own franchise.

    1. Joey,

      I respect your new, improved style of refraining from name calling. It is much appreciated from this corner.

      As for Depp, he allegedly struggles with serious drug problems that go back more than two decades. Most people in the film industry are active addicts or recovering, relapsing addicts. I know enough people who have worked with him to believe he is a professional (always refrains from using during production). He allegedly will admit he is a recovering, relapsing addict in private. I have huge respect for anyone who can be that honest about what is obviously a source of unfathomable (at least to me) pain. Have heard he believed Winona was innocent (and still may). He seems to be more of an emotional thinker than a rational one when it comes to his near and dear.

      I am missing Compassionate Reader. Hope she is well.

    2. Joey –

      This is the first time I’ve ever agreed with you on anything case related.

      I think it is very likely Depp just did this to float Damien a million bucks or so. After all, Damien is his friend and the figurehead for ostracized paraiahs everywhere. Johnny Depp, like many celebrities who were thought of as weird before they made it big, probably sees Damien as ultimate symbol of himself in his younger years. Or something like that.


    3. Yes, Johnny Depp truely and deeply believes they’re innocent and all he wants is help them. It is FRIENDSHIP. Nothing more. Right now, Johnny is in Toronto, promoting a film he’s not starring in, didn’t produce, and won’t profit from. He is a good and humble man supporting a friend. Simple like that.

      1. I agree. He is not an idiot or a child killing supporter. Latest news is him and Mr hollywood have not spoken for awhile. Does anyone know why?? I have a few ideas

  6. What’s the most factual book written on this, can someone suggest one? I’ve read a lot the files already and want to read a book with the narrative surrounding the case.

    1. I think there are only 3 books on the case (for now). Damien’s, which I’ve never read, and which I imagine is just a wee bit biased, Devil’s Knot, which has a bent toward their innocence (and the guilt of John Mark Byers), but which is a wealth of information and (overall) a nice piece of reporting, and Blood of Innocents, which has a bent toward their guilt, and which does a really good job setting the stage for the murders and presenting their immediate aftermath.

      1. Blood of Innocents was a neutral accounting of the case. It’s the only neutral account, but it was written before Paradise Lost, so that explains why it’s the only neutral account.

        Damien’s book, Almost Home, does not discuss the case. But it does illustrate his extreme narcissism and delusional thought processes. It also reveals a few interesting facts, such as the fact that he lived in the Mayfair Apartments as a child (Mayfair overlooks the crime scene).

      2. I wont read Damiens self satisfying dribble. The reviews are mixed since he is a talented writer but so are many people with psychopathic tendencies. Some reviewers who are not stuck up his ass actually say the book is a load of false self pitying trash about him and lorri and HIM oh yeah and more on him. Easy to be in a relationship via letters and telephone calls. Different story when you are out of prison and living together for three years, the cracks start to show

    2. Jane,
      I would like to know too. There is a nice project for you writers out there. Give the story with the facts . Not suporter or non suporter version. Then let the people decided. …….Take all the facts in this blog and make it into a book. Because I have never found this blog not to put all the info out there.

  7. Joey
    Sorry you dont like my post But you are entitled to your opinion. I am not going to go back and forth with name calling. But that was my opinion. And I am sorry I was thinking more of the fame train. And I really cant see either movie doing well in the box office but again that is just my opinion.:)

    1. It is your opinion, and I understand we all have one. But it’s not even an opinion to say you can’t really see either movie doing well in the box office…I guess it’s a prediction. But based on what? PL3 just won the National Board of Review and earned an Oscar nomination.

      We know absolutely nothing about Depp’s plan for a film, and all we know about Devil’s Knot is that it stars Reese Witherspoon (who, while no longer a huge box office draw, is still a movie star) and Colin Firth (who won the Best Actor Oscar last year). It just seems like wishful thinking for you to say you can’t see either doing well at the box office.

      Regardless of where the truth lies, this is an EXTREMELY compelling story, you must admit.

      1. Joey,
        I think not to most. PL3 was free!It was on HBO or you could buy a DVD from the suporters. And TY joey for making laugh today.hahaha I was having a real bad day at work. I am so not impressed what Depp makes or his net worthThere are far more actors (which I will not name) lol that make twice as much as he does. And they are half his age. And check your facts please on the highest paid actor 🙂

        1. I said in 2010 he made $100 million, which is far more than any other actor.

          Perhaps you think Vanity Fair is in league with the WM3 too.

          In 2011, it looks like he was 2nd place with $50 million, behind Leonardo DiCaprio, who had a banner year.

          I don’t believe I was bragging on Johnny Depp’s behalf. I couldn’t give two shits about Johnny Depp or what he makes. I was hardly trying to impress you. However, to say that he’s just attempting to turn Damien Echol’s book into a film property because he needs the spotlight, and because he’s riding the gravy train, or bandwagon, or milking the cash cow, or whatever other idiomadic idiocy you’re putting forth, is preposterous.

          Almost as preposterous as your confident assurance that there are FAR more actors that make TWICE as much as he does. And half his age? First of all, bullshit, 20 year olds aren’t movie stars, that’s why the Twilight and Harry Potter kids don’t make major movie star saleries…because they can’t open a film that’s not a part of their signature franchises. 2nd of all, I’d like you to prove me wrong please.

          Did you want me to challenge you on this? It seems like you’re baiting me into it. Why will you not name names? Is it a secret? Is that beneath you? Come on, old sport, you’ve got me intrigued. Since there are FAR MORE actors who make twice as much as he does and that are half his age, please name me two, or three if you want to really rub it in.


          1. Harry Potter kids don’t make major movie star saleries…because they can’t open a film that’s not a part of their signature franchises………

            Daniel just opened a film that on the first weekend made 25 million lol . It was a awesome movie.


          2. Pru, I thought I was throwing you a softball…I thought you had a trick up your sleeve…I left the door wide open and you still managed to trip over the threshold.

            The Woman in Black opened at $20 million, not $25. It opened in 2nd place. The movie reportedly cost $17 million. Its P&A campaign was minimal and probably only cost $20 million. Did you know that about half of what a movie earns at the box-office goes to the exhibitors (i.e. AMC, Loews, etc.)? That means, for this movie to break even, it has to make roughly $75 million? It sure as hell ain’t doing that in its domestic run.

            It’ll have a nice international run, particularly because in England, I’m sure, and it will definitely do well on home video, as horror movies are still (to borrow your phrase) cash cows. It will make a nice little profit. In other words, whatever backend points he has, he ain’t gonna be minting money.

            Regardless of whether or not you think it’s awesome, this does NOT show Hollywood Daniel Radcliff can open a movie, and it does NOT justify him earning a movie-star-salary. If he makes $10 million I would be impressed. That ain’t pocket change, but if you think that is double what Johnny Depp makes on a movie like Pirates or Alice in Wonderland, you just don’t know much about this business.

            You’ve already proved that. Walk away with your tail between your legs, please. We can debate about the WM3 all the live-long-day and no one has a greater claim to the truth than the other. What we cannot debate is facts.

            And the fact is you cannot name 2-3 actors who are half Johnny Depp’s age who make twice the money he does, per the challenge.

      2. It is compelling only if you consider both sides. The WM3 have a cult following but not a mainstream following. Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox scored PEOPLE magazine covers. Damien did not. Jason and Jessie, as always, were treated like after-thoughts.

        The films sound boring. People want drama, not self-righteous tributes to three stereotypes. More people may pay to see Reese Witherspoon embrace her inner white trash and act as loopy as Pam Hobbs did in PL1 than to watch some earnest, hard-working mother have a change of heart (and mind, apparently). They will be too sanitized, politically correct, and black-and-white to stir the emotion they’re aiming for.

        The only way for this type of film to be great and gritty is for it to be as polarizing, baffling and mysterious as the case itself. I would pay to see a film where the audience walks away wondering if Damien is a misunderstood, poetic genius just like them or a psychopathic, psychotic con man par excellence who has achieved his goal of fame/infamy. None of the people mentioned so far have the cojones to go for it like, say, Oliver Stone might.

        1. Interesting points, Hugh. But Oliver Stone isn’t known for being ambiguous…he’s known for bashing you over the head with his beliefs. As a left leaning thinker who has been very critical of our institutions, such as government, the courts, the prison system, etc. I would imagine his WM3 movie would be HIGHLY critical of the state of Arkansas.

          1. I agree with Hugh. I would love to see a movie that actually brought the case to light in a completely neutral fashion. To me, and I believe it should be to all, the case remains open. Moreover, it would be appropriate for the subject to be more inclusive of the victims. Speaking of whom, what charities or organizations are supporting the living victim’s mothers? The living victim’s mothers are for whom I really feel.
            Also, Joey is right. If Stone produces a movie, do not look for it to be unbiased. Though his movies have many qualities, the last quality you will find is neutrality.

  8. As for the numbers non suporters ……..I think they are growing 🙂 I put a link on my FB and out of 74 people 69 people liked the link. Weird isn’t

        1. Even the bashful can stand silently for justice. : )

          Both sides fight down and dirty like pro wrestlers swigging Red Bull. When they sling the mud and heap the hash, I’ve learned to duck … fast!

          I am still trying to find supporters who personally knew the three BEFORE May 1993.

  9. Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors. I don’t watch any interviews of him anymore though because I don’t Like his views, politics, etc,,,, it makes me not want to watch him act so I have to separate the actor from the person. It took me a long time to figure that out. I have that same relationship with Pearl Jam. I love their music but don’t like to hear them talking.

      1. Don’t get all cutesy with me, Pru. You still have another post to answer if you want to save face.

        The question was directed to my dear pal Kristi, and it’s an honest one. What are Johnny Depp’s politics? Is he a liberal or something?

        1. Consider it a rhetorical question — I just Wikied him and found that he thinks America is dumb.

          I guess I’m with you, Kristi. I don’t like his politics either.

          1. Listen Cocoa, you redneck fuckface, I don’t know if your post is attempting to pass for satire, or is legitimately the product of a worthless brain. Either way, I don’t care. Go fuck yourself.

          2. Joey, I think you really want to make love to me, don’t you? Know any good rest stops we could meet at?

          3. You know NOTHING! Johnny Depp loves his country more than many Hollywood stars. And it is because he loves America so much that he exposes his ideas and talks about what he thinks it’s right or wrong in the country. Search more about this and about all he has done.
            And he does not live in France! He doesn’t even like the French language. The proof is that he speaks English with their children (who are bilingual) and even when he goes to France for promoting his movies, he gives his interviews in English.

          4. He backtracked on that statement, too, if memory serves. He was forgiven and now plays the game more carefully. As for Natalie Maines, she didn’t receive the forgiveness Depp did. It is amazing how quickly so-called “friends” turn on one another once one shoots his mouth off and jeopardizes the other’s revenue (parallel, perhaps, to The West Memphis Three Injustice Project and Take Action Arkansas).

          5. What do you mean, Hugh? Maines didn’t receive forgiveness from the legions of rednecks who boycotted the Dixie Chicks when she spoke out against Bush and Iraq?

  10. Finally, Joey, we agree on something;), lol, He has an anti-American sentiment and I’ve heard him say some things about greedy capitalists and he has some socialistic tendencies. What he doesn’t realize is the fact that he is got his money from the same capitalist system that he has spoken out against. I still like his movies though, he just needs to keep his mouth shut. , for me, anyway;)

    1. I don’t think he needs to keep his mouth shut, I think everyone should speak their mind. However, I do think it’s unfortunate that an American who has done so well in his life thanks to other Americans should speak so rudely about Americans. I have no problem with criticism, even harsh criticism, but his quotes just seemed overboard and elitist. I think there are a lot of stupid people in this world, and to suggest that Americans are collectively any worse than anyone else (like the French) is BS.

    2. This is not true, Kristi, you’re so wrong! Johnny said he has NO anti-American sentiment. He’s never had. Johnny Depp loves America, that’s the truth. You don’t believe tabloids lies and trolls!

  11. Pru, thanks for the :), I like your idea about a movie based on the facts only. It sounds kind of like Blood of the Innocents though. I haven’t read it so I’m not sure. As for the facts,,,, I asked this ? Already but am waiting for an answer,,,,I have tried to read through the Callahan website about the DNA evidence and am having a hard time making sense out of it because of all the partial DNA , missing mitochondria, alleles, tDNA, different DNA tests, I was hoping someone could break it down for me in laymans terms.

    1. * kid’s obviously retarded
      * officer’s obviously bullying him and asking leading questions like: “tell me about that…”
      * kid’s obviously been there for 12 to 14 hours of brutal interviews
      * kid’s obviously the next potential suspect (when everyone realizes that Terry Hobbs doesn’t pan out – just like Mark Byers didn’t pan out)

  12. Does anyone remember the Amy Fisher/Joey Buttafuco story?

    They made 3 made for tv movies.

    One was Amy’s side, one was Joey’s side, and one was non-biased. I wish someone would have the balls to at least make a documentary against the WM3. Maybe we can start a website and put someone in charge of donations toward a documentary.

  13. I took a few months off from posting anything WM3 related, but I did want to ask a few questions… As for me, I still don’t know what the hell to make of this case. But I know that it is possible that these 3 guys did commit this crime, and find it offensive that anyone who even indulges in the guilty theory is treated so harshly by the other side.

    There is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that Damien, Jason and Jessie could have done this. To deny the possibility of guilt is something that alarms me.

    The cops certainly thought they did it. Their own attorneys during the trials certainly, at points, thought they did it. Family members of the WM3 seemed to think it was possible. The juries thought they did it.

    The fact that these debates continue to this day pretty much answers the question as to whether or not there is a chance that these kids are guilty.

    First question:… Can anyone tell me for sure whether or not Jessie WENT WRESTLING ON THE DAY OF THE MURDERS?

    If you believe his bible confession (which is the turning point for many) than you will need to believe Jessie when he says that after the murders he went wrestling. You either believe him on all parts of that confession or you don’t. He had his hand on the bible, remember?


    BUT… Didn’t the prosecutor show during the trial that Jessie DIDN’T go wrestling on the day of murders? Is Jessie lying about wrestling in his bible confession?


    1. I can’t tell you for sure, but I very much doubt he went wrestling that night. That would mean Jessie lied about going wrestling in the bible confession.

      There are plenty of variations like this across Jessie’s multiple confessions. Here’s another one from the bible confession:

      STIDHAM: Did you go back there after the murders? Like you told Gitchell?
      MISSKELLEY: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating)
      STIDHAM: How come you told him that?
      MISSKELLEY: Just to have something to say.

      On this point, I believe Misskelley was telling the truth on 2/8/94 and lied on 6/3/93. But who knows. He was kind of a bullshitter.

      Supporters think that these variations on minor points prove that he was lying about everything. I think it’s more significant that he was consistent on the core story across his multiple confessions, and that his core story matches the other witnesses and evidence so strongly.

      Cool to see you back, OJ.

      1. Thanks for the reply — yeah, lots of inconsistencies in details throughout the various confessions, but the core elements remain the same.

        I think Hollywood is defiantly in about to go into overdrive with all things WM3 — four documentaries, two feature films and countless book deals. At some point one of those writes-producers-journalists is going to turn around and at take a walk down another path — now that might be an interesting story. Imagine the twist ending…

        I’m pretty sure that on February 26th, 2012, Johnny Depp will award the Paradise Lost filmmakers with an Oscar. It will be more of cumulative award for “the body of work that the Paradise Lost series” represents, rather than for third film alone. Everyone in Hollywood is gushing about this. Be prepared for who shows up on camera.

        Having watched part 3 of PL, I can say I was under-whelmed — mostly because I’ve heard so much more than they “revealed” — and of course, they missed a golden opportunity of exploring many of the area you cover on this site.

        The whole story should be told.

        I was waiting for final moment in PL3 that never came. Sorry that the families of the victims have to watch these films play out over and over again. I was thinking about the kids the other day and I started to cry. I don’t think I have the strength that some of them have.

  14. The fact that Damien licked his lips and blew kisses at the trial to the parents of Michael, Christopher, and Steven is unbelievable! I don’t care how you spin it, that is the act of a true psycho! Even Dahmer was sorry for his victims families. He is still smirking at their parents. It’s a shame!

    1. He seems as arrogant now as he was then, back when he was “a nobody.”

      Whenever I think of Damien, I think of this quote: “There are emotions – a whole spectrum of them – that I know only through words, through reading and in my immature imagination. I can imagine I feel these emotions (know, therefore, what they are), but I do not. At age thirty-seven I am barely a precocious child. My passions are those of a boy.”

      These words were spoken by Jack Abbott, now a deceased murderer and once the obsession of Norman Mailer and Susan Sarandon.

      I like what OJ said about the families. To blame the parents after the horrific loss of their children is without conscience. Although many supporters claim parents are the first suspects in a child’s murder, I can’t think of a case off the top of my head where a parent brutally murdered his child AND brutally murdered the child’s two little friends, too. That would be extremely rare to say the least.

      1. Hugh, it probably would be rare, indeed. But in a week where one of the leading stories on the news cycle was a father who hacked his two young sons up with a hatchet, then lit himself and the kids and the house on fire (after the mother disappeared and is probably dead in a ditch herself, not to mention the possible involvement of the paternal grandfather of the kids)…I think it’s safe to say that it’s a scary world, and fucked up shit happens.

        1. I’d say the WM3 case is similar to the Alyssa Bustamante case. It was a thrill kill by some drunk teens. Damien and Jason just wanted to see what it was like. Kind of like how Jason had previously admitted that he wanted to torture a bum.

          1. Dog, it’s easy to say “I’d say.” A lot of people would say a lot of different things.

            What’s more interesting is the facts of the case and the world in which we live. People kill people for all kinds of reasons. To imply that because “I can’t think of a case where a father kills his son and son’s friends,” this case couldn’t have happened that way is preposterous.

          2. Hugh’s quote speaks to probability, not possibility. Not being able to come up with a documented case of a parent killing his/her own young child together with other unrelated children is an indicator of the likeliness of the scenario. Lack of identified precedent doesn’t render the scenario impossible, sure — but it indicates a significantly lower probability that it’s the case here.

        2. They were Josh Powell’s sons , though. I have heard supporters say the police always investigate the parents first when a child is murdered or missing. I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is saying that holds true in this rather rare case. The parents who were there were out looking for their kids. I can’t imagine the emotions they went through trying to find their children that night. That must have been one of the most helpless feelings in the world. I think of how they’ve survived such pain, and I am grateful for what little I have in my own life.

          1. Come now, Hugh, that’s not very discerning of you.

            First of all, I don’t like when non-supporters suggest that when supporters express suspicion with a parent they’re just being cold hearted. Obviously it was awful for the parents, obviously it still is, yes they felt helpless, yes they felt pain. But this is a murder case. And the way our justice system looks at a crime like this is not that “the parents lost their children, therefor we must find the killer(s),” but instead, “the world has lost three children, therefor we must find the killer(s).”

            The parents don’t get to be sacred cows here because they cannot be. Because one of them may have been involved.

            Say what you will about John Mark Byers, he sure didn’t like everyone pointing a finger at him all those years, but he has stated that for him it was well worth it because it kept the case alive and has now brought matters one step closer to their rightful conclusion…bringing TRUE justice for his belated step-son…and belated wife. Obviously not saying conclusively whether that’s so or not, but that’s his belief. And if, at the end of the day, it turns out that Terry Hobbs is responsible…I would think think the parents would be very grateful that the truth came out.

          2. Joey ,
            I am sure Mr Byers did like it . Because now he gets a book deal. Mr Byers thinks he is in the clear lol

    2. Kristi, be fair now.

      Dahmer admitted his guilt and did, supposedly, feel great shame about what he had done.

      Now we don’t know for certain whether Echols was guilty or innocent. He has said all along (I know, I know, except for the softball game!) that he is innocent. If we just for a moment all take him at his word (don’t worry, you can go back to thinking him evil) I think an open minded person can understand where he’s coming from. You may not like it — you may still think him a royal asshole. But here’s a teenager who has always been outwardly defiant, who has always lived on the fringes and probably always felt guilt/resentment/anger about normal society, being accused of the worst kind of crime imaginable, watching your best friend being accused as well, and watching day-after-day as the State tries to say you did something you didn’t do and put you to death.

      As for the parents, who, needless to say, were living through something terrible and God-awful, and who were understandably furious at the 3 men who they believed killed their children, you can understand why they were vocal in their dislike for Echols. We know they weren’t afraid to use all kinds of colorful language to express themselves (and I mean some — uh-chem, JMB & Melissa — more than others).

      If I’m a troubled teen who is being put on trial for a crime I know I didn’t commit, and I’m being harassed and harangued every day in and out of the court room, I may just act a little defiant myself.

      Maybe you think you never would, and that’s your right to think that, but to suggest that anyone in that situation should just ask like a cub scout is, I think, a bridge too far. If I was Echols and the Byers couple was shouting at me about what a faggot I was and couldn’t wait till I got fucked in prison, I would tell them to fuck off, I don’t care what their situation was.

      1. I have wondered if Damien’s and Jason’s alibis bother supporters. The timelines and stories don’t add up. If I was a teenager who was on trial for the murders of three eight-year-old boys and innocent, I would stick to the truth of where I was, who I was with, etc., as much as possible. Shifting timelines are usually indicative of guilt, not innocence.

        Why didn’t Damien’s father testify in Court? I can’t imagine a parent who would not testify on behalf of his child if he knew his child was with him at crucial times on the night the murders took place.

        There was something Damien didn’t do on LARRY KING LIVE that I found disturbing: he didn’t remember the ages of the three victims. If I was innocent and convicted of murdering three children, I would know their ages. Most people in that situation would know their ages. But not Damien. That was a revealing moment he can’t take back. It wasn’t due to nervousness, either. It was obvious he couldn’t remember their ages because he never thought about such things, things that pertain to others and not just Damien.

    1. Not enough said.

      That’s not necessarily an indication of any one thing. For instance, if Terry Hobbs happened to be the killer, and he happened to do it because he was beating Stevie in the woods and things got out of hand, and he killed the other boys so there wouldn’t be any witnesses, there’s no reason to believe Terry Hobbs would continue murdering children.

      If it was a transient, or a truck driver, there’s no reason to believe the NEXT victim or victims were anywhere near Arkansas.

      You really can’t look at the fact that this same kind of thing hasn’t happened locally and determine that it must then be the WM3.

        1. Yes, Dan. I am being paid by Johnny Depp. However, even if the pay stopped coming in I think I might just have to continue defending these Child Murders. This “sick or past-time” is very addictive.

          What do you do to pass the time, twiddle your knob? No, I know, you crusade against Child Murderers on web-sites! Cool!

  15. Thanks wm3truth. Nice to be able to visit a board that isn’t just about “self-gratification.”
    Compassionate Reader
    Undercover Agent P.I.S.
    Exclusive Member
    Jr. Member

    Posts: 101
    Karma: +12/-3

    Re: Echols/Byers Early On
    « Reply #60 on: February 07, 2012, 01:10:06 AM »•I thought that this board was going to be a non-free zone. Am I wrong? Logged

    stone groove studios
    Mark Byers’ Personal Enforcer
    Jr. Member

    Posts: 294
    Karma: +34/-0

    Re: Echols/Byers Early On
    « Reply #63 on: February 08, 2012, 11:02:04 PM »•The original idea was to keep the board open to both sides as long as they could be civil. But upon further discussion we don’t believe there is a reason to waste time debating with people who refuse to consider the actual merit of the new evidence and are really only here to drag threads to a Non board where they can get off on mocking everyone. It is one thing for someone new to the case to come in thinking they may be guilty but wanting to learn about the new evidence. It is entirely different for someone to come in with no intention of accepting the new evidence even if a video recording of TH committing the murder surfaced.

  16. By the way, if you check back in mid-January on this board at the “open thread for PL3” you’ll find compassionate inviting you to post at blackboard.
    Which is it??

  17. I guess it’s just me but Johnny Depp and the rest of his airheaded friends who support the WM3 do know they are convicted murderers right?? I just cannot believe that any celebrity would risk their public persona supporting the 3. If Depp said Manson and his crew were innocent, there would be hell to pay. Any respect I had for Eddie Veder and Peter Jackson is gone.

    1. No, Sue, Johnny Depp and the rest of his airheaded friends do not know the WM3 are convicted murderers. They never heard that part of it. I think you should give Depp a call and let him know.

      Now, if Depp said Manson and his crew were innocent, you’re right, there would certainly be hell to pay. In fact, I think it’s safe to assume the ground would open beneath Depp’s feet, he would drop down to hell, and start paying IMMEDIATELY. You make some great points and really help to elevate the discussion, Sue.

      Ladies and Gentlemen: A round of applause for Sue!!!

      1. Hey Sue, Eddie Vedder and Peter Jackson called. They just got the memo that the WM3 are convicted murderers. They’ve recanted their support and would really like your respect back.

    2. Sad isnt it!. 20 years die hard Pearl jammer! cant beleive Vedder is a supporter of convicted Child Murderers!. Crazy! I know it shouldnt effect my love for the music but after 20yrs I cant bare listening to the idiotsdvoice since his Wm3 love affair!

  18. Since the time that the trial ended, has Domini Teer ever made any public statements? She was SO in love and then just vanished. If the 3 committed those murders, she would be the fourth to know right? I’ve been that idiot girl in love with a criminal at that age. I’ve been marandized at 17 and boldly lied to the Sheriff just to save my loser boyfriends’ ass. (here in the south they could definately do blood testing, and like Damien, the cops “profiled” the goth teens for good reason. In ’93-94 we were criminal thugs. Jason may have only stolen a bag of chips and only got caught bangin up some cars. I didn’t live in Marion, but believe me when I say the scene doesn’t change across the river. We were all poor, whitetrash and most people didn’t care what happened to us. Anyone on thissite from North MS, west TN or AR?Change is a long way coming. Why couldn’t they have done this? What was to lose? I thought it was bullshit then and looking back I can understand why the adults were so hard on us. We were stupid and angry and tired of the politics that goes on in towns like this and would do anything we could to piss the older generations off. Now, back to Domini; I read in Calahans that she and Damien were seen around Robin Hood after the murders. There were also witnesses who claimed she wasn’t all right herself. Maybe one day she’ll have her own book about the 30 days after the murders that she spent with Damien, Jason and sometimes apparently Jessie. She has the ah-ha answer that we all need to end this age old story.

    1. You’re probably right, but she also has Damien’s son. So I don’t know that she wants him believing or knowing that his dad is a child murderer.

      I do feel bad for Domini, because she got strung along for 2 more years after Damien’s conviction. Until Paradise Lost came along, at which point Damien did not need her attention anymore. And then he writes in his book that he never actually loved her.

      1. They were teenagers. Life became stressful…to say the least. They had a kid. We don’t know what was going on between them throughout this ordeal. I know I thought I loved my high school sweetheart. It took me a couple years to realize I just didn’t have any concept of what love actually meant.

      2. I agree about Domini. If Damien did take her back and show her what he had done that night, she will likely not tell. She wouldn’t want to be known as someone who knew the truth about three children being murdered, then protected the guilty. She is probably hated enough as it is.

        Damien and Jason seem like guys who would love to be photographed with Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox on a double date. That would rattle a few chains. People would love to know if they spilled, what was told.

        I predict Lorri Davis is next to be shucked. Damien knows he can get a younger, hotter, more beautiful woman. He won’t deprive himself. He likely used Lorri for what she could do for him while he was in prison. Now that he is free to roam, he has more options and Lorri will have served her purpose.

        What many people don’t realize is how many inmates think the women who fall head over heels in love with them are mentally ill. I remember an inmate joking the minute he got out, he was taking out a restraining order against his new wife. Their view is they are stuck with them while they are caged. When they are free to prey upon more emotionally stable women, that’s when the Death Row groupies are tossed by the way side.

        Funny, but if and when Damien does ditch Lorri D., I wouldn’t be surprised if he seeks an annulment, claiming their marriage was never consummated and they loved each other as brother and sister. He might go as far to say she reminded him too much of his mother. Damien would go there. Stay tuned.

  19. Joey, I do see your point of view, I mean, if you really are innocent and as troubled as Damien was, I can see him saying something like a smartass comment or maybe even doing a gesture like that but he licked his lips in the courtroom towards the parents, and he lied, lied, and lied, and got called out on it even by his own attorney. I think he said something like “I was only half way paying attention” when his lawyer asked him about it and then I could tell even his lawyer was frustrated because he even said “then maybe they will only halfway kill you”. Also, innocent or guilty, Damien was an asshole to those parents and they will never forget that and I don’t blame them.

    1. I appreciate that you considered what I said and at least see my point of view. I think the fact that Damien was so flippant in the face of “maybe they’ll only half kill you,” further goes to show how in over his head he was and that he didn’t know how to properly, and maturely react.

      Like everything else, we can interpret what we want based on our own pre-conceived notions. However, I believe it is objectively truthful to say neither you nor I were in his shoes and given those remarkably surreal circumstances, don’t know how we would have reacted ourselves…and, moreover, how someone far more fucked up to begin with than you or I would react.

    2. No disrespect, but this is the part I don’t get. Amazingly, I too was a teen; and a very maladjusted one. I was adopted by a family that was essentially homeless until fourth grade, when we finally got our first rent house. My dad had MS so the family’s decisions were erratic to say the least. We lived out of a station wagon in state parks for God’s sake! We were completely poor white trash. With that said when we were teens, yes the world was all about us. We wanted to have a good time, all the time. I don’t know why, but we never ever got off on acts such as vandalism, stealing or even mischief. We just wanted to be left alone to do what we would. We were very poor, not popular nor did we have a thimble of local, noble lineage. But we had no trouble with authority, regardless of its form. My point is that Damien’s behavior in court is confounding to say the least. How deluded would one must be, even as a teen, to not appreciate the enormous gravity of the situation he was in? It’s absolutely baffling! The sole aspect I can touch with a needle is that he is most decidedly a narcissist, and quite possibly sociopathic. Innocent or not, he has always been about him.

      1. Thanks for sharing your personal information, TXH. We all bring something unique and personal to this, and it’s interesting to hear where people are coming from.

        How deluded must one be to not appreciate the enormous gravity of such a situation? The answer is: very.

        And maybe he is a narcissist, maybe he even is a sociopath. Still not evidence of guilt. I think it’s a very dangerous thing to do what Fogelman did by pointing at Damien and saying, more or less, that “It’s not the Stephen King, or Metallica, or witch craft, or demeanor that makes him guilty…but if you put it all together it starts to paint a picture.” That line of thinking is dangerous. Fogelman’s job wasn’t to paint a portrait, it was to prove guilt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, presumably based on sound evidence.

        I know a lot of you think that’s what he did. I think none of the Stephen King or Metallica or witch craft should have been introduced, period, if it wasn’t directly related. Fogelman’s reach was a cynical attempt to appeal to the basest instinct of those jurors. He was intimating, “Look at Damien Echols. This kid is fucked up. Find him guilty.”

        And one thing that no one can debate is that Kent Arnold, Jury Foreman, was prepared to find him guilty…before the trial even started.

        1. Thanks for the reply. I hope I didn’t get too personal, but I was trying to succinctly frame my point of reference. As far as the heavy metal, witchcraft and may I say all other non-relevant BS, absolutely it should not have been introduced. There was no evidence, from my perspective, that this was a ritual killing of any kind. It was some VERY limited, small-minded, scapegoat thinking that even opened up that path.
          As far as your answer about the level of delusion, “Very”; thanks. I completely agree with you. This kid needed help and he sought it. Then they use it against him-perfect! I also agree that poor mental health does not equate to homicide. His young deluded attitude and the overly-biased opinion of the townsfolk fed on one another symbiotically; an absolute travesty. And still this remains a mystery.
          Once again, thanks for your reply. If I did get too personal, I apologize. Again I was just trying to establish a reference point.

      2. Congratulations on being a true survivor. There aren’t many noble people left.

        I recommend anyone who is interested to read “Without Conscience” by Dr. Robert Hare. It is a book – – one of few – – that changed my life.

        Psychopaths are powerful people. They are The Other. I consider them like Tyler Durden. Everybody wants to see what they’ll say and do next. Their behavior defies comprehension. What astounds others means nothing more than a flick of the hair to them.

        A case in point was Jack Henry Abbott who served as his own lawyer after his victim’s wife sued him. He would change, like a switch, from one second to the next. One second he was asking the victim’s wife a reasonable question. The next second he was calling her a whore.

        Their statements and actions are outrageous. Abbott said of the man who he had slain, “There was no pain, it was a clean wound. He had no future as an actor – – chances are he would have gone into another line of work.” Those were his justifications for stabbing his victim to death.

        1. Hugh,
          Thanks for the case study leads. You’ve touched upon exactly what I can’t wrap my head around. I can understand it academically, to a point, but it’s so hard for me to comprehend committing acts such as these and sleeping pre say. Much less, acting normally when needed. I suspect that it’s not acting at all, but behavior. I try very hard to empathize with others because we all have only one perspective of life, but areas and acts such as these I suppose is just beyond me. Thanks again for the leads, I will read and learn more………Cheers

      3. Amazingly, not everyone is the same. Some people come out of effed up lives with immense grace, happiness, and compassion. Some people come out as serial killers. Some people come out in between. I was a “goth” as a teen (no I’m not a blind supporter, I’m on the fence) and relished being feared and having scary rumors spread about me. My two friends and I were called The Witches of Eastwick and people were afraid of us. One of my friends got expelled for slicing a girl’s arm with a razor blade (with the girl’s permission). I put an ace of spades on a boy’s desk just because he was over-the-top scared of me and I thought it was funny to freak him out (I never actually did anything scary). Teenagers think they’re invincible, and even though I don’t believe much of what Damien says these days because he tries to gloss over and cover up his mental health history, I do believe him when he says that he thought there was no way they could prove him guilty when he was in fact innocent. I would think the same damn thing. Damien is far more messed up than I am, so it is not hard for me to accept that he would act the way he did “even though” he was innocent. I could see myself claiming to have done some scary act even if I didn’t, although I certainly would never claim to have killed 3 small children or any animals. But again, Damien is one sick individual and many people can’t fathom the way his mind works. But just because he is sick, that does not equate to proof of murder. Maybe he would have gone on to kill someone eventually, but there is no actual beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof that the WM3 committed this crime.

        I think people are looking at it wrong when they ask why he would act like that if he was innocent. The actual question is why would he act like that if he was guilty? If he was brazenly showing his guilt and rubbing it in people’s faces, why would he bother pleading not guilty? If he’s so proud of what he’s done, why would he deny it? What he was doing was trying to shock people. It was in extremely poor taste and inexcusable, but it does not mean he is guilty of killing Stevie, Michael, and Christopher.

    1. Stop posting videos, Pru, and answer my challenge to you from up above or admit you were incorrect, please. If you do not admit that you were objectively wrong about the whole Johnny Depp/movie star salary thing, you are demonstrating that you have a skewed perspective. This does damage to your credibility. I’m not saying only as far as I’m concerned, I’m sure you don’t care what I think, but it shold cause your fellow non-supporter family to take anything you say from here on out with a grain of salt.

      P.S. I started to load your video and skipped ahead to one part that said “The supposedly retarted Misskelly applied to college in 2011.” Then I decided not to watch the video. If you and other non-supporters need to say ridiculous things like this to make your point, you don’t have a point to be made. Stick to the facts and don’t cut corners by trying to be cute and clever, as if anyone ever said Jessie was so retartedly retarted that a retard like him could never attend college (probably a reasonably retarted community or trade college, at that)…THEREFOR there is no basis to believe that Jessie Misskelly could have made false confessions.

      Stuff like that is just trash.

      1. Supporters say Jessie has the mind of a five year old all the time. That’s really the only way they can explain away all his confessions. But the fact is, he is not retarded – just an idiot. His mental functioning is much higher than most supporters give him credit for.

      2. Joey,

        How am I supose to know? I am not the one that posted anything about Jessie going to college . Your loosing your touch there …………..But I did find prior to going to jail he got a 88 IQ . When given him one right before the trial they did think he was trying to fail it prior to him going to court. 🙂

        1. Pru, you are clearly one of the following:

          Severely disturbed or Completely Idiotic. Maybe you just suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

          First of all, you posted a link to a video for everyone to check out. The video contains the line of text I referred to. You endorsed it. You own it.

          Second of all, you continue to dodge the outcome of our previous discussion. You made ridiculous assertions with no factual backing and the fact that you won’t even acknowledge it pisses me off.

          1. Ok, so it’s official. By virtue of avoiding responding at all costs, you are officially submitting to the good readers of WM3 Truth that you are, in essence, full of shit.

            Glad we could sort that out.

    1. Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

  20. I just finished reading the transcripts for JM’s trial. While I read all of it I was careful in trying to only take into consideration what was presented to the jury. At the end, I would have had to find that the state did not meet its burden.

    “Reasonable doubt is not a mere possible or imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that arises from your consideration of the evidence, and one that would cause a careful person to pause and hesitate in the graver transactions of life. A juror is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt if, after an impartial consideration of all the evidence, he has an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.”

    I have only followed a couple of other cases and have never followed a case with more than one defendant, so how they do it is new to me, but it makes me uncomfortable.

    Here, also from jury instructions
    “Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. is charged with the offense of capital murder, three counts. To sustain this charge on each count, the State must prove the following things beyond a reasonable doubt.

    First, that with the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of any person, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. or an accomplice caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, or Stevie Branch count two, or Chris Byers count three. Purpose is defined again: a person acts with purpose with respect to his conduct or a result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature, or to cause such a result. ”

    I’m not claiming to know a better way, I am just confused. I understand that in order to tie him in, acting alone or in collusion/concert or whatever the correct term may be, that the other defendants have to be brought into it, that to find JM guilty, they had to find JB and DE guilty. I realize that it was not guilty in the eyes of the court, but they had to be found guilty in order to support the states assertion of JM’s guilt, but without the benefit of a defense.

    I am not trying to be obtuse, this is new to me. I also do not claim to have some better way to do things. It seemed convoluted, much like my post lol.

    I am surprised that deliberations were only for a day or so. Is there any documentation on jury requests for readbacks or anything?

    Maybe it will be better if I read his trial transcripts again.

    1. I think I may have posted the above in the wrong thread. I apologize. I do just want to clarify. It’s not about what I think or feel, but rather if I believe the state has met their burden and proven their case beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not think, based on what the jury was presented with, that they met this burden in JM’s trial. The rest of my post is just my confusion over how they try multiple defendants. I have not read JB and DE’s trial transcripts yet, so when I refer to finding them guilty, I am only referring to JM’s jury finding them guilty to support their finding of JM’s guilt, with information being presented against them without the benefit of a defense.

      I will be quiet now 🙂

      More on topic for this thread, there will always be people a Depp, there will always be celebrity causes, there will always be people in the position to influence other people. I think the best defense is to think, to use critical thinking skills and to not simply accept another’s opinion as truth. I don’t have the platform Depp does, or the money or the audience. Let their opinion spark in interest in me to form my own opinion by researching information, and to teach our children the importance of critical thinking. We immunize children, tell them all about safety precautions that should be taken, but it is so important to really foster thinking.
      I do not respect everyones opinion, though I do respect everyone has the right to have one. I believe that opinions formed blindly are dangerous. I really have enjoyed this site, there have been some posts that have really challenged me to look at my opinions and think. People should be challenged on their opinions, if they are formed thoughtfully, they will be able to back them up or they should reassess their position.
      just my opinion

        1. Aw, thank you Hugh.
          I appreciate the compliment. I really am miserable at writing on blogs or forums, well any where I should be writing in a conversational manner I pretty much suck. I fully blame my eng. lit. teacher. He fostered all that is flowery lol, and I am having trouble trying to transition. Communicating verbally I am pretty succinct, but writing, well I go on and on, and on. Damn Mr. Davis. 🙂

  21. In my honest opinion, I wish I
    Knew more than I know, I don’t have the time to read enough about this case. THERE IS SO MUCH on Callahan website! I wish I could sit down and read all of it uninterrupted. Until I do, I won’t be claiming the wm3 are innocent or guilty or sending money to the accused, although I wouldn’t do that anyway, I have much more important causes to support than the wm3 guilty or not. So I will continue to read and ask ?’s . This is such a complicated case.

    1. Also be sure to watch the Terry Hobbs interviews from the Pasdar case…that is, when you find the time. At 11 hours, they’re damn riveting. And perhaps even illuminating.

      1. I asked a supporter, a poor little pathetic creature who I love, why so many supporters have to point the finger of blame at someone? I wanted to know if it had occurred to her that she could believe in the 3’s innocence without having to make a case against someone else.

      2. Kinda stupid to me ……they want him to remember 10 years back to what he did LOL…………..Pam and Terry went on lots of shows and interviews. And as far kids and now grown ups seeing him the with the kids. There was 3 other people that saw them at the park the same time. 6:30

  22. On this site, under Secondary Confessions, there is the interview between a guy- Hurst and Ridge. I just read that interview (am still very new to this board) and maybe you all have already discussed this, but if you replace Jason’s name with Jessie’s, everytime he is telling them what Damien said about that night, it sounds like the guy would have been believable in regards to what Damein was telling him. Seems he got the two names, Jessie and Jason confused, and the story then makes perfect sense. He proclaims the innocence of himself and his best friend and let’s Jessie have the full blame. And Byers would have been the stepdad with a ponytail, not Hobbs. Byers was the stepdad accused in Pl2. Hobbs didn’t get the credit til 3.

    1. That’s because 3 was post 2007, when some significant new information came to light. Or do you think the story is not allowed to evolve?

      1. There is also some significant old information that was excluded from PL1, PL2 and PL3. The most blatant example is Misskelley’s 2/17/94 confession.

        The recording of Misskelley’s 2/8/94 “bible confession” was played in open court in late 2008. Until then, no one knew exactly what Misskelley told Stidham that day. The full text transcript appeared online in summer 2011. Does that count as “significant new information”?

          1. While I’d classify it as “same old bullshit,” I am certainly glad it came out and is available for all to see. The more we all can review, the better.

            But whether or not something was included in PL is irrelevent. They are documentaries pieced together from hundreds, if not thousands of hours of footage. Choices need to be made. The directors are under no obligations to tell all sides of the story and present all evidence. Such would result in a very long, very dry film. If the filmmakers decide, as Berlinger and Sinofsky did, that they believe the subjects of their film are innocent, they can choose to tell the story from that perspective.

            If the filmmakers believe the WM3 are innocent, they don’t give a damn how many times Misskelly confessed in 93/94, perhaps because they have educated themselves on the history of false confessions and concluded one confession is no more credible than the others. By including one confession in the film, they are thereby addressing all of the confessions. At least from their perspective.

          2. Perhaps one of them was attracted to Damien. Happens in this old world of ours. It was lustful obsession that inspired Truman Capote to write IN COLD BLOOD.

      2. Of course it is allowed to evolve. That is what makes it so interesting this long after the fact. My post was 2 Brandy’s after reading the statement by Hurst and finally getting two very hyper boys to bed. I was loopy to say the least. Maybe Hurst was just trying to get something for his story, but as a former officer, most of the time there seemed to always be a little truth sprinked in every story one told. I was trying to say it could be possible that Damien did tell him these things-not that Damien was telling him the truth. Joey, do you believe Damien knew anything at all or that he heard about the murders when everyone else heard about them?

        1. I believe Damien knew no more than anyone else who was reading about it, seeing news reports about it, and hearing the whispers that were circulating through the town. I also believe that as soon as Damien started being questioned all kinds of specifics were thrown at him by the WMPD, and he was exposed to information that may have not yet been publicly released.

    2. Except in every one of Misskelley’s confessions, he identified Baldwin as the one who wielded the knife.

      In Hurst’s bizarre story, Echols also identified Baldwin as the one who wielded the knife.

  23. Hey Joey,
    I totally understand that everyone has different views that they are entitled to, but why are you such an ass? Honestly, you just come across as defiant for the sake of being defiant, and like a dick. Btw, stop asking Pru to admit she was wrong…..I seem to recall that you have yet to come right out and say how very wrong you were in a previous post when you said that only guilt had to be proven. I corrected you and said that once convicted of a crime, to be exonerated, etc, that the defendants have to prove innocence. So Joey, are you gonna admit you were wrong or should we all assume everything you say is worthless and take it with a grain of salt. DON’T BE AN OBNOXIOUS, RUDE HYPOCRITE

    1. Hiya Kelly.

      I don’t think Pru needs you to come to her defense. She’s a big girl, she can handle her own affairs. I find this to be a particularly egregious case of someone who blatantly doesn’t know what they’re talking about trying to act like they know what they’re talking about, then not owning up to the fact that they’ve been proved wrong. That kind of thinking disturbs me. If Pru can’t admit she’s wrong about all the 20 year olds who are running around Hollywood making $200 million a year, she’ll never admit she’s wrong about the WM3, no matter WHAT evidence comes to light. She’s in league with the flat-earthers and the Creationists, as far as I’m concerned.

      Per our personal beef…I don’t recall the post you’re referring to. Is it on this thread, or another? Apparently I once said that only guilt had to be proven…and you corrected me? Guilt doesn’t have to be proven?

      Oh, you corrected me and said that once convicted of a crime the defendants have to prove their innocence. Well no shit, Sherlock. I’m not exactly a legal expert, but I think it goes without saying. I’m perfectly aware, and have stated here before, that the State considers this a closed case and would never think about investigating further unless the WM3 were exonerated. I don’t know what you’re talking about, Kelly. I don’t know where you think you proved me wrong. I’ll go back and look for it, I’m curious.

      BUT I’LL TELL YOU THIS…Kelly Kelly Bo Belly Banana Fana Fo Felly…if you think it’s perfectly cool for the Jury Foreman in a trial to have his mind made up before the trial even starts, and to be determined to find the defendents guilty, and to be conferring with an attorney as to the best course of action for convincing the other jurors that the defendents are guilty…if you think that’s just Kosher, that’s just peachy…then I’d like to know.

      1. Oh, and Kelly, I just searched the last few posts for a time when you and I had an exchange but I couldn’t find anything. Are you posting as another name, Kelly, you little troll, you?

  24. Kelly
    Ty 🙂 Joey . Good luck on that one. I just went though all the evidence ………….all of it . Yawn ! Damein’s alibi didnt hold up in court . His family lying in court . He lies on the stand . The jury saw through all the lies. And WE get to see what the jury didnt get to see.All the medical records and the coffesions And the trial transcripts. Damien is good at lying. Damiem had lots of friends and it seem to me he was the one that was the bully. Love how PL1 PL2 PL3 made it look like Damiem was being picked on and his only friend was Jason. And how he didnt even really know Jessie . Another lie! Lots and lots of people knew they all hung around together Joey I think you have to look at all the evidence ……….you are the one that doesnt know what you are talking about . He scared people not because of the way he dressed but because he was mean. His own parents were afraid of what he might do to them and his sister. He would stand outside peoples houses and tell them that he was going to kill them. The police werent picking on him they knew he was a ticking time bomb. They had been called to his house so many times.They even had to remove him from Correctional Youth Facility because he attacked other people.Trying to suck their blood out. Read through his medical records and then go through all the transcripts, and then go through all the documents.

    Joey I am not going to go back and forth with you ……….Kelly just ignore Joey’s remarks. (((((((((( kelly ))))))))))

    1. I appreciate Pru bringing this up. Deep down, I cannot believe over 100 people ganged up on Damien and lied about him. It doesn’t make sense. He is the center of his own universe, but he wasn’t the center of West Memphis. Damien lies. He contradicts himself, and his supporters rationalize it away. We all do it when we’re invested in someone. Nothing wrong with it. I predict the more outrageous he becomes, the harder it will be to ignore it.

      1. Hugh,
        That is what has been bugging me. Why would all these people attack Damien and Jason and Jessie. And all these people lied about the confession. Why would everyone do that ? Doesnt even make sence.

  25. “I am not going back and forth with you.” Translation: At all costs I am not admitting I was wrong.

    “Kelly just ignore Joey’s remarks.” Translation: Let’s fortify the echo chamber. Let’s only tell each other what we want to hear and disregard all else.

    I really hope non-supporters read this trash and say to themselves, “This person does our side no favors.” I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on the matter.

    Fact is, I used to post on the Blackboard and speak my mind freely, sometimes pissing off supporters (who, by and large, I agree with) when I’d say things like, “Damien was a fucking nut when he was a teenager…doesn’t mean he did the crime, but to pretend he just wore black and was a little depressed is dishonest.” When the Blackboard switched to a different site last month they wouldn’t allow me to re-register. So instead I came here. I’m disheartened to find that the echo chamber exists on both sides. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Pru, the idea that “Kelly” makes claims about my posts and then shouldn’t respond to me, but ignore me, is a sad symbol of your lack of desire for honest discourse. So is your unwillingness to respond to any notion that challenges your ideas.

    Instead, you come back at me with yawn inducing (you yourself even inserted the yawn) talking points that have nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Then you dare the audacity to tell me I haven’t done the research and don’t know what I’m talking about. Based on what…the fact that I haven’t come to the same conclusion as you? Do you understand how remarkably intellectually dishonest you are?

    I am reminded of Sean Hannity, who just this week made the extraordinary claim that Obama wouldn’t have killed Bin Laden if he had his way…as if Obama hasn’t been saying since 2008 he would jump the border to Pakistan and execute Bin Laden if the intelligence told him that’s where he was holed up. And I have no doubt the staunch conservatives subsisting off the rhetoric from the echo chamber firmly and passionately agree. You’re entitled to the opinion that Obama is a bad President, but you’re not entitled to an opinion like “he wouldn’t have killed Bin Laden if he had his way.” That’s not an opinion — it’s a provable falsehood. Denying that Johnny Depp is a uniquely wealthy movie star is a provable falsehood — sorry that this means he’s not just supporting Damien to milk the cash cow, as you’ve suggested.

    Oh, is that mean to point that out? I am so, so sorry. Can you forgive me? If I apologize, will you continue to respond to me, Pru? “Kelly” calls me a HYPOCRITE (emphasis hers) and I attempt to investigate her claims, only to find I haven’t had any such exchange with a “Kelly,” and Kelly shouldn’t respond? Why, because I’m being so mean?

    As to the meat and potatos of your astonishingly redundant and pointless post: just listen to yourself. I posited that there’s a problem when we have a trial in this country and the defendent doesn’t receive a fair and impartial jury. I don’t care if it IS Charles Manson on trial, the very basis of our system of law is that we need to be found guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by a fair and impartial jury of our peers. I don’t know what kind of fascistic country you’d prefer we reside in, but that’s America, baby…love it or leave it. If your position is that you don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not the WM3 received a fair trial, then you clearly have a disdain for justice, and I therefor have a disdain for you.

    Ignore that all you want. You’d do yourself a greater service by actually considering it and not just condeming the messenger for being too mean.

    I don’t need you to tell me to read the fucking documents. That seems to be the best response you can fucking offer. Read the fucking documents. What a lightweight. What an asshole you are — not because of what side you’re on, but because you’ve got no substance to back up what you’re saying, the best you can do is pretend I haven’t read the documents and make up straw men like I’ve been going around saying Damien was some fucking saint.

    Exhibit 500 is evidence that Damien was very troubled, indeed, he was a psychotic teen. It is not evidence that he and the other two killed those boys.

    You don’t like the tenor of my voice? Cry me a river, may you drown in your tears. I would love nothing better than for someone who has been following this continuing chain to chime in with their opinion on these matters.

    1. Joey
      It is beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Reasonable doubt is not a mere possible or imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that arises from your consideration of the evidence, and one that would cause a careful person to pause and hesitate in the graver transactions of life. A juror is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt if, after an impartial consideration of all the evidence, he has an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

      1. More satire?

        Pru…do you think Kent Arnold gave this case an impartial consideration?

        Of course you don’t. You’re just playing on my sensitivities, you tricky devil, you.

  26. Joey,
    Research a little more, please. It was in the the thread about the Moore’s letter to the Academy or the Oscar nom thread.

  27. I went to bed not long after I posted last, I was not ignoring you, Joey. Please, stop being such a dick. I’ll find the post myself and copy and paste it here for you

  28. HERE IT IS JOEY!!!!!

    Joey January 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm


    You don’t “prove” innocence, you “prove” guilt, and guilt has never been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. “But, but, but two juries agreed they’re guilty!” Well one we know was null and void, being that the Jury Foreman was a fucking ringer and self-appointed hero. And the other was due in no small part to a bogus confession. “But, but, but he confessed a million times!” Question for all you stubborn nons out there: Is there such thing as a false confession? Seriously. Real question. Do you believe that false confessions EVER happen? Wiki “false confession,” or Google it, and peruse some of the case histories. You will find that there is an ENORMOUS amount of false confessions, even multiple false confessions, in the recent history of American crime. Fine, I won’t play the “low IQ retard card,” I’ll just call Jessie a fucking idiot, dumb kid, ignorant redneck hick who was scared, and bullied, whether it was 12 hours of interrogation (“But, but, but”) or 12 minutes of interrogation. FALSE CONFESSIONS HAPPEN, and to deny that is to cast yourself in the Creationist lot, the flat earther lot. Don’t deny objective facts, it’s unbecoming. Lastly, I didn’t mention the 3 dudes, you did, all I’m saying is there are a lot of people working hard behind the scenes to further uncover truths about what happened that night…isn’t it interesting that it’s the “murderers.” Are you going to deny all the extensive DNA testing they’re spearheading? What do you think, if it’s discovered that those three guys have their DNA all over the crime artifacts it will then be hushed up and brushed under the rug? Honestly, Kelly, and whoever else is creeping around out there, what do you think?


    Kelly January 24, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Actually Joey, once someone has been tried and convicted, it is on them to PROVE INNOCENCE. The guilt only has to be proven for a conviction, but to overturn that conviction, innocence has to be proven, You were wrong

    1. Thank you, Kelly, for finding that and re-posting it. Pru would have preferred you to just ignore me, but I appreciate that you chose, instead, to engage.

      When checking back for our exchange, this was one post farther back than I checked, so I certainly admit I was wrong when I challenged the fact that it existed. You have a good memory!

      However, I say you are wrong when you tell me I’m wrong. I believe my post fully anticipated your post. My post was about nuance, your post was quite literalist. My post said that I understand they’ve been tried and convicted, then I went ahead and showed why I find that those convictions are problematic, particularly the one involving the Jury Foreman who was a ringer. Kent Arnold took our concept of justice and wiped his ass with it. That bothers me. I know you have no problem with the fact that the Jury Foreman walked into this case believing them guilty, and you’re totally cool with the fact that he did what he had to to help the jury reach that same conclusion, but you and I clearly don’t see eye to eye on American justice.

      You also don’t seem to care about the prevalence of false confessions, preferring to believe that if a guy confesses to something 4 times, there could be no explanation for his confessions except for the fact that he’s speaking the truth. I’m not going to relitigate that one, it’s a dead end.

      But for you to read my post, then your post, then determine that “Ha ha, I gotcha and you won’t admit it!” is silly. Of course that’s literally the case that they now have to prove their innocence if they want off the hook. My post was about the bunk involving their guilt and it fully anticipated your post. It’s called nuance. It’s called debate. Don’t be so simpleminded.

      That said, I again admit I was wrong when I implied this post didn’t exist. See…I’m perfectly willing to own up to being wrong…UNLIKE PRU, the little cry baby.

      1. One quick thought, if you must add a disclaimer when you admit you’re wrong, it’s not admitting anything, its just making an excuse

        1. No, I was admitting I was wrong about one aspect pertaining to the discussion, not wholesale. That does call for a qualifier. Stop trying to award yourself more brownie points than you deserve.

          Nuance, Kelly. Look it up.

  30. What would someone’s religion or lack thereof have to do with whether he/she could be a murderer? Is it more probable that because someone doesn’t believe in God they are more likely to be violent individuals? The freak BTK was a deacon or something in his church. Why do so many nons harp on the books and beliefs of Echols? Anyone who believes in God would never murder because they’d be afraid of Hell? Seriously? If I was judged because of the books on my bookshelf they’d have a special place for me under the jail. And the arguement doesn’t hold up for Jason. He wasn’t checking out how to kill a child from the local library. I am not posting this to say the men are innocent, I am asking -of all the arguements that could be given, this seems the weakest and fave after Jessies’ confessionS.

    As for Echols being such a mean person. Under the documents, most of the people (so far, I still have many to go) seem to like him. I discredit the teen girls who claim that he had been standing outside their window and thought may be the next sacrafice. What mother would come home and be told some weird boy was threatening to kill her child and not call the police immediately? A stranger looks at my children to long and I’m asking what the fucks up. Wild imaginations on dark nights. Most of the girls who knew him were friends with him and none seemed afraid to hang out with him. A lot of the boys were friends with him also.

    Jessie is the one who had the temper and witnesses who were afraid of him. There are police reports that Jessie was violent. With the mentality of a six year old he’d have no problem hitting a child that hit him first. My six year old will fight anyone who he thinks is trying to hurt him. (Here’s hoping he outgrows this stage as the three year old needs full battle rattle) I am not taking a position on guilt or innocence publicly, I am trying to be objective but some of this is just bullshit.

  31. I dont care about his religion.
    I found him to mean and a bully.Going after her boyfriend and trying to scratch his eyes out. He even tells his psychiatrist he did it. I believe the girls sorry.
    One fact was that he was confused about the religon proclaimed to believe in.

    I looked over the people that were to scared to testify against them. Looked over the fiber evidence . I love how the suporters jumped on a hair that belong to Mr Hobbs ( no doubt was on the child. He played there) The ones that should have had no fibers was Jessie, Damien, and Jason. And I dont find ALL the kids liked him. And the last vist with his psychiatrist scared me. He was delusional. The knife that his ex girlfriend said he had that looked almost like his. But he alone said he had
    several that were like them. And I dont think he would say on the stand it look just like that one .And because it was found behind Jason house ( that I dont believe it was planted )

    And I looked how many of the people the police were looking into suspects . Damien was just one out many of them. But the evidence started stacking up on Damien and Jason.And Jessie was not a suspect. And maybe one confession but 3. And the last one he wanted someone to do something about . ( against his lawyers advise.) They were telling him that they were going to file and dont do it . ( like saying Jessie we are going to get you off on the charges) The 3 lawyers were working together. Jessie suffered from guilt.

    And Pams statement didnt even make sence. She thinks Mr Hobbs did it and she leaves her daughter with him. Then she moves back in with him time after time. I find Mr Hobbs to be a parent that suffers from guilt because he waited to long to call and maybe he didnt look as hard as he should have. As far as the polygraph goes against him. Roy Michael Carson pass his too. So he was telling the truth too?
    I think Pam Hobbs blamed Mr Hobbs it was his fault because he was supose to be watching her son. She made the statement on the show it wasnt my fault I was at working. And he didnt call the police because they didnt have a phone.

    Read through all of it and peice it together. I ignored the witch stuff. Wiccans dont cast spells they dont drink blood. He was confused about all of it. He mixed the two black magic and wicca. But that isnt even the point. The knots tied three different ways. Give 3 people something to tie up two things And they will tie it the same way each time. I did it and they didnt change how they tied it up.

    I really didnt want to find them guilty. But the fact is that the movies left so much out that you would think blindly that this was about religion and music. And it wasnt.You are going to have to read through everything to get what the jury was thinking . I dont even think the confession played that big of part in it . But the fact is that it would have given them a new trial. And they would have rather taken the deal. And most likely they would have gotten 2nd degree murder. With time served. The state didnt want let them out because they thought they were innocent. Or because they would be able to sue. They would have to prove the state framed them. AND THEY DIDNT.
    Read through all of it. That is all I can say.

    1. Oh my God, Pru. You’re demented.

      Hey, Ladies and Gentlemen: Pru invites you all to read through the documents.

      Pru, I wish I could read as many documents as you have. Perhaps if I read as many documents as you have I would be as enlightened as you.

      I’m going to go read over some documents now, as the thought hadn’t previously occurred to me. I’ve just been watching Paradise Lost on loop for the last 15 years. Thanks for the tip, Pru.

    2. Pru and Joey,
      Were it not for the constant bickering between the two of you I would probaly not have as much to say but you both keep it very interesting! Ya’ll seem to disagree like an old married couple and it is entertaining and informative whether I want to be a supporter or a non on this day.
      I don’t disagree with the fact that Echols mental health was scary. I will disagree that the knife that looked like one he had found in the lake behind Jason’s house is compelling evidence. The knife dealer stated that it was a generic knife mass produced. When lakes and ponds are drained, you find everything from cars, knives,guns, jewelry, bodies, boats…so it’s not that surprising that they find a knife within an hour of searching. I don’t think the knife was planted either, but if they would have searched longer what else could they have found. It’s also not Jasons’ backyard, it’s a lake surrounded by a trailer park full of people who come and go. If the knife had the compass that Deanna also described on it, that would be more convincing for me. I don’t think it’s that uncommon for boy/men to collect knifes.
      .Oh, and I agree with you that Pam blames Hobbs b/c he was the one watching Stevie. And JMB blames himself, and if she ever spoke, Dana would probably say she blames herself. Does Todd Moore blame Dana though? I’m betting not.

      1. Nah, I’d never marry Pru. I’m promised to Stacia.

        Of course that knife isn’t compelling evidence. What a lark. No one even said it had anything to do with the murders. It was another example of Fogelman cynically playing the jury.

        And since we’re all putting on our psycho-analyst’s hats, I’ll submit that Pam Hobbs blamed the WM3 so vehemently in the beginning because a part of her feared it was Terry, and if it was Terry, she knew she’d have no one to blame but herself.

  32. Joey,
    I wouldn’t mind discussing the case with you, and I’ll take into consideration your views and weigh them out, but when you every post you write is so antagonistic its very difficult to even read, let alone consider your thoughts. I’m sure you have some valid points, I’d be interested in hearing them more, as at times I sit on the fence regarding their guilt or innocence. For the most part, I’m pretty certain that they are guilty, but you do your opinions no justice when you post in the manner that you do. Give up this self rightous, patronizing attitude and just post. I’m willing to hear your opinion out

    1. I find that a free-spirited discussion is healthy and enjoyable, and I think internet boards are the perfect medium for being able to cut loose and speak your mind freely…even if that involves using colorful language. I enjoy it when people respond back with the like. I think all of my posts, even the ones racked with extreme sarcasm, have a point to be made. Perhaps you’re right and I do myself a disservice by including certain phrasiologies, and I also understand that some people are more sensitive than others and don’t like it.

      I’ve tried to be on my best behavior, as of late, but Pru has really angered me. If we can’t come to a consensus on the objective truth there really is no point in engaging in discussions about the elusive truth that neither of can actually prove right now. I am deeply disturbed by complete disregard for the objective truth. Aren’t you? Is it too difficult for you, Kelly, a perfectly reasonable person, to look at my Johnny Depp exchange with Pru and see that Pru was completely unwilling to accept that Johnny Depp is just about the most wealthy actor in Hollywood? Evolutionists don’t debate with Creationists because denial of basic objective facts is not healthy for discussion, it’s corrosive.

      1. Oh I must jump in here. Evolution is a part of the creation. We know that all laws governing the universe break down before the big bang. We [science] know that the laws governing our universe cannot apply to the force behind the big bang. So that leaves only one question; is that force sentient?

        1. I don’t give a damn about the Big Bang, I’m talking about dumb assholes who think that it’s only fair that children should be taught Creationsim in school science classes if the “theory” of Evolution is being taught.

          Believe in God all you want, brainwash your children in your churches all you want, but keep that toxic shit out of public education.

          1. Joey,

            I didn’t mean to set off any dissonance. Again I am just trying to establish from where my viewpoint comes.

            I work in education, at a college. We do not teach creationism and we should not. That is what Sunday school is for. Freedom of religion, which by the way I disdain most all contemporary organized religion, is the right to say no or yes. It is NOT a part of the tax-funded establishment. and shouldn’t be. I think that churches should not be tax free; but that’s just me.

            Yeah, you got me. Given your level of insight I am not at all surprised. I do believe in God; Christ is my personal choice. It works for ME, but that is my choice. Among my closest, childhood friends are a Buhdast, a Pagen, an Athiest and another non-church-going Christian, such as myself. You would probably love to sit in of some of our discussions. But those discussions are civil, respectful, rational and even full of humor. We are all just posing answers to the great unknown and having a hell of a time doing it. As you may guess, with my point of view, living in Texas, there are quite a few churches that really don’t like me. They say, if I am really a Christian, I would be in church and shouldn’t be speaking to other’s regarding the subject, as I have no athority. They probably just want my tithes 😉

  33. The thing I find the most frustrating about the details in this case is the ignorance and misinformation on boths sides. It’s difficult to get the facts when supporters and nons alike are tweaking their own versions of “new evidence”. I don’t know which one pisses me off more. The nons who haven’t researched the case properly or the supporters like Compassionate Reader who refute and twist and excuse every single piece of circumstancial evidence against the WM3.

    Yes it is possible they did not kill Chris Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore. It is possible they did kill them. Personally I believe they killed them, but I will not discount the possibility they didn’t. I will debate facts about this case, but not opinions.

  34. I actually was a supporter, although not in any way other than thinking they were innocent, for almost 15 years. I never donated money, etc. However, sometime around the end of August this past year I decided to do a some reading and research. Over time, I began to feel as if I had been wrong in assuming their innocence, and for the most part, it was just pure gut instinct. After doing more reading on Callahans, my feelings towards their guilt were less based on my gut instinct and much more on the things I’d read and learned about. I don’t discount your beliefs, Joey, because i shared the same beliefs for a very long time. I just don’t anymore, part of that is probably being a little older and wiser than the teenage me, who was quick to jump on the supporter bandwagon, listen to only the supporter side of things, and naively (spelling?) assume that everything they said was true

    1. Thanks for sharing your personal experience with the case, Kelly.

      I would, however, like to state once and for all (although I’m sure I’ll have to continue to re-state it) that the supporters are not uniformly a bunch of dupes. Plenty of us have read every bit as much documentation as you, some of us have probably even read more. And we’re not all teeny boppers, screaming and throwing our panties at the WM3 like teenage girls used to do with The Beatles. Plenty of us are old enough, and wise enough, to form informed conclusions.

  35. I think most people don’t want to believe that teenagers are capable of the kind of brutality that took the innocent lives of Chris Byers, Michael Moore, and Stevie Branch. They have no problem accepting the theory of a parent or stepparent taking punishment of their child or stepchild too far, then murdering two other children to “keep them quiet”. They come up with some of the most improbable theories, like animal predation, manholes, dump sites…all because they take something from their own personal feelings or beliefs or experiences then apply them to this case. I’ve read things from “In my many years of working with mentally challenged children” and “I used to dress and act the way the WM3 did and I know what they went through”. Some have even gone so far as to link wikipedia entries on animals to prove their points. Hardly anyone bases their conclusions on the facts.

    1. Very good point, I agree. People initially see things in other people that they feel they can relate to and that really can distort seeing the entire picture

      1. Lethalstorm…that’s weak. Come on, man. Do you people realize how condescending you sound?

        This is my problem with the “echo” chamber, where you give your own opinion and it is warmly validated by all around you because they share the same opinion. You start to forget that there is another side, and that it’s perfectly legitimate.

        I promise you a good 99.9% of supporters know full well that teenagers kill people, and we don’t give a rat’s ass either way. Look, if you’re interested in the case, and you take the trouble to read the documents, you’re probably interested in the subject of True Crime. And if you’re into the subject of True Crime, teenagers murdering people ain’t all that new, and it ain’t all that shocking.

        I really think you nons think we supporters are just a bunch of little girls.

  36. I did go over the facts 🙁 I went through the whole transcript of the court case. All the interviews, autopsy reports. I went through everything I can find on these cases. It took me 3 days but I did it. And what was funny on the autopsy there wasnt any old other scars on the body. That would point to abuse. One did but it wasnt the Hobbs stepson. But like I said before, that putting Damien on the stand kill their case. He couldnt even confirm their alibiThat they went there to pick up the prescriptions. The black coat. It was right on the floor I have sereval of them. When I read it I dont even believe that the police would miss it. And as far as the knife. Yes I would say there could be a hundred people that have one like it. But he is on trail and to say he had serveral of them but they were black . And they sold them all from the mother, and Damien left them in Oregon. This gives Deanna’s testimony a great deal of more weight. And then at end of the trial.On states rebuttal through Peggy Simmons there was no band concert at that time or practice. Gave more weight to the proscution side they were made up alibis. And I did look at this very objectively. My goal was to find out what the jury saw to come back with the verdict guilty . Even Jason’s attorny came back in knowing that they would find Damien guilty. I just know going over all of the evidence . I have to come back with guilty. And by the way Michael Byers was mutilated before he died. Read Dr Petti testimony.

    I do have a question tho . Does anyone know how long it took the jury to deliberate ? I looked and look and cant find it. Please help me 🙁

    1. JM
      Thursday, February 3, 1994
      11:12am: The State and Defense rest their cases, on the seventh day of the trial.
      4:17pm: The jury begins deliberations after hearing closing arguments from both sides.

      Friday, February 4, 1994
      12:10am: The jury asks to be excused for the night.
      9:30am: The jury returns and continues deliberations.
      11:54am: The jury reaches a verdict. They find Jessie guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Michael Moore and second-degree murder in the deaths of Chris Byers and Steve Branch.
      After brief penalty phase arguments from both sides, the jury deliberates Misskelley’s punishment. After twenty-six minutes, they return with life in prison plus two twenty-year sentences

      DE and JB
      Thursday, March 17, 1994
      4:59pm: The jury begins deliberations after hearing closing arguments from both sides.
      10:35pm: Jury deliberations end for the evening.

      Friday, March 18, 1994
      9:30am: Jury deliberations continue.
      3:33pm: The jury reaches a verdict. They find both Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin guilty of three counts of capital murder.
      penalty phase DE and JB
      Saturday, March 19, 1994
      Penalty phase testimony from Dr. Moneypenny, Jack Echols and Joe Hutchison, followed by brief arguments from both sides.
      2:00: The jury begins to deliberate their sentences.
      4:22: They return with death by lethal injection for Damien Echols and life in prison without possibility of parole for Jason Baldwin.

    2. Hey Pru,
      I’m pretty sure you meant to say Christopher Byers and not Michael Byers, and yes, he had been castrated. I’m not sure if I remember correctly, but I want to say that he did not die from the blood loss and that they found water in his lungs, indicating he drowned. I honestly hope that poor child went into some type of shock from the blood loss, so his last few moments weren’t as greusomely horrible as I imagine they would have been. You know, I have know idea about how long the jury deliberated, but I want to say it was less than a day, that just sticks in my head, but I could definitely be wrong.

      1. In the autopsy reports, Chris Byers cause of death is listed as multiple injuries. Branch and Moore both drown according to the M.E.

        1. So, does that mean that he was deceased before they put his body in the ditch? I don’t know why but for some reason I thought there was water in his lungs. That poor baby.

          1. Kelly,
            I understood the report that he died before the water. I can’t wrap my mind around anyone torturing an animal this way, much less these children. But yes, the reports seem to say 2 of them drown, and Byers died from multiple injuries. (I am not at all qualified so I may have misunderstood myself) Anyone understand the M.E. report differently.

      2. Hey Kelly,
        Ty Yes Christopher Byers 🙂
        (autopsy ) 8 year old, white male, Christopher Byers, dies of multiple injuries. He died before he was put in the water 🙁 But I dont know if they mutilated after he was dead 🙁 I thought I it before that he died from loss of blood but you might be right 🙂 I hope your right Ty for trying to help me with how long the jury deliberated for . I am trying to find out if they went over the transcripts again.
        I also wanted to find out if there is a lot of wooded areas around there . Or just this one.

        1. I’ve only seen a few aerial images and it looks like it was wooded area on the right side with a truck stop on the right also, the left side looked like it was crops or something. This is just me trying to remember, but I think that the left side looked more like farmland.

  37. I have heard supporters bring up the fact that if Jessie was really telling the truth then why didn’t he testify against Echols and Baldwin at the trial. Could it be that he felt bad about the murders and thought he deserved to suffer and didn’t want to be seen as a snitch in prison when he might’ve gotten a reduced sentence for testifying but maybe it wasn’t much of a difference in the sentence he was already facing.

  38. Kristi,
    My thought on that was he was afraid to. Because he wasnt offered anything on his last confession. He didnt have to do it. And his lawyers begged him not to. I just think he had real remorse for what he did. And if you listen to it you are going to find lots of stuff about the crime . He even told them where to find his bottle that he smashed. And when they went to look it. It was right there. He kept saying he wanted someone to do something about it. There were a few people that were afraid to testify.( they were not looking for any reward ) Buddy Lucus ( he is the one that Jessie gave the shoes to ) after Lax talked to him he didnt want to get involved at all. He thought all he had to do is tell them the truth. He didnt want to testify. You can watch the video. He recanted after he found out where this was going. Even when Buddy Lucus recanted read the phone conversation. You can just see that he didnt want to be involved . I dont blame him 🙁

    When someone confesses( Jessie) when they have nothing to gain by it . It makes it more believable then less. They just want to get it off their chest. It sounded like he wanted to make sure it doesnt happen again.

    Just how I see it 🙂

  39. On August 19, 2011, Misskelley, entered an Alford plea. Judge David Laser then sentenced them to 18 years and 78 days, the amount of time they had served, and also levied a suspended sentence of 10 years. All three were released from prison that same day.[72] Since his release, he has gotten engaged to his high school girlfriend and enrolled in a community college to become an auto mechanic

      1. Jessie Misskelly:

        72] Since his release, he has gotten engaged to his high school girlfriend and enrolled in a community college to become an auto mechanic.
        Sorry for the late responce

  40. I too, agree that he was and still is ashamed of what he did. I feel that Jason is blocking it out and feels he has paid for his crime already. Damien, he is narcissistic. He can live with knowing he did it and lie about it. Damien’s behavior at the trials tells me he knew he was caught so he didn’t care at that point and wanted to be remembered. That was his main goal, to be remembered and to be famous, whether if it was for something bad it didn’t matter. These are opinions, obviously, I like to study behavior patterns and love criminal profiling so Lethalstorm and Joey, please go easy on me;), lol. I really don’t understand why people can’t have civil discussions without getting personal about this topic. Unless you knew them, mark, Christopher and Stevie, or the wm3, your judgement shouldn’t be clouded. I am extremely sarcastic at times and I can’t help it so that comes off as personal but I don’t intend it to be.

    1. Don’t be so hard on yourself, Kristi, I know that nothing you’ve ever said has bothered me at all.

      And, for whatever it’s worth, I appreciate the way you phrased your post.

  41. There is an interview at MyFoxMemphis with Damion Echols mom. Haven’t watched the full interview yet, but thought you guys might be interested.

  42. I read it but can’t view it on my phone, I’m kind of indifferent about it. I mean, if they really do believe their son is innocent then they should speak out for him.

  43. Well, the news said see the full interview online, and apparently I’m an idiot because that is obviously not the full interview and a weak one at that. They interviewed Pam Hobbs, and Terry’s daughter a couple weeks ago and never ask anything of relevance. By the by: Happy V-day to all.

  44. Happy V Day 🙂
    Well Damien did say in his medical records that his mother was loving and caring BUT STUPID 🙁 Not to come out and see his own mother ………would rather go on tour . OMG

    1. No Kidding! You got that right Pru. I wish I still had a mother to go see on Valentine’s Day. I sent my best friend’s mother-in-law a card.

      1. I’m glad you two have a prescription for Damien and his mother’s relationship. Because you honestly know what the circumstances are like between them.

        Get off your high horse and grow up.

          1. I spoke out of line. These relationships can be, and often are, extremely complicated. We honestly know nothing of the dynamics of theirs. Moreover, how many among us can directly relate to the extreme situation in which they have lived, and continue to do so. Still. it is sad. The “mother” issue got to me and I spoke out of emotion rather than reason. My mistake; I concede this point.

  45. It’s my understanding from people who blindly support the WM3 as 100% innocent, that they often claim that “Damien and Jason didn’t really know Jessie that well” — and certainly “didn’t hang out with him.”

    Does anyone find the Q&A below from Matthew Baldwin “placing Jessie at Jason’s trailer the night after the murders” slightly inconsistent with the theory that Jessie was an outsider who didn’t hang with them?













    So were these three kids friends or not? Who was the girl in the truck? And why didn’t Damien go with them? Odd timing (day after murders) for Jessie to be trying to “bond with Jessie and Damien,” no?

    It’s also a pretty far stretch for the cops to pin a crime on 3 kids who don’t really know one another — and especially when ONE SINGLE VERIFIEABLE ALIBI from any of the three would have killed the confession.


    1. OJSimpson
      A lot of people said that they hung around together. I will find it for you 🙂 (Jessie and Damien and Jason) Damien and Jason did a lot of lying

  46. Found this on Callahan’s:

    Transcript of a conversation that took place shortly before Jessie Misskelley was brought in for questioning:


    (Mike Allen, Bryn Ridge, Gary Gitchell. John Fogelman. Brent Davis are brain-storming!)

    GITCHELL: Alright, listen up fellas. It’s been nearly a month and we have been unable to solve this case. I say we end this today.

    DAVIS: (Reads from a list) So far we got these suspects: Robert Burch, Michael and David Wren, L.G Hollingsworth, Murray Ferris, Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland, about 30 other odd tips — oh, and, Mark Byers and the crazy black and bloody Bojangles Guy.

    ALLEN: So you’re saying we have NO ONE? Somebody did it, right?

    FOGELMAN: We need a confession. But who we going to use as the pawn?

    (a light bulb goes off — Gitchell snaps to life)

    GITCHELL: Jessie Misskelley!

    FOGELMAN: That guy from the gas station with the beer belly?

    GITCHELL: No, the retarded one. The other, smaller…retarded one. His son.

    DAVIS: Lil’ Jessie?

    GITCHELL: Lil Jessie!

    FOGELMAN: Now how in the hell are we going to trick Jessie Jr. to come to us?

    (Gitchell pulls out a hand-painted sign that reads: “FREE PONY RIDES!”)

    ALLEN: Where did you get a pony on such short notice?

    GITCHELL: There is no pony, Mike. It’s a ruse.

    FOGELMAN: A ruse? Is that like when kids paint their faces and chant sexy stuff to squirrels —

    GITCHELL: — No, it’s all fake! There’s no pony, so sexy critters — just this sign. But Jessie won’t know that.

    DAVIS: I get it now. When he comes to ride the pony…

    FOGELMAN: …We tape record a confession!

    RIDGE; But how do we get him to say he’s done it?

    GITCHELL: You know…just lead him along. Make stuff up, but nothing too specific.

    RIDGE: And who do we say did all the killing — Damien, right?

    FOGELMAN: No — too obvious. Put all the sick stuff on the Baldwin kid. Since he’s the least likely to do it, make him be the psycho, it’ll make it an easier sell.

    RIDGE: What about the time of murders?

    GITCHELL: Let Jessie make that up.

    ALLEN: Wouldn’t it be easier if we just tell him exactly what to say rather than allowing him to say something completely out of sync with the facts?

    FOGELMAN: Have him say they all met up at 9:00am!

    RIDGE: But that’s just ludicrous!?

    FOGELMAN: Trust me on the timeline. The more confusing the better. Also, make it sound like it was a devil ceremony.

    RIDGE: Like as in Satan?

    FOGELMAN: Deep fried doggies! Teen orgies! Throw it all in there.

    ALLEN: And we’ll say they’re all fans of “The Oak Ridge Boys!”

    FOGELMAN: Wait… I like the Oak Ridge Boys.

    GITCHELL: Me too.

    ALLEN: Okay… how about Metallica?

    FOGELMAN: YEAH! We’ll call it the “metal-head murders!”

    RIDGE: What if the guys from Metallica get all political over this and start raising awareness and defense funds?

    (everyone looks at Ridge like he’s crazy)

    FOGELMAN: The guys in Metallica will never even know about this case, dummy. It’s West Memphis, Arkansas!

    RIDGE: Good point…

    (The men take a moment to soak this all in)

    GITCHELL: If you have to — and I mean ONLY as a last resort — draw a circle and ask Jessie Jr. if he’s on the inside or on the outside.

    RIDGE: Wait — That’s cheating!

    GITCHELL: I didn’t say you had to — only as a last resort.

    RIDGE: Okay… I guess we’ll go get Jessie Jr to confess to the murders.

    GITCHELL: But get his daddy to sign a permission slip first.

    (The men high-five, laughing!)


      1. That’s a wonderful piece of satire, OJ. Here’s a link to something similar that I had bookmarked about 9/11 being an “inside job.”

        It’s certainly an amusing way to look at the circumstances.

        But I believe it was all much more…uh…banal than that. The pressure on Gitchell, et al, to find the killer(s) was enormous, and the fact that a month after the crimes he still didn’t have much to go on must have weighed on him heavily, both personally and professionally.

        We know there were rumors of Satanic cults running rampant throughout WM. We know Jerry Driver was sure Damien was involved…he was so sure Damien was involved with SOMETHING, he actually sent Dale Griffis Satanic drawings of Damien’s a year BEFORE the murders…for what, his expert analysis? Whatever. According to “Blood of Innocents” (p.92), “Police suspicions about Damien actually had started the moment the boys bodies were discovered in the ditch.”

        Recall that Gitchell made his bones on the Ronald Ward triple homicide in the late 80s…Ward was a troubled teenager, and after Gitchell locked him up, Fogelman got him the death penalty. (Due to pressure from the NAACP and others, and because Ward was just 15, the State ended up changing his sentence to Life).

        What you all should be asking is why was Terry Hobbs not vetted and cleared? Please don’t roll your eyes. In the Pasdar depositions, Gitchell is asked about Terry Hobbs. Rather than answer the question (and he’d been doing a very good job of answering the questions up until that point), Gitchell clammed up and said something like, “I don’t want to comment on that, because if I did I might say something that could be misconstrued that would in turn allow the WM3 to get out of prison.”

        Come on, even if you think the WM3 are guilty as sin, you have to admit that the way Terry Hobbs was handled was a little shady…right?

        1. Joey,

          I follow the Terry Hobbs story with great interest. Like I’ve said before, this case has more twists and dramatic turns than any Hollywood movie.

          I find Hobbs to be a creepy character indeed. I watched ALL of his police questioning and the lawsuit depositions. There are certain gaps in his timeline that have me scratching my head — and some of the claims against him that were raised in the lawsuit are scary.

          I also have problems with gaps in the timelines and alibis of the WM3. I have the same issues with Damien’s past behavior as I do with some of the things I’m learning about Hobbs’ past.

          Not sure why the parents weren’t vetted more in the first few days after the murders. I too saw Gitchell’s carefully worded response regarding Hobbs from the Pasdar lawsuit and wondered “what exactly is he saying?”

          There’s a reason that this WM3 debate goes in endless circles. It usually starts and ends like this:

          SUPPORTER GUY: “A retarded kid was dragged to the police station and beaten for 20 hours”

          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “The records don’t show that. It looks like his dad brought him to the cops — and Jessie implicated himself after 4 hours of questions. Here read these….”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “Whatever… but he should of had a lawyer at the very least!”

          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “He waived his rights to an attorney and signed a form. Here, look at them…”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “Come on! He has NO idea what they meant. He has never heard of a Miranda right or even had it explained to him.”

          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “Actually, he has. Four times before. During PRIOR police incidents where Miranda was explained. Here look at the trial transcripts.”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “Well they certainly didn’t have to be hard on him.”

          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “They were trying to solve a triple murder. Not the kind of case that people volunteer admission of guilt without pressure from police.”


          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “Do we really need to stay in this loop?”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “Yes. Yes we do.”

          So that pretty much is where the breakdown happens every single time.

          If you can make it out of LOOP NUMBER 1 you’ll end in loop number 2 which goes something like this:

          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “There’s no evidence to support that Damien had any mental health issues other than teen angst.”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “He was receiving checks from the government for his mental health disability.”

          NON-SUPPORTER: “Oh come on — everyone get those. I’m talking about the day of the murder.”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “Well he did go to see his mental health doctor that day. He didn’t have good things to report…”

          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “But you make it seems like he has violent mood swings that are treated with medication.”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “His family drove to the pharmacy to get them later on that afternoon — or the next day.”

          NON-SUPPORTER GUY: “But that doesn’t have any relevance to his mental health!”

          SUPPORTER GUY: “You’re just doing this on purpose, right?”

          You get the picture. So…

          Either the murders are the result of a random encounter with drunken-punks-demon-dabbling-bullies (WM3) in the woods that spun out of control as Jessie has indicated in his many confessions.


          Hobbs wanted to teach his son a lesson and had no choice but to eliminate the witnesses after he went too far.

          1. I find your 2nd “transcript” less humorous. It’s too broad, too much of a characature. I’m not denying that you’ve had an exchange or two like this, but I think it paints, with a very broad brush, supporters as idiots incapable of coherent thought, let alone coherent speech.

            Here’s my stab at satirizing what you did with this Supporter/Non-Supporter exchange…

            Supporter: There isn’t any compelling physical evidence to support the claim that the WM3 are guilty.

            Non-Supporter: Yes there is! Because I say so!

            Supporter: Why do you say that?

            Non-Supporter: Because Jessie confessed one billion times!

            Supporter: But don’t you —

            Non-Supporter: No!

            Supporter: But I just —

            Non-Supporter: NO! NO! NO! Johnny Depp only got them out of jail because he wants the spotlight! Peter Jackson is just milking the cash cow! Terry Hobbs is a saint! Gary Gitchell is the greatest detective ever! Fogelman is right out of a John Grishm novel! Kent Arnold was completely fair and impartial! Exhibit 500 is all the evidence we need! Michael Carson said Jason did it and he’s only taking it back now because he heard the Choo-Choo of the money train! If supporters actually read a document or two instead of just watching those liberal Hollywood pieces of propaganda Paradise Lost they would all become enlightened non-supporters like me! My opinion is Damien’s a sociopath, Baldwin’s a follower, and Misskelly feels really bad about what he did and will soon confess, and if not soon, perhaps on his death bed! I really, really love my own opinion! I can’t wait for Lori to divorce Damien! She’s such a sicko! How dare Jason go to Disney land?! He’s just trying to rub his guilt in everyone’s face! I care so much about those 3 little boys and supporters just care about being cool Damien groupies! Charles Manson had groupies too! I bet supporters want Charles Manson out of jail too! I bet supporters would go on killing sprees if they had the chance! I bet if Damien wanted to form a doomsday cult all the supporters would join him! They’d all kill themselves if Damien commanded it! They’re such groupie wannabes! I can’t wait till Damien kills again and we can all say haha, we told you so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            End satire.

            What do you think? Too on the nose?

            Although I’m really glad you acknowledge some of the strikes against Hobbs, I just think you were unfair in your characterization of the debate, OJ. If you want to have an exchange, let’s have that exchange. Even if I don’t convince you or anyone else, I promise you I wouldn’t sound like that.

          2. Wait a minute — I never said I wanted Charles Manson out of jail!?!?

            Just kidding. Yeah, you covered all the bases pretty much.

            I just find that there is a bunch of circumstantial evidence against these guys — but you wouldn’t know it if you were to ask the average person who claims to have intimate case knowledge.

            It probably all goes back to my gut reaction to PL1 — WHY DID THESE GUYS SEEM SO PASSIVE? Their lives were on the line!

            When you watch PL1 again — and read the defense stuff on Callahans — it seems like they MIGHT be guilty. It’s not a clear cut FRAME JOB. Their own lawyers don’t seem 100% convinced of their innocence at times.

            Hell, even Jason Baldwin thought they made Damien look guilty — his words, not mine.

            For the record: I never thought for one second this was a SATANIC KILLING.

            I don’t believe a single word of Michael Carson.

            The lake knife as a murder weapon?!? Nope….

            But … could they have done it. Totally.

            Alibis? Where are they?

            Baldwin offered zero defense? Nice strategy…

            The scene should have been littered with their DNA, but it’s okay for one potential fiber to convict someone who is not them?

            As for Hobbs… Yeah, I’d like to know what he was doing “in the woods” all night. Searching? Maybe, maybe not.

            I’m open to exploring anything, I just can’t deny my gut feelings that maybe these kids did it.

    1. I hadn’t heard that, I’m interested to know if it’s true. Will you let me know if you hear anything else about her and the movie. Happy Valentine’s to y’all………. Even Joey 🙂

  47. Just finished reading the transcripts from the DE/JB trial and trying to sort things out. I will probably need to read them again.
    I am not seeing where DE had any knowledge that had been undisclosed by LE. In reading many of the newspaper articles it is easy to see how many things were thrown out there. Articles dated May 7th were already using sexual mutilation, mutilation, hands and feet bound, submerged in water, submerged in a drainage ditch. Mark Byers stated how one boy had been hit above the eye, another had injured his jaw and the third was worse than that.
    I am not seeing a level of knowledge that would most likely only be known to the killer/s, but rather logical deductions based on info that had been floating around, be it through the media or word of mouth. I do have to go back and check on the sexual mutilation part. I know the report from Ridge with DE is dated 5/10, and that JMB’s in a statement dated May 19th (IIRC) speaks of only one of the boys being castrated. I realize this wasn’t from a paper, but I do wonder when he found out this information and maybe it got out through word of mouth. I just don’t know.
    This statement in the states closing
    And then he tells Detective Ridge, when Detective Ridge asked him, “How do you think they died?”–“Mutilation. Two of them probably drowned. One of them was cut up more than the others.” Coincidence? He just guessed? Did the police even know that two drowned at that point? Remember reading from the newspaper article trying to suggest, well he got these details out of the newspaper. What did they read to you. Said all of them were sexually mutilated or castrated. Said they were found in water. Wasn’t anything about two of them drowning. Wasn’t anything about one of them cut up more than the others. And that came from this defendant’s over here own mouth.
    I cannot find where DE said two of them probably drown. I have read Ridge’s testimony and his report from 5/10/93, and I do not see where he is to have said it. If someone knows where I can find it, please point me in the right direction. Also, stating that they probably drowned seems to be logical reasoning, they were found in water, so thats not a leap to me that he would say that. And it was in the paper about the different degrees of injuries.

    I realize this is just a small portion, and I have so many things that I am thinking about, I am mainly addressing it because of the closing argument and I cannot remember, nor can I find, where DE is to have said 2 boys probably drowned.
    regarding the fibers
    I understand how fibers get transferred, and I understand about the testing that was done and about being microscopically similar ect., I just find it incredible that the only fibers found, are said by the state to be double transferred fibers? Am I understanding that correctly? of course it is not impossible, just wondering what the odds are that the only possible linking via fibers, is not direct transfer from either DE or JB, each leaving instead, only fibers that had been transferred onto them.

    just thinking out loud, and grateful there is a place I can do that 🙂

  48. That has to be oversimplified. Why the Misskelley confession cannot be used in a critical argument for guilt doesn’t wholly rest on how the confession was obtained. He confessed and recanted several times. In his original confession, there were not just several errors, but blantant errors – for instance, confusing day and night?? His confession only got better in detail the more he was exposed to the prosecutions perception of those details. Bottom line: Misskelley is a demonstrable liar and one has to be very selective to argue his “confessions” mean anything.

    Second, the mental health history is Echols. So? It may make him many things, but it does not make him guilty. He could be a complete jerk, a total pyschopath, AND innocent of this crime. Taken in the context of the entire case, it just doesn’t mean much, or it doesn’t mean more than the history of known child sex offenders in the area at that time; it is worth a look, but it is not automatic guilt.

  49. Geez Louise,

    I have a problem trying to find anything of substance in any statements made by any person shortly after the boys’ bodies were discovered because I understand how small town grapevines work. At one point, JMB (and this was early on when he still believed the WM3 were guilty) that he was told, directly and from an investigator at the crime scene, that his son had been sexually mutilated. Regardless of whether one is to believe the WM3 is guilty, there is no denying (with any sense at all) that the investigators miserably failed to keep details of the crime close to their vest early on. They simply dropped the ball there – dropped it, kicked it, dribbled it right into ultimate failure.

    About the fibers, yeah, problematic, isn’t it?

      1. Hey, Joey…

        Thanks. My style usually involves better proof-reading, but anyway. Your comments make the 100+ responses to the posts on this blog much less ah, tedious.

        1. Keese,

          I totally get your points. I the disconnect I have is when people say “it’s just so obvious that these guys didn’t do the crime” — that’s when I go: “It’s not obvious to me.”

          Recalling PL1 and the earlier years of the case, it seems MANY people thought they were guilty. It didn’t seem so obvious to them that the WM3 was clearly innocent.

          The facts don’t change over time, only perception — and many people are now quoting false events such as “the twelve hour interrogation” as fact.

          Why can’t people just say: “You’re right, it does appear that there was no 12-hour confession.”

          Can Echols be insane and not-guilty? of course. But many supporters can’t even entertain the fact that he might have been nuts.

          The first Jessie confession is pretty much…well, retarded. How and why the cops fed him that story with all the timeline problems and logical errors is beyond me. Why did they do such a bad job of framing someone?

          Again, do you think the cops thought the kids were guilty or was the pressure to make an arrest so great they were willing to arrest anyone? ALL those people LIED and let THREE GUYS ROT IN JAIL?

          There are unsolved cases in the world — it’s not a crime to not make an arrest.

          It’s the bible confession that turns the tables.

          Was it a “false” confession? Maybe, but I don’t know. Do you?

          What was Jessie’s motivation to tell that story over and over again with such conviction? Did he recant the later confessions? Direct me to links of Jessie’s recanting of the bible confession, please — not being a wise guy, I really want to learn more.

          I guess we’d have to ask Jessie.

          I know people will say that Jessie doesn’t have the mental capacity to answer questions about his later confessions, but I really feel that he’s hurting the cause by not speaking out. Maybe he’s embarrassed about being tricked into the confessions and that’s why he’s acting evasive.

          However, I guarantee you that if Jessie wanted a lifetime pass to Wrestlemania-monter-truck-rally-5000 — and all it required was a 2000-word essay on “who is your favorite wrestler and/or monster truck?” Jessie would be able to knock out those 2000 words in an afternoon.

          It’s all about motivation.

          Thanks for this forum.

    1. The fibers. Yes, the fibers. I get they are microscopically similar. I get that poly cotton is not as common as cotton, though its not like its a rare gem to find it, its still very common. It just really interests me that the only fibers they found, were not direct fibers from JB and DE’s clothing, but they each just happened to leave a fiber that had been transferred on to their clothing. No other fibers, just double transferred fibers. I mean what are the odds?
      I am not expecting that there would be much as everything was in water, but there they were some fibers, some fibers…and a piece of hair.

  50. Oj,

    Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, and I certainly don’t accept anyone speaking for me. I don’t care if it took 5 minutes or 5 days to get Misskelley’s original confession – it is bunk. You and I agree. But how you go from that to, “Oh, wait, THIS confession means something,” I don’t follow. Was there better detail? Of course there was! You will have to explain. Did he recant? UGH – I hate to use the Paradise Lost trilogy for ANY reference, but he did look at his interviewers and say police had knowingly jailed three innocent people and all manner of, “I didn’t do it.” Dude, yes, he absolutely did recant 😉

    I can entertain the idea that Damien Elchols is a walking fruit loop. 😉 I have no such cognitive dissonance, though I haven’t stated my personal thoughts on what Exhibit 500 really means, and I won’t – not relevant.

    As for motives, now you are getting into really juicy conversation because it isn’t all Perry Mason. Take Misskelley, for instance (Understand, I am not arguing that this is what happened. I am just giving an example of how “motive” isn’t all that black and white), he could have confessed the first time to “escape” the pressure, and his motive for the “bible confession” could have been wholly different – he could have been thinking about a possible sentence reduction, or he could have been trying to lessen the evil perception of him. It is hard to determine the thoughts in a mind not “normal.” However, I just don’t accept any of those confessions has anything with weight – you’ll have to tell me why I should. One doesn’t have to be telling anything near the truth to be passionate about it. And, do I *know* those confessions are false? I don’t even play the lottery and I would bet my life savings on it.

    Also, Misskelley may well be able to write a 2,000 word essay for wrestle-mania. The thing is, you are talking about two different things – intelligence vs. vulnerability, or how impressionable he is. It really is two different things, and I don’t believe anyone in Miskelley’s corner has done him any justice in not emphasizing that enough. I’ve had many experiences with kids who have diminished mental capacities. There is not only a huge difference in the way they retain and perceive things they are interested in and things they are not interested in, but, generally, kids with mental deficiencies are also very easy to sort of “push around.” They generally don’t respond well to pressure and that response is a wholly different thing from writing an essay or interacting in a conversation.

    As for the motives of police, again, murky, and more than one person to consider. However, I think it might include a little of all your suggestions, but google “tunnel vision investigation.” Certainly could be. I don’t think investigators actually “framed” them. I believe, generally, under pressure, they locked on to suspects and rode that wave all the way in without questioning themselves. I wouldn’t call them bad people (I don’t know), but they were bad investigators, bad prosecutors, and a bad, biased judge. But, these are all personal judgments and not things I am comfortable assuming. These things are almost made-for-TV mystery circumstances, really.

    I enjoy your comments!

    1. Yeah, I remember the Paradise Lost recants from Jessie. I guess I was referring to Jessie addressing the bible confession specifically, and the confession that followed that a week later (with attorneys from both sides).

      None of the lawyers or filmmakers (that I can recall) seem to acknowledge that those other confession documents even exist — they only refer to the confession that Jessie made when he was first arrested.

      I found the circumstances surrounding the later confessions to be intriguing, but maybe that’s just the dramatic twists with Stidham nervously running from the room to get the bible and the whole search for the whiskey bottle, etc.

      I just think it’s important to distinguish the two — or at least acknowledged them.

      I agree that false confessions occur — and I’m well aware of the high-profile cases. But we can’t call every confession a false confession, right? The prosecution did a pretty good job regarding the defense’s false confession expert, if I recall. I’ll have to listen to the audio again.

      The Norfolk Four case is mind-blowing, to me anyway. I can see how people might confess under pressure, but Jessie’s later confessions just bothered me on a level I can’t express. Maybe I felt cheated that I didn’t know they existed until I found this site.

      If you haven’t figured it out already, this case really bothers me…

      Thanks for your insight and comments!

      1. OJ
        What bothered me was how PL3 cut off officer Ridge when he was telling the evidence about the case. After I stumbled upon this web sight I was blinded to the facts. And never noticed that they cut him off. It seemed like they were hiding the facts in this case. Damien’s mental state, Jessie’s last confession, all the alibi’s that fell through on them. Who testified and who didnt. I always wondered how a jury would ever have found them guilty( even tho there was someone working the jury and talked about the confession in Damien’s and Jason’s trial).This was capital murder. With a death sentence on the line. I dont think any of the jury took this case lightly .Some how it didnt add up……….but talking to the suporters they make you feel like it all fits.

        I would like to thank the owner of this sight 🙂 They dont tell you what to think they just show you the facts in the case. And that in itself is refreshing! And people on the sight are MOSTLY polite to each other.

  51. *just want to correct that. I think they locked on to ONE suspect – Echols. I don’t think they were looking to “frame” Echols but to nail him as the guy they whole-heartedly believed was guilty. Misskelley turned into a goldmine. But again, this is all speculation.

  52. Ok. Here’s my question. Jessie’s mental disability is a big debate because he didn’t have the mind to understand. He is said to have the mind frame of a six to 8 year old child. Well, I’ll say my six year old ain’t no dummy. He knows when to lie to keep from getting in trouble and will get very detailed with his lies. To stay OUT of trouble. I have never worked with mentally impaired, but raising a house full of boys can absolutely make me feel that I am. I have a broken window that out of 4 kids, no one has confessed to til this day. What they do do, however, is place blame. When the 7 year old broke the -2nd window (welcome to my world) it was because he ‘thought’ that the 3 year old was going to throw something at him so he moved, fell backward and it ”just broke.” I won’t test the theory that if I accuse them long enough they’ll admit to something they didn’t do, but has that ever been done. On a child I mean-b/c Jessie could have been just a really smart 6 year old.

    1. should have included this, from above link
      “…Consistent with much recent research, students were generally more accurate than police, and accuracy rates were higher among those presented with audio- taped than videotaped confessions. In addition, investigators were significantly more confident in their judgments and also prone to judge confessors guilty…These findings are discussed for what they imply about the post-interrogation risks to innocent suspects who confess.”

  53. Just Jane,

    It is my opinion that Misskelley’s defense really screwed him by, instead of making his actual disavantage clear, they attempted to make him look stupid. The comparison to a younger child does not adequately explain his mental capacity – it just doesn’t. Your boys won’t compare.


    Commentary: Overcoming
    Judicial Preferences for Person-
    Versus Situation-Based
    Analyses of Interrogation-
    Induced Confessions

    The second link talks about how mental deficiencies aren’t even a necessary component for false confessions.

    The “confessions” are junk. I’m not sure where that gets lost. But, comparing Misskelley to a “normal” 6 year old boy is where you are likely getting confused – because it isn’t good science. Start with those links and do some Googling for explanations that come from good sources which have nothing to do with WM3.

  54. Jessie Misskelley

    Jessie Misskelley Jr. (born July 10, 1975) was arrested in connection to the murders on May 5, 1993. After a reported 12 hours of interrogation by police, Misskelley, who has an IQ of 72, confessed to the murders, and implicated Baldwin and Echols. However, the confession was at odds with facts known by police, such as the time of the murders.[72][73] Under the “Bruton rule”, his confession could not be admitted against his co-defendants and thus he was tried separately. Misskelley was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. The court sentenced him to life plus 40 years in prison. His conviction was appealed and affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.[74]

    On August 19, 2011, Misskelley, along with Baldwin and Echols, entered an Alford plea. Judge David Laser then sentenced them to 18 years and 78 days, the amount of time they had served, and also levied a suspended sentence of 10 years. All three were released from prison that same day

    .[72] Since his release, he has gotten engaged to his high school girlfriend and enrolled in a community college to become an auto mechanic.

    Does this sound like someone that is Medically Handicap . I dont know to many retarded men going to college.. Sorry but I think it was just a way for his defence lawyers to win a case. Even tho he confessed after his lawyers begged him not to . I think his lawyers pleaded him wrong . But doesnt matter now they are all free.

    1. Pru,
      What case would you have put on as a defense for Miskelley? They didn’t have a whole lot to work with. I am not asking to be a smart-ass. I am curious and would like to hear what any of you out here would have used as a better defense.

      1. Just,
        Really I would have tried to plea him out. I dont think I could get a jury to believe of his innocents with the confession , details , and lied about the albi.

  55. Well, the post-conviction sentencing “confession/s” was mentioned by the prosecutor in, I believe, the first PL. The film shows the prosecutor telling the parents Misskelley had confessed and recanted again, had given another statement, and I think at that point he was saying he didn’t think Misskelley was willing to testify against Echols and Baldwin, although, and I clearly remember the prosecutor ever-so-gently explaining it, Misskelley was being offered a deal. So, it was mentioned, just not in detail. That’s where the arguments for the “Bible confession” and Misskelley’s supposed conscience blow my mind. Not only was Misskelley by then a demonstrable liar, and even that “Bible confession” raises my concern, but, that would mean his “conscience” ran dry at testifying even when it would shorten his sentence. Hmm. That doesn’t sound right.

    Oh, but I just went back and read that “Bible confession.” Just off the top of my head, here is my concern:

    The corrected details mean nothing because he had *just* sat through a trial where those details were all laid out for him. And, notice the way he goes from “blood spurting everywhere” to that implausible clean-up job. That screams of “better explain what I heard in trial.”

    He said “rope” instead of “shoelaces” to trick the police – to see if they were lying? I say BS. Although I caution myself in any attempt to get into his head, I just don’t see that in any way compared to the first “confession.” He’s not even a good liar.

    There’s a man who looks like Echols and he has a beard and a mustache, oh but when he “shaves it off” he looks like Echols.Conveniently cannot recall ANY identifying detail.

    No way – at all – to corroborate any part of his stories involving meetings, the man, or seeing Echols and Baldwin at the park. His lawyer pushed hard, notice.

    I noticed the difference in the language he used. Where one could corroborate his story, he tells the story. Where he is talking about the events around the murders, he starts using phrases like, “to my knowledge” and “I’m going to say…”

    The bottle? I’m not concerned, and here is why: I think he was telling some truth and some lies. I think his story started out true, all the way to the point where he met up with Echols and Baldwin who, supposedly, were going to just stand around waiting until he felt like showing up to go find some girls (Misskelley was just that kind of chick-magnet??) I actually haven’t seen real evidence on the bottle (do you have a link?), but I’m not really concerned if they found what he said was there because I have no doubt Misskelley knew he threw one there at some point. It is too bad he couldn’t give a detail of anything else not brought up in trial that had ANYTHING to do with the scene in the woods. And he could have – a specific piece of trash or something, anything.

    Notice the dance around the idea that the boys rode their bikes over that pipe.

    There’s that. This case bothers me, too. Regardless of what any of us believes, the person/people who brutally tortured and murdered those little boys – just babies – and shattered so many other lives is/are walking the streets.

    And hey, I appreciate the conversation. It is always good when I can bounce ideas with a person who is either on the fence or believes the WM3 are guilty and it doesn’t turn into “Oh, you just want to dry-hump Damien!” UGH!

    1. You know, the more I think about the “chick-magnet” comment, the more I think I might have read that somewhere else long ago… (disclosure). Anyway, I’ll be around again. I’m stuck on a couch for a couple of weeks!

  56. Keese,
    Sorry but the point I was trying ot make. That if he able to understand the make of the college courses .He wouldnt understand the miranda rights ? He wouldnt understand what it would mean if he makes another confession ? And the prosecutor makes a point of saying he wasnt promised anything. The lawyers beg him not to confess . They made a point to say that one the tape.The offer was not made to him at the time he confessed. And there was a rope at the crime scene. And he did say he was drunk. I beleive they were all drunk at the time. And Damien confessed to anther friend or should I say bragged. To many witnesses saying Damien and Jessie confessed to them. That were good friends to them. Even tho they never testified against them. The evidence points to more so that they did the crime,then not.

    What I was trying to say was the shock I had when so much was left out of the movie.
    🙁 After reading over everything in the case. PL1 PL2 PL3 was not based on all the facts in the case. Only what they wanted you to see. And PL that is out is based on one experts opinion. What might of happen. And we know that in court there will be many experts to dispute what they are saying. And they make a point to say Vickie recanted. She never testified in court. The prosecuter didnt call her as a witness. Why bring her in the movie ?

  57. Hi guys. I am brand new to posting about this case. This is my first post actually. I will tell you a bit about me and then I will ask my questions. I’m a doctor in New Jersey. I’m laid up right now because I fractured my hip from running too much (marathon training). I have no vested interest in this case, I just find it interesting. I have seen all three docuentaries (PL3, I’ve attempted to watch quite a few times, but it’s so boring I can’t make it through without falling asleep), I have read Blood of Innocents and The Devil’s Knot and I have read quite a bit online. Having said all of that, I just can’t decide what I think. Sometimes I have moments where I think they are innocent. Then I look at the list of coincidences and I’m like, they are so guilty. So, I’m kind of neutral. I tried to register on the hoax board to discuss but they never approved me. I feel like those people are extremely educated about the case so I’m really hoping they approve me at some point. So, the reason that I go back and forth is because of the following things:

    -there is inconsistencies in Misskelly’s confession (I am a believer in false confessions)

    -the fiber evidence is weak. All of those people probably shop at wal-mart or whatever store is around there. Those fibers could have been found in anyone’s house.

    -Vicki Hutcheson’s statement that she later retracted

    -Michael Carson’s statement that he later retracted

    This is just a few things that make me wonder. However, I certainly don’t think it’s totally out of the realm of possibilities that they did it. I don’t get Jason Baldwin’s involvement though. Jessie Misskelly is borderline mentally challenged so I can see him being easily influenced, but why would Jason be involved? It seems irrational to me. So if anyone wants to chat, I’m totally open minded about the case. I definitely am not an expert on it and most of the people that post here know way more about it then I do so I think I could learn a lot.

      1. All nice points, Jade. Perhaps you can learn more, but frankly I think you got it down pat.

        And by the way…doesn’t sound like you’re on the fence. Sounds like you don’t think they did it.

        1. Sometimes I do Joey. But I definitely see some discrepancies in the investigation and the trial. I also find it odd that nons and supporters look at the same bit of evidence and can interpret it differently. For example, Exhibit 500. Nons think that is proof of guilt. I don’t see that. I see a truly unfortunate person that grew up in the worst kind of environment. Exhibit 500 actually made me feel bad for Damien Echols. It’s the only thing that made me feel bad for him. He was raised terribly, his stepfather may have been abusing his sister, they were completely destitute. I can’t relate to being brought up that way. I had a friend that was raised similar to that and he got all of these crazy ideas that Nazis were right and he became one of those Hitler admirers. However, it was a front, a defense mechanism. He was targeted at school all of the time. He was expelled and beat up and treated differently. The thing is, he didn’t really believe any of that crap. He just thought it made him seem tough I guess. It was stupid, teenage crap. That’s how I interpret Echols mental health records. As a teenager, I thought it was cool to say shocking things and do shocking things. Ultimately, I grew up to be semi-successful.

  58. I don’t know how so many have managed to go through everything and make sense of it, to untangle it all. To me it is a huge convoluted mess and I am lost.

    Today I am trying to figure out Jerry Driver and Steve Jones, and their relationship with/to so many things. I don’t know what to make of it, but it is all so convoluted. From JD being DE’s probation officer to his belief DE was involved in satanism, to his influence in the exhibit 500 to his helping, imo, steer the the investigation, to being the supervisor of Steve Jones who was Jason Baldwins probation officer, who was also at the discovery site, reading conflicting reports of him being the first one to discover a clothing item, to talking with Lt. Sudbury, to directing him toward DE, to meeting with DE’s, again, reading conflicting reports, DE’s mom in an interview says he came alone first and came back later with Lt. Sudbury. He also speaks to other people trying to get info regarding cult activity and satanism, he also had JD meet him at a location where there were supposed rituals (wth, I am not understanding his level of involvement here, and he has an informant?) .

    I’ll stop, my confusion is evident lol. I am trying to make sense of it. What was SJ doing at the discovery site? Why would he be asked by Lt. Sudbury to go with him to interview DE? Why are these two out there interviewing people and skulking around trying to get info? Okay, maybe skulking is not a nice way to say it, but they were definitely ‘investigating’. Why? And why wasn’t SJ’s called to testify?
    I am not expecting answers, hell, I am really not expecting anyone to have actually read this far lol, my post is a jumbled mess, mirroring my thoughts right now.

    1. OMG I am so with you Geez. I have no idea what relation a juvenile probation officer has to do with a murder investigation. Maybe things are different in NJ, where I’m from, because I can’t see that flying here. I can’t imagine that helping with a missing persons investigation is part of his job description. And your jumbled up thought process that you wrote about is exactly how I feel about the whole case. And since when is it okay to take a report through the drive thru window? Regina Meeks dropped the ball there; I wonder if there was ever any repercussion for any of the wrong doings that happened within this case. Was anyone ever held accountable for losing the Bojangles blood? I am as confused as you, trust me. That’s why I can’t draw any conclusion about this case.

      1. It’s not uncommon in this region, where our officers for the county carry second badges as state parole officers. Our judges here were just reprimanded for sending 4th and 5th DUI’s to church counseling then re-elected. I’ve never even thought it strange the people involved until you brought it up today. I can’t even begin to tell you how the system works here except most of our towns around here are still in no way capable of dealing with a crime of this severity. My land-lord is a part-time non-paid deputy. (fake?) He is in the rescue squad, he is a campus cop in the next county and until the plant closed, was a night shift supervisor. That’s a small example of why a juvie officer would be out there. Hell, if it’s like here he probably shared a desk with Gitchell. It used to be offensive when we in this region were referred to as ignorant poor white trash but I guess if the shoe fits… And that’s one thing Echols told the truth about. They would have killed him without PL, and no one would have given it a second thought.

        1. Thanks for the info Jane. Being from the northeast, I don’t have a great understanding of the southern mentality. And I’m not knocking it, I am just unfamiliar. So Jerry Driver did have a valid reason to be there?

          And your landlord as a part time unpaid deputy? That made me laugh out loud. Maybe I should begin moonlighting as a vigilante.

          1. It’s funny til he pulls up in his police car and I freak out-because you never know, right. Honey, I got stories all day long about the mid-south. Cops night before last told a 21 year old mother of 5 who was screaming she was going to kill herself while her 35 yr old mother was encouraging her to do so b/c she was kicking her out (it was raining and cold) to just go and apologize cause the babies didn’t need to be out in this weather. (the 21 yo and children were sitting in the street outside my bedroom window) I asked if they had a place for them to go and they looked at me like I was drunk or stupid.) Things are just different here.

          2. Good morning Jade
            I responded to your 3:37 pm post but it is in limbo awaiting moderation. Hopefully it will show up at some point 🙂
            It was Steve Jones who was at the discovery site, he was the jr. probation officer, Jason Baldwin’s probation officer. SJ was under the supervision of Jerry Driver, who was DE’s probation officer. SJ found the first piece of evidence, pointing it out to Officer Allen.
            Jones also spoke to Officer Sudbury on that day of the discovery. They both shared common views about it looking like cult sacrifice. Jones, the day of the discovery, points to Echol’s. Sudbury and Jones go see DE the next day, and it is this conversation/interview where DE’s says certain specifics about the crime were revealed.
            I too think it is interesting that Sudbury prepared the 32 question questionnaire.

      2. Hi Jade 🙂
        It really is a mess. I have no idea if there were any repercussions. I know in closing the prosecution touched on ‘mistakes’ made, from statement
        “Police ineptitude. Were there mistakes made? Sure. There’s never been anything done–an investigation or a uh–a lawyer’s product or anything else–there’s never been anything done in this world that there hasn’t been some mistakes made. There’s always mistakes made. The question that you have to ask yourself is, are the mistakes material? Are they material, do they matter?”

        Yes, yes they do matter. They matter very much.

        The jury deliberated for such a short time. I wonder if they had all the evidence with them or if they had to request certain items, if they looked at any of it at all in deliberations. Also wonder if they asked for any testimony to be read back to them.

        ugh, this is interesting

  59. Pru,

    The PL trilogy are “docudramas,” not documentaries, because they draw a conclusion for the viewer. They are completely one sided. We agree. The only reason I mentioned them was because one provided an interview with Misskelley and showed a conversation between the prosecutor and parents, both instances within the context of the conversation I was having.

    As for Misskelley’s mental capacity, it is almost a moot point to me. His confession was bogus. It just was. However, I will say I have no idea whether he understood Miranda, but check out the links I provided above; the first specifically explains how mental deficiencies are not so much a problem there as they are in the individual understanding the consequences of a false confession – that person would believe things will get straightened out later, for instance. There really isn’t any denying, I think, that he had some vunerability. However, it doesn’t really matter to me in that it isn’t necessary for a false confession. So, that is one part. His mental deficiency is not necessary for a false confession to have taken place, so even if his defense played it up, it doesn’t matter. Do we at least agree on that much?

    I understand his “bible confession” was not given as a direct result of a deal offer; I just also understand that it doesn’t mean Misskelley did not, in his mind, believe he could help himself. Now, that might sound crazy to you, but it doesn’t to me – especially if we are talking about a kid with a mental deficiency. Sure his lawyers were adamantly against it, but Misskelley was already sentenced to forever with those lawyers at his side. This is all speculation, of course, but again, having experience with kids like that, I’m just not disturbed by these things. I will say with absolute confidence however, you cannot compare their actions to actions you would take or other “normal” kids of any age. For example, it would not surprise me – at all – if Misskelley gave that “bible confession” to make the police his friends again. Again, that may sound crazy to you. If it does, I suggest you look into the issue far away from anything have to do with the WM3. It happens.

    Anyway, all speculation, and his motives cannot really be judged, right? I mean you could say if he was innocent, why confess? I could say, if he was guilty, why recant? Then we will both likely choose the speculative reasons that make most sense to us and never have to deal with the hard evidence sitting right here: the confessions themselves. I have given some of my reasons for being completely comfortable with judging them bogus. Mainly, Misskelley is a demonstrable liar and his “confessions” don’t ring true to my mind.

    1. Keese, I beg to differ here. Docudramas are scripted and staged. It’s perfectly fair game for a documentary to be biased and not compromise itself as a work of non-fiction.

      Michael Moore, for instance…all his documentaries are EXTREMELY biased. Doesn’t change the fact that they’re documentaries. Wikipedia lists Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast as a good example of docudrama.

      Not that it’s too big a deal, because it is just a label, but I don’t think there’s anything demonstrably false about the PL films that can cause someone to even question their status as non-fiction, despite what non-supporters may claim.

      YES, they certainly 100% absolutely leave out many, many facts. But no 2 hour film(s) can cover all the facts. And YES, they certainly are 100% biased (although the 1st still leaves many with the impression that they’re guilty due to Berlinger & Sinofsky’s willingness to leave things in there like Damien’s bizarre actions and attitudes)…but most of the best documentaries are, including Errol Morris’s Thin Blue Line, which argued that a man sitting on Texas’s Death Row was innocent.

      Thanks to the actions of the filmmaker, that man was vindicated and released.

      By the way, wonderful movie, highly — HIGHLY recommended.

      1. Joey,

        doc·u·dra·ma (d k y -drä m , -dr m )
        A television or movie dramatization of events based on

        doc·u·men·ta·ry (d k y -m n t -r )
        1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
        2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or
        inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

        Alright. You win.

          1. Sort of — you just proved my case!

            And if you’re referring to the “presenting facts objectively” bit, after acknowledging numerous times that the PL films are, indeed, biased…I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and ruffle some non-supporter feathers.

            Aside from the OMISSION of certain facts…of which there were many… what did PL distort? What did it lie about? What “fictional matter” got inserted?

            Berlinger and Sinofsky pointed their cameras at people, the people did the rest. They didn’t make up any facts, any facts, or theories, they presented, were facts or theories that existed outside of their influence. Clearly John Mark Byers was playing for the camera, but that’s not to say they actively reinforced his behavior.

          2. The same facts told different ways can guide people to different conclusions, without altering any facts. Usually, the refuting facts told second are interpreted as “explanation” since a lot of people are following a story rather than critically viewing a documentary. I’m fairly certain PL used that technique throughout every film, intentionally or not. So, I don’t think they falsified anything, but I do think they presented a case for innocence, and before you say some walked away with the impression of guilt (and, uh, guess I’ll pluck then) I think there is a reason “supporters*” tend to argue more evidence and “non-supporters*” tend to argue more reactionary points.

            At any rate, man, would I love to have your email address. You are quite an interesting brain to pick. I would watch one again (they are currently On Demand) to collect some points because I’m just that kind of nerd, or intellectual badass 😉

            * despise the terms “supporter” and “non-supporter.” If I support anything, it is justice.

    2. I agree with you on the confessions. They seemed false to me. Nons accept the info he said that was accurate but disregard the info that was wrong. I have heard different people say that his IQ put him on the level of a second grader. If that is true, there is no way he could understand that continued confessions were going to hurt him. Also, I read in The Devil’s Knot (and I’m not saying this is true, but it is an interesting point) that they prosecutors were telling Jessie that they would bring suzie in to have sex with him if he told them what happened. This was before the third confession. Maybe he believed that. I don’t really know. I wonder how Damien and Jason feel about Jessie now.

  60. Keese,
    I respect your options. 🙂 What is your option on dealing with children like Damien. The mental heath issues that he had. Hearing voices ,violent,out of touch with reality.

  61. Pru,

    I don’t have the experience to have an informed opinion about that. In regard to the case, makes it a little more complicated than Metallica and black clothes, huh?

    Pru or anyone who can answer this,

    So, what does the best argument for guilt include?

    Exhibit 500
    Misskelley confessions
    Statements made that weren’t recanted (which ones are still standing?)
    “Similiar” fibers and blood samples
    What else?

    1. I can only speak for myself, but I’ll clear my head and try and list the raw reasons why I believe a person might conclude that the WM3 did these killings:

      (Many of the factors that influence my opinions are things that happened OUTSIDE OF THE TRIALS, and some are purely circumstantial. But circumstantial evidence is still evidence, right? )


      — Looking at all of the confessions as a whole, most importantly the bible confession and the follow up confession where his attorneys begged him not to make the statement. There are MANY problems, but the core story seems to be consistent.

      — I’m still trying to wrap my head around “false confession” or in this case “a defendant who is begging to make a false confession” As for the crime, I’ll never understand MOTIVE…


      — This must be a case of “you see what you want to see” — but, having read through too many timelines and varying accounts put forth, it still seems TO ME that there’s a good 90 minutes where the WM3 guys aren’t accounted for on the night of the murders. Sure, it’s a stretch, but it’s one of the factors

      — How the police knew that the three kids didn’t have alibis — or that Jessie knew that would be the case — worked out wonderfully for the prosecution. They couldn’t find ONE person to vouch for these kids — and I mean one person that could withstand the cross-examination of the prosecutor.

      — Where were the phone records? Never understood this. It was 1993, not the DARK AGES! Maybe this worked out for both sides.


      — I’ve never been on trial for my life and can’t imagine what the pressure is like. However, if some jackass took the stand and started telling a jury that I killed three kids, I can’t imagine I wouldn’t be screaming BULLSHIT!!! Again, maybe I’m not mature enough, or maybe their lawyers schooled them well on courtroom etiquette, etc. (I know this is a poor example, but tell me you haven’t wondered how people sit there stone-faced when people say that stuff in court?)

      — They were like zombies in Paradise Lost One. Maybe they were in shock? If someone put a camera in my face and said ‘do you have anything to say” I imagine I’d say something. Again, just my reaction.


      I’ve seen Metallica in concert. They were awesome, I’ve seen OZZY with and without Sabbath. Lots of fun. Metal, I get it. I wore concert T-shirts back in the day. Rock on, dude! But, yeah — I find the Exhibit 500 documents to be troublesome. It gives you some insight into why people might have suspected Damien. It doesn’t seem “typical” to me.

      Would I ever tattoo the word EVIL on my hand? Hell no, it’s just stupid. Would I give myself a pentagram tattoo on my chest? What do I look like, a jackass? Do I want to meet Anton Levay? Not really. Would I blow kisses at the victim’s families? Probably not. But I can’t lie and say these things don’t affect my judgement. I would be a HORRIBLE JUROR!

      Keep in mind — I’ve never owned a KNIFE IN MY LIFE (kitchen stuff doesn’t count, you know what I mean). I don’t need to be hiding ice axes and having people give statements about my Rambo knife collections, etc. Maybe I’m just boring.

      UGH… Everything I mention is an “emotional” reaction to the case. You want fibers and DNA, but I don’t have any to share at the moment. I could ramble on and on — but I think it’s safe to say I’m toast.


      Didn’t Byers do it anyway?

      1. Oj,

        You have to get your head around false confessions to look at the Misskelley confessions objectively, right? Not that you have to agree his confessions were false, but you do have to understand it to even consider the possibility.

        Parts of my body were permanently inked with needles. BOO! (What can I say? I find myself funny.)

        Anybody else want to add to that list?

        1. I never had any interest in getting tattoos. I also never cared for Ozzy or Black Sabbath and wouldn’t be caught dead at such a concert…

          …BUT, I was always a big knife collector, starting with Swiss Army knives, the first of which I got when I was 7. In fact, I have the lake knife (not literally, but you know what I mean). I also have always been a HUGE horror buff, and when I was a kid my room was decorated with posters of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and severed foam heads that people typically use on Halloween.

          Call me crazy, call me whatever. You wouldn’t have found any books by or about Anton Lavey on my bookshelf growing up, but I was always interested in true crime, so you would have found books about Ed Gein and Ted Bundy.

          Point is, different people can or cannot relate to different aspects of the Echols persona. And the judgement of all those old white Christians sitting on that jury were probably just as affected as you suspect yours would have been, OJ.

          1. Well, that and it is hard to say what, specifically, people are reacting to – if a person doesn’t read Exhibit 500 carefully, one could mistake A LOT of things.

            But, I’m still interested in what the best argument for guilt includes. What else is on that list? You’ve been here for a while, what have you seen come up frequently?

          2. Not to interject, but Keese, I gotta tell ya, the confessions and Exhibit 500 have always seemed to be the “smoking gun” for non-supporters. Lack of confirmed alibis also seems to be a big one…although that, in and of itself, is proof of nothing. 6 out of 7 nights of the week I wouldn’t have been able to have an alibi when I was in high school…usually I’d sit at home, in my basement, doing work or watching movies.

            Not to mention, anyone who has issues with their alibis better have SERIOUS issues with Terry Hobbs’s alibi, because that’s much worse. Not only has everyone else’s official story of the timeline of that night conflicted with his story…we KNOW he was in the area of the murders several times throughout the evening/night and many times he was there alone.

        2. Tattoos are fine.

          I was talking about the “real shitty homemade ones” that Damien gave himself (A CHEST PENTAGRAM? hahahaha!) — and, for that matter, the shitty homeade tattoos the Jessie and Jason have as well. A DAGGER?!?! Blahahaha!

          (And, after reading Callahans — I guess the shitty tattoos that every person the West Memphis police department ever spoke with.)

          1. I put a couple lame bumper stickers on the trunk of my first car then couldn’t get them off and deeply regretted it.

            Teenagers are idiots…generally speaking, of course.

          2. Totally. Teenagers do some real stupid stuff. Stuff they’ll regret.

            Now if those same teenagers are bored, drunk, and perhaps just maybe feel that they don’t belong..,well, God only knows what they could do.

          3. Oh, so it’s all good as long as it’s not “shitty.” 😉

            Okay, the confessions and the alibis – those are real things to my mind. The character and lack of emotion – I’m not impressed; it’s too subjective.

            Anything else?

          4. As much as I’m sort of joking about the tattoos, it does open doors to their mindset at the time. Do all people who tattoo the word EVIL on their hands kill people? Of course not.

            But I think it’s a slight window into a person’s character. It’s certainlly a person statement — no?

            Many trials (I think) have character witnesses — maybe that’s another phase or another process I’m thinking of. You know where I’m going.

            Character is important. How we measure it is subjective. But it can’t be ruled out.

          5. I will help you out OJ
            This is a jury that had to listen to this. And then read it back in the transcript.

            1) Damien lied on the stand over and over.(I am not a witch, I dont know who Aleister Crowley was, I put that pentagram on my chest because it was cool, I wrote evil on hands because it was cool, I dont know when I wrote that )
            2)Alibi – Damien had a alibi and it was a lie It fell through on cross examination.
            3) the licking of the lips and blowing a kiss to the families ( showed cold and no remorse )
            4)When on the stand his testimony alone,( I would think someone that killed them would like it , you cant force someone to do it, knowing more about the crime then he should have,saying he read it in the paper,you can always count on the news paper to not do their homework and get it wrong, But Damien got it right. The police officer lied about that one but not about all of it. )

            Evidence -fiber that shouldnt have been on the children ( as week as the suporters think it is , it is still evidence) anyone of the families should or could had fiber or hair or DNA on the children. But the WM3 should have had none.

            The knives – I had one just like it but different , ex girl saying he had one just like but different , Damien saying I had several of them.But not the same kind but black I left them OREGON. Mother says they sold them. Different stories.

            Knife found behind Jasons home( that was like the one that he had but different)

            You can pull this apart (suporters ) but this is what a jury seen at court. Sure anyone could had those knives but they were not on trial for murder.Damien had a long history of illness that was violent and delusional.

            This is what the juvenile officer seen.
            He wasnt pick on because his hair or music that he listen too, or he would wear black. And it wasnt even his nails till he used them as weapons against another student at school.
            1)Damien had a long history of illness that was violent and delusional behavor.Sucking blood from someones neck because it gave him power. Grabs another and jumps another child and sucks the blood out of his arm. And please dont say it is common kids stuff. Read the medical reports.
            2) attacked another student(trying to take his eyes out)
            3) even parents were afraid of him, was afraid that he would hurt one of them or his sister.
            4) been called out several times for the same thing over and over. And Damien always going back to the mental institutions.

            All this adds weight to the prosecutor case. Please dont tell me the prosecutor was out to get him either. Or the police framed him.They were looking for someone that killed these children.They checked several people and look into them. Damien was not the first on their list. .But he didnt tell all of this evidence. It was in trial. I read it came to the same conclusion.And yes there was someone on the jury that shouldnt have been there. That would have given them another trial. A new trial everyone. Damien would have not been on death roe.

            The children showed no physical signs of abuse prior to the killings. And yes Mr Hobbs and Mrs Hobbs had trouble in their marriage and he hit her. But he would have killed her not the child. I can go on and on what I read but you can do it yourself.

          6. Oh, Pru. Oj was doing fairly well.

            In response to your post:

            1) Wait. What? He actually might of downplayed an interest in Crowley, but the rest is assumption.
            2) Alibi – That’s something real.
            3) Makes him a jerk, not a killer, and considering the things being said to him, his jerk adolescent response isn’t so shocking.
            4) He was asked his opinion and he gave an armchair profile. Idiotic, but I don’t see how that is any different from any one of us doing the same thing.

            The knives, you’re saying everyone said he had “one like it but different,” and say sure, people have them, but they aren’t on trial for murder. What?? So, if a person is on trial for murder AND owns knives like “but different” and two people recall differently where those knives went, it implies guilt?

            The mental health history of Echols is worth a look. Are the things he did “normal kid stuff”? Well, he wasn’t a “normal” kid. He had a traumatic upbringing, so the bar moves a bit. But, still, I will give you that it is worth a look.

            No signs of abuse? Hmm. Well, you would have to define what you think constitutes abuse. Christopher Byers was whipped so hard, imprints of the belt buckle were still visible, and Pam Hobbs has claimed Terry Hobbs used to make his stepson and daughter hold their arms up so he could take a belt to them. At any rate, that may not be relevant at all.

            About the fibers, you do know that the fibers were only “similiar” to fibers found in homes of the WM3, right? That is no small detail. Not only would that take secondary transfer, but those fibers were only “similiar,” meaning a wider search would have – not just could have, but would have – found “similiar” fibers in other homes.

            Is that all?

          7. Pru,

            If you answer nothing else, at least explain this to me because I am having difficulty understanding. If Exhibit 500 is what you say it is, that it proves Echols was delusional and violent, how would you expect any kind of “normal” behavior or reaction from him at trial or even now? Wouldn’t it predict at least some level of disassociation at best?

      2. I appreciate your logical and insightful post. I don’t disagree with any of your points. It is unavoidable to act on emotion in these cases.

        1. Jade,

          Was that response to me? If so, I assure you, an individual’s response to trauma is not something as easily judged as it would seem to be. Where you might totally freak out, I may sit there stone-faced, and you would never be the wiser to the storm of emotions I am feeling. If there is anything I know about anything, that is it: some people respond to trauma and pressure in ways others cannot even wrap their brain around. So, that is why I say the “lack of emotion” is a subjective (and unreliable) call. 😉

      3. OJ
        I know when you look at one peice well maybe. Then you look at another and another for me maybe turne into . Guilty 🙁 To many maybes. I really tried to leave any emotions out. I read through what the jury would see. To find out why they came back with guilty. Still dont agree with the death penalty. But I wasnt in the court room.

        But if you get to see what the jury didnt. And what they left out in the movie . I am not even sure …………..the movie producers didnt even trust innocent. Or why not put it in the movie ?

        1. Pru, I’m just curious. Do you not agree with the death penalty in general or do you believe a death penalty case should require a higher standard of evidence? That’s just a view that always intrigues me.

          1. I dont think children should get life with out parole . So that you might not agree on. I see the parole board has one job to see if someone has changed and can be let back into society. Maybe they should spend the money that the state gives for appeals. And have these people tested . And I sure dont think people that have mental illness should get the death penalty. I think they should get the help they need and then serve time in jail.(Most are chemically imbalance.)
            And look to see if they are ready to be released. On their probation they should get drugged tested to make sure they are taking their medication.

            You wouldnt denied a diabetes their insulin. And we are chemically unbalanced. And what if I crash my car into someone because I go into a seizure and they die. Does that mean I commit murder ?

    2. All of them together add up to guilt . I guess .I also take the statements that were recanted with a grain of salt. Some are very true and some are just what they think is true. I think some of the people just didnt want to get involved. From what I heard from another board ( a police officer ) that it is common for people to recant. He also added a good point . He said that he didnt think the police were framing the 3. They would have done a better job. They would have put blood or hair on the clothes and shoes they found in the homes of the 3. They felt they had the guilty parties.

  62. Maybe I haven’t read far enough, but can someone tell me what happened with the backpacks the boys had packed to run away with. They weren’t found at the crime scene, right?

  63. I think it came from the story of Christopher Byers telling a friend he was going to run away…? That was on a statement. I remember reading that.

        1. Pure speculation from supporters. This statement came from a 12 year old saying Chris Byers was going to run away. It means absolutely nothing. Can’t tell you how many times I told friends I was going to run away when I was a kid.

          1. Don’t be so sensitive.

            Even if he was going to run away — so what? What does being a supporter have to do with it? We’re talking about Chris Byers, not Stevie Branch. Did I miss something?

          2. Just the whole running away theory has been used in supporter theories about some idiotic manholes or something. There’s only so much of Compassionate Reader’s sycophantic adulation I can tolerate before I feel like clubbing a kitten to death with a baby seal.

          3. Nice try but I’ve never spent any time in any mental institutions. I’ve never been arrested for so much as a misdemeanor and I’ve certainly never been tried, convicted, or pled Guilty to the murder of three innocent little boys. Your boys the WM3 have.

          4. Nice try but I’ve never spent any time in any mental institutions. I’ve never been arrested for so much as a misdemeanor and I’ve certainly never been tried, convicted, or pled Guilty to the murder of three innocent little boys. Your boys the WM3 have.

            That me lol, hehe.

          5. What is up with this site today?

            Sorry Joey, all that was meant to sound like I was amused by your Exhibit 500 comment and that it made me LOL.

          6. Lethal,
            Didn’t mean to get you so riled up. I have only read a couple post on this site from CR and found her to be very imaginative to say it nicely. Unfortunately if I am a supporter I am a very weak one. I generally think they were guilty. I only asked because I have read so many interviews on Calahans’ and didn’t know if the backpack witness had been discredited. It was just a simple question that I thought someone could answer. Please, I try very hard NOT to sound like CR. The manhole theory was worse than killer tomatoes from outer space.

          7. Sorry just jane, I didn’t mean to come across like I was getting irate with you. CR’s fantasy theories frustrate me, not honest questions. When I saw yours I almost immediately remembered one of her pieces of fiction she likes to base in reality from her own experiences.

            To answer your question, the statement was from Bobby Posey, 12, who stated Chris Byers stopped by his house after his father whipped him and said he was running away from home. Bobby Posey also stated that John Mark Byers appeared and threatened to whip Chris again. There was no follow-up statement and nothing to suggest Chris or either of the other two boys were actually running away.

  64. I had started earlier today with Jerry Driver and Steve jones, then found myself also gravitating toward Sudbury.

    Why would he ask jr. probation officer, JB’s probation officer, who was under the supervision of Jerry Driver, DE’s PO, to go with him to interview DE? The day the little boys were discovered, Lt. S and SJ’s spoke, both shared common views it had overtones of a cult sacrifice. “During our conversation Steve mentioned that of all the people known by him to be involved in cult type activities one person stood out in his mind, that in his opinion, was capable of being involved in this type of crime. That person was Damien Echols. Steve stated that Damien lived at 2706 South Grove in Broadway Trailer park in West Memphis, Arkansas. On this day, the day after the bodies were found, I asked Steve if he would meet me at Damien’s residence in order to interview Damien.” DE references this meeting stating he was told certain information regarding specifics of the crime.

    I realize he very well could have known off the top of his head, DE’s address, still though it does stand out to me. I know he was JB’s PO, and he very possibly would know through him DE’s address. Just seems like he was all prepared to go after or point to DE’s. AM still interested in SJ’s finding the first piece of clothing. I really don’t know where I am going with any of this, if it means anything or nothing, but it is interesting to me nonetheless.

    And Sudbury,
    this says there was a finding of no improprieties, but then I found this page and it left me with a lot of questions

    blah, I know its mostly a repeat of my earlier post, just am stuck on this right now. I think the character of Lt. S is important and I question it.

    An agenda?

    Not related, but I found it interesting that in the late 1950’s that a 14 year old was charged with the killing of 3 eight year olds

  65. I have 2 comments that are “awaiting moderation” that were submitted to be posted several hours ago. I have successfully been able to post this morning, while still awaiting moderation on the other posts. Do comments with links or certain links automatically get sent to moderation?

  66. Is this site behaving strangely today? The times are all off and sometimes I will post a reply to someone and it will end up in the wrong spot; then it doesn’t make sense. Is anyone else experiencing these issues?

  67. What do you guys make of the way the three little boys were tied up? Is that something that is common in hunting? I wonder what would have made the perpetrators tie them up that way. Although I have never tied anyone up, when I think about how I would do it, I automatically assume that I would just tie their hands together and their feet together. It would never occur to me to use this method to tie someone up. Is this common practice in any particular group of people like hunters or certain military trained individuals?

    1. LOL. You’re funny 🙂 I’ve never tied anyone up either; In hunting I have never seen deer or anything else tied that way. I was in the army and I asure you we didn’t do it that way-come to think of it we didn’t do it any way. I’ve wondered about that; and Jessie claims they tied them after they they were unconscious. What would have been the point?

    2. Jade,
      No I dont think so 🙁 I dont know But having 3 diffrent types of knots .
      Having the arm and the leg . I dont know what it would mean. Farmers or hunters dont tie animals way.. Military nope .( just asked ) But that would make real hard to carry them. They would have to drag them. I guessing to drown them.

      1. Interesting. I have another question. Do you think that if this crime had taken place somewhere else, i.e., more north, that such a big deal would have been made about the teenagers wearing black or reading Stephen King? Obviously, I do not think they were convicted solely based on these things, however, I don’t think it would even have been mentioned in NJ. Especially in 1993, at the dawn of grunge rock. Kids that wore black weren’t even in the minority here. It was quite common. There are posts above about the character of the three convicted and I don’t disagree with any of the stated points. These three teens, Damien in particular, were quite unfortunate. Seemingly very narcissistic, he appears to think he is the smartest person in every room. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. He seems quite average too me. I just wonder if this case would have gone down this way in other parts of the country. Not even taking guilt or innocence into account; would this have been the same somewhere else?

        1. Hey Jade…although WM in ’93 still seemed quite backward, I wouldn’t place too much faith in any of the other states of our great union. New Jersey, since you mentioned it, and since it’s where I’m from, allowed for Kelly Michaels to be sentenced to 47 years in perhaps the most high profile of the daycare sexual abuse scandals since McMartin. It was another ridiculous off-shoot of the Satanic Panic which took the whole country by storm. I believe the conditions at this time were such that it was widely “accepted” as truth that Satanists were operating in small cliques and large underground networks, systematically murdering and raping our youth. The mass media propogated such falsehoods on a daily basis and you can expect that some of the jurors in the WM3 case had seen at least one of Geraldo or Oprah or 20/20’s “exposes” on the outbreak of Satanism in America.

          By the way, Maplewood, the town where the Kelly Michaels Wee Care Nursery scandal took place, is very middle-class, in some cases affluent, and liberal. I know because I was born there.

          1. Interesting point. I was only eleven in 1993 so perhaps I’m being a little naive about how it was at the time.

        2. Jane
          I thought of that . That is why I was asking if there was another wooded area with water. Across the road away from the truck stop. It doesnt matter to far out there.

    3. Since you asked, I’ll put forth the possibility that the kids were tied hand-to-ankle to better transport them. And I’ll also put forth the possibility that when Terry Hobbs was murdering animals in the slaughterhouse he worked in for years, he transported them in just such a fashion. Just a possibility…

      1. Would there have been some evidence of that, markings on their wrists and ankles from their weight pulling on the laces?

  68. We had a case over her but the killed girls and prostitution. Some where tied that way. But they would molested them.(or I should say their sores.) But Getch was a psychopath that never received any help and his family knew he was dangerous. He believed he talked to the Satan and his little crew believed it too.

    1. But Pru, even though that case was vastly different, there is still a good point to your post. Perhaps this method of tying people up is related to satanism.

      1. There isn’t anything related to satanism with these crimes. The crime was evil, indeed. But there’s no connection to “symbolic knots” — you might as well be talking about a “full moon”…

        I’d imagine that these kids were killed in a spur of the the moment decision.


        Terry Hobbs went out to the woods to get them and brought them home where he killed them, and then later he brought them there (I’m assuming in his car) to drown them , and then throughout the night he kept going back to bring back stuff like various pieces of their clothes.

        BTW — I hate everything about this case.

        Poor little dudes, rest in peace!

        1. OJ,
          I dont know but with Terry Hobbs ……No way . He had a car why drop them off there close to home. doesnt make sence……..Doesnt make sence that the bodies had no other signs of abuse prior to this night. To much points to the WM3. But I respect your opinion 🙂 I hate this case too. I hate the thought that Damien is out there and is still very sick. 🙁 watch a interview that someone found on the net at work. Looks like he is cracking at the seams. He cant remember the lies he told. Now what he missed most was snow and the person doing the interview said “Do you have snow in Arkansas ” he said very
          rarely . And he is loosing his sensitive demeanor.It is going to hard for him he will be living in a fish bowl.

          1. Joey,
            And how can he take 3 bodies out in daylight and no one seen him? But they saw the 3 kids playing there at 6:45 or 6:30. Two or 3 witnesses saw them. I dont even get the theory on Hobbs . Why and how can he kill all 3 kids with out one of them getting away. Do you know how much blood there would have been. This is just another Byers.

          2. I don’t think he took 3 bodies out in broad daylight. I’m saying I think any theory that suggests he killed them at the house and then drove them to the woods seems highly improbable…but I’ve never seen a supporter suggest that, at least with any degree of conviction.

            Did you know that at least two witnesses saw them WITH TERRY? And that one of the witnesses was David Jacoby — Terry Hobbs’s good friend and ALIBI for much of the time of the murders? And that despite this, Terry Hobbs swears he never saw the kids ONCE that whole day?

            You like to talk about Exhibit 500, Pru, and you’re absolutely right that it makes Damien seem like a creep. But have you read the Pasdar depositions from Pam Hobbs and her sisters? I think Exhibit 500 makes Damien look like a saint when compared to the violence and depravity suggested by the Pasdar depositions. You can categorically deny their validity by writing them off as a bunch of angry sisters who are pissed off that Terry Hobbs blew away their brother, but when you watch the 11 or so hours of tape that shows Terry Hobbs answering these accusations, I would be surprised if you find his testimony convincing.

            Additionally, that brings to mind the point many people make about Damien’s flippancy with regards to the shocking crimes and the sensitivities of the parents. To watch Terry Hobbs answer questions about beating his wife, molesting an old woman, shooting his brother n’law, doing copious amounts of drugs, and sexually abusing his children…this guy is every bit the narcissist and sociopath non-supporters alledge Damien to be.

          3. Joey,

            Besides everything you wrote, something that struck me about Hobbs answering those questions was when he was confronted about Pam Hobbs believing he could be (or is) guilty.

            I’m not a fan of armchair behavioral analysis, but it just struck me that he played stupid so cooly, and it went something like, “Who said who did what?… Pam believes who did what?… Pam believes that I did what?… Pam believes that I did that? No… no, she doesn’t think that.”

            There is NO WAY he didn’t know anything about it. She had said it to a news reporter, even!

            Not saying that makes Hobbs the guy, but that struck me.

          4. But where is the blood with Terry Hobbs and Byers. Why kill all three. I watched it on Terry Hobbs and all I saw is that he denied molesting an old woman and it turned out to be she acused him of killing her cat. I dont believe the sexually abusing accusations, then why would Pam leave town later in the relationship. And leave her daughter with him. And it was always her sister that the child told that he touch her breast, ext . Not once did she tell her mother or anyone else. But not saying Mr Hobbs is a really nice person .

          5. Joey,
            Also dont you think there would be so much blood at the Hobbs house. If he is that good at house cleaning I need him next weekend. I am tired and pregnant.

          6. Cheers, Keese.

            Pru…have you watched these videos? The Hobbs ones? I’d be curious as to what you think. Although there’s over 10 hours of questioning, it’s riveting to watch, and I believe a potential game changer in how people feel about the case.

            Also, I never suggested they were killed at the Hobbs home. In fact, I suggested that supporters tend not to believe that.

            Finally…you’re pregnant??? I’d better stop hitting on you 😉

          7. Pru!! You’re pregnant?! *insert all appropriate squeals of excitement* Congratulations! May you have a healthy, cute, squishy little bundle of absolute joy!

  69. Jade,
    I dont know if they really knew much about the religion……..I think they made up their own version of what satanism was about. I think the owner of the blog was right …………They followed someone that was a psychopath. It hard to think that someone would be that weak to follow someone like that. But it happens 🙁

  70. Keese, there was no reply button under your post so I will just put it here.
    I agree. He answered the questions that were being asked of him. They were eliciting information. The 32 question questionnaire was prepared by Sudbury, who had already formed an opinion that the crime had “overtones of a cult sacrifice”, he had spoken the day of discovery to Steve Jones who happened to be the first to find something, and they both shared the same views. Steve Jones told Sudbury “that of all the people known by him to be involved in cult type activities one person stood out in his mind, that in his opinion, was capable of being involved in this type of crime. That person was Damien Echols”. The next day they both went out, though PH says SJ came out first alone, then later with Sudbury.
    Sudbury was there when questioning DE at his house, and he was there with Ridge questioning DE at the station (or wherever it was). The questions prepared by him reflect his belief imo of it being a “cult sacrifice”.
    I have gone through and I cannot find anything he said that shows he held any info only the killer would know. Given the content of the questions, I felt his answers to be be relatively generic and logical. In context, I think it makes sense.
    The questions were prepared by someone who already had a leaning toward motive and toward a suspect. The questions in my strong opinion reflect that and were designed to elicit information to support his leanings, his opinion. imo

    Blowing kisses? Horrible, just horrible.

    I wonder if I am micro focusing now and have lost my ability to see the big picture. If I am unable to discern between what is relevant and what is not relevant. I think I should step back, I do not know nearly as much about this case as so many of you, and I fear I am just grasping at things that have no importance to the case.

      1. Hi Pru
        Dated May 7/1993
        Byers, father of Christopher Byers, said Gitchell told him one youth had been hit above the eye, a second’s jaw was injured, and the third “was worse than that”.

        From trial transcript

        Q. Isn’t it true that you are the one who told the officers that the children were mutilated?

        A. Yes, I said that.

        Q. That was on May 10th of ’93. The autopsy was done on May 7th so we are talking about four days after the bodies were recovered?

        A. Um-hum.

        Q. Said, “They were probably cut up, one more than the others”? Those are your words, aren’t they?

        A. He asked me was one cut up more than the other. I said yes, they were, probably.

          1. Hi Pru
            maybe I misunderstood what you were saying
            “Geeze ,
            Here is one of them of Damien talking over the question.That one was cut more then the other. The news paper either didnt run what condition the bodies were in or they said all of them were mutilated.”

            I understood what you were saying to be that DE in saying that one was probably cut more than the others to be revealing that he knew information that was unknown to the public, and I was referencing that a statement from MB was already in the papers as early as May 7th disclosing information that one of the boys was injured worse than the other 2.

            I do not think I implied he had spoken to MB’s.

  71. There are some messed up people on They are just jumping on the bandwagon I was naive about the WM3 but not blind to them.

      1. Your right ………Cupcake 🙁 it would be first degree………I was thinking about Jessie I dont think he planned to kill them But it is first degree because they tied them up so they would drown. It was just 2 feet of water. 🙁

  72. Keese,
    If you answer nothing else, at least explain this to me because I am having difficulty understanding. If Exhibit 500 is what you say it is, that it proves Echols was delusional and violent, how would you expect any kind of “normal” behavior or reaction from him at trial or even now? Wouldn’t it predict at least some level of disassociation at best?

    I wouldnt ……They should have used the insanity plea at the begining. And if I was his lawyer I would have never put him on the stand. I know we will never see eye to eye in this . I do respect your outlook at the case. But when I see Damien lie after lie . When does the truth come into play. I look at the evidence the way I see it.

    Keese I have a question for you 🙂 Did you think Casey Anthony was guilty ? Did you think the jury come back with the right verdict.

    1. Hi Pru, not Keese but just wanted to chime in. I believe Anthony is responsible for Caylee’s death. The prosecution did not imo prove murder one BARD. I was disappointed with the prosecution, disgusted with the defense and blown away by the jury who did not do their job and did not follow instructions. Not impressed with Perry either.

      I expected a verdict of guilty for murder 2.


        1. I watched it on TV. The mother is the one that looked up chloroform. But none was found. But anthony she did change her story 3 times. The body was so decomposed that they couldnt tell what the baby died from. She was she was delusional.

      1. I cant see how one person can say the WM3 are innocent and Anthony is guilty. Same thing you have to either believe what she was saying truth or you dont. There was no hard proof either way. It all was circumstantial evidence. She said her baby drown. but she lied so many times . Do you believe her or the state.

        1. Now Pru…to say that because I think the WM3 are innocent, I have to believe everyone who claims innocence seems silly. You believe the WM3 are guilty…does that mean you believe that everyone in jail is guilty?

          However, what I will give you, and what I was alluding to when I said in my previous post that “I haven’t done much looking into it,” is that I didn’t follow the case closely. I recall that there was evidence of chloroform and a decomposed body in her trunk, and that she had been researching chloroform shortly before the murder, that kind of thing. I have followed the WM3 case very closely for many many years and I feel confident in strongly, and vocally, making my feelings on the case known. I’m sure there are Casey Anthony web-sites out there, and if I was posting on there, I would be schooled, and sound uninformed, which I am.

          That’s why I’m here and not there.

          1. Joey,
            No I dont think it is that cut and dry. I would have to look at the facts in the case. Just like I use to be a suporter of the WM3 but I really didnt know ANY of the facts. Just what I thought to be a documentary PL but it just turned out to be a movie.

    2. … but an insanity plea means he had to be guilty. I respect your opinions as well, don’t get me wrong. I’m just having a difficult time understanding your train of thought. When I asked what was included in the best argument for guilt, you mentioned Echols blew kisses to the parents. But you are now saying you wouldn’t have expected different behavior from him. I’m just thinking if Exhibit 500 puts Elchols in a category of abnormal psych, then none of his behavior at trial could be said to be indicative of guilt, but indicative of a disturbed mind.

      I don’t have an opinion about Casey Anthony; all I know about that case is what I saw on television before I could change the channel.

      1. Keese,
        If he was just delusional I would agree with you. But he was violent, If you read through his records you will see. And what his ex girlfriend said he told her.(that he wondered what it would feel like to kill someone ) The parents were even scared of him…………………… I was saying if I was his lawyer……I would plea him out. So he didnt go to prison and doesnt get the death penalty. They tried to plea insanity at the sentencing . So he wouldnt get the death penalty. Didnt work . 🙂

        1. Pru,

          What I’m trying to get at is that if you are saying he is a violent jerk, then when he behaves like a violent jerk, say it is indicative guilt – it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

          At any rate, this importance on character baffles me because it is so selective. If character is oh so important, how on earth is *any* statement from Misskelley or Lucas given any validity?

          That’s cherry-picking for a cause. 😉

  73. So Sudbury and Driver don’t appear to have been so clean and law abiding. Was reading up on Sudbury earlier, now just reading about Driver.

      1. Hi Pru, actually, I don’t think I can. I have tried to yesterday, but they are showing up that they are “awaiting moderation”.
        Here is part of an article regarding Driver

        Copyright 2000 The Commercial Appeal
        The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)

        September 27, 2000, WEDNESDAY, FINAL EDITION

        SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A7

        LENGTH: 396 words


        BYLINE: Bartholomew Sullivan The Commercial Appeal


        The former juvenile officer for Crittenden County, Ark., charged last year with theft after a state audit found he’d written $ 27,400 in unauthorized checks, has been ordered to repay the debt in $ 241 monthly installments.
        Jerry B. Driver, 60, pleaded no contest to the theft charge March 27 and Circuit Judge David Burnett ordered him placed on probation, then authorized a transfer of the probation to authorities in Michigan, where Driver now lives. Restitution was ordered at the time, and the issue was initially left open, court files show.

        Here is some info regarding Sudbury

        Part of article
        Copyright 2001 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.
        The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

        October 12, 2001, Friday

        SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1

        LENGTH: 1086 words

        HEADLINE: 3 West Memphis drug unit officers fired Sources cite cash, evidence discrepancies after FBI set up vehicles to draw police


        WEST MEMPHIS — Three police officers lost their jobs Thursday after FBI stings revealed discrepancies in the handling of seized cash and falsification of drug evidence, sources familiar with the investigation said.
        Mayor William Johnson upheld Police Chief Robert Paudert’s recommendation that the officers be fired.
        “It’s a situation that I wish had not existed, but the problem was there, and we had to take whatever action was necessary,” said Johnson, who informed lawyers for the former officers of his decision Thursday morning.
        Fired from the Police Department’s traffic interdiction unit were inspector James Sudbury, the supervisor of the unit; Sgt. E. A. Bradley; and Patrolman Joseph Applegate.
        (snipped by me)
        None of the former officers has been charged with crimes, but Paudert noted that the FBI’s investigation continues.
        (snipped by me)
        Those familiar with the termination hearings said Sudbury improperly gave $ 2,500 in seized cash to suspects that should have been taken into evidence.
        The sources said Sudbury compromised a criminal case by ordering an officer to throw away the remains of what appeared to be a methamphetamine lab instead of processing the items for fingerprints, the sources said.
        Sudbury further refused orders from his supervisors to reassign patrolmen in the interdiction unit, they said. And he neglected to adequately supervise his officers and failed to implement a new policy that required that suspects be given an accounting of cash seized from them and required that supervisors be present when cash is counted.
        I am currently reading the minutes from COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS AND TRAINING July 10, 2003
        Chairman Harrison: Is someone here from the West Memphis Police Department? Would you come forward please? Would you state your name and title?
        Lt. Vaughn: My name is Lawrence Vaughn; I am a Lieutenant with the Internal Affairs Department with the City of West Memphis Police Department.
        Chairman Harrison: Lieutenant, is it the desire of the West Memphis Police Department to proceed today in asking the Commission to schedule a de- certification hearing for Mr. Sudbury.
        Lt. Vaughn: Yes sir it is. Chairman Harrison: Would you state the reasons?
        Lt. Vaughn: As Standards has so indicated, on February of this year, a change of status report was submitted and request the Inspector James Sudbury be de- certified due to the five reasons stated by Standards. There was a federal criminal investigation that warranted this to be delayed. However this investigation, I am under the impression has been concluded. And we are ready to proceed.

        It starts on page 14 (page number located bottom of each page) of the minutes.
        My posts with links have not been making it out of moderation for some reason, so I will try this, just take out the spaces http://ww
        I am still trying to figure it all out, but I do question the character of Sudbury

        1. Yes they didnt have the best of character. But I dont think that has much to do with the case. If they were trying to frame the 3. There would have been hair and blood planted on Jessie and Jason and Damien clothes and shoes. Wouldn’t you think ? And most of the people that came forward went to the police .Not the other way around. I dont know

  74. So with the Hobbs theory, what is it? He found them in the woods and just spent some time beating all three of them with his hands to the point of massive injuries, tied or not, then took the time to go casturate one child and did he tie them up before or after all this? I can’t see how it could be one person, but that would take a lot of time for a man who did this just because his son didn’t come home. And if he was angry and accidently killed Stevie, he could have just killed them one way or the other, the multiple ways they were injured is not imo a rage killing. The killer had a knife, water and blunt objects. The killer/killers used all three of these. Hobbs was a bad person, which is part of why it’s hard for me to believe he did this. I believe he’s capable of murder. Just not these murders.

    1. Just Jane

      See this seem to far out there. For one thing these are not babies. To handle 3 eight year old children. 50 to 60 pounds and catch them all doesnt fit. One would have ran away. If he was mad at Stevie he would have dragged him in the car and beat him. Rage killing stevie got hit with a belt. But it showed no signs of beated. And why would he cut them ? He would tell them to hold out their hand and he would smack them with a belt. He never punch him threw him,hit him with board.
      Hobbs being a bad person Bad husband ……….as a parent I dont think he went out to look for stevie that long as he said. I think he thought he will be back. He wouldnt win father of the year award for sure. But neither would Byers .

      I dont think it is uncommon in the south for kids to get hit with belts.My best friend Matt came from Georgia. And he would be told to get a branch and get hit with that.

      I am from a different generation. We had time out . Go to your room. And some stuff just ignored. I cut my hair dyed it black and green. It was a phase I went though. I was shy and found a group of friends that like me.

      What I do wonder if this case was televised in whole. Like Casey Anthony’s case was . Would people still be jumping up and saying WM3 are innocent.

      1. It is not uncommon to get whipped with belts, switches, paddles or whatever else the disiplining parent gets his/her hands on. And it is not like the parent will use a switch one day and a belt the next. They all have preference. Momma prefered the switch, daddy the belt. I am no less today because of those choices. Here, parents are called to the schools to either whip the kid themselves or watch as a school employee whips a child. The girl from TX who went viral b/c of her Judge daddy’s abuse-most men her (as she said about the town she lived in) would not consider her ‘whupping’ as excessive. I am not saying that this is right, but this is the culture of the mid-south. Expesially with boys, parents tend to think I can beat you now or the cops can beat you later. Before people start yelling, I am not condoning it, I am trying to explain it from the mentality people here have. The stuff Geez is reading now about corruption of the cops on the case was my point a couple days ago. Had it not been for outside agents, it would have never been a problem. It’s the old saying-“what happens in this house stays in this house.”

    2. As with all things concerning the WM3 the supporters have a reason, excuse, explanation for everything. The popular Hobbs theory is he killed the boys and enlisted the help of David Jacoby to transport the bodies to the Robin Hood Hills woods to dump them. The injuries to Christopher Byers are given to animal predation from, get this…snapping turtles.

      Then you have the manhole theory. I’ll let you do your own reasearch on that one. Honestly I think too much credit is given to the mastermind of Terry Hobbs. According to them he is so precise in that he does all this within a two hour window yet he still leaves behind the hair on the ligature of MM, and Jacoby leaves behind his hair.

      The way this investigation was handled and the sycophantic adulation given to the 3 convicted child killers sickens me, almost to the point I am done with it all.

      1. I would hope we have a reason or explanation for everything!

        As for this popular theory about getting David Jacoby to transport the bodies, I don’t think it’s so popular. Being that Hobbs was with Jacoby immediately before the murders, we find the possibility of secondary transfer a far better explanation.

        Per the manhole theory, which I find compelling as a POSSIBILITY, all you ever seem to do is bash it without addressing it. You don’t have to address it if you don’t want to, but I think it would better validate your point. I mean I can say:

        These non-supporters actually think the WM3 did these murders…haha, lol, eye roll, lmao, rotfl.

        But I usually try to be more substanitive than that.

        Terry Hobbs could have been very precise and still accidentally left behind a hair. I mean…you should see my bathroom, you’d think King Kong showers there.

        And I’m sorry this sickens you. If you need to step away from it, by all means. But we’ll probably still be here when you get back 🙂

  75. Has anyone else noticed a lot of drug issues in Arkansas? I’m sure that goes on everywhere but I guess since I’m looking into this case, it’s just coming to light more. And it also seems like there is a lot of corruption within the WMPD. Cops stealing weapons from evidence lock up and selling them. That makes me question the morality of several people involved in this case. Obviously Sudbury and Driver were bad news. And why were Mark Byers convictions expunged? Something weird is definitely going on in WM. But like I said, that stuff probably goes on everywhere.

    Have you guys ever looked at It’s a pretty strange website. Does anyone know who is behind it?

    1. Jade ,
      I did …………..lots of drugs. But that doesnt mean the WM3 didnt get a fair trial. It really doesnt have anything to do with the trial. Laverne Ward get a new trial after killing the mother (deborah evens) and her two children and cutting the unborn fetus out. Welcome to IL 🙁

      He is getting a new trial because the prosecutor supposedly bought drugs.

    2. Love it not a shred of evidence……………..No blood right. It is right up there with Damiens medical records was just a troubled kid. needs some facts.

      I respect those who think they are innocent. That is their opinion. But when you put something out there that is just lies. It makes me sad 🙁 Because you can argue the facts and come to your conclusion . But when you ignore all the facts. It becomes a lie.

      1. True ‘dat. But the luminol tests don’t conclusively show there was blood at the scene. Could have been urine. Animal urine. Could have been animal blood. That’s why luminol is inadmissable and unreliable. And that’s a fact, jack.

  76. I wonder if I was in your town or city. And I was threatening to kill you or your family.(to cut your throat or chop you up ) Threatening to kill my parent. Had a delusional disorder, talked about how it would feel to kill some one. Attacked someone by trying to scratch their eyes out. Sucked blood out from other people saying it gave me power. Had thoughts of I had a spirt in me that I can sometimes hear sometimes.And carried a knife in my pocket. Even my parents were afraid for me to come home.They were afraid I would do something to them or my sister. I my self said I was afraid that I my hurt myself or someone else.In and out of mental institutions. For violence and suicide thoughts.
    And 3 children were killed. Would you just say that is just pru. She just dressed weird. With her black and purple hair. She is just a misunderstood kid. And never look in to me as a suspect.
    You can leave out the fact that I believe in Wicca or Satanism. Because I was confused between the two and mixed them together.

    1. Hmm… That’s not really accurate, I think. You are assuming one of those kids would run, but if there was one killer who also represented an authority figure, it wouldn’t be surprising at all to find out none of them ran. It wouldn’t be surprising if none of them ran from a stranger, really, but especially from a person of authority. Also, you seem to be assuming the boys were injured one at a time. They might not have been, right? It would only take seconds to stun all three and get them under control.

      That’s actually one of things that bother me the most about the theories surrounding the case – that it would be just so impossible for one grown person to have controlled three eight year old boys. It seems to completely forget about the third instinctive reaction: fight, flight, or FREEZE. It completely overlooks what happens when an authority figure becomes a factor. But most mind-boggling, it miserably fails to consider how predators work: control by fear. “Sit there and I’ll let you go,” or “Move and I will butcher your entire family,” or any number of ways we KNOW predators use fear to control victims. When you think about it, that these kids or even at least one kid would have automatically ran like hell or even fought back is just… a pretty big assumption.

      You have to know that whether you think the WM3 are innocent or guilty.

      1. Just to add an example on how fast it could have happened, take the man who just killed his two sons and fire-bombed the house. He took a hatchet to those kids first. Neither got away.

        All three of the WM boys had blunt force trauma. It could have been as fast as stunning blow, turn, stunning blow, turn, stunning blow. Situation under control.

        The point is it isn’t impossible for an adult to quickly control 3 little boys.

        1. I agree with you here, Keese. People always bring up the fact that there is no way one person could have done this. I disagree. What if the perpetrator had a gun? I would do whatever someone with a gun said. If that means not running away, I would sit my ass right there on the ground, no questions asked. With that being said, I think the crime would have been easier to commit with two or three perps. And as I have said previously, I just can’t decide on guilt or innocence of the WM3. They may have done it. But hypothetically speaking, I think one adult could have carried out this crime.

        2. But he killed the wife too ……….that is my point. He was sick ,very sick. Also had a mental health issue. And they were 5 and 7 years old . And I am sure there was blood all over the house. I dont know but he planned it. Are you thinking Mr Hobbs planned it ? He took them by suprised and just killed them?

          If I did believe that theory ( which for me it doesnt fit) It would be Mr Byers that I would really look into.

          But then I would have to ignore all the facts about the WM3

          1. Jade
            The polygraph test. But after 10 years you can make yourself believe anything .And they didnt make him take off his shoes. I would have loved to see them ask him about his wife. That still bugs me.

        3. I agree totally that one grown man could of subdued all three kids.

          I just don’t know why he would have. Found them in the woods and went nuts on them?

          People saying “it was obviously jealousy (of the step-sons relationship with wife)” or a “punishment gone too far and the witnesses had to be silenced” is right up there with any other theory, I guess.

          Jessie’s “we just jumped them” ambush story make more sense, to me, at this point.

          Hobbs sounds like a total douche-factory, indeed.

          So, were the kids “running away from home” or not? All three kids were still alive and free between 6:30 and 7:00 according to some witnesses — so they all were in trouble with their parents at that point regardless, right?

          The drama continues…

    2. Pru,
      If you were in place like say WM, and were all the things you described, but the town couldn’t get you on any of those things, maybe they would take the first opportunity they had to convict you of something that would send you away so you wouldn’t be a problem anymore. You may not be guilty of what I’m accusing you of, but you’ve done enough that were going to get rid of you anyway. And be pretty damn sure they got the right person.

    3. Just to answer the original question, I would first want to find out what actually happened to those boys. When I wanted to look at possible suspects, you would be on my list, as would be known child sex offenders in that area and the parents and other family members (statistics). Otherwise, to look straight at you, say your history makes you guilty, and then start looking for all the evidence that proves me right, I would develop tunnel vision.

      Being a freak, a pyschopath, a child predator, a parent, or a family member does not MEAN guilt; it means you have to be ruled out.

      1. Joey, you are so sweet, I knew you loved Pru. Who is it, Stacia, should watch out. I’m goin to convince you Pru is your soulmate before it’s over.

        1. Stacia’s cool, but she hasn’t been hanging around the hood lately. Pru’s feisty, she’s got pep, and though I think she couldn’t be more wrong, I admire her passion.

          I don’t know what Pru is short for, but whenever I see her post the song “Dear Prudence” comes to mind.

          When I see you post, Just Jane, I think of “Sweet Jane,” by Mott the Hoople. A fine, fine song, indeed.

    1. You are right, Pru. I probably would think it was you, lol. But for me, that’s what is weird; when you lay it out like that, I think they’re guilty. Then I think about some of the other stuff and I think that maybe they’re innocent. I just go back and forth.

      I only brought up the drug issue because some people seem to think a lot of covering up went on within the WMPD. However, I think that stuff goes on everywhere. New Jersey is probably the most corrupt state around.

      1. Jade,
        I understand how you feel. But then I go back to how weird this is. Damien not taking ownership and still in denial about his mental health. He say it was just that they didnt know what to do with him. Has people believing that the mental health institutions had him there for money. It is just like he just keeps on lying. To say that they went after the WM3 right off the bat is so untrue. To say there is no evidence is a lie. It seem like the 3 just keep repeating what the attorneys say. Or what the suporters come up with. Oh yeah that is what happened ………

        If they really wanted to tell their stories. I would even think about going to see the movie. I would really have to think about ..good and hard . lol Tell the real truth. I would love to go back to believing that kids didnt do this. Then I read the transcripts and the evidence. The fact that there was blood. The shoes ……Then I go back to Jessie’s last confession. And then I listen to all of them. No where in the case did anyone mention the rope that was found there. But because they couldnt tie it to the case they couldnt use. But Jessie does ……..and admits that he was drunk real drunk. His friend and the shoes saying on video that Jessie told him what happened .And No way does he look like he is forsed into saying it.(Buddy Lucas) Jessie crying all night. It is hard to believe but there is a lot of people that wont testify. You know you are from New Jersey. 🙂 Down Town Chicago 20 people standing near the train and someone pushes someone on the tracks. No one will testify 🙁

        1. yea the third confession by jessie gets me too. In Devil’s Knot, it is portrayed that the prosecutors made promises to him to get him to confess again. However, I do not like to rely to heavily on this source because it is clearly bias. I wish Jessie would do an interview with 20/20 or something now and have someone ask him the hard questions, like “why did you confess three separate times?” That is one of the reasons I’m a hold out on being a supporter.

          1. Jade,

            I absolutely agree. I would love to hear Misskelley’s own explanation for the later confessions, though… he lies. People only disagree on WHEN he lies.

          2. Oh, but I do want to point out, the prosecutor himself said MissKelley was being offered a deal. So at one point, he was. There seems to be confusion on when that deal was being offered. Can anyone clear that up?

          3. If it’s true that his IQ puts him around the age of a second grader, can he logically understand that his lying has huge impact on his and other peoples lives? I don’t know. My cousin’s son is in first grade and it doesn’t seem to me that he has great reasoning and logic skills.

          4. Well, the comparison to a “normal” child of any age is bad science. It just doesn’t work that way. If you Google variations of “metal deficiency and false confession” you will see that an inability to thoroughly understand the consequences of a false confession is a serious matter. If you look into false confessions in general, a mental deficiency isn’t even necessary.

          5. Keese: Good point. I have wondered why he seems so uncomfortable around Damien and Jason. Supposedly Damien said he felt sorry for him at one point and didn’t blame him. Jason has acted friendly to him. But when I have seen Jessie with Damien and Jason (which hasn’t been often), he has seemed like the most uncomfortable person in the room, almost like he was staring down at his shoes.

            Just saw how many replies have been posted. This place is starting to rival McDonald’s served counter. Any satisfied customers?

          6. If he didn’t confess, none of them would have went to prison for 18 years. It’s no wonder he stares down at his shoes.

          7. I agree Joey. He must feel awkward around the other two. I just wonder if he understood the repercussions of his confessions or if he truly believed he could go home if he said what they wanted to hear.

          8. Hugh
            I dont know if that is the only thing he feels uncomfortable about. I dont think Jessie had anything to do with Damien and Jason going to jail. I do think that Damien sent Jason to prison. He didnt get on the stand and neither did his parents ( I think) . There was nothing to dispute. What if he felt uncomfortable because he knows they are guilty.

        2. Buddy Lucas, of “… Damien picked me up off the ground by looking at me” infamy, gave a statement to police (in a third interview) regarding a supposed confession by Misskelley, then recanted and refused to testify claiming he had been pressured by police.

          I didn’t realize he was still brought up.

          These are the parts of the case file where people start screaming, “Salem!”

          Just sayin’.

          1. I happen to think that all the people who confessed during the Salem Witch trials must have actually been witches. I mean, seriously…why else confess? Why else make up elaborate stories implicating other people?

            I know if I was on trial during the Salem Witch trials, I would stand up and proclaim my innocence…unless, of course, I was actually a witch. Then I would just use my magic powers and fly away.

          2. Joey,
            This was far from a witch hunt as the movie would like you to believe . They were trying to show motive. And show how messed up Damien and Jason were. Some of them might have gone over board with it .(people around them) But the prosecutor for sure wasnt making that his main point.

            But now you bring that up. What really makes me mad is how all the suporters and the stars yell justice justice.But they can make a movie PL2 and lead people to believe that Mr Byers did it. Now they make a movie and Mr Hobb did it. Not in a court room but in the media. One sided were someone cant defend themself. Think if you one day find yourself in that spot.WM3 were charged when their names hit the paper. Just think if the police said WM3 are suspects and why they thought they were. Damien medical history , you cant bring it to court but you can put it in the paper. Tell about both their back grounds. Then twist it any way they wanted us to see it. That is what they are doing now with the movies.

            They want to clear their name ……….Do it out of the media .I wonder what would have happened if Terry Hobbs join the bandwagon that the WM3 were innocent. Would they still be after him ? Or would he be getting a book deal like Mr Byers .

          3. I would say that Mark Byers invited suspicion with his outlandish behavior. His later criminal acts, the mysterious and questionable death of his wife, and the whole teeth thing, among other eyebrow raising details, further fueled these suspicions.

            However, you’re absolutely right that the bent of PL2, in retrospect, seems like a major miscalculation. Plenty of supporters have since apologized to Byers (he and his wife run the Blackboard message boards) and eaten crow. However it is fascinating to keep in mind that Byers, who was staunchly against the WM3, is now their biggest supporter. He has apologized for his mistakes in the past and accepted everyone else’s apologies for suspecting him. In fact, he is happy that he was the red herring all those years because it kept the case alive. He firmly believes that Terry Hobbs did it, and he got to know Hobbs pretty well over the years.

            Finding someone guilty in the court of public opinion, and finding someone guilty in a court of law are two very different things, I believe. As informed citizens living in a democracy, we should feel free to voice our beliefs on all matters. Me saying “I believe Byers is guilty!” or “I believe Hobbs is guilty!” is very different than a jury saying “Damien Echols IS guilty, and should be put to death.”

            Also, Pru, Terry Hobbs has long been VERY interested in a book deal of his own. He hoarded the money that was donated to his family in the immediate aftermath of Stevie’s death, he leaped at the chance to get money from Dimension Films when they optioned his life rights for a movie adaptation, and he claims to have kept a diary (from even before the murders) that someday we’ll all be able to read…when he sells it.

            It’s funny how a guy who has a detailed diary of events can’t seem to get one thing straight about where he was and when anytime during the events of May 5th and 6th.

          4. Keese
            Look at the video…….does it look like he was being pressured by police. I didnt see it. Maybe I missed something. 🙁

          5. You are missing a lot, I think, Pru. I never said he was pressured by police. I wrote HE claimed he was, but he also said Echols raised him off the ground by looking at him! Didya miss that? Come on! You can’t take that kid seriously, choosing when/when not to believe him too. Can you? Seriously?

          6. Ugh.

            Pru, that was knee-jerk and frustrated. Sorry. It’s just… Buddy Lucas? Seriously?

            That’s where I got stuck.


            Read carefully because Det. Ridge chooses to completely ignore what that kid had just said.

  77. I definitely think is pretty strange. It seems to be the only website that has the crime laid out like that.

    1. Very strange. And surreal. Fascinating…but not at all convincing.

      I can’t imagine who cobbled this theory together…or when it was initially posted. And if anyone else ever believed it.

      1. Obviously before JMB was no longer a suspect. It is a bunch of crap. The only way to believe it, is as now, by basing your opinion only on one media outlet such as PL1,2 ,3. You have to have enough sense to read it all to form any kind of educated theory, whether you choose to believe in the guilt or innocence of the WM3.

  78. Well now, wait a minute. Your point above wasn’t a history of mental illness that I saw. What I saw was denial that one person could do it.

    Let me make clear, I am not attempting to put forth any theory. I am simply saying the theory that it would have been impossible for one adult to have controlled all 3 kids is bunk.

    I do want to say you can’t think like YOU think to establish any theory. You have to be able to think like a person actually capable of killing a child. And, I think that is how people get lost in this theory. You look at three kids and think, if I were to attempt to restrain these three kids, one would get away. And you are probably right. However, if you were capable of killing them, making that very first move would be extreme – aimed at actually incapacitating one or two. In other words, the person capable of killing a kid is going to have no qualms causing quick and serious injury to gain control.

    1. You’re right there, Keese. I often think about how I would never have thought to tie them up like that or I would never have done it like this or that but then I realize that I would never truly be considering anything like this! It’s a non issue for me. I’m not a criminal. So I think you make a very valid point.

  79. I blame TV and movies for making everybody think everything has to make sense with what is known. Who knows? Just an example, even if it was a planned act, that doesn’t mean everything that happened was planned or even considered.

    1. Yea you’re right. Even if something was planned out, there could have been something that occurred that caused a change of plans. It happens in my everyday life all of the time. As a surgeon, one of the most important things I ever learned was that Plan A might not always work in surgery; so have a Plan B. What I have discovered on my own is that Plan B might not work either; so have Plan C, D, E and F.

      1. Knowing I might be having surgery one day and the surgeon will have to resort to Plan F is slightly frightening…thanks for the nightmares, Jade.

  80. God these were some messed up people. The only ones that appear normal within this whole case are the Moores. JMB had a long history of doing/selling drugs/money scams/terroristic threats/violence/bad judgment. Melissa Byers had an apparently long history of heroin abuse. Terry Hobbs had a history of sexual abuse/drug abuse. Pam Hobbs was married to Terry Hobbs which makes you question her judgment. What a mess this bunch of people were. I guess everyone has their problems but my goodness, this goes above and beyond. They were all divorced/remarried/had kids with multiple fathers, half of them did drugs, half of them were thieves. What the hell is going on in WM? Those poor children didn’t even have a chance to live a normal life, what with all the adult problems they had to witness. They should all be ashamed. That’s just my opinion. And obviously, I am not referring to the Moore family, although I know they went on to have significant problems of their own (at least it was after this terrible tragedy that inevitably shook their previously stable foundation). Sorry for my rant. I just can’t imagine bringing kids into these horrible environments. It just makes me sad.

    1. Jade: Just a quirky theory of mine, but I have always thought the sad dysfunction on so many levels is what has attracted so many celebrities to the case. They relate deeply and personally to it. I believe that’s why they feel like they intimately know the 3 even if they’ve never been in the same room with them.

          1. Drugs drill holes into the brain. I’m not saying they’re all three druggies (or were or if rumors are true), but I have heard all three are showing early signs of significant memory loss. Could be just rumors, but then again, perhaps not. They may think they know more than what they can retain in memory. Sad, but at their age, I hope they expected it (if they even expected to still be around).

        1. Many celebrities don’t read the prescription medication bottles that they overdose from, either. Typical behavior for them.

          1. If that’s humor, Hugh, you should humble yourself, as it’s not very funny.

            If that’s sincere, however, you should stick your head up your ass…see if it fits.

  81. WM3truth,
    It sucks that someone took your post off another board, but I would like to say thanks for allowing all of us to debate on your site. I would love to hear more input from you, as I am sure you have overwhelming knowledge to the case. If The ‘free’ are not open to your facts, tell us! We won’t edit you. LOL. Honestly, this is the only place I post anything and I feel comfortable with the mood on this board. Thanks. And also, If Todd Moore is reading this, would you PLEASE Please speak up to the Fox 13 memphis news and tell your side of the story, I am so tired of the biased from the WMfree.

    1. I second that — WM3truth, you have my sincerest appreciations.

      P.S. There have always been complaints of censorship on Deadline…they can be very narrow minded over there on many different fronts.

      P.P.S. I too would love to hear from Todd Moore. However, if he chooses to continue not to speak out (on camera) I completely respect that.

      1. I believe that Todd Moore posts on the hoax site. I’m not sure but occasionally a supporter will question something on there and the nons will go nuts and say, “Todd Moore is on here. How can you disrespect someone that has gone through what he has?” So I’m assuming he at least lurks that board.

  82. Next Sunday they are going to give the Academy Award for best documentary to Paradise Lost Three.

    From what I understand from Burke, they might mention Terry Hobbs by name from the podium as a suspect. I guess they are trying to draw him out into another lawsuit.

    Might be time for a new thread as this one is about to go past 400 replies…

    1. Yes — another thread, please!!!

      And from your mouth to God’s ears…I would like nothing better than to see PL3 win. However, I am not sure that it’s a shoo-in…from what I understand, there’s some real competition.

      In my mind, PL3 is a tremendous piece of filmmaking. Some people don’t like it because a great deal of it is telling us (close followers of the case) many things we already know, and things that were covered before. I believe that if you look at it as a complete reboot, and as a one-off, a stand-alone piece of documentary filmmaking, it is truly superior. We’ll see if the Academy agrees.

    2. OJ
      That is just wrong ! I lost all respect for these people. Leave peoples names out of it. Sorry but they are just showing how power hungry they are to bring up Terry Hobbs name. This makes me sick .

      1. If they actually do that…which I’m not so sure they will…it won’t be because they’re power hungry. It will be because they truly and sincerely believe that Terry Hobbs is the murderer, and they truly and sincerely believe that this can be proven in court.

        The tactic is to challenge Hobbs to sue them for slander. Then they’ll have to back up their claims in court and prove they had justifiable reasons to assert that he was the killer. Likewise, he’ll again open himself up to questioning, as he did with Pasdar…which was a disaster. Have you watched the tapes, Pru?

        Being that Arkansas considers the case closed, and won’t investigate further, this is one way to bring the matter back into a court.

        As sick as it may make you, Pru, for everyone who believes Hobbs is guilty, it makes us all sick to see him still walking free after all these years.

        1. Joey,
          Sorry but this is wrong. Where do find the justice that you (suporters) cry that the WM3 didnt get? I thought the “Free the WM3 “was all about the injustice that happened in the court systems. I hope for your sake you never find yourself in a spot where someone gets to attack you in the media. So what your saying why let the courts handle it.Just go after someone in the media. That is real justice there. Free the WM3 are hypocrites. They dont even care about justice and rights ! They make their own rules. I cant wait till this blows up in their faces. Yes I did watch the movies. That is how I was dumb enough to be a suporter in the first place. I found this sight by mistake. The funny thing is Natalie Maines knew nothing or very little on the case when she just jumped on board. That came out of her mouth. They are just making the WM3 look even more guilty . The one with the most MONEY wins. What great new evidence do they have ? Nothing ! Watch out Pam Hobbs you could have been in on it too. In PL2 WM3 ‘s expert said it was most likely a woman that bites a child. And they really dont know the time of death.

          Free the WM3 are hypocrites

          1. Pru sometimes I think you deliberately take what I say and then harp on the opposite. “Free WM3,” or supporters, or whatever you want to call it, WAS all about the injustice in the court system.

            And if a loved one of mine was murdered…and I was innocent…but I was locked away in jail, I wouldn’t be happy. But if a loved one of mine was murdered…and I was innocent…but I looked guilty in the eye of the public, I wouldn’t be happy either, but I would understand that the public only wants justice done for my murdered loved one, and ultimately I would want justice done too. JUSTICE. Bottom line.

            IF DNA testing would have been available in ’93, and IF the police had done their job by asking standard questions of standard people in ’93, Terry Hobbs would have been taken to trial, not the WM3. And even if he wouldn’t have been, what we now know about him is certainly enough to place a SHADOW of a doubt in the mind of any intellectually honest juror looking at the case against the WM3.

            Keep in mind — guilt must be proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. And if you don’t think Bojangles provides that shadow, or the lack of comprehensive evidence against the WM3 provides that shadow, then Terry Hobbs provides that shadow.

            Here’s the big point, Pru. I’ll state it simply and concisely so you don’t misread it or misinterpret it.

            The WM3 supporters want JUSTICE. We want the case reopened. We want the state investigating again and finding proof beyond all shadow of a doubt, one way or another, who killed the boys.

            It’s clearly not enough for us to play defense and just say “The WM3 didn’t do it.” Because we all know somebody had to. A lot of people are pretty sure they know who it is, and they want to prove it.

          2. Also, Pru, I just want to be sure we’re being clear here. I didn’t ask if you watched the “movies,” meaning Paradise Lost. I asked if you watched the 11 or so hours of Terry Hobbs answering questions posed by Pasdar’s (very well informed) lawyers.

            And as for the one with the most money winning, that was true in this case. The state had WAY more money than the defendants, and the state won. Isn’t it interesting that when the defendants actually had money to do things like hire experts and conduct scientific tests, the results pointed away from them. You act like because they have money behind them now they are going around buying people off. Do you believe that Peter Jackson’s money has bought anyone off?

            And please clarify: have you watched the 11 hours of Hobbs depositions? What do you think about them?

          3. What do you mean you did watch Mr. Byers too?

            And if you watched the Hobbs tapes, what is your impression of them?

            I’m just asking you, Pru. I’m really not yelling. And I think I’m being perfectly civil and respectful.

            I think you have a tendency to misread things, as you often seem to take what I say and respond as if I said something completely different. That’s why I’ve joked in the past that it seems like you’re messing with me. I honestly can’t tell if you are or aren’t. If you are — props to you. If you aren’t — please read my posts more closely before responding.

            I assure you, my days of “yelling” are over…unless someone REALLY asks for it. And even if you really ask for it, Pru, I won’t yell.

            P.S. If I ever use caps to EMPHASIZE a word, like so, it’s in place of italics. It’s not meant to signify yelling 🙂

    3. I don’t think that’s appropriate at all. They shouldn’t mention Terry Hobbs. A thorough investigation should be done into Terry Hobbs but the crime shouldn’t be pinned on him until there is proof. It’s just going to be another JMB situation.

      1. Jade,

        The possibility that Terry Hobbs is innocent makes me cringe over this whole issue – that’s my emotional side. How terrible.

        However, logically, I just have to take a breath and roll with the punch, and here is why: They are playing by the rules, and those rules are, right now, the only chance justice stands one way or another. Follow me for a minute.

        Entertain the idea for a moment that the defense are not out to distract from the defendants, but truly believe they have found enough evidence, that coupled with hard questions and testimony, will uncover the person who actually committed this crime. Outside the courtroom, the rules change. Hobbs does not have to answer any questions, or he could flat-out lie and there is no recourse. As Joey stated, the state of Arkansas has closed this case. The only investigation going on is being headed by the defense, and the only way the defense can get what they have inside a courtoom where there are rules and recourse is to provoke a civil suit. It is cold and hard, but it is reality.

        Having said that, I will be stunned if it works. As hard and as terrible as it would be for those directly involved, a knock-down, drag-out fight may be the only way to find that “smoking gun.” That is, when everything gets tested. I want to see it happen because, as I have said before, the debate over whether or not the killer/s is/are in prison is over. No matter what a person is to believe, the person/people responsible for brutally torturing and killing those kids is/are still out there, and that is just wrong.

        There is nothing pretty about any of this.

    4. I say of people such as those two men, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. One of them may become a boomerang. I’m not speaking as in “crime” as I am their “lack of character.” Well, there are crimes involved, too, come to think of it.

  83. The conduct of the jury in the JB/DE trial is very disconcerting to me. I do not see certain actions are not considered to be a blatant disregard of jury instruction. I think there is a greater likelihood that those who disagree with the verdict take issue with juror conduct, likewise I think those who agree with the verdict are more likely to not take issue with jury conduct. If you agree with the verdict and find it to be the ‘proper’ verdict, is it okay if it was reached improperly?

    1. Kent Arnold, the jury foreman of the Echols/Baldwin trial, operated in flagrant violation of how a juror is supposed to — and allowed to — act.

      Anytime I bring this up, neither Pru, nor any other non-supporter, chooses to address it. They’d rather not bother.

      The answer, GL, is YES. They do feel okay that the verdict was reached improperly, because it’s a verdict they agree with.

      1. You’re right Joey. Nons disregard the jury misconduct. They hide behind, “well if it was true, his lawyer had a civil duty to come forward at the time, not years later.” I’m a doctor; you can imagine what I think of lawyers.

    2. No I agree with the verdict because after looking over the testimony and the evidence I would find them guilty. Misconduct would have got them a new trial. But they decided against the new trial and took the plea. I found Damiens Echols testimony to be false. I dont think all the jury were swayed by the forman. If you look what is asked of you. I looked at it as a puzzle and put the pieces together. I looked at only the facts and left out the Wicca and Satanism. But what Damien said on the stand really killed any doubt for me. But I dont think there was any motive. I think they were drunk and it got out of hand . For Damien I found it to be he did want to kill them.He wanted to be known for something. And wanted them to be found. These bodies were not really hidden. They didnt bary them. A stick to hold the clothes down. The pants inside out means they were ripped off the bodies.

      See that is why I thought 2nd degree murder and you jumped down my throat. You can give 2nd degree in a capital murder case.

      Sorry this was not a sophisticated crime scene.

      I follow what was asked of the jury.

      1. What did Damien say on the stand that killed any doubts for you? The whole Anton Lavey (or was it Alister Crowley?) thing? That looked pretty damning, as Damien was definitely lying. But that’s back to the Satanism stuff, so you’re not counting that. What are you referring to?

        What evidence is there that they were drunk? Only Misskelly’s confession, right?

        And, just to be clear, I never jumped down your throat about 2nd degree murder.

      2. Hi Pru
        I was not questioning how you or anyone here may have reached their ‘verdict’, but rather how the jury reached theirs. If there was jury misconduct, is it easy to overlook if the verdict is one you (generic) agree with, does the end justify the means if you (generic) agree with the end.

        It was meant to be conversational and not accusatorial. In my quest to be succinct, I may have not been clear.

        I am not sure if the jumping down your throat is directed toward me, if it is, I do not remember having any exchange with you about that topic.

        1. The ends do not justify the means. If it were me, I would want a fair trial. Ugh I’m having one of those moments where I think they’re innocent! It was pinned on the poorest, saddest white trash with known problems that the police (or Jerry Driver, which I still don’t get his role) could think of.

          What made the cops originally target DE? Like, from May 6? Was it because Driver said something like, “Damien finally did it,” or was it something valid?

          1. I would like to think that if I was passionate about a case or emotionally invested in it, that I would still want what I would consider a proper verdict, to be reached properly and an investigation that was handled properly That said, in reality, I do question myself. If I was emotionally invested and really believed in the guilt or innocence of a defendant, I feel part of me wouldn’t care how things were done. Wrong, no doubt, though I do think it is not unnatural. This is not how I would want to be, but it is how I do fear I could be to a certain extent. I think it would be so easy to ignore, downplay, justify.
            Another thing I have to add to the growing list of things I have to keep in check about myself.

            I have heard where JD was to have made that statement, though I have not yet been able to verify it. There is this by Sudbury regarding a convo he (Sudbury) had with Steve Jones (JB’s PO and under the supervision of JD, DE’s PO).

        1. Jade,
          Back then they didnt know as much as we do know.Lots of crimes are found with very little evidence 🙂 That is why the jury has to look at everything and piece it together. Casey Anthony got away with it . A jury can get confused between reasonable doubt , and shadow of doubt

          1. Although I agree with some things you say, Pru, I disagree with you here. This crime took place twenty years ago, not two hundred. The WMPD was ill-equipped to handle a crime of that magnitude in my opinion. The crime scene could have been processed better. They lost evidence for goodness sake! That’s ridiculous.

      3. Pru: I’ve talked with a few defense attorneys about putting a defendant on the stand to testify. All of them said that would be their last resort and worst nightmare. Their theory is if the prosecution can halfway get their job done, the defendant will look “guiltier” regardless of how innocent or “not guilty” he may be. Do you believe they put Damien on the stand as a last ditch effort? If they could have avoided putting him up there, they would have?

    3. You know what else I find disconcerting in addition to what you noted above Geez? The fact that the families were not looked at first. That is always the first place that the police should look. Why was that not the case here? Nons like to say that they did clear the families first but I respectfully disagree with them. The families were not given enough attention and investigation from the beginning. JMB and Terry Hobbs, given both their prior histories of violence, should have been in the police station on May 6, 1993, giving their statements. This makes me believe the police did have tunnel vision for DE.

      And to further answer your question about jury misconduct, it is absolutely not appropriate for a verdict to be reached improperly, no matter if the verdict was right or wrong. If it were me, I would want a fair trial. And that’s another thing. These boys were not going to get a fair trial in Arkansas. It just wasn’t going to happen. There is no way there was 12 impartial people, in my opinion.

      1. Jade,
        I agree with all supporters. I like the idea of a fair and impartial jury and the hope that they follow the judges instruction during deliberations. This didn’t happen for DE or JB. Even thinking they were guilty I disagree with the process. I disagree with non’s who say they could have gotten a new trial. I wouldn’t want a new trial 18 YEARS later. I would have wanted one immediately. I don’t blame the guys for walking out. I’ve worked in a prison, and I don’t think you can find any who would not have taken the same deal.

        1. Jane, I could not agree more. I got back and forth on guilt vs. innocence in this case, however, if it were me, I would take that deal in a friggin heartbeat. Nons say if they were innocent they would stay and clear their names at a trial. No way. I would be out. I’ve even seen nons say that they would stay in to prove their innocence because that’s the moral thing to do. Oh well, call me immoral! LOL I wouldn’t stay in jail for one more second than I had too.

  84. I’m guessing it was when Echols levitated the courtroom with his magic eyes. Bud Lucas style. Keep up, Joey!

    (Sorry, Pru. If you were me, you’d have done it too! 🙂 )

    1. LOL Keese! Do you find it as fascinating as I do that so many different people can look at the same thing and see so many different things? People look at Damien and nons will say they see someone with no soul. I’ve seen others compare his looks to Johnny Depp (which is hilarious to me). When I look at him in PL1, I see a teenager that appears average. I had friends that could have been DE. I myself liked to shock people when I was a teenager. I said and did things that were wrong and I regret them now, but when I was young, I didn’t understand that all of my actions had consequences. When I look at DE now, I see a bit of a drama queen. Certainly narcissistic, but I don’t see someone that is dangerous. I don’t see that now and I don’t see it in PL1.

      1. Jade
        Looks are deceiving. I thought the same thing . Till you read over the medical records and listen to his ex girlfriend and her new boyfriend. Sorry I dont see a misunderstood kid . 🙁

      2. I do think it is interesting, but less confusing when one reads through those pages carefully. Take what Pru says below about listening to the ex of Echols. I don’t know the page number, but I believe it was within the first 50 pages, the first mention of the two supposedly planning to have a baby and sacrifice it – from that girlfriend – she says she “heard” Echols had planned it. That’s no small detail. I have seen YouTube videos claiming that was planned, a known fact. But a careful read of Exhibit 500 clearly shows that was rumor. I read a lot of things in there that were clearly and other times seemed to be secondhand and exaggerated secondhand information, if not just inconsistent. One really has to read carefully and critically through all those pages to gain any insight from them.

        Though, I still say, he could have been a complete pyschopath AND innocent.

        Echols looks like Depp? Ew. I’m left sad. :p

          1. Except that there is NOTHING in Exhibit 500 that makes him a psychopath. You do realize I was using an example, that if he were a psychopath medical professionals would have diagnosed him with a little more than “depressive disorder” and specifically “non-psychotic”???

          2. I’m starting to think it’s all just futile, Keese. Pru reads your post and thinks to herself, “Yes, but if you just read the documents you’d understand!”

          3. Medical professionals used the words “psychotic” or “psychoses” to describe Echols on pages 341, 344, 370, 401, 403, 418, 437, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 457, 472 and 473 of Exhibit 500.

      3. Jade,
        I dont know of anyone that said that he had no soul . It was used in court. Ted Bundy looked normal, Robin Gecht look like a party guy, I dont think killers look any different on the outside. But when your mentally ill and psychotic. You cant look and say Damien looks normal. Jason and Jessie they might have change. But if Damien is not on his medication. That is a scary thought. When you read though the medical records this isnt just a depressed person.

        1. Except that actual, real live medical professionals specifically said he was “non-psychotic”.

          I am beginning to think you are making fun of people who think these guys are guilty. That’s not cool at all.

          1. I have read all of the Exhibit 500. I just disagree with Pru that it is evidence of guilt. And then she goes on to say, but if Damien is not on his medication that is a scary thought. I believe that he is not and has not been on medication for many years. He stopped taking it a long time ago. That’s what he said in an interview anyway. And there are millions of people with diagnosed psychiatric illnesses that do not go on to commit heinous crimes. Although I was disturbed by some of the things I read in the document, I don’t think it’s evidence of anything.

    2. Keese,
      lmao I dont think he was afraid of Jessie and Jason and Damien because of witch craft . These people didnt live in IL or NY . This is down south they take things in their own hands. God for bid you are gay. There are people still that wear tee shirts saying SORRY I AM WHITE. ( and they think it is funny) I understand what Buddy was saying too. In the south side of Chiago I would never testify against someone . I would give the tip off what I know and wouldnt want to be involve. It is funny how they all recanted after they talk to Damien’s detective.

      1. At the very least – very least- Buddy Lucas recanted because he was full of sh*t!

        That’s not “afraid.” That’s B.S.

          1. By the way, in Misskelley’s “bible confession,” the one that’s true, he said he never talked to Buddy Lucas about anything. (You have the links). So… this is just too selective to follow.

    3. Keese,
      Ok now I see it. But explain away the shoes that Jessie himself said he gave Buddy the shoes. And Buddy had the shoes . Just like the wiskey bottle and it was right where Jessie said it would be. The rope that was at the crime scene that the police never mentioned because they couldnt link it to the crime. Jason having new shoelaces . When one of the shoelaces was not the childrens . The medical records Damien said himself that he was afraid that he was going to hurt himself or someone else . That he felt as if he was crazy.And the medical records really scare me. One that he was let out and would always come back. And Damien never went to get help himself. He was put in the hospital because he would always go back to there is nothing wrong with me. I cant just ignore all the evidence.

  85. And furthermore, how does Jason Baldwin fit into this whole thing? I can at least understand why people thought that Damien was responsible, but Jason Baldwin? Really? Really? It just doesn’t make sense to me. He was a good kid. Why would he be involved in this?

    1. Jade,
      He just started following Damien . I think his mind started get twisted .Its hard to imagine but just think how you were as a kid. I dont know if you were a leader. But I was a follower. I was shy……..impressionable……….hung around really nice kids . But a few were cutters and depressed. You started believing in what they were saying. It was easy . And me being a diabetic I didnt get into the drugs and drinking. I went on to college and met new people.

      Look at Jim Jones he took hundrens and had them believing he was talking to God, And before they ran into him they were normal everyday people.

  86. Multiple confessions from one Jessie Misskelley Jr places him at the scene as a perpetrator to the murders of Chris Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore. Personally I prefer to think of a good kid as one who is not a shoplifter, doesn’t participate in vandalism, and certainly does not beat, torture, and murder little boys.

    1. Lethal,
      Me too 🙁 But the fact Jessie was violent too……………Fact is kids do kill. And these 3 did kill those boys. I just feel sorry for the children. At this point I really dont care what happens to WM3

      1. I wish more people thought this way. Damien Echols has reached a celebrity-like status and has created a cult of personality that entrances anyone who has ever felt like they were different or rebellious or victimized. Jason Baldwin has played up the poor poor pitiful me act and continues to play on basic human feelings. Jessie Misskelley Jr is something else entirely. Either his seeming exile is self-imposed or DE has separated himself from his weak link now that he has no use for him. Sorry supporters, facebook posts mean absolutely dick.

        None of them were good kids based on their mental and juvenile criminal histories before the murders. For anyone to say they were is clearly ignorance.

        1. Lethal ,
          I agree with you. But I think they are guilty too. And they got away with it. Because of blind supporters that dont even look at any of the facts 🙁 They ignore this and that . Till everything is explained away.

        2. Alright, Lethal, I see your point. Maybe good kid wasn’t the right way to describe Jason Baldwin but I don’t think he was a bad kid. He was kind of run of the mill in terms of teenagers, in my opinion. The things he got in trouble for were pretty benign and not all that uncommon. I had friends that got arrrested for shoplifting; one came from an incredibly wealthy family and went on to be valedictorian. Certainly no career criminal.

  87. I thought this was interesting
    Parents want more evidence
    Evening Times

    Parents want more evidence

    CORNING (AP) –

    The parents of one of the three 8-year-old boys killed at West Memphis were hoping to see more evidence connecting a defendant to the slayings when testimony resumed today in his trial.

    Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, 18, is charged with capital murder. He is being tried separately from two other defendants in the May 5 deaths of Steve Branch, Chris Byers and Michael Moore. Their bound bodies were found a day after they disappeared while riding bicycles in their West Memphis neighborhoods.

    Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Steve Branch, said after testimony ended Friday that he was troubled by the prosecution’s presentation so far.

    After an agonizing day of hearing police investigators and a medical examiner recount grisly details about the boys’ deaths — and evidence that three teens charged in the killings were members of a satanic cult — the victims’ parents had waited eagerly for the prosecutions’ knockout punch.

    But on Friday, the family members sat perplexed as the prosecution presented a procession of expert witnesses who testified that a battery of tests on hair, cloth fibers and other items failed to produce any physical evidence linking the accused to the crime.

    “Maybe it’s their technique or whatever you want to call it, but I didn’t see no logic in it,” Hobbs said.

    “It’s not over yet,” Steve’s mother, Pam Hobbs, said of the prosecution’s case. “Maybe they’ll do a better job (this) week.”

  88. I tried posting this with links, but it is awaiting moderation, so I will post without links. This is not the full article.
    Evening Times
    Parents want more evidence
    CORNING (AP) –
    The parents of one of the three 8-year-old boys killed at West Memphis were hoping to see more evidence connecting a defendant to the slayings when testimony resumed today in his trial.
    Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, 18, is charged with capital murder. He is being tried separately from two other defendants in the May 5 deaths of Steve Branch, Chris Byers and Michael Moore. Their bound bodies were found a day after they disappeared while riding bicycles in their West Memphis neighborhoods.
    Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Steve Branch, said after testimony ended Friday that he was troubled by the prosecution’s presentation so far.
    After an agonizing day of hearing police investigators and a medical examiner recount grisly details about the boys’ deaths — and evidence that three teens charged in the killings were members of a satanic cult — the victims’ parents had waited eagerly for the prosecutions’ knockout punch.
    But on Friday, the family members sat perplexed as the prosecution presented a procession of expert witnesses who testified that a battery of tests on hair, cloth fibers and other items failed to produce any physical evidence linking the accused to the crime.
    “Maybe it’s their technique or whatever you want to call it, but I didn’t see no logic in it,” Hobbs said.
    “It’s not over yet,” Steve’s mother, Pam Hobbs, said of the prosecution’s case. “Maybe they’ll do a better job (this) week.”

    1. Geeze,
      I want to see the link lol Because the families came out of court saying the 3 were guilty. Not one of the family members came out and said they were innocent . Even after the new evidence they still were saying the 3 were guilty. Pam Hobbs even said that the 3 were guilty after the new evidence and said but she forgave them. And if Damien wanted to be remebered for being a child killer . She still forgives him. I bet you got that from a suporters blog. lol

      1. This was still during JM’s trial. I do have to say though that they can think they are guilty but simultaneously think the prosecution is not putting on a convincing or strong case.
        The link is at callahan’s under press coverage. from there it is located under West Memphis Evening Times Article index.
        I did think it interesting and nothing more, that TH, and the thought of his possible involvement being a pretty heavily debated topic, that he seemed to have reservations about the strength of evidence being presented connecting JM. It could be thought that if TH was guilty, that he might be more inclined to tout the strength of the evidence against JM instead of expressing reservations.
        (just thinking out loud 🙂 )

        1. Geez Louise,

          I don’t think they doubted the evidence or the case against the charged; that pretty clearly states they were concerned with how the case was being presented, as in the prosecutor wasn’t doing a very good job of getting JM convicted.

          1. Hi Keese,
            Right, they expressed concern over the evidence being presented not physically linking JM.
            “But on Friday, the family members sat perplexed as the prosecution presented a procession of expert witnesses who testified that a battery of tests on hair, cloth fibers and other items failed to produce any physical evidence linking the accused to the crime.”
            I would think that would be concerning as it could lead to a not guilty if the jury did not feel the evidence was compelling enough. Which is why I said that they can believe in guilt and at the same time think the state is not putting on a convincing case or strong case, not that they don’t believe there is a strong case.
            The bottom part I only addressed because it struck me for some reason. On the flip side it could be thought that if he were involved, that his reservations in the presentation of the states case could be a result of fear or concern of the jury not convicting leading to an increased likelihood that eyes could turn toward him.
            I imagine I put way more thought into that statement than he ever did.

  89. Geez
    Your right :)……….But I dont think Mr Hobbs is guilty. I think the Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky want to believe they are . Just like they did to Mr Byers. They print only half of the facts. So you believe what they say. I think if Mr Hobbs would have join the bandwagon ” WM3 are innocent and exonerate them ” he would have got a book deal. And they wouldnt be after him.

    And Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are making a lot of people look real stupid.!!!!!!! Most of the suporters dont know a thing about this case but what the movie tells them. And reporters dont do their homework. I have seen the WM3 are found innocent. Far from it ……taking the deal ment pleading GUILTY. If they didnt want to take the deal they should have took the new trial.

    And how are they calling anything satanic panic ! This is the only case that they brought out about santanic anything.

  90. Did they get a fair trial. Absolutely not. I don’t think Echols and Baldwin should have been tried together to begin with. I agree with everyone that jury misconduct constituted a mistrial. The so called satan expert was a quack. But I do not believe the cops had tunnel vision. They knew where JMB was. He was at the courthouse and then in the Dollar general parking lot reporting his child missing to the first cop he found. He and Melissa-pretty good alibi. Todd-gone. Dana, in the front yard yelling. Terry Hobbs-a drunk dopehead who was in and out in front of everyone including Pam and her dad. (But hey, check his every step-I’ll give you that) Cops in small towns don’t need tunnel vision. We live in a tunnel. With 6 cops on duty, I see at least 3 of them 4 times a day just standing in the front yard. They know whose going to cause trouble and usually when. Here, we know when the crazy checks come on the third, there will be more drunk drivers, so the boys can’t ride bikes on that weekend on the road.The cops know the boy walking down the road with the pump action bb gun today. They aren’t harassing him and neither is anyone else (long as he don’t shoot my cat or chicken), but it’s like I said -a fishbowl. Everything he’s done isn’t recorded b/c right now it doesn’t seem that important. What people say are rumors (the dead dog) are probably very true. We don’t report everything to the cops. I found 2 dead kittens in a ditch last spring. The neighborhood kids told me who did it so just because you can’t find it in some document doesn’t nessacarily mean it didn’t happen. I’m not surprised Jason’s record looks pretty clean. He was a smart kid with a hard home life, why mark him with a bunch of paper trails. (No one expected they would ever need everything he’d ever done as evidence in a murder trial.) They interviewed a LOT of people, and a lot of people knew Damion. Noone had morning coffee and decided they’d pin this on the weird kid from the trailer park. It’d be more logical to pin it on one of the pedifiles or some crazy person passing through. Don’t get tunnel vision while reading what is actually documented.

      1. Made sense to me. I’m curious about something. Tunnel vision investigation is where detectives have a suspect in mind, and they go about looking for evidence to support their theory rather than just evidence to discover what happened. So, they end up using an “eye witness” when three other people can place that “eye witness” elsewhere (just an example).

        So, I wonder, are you finished reading the evidence and now believe the police never had tunnel vision? Or, are you saying they didn’t have tunnel vision when they decided to start an investigation involving the kids now known as the WM3?

        1. Jane, what you said makes complete sense. I am not from a small town and the things you said I didn’t realize. I guess in small towns everyone really does know what’s going on with everyone else. Thank goodness I live in a big town. What you said does change things for me though. I do wonder if a lot of what we consider rumor is actually accurate information.

        2. Keese,
          Let me take the easy road and say both? At least until I put all these wild childs to bed tonight, have a glass or four of wine and get my thoughts together.

        3. ok Keese. Let’s see if I can make this make sense. I apologize that the only way to explain things is to use my town as an example, but hey, I’m not to far away from them. I honest to God have no idea how an investigation works in a large town/city, but down here the cops start at 6 in the morning at the local cafe. (That’s where I scope out all the UC vehicles for the week too) They talk to all these people from then on that will never be documented b/c it isn’t official. You can think they are innocent but still wonder how tthe cops knew ALL of Damion’s friends to bring in in the first place. These kids and adults weren’t just calling the dectives with mostly useless info. Jerry Driver suggested it, but they documented a lot of people that they worked to clear.
          Now, here’s a question for you.
          Why would all the adults in the town want to send a child to deathrow just to close a case? Don’t tell me pressure, Keese. I know you are going to give me an educated answer. You and Joey are very persuasive. So persuade me baby.

          1. Just Jane,

            “All of the adults in town” includes a lot of people.

            I don’t think anyone wanted to send Echols to death row just to close a case. I think a lot of factors gave rise to the situation, so many that doing it justice in a comment section on a blog would be difficult at best. You would rather I not mention pressure, but I can’t imagine how anyone could dismiss it. However, let us — for the challenge, even.

            I think it involved inexperienced investigators who were absolutely horrified with what they found, so horrified, they (and a lot of people, especially given the atmosphere at the time) could not imagine the person they were going to encounter would be anything less than a walking devil (certainly not a parent or neighbor; Hobbs was never even questioned about anything and his street wasn’t even canvassed). Echols didn’t have friends, but for Baldwin. What he had was a scary reputation. His name was on the lips of many because of that reputation and because, I suspect, of the questions they were being asked to answer. Does anyone attempt to dispute investigators were nearly immediately concerned this crime was the result of some sort of “occult activity”? They were. And when they leaked the details of the victims’ wounds and people started talking, it was like verbal napalm.

            Now, I can’t tell you every step they took. THEY can’t tell you every step they took because their record keeping was abysmal. However, it is very clear to me that, at some point, they started looking through a tunnel. That is, they thought Echols was their man, and they set about to prove it. I don’t know their intentions and I don’t really care, but probably, they sincerely thought they had something, were so convinced of it that they absolutely lost objectivity. That was when people like Buddy Lucas were not thrown out on their rears (and Buddy Lucas really is a great example for this AND for the atmosphere at the time); Misskelley’s original confession was taken to trial (!!!!!); that ridiculous lake knife became just A-OK evidence. Another great example of this was when (PL) the prosecutor learned that some blood on a pendant Echols owned was not an actual match, but “could” be or was “consistent with” Michael Moore AND Jason Baldwin, (and I think Damien Echols, too — I don’t remember) but he immediately said, “Well, I’m going to argue that blood belonged to Michael Moore.” Really?

            You want me to persuade you; I am not sure I can, and for the same reason I think both trials went so very wrong. People seem to be far more influenced by rumor and innuendo, subjective behavior and fear, speculation, and a better story told than they are the facts sitting right in front of them. Whatever it is, it is the same thing that makes people look at Exhibit 500 and swear there are things there that just are not. Others will never even read it, simply choose to believe whomever tells the story they like best — and then, amazingly, they will go argue it!

            I digress. I think if you stop looking for the story and see it more like a puzzle with pieces that actually have to fit — real pieces made out of fact, not rumor and fiction — you won’t be persuaded anymore.

    1. Jane: Jason Baldwin reminds me of Dylan Klebold. I met a woman who went to school with Harris and Klebold. She said in honesty, Eric was an angry, messed-up kid who desperately wanted to kill and maim as many people as he could. Not exactly the kind of guy you want to hang out with on a Saturday night (well, I guess depending on what kind of Saturday night you’re looking for). On the otherhand, she said Dylan was the person who poisoned her mind against the human race for the rest of her life. She said because of him, now whenever she meets someone who seems “genuine” and genuinely good, she can’t help but wonder if it’s all a brilliant disguise like the one the Dylan she knew and had loved once wore. She said the day of the shooting (she wasn’t there, had already left), people were calling out to Dylan, “Hey, what are you doing, Dylan?” Even with a gun in his hands, Dylan didn’t scare them. She said everybody had been convinced Dylan would be the guy to talk Eric out of a slaughter or kill him before Dylan allowed Eric to do it.

      1. Hugh,
        I thought of the same thing after I read the evidence and the trial. What other people said about Jason prior to handing around with Damien. Same thing was with Dylan and Eric.

    2. Jane
      Very good point. But do you think the police had tunnel vision ? Or do you think they knew because all of the reports. I see a lot of reports where they told the police that they thought someone else did it. Like their exhusband. So are you thinking that people just pin it on the WM3? Or did they just not document all the things they did?

  91. Wow. That’s powerful.

    I remember reading the comments of a profiler (interview,, I think) on these two, and he said Dylan Klebold would never have committed such an act alone, that Eric Harris was the force behind it. It left the impression that had to two never met, Klebold probably never would have turned violent. I suppose that personality type is scarier than the obvious bad guy.

  92. I LOVE someone who actually reads! Did you cheat with a search function, though? I’m curious because you missed page 403. (I did not use a search function).

    All records of the same incident. 341 is a weekly flow chart, no diagnosis that I see.
    344 is a provisionary “psychotic disorder, NOS”
    370 “provisional”
    401 is an “admission diagnosis” also mentioned on 403, but is still written as “provisional” on 418.
    437 is an admission form from the same incident, check the date, that’s “provisional” as an admission diagnosis, as are 440, 441, 442, 443, and 444 (check the dates). 457, “provisional”. 472 and 473 are records of the same incident, admission diagnosis.

    In psychiatry, a provisional diagnosis is one to which “the clinician is not yet committed.”

    So, okay, the word was used, repeatedly, throughout records involving one incident, as a disorder to r/o, “rule out.” Saying there was “NOTHING” to suggest he was psychotic was misleading. Bad me. However, there was NOTHING to say he was a psychopath, and since I used that word, I want to make it clear.

    Now, I am not finding a single page telling me he was actually diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. Got one?

    1. You are correct Keese. It was never a firm diagnosis. And these were doctors who saw him daily as an in patient and would have seen psychopathic tendencies. He was diagnosed as depressed. These are two totally different entities. When I was in school, I rotated through the Psych/Behavioral Health Unit and you wouldn’t believe some of the stuff patients said and did. Do you know how many of them went on to commit homicide? None, as far as I know. I read Exhibit 500 and feel bad that Damien had such a pathetic home life. I don’t get the vision of him as a psychopathic maniac. He said strange things but I can’t help but think it was for attention. It seems to me that he was able to turn it off and on. He would be admitted for homicidal/suicidal ideation and then be discharged a few days later. I also wonder if he played up his psychiatric disorder to be able to get disability. Obviously, this is speculation on my part, I have no idea. He certainly wouldn’t be the first person to exaggerate symptoms and diagnoses to get disability checks.

    2. My understanding is that a provisional diagnosis is one that is most likely to be the diagnosis. It could be that these doctors wanted more than a few days to confirm this serious of a diagnosis on a teenager.

      Diagnosis Algorithm

       You are here.


      Provisional Diagnosis


      Refined Diagnosis

       Revisit Diagnosis

      A provisional diagnosis is either the first considered diagnosis, or a subsequent diagnosis after the previous one has been found wanting. Although a provision diagnosis is the result of careful psychiatric assessment, there has not been a sufficient length of time to observe how the diagnosis applies to the patient, including:
      The patient’s own comfort level with the diagnosis.
      The patient’s ongoing clinical condition.
      The patient’s response to treatment.
      Consequently, until further review, the first diagnosis, and perhaps subsequent ones, needs to be regarded as provisional.
      Nevertheless, the provisional diagnosis sets in motion the first stage of treatment and illness management.

        1. We aren’t talking about two different things; you are giving the reasons the clinician wouldn’t be committed. And, it could well be that the provisional and final diagnoses are often the same since professionals usually recognize symptoms quickly. However, in *this* case, it just isn’t so.

          Provisional: (psychotic disorder)

          Final: (dysthymia)

          A careful read shows that upon admission, medical providers were dealing with a lot of secondhand information, and that could well be why things changed. JO Jerry Driver apparently exaggerated a lot.