Jessie Misskelley’s confession to defense lawyer – June 11, 1993

Dan Stidham’s testimony at the Baldwin/Misskelley Rule 37 Hearing included an exchange about his meeting with Jessie Misskelley on June 11, 1993. This was one of Stidham’s earliest meetings with his client, eight days after Misskelley’s original confession to West Memphis police, eight days after the “West Memphis Three” were arrested.

(In the Rule 37 appeal, Misskelley and Baldwin were basically arguing that they deserved new trials because their original lawyers had been incompetent. Stidham and the other original defense lawyers were required to turn over their case files. This revealed a great deal of previously confidential information to prosecutors, and much of that information ended up in the trial record.)

WM3 supporters claim that the West Memphis police coerced Jessie Misskelley into a false confession on June 3. So what did Misskelley tell his defense lawyer on June 11, in a private meeting with no law enforcement officials present?

Stidham did not tape-record this meeting, but he kept a legal pad with handwritten notes. At the hearing, Kent Holt (Arkansas Assistant Attorney General) asked Stidham to read those notes. Here’s that testimony, with quotations from Stidham’s 6/11/93 notes bolded.

HOLT] Okay. I show you what’s been marked as State’s Exhibit 12E and ask if you can identify that document?

STIDHAM] (Witness examining same.) Yes, sir.

HOLT] What is that?

STIDHAM] That appears to be my notes from an interview with Mr. Misskelley on June 11, 1993.

HOLT] And we are back to where I wanted to get with the time records. On page three of the time records you have June 11, 1993 “conference with client.” Would this in fact be the notes that you made during that conference?

STIDHAM] Yes, it would.

HOLT] Okay. And do you know when this got put in the file?

STIDHAM] I assume as soon as I got back to the office.

HOLT] So did you ever take it with you back to the jail?

STIDHAM] This particular statement?

HOLT] Yes?

STIDHAM] I have no idea. I just don’t know.

HOLT] Okay. Do you know if that statement was ever reduced, uh, was ever put into a printed-type document?

STIDHAM] Not unless it’s in that folder.

HOLT] I haven’t been able to locate it.

STIDHAM] Then it wasn’t, then.

HOLT] Okay. I can’t really, uh, if you would, read what the I notes that you made with regard to that meeting that you had in those two and half hours with Mr. Misskelley?

STIDHAM] Do you want me to read the entire document?

HOLT] Yes, I do. Just to make sure —— you have good handwriting, but I can’t make out every point.

STIDHAM] It’ ll take a little time, but I’ll see what I can do here. I made notes in paragraph form and paragraph one states that “seen picture of three b’s,” which was an abbreviation for boys.

HOLT] What was “C” in abbreviation?

STIDHAM] C?

HOLT] Was that your client?

STIDHAM] I’m not sure what “C” is — I’m sorry.

HOLT] Well, you started off, it says — seen pictures of three b’s – oh, “seen picture of three b’s about one week before murder” for instance, down on paragraph 3, I thought you were – we’ll get to that.

STIDHAM] Okay. I’m sorry. I obviously wasn’t speaking clearly enough.

Paragraph one: “Seen picture of three b’s,” which means 3 boys, “one week before murder at cult meeting.”

Paragraph two: “At cult meeting he recognized three boys, but couldn’t remember where he,” horrible grammar, “where he seen them until the picture was in paper.”

HOLT] Are you dictating this?

STIDHAM] No, I’m writing it as he is telling me.

HOLT] I mean, exactly, you’re writing it as he is telling you.

STIDHAM] Well, to the best I can.

HOLT] Well, you wouldn’t necessarily say “seen”?

STIDHAM] I don’t have the best grammar in the world, so it’s possible that that’s my word instead of his.

HOLT] It’s more likely that he in fact used the words “I seen”? That’s common parlance among people who don’t speak good English?

STIDHAM] It’s possible. I think that says “three teens were in water. Damien hollered at three boys, client,” C,, which is short for client, “and Jason hid in weeds. Damien hit blonde-headed boy and then other two started hitting Damien.” And the other two would be reference to other victims. “C, ” being client, Mr. Misskelley, “and Jason came out and all started fighting.”

Paragraph 4 states that: “C,” again referring to Mr. Misskelley, “started hitting boy in Scout uniform. J,” which would be, uh, stand for Jason, “started hitting the other boy.”

Paragraph 5: “Damien hit the blonde-headed boy with stick, unconscious, bleeding a little bit.”

Paragraph 6: “Damien then went to Jason and other kid. Damien started hitting this boy and Jason went over to the blonde-headed boy and stuck his dick into the boy’s mouth.”

Paragraph 7: “Client,” it actually says ‘C,’ but it’s obviously reference to the client, “kept hitting boy Scout and knocked him out unconscious, still breathing. C,” being client, “was sure he was still breathing.”

Paragraph 8: “The C,” client, “went on to Damien and helped Damien hit the other boy.”

And then it goes to page two. Paragraph 9: “Damien went to Boy Scout, pulled his pants down and screwed him in the ass.”

Paragraph 10: “After Jason screwed blonde boy in the mouth, he screwed him in the butt. After he screwed him in the butt, he cut off blonde-headed boy’s penis.”

Paragraph 11: “After that, client realized it was time to stop. Client stopped hitting other kid. Client went over to Boy Scout, he was saying ‘help us, help us.'”

Paragraph 12: “Client told Damien ‘it’s time to stop.’ Damien said, ‘No, we’re going to,’ —— I can’t read my own writing.

HOLT] You’re taking it down pretty fast weren’t you?

STIDHAM] Yes, and of course, my handwriting is not the best. It says, ‘No, we’re going to hide this,’ or ‘We’re going to like this,’ I think, is actually what it says. “Client helped Boy Scout up, Damien knocked client and boy down. Client told Damien and Jason to stop hurting boys.”

Paragraph 13: “Client walked away ten to fifteen feet and then came back.”

Paragraph 14: “Damien screwed Boy Scout again. Jason stabbed one of the little boys in the face.”

Paragraph 15: “Client and Damien and Jason tied all boys up with their own shoestrings. Client choked Boy Scout until he quit moving.

Paragraph 16: “All but the blonde was still alive. Client didn’t choke blonde.”

Paragraph 17: “Damien and Jason threw them in water. Saw boys kicking around in water.”

Paragraph 18: “Client was afraid to go back and help, so he left.”

And then the final page doesn’t have any numbers with a paragraph. “No one ever mentioned killing anybody in cult. Damien would try to say voodoo stuff and try to,” it says, “try to dogs, cats and snakes from the dead.” I’m not sure exactly what that means. “Damien stuck his tongue in the skull of a bird.” And that’s the end of my notes.

HOLT] And you did, according to your practice, you testified the date — — what is the date on that?

STIDHAM] June 11, 1993.

For case junkies who have downloaded the full Baldwin/Misskelley Rule 37 Hearing transcripts, this exchange appears in volume 6, beginning at BMHR 1504.

68 thoughts on “Jessie Misskelley’s confession to defense lawyer – June 11, 1993”

  1. You people are truly daft.

    Jessie’s stories are obviously not true. No victim was “screwed in the ass”. No victim was choked. No victim was “kicking around in the water”. “Sticks” did not cause the basilar skull fractures to the three victims. None of what Jessie claims fits the actual physics of the crime or the scene. None of it.

    Talk about denial! You want to believe Misskelley’s desperate, impossible gibberish so badly that you are willing to completely disregard all of the factual evidence that proves these things never happened.

      1. Who confesses 10 times to different people including his own lawyers on 3 separate occasions?

        Also, Jesse was not mentally retarded. He scored average on his IQ his first IQ test.

        1. Mentally challenged people do this every time the see a movie or show in which they put themselves in roles that are violent due to repressed feelings of anger for being made fun of or feeling weak. They have had hundreds on file confess to the JFK assassination, an that’s not counting confessions that I’m sure did not even get put down on paper. Now if they had committed the crime, I would believe there would have been more physical evidence due to the fact we are speaking of immature young males. Now maybe the two could have pulled off something as a perfect crime, but to believe that misskelly could possibly be apart of this an leave no trace evidence at the crime scene or his own home is very hard to believe. Yes I have seen the movies and subjectvly look at different info offered online, in which seems more of a he said, she said type of trial. Now if we take the only evidence they had to convict which is these confessions, an eliminated all else and only focus on him as a suspect. Do you really believe that he would have been able to deal mentally or physically after such a horrible crime. Take into account, there was no additional evidence anywhere. This child like teenager was able to destroy or conceal any evidence possible that would like him to the crime, yet still decides to confess. If he was to truly confess, why could he not provide some physical evidence he was there, besides the words from a child like brain. I can buy into the other two somehow being smart enough to out smart the entire law system. Im sorry, an im trying really hard to be objective here but again just to difficult to believe that the only evidence used to convict is provided by the one main suspect who not only commited a perfect crime with no trace evidence and was smart enough to do so, yet in without any reasonable facts he did it, confesses.

    1. steve let me ask you somthing if you were a fifteen year old boy and got wrongfully accused of killing and raping 3 little boys and ultimately was found guilty what would your reaction be during the entire trial and most specifically when you were found guilty. with your family in the courroom would you cry? would show an outburst of disbelief stressing your innocence over and over again. or would you just stand there like you just got afterschool detention.does anyone else find echols and baldwins reactions to the verdict extremely odd.dont tell me shock because thats got nothing to do with it. a truly innocent person would express outrage probably break down and cry paticulary a young boy.that is one thing i find most troubling their body language and behaviors during the trial. laughing about hiding under the bed when they were caught meticulously brushing and grooming your long black hair in a mirror in the court room.people were duped by an hbo documentary made by a guy who was bias from the beginning.he said he knew damien was innocent ten minutes after meeting him.so of course the documentary plays to that side.no doubts the trial was absurd on both parts. it seems back then you didnt have to be that intelligent to be a lawyer because the prosecution and all defense attorneys were absolute morons. i think a big mistake was made under the consistant pressure from high profile individuals a a really catchy campaing for frreedom name THE WEST MEPHIS 3 or WM3 or free west mephis 3.so this kid echols now writes his books moves to fuckin salem ma ( my state ) wish hed get the fuck out and go live with johnny depp another be sucker real do gooder right. why dont you peel off a couple millio depp and give to kids dying from cancer or abused kids anything. but no him and vedder and fatas peter jackson list goes on made this a cause. they fucked up and wen they meet there maker the know then that they did.

    2. also how is it you know that no victem was kicking around in water. and you dont think a stick say 3 or 4 inchs in diameter couldnt do that damage youv been fooled to my friend no matter how intelectual they seem now and for justice.i bet you anything that they have stopped pursuing trying to prove their innocence like they sai they would , they got out and forgot all that shit and wrote books did talk shows book readings. fuckin joke. 3 sick little hillbilly punks got tired of blowing up bullfrogs and lighting cats on fire hope they all die

    3. I’m going to get a little graphic because that’s necessary in order to explain this.

      The reason you wouldn’t find any evidence that the children were “screwed in the ass” is because they weren’t. Not because these guys didn’t try, but because that’s not how anal sex works. Penetrating a child anally is not easy. It requires lubrication, something none of the perps brought with them because this was a crime of opportunity, not a planned crime. The most likely explenation is that they did try to have sex with the boys, but they failed. They didn’t have any lube with them and seeing as none of them appear to be sexually attracted to children, they probably weren’t able to get hard enough to do it anyway. They probably tried and failed. Unless you were watching from a very specific angle, it would be impossible to tell that they failed.

  2. This has been talked about in comments before Steve, and I think it’s also covered somewhere on this site. Jessie later said the boys were not actually penetrated, Jason and Damien only motioned as if they were raping the boys. Have no idea if a stick could cause basilar skull fractures—maybe it depends on the size and weight of the stick. The main point is Jessie maintained his guilt for several weeks if not months after his first confession. I just don’t see how his confession could be forced.

    1. No, what Jesse did was repeat the story that the police worked on him to get, and that he thought he was suppose to keep repeating. Mentally chalanged people want more than anything to please. Once the police got him to go over and over the details those are the details that he used with every authority figure from then on ,
      This is typical.
      What is atypical though, is that anyone like this could eradicate any and all trace evidence of the crime. That just does not fit.
      Also the narrative that he does stick too does not match the evidence, nobody was stabbed in the face, here he does get the shoelace part right, but the first couple attempts at this story he maintained they were tied with rope. The penis we now know was never cut off, so none of this makes sense his story is a made up to try to fit what they thought they knew about the crime at the time. None of this is applicable to what real forensics has shown to be the case.

      1. “what Jesse did was repeat the story that the police worked on him to get”
        If that was so, why not “feed” Jessie a story which matches the evidence that the police obliviously knew?

  3. It’s not just the rapes that didn’t happen or the “sticks” that couldn’t have caused the skull fractures. No matter which version you look at, Jessie’s ever evolving stories are physically impossible when considered in conjunction with the actual evidence. They literally defy physics.

    In his first statement to the police he was clearly manipulated into telling the cops what they wanted to hear. Beyond some leaked rumors, he was completely clueless about what happened in the woods, and had to be lead down the garden path by cops to get even the most basic of facts correct.

    You can argue ’til you’re blue in the face that Jessie isn’t mentally slow because his IQ is maybe a few points above mental retardation, but anyone who has watched or listened to him over the years can see Jessie is not functioning within the average intellectual range. And slow teens are especially vulnerable to manipulation. Once Jessie dug himself into a hole by saying he was there, he tried to claw his way out by giving the authorities more of what they wanted, unable to grasp that he was only making matters worse. All indications are he believed he’d eventually be rewarded for continuing to “cooperate”, although the nature of that reward changed according to the particular situation he was in at the time.

    Is it really so difficult to understand how this could have happened?

    False confessions aren’t an unusual phenomenon. Investigators who are doing their jobs properly weed out false confessions by comparing what is being said with the known facts of the crime. Unfortunately, that is the polar opposite of what happened here.

    1. Yeah, Jessie is so mentally slow he’s PRODUCING a movie starring two academy award winning actors. If that doesn’t proves his numb-skulledness I don’t know what will.

      You all make him out to be an idiot barely able to control his bowels when that just is not the case.

      The autopsies could not rule out rape. They could not prove it either. But what is entirely probable is D & J were miming sex with the boys. Where Jessie was standing in the woods (per his confession) he probably wouldn’t see actual penetration if it did happen.

      Exactly what “reward” was Stidham offering him to confess? From the tapes and transcripts Stidham did everything he could to stop him from saying anything. There was no reward offered after Jessie’s incarceration, so unless you know about some super secret offer, stop claiming it. There was no reward offered for his after-incarceration confessions.

      Why did they all fail lie detectors? Why did their alibies fall through? Why were the other two bragging about committing the crime afterward? Why did Jason say he thought Damien could have done it when they were supposedly together that night? Why was there blood consistent with Jason, Damien and Stevie Branch on the same necklace? Why was there blood on the necklace at all?

      1. the fact that he’s signed on to coproduce a movie about what happened to him is totally irrelevant to his intelligence level. what is relevant is his actual iq, so why don’t you look that up instead of making flawed arguments. the boys were not raped, that has been confirmed. they were miming sex? okay, what you’re doing is trying to make your opinion (that these boys are guilty) more plausible by imagining scenarios. that’s not evidence. it is not clear at all that Stidham is trying to “help” jesse while he’s interrogating him. this is partially due to he fact that only 45 minutes of the SEVERAL HOURS of his interrogation were recorded. anyone who listened to the “confession” could tell that Jesse is being led by the police, they practically ask him to change the time frame of his whereabouts to fit the window of the crime, and he did because he was a scared teenager with a low intelligence level. the fact that they may have failed lied detector tests means nothing because those tests are unreliable and again they were all scared and nervous. them bragging about the crime is all hearsay. everyone can shut up with the blood on the necklace. they didnt have dna testing back then so the fact that an alleged blood sample off a necklace MIGHT match a victim is once again IRRELEVANT. there is more eveidence against terry hobbs than there is against the wm3. the whole point of this case is that justice was not served for the victims or those accused. the wm3 were not convicted with the standard of evidence that our legal system would consider appropriate. the evidence was all circumstantial. these boys were tried by the media and as a result 3 more lives were destroyed by that awful occurrence in west Memphis. why are you so hung up on these boys being guilty? instead of making vague unlikely connections about what could have happened, just examine the actual evidence and facts about the case. the parents of the victims don’t even believe the wm3 are guilty anymore and for good reason. if the state of Arkansas though for a single second that these men were guilty they would never let them out of prison, but they did. they were more than willing to let them out with the Alford plea. you know why? because that means the wm3 can’t sue the shit out of the state for taking their freedom because the state knew that the case would be eventually overturned because THEY ARE INNOCENT. the only reason they took the deal was because Damien was on death row and it could have been years until the appeal went through. but seriously, facts and evidence. that’s all that matters. don’t bother imagining scenarios, they were let out for a reason.

        1. “what is relevant is his actual iq, so why don’t you look that up instead of making flawed arguments.”

          Ok.

          http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html

          “the boys were not raped, that has been confirmed.”

          It has? Where?

          “they were miming sex? okay, what you’re doing is trying to make your opinion (that these boys are guilty) more plausible by imagining scenarios. that’s not evidence.”

          But the 12 hour interrogation, Jessie’s IQ, the misrepresentation of DNA evidence, ect is?

          “it is not clear at all that Stidham is trying to “help” jesse while he’s interrogating him. this is partially due to he fact that only 45 minutes of the SEVERAL HOURS of his interrogation were recorded.”

          You do know Stidham is Jessie’s lawyer, right?

          “anyone who listened to the “confession” could tell that Jesse is being led by the police, they practically ask him to change the time frame of his whereabouts to fit the window of the crime, and he did because he was a scared teenager with a low intelligence level.”

          And again, Jessie’s own lawyer is leading him? WTF??

          “the fact that they may have failed lied detector tests means nothing because those tests are unreliable and again they were all scared and nervous.”

          So the fact the men who recently came forward saying they heard from a nephew that Hobbs confessed aren’t credible either, huh?

          “them bragging about the crime is all hearsay.”

          Hearsay the defense couldn’t discredit.

          “everyone can shut up with the blood on the necklace. they didnt have dna testing back then so the fact that an alleged blood sample off a necklace MIGHT match a victim is once again IRRELEVANT.”

          Just like a hair that MIGHT match Terry Hobbs?

          “there is more eveidence against terry hobbs than there is against the wm3.”

          Truth, you got the link to the report on the hairs? I lost my link.

          “the whole point of this case is that justice was not served for the victims or those accused.”

          Justice was served…until self-serving nimrods who are easily led by a slick PR campaign were convinced otherwise.

          “the wm3 were not convicted with the standard of evidence that our legal system would consider appropriate.”

          Tell that to 24 jurors and the Arkansas court of appeals.

          “the evidence was all circumstantial.”

          So is DNA.

          “these boys were tried by the media and as a result 3 more lives were destroyed by that awful occurrence in west Memphis.”

          And you were fooled by the media, and as a result 3 killers are walking free. Pat yourself on the back!

          “why are you so hung up on these boys being guilty?”

          Um, because they are…

          “instead of making vague unlikely connections about what could have happened, just examine the actual evidence and facts about the case.”

          You mean like this entire site does?

          “the parents of the victims don’t even believe the wm3 are guilty anymore and for good reason.”

          Another lie. You work for wm3.org or something? Terry Hobbs, Steven Branch, and Todd and Dana Moore still believe in the guilt of the Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley.

          “if the state of Arkansas though for a single second that these men were guilty they would never let them out of prison, but they did. they were more than willing to let them out with the Alford plea. you know why? because that means the wm3 can’t sue the shit out of the state for taking their freedom because the state knew that the case would be eventually overturned because THEY ARE INNOCENT.”

          Another untruth. There is no statue in the state of Arkansas for the state to be sued over the verdict of a jury trial (thanks Fred for that tidbit of info).

          “the only reason they took the deal was because Damien was on death row and it could have been years until the appeal went through.”

          Another link I wish I had. The hearing for a new trial was coming up. Years my ass.

          “but seriously, facts and evidence. that’s all that matters.”

          Then why don’t you actually post some?

          “don’t bother imagining scenarios, they were let out for a reason.”

          Yeah, ignorant people who believed the hype got them out.

      2. Well given the fact that his mental capacity was of a 8 year old when he was 17, would roughly but him as a 20 year old as a 40 year old. And I know plenty producers that are that age. Lol salam is looking for you buddy, wondering who else you said was a witch.

    2. Oh Lord, if I hear that again that Jessie was borderline retarded I think I’ll eat my hat. Some do do defence lawyer said he was equal to a five year old. That’s just not true. Watch this fellow with his family in Paradise Lost. He’s actually a very articulate young man. The dumbing down of his IQ is just the defence way to pretend he didn’t know what he was doing when he confessed. Bullshit, they’re guilty

      1. ahhh not comment I ment to respond to. Christine I think you have not given an in depth look into this case. Maybe try to keep a little bit more of an open mind

  4. Steve: That Jessie was promised anything in exchange for a confession is pure hearsay. Why on Earth did he confess again to his lawyer after he was convicted and sentenced?! I just can’t buy the forced confession claim. Listen to his third confession, he practically begs his lawyer to believe him.

  5. Steve, “Beyond some leaked rumors, he was completely clueless about what happened in the woods…” How did he know which boy had been cut in the face, which had been cut in the groin, and which hadn’t been cut at all? That information had most certainly not been made public.

    1. Have you read the news articles archived on Callahan, the statements made by John Mark Byers, or seen the pic of the victims used in Misskelley’s original interview – the one with the victims’ names as well as “Damien” and “Jason” written on it… for example? Misskelley had NO special knowledge. Yet, even James Kenny Martin spoke of those kids being tied with their own laces.

  6. That Jessie failed his polygraph is credibly disputed. The police claim Damien failed but never produced the actual test results. Baldwin never took one.

    Failed alibi’s – failed memory, maybe. It can certainly happen when people are questioned more than a month later.

    Two were bragging? What statements are you buying?

    Jason never said he thought Damien could have done it. He said the prosecution sure made it seem like he did. Did he mean he doubted his innocence or was it a comment on how bad things were going for the defense? You will have to read his mind, I cannot.

    Why was there blood on the necklace that was the same TYPE as one victim or two defendants? Who knows. Your blood would probably be found on an item or few you own.

    As for the autopsy not being able to rule out rape, it also could not rule out alien probe because you cannot prove a negative. However, Peretti himself did not believe those children were raped and it was only AFTER Misskelley’s trial that the state’s theory and Misskelley’s confession changed that detail. He “probably couldn’t see”, but, uh, he claimed he did, and his story changed to fit the state’s case.

    Misskelley must not have mental deficiency because he is helping to produce a film? Just wow. That’s all.

    1. The police claim Damien failed but never produced the actual test results.

      You can view Echols’ polygraph charts at Callahan: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/de_polygraph_charts.html

      Has anyone ever argued that Echols really passed? I’ve never heard that.

      Baldwin never took one.

      Agreed. Nons should stop saying “all three failed polygraphs” because it’s not true.

      Failed alibi’s – failed memory, maybe. It can certainly happen when people are questioned more than a month later.

      Baldwin, Echols and Teer were questioned about their alibis three days after the bodies were found.

      http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bddjd.html

      Then the next day, Echols radically changed his alibi. His eventual trial alibi was radically different from those he gave on 5/9/93 and 5/10/93.

      Why was there blood on the necklace that was the same TYPE as one victim or two defendants? Who knows. Your blood would probably be found on an item or few you own.

      No one finds it suspicious that Damien’s blood was on his own necklace. There was also blood from a second person on the necklace, which testing narrowed to “11% of the Caucasian population”. Both Baldwin and Branch were potential matches to that blood. That’s the suspicious part.

      As for the autopsy not being able to rule out rape, it also could not rule out alien probe because you cannot prove a negative.

      Bullshit. An autopsy can prove the victims were not decapitated. An autopsy can prove the victims were not girls or hamsters. You don’t understand how the “can’t prove a negative” principle works. Autopsies can often prove or rule out anal rape with a high degree of certainty. In this case, it was indecisive, mainly because the bodies had spent eighteen hours underwater before discovery.

      1. Wow. Way to be extremely ignorant about this case. Especially when you have an entire website dedicated to the “guilt” of the west memphis three.
        Also why does your email address not work?

  7. Thanks for the polygraph correction. I have never heard it argued Echols passed either, but I never heard anything about it again after reading the results weren’t presented.

    As for Alibi’s, as I understand it, they were never strong to begin with however, I was referring to possible witnesses.

    About the autopsy not being able to prove rape, I believe you are misrepresenting the idea in an effort to make what I said seem idiotic. The autopy can prove they aren’t girls or hamsters and I misunderstand the principle? Whatever. Not even Peretti believed they were raped, and there is no way to prove it didn’t happen beyond that level of doubt.

    1. By the way, do you have a link to document two different blood types on the necklace? Perhaps I am behind; I recall only one.

        1. I’m not sure if this is going to work, but did you ever see this drawing of the pendant by Baldwin? He also appears to be wearing it in the “Metallica T-shirt and long hair” picture which was presumably taken after the crime and before the arrest. These would be evidence that it was actually his necklace in which case his blood on it is not so unlikely given that Echols’ blood was on it and Echols said they were blood brothers.

          http://callahan.8k.com/images2/j_baldwin/journal/jb_journal_graded_paper.jpg

  8. You people are truly daft.

    “Jessie’s stories are obviously not true. No victim was “screwed in the ass”. No victim was choked. No victim was “kicking around in the water”. “Sticks” did not cause the basilar skull fractures to the three victims. None of what Jessie claims fits the actual physics of the crime or the scene. None of it.

    Talk about denial! You want to believe Misskelley’s desperate, impossible gibberish so badly that you are willing to completely disregard all of the factual evidence that proves these things never happened.”

    Once again a supporter flings this faulty ass logic about Misskelley’s confessions.

    The idea that a suspected murderer would be totally honest about events nor attempt to deceive or lessen his/her involvement when confessing is ignorant.

    Supporters operate under this blind leap of faith that Miskelley gave a bogus confession because he lied or used deception when confessing.

  9. Okay. I won’t even ask you to believe Stidham, no matter if he is worth the paper upon which his degree is printed, actually believes his client is innocent.

    I will ask you to consider that every single citizen in this country has a right to legal representation and that is exactly how it should be.

    1. Of course every single defendant in this country should have access to legal representation. However, it is unethical for a defense attorney to defend a client’s not guilty plea when he believes said client to be guilty. Hence the reason lawyers typically don’t ask a client whether they are guilty or not. And yet, Misskelley told Stidham for months that he was there, and that he, Baldwin & Echols did in fact murder the children. So what was Stidham to do with these HBO cameras rolling? Plead his client guilty or try to make a name for himself by calling on Ofshe, one of the guys you call when you want to get around a confession? Stidham should’ve plead his guilty client guilty and Misskelley should’ve testified against the other two. Had Stidham been a halfway decent lawyer, there would be no need for the WM3 Truth page because those 3 murdering bastards would’ve gotten what they deserved.

      1. “However, it is unethical for a defense attorney to defend a client’s not guilty plea when he believes said client to be guilty. ”

        False.

  10. Just finished watching all 3 docs. Like most I thought ‘Hey, these kids are innocent’. I don’t believe everything I see on TV so I looked into the case a little.

    My verdict is that they are ‘probably’ guilty. Not sure I would convict if I was on a jury for this case though.

  11. This should shine new light on a motive and should change some opinions of the case. In my humble opinion the three boys were in the wrong place at the wrong time maybe the boys said or did something to set off Damion and when Damion over reacted and started beating one of the 8 year old little boys and the other to little boys jumped in to help their firend that is when things got out of hand. To me this proves that the two Social Misfits and lone retard commeted these murders but also shines light on motive…..Again the only reason these murderous rejects are out today is because Eddie Vetter and Johnny Depp along with a few other fame hungry d list celebs needed something to bitch about……I only hope that the next time I get a speeding ticket that washed up rock stars and shitty actors come to my aid!!

    1. Problem with that is Damien had a photo of the three boys taken when they were outside a house on the bikes. It was a polaroid. The murder was planed. hence the phonecall from Jason to Misskelly with Damien shouting in the background ‘We did it!’

  12. I spent most of the past 15 plus years believing a miscarraige of justice had taken place. I watched the documentaries and was convinced that they were convicting these three young men for being anti-social. I have recently made an effort to educate myself by reading all of the documents relating to this case. I am sorry to say that I was wrong. I should have made an effort to learn the unvarnished facts before forming an emotionally charged opinion. The final piece of evidence for me is Misskelleys comments to his attorney. Damien Echols, James Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley are guilty and have been part of the greatest manipulation of public opinion (outside of DC) that this country has ever seen.

    1. Thank you Eric for having the courage to see you were wrong. Problem is some people taken in by the hype find admitting being wrong too dificult & painful for them to bear. I’m afraid the truth does show it’s self when reading the truth available on here. Also some people just instinctively know they are guilty, call it intuition. The makers of the viseo also claimed a man innocent in their film ‘My brothers keeper’ it was obvious he had suffocated his brother while they were in bed together.

    2. I lived in Europe in the 90’s so I just recently heard about this case after I viewed Making of a Murderer. I’m usually a good judge of character, or so I thought. I watched the Paradise Lost Trilogy without doing any research on the case. At the end of the first documentary I thought they were innocent, despite my gut feeling that Misskelley told the truth, and my suspicion that Damien did it. Then I was convinced the stepfather Mark Breyer? Did it. After watching the 3rd documentary I was led to believe that Hobbs did it. Having an 8 year old son myself, this doc. Truly shocked me. I’m glad I found this website, I believe I may have been conned by Echols & co. I wasn’t aware of Misskelley’s confession to his lawyer., and all this other evidence. I’m sitting here stunned, in disbelief.

      I still have a lot of documents to go over, but from what I have seen so far they were probably guilty.

  13. Who gives a shit it doesn’t directly affect any of you idiots. Get a life for god sakes and start minding your own damn business. You guys are like a bunch of women at hair salon. why dont you start looking into trying to fix things that really need fixing. There’s alot worse injustices going on in the world I promise. The world and the government is very, very corrupt, you wont have a problem finding something more important to care about. Try looking into the 9/11 attacks or something. You should watch the movie Zeitgeist it’s on netflix. You people would love that movie I guarantee it. P.S. sorry about being rude you guys aren’t idiots.

    1. Who cares…I do!!! Three eight year old boys were butchered and now the ppl convicted of killing them are now walking among the public! that Jessie guy confessed more times than a Roman Catholic!!!!

  14. I am not sure what to think. I have seen all of the movies and researched this case since 1993. I can tell you this though. I may not agree with Terry Hobb’s on his parenting and yes I find he made mistakes on the way he treated Stevie. This does not make him a murderer though. This makes him a man who made mistakes and perhaps horrible ones as a parent. I agree the autopsy never could prove rape. No semen found in any of the boys, no condom residue either.

    I have a hard time believing though any court would let out any child murder because of celebrities and media attention. I find that absurd. I mean think about it. No way do you let CHILD Killer’s walk FREE! Especially one on death row if you truly believe they did it.

    So it brings me to.. did someone else do these horrific crimes..or was the Court so stupid to let 3 Child Killers go free because of hype?? The only ones who know the truth are the 3 who can’t tell you it.. they are the victims.

  15. I remember when O.J. Simpson was interviewed right after the murders. He desperately asked for help in finding the killer and reminded us all that the killer was still out there. No one else was killed while the trial took place or since for that matter. They had the killer. My wife said ..look at his eyes while he is speaking. They speak guilty clearly while his mouths distracts. Also, evidence linking him to the murders conclusively was ruled inadmissible. If we go by courtroom procedure sure he is not guilty based on what is allowed in court. If we go by what happened, he is guilty. Manipulating the system is not hard to do. Prisoners serving a life or death sentence study law and make numerous requests and harass the government non-stop because they have learned how to do it. If someone has money, they pay for this to be done. These boys kill those boys and all the fancy talking, sharing and opinionating wont change that. It is perversely entertaining but the truth of the matter remains self-evident at first glance. Those kids know what happened and they are counting on the living to make sure it all comes out. Shame on anyone who disrupts this process. BTW…Detectives hear the real stuff all the time. Who killed who, how and why. By the time it reaches the courtroom, it is all distorted.

  16. This may not even be a confession to his attorney. As an attorney myself, I would certainly want to know what my client said to the police. In the above testimony the lawyer never says this was a confession, just that he’s writing what his client told him. Was his client telling him what he told the police and not confessing? Possibly. Not to mention that is this is a confession, it is extremely inaccurate and full of things that did not occur.

    1. As a Lawyer, and a public defender at that.

      I do not see a confession here. What I see is a lawyer asking his client what the client told the police. I take great notes on what my clients tell the police, this information is incredibly important. I want to know as well as they can remember every word they told the police, because not all of it shows up on the tapes or transcripts. There may be details I need to know in order to provide a proper defense.

      The prosecuting attorney will get the same information from the interviewing officer. Though the interviewing officer will seldom give additional information to the defense attorney.

      I could bore you for months with a breakdown on what I see with this case, but I won’t because it is not appropriate for me to do so.

      I will simply say, while I appreciate your time and effort, what I see from both sides here is a lot of Rush Limbaugh vs Michael Moore, in other words both sides only have about a quarter of the facts and are making very strong arguments for their side based upon the partial evidence they are presenting.

      Everyone deserves a competent defense. I would never ask a client if they were guilty or innocent. If they tell me, that is good information, but guilty or innocent I will still defend them to the best of my ability … it is an oath we take, and an oath many of us take seriously.

      1. I must admit that I have little knowledge of this case outside of what has been reported in the general media. However, I am an attorney (retired) as well. In all US jurisdictions, we, as attorneys, are required to be both zealous advocates AND officers of the court. If someone were to tell me that they were guilty and I reasonably believed them (i.e. it was not a case of diminished capacity or mental illness), I could not ethically represent them–even if they never testified at trial or otherwise perjured themselves. I certainly would not break attorney-client privilege or in any way hinder a successful defense. However, I would have to withdraw as their attorney. So many forget that attorneys are not just licensed as “independent contacters” to zealously represent a client’s interests in our legal system but rather also as administrators of justice.

  17. I’ve spent the better part of this week completely taken over by this case when I watched all three Paradise Lost documentaries. I was led to believe these three young boys were 100% innocent, but I knew that there were always two sides to every story. So I decided to research the other side.

    I now understand why Jessie, Jason, and especially Damien were prime suspects at the time. I used to think they just picked on three weird kids, but there was some evidence to support why they did it. Despite all of that, I still believe they are innocent. The forensic evidence suggests a crime of punishment and shame, that it was committed by someone who knew the boys, there is DNA evidence demonstrating that the killer may have been close to one or all the boys, and even a famous forensic psychologist claimed that this was the work of a single sophisticated killer, not 3 unsophisticated teenagers.

    Not only is the body of evidence inconclusive toward the wm3, but the investigation process was extremely subpar as all would agree. Why didn’t the police interrogate family members of victims first as is the standard police protocol? Why wasn’t the blood samples and sunglasses recovered at Bojangles that has been recovered just the day after the murder not sent for forensic testing? That’s a huge issue seeing as a hair possibly belonging to a black man was found on one of the victims (Mr. Bojangles was a black man that showed up at the Bojangles restaurant covered in mud and blood, and appeared disoriented. He used the bathroom to clean himself off).

    The jury was extremely flawed and presided by a man who used evidence illegally (he used jessie’s misskelly’s confessions when he wasn’t allowed to. That means it’s a mistrial and it has to start all over. Sadly it was ignored).

    If Damien really did screw with the boys, or even in just miming sexual acts, and if Jason Baldwin inserted his genitals in one of the boys’ mouth, wouldn’t they leave behind some pubic hair? Geeze, I step in my bathroom for a minute for a wee and I leave behind at least 3 or 4 of them on my toilet seat!

    Don’t get me wrong, further investigation into this whole ordeal has allowed me to cast some doubt on the wm3, and especially Damien. But the truth is I don’t think they’re the top two suspects in this case. I would place Terry Hobbs and Mr. Bojangles as possible suspects.Terry Hobbs has the motive, inconsistent alibi and has left behind DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene (he is also a proven violent man). Mr. Bojangles is also a prime suspect given there MAY be DNA evidence linked to a black man, and because a black man showed up only a mile from the crime scene to wipe away the blood at mud from his body is circumstantial evidence that links him to the crime scene more than the wm3 boys.

    Oh and I’m with Brent on this one. I would like to know more about the context of these alleged confessions Jessie made to his lawyer. Is he telling his lawyer what he told the police or is this a whole new confession? If Stidham truly believed Jessie did it, he wouldn’t continue investing his time into this case 15 years later, but he is. I think he truly believes Jessie is innocent.

  18. typical biased arguments from all sides.
    Shocking crime, shocking police work.
    the police are the people responsible for making the convictions such a talking point, had they done their jobs properly they may have found the murderers without any doubt.
    They did such a bad job that the reality is they gave the media and WM3 supporters too much to discredit and doubt and for that reason the complete truth will probably never be known.
    The more I read about this case the more I cannot decide on the three’s guilt, which means really I should see them as not guilty.

  19. All i know is that 3 little boys died horrible deaths, and they are the ones who haven’t had justice. Misskelly, Echolls and Baldwin are the killers in my opinion, i find it absolutely sickening that they are walking about free, making money from books and movies while those 3 boys are literally forgotten, its a disgrace.

    1. How in the hell are they literally forgotten when there are tons of sites, books, films, etc. dedicated to the murders?

  20. I’ve followed this case & remember the three at the time of the crime. Damien with his black eye make up on sneering at the boys families. I let that go as a stupid teenager with no respect. But now I have read all there is to read & there is absolutely no doubt in my mind of their guilt. More than that they planned it. Damien Echols was institultionalized to protect his parents from his death threats & again when he said he wanted to kill & eat his father.
    Jason was the cuelist of the three, tearing off that small boys genitals & throwing them. He is the most dangerous.
    You might hear the celebs stating that the case wasn’t proved correctly but they don’t actually say they’re innocent.
    Depp’s mariage broke down because of his stupid involvement doing a favour for a friend. He regrets his involvement now.

    1. you sir are an idiot. all I’ve got to say is you drank the koolaid that the prosecution was giving away. There is not one shred of evidence that these three boys killed the 3 little ones. Its frightening to know that I walk the same earth as people like you who are living in a different world while here on earth. Terry Hobbs is the real murderer and he is walking free. You people who can’t think for yourselves really piss me off.

  21. Really this is all hear say on this site. The main evidence is the DNA which at the time wasn’t establish yet. But later on it was which try tested and found none of the 3 DNA around. Also with what they said they did there would of been lots of blood and honestly you think you could of washed all the blood off the bank by plashing water on it. The question you should ask is who’s DNA they found around the crime scene and that is you murder. Plus the polygraph is not really any 100% true evidence because it has been proven to have false readings. Actually it’s been proven to give out false reading more than just a couple of times. The 100% true evidence is DNA which you can’t hide or beat. Plus who ever thinks that they are guilty should go back and look at all the evidence. A lot of it didn’t even match up and they basically twisted and manipulated the story to get it to match up. This site sounds like the prosecutor or the person who did the murders made this site. In order to cover up something since this case made big headlines and is still being talked about today.

    1. I think there was blood on a necklace that Damien was wearing that belonged to Steve Branch and Jessie Misskelley. Prosecutors did not introduce this evidence at trial. There were also microscopic fibers found on the victims that matched material in Damien and Jason’s homes, but I’m not sure if that was entered in as evidence either. There was not much DNA evidence or even physical evidence linking the teens to the crime at all. The state’s case was based all on hearsay, Jessie’s confession and Damien’s mental health.

  22. Why are so many people shocked that there is little evidence at the murder scene?
    These boys were tortured in/near moving water and mud. Everything would have gone down stream before the bodies where found. And it WAS a murder site, not a dumping-ground as some say. Why would the murderers carry 3 bikes and dump them at the same spot?

  23. …exactly. The boys were under water for 18 hours before they were found. What a coincidence that in Jessie Misskelley’s confession, he stated that Damian was the one that killed Stevie…and whose blood was on his necklace? I am also one of the converted ones that thought they were innocent until I actually sought out the facts of this case. Jessie Misskelley confessed to a friend the day AFTER it happened…before he ever confessed to the police. It’s no surprise that he got some of it wrong, they were all drunk, combined with his not very high IQ. They found the whiskey bottle exactly where he said he’d thrown it, as well as the woman that came forward that admitted to buying it for him. Jessie Misskelley seems to be the only one remotely with a conscience. It sickens me that they are free. But I know all too well how convincing sociopaths can be.

Leave a Reply

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