More new documents at Callahan

Callahan added several more documents this week. I’m guessing that these were drawn from exhibits at the Rule 37 hearings.

These documents have all been discussed on message boards for years, but have never been available to read in full until now.

See last week’s New Documents at Callahan post for more recent additions.

You can always see the latest additions to Callahan on their Site Changes page.

54 thoughts on “More new documents at Callahan”

  1. The Jessie M. conversation with Ofshe is very compelling — been waiting to read for a long time.

    It highlights a number of things: One that Jessie might not actually be retarded — but he sure is stupid.

    Ofshe seemed surprised and confused as to why Jessie would volunteer such damaging statements and lies to police. Jessie says he was trying to trick the cops. At one point I think Jessie was even planning or breaking the polygraph machine with his own logic loop. Well played, Jessie.

    I think the Ofhse document might be the turning point for many people, the same way the bible confession influenced people. Problem is — to me — Jessie sounds like he’s telling the truth on both cases.

    So which one makes more sense? The bible confession or the explanation Jessie gives to Ofshe?

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

  2. If the Ofshe exchange is true, then what role did the WM3 play in their own fate?

    Jessie acts “guilty” because he’s embarrassed that he made up all this dumb shit HE WILLINGLY FED POLICE that got everyone in trouble. (Read the Ofshe exchange — Jessie admits he made all this shit up and even fed the cops the cult stuff and rape stuff that JESSIE MADE UP)

    Damien feels like a “dick” because he knows he made all those dumb ass statements (William Winford Jones, Ken Watkins, softball girls) before his arrest claiming to be the killer, playing off the darkness and sense of power he felt being a suspect. He liked being the pretend killer — but never realized it would blow up in his face.

    Jason feels like a “dip shit” because he never defended himself in court — take one look at Jason on the first Paradise Lost. Plus his own alibi submitted eight years after trial puts him walking near the crime scene alone around the time of murders.

    Out of fear they tried to create so many alibis that they actually created confusion and the sense of covering their tracks.

    The cops assumed the kids were guilty for the SAME THREE REASONS ABOVE: 1) JESSIE VOLUNTEERED 2) DAMIEN BRAGGED 3) JASON REMAINED SILENT — (and the fact that they had nothing else to go on.)

    Of course, everyone in town thought they did it — including their own attorneys. So once you had Jessie’s “confession” it was all over regardless of what really happened…

    (SAMPLE EXCERPTS)

    OFSHE: Okay, what about – tell me about what happened about their clothes.

    MISSKELLEY: They asked me, “where was their clothes at?”

    OFSHE: And what did you say?

    MISSKELLEY: Told them that they was laying beside them.

    OFSHE: And what did he say?

    MISSKELLEY: He said, no.

    OFSHE: And what did you say?

    MISSKELLEY: I – then that’s when I told, uh, that’s where they was at when I left.

    OFSHE: Okay. Let – how did you get to the point where you said that you were there? Because, this is the first time that you’ve mentioned to me anything that would have put you –

    MISSKELLEY: That – That was – that’s when, uh, [Ridge] was saying that I was there. And I told him I wasn’t and he said, yes, I was. And then he kept on egging it on, then I said fine. I said “okay” I was there.

    OFSHE: Okay.

    MISSKELLEY: That’s how I got in there – that’s how I got in there – in the picture.

    —–

    OFSHE: Okay. So, once you told him that you were there, and they followed up with who else was there, you’re gonna give them some names?

    MISSKELLEY: I gave them Damien and Jason. And that’s when they started asking me a question about, uh, where were the boys laying at and all that. I told them I didn’t know. Then one of them said, wasn’t they killed by a tree? And I said, well, they’re going to catch me in this and I’m going to catch them in another one, I said, yeah, it was by a tree.

    —–

    OFSHE: Do you know where he got the idea about killing animals and eating parts of animals and stuff like that?

    MISSKELLEY: Um, I made that up about killing animals and eating them.

    MISSKELLEY: I just – I figured about how many would be at a cult meeting then, you know, then I figured out about how many will be at a cult meeting, and so that worked out afterwards. It just popped up in my head. That’s when I told him.

    OFSHE: When all this was going on, what did you think you would accomplish by going along and telling them what they wanted to hear? What did you think was going to happen?

    MISSKELLEY: I didn’t think nothing would happen because – they – you know, they done lied to me, so, why can’t I lie to them?

    OFSHE: Okay. Did you think that you were getting yourself into any kind of trouble by trying this stuff?

    MISSKELLEY: I didn’t know if I was getting in trouble or not.

    OFSHE: Then, tell me again, why did you do it? [39:23]

    MISSKELLEY: Cause, uh, they kept on hollering at me, saying I was there and I wasn’t. And that’s when I started saying that.

    OFSHE: Okay. I can understand that. Now, the next thing that they record in these notes is that, uh, Jason and Damien are having sex with each other. Did you tell them that?

    MISSKELLEY: Yeah, cause – after they told me that uh, [Ridge told me that he’d seen Damien and Jason have sex together, then that’s when I told him that I seen ’em.

    OFSHE: So you just went with the flow. [40:19]

    MISSKELLEY: Right.

    —–

    Was this Ofshe document presented during Jessie’s trial?

    1. callahan.8k.com/wm3/ofshe.html

      Ofshe was barred from testifying to his opinion on the validity of Misskelley’s confession. He was only allowed to testify to generic, general, information.

  3. “So which one makes more sense? The bible confession or the explanation Jessie gives to Ofshe?”

    Actually, that’s a great question and I think is the one that tends to sway me the most. This Ofshe document is compelling and I do feel a little conflicted by it. However, in reading it vs. the bible confession it is remarkable that one is fairly clear and the other is very confusing.

    Jessie’s bible confession is not nearly as confusing as the Ofshe interview. Why? Is it because Jessie had a moment of clarity where he could tell the truth? Or is it confusing because he is trying to make up facts on the fly?

    And knowing the bible confession came after this one, what was he thinking? What possible motive was there for continuing with the “false” confession that details the crime to the finest nuance and makes almost perfect sense?

    1. I agree! This all comes after his talk with his lawyer Stigham. When Stigham tells him then we have to start working on his defense. Seems to me this was a defense tactic. I think Jessie knows he needs to take back that confession. As far as Echols looking like a Dick. I think Echols wanted everyone to know he killed those children. I think on the stand when he was testifying he wanted them to know. The smartest thing was for Jason was to keep his mouth shut. If they did have a retrial he would have for sure got off

  4. Oh, and the Aaron Hutcheson interviews seem to be complete BS. From the first one where he describes sex as (paraphrased) “they were wiping each other like they did to Michael, Stevie and Chris.” They should have ended the interview there. It was obvious he had been told what to say.

    1. thats exactly what i thought. that whole interview was a farce. and if that is really how they question children, we are all potential suspects

  5. In t his part of the Ofshe interview – Jessie seems to be genuinely remembering the phone calls he received from Damien and Jason:

    OFSHE: Okay. Now let’s sort of change subjects and the next note says that Jessie is not sure of the times of phone calls. There are three phone calls the day before,
    the morning of the murder, and after dark.

    MISSKELLEY: I remember telling them that.

    OFSHE: You remember telling them that?

    MISSKELLEY: Yeah. I said two. Like I said, no three, I said two. [Okay.] The night before, you know, what they – when they called me and to ask when were they going to get with them before the murder happened. And then I got another one after it happened. That’s the only two I remember of.

    OFSHE: Could the one where they say is the day before, the one that was some time before that? Because we talked a little bit before the – one that happened some time before that you told them about, wasn’t the day before but it was before. Did you tell them that there was one in the morning of the murder and then one after dark?

    MISSKELLEY: One in the morning?

    OFSHE: Yes. Did you tell them that? [45:12]

    MISSKELLEY: Yeah. Cause I told them that morning before I was going to work for Ricky Dees. I remember now, I remember there was three now, cause I told them I was – they asked me what was I going to do today and I told them I had to go to work. And uh, I got another one after I got home from work and they asked me what was I going to do
    that weekend. And I told them I didn’t know. They asked me did I want to go with them? And I said, you know, sure. And the next one I got was at night, after it happened.

    OFSHE: Uh-huh. So the one you just told me about was the one a couple of days before?

    MISSKELLEY: Right.

    OFSHE: Then the morning and then the night.

    MISSKELLEY: Right. [46:14]

    (Page 59)

    OFSHE: Okay. And there is some business here about the phone call after dark – the one the night that the murders happened. Again, supposedly – did you tell them that you
    could hear Damien in the background?

    MISSKELLEY: Uh-huh. (Affirmatively indicating)

    OFSHE: What did you tell them about what happened in that phone call?

    MISSKELLEY: About, I told that uh, Damien was telling Jason to tell me that about what they was going to do.

    OFSHE: Uh-huh, and there’s a note in here about what if somebody saw us? Do you remember telling them about that?

    MISSKELLEY: (no audible response)

    ***********

    So he forgets to say this information “pops” in his head, and instead recalls it as if it really happened.

    1. Stacia,
      I thought as I read this that Jessie sounded like he was remembering something that actually happened rather than a lie that he told the police. He refers to his own memories of the week rather than what he “told” the cops about the week.

      Am I the only person that changes his/her mind from day to day of guilty or not?

      Off the subject, but does anyone know how long Echols had been recieving professional counseling? How distressing it must have been as his mother not being able to make him ‘better’ on her own.

      1. I had to read that a few times, as I do nearly all his statements. It was the following that, at first, read like memory to me:

        MISSKELLEY: Yeah. Cause I told them
        that morning before I was going to work
        for Ricky Dees. I remember now, I
        remember there was three now, cause I
        told them I was – they asked me what
        was I going to do today and I told them I
        had to go to work. And uh, I got another
        one after I got home from work and
        they asked me what was I going to do
        that weekend. And I told them I didn’t
        know. They asked me did I want to go
        with them? And I said, you know, sure.
        And the next one I got was at night,
        after it happened.
        _____________________

        But then I read it again *with* the question he was just asked:

        OFSHE: Yes. Did you tell them that?
        _____________________

        If the first two references to “them” are detectives, it reads to me like he is recalling what he said in his interview.

  6. First off I owe Joey a apology. Yes Johnny Depp is a nice person. I think he is trying to give WM3 a new chance at life outside of prison. All thou I think they are guilty. I think Depp is trying to help them. I see Jason is taking the opportunity to change his life. Jessie is also trying to make a new life for himself. I think Echols is still the little jerk he always was. He isn’t trying to change his life or better himself. He is trying to make a living off of writing (which he sucks at). He is sitting back while everyone (supporters and Depp try to help him make a new life for him) and acts like everyone is working for him and has to do nothing. Echols is still trying to make himself look like this scary monster. Good luck Echols with the hair pugs and your teeth. It wont change who you are. It is your personality he has to work on. If I had the chance to say anything to Echols You have a new chance at life. With Depp and the supporters trying to help you financially Go back to school and make the best of it. Don’t take advantage of someone’s kindness.

    The WM3 need to stop saying they were convicted because the way they dressed or the music they listened to. Echols needs to read his own medical records and stop saying he was picked on. Echols needs to read his own testimony and get the medical help he needs.

    Again Joey you were right. (your loving this )

    Someone sent me a link that hit it right on target for me. This is how I saw it all along.
    http://trenchreynolds.me/2011/08/22/damien-echols-has-fooled-you-all/

    1. Jason is deceptive on a few points, speaking to yet another interviewer completely supportive of The Three.

      JASON’S PROXIMITY TO CRIME SCENE

      “I was 16, a horrible murder occurred, and well — not even in the city I lived in; I was living in Marion, and there’s murderers, triple murders of three young 8-yr-old boys, occurred in West Memphis, Arkansas…”

      He is distancing himself, here. The casual listener — the same type of listener who may think the Three were effectively cleared by DNA findings — would hardly realize Jason actually lived less than 2 miles away, as the crow flies, from the crime scene neighborhood area his codefendant/bff admitted to walking through 2-3 times a week.

      LOCATION OF CRIME SCENE with relation to BOJANGLES

      “The night the boys came up missing, a man came into the Bojangles restaurant covered in mud and blood… (snip) … The next day, when the boys bodies were found in the very ditch behind the Bojangles restaurant, you know, where the man came out of the night before, then they were like okay, so maybe this has a connection — which is highly likely, there’s some kind of connection there…”

      Not as egregious as the first deception, but still he’s fudging. A casual listener couldn’t be faulted for understanding that the bodies were found in a ditch *right behind* the restaurant — rather than 3/4 mile away from said restaurant … and that a bloodied man — and not an also incoherent one with an arm in a sling — was seen in the restaurant that night. Omit those qualifying details, and the Bojangles story becomes more juicy than a drunk transient abusing a public restroom.

      (continued)

      1. ON THE LACK OF ALIBI WITNESSES

        Jason Baldwin:

        “Through my attorneys and I, I was sitting there thinking that I was gonna get to testify, that my Ma was gonna testify, that my uncle was gonna get to testify (which was my grand uncle), and a bunch of other people that were gonna get to testify about where I was at at the time of the murders, um, what kind of person I was, you know, and things like that — and *none* of those people were called to testify. So when this happened, I’m like, you know, whatever… I mean, it’s just another… it doesn’t surprise me.”

        Jason’s lawyer Paul Ford, on his choice not to put forward Alibi witnesses:

        “I felt that if I was unable to establish an alibi, presenting an incomplete one was more detrimental than presenting one at all…… When we were in trial I realized that Echols’ alibi defense was ‘not very, very strong…’. It was like a house of cards… I tried to determine how to deal with…my concerns about how my alibi witnesses would hold up under cross examination.”

        SOURCE: Paul Ford cross-examination, Rule 37 Hearings – http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_ford.html

        ——

        I’ve got to think the adult Jason well understands the reasons no alibi witnesses were put forward. And so his telling the story like this, leaving it as being baffled at 16, strikes me as incomplete, and disingenuous … as if there were no explanation, nor has one been provided since … (or even, as if his witnesses were somehow prevented from testifying, by powers beyond his control. Some supporters have erroneously blamed Burnett for not allowing such witnesses.)

        Further, his statements imply to the casual listener that his Ma or Uncle or whoever else could have, in fact, vouched for his whereabouts during the relevant hours.

        As we know, Ma (Gail Grinnell) worked from 3:00 – 11:00PM, and therefore did not know his whereabouts; and his Uncle (Hubert Bartoush) would vouch only for his mowing the lawn from 4:30-6:30PM, in a statement to police. (My suspicion is that the finish time on that lawn was generous.) The various conflicting accounts of buddy Ken Watkins would have rendered him unreliable, in terms of covering for Jason during the relevant hours. Similarly, Dennis “Dink” Dent, the live-in boyfriend to his mom, could only place Jason home earliest at 8:30PM — but then, the confused Dink also recalled the day as Mother’s Day, so his entire recollection is fairly useless. It would seem Ford’s hopes to cover his client would rest with kid brother Matthew, who told police Jason had gotten home at 7 or 7:30PM, but Ford was apparently not confident in the strength of Matthew’s statement and/or his ability to hold up under cross.

        So much for Baldwin’s vast number of witnesses who could have covered for him, but were not granted opportunity.

        1. Fred,
          Also his brother on cross examination would have to bring up the ice pick and knife that was return to a friend. Really that wasn’t going to be a good witness it would hurt Jason more then help him. The best thing his lawyer did is shut his mouth. It was only days before the murder that Jason and Echols traded a coat and shirts for the ice pick and the knife. The more Echols’s alibis feel through the more the jury knew he was a liar. Echols the more he talked . The more he puts nails in his coffin.

  7. “The next day, when the boys bodies were found in the very ditch behind the Bojangles restaurant, you know, where the man came out of the night before, then they were like okay, so maybe this has a connection”

    Bojangles was 3/4 mile away from the murder site. Yet the murders took place in “the very ditch behind Bojangles?”

    Is Jason so unfamiliar with his own case he doesn’t know the locations of the critical landmarks and other suspects?

    It’s another lie. But what is so stupid about these lies is they aren’t well thought out. It is likely that newbies who hear that the murder scene occurred behind the Bojangles, will be shocked until they do some digging and find out he is lying.

    Which brings me to my main question for all three of them. If you’re innocent, why do you have to lie? Why not stick to the truth? In every interview one of them has to make up some stupid story. Is that the way innocent people behave?

    1. BradO,
      Jason and Echols are so use to lying they forget what they are saying. The truth would be that the WM3 killed them and were seen close to crime scene. That would kill anything that the supporter would want to hear. Echols need to teach Jason how to lie better. Echols is much better at lying then Jason.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGWa4KomcuA

      1. That’s a pretty good series. Did you put it together?

        I do not understand why they feel they need to lie if they are innocent. Hell, back in December Misskelley did a GQ interview where he said that he told the police that HE killed all three kids.

        But supporters eat it up..

  8. From Jason’s recent interview (as well as many other people’s versions) it always sounds like the murders happened far away — “in some other city.”

    Here’s a map of the area:

    http://www.jivepuppi.com/images/wm_center_copy.jpg

    Note: Lakeshore is the neighborhood where Jason Baldwin lived, Broadway Trailer Park is where Damien Echols lived, and Highland Trailer Park is where Jessie Misskelley lived.

    Draw a line from Lakeshore (upper left) to Broadway trailer park (lower right) — what do you see in the very middle of that line?

    Would these three not hangout in that area between their trailer parks? would they not walk past robin hood hills almost everyday?

    Jason referred to the three of them as “best friends” — does he mean best friends before arrest or after? I ask because another version of this story has Jessie as an outsider who didn’t really know the other two guys.

    The Bojangles guy is defiantly weird and many would think that was reasonable doubt right there — but is Jason saying that the cops accidentally lost the blood samples, forcing the cops to quickly arrest someone else, or rather that the cops “lost to Bojangles blood samples on purpose” so that they could arrest the WM3 (essentially framing the kids they wanted to get all along)?

    1. Exactly. Damien even testified that he and Jason walked through the crime scene neighborhood, 2-3 times a week on average.

      Damien was also playing the “we lived in Marion game” before Jason. Only problem is, he didn’t.

      In the linked jailhouse interview, Damien makes the “we lived in Marion” distinction (albeit, with a helpful qualifying statement about its close proximity to West Memphis), and he professes

      (1) not to have lived in West Memphis at the time of the crimes;
      (2) not to have visited West Memphis often; and
      (3) not to be have been familiar with Robin Hood Hills or with the neighborhood around the crime scene.

      All three of Damien’s assertions are lies… undone by Echols himself.

      At trial, Damien testified to:

      (1) living at Broadway Trailer Park in West Memphis
      (2) walking with Jason around West Memphis “quite frequently” and
      (3) walking through the crime scene neighborhood 2 or 3 times a week

      BRENT DAVIS: Now, yesterday I asked you some general questions about, you had indicated that you and Jason quite frequently walked around areas of West Memphis?
      DAMIEN ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
      BD: Okay. I want to direct your attention on this diagram — in fact, let me circle it. This area right in here which would be, I believe, east of — is that 14th?
      DE: Yes, sir.
      BD: It is east of 14th Street and south of the service road and the interstate. In that particular neighborhood, Market Street, Goodwin, in there, did you and Jason frequently walk and roam in that area, the same neighborhood where the three victims lived?
      DE: I think by looking at the map I would have had to.
      BD: How often?
      DE: Probably in that area maybe twice a week.
      BD: For how long a period?
      DE: A few years.
      BD: How many?
      DE: Probably at least two years.
      BD: All right. And that, when you told us yesterday that you hadn’t been over in that area, the residential area near Robin Hood Hills, were you just not thinking of that particular area?
      DE: No, when you said “neighborhood,” I just didn’t know what you are talking about, what that neighborhood is.
      BD: But when I specified that particular area, the neighborhood that I circled, you were there two or three times a week?
      DE: Probably an average of two to three times a week.
      BD: And what would the purpose be over there? Would you all just being walking around the neighborhood?
      DE: I had to walk through there to get from my house to Jason’s house. I would have to walk through there to get from my house to Domini’s house or anywhere in Marion.
      BD: Okay. Where were you living at the time?
      DE: At the time I was arrested, Broadway Trailer Park.
      BD: Okay. Well, when you were walking over here — this is the interstate, didn’t you — where, if you could, show me where you lived?
      DE: Right here (indicating), somewhere along in there.
      BD: So you lived south of Broadway?
      DE: Uh-huh.
      BD: And what time period was that? When did you quit living south of Broadway?
      DE: When I was arrested.
      BD: Okay. And your only reason to walk through here would be to go to and from Jason’s residence?
      DE: Uh-huh.
      BD: And that’s the path you would take, you and Jason would take a path through here and over there?
      DE: Yes, sir.
      BD: And that would be two or three times a week?
      DE: On an average.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=leEtbjm2uHI#t=530s

        1. The One,
          They are saying that he roofed at 12:30 PM in the day, yes? With Ricky. He had said he went to wrestling that night, a story that because of checks and memories could not be corobarated.

  9. Please help me understand. Why would any family member of the 3 victims (Christopher, Stevie,Michael ) believe that the defense is really trying to find the killer? Don’t they see that the defense is just trying plant more doubt in the public eye. WM3 defense team is just that a defense team. Planting doubt about another victims family member only is doubt. All the defense team is looking for is some kind of fiber or DNA (which turns up to be nothing ) to put more distance from the WM3 killers from the crime. Splitting up the family members was a genius plan. Take victims parents and turn them against each other. Echols and the defense team must have something in common. Really good liars.

        1. mmmmm, yes. Was, Is and Always will be the same man who killed some little kids and thought it was o.k. ’cause he wanted to know what it felt like to do some of the evil that he worships. One sick fu#k.

  10. Donna, I’m not really sure why you would need it explained. I have noticed you like to trash certain family members however, and here implying they are fools.

    The simple answer is because the defense was/is investigating long after the state stopped. Whether or not you believe the wm3 are guilty, you’d be absurd to argue against that fact. Those who believe the wrong people were convicted want the justice they feel they have been denied, and in this case, the defends team holds their hope. Those particular family members have harbored doubt at different points and from early on – JMB, for instance: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20110659,00.htmlr

    This is not complicated, though I doubt you ever thought it was.

    1. Sorry page not found . I don’t trash family members ! I just noticed that Jason’s teeth were done . They were crocked and then they are straight. Not that I even believe the teeth mark on the children.

      1. I was responding to the post about the parents, obviously, and that link to the People article is archived on Callahan.

  11. THESE GUYS WERE SET UP BY THE POLICE! FACT! IVE WATCHED A DOCUMENTRY ON IT!! AND I KNOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM.I WAS SET UP MYSELF AND DID 6 MONTHS IN JAIL BUT I WAS ON THE RUN FOR 16 YEARS! ONE STEP AHEAD OF THE LAW! NOW IM A FREE MAN AND A FOOL TO NOONE!!
    GOD BLESS DAMON ECKOLLS!

    1. Billy, you need to do more thank just watch a show about it. Read through the evidence and then determine if you are of the same opinion.

        1. I’d recommend not using what you went through as a basis for determining the guilt or innocence of someone else.

          While you did 6 months Billy Sinclair (capitalpunishmentbook.com) did 40 years and he thinks the evidence (and their behavior) proves them guilty.

      1. What evidence? All you have are some misplaced alibis, 4/5 F-ed up confessions, and oh wait . . .EX 500. Take out the confessions for a minute, and you have nothing whatsoever. Unless you buy that fiber garbage.

  12. Why would 2 guys (Damien & Jason) decide to murder some kids and choose to include someone (Jessie) they didn’t even know very well and especially weren’t friends with? If you plan to commit murder (and hope to get away with it) surely you’d only include others you knew really well and could trust?

    Just that point alone doesn’t hold water. The 3 of them were not good friends. D&J barely even knew Jessie. It doesn’t add up.

    1. The statement that D, J, and J weren’t very good friends and didn’t hang out much is more spin put out by the supporter movement. There has been plenty of statements made (there was a news story from the Commercial Appeal I think from some relatives that comes to mind immediately).

      It’s another smokescreen put out by the supporter movement.

    2. The Friendship between the Three is corroborated by several sources.

      ( 1 ) Jason Baldwin, 2012: “Somehow or another, they made the decision to set me and my two best friends up for the crime…”

      SOURCE: Discussion with Jason Baldwin, “Juvenile Justice Matters,” April 2012 – http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jjmatters/2012/04/19/discussion-west-memphis-3s-jason-baldwin

      ( 2 ) Domini Teer (Echols’ girlfriend), 1993:

      FOGLEMAN- AND, ….AND THEN JESSIE WAS AROUND QUITE A BIT THEN?
      DOMINI- EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, LIKE ONCE OR TWICE, YEAH, I SAW HIM.
      FOGLEMAN- OKAY, AND WHEN HE WAS AROUND WHEN YOU SAW HIM, WHAT WOULD YA’LL BE DOING?
      DOMINI- SITTING IN DAMION’S HOUSE.
      FOGLEMAN- OKAY, JUST SIT AROUND AND TALK. WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT DAMION’S HOUSE, YOU TALKING ABOUT HIS…
      DOMINI- HIS…
      FOGLEMAN- JACK ECHOLS?
      DOMINI- JACK ECHOL’S HOUSE.

      SOURCE: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/domit.html

      ( 3 ) Deanna Holcomb, Damien’s former girlfriend, 1994:

      Fogleman: Alright. Did – during the course of your uh – going with Damien, uh – did he have any particular friends? Friends in particular?
      Holcomb: Um – yes sir.
      Fogleman: Alright, who – who were they?
      Holcomb: Jason, um – Jessie, Joey Lancaster and some other people.
      .
      .
      Fogleman: Alright. Uh – and you said “Jason”, who are you referring to?
      Holcomb: Jason Baldwin.
      Fogleman: Alright. And you said “Jessie”?
      Holcomb: Misskelley.

      http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/dholcomb.html

      ( 4 ) Garage owner Jim McNease, for whom the two Jessies worked, 1993:

      “McNease said Misskelley and the other two murder suspects, Michael Wayne Echols and Jason Baldwin, rode bicycles a lot around Marion and West Memphis.”

      SOURCE: http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/2657

  13. Jason Baldwin REJECTED the Alford Plea Deal for what some reported was over a month before finalizing being convinced by his lawyers to take the deal. WHY? Why would someone actually GUILTY of committing murder not *instantly* take a deal that would let him out of prison and take the deal as fast as possible before the State changed their minds?

    I’ll tell you why… because he’s INNOCENT. There’s no other logical reason why Jason Baldwin would have rejected the deal. The State had already put it in writing and had agreed to it!

  14. 1st: I’m guessing since you don’t have anything else on your initial question you’re conceding that point?

    2nd: Who reported that Jason rejected the Alford plea for over a month? The plea took everyone by surprise. I find it highly unlikely this plea was in the works for that long without anyone finding out. So once again, I’m calling spin.

    However, if you’re willing to provide some proof I’ll be more than happy to rethink that position.

  15. I’m confused on this ?Aaron Hutcheson thranscripts. Why does no on ever talk about this. I dont recall ever hearing this kids name. I mean he basically saw the crime. And was the guy with the spider web tattoo ever identified?

    1. It has to do with Aaron’s mother who was friends with Miskelley. She was trying to ‘help’ the cops. If I remember correctly, most didn’t think his account of events held water. Read on, Alex, you’ll be ever more confused.

Leave a Reply

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