29 thoughts on “New page added to case history”

  1. RE: (4) Throwing Jason’s knife into the lake

    I think Blink’s analysis of the crime brought up a good possibility about the murder weapon:


    She doesn’t think a knife cause the wounds but an ice pick/axe which was turned over to the police on 5/11/93 by Billy and Kenny Newell. Interestingly, Jason traded some shirts with these two kids to get the axe and a knife a day before the murders occured. A few days later, he had his brother return these weapons out of fear that “somebody was going to accuse him of using them.”

    1. David, what’s your thoughts on the WM3’s defense team saying that ALL the injuries to the boys were caused by animals after death?

      1. lol that is a good one.
        For the animal thing to be accurate and to form a single explanation for the WM3’s defense team that does not make them sound like total liars, it would have to go something like this.
        Local animals broke into Mark Byer’s house and stole the Byers knife. Then the animals attacked the three boys by command of Terry Hobbs. Then Mr. Bojangles came in to help out, but Terry grabbed his son’s pocket knife and cut Mr.Bojangles and punched him in the head disorienting him. Now angry and stunned Bojangles decided to go get some chicken. Terry Hobbs then tied the boys up and put them in the water.
        Now THAT is the best explanation the WM3 defense could possibly use.

  2. This page is titled “new page added to case history”. Why is it even needed sir? To quote your own words, “The case against Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley is overwhelming, and the “new evidence” doesn’t pass the smell test.” If you or any other human has actual physical evidence that proves any or all of the wm3 are guilty, why hasn’t that particular information been submitted to a courtroom? Afterall, you say the case against them is OVERWHELMING, if that is indeed true, then why does this website even exist??? Are you withholding evidence that would convict them? Did you know that is a crime itself? I doubt if you have the nerve to leave this comment up, sounds like your throwing darts and you can’t even hit the wall.

    1. The physical evidence exist on tape where all 3 plea guilty. This site gives supporting evidence to countless confessions from all three including the guilty confession they used themselves to walk away from an AR state prison. Did you never see that?

    2. Why does this website exist? Well, why does any website exist?
      Maybe, because despite there being overwhelming evidence that suggest their guilt, an even more overwhelming amount of people seem to not even consider them suspects.
      I know youre query was facetious and I am just wasting my time, but seriously? You can’t see the benefit in opposing viewpoints? This website is a really great compilation of relevant history on the case regardless of whether you’ve made up your mind or not.
      No, none of this proves their guilt, but it certainly is educational. Don’t be a sarcastic dick about it.

    3. Welch,
      Human <<<<<< This is page is here because since WM3.org decided to hold a trial in the media and just put just anything out there whether it is relevant or not. They pass it off as evidence to fool the public what they find is true evidence . There is a reason we hold trials in the courtroom and not in the media is that only true evidence is exposed to the jury. Secondary transfer of hair that is common since the children were at the house that day. Then the new sighting of the children seen with Mr. Hobbs. This would have been impossible since two different wittiness’s seen the children near or at the park back in 1993. To come and say that the police was not near her house was another lie since they did speak to the neighbor. Not once do they include all the facts just what they want the public to see. Welch I hate to surprise you most crimes are solved without DNA or physical evidence. The question you might want to ask yourself is why is the defense from WM3 trying to hold a court in media . To me it looks like they want to be exonerated by public opinion not evidence. There is evidence to convict them and it did. Not one bit of their so called evidence would or should hold up in a court of law. Secondary transfer and hearsay and guessing what happened to the bodies from so called experts hired by the defense. This would have been great to cause doubt in a court of law but they chose to take a deal to admit they were guilty . Now they need to prove the are innocent to exonerate or this a major injustice .

    4. Why does the WM3.org exist ? Why don’t they just prove they are innocent after 19 years and countless millions of dollars . If they have anything that shows they are innocent why don’t they just hand it over to the DA and not the media. Can it be they want people to believe that what they have is really evidence and it is not ? Best of best lawyers knowing that most people don’t know the difference . Why not tell the people you never asked the law students to set a case up against the WM3 just asked them to find fault in the prosecution . Why does the WM3 defense team have to trick the public into thinking they are trying to solving the case and all they are doing is laying a foundation of doubt . Right now people have forgot this a defense team looking at the case . They are not looking for the truth they are looking for a away to make their clients look innocent ! Maybe they will just wait till all the witnesses died or are gone . So they wont have anyone that will dispute them and they can go and twist the truth.

  3. There is more editorial BS on this website than I can believe. To the “author” of this website–your bias shows in what you choose to post and your personal commentary. If you want to present an “opposing viewpoint” and if there is as much “evidence” of the WM3’s “guilt” as you seem to believe there is, than your editorial commentary is completely unnecessary, and you need to post complete and factual information, including what was and what was not admitted at trial (ex: the blood found on Damien’s necklace: your comments about it are factually incorrect. The blood types were consistent with Damien and Jason, as well as millions of other people and the entire sample was destroyed in the “testing” that was completed–testing that would never even be admitted into a court today, just as it wasn’t in 1994. Ex: your lack of posting of affidavits regarding juror misconduct. Ex: your lack of updates on the fiber evidence and all other evidence discovered since 2009). After all, if what you’ve compiled (admittedly an impressive amount of information, but still far from complete) speaks truly to their guilt, it should stand for itself without your extra “flair”, right? Have you ever heard of “confirmation bias”? It’s a well documented psychological phenomena. You should really look into it, as should all of your followers.

    Donna–you obviously don’t recognize this, but in the United States, NO ONE HAS TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. We did a mock “retrial” of this case and analyzed every single piece of evidence available at the time in my 3rd year of law school (2008). It’s unfathomable how a jury found these three guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (of course, we know now that there was jury misconduct. I’m sure as someone who has such a strong opinion about this case, you’re aware of those particular affidavits, aren’t you? I bet not.). Physical crime scene evidence has also been retested using today’s forensic technology. I’m not going to spoil the findings for you–look them up yourself, but warn you, you’re going to be disappointed. You, along with the other 500-odd followers of this ridiculously biased website/Facebook page, clearly know and understand little about our criminal justice system and criminal law. Don’t quit your day job. Oh, and I hate to surprise you, but “most crimes” LIKE THIS ONE (you know, crimes that make national news–even back in 1994, crimes that result in a death sentence, multiple murders) ARE ONLY solved with physical evidence and DNA. Your assertion to the contrary made it glaringly obvious how little you actually know. It might be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

    physical evidence–the video of the WM3 accepting an Alford plea isn’t “physical evidence”. Anyone who doesn’t understand what “physical evidence” actually is has no business commenting on this case, or any other. I sincerely hope you never end up on a jury. Ever.

    Spengler–see my comment above about “confirmation bias”. There is *not* “overwhelming evidence” of their guilt, there is exactly the opposite, especially as time goes on and more evidence is uncovered and the little physical evidence that was collected by the WMPD is subjected to current forensic testing. There was only circumstantial evidence to begin with. Have you actually looked at every piece of documentation there is in this case? Have you read everything available (affidavits, witness statements, trial transcripts, autopsy reports, prosecution interviews, etc.)? I have. I had to in order to graduate from law school (see my comment to Donna above). You obviously know little about what you speak of.

    It’s all well and good to have an opinion. It’s obtuse to continue to assert that such an opinion is truth when it’s patently proven to be false and without merit.

    1. I said overwhelming evidence that ‘suggest’ their guilt, not that they are guilty. I don’t claim that they are guilty at all, nor do I treat this website as gospel. You say that it’s obvious that I know very little about what I speak of, which is strange, since I barely mentioned the case at all, but merely contested Welch’s questioning of the existence of this website.
      This site is a bit too editorialised for my liking. I can’t really stomach either side drawing the kind of stubborn conclusions that they do. It just seems a little extra bit insane to refuse to consider the wm3 as suspects, I’ll just never understand that. That’s the power of film I guess.
      Anyway, congratulations on your graduating from law school. No I obviously have not read every document available, as this case only takes up a moderate amount of my time and interest, as do most subjects I’ve ever shown an interest in, none of which I have ever claimed to be an expert on. The most I can promise is listening to both sides of the argument and maintaining a comfortable level of skepticism on either. But thanks for making the huge assumption on my confirmation bias.
      Funny you should mention that too. What was your opinion on the case before you “studied” it for law school? Don’t worry about answering, I don’t really care. Do you scream confirmation bias on any of the supporter websites? Text book examples.
      Good luck on your career in law, you show a great talent in being able to put words into others mouths.

    2. Mandy – This website doesn’t have to follow legal rules and procedures. Just because Jesse Misskelly’s confession was ruled inadmissible, doesn’t mean he was not telling the truth. You, and others, got onto this case not because the evidence was thin but because you were enthralled, enraptured by Messers. Depp, Vetter, et al and the documentary nonsense. A parallel case was the Tate/LaBianca murders in L.A. The prosecution there similarly claimed ritualistic activity, etc. which was a little silly, but the the jury had the ability to to connect evidence with defendant. By your metric, Charles Manson & co. are innocent. It offends my sensibilities to hear from celebrity advocates and groupies such as yourself that feel they are somehow intellectually superior to the people of Arkansas. Law enforcement and prosecution are imperfect by nature. Regardless of your ability to see more than the rest of us, they had the right defendants. Your mock trial is laughable. If you were truly a law student you would know that circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence.

      1. So I just went back and read your ‘law school requirement’ and I’m now convinced you are a fraud. You are proffering to the readers that you had to examine every piece of evidence from the WM3 case in order to graduate from law school? It’s what, one of the distribution requirements? Please – to use the vernacular – give us a break. That’s not even remotely credible. I cannot imagine a law school class making an investigation of this case a linchpin of the course, much less a determinant of whether or not one graduates. You claim to have graduated from law school; your spelling, punctuation and syntax tell a different tale.

        If you stand only on legalities and do not view this case from a lay observer’s standpoint, you must also accept the legal terms of the Alford plea in which they plead guilty to the the murders. You cannot use the law when it suits you and employ your own analyses when convenient. My visceral reaction to this case has always been that the preponderance of evidence indicates guilt. Too many confessions that have the ring of truth to them. Did the cops go over the line? Maybe. Was the prosecution a bit overzealous? Probably. Neither of those factors change my view that they’re guilty.

        1. I guess I should have paid closer attention when I first read your post. We “know now that there was juror misconduct?” Was there a finding of this by the judge? Of course not. The only thing we know is that Echols CLAIMED juror misconduct. Huge difference but that’s the way this case has proceeded since the verdict; unproven defense allegations and celebrity meddling.

          1. Sorry to chime in here but you’re wrong. They have the jury foreman’s notes from the deliberations and the Misskelly Confession WAS listed and was shared with the entire jury. Members of the jury have signed affidavits stating it to be true.

    3. Mandy, that was a lot of yelling without actually saying anything of substance.

      I’m new to this case and desperately trying to see the supporters case, but finding it pathetically weak. Your post didn’t add anything of value besides that you’re angry.

      I don’t want to believe they did it, but do.

  4. I looked at both sides very thoroughly in this issue. I do think that there is some evidence for jury misconduct specially the form in bringing in the confession. That alone would cause the guilty verdicts to be vacated, Or at least miss trial and retrial, I also think that the third confession against the advice of his defense lawyers Miskelly is showing guilt, And the fact that the very specific bottle of whiskey Was found exactly where he said it was. Whatever your worldview on Satan and the existence of satanic cult, Satanism is a motive for many murders such as the son of Sam, The night staulker, etc. I think Damien was for real a Satanist. Some people studying this stuff and listening to heavy metal can get a message to Kill, Ive seen it Personally and if you had drugs and alcohol it can make it real.

    1. Good point about Satanism. You should watch this great documentary called ‘death metal murders’. It’s about the beasts of satan kids from Italy.
      I mean, being a satanist doesn’t mean you murder people but I’ve seen some satanists do some pretty sick shit.

    2. When in the history of satanist or occult murders were the victims merely just hit in the head and drowned (hidden) in shallow water without their bodies left on display?

      I’ll answer that for you.. NEVER IN HOMICIDE HISTORY.

      This was no satanic killing.

      1. It was a Satanic killing to the same degree that the murders committed by Richard Ramirez, Ricky Kasso, Christa Pike, Jason Massey, Lazaro Galindo, the Arroyo Grande three, Nathan Brooks, Natasha Cornett and others were Satanic killings.

        WM3 supporters have exaggerated the occult/Satanic element of the case to distract from the real evidence. The core motive was that Damien Echols was a deranged psychopath who fantasized about killing. Misskelley did not describe a “ritual” in his many confessions, and the prosecution did not claim the murders were part of a Satanic ritual.

        1. Misskelley claimed a lot of things during his “confessions.” Half of which never even happened. He was in the woods at NOON instead of the evening??? NOON? NOON? They tied their hands with ROPE instead of shoelaces? ROPE? ROPE?


  5. Being a therapist myself and having used personality inventories of patients hundreds of times, I find the inclusion of Damien Echols’ personality inventory the most compelling piece of information you have here.
    There is no way to lie in these “tests” and his certainly points to an extremely disturbed individual who may have been experiencing intermittent delusions.
    Does that make a case for him killing anyone? No, of course not. But it is the only piece of data anywhere that points toward a personality capable of murder.

    1. I agree…completely.

      When looking at crime, I focus on character and motive. The motive for the WM3 is weak. In general I gravitate away from the “thrill kill” motive before much stronger established motives such as anger and rage. (Possibly a step dad angry as his step child? But a step Dad that kills his stepson and 2 other children with the help of a random “black man”? My bullsh*t alert is raised).

      In order to qualify for a thrill kill you would need an undeniable sociopath, and that is something Damien Echols qualified for a thousand fold in 1993 (probably still now). I do not think Jesse and Jason had it in them without a leader like Damien. Many troubled 17 year olds, and especially drunk troubled 17 year olds can easily be manipulated into sociopathic behavior though. After reading Jesse’s confessions I am profoundly disturbed and saddened, and as much as I would love to believe it was false, I do not believe they are.

      I would also like to point out I am a firm believer in coerced confessions by the police, but the span of time and number of confessions by Jesse puts a high level of doubt in this theory.

      If I take Mandy for her word, and if you take out Damien’s psychological profile and Jesse’s multiple confessions, I can completely see a law class rule in favor of reasonable doubt for the WM3 with the remaining facts available. This in no way “proves” their innocent.

      There are actually people I admire and respect their opinions greatly that are supporters of the WM3 (Jeralyn at TalkLeft.com). She is a defense minded attorney. But I disagree with her here.

      I will continue to try and search out alternative theories and exculpatory details in this case, but so far the “supporters” of the WM3 have not been able to counter the preponderance of evidence against them.

  6. Actually, Mandy–

    At trial, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Once convicted, it is indeed the defense that has to prove innocence.

    And 24 jurors found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so there goes that argument.

    As a lawyer, I would think you would know this.

  7. Just one question pointed at anyone I guess that would like to answer my question, if the evidence proved that the children were not murdered at the point where their bodies were found and in fact had been brought there after death would you still believe the wm3 were guilty?

    1. Oooh, I know this game. How about … if the evidence proved that the Sandy Hook children died from smallpox rather than gunfire, would you still believe Adam Lanza was guilty?

  8. Hey everyone, I am new to the site as far as posting a comment. I wanted to believe they were innocent, I really did. I was their age when this happened and I remember watching it on TV as it unfolded, I even identified w/them, I grew up in an area very like where they grew up, same type of people and thought process. I liked hard rock and heavy metal, while everyone else listened to country. I read what was put out there by the supporters and watched all the movies that came out and still wanted to believe. Then I started noticing how one sided everything was, how much was left out, how many questions I still had in general, so I started researching and it really did open my eyes. I did sympathize w/Damien until I found out he was completely crazy and violent. The things that he said and statements he made, really get covered up or glossed over, no wonder the supporters want to put that info out there. Does that make them guilty, I can’t say for sure, I wasn’t there when it happened, but it certainly makes it more believable knowing Damien’s thoughts and feelings at that time. I truly think that Damien knew he was going to torture and kill someone and the oppourtunity presented itself, Jessie and Jason, probably thought it would start out as “fun” by picking on some kids and once things got going, got out of hand, for those 2 anyway, there was no turning back. This is just an opinion that I wanted to express and look forward to anyone else’s input, no matter which side you are on.

Leave a Reply

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