Jennifer Bearden in West of Memphis

The Paradise Lost films never dealt with Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley’s alleged alibis in any detail. The new film West of Memphis fills that gap with lots of alibi claims. Our case history section has a page devoted to the murderers’ failed alibis. This post looks at one particular alibi witness whose name has popped up repeatedly over the years and who shows up in West of Memphis: Jennifer Bearden.

Timeline background: many locals reported seeing the three murdered boys between 5:30 pm and 6:30 pm within a block or two of the entrance to Robin Hood Hills. They were last seen heading into Robin Hood Hills around 6:30 pm. Police, family members and friends started searching in and around Robin Hood around 8:15 pm. All the evidence indicates that the murders took place sometime between 6:30 and 8:00 pm near the ditch where the children’s bodies were found.

Echols changed his alibi several times. At trial, he claimed that his parents and sister picked him up around 4:00 pm on May 5 and drove him home. Aside from a family visit to the Sanders home between 7:00 and 7:30 pm, he was home all afternoon and night with his parents and grandmother. Echols stated on the witness stand that he talked to four different girls on the phone that night: “Holly George, Jennifer Bearden, Domini Teer, Heather Cliett”.

However, the Echols defense did not call any of George, Bearden, Teer or Cliett as alibi witnesses. There was a good reason for this. The police had interviewed all four girls, and none of them supported Echols’ alibi. They all claimed to have talked to Echols by phone on May 5, but none of those calls took place between 5:30 pm and 9:20 pm. Obviously phone calls before 5:30 pm or after 9:20 pm are irrelevant to Echols’ whereabouts between 6:30 and 8:00 pm. And on key points, all four girls’ earlier statements to police contradicted the story that Echols told on the witness stand.

Filmmakers don’t have to worry about cross-examination or explaining contradictions, of course.

Jennifer Bearden was 12 years old at the time of the murders. In a 2004 affidavit, she described her relationship with Echols:

It was in either late February or March of 1993 that Holly [George] and I met Jason and Damien. […] From the time that I met them to [the day prior to their arrest], I talked to Damien almost every day on the phone. […] I also saw Jason and Damien at Skateworld almost every weekend after we first met them. […] Damien and I had been an item, meaning that Damien and I had a teenager’s boy-girl relationship.

Bearden talked to WMPD detectives in September 1993. (The film shows Bearden reading from a transcript of this interview.) She told them that on May 5 she (a) called Baldwin’s house and spoke to both Jason and Damien sometime between 4:15 and 5:30 pm; (b) tried calling Echols at home at 8:00 PM, at which time Damien’s grandmother said Damien was not home; then (c) “I called back around 9:20, 9:30 and I talk to [Damien] for a little bit”. In this later call, she said Damien told her that he had been out with Jason Baldwin that evening. In her 2004 affidavit, Bearden repeated this account with slight variation: the phone call in which Damien’s grandmother told her Damien wasn’t home was a little after 9:00 pm, and her phone call with Damien “began at around 9:30 pm and ended around 10:00 pm”. Bearden again repeated this account at the Baldwin/Misskelley Rule 37 hearings in 2009, with the grandmother call sometime between 8:30 and 9:00 pm.

The problems for Echols’ alibi should be obvious. By her own account, Bearden had no knowledge of Echols’ whereabouts between 5:30 and 9:20 pm. Her statement that Echols was at Baldwin’s house around 4:30-5:00 pm directly contradicted Echols’ claim that he was at his own home (several miles away) then. Her statement that Echols was not home at 8:00 pm (or 9:00 pm or 8:30 pm) directly contradicted Echols’ claim to have been home all night. Echols claimed he did not spend any time with Baldwin on the afternoon or evening of May 5 — but Bearden told detectives that Echols told her at 9:30 pm that he had been out that evening with Baldwin.

In West of Memphis, Bearden complains that she was “never given a chance” to testify at the Echols/Baldwin trial. Never given a chance by whom? Echols’ defense lawyers had the opportunity to call Jennifer Bearden as a witness in 1994. They chose not to. The prosecution actually obtained an “Order for Attendance of Witness From Without the State” requiring Bearden to be available to testify. Repeat: the prosecution made sure she was on hand to testify, and the defense chose not to call her.

Despite all this, Echols’ appellate lawyers have continued to cite Bearden as an important alibi witness. One 2008 petition for a new trial included this bald-faced lie: “the declaration of Jennifer Bearden, who has absolutely no reason to perjure herself to assist Echols, puts him on the phone with her at the time the boys disappeared miles away.” Speculation about Bearden’s motives or honesty aside, the fact remains that the boys disappeared at 6:30 pm, while Bearden’s declaration puts Echols on the phone at 9:30 pm.

Echols’ lawyer Dennis Riordan used the same ploy in 2010 oral arguments before the Arkansas Supreme Court.

ASSC (Justice Robert Brown): I’m talking about consideration as to whether a new trial should be granted under the standard of compelling evidence. What evidence would be considered?

Riordan: Your Honor, we would submit that — that the answer to that question lies in section 208(e)(3) which says that the court is to consider the DNA evidence along with all other evidence whether or not admitted at the first trial. There’s certainly nothing in the term “all” that would suggest all means only some and some means only evidence of guilt. But let me give you an example. We submitted to the court a declaration from a witness who at the time of these offenses or soon thereafter in 1993 was interviewed by the police and stated that she was on the phone with Mr. Echols at 9:00 which would have made his participation in these crimes impossible.

The ASSC justices apparently did not know what time the three murdered boys went missing, because no one challenged Riordan’s claim.

An adversarial system of justice permits defense lawyers to play fast and loose with the facts. But what about documentary filmmakers? Should audiences expect more honesty?

The filmmakers behind West of Memphis have been immersed in this case longer than I have. They know what Jennifer Bearden said in 1993 and 2004 and 2009. They know that her account never supported Echols’ alibi. They know that Echols’ defense lawyers chose not to call Bearden as a witness in 1994. There’s no ambiguity here. For them to include Bearden in the movie as supporting Echols’ alibi is flatout intentional deception.

96 thoughts on “Jennifer Bearden in West of Memphis”

  1. As has been the norm with every documentary about this case, there doesn’t appear to be much need to cloud the agenda with trivial things like facts. Simply unbelievable.

  2. First of all, no one ever said Damien’s original lawyer (or any of the original WM3 lawyers, for that matter) were any great shakes. Weren’t they all public defenders appointed to the case? This wasn’t exactly Johnny Cochran and company, so pointing out a fuck up on their part doesn’t mean his brilliant counsel made a highly calculated and correct move in not putting her on the stand.

    Second of all, there are lots of reasons why you don’t call certain people to the stand. For instance, if she was really a 12 year old girlfriend of 18 year old Damien, I could understand why his lawyers wouldn’t want to go down that icky road in front of the jury. That’s a VERY icky subject. And even if Damien was an icky creep, which he was, doesn’t mean he was guilty of murder…

    …unlike Terry Hobbs, who is an even ickier creep, who molested an old woman and murdered his brother n law after beating up his wife. So there.

    1. You seem to be missing the point. It’s not that Echols lawyers were always right, but that that none of the conflicting times Beardon says she called Echols provides an alibi for Echols at the time of the murders.

    2. It wasn’t a fuck-up for his lawyers to have the girls testify. None of the girls confirm his alibi so it would have been a fuck-up to put them on the stand.

      1. I agree w/Elizabeth here. It actually helped the defendants not to use Jennifer B as a defense witness because that would have hurt them. I used to be a supporter until I researched the case on Callahan8k. I think more people should do the same as you can actually read the case files for yourself instead of believing everything you see on t.v. and movies.

        1. way to go Angie B. esquire!!! HAHAHAHAHA bunch of losers on this site. “i researched this on callahan8k blah blah blah blah” so impressive!!! you are all lawyers!? bahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaah

    3. Val Price had more capital experience in 1993 than any other trial lawyer in the state. That includes Brent Davis.

  3. There simply is no way to reconcile Beadern’s 1993 statement and West of Memphis interview. West Memphis Three apologists can duck and weave all they want, but there was a solid reason the state was ready to call Bearden and the defense elected not to do so, and it had nothing to do with relative expertise.

    WoM didn’t heed the techniques of Berlinger and Sinfosky, which were to avoid the unpleasant hard facts. It is easier to pick apart as a result.

    1. Not really, as you can see from most of the replies on this site that men are immature for their age and an 18 year old boy and a 12 year old girl are a perfect match.

  4. T-Rog posted on the last blog post about a thread on Someone was wondering about a poster on there named jo53ph. I thought he was a nutter when I saw his first couple of posts, but he later made some very good contributions to the thread. In this post he talks about how Jennifer Bearden e-mailed him personally about the issue of the alibi and her claim as to why she changed the timeframe in later years. (I really hope that URL works.)

  5. Hi, new to the site I study a lot on the case make fun of my grammar and spelling all you want I simply do not care. I have been reading on the site watch the documentaries and I am currently reading Echols book “Life After Death” I simply still look at Echols as a kid down on his luck. He’s girlfriend Deanna supposedly cheated on him with the boy he got into the fight with. I would of done the same, something similar has happened to me as a teenager I did go into deep depression like Damian I am okay now and I never have committed any crime. I really wanna believe that Damian did not either these teenager to me do not seem capable of what has happened someone like Terry Hobbs does, I know that HBO and Peter Jackson want you to believe this but he seems more of a likely suspect to me. I know this has nothing to do with what is above I just felt like voicing my own opinion and maybe one of you could change my mind this site just simply does not do it for me I don’t feel there is enough evidence to put these three teenagers away.

    1. Byers the first 15 years, now Hobbs? Pick a stepdad to go after. Hollywood could say it was the pope, and some people would believe them.

      Damien Echols is a sociopath. He manipulates and uses people to his and only his advantage. There is no doubt of this after reading his psychological profile and about the time he tortured, killed, mutilated, and then bleached the skull of a dog for a trophy. Two out of the four people that corroborated this event were Jason’s brother and Damien’s own Mom.

      Please go to Damien Echols and the “Dog Incident”
      The next post “Damien Echols’ Mental Health Record Synopsis” is also very telling.

      1. A dog and a human are two different things, yeah it’s gross that he did such a thing but that does not mean he killed three 8 year old boys. I have read some of his medical files not all and it was a while ago I do remember them being twisted but he was a messed up teenager maybe a little messed up more then others butt, his girlfriend cheated on him, the same girl wants him to run away with her a young dumb teenager in love would of done that. He get’s sent into a mental hospital and diagnosed with manic depression, he get’s out his parents move him to Oregon where he then fell into deeper depression then get’s sent back to West Memphis on his own then forced to live with his abusive step father. That could all be a lie but Damien that is very possible, but a kid with that much stuff going on is going to be messed up. The Misskelley confession is just odd in every single way some things do seem true other things seem made up like for instance he said they tied them in rope not shoe strings and he didn’t really know any of the kids names but claims they had there pictures hung up to go to there so called cult meetings. None of that just adds up to me to call these three guilty.

        1. “was a messed up teenager maybe a little messed up more then others butt, his girlfriend cheated on him,”

          I don’t understand how you read this.

          and then say well he was a “little” more messed up than others.

          I was in highschool around the same time as DE, and I was acquainted with a few of those kids that wore the metallica shirts every day. They were all great kids. Probably better than the average high school kid.

          I have no idea what kind of teenagers you ran into, but Damien Echols profile is of a complete psychopath. There are very few psychopaths that could orchestrate and commit the kind of evil that was done to those children. There is very little doubt in my mind, Damien Echols in 1993 was one of the very few that was capable.

          Terry Hobbs on the other hand. He seems like the prototypical redneck. Say what you want about rednecks, but I’ve never heard of any torturing and mutilating their children and playmates, and then somehow manage to hide that from everyone.

          But thrill kills from psychotic teenagers do happen. There have been dozens of well documented cases.

          Manholes and turtles. Sure, anything is possible. But even when I try desperately to look at things from the supporters point of view. At best they are only approaching the threshold of reasonable doubt. (If reasonable doubt is being 90-95% sure) And to even reach that, I have to go on a lot of faith that the 17 years and millions of dollars they had on their side is not the reason that all of a sudden an alternative suspect appears out of thin air.

          After dozens of hours researching, I would say I’m 95% sure it was them.

          1. Jack203..everytime I see a reply from you, it looks like it says…Jackass, but the name fits you so please keep it. You talk about going after all the stepfathers, what other choice do we have…does any of these backwards ass Arkansas people believe in getting married to one person and staying together to raise a family? The hardest part about keeping up with this case is which kids belong to whom and which guy is the real father..the only ones that looked somewhat normal were the Moores, but even he is now remarried and has another family with another woman. After seeing some of his stuff that he has on his facebook page, I see he isn’t normal either. This crime was awful and in my opinion was not committed by 3 young teenagers that left no DNA behind. If they did do it, that great police force (WMPD) botched it up..and I wouldn’t doubt it because of the Mayberry type department they run! But back to the only one that I thought was normal..Moore, well I am going to look into him, there is a lot in his closet still to be discovered 🙂

          2. Nice to see such compassion for the families of the victims.

            The childrens bodies were submerged in water. Water destroys DNA. This may come as a shock to you, but the vast majority of cases are not solved like the CSI TV show…..let alone in 1993.

            Sorry, I don’t believe the following are all coincidences
            -Witnesses placed Echols near the crime scene near the time of the crime.
            -They have no alibi. Much much worse, they got caught lying about their alibis. Now why would they do that?
            -The crime scene is located directly behind a home Echols used to live in.
            -The crime scene is centrally located between Damien, Jesse and Jason, and a logical meeting place.
            – I understand there are false confessions. But I never heard of seven false confessions over a nine month period, nor of multiple details of the crime known by the suspect that were not released publicly. Simply put, unless the police framed the WM3, they are almost without any shred of doubt guilty.

            And why would the police frame the WM3? Because they are weird and listen to Metallica? Simply put that is the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard. The kids that wore the Metallica shirts was ubiquitous around this entire country in 1993. The thought that police would frame the 16-18 year old kids that I know throw them in jail for life/death penalty is just ridiculous. Have there been any other incidents such as this? Police throw the book at kid with Metallica shirt! I’ll believe it when I see it.

            And then what would happen when the police frame the wrong suspects, and then the real murder(s) kills the next batch of kids? The ridicule and criticism directed towards the police would be enormous. Not to mention everybody would then know the WM3 were framed then. It is a serious felony to frame someone for murder.

            – Echols psychological profile in 1993 without any shred of doubt was a homicidal sociopath.
            – Echols behavior during the trial practically screamed “I did it! I’m proud of it. And Eff the world and the families of the victims!”

            Bottom line. They’re very likely guilty as sin.

            I will admit this to your side though, there are a few “coincidences” that are troubling for Terry Hobbs too. I could see how someone not familiar with how strong the case is against the WM3 could think they are innocent. But the evidence against Hobbs has only sprung up after 15 years and millions of dollars were funneled into a poverty stricken area, and they have not stood up to the process of discovery or cross examination.

        2. “A dog and a human are two different things, yeah it’s gross that he did such a thing but that does not mean he killed three 8 year old boys. ”

          Look up the Macdonald triad.

          Hope this helps.

    2. I love it when people leave messages like these, saying that they’ve read everything on the site and studied all the evidence, etc. But I have yet to see a supporter outline EVERY piece of evidence, circumstancial or physical, against the WM3, and try and explain it away. Seriously, somebody point me to a place where someone has laid out everything that points to the WM3 being guilty and has a logical explanation for each point being either coincidence, misinterpreted or untrue.

      1. First you have to list the pieces of evidence….there is none that link to the crime. So how can someone disprove something that does not exist? If only a real police department had done the investigation, we would know if they were guilty. Don’t forget this is the United States of America, you don’t have to prove that you are innocent…you have to prove guilt, sadly that has not been proven!

    3. Kyle, just FYI here Echols book Life After Death is listed as fiction when you go to buy it. I ask that you go to Callahan8k to research this case. It takes a long time but it’s unbiased and reveals all the actual case files. It’s not fiction and doesn’t throw it’s opinion on you.

    4. Kyle, that’s what Echols wants you to think. He didn’t include any details that point to his guilt in his book, so it’s no wonder that it’s hard for you to see him as the killer.

      If you take the time to read through this site and the Callahan site ( where much of the case evidence is, I don’t know how you could come away still believing the WM3’s innocence.

  6. Intellectual dishonesty at its worst by the West of Memphis directors.

    Well written David. Thanks for everything you do.

    I’ve only been following this travesty of justice a couple weeks, but I am completely outraged at the murder groupie supporters and the vapid celebrities that endorse this filth. I cannot imagine the pain the parents have been put through. As if their childs brutal murder was not bad enough, but then blatant propagandists with their lies by omission, half truths, and disgusting crime scene photos of deceased children, all to promote the actual child murderers and the directors various political ideologies.

    Everyone should be outraged, and the more publicity this case gets, the more people actually take the time to study both sides of the argument, the more the “Nons” will grow. The Non movement previously did not have the initiative or momentum. After all, the perpetrators of this heinous crime were already in jail. It’s hard to get motivated into action when you already won.

    I am going to predict Devil’s Knot will actually be good for the Non movement. Websites like this will be a big reason why. There are dozens of credible websites and distinguished true crime commentators that have studied the facts, and have all come to the same conclusion beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt. The WM3 are guilty as sin. The amount of evidence available and web presence for the Non side is simply staggering. You do not see this kind of movement against any other murderer who has been released from jail. I equate Damien Echols release to Ryan Lanza if Lanza had survived. I don’t even think Casey Anthony does Damien Echols justice.
    The crimes against those three little kids was one of the most heinous crimes this country has ever seen. It was pure, 100%, unequivocal evil.

    There will be many that believe Hollywood’s propaganda of Devil’s Knot, but there will also be many that want to learn more about this case. When they learn the facts of this case, and the pure propaganda they just watched. I predict they will be just as outraged as I am now.

    1. I’m curious to see how Devil’s Knot is going to play out. I read it back in 2002 and Mara Leveritt is pointing the finger at Mark Byers. It is hollywood though and they do have a tendency of bending and twisting the truth. I hope they stay true to the book to show how much of an assface Mara really is.

    2. Hey, Jackass….What evidence is available? I have looked and looked. Are you hiding it on this site somewhere? Come out, come out wherever you are!

  7. Excellent comments Jack203. I couldn’t agree more. The non movement is definitely growing. This site has the corresponding FB page WM3 Truth. There are several other non-supporter FB pages and groups. This is a new one: Please check it out. It also has a corresponding website at: Hopefully the tide is turning and this house of cards built on lies will collapse soon. It’s already showing signs of cracking.

  8. Inching closer to the claim versus the truth.

    For many years Kathy Bakken and Burk Sauls repeated over and over that Jennifer Bearden’s mother “would not let her testify”.

    In 2000, I spoke with Jennifer on the phone and she came by my home so she could get copies of her statement from 1993. I asked her point blank “Did your mother refuse to let you testify?” It bears some mention here that Jennifer had by that time become aware of the claims being made by Kathy and Burk, even participated in some of the same forums but never directly answered the question.

    Jennifer admitted to me that no, her mother did not prevent her from testifying, Damien’s lawyers apparently decided against calling her as a witness.

    She expressed to me her concerns then that supporters were not the most rational bunch of people and asked that I not disclose the fact that we had met or talked.

    I think she is a decent but terribly misguided person.

    1. Interesting Shaun. It just boggles my mind as to why they even bothered to use her in WOM?!?!?!? She doesn’t change her statement so what was the point???? Something else that REALLY bothers me is that in PL3 and WOM is Jamie Ballards statements. The time she claims to have seen Terry Hobbs talking to the boys in front of his driveway contradicts the time David Jacoby says that Terry is at his home playing guitar. HELLO, isn’t any of the supporters thinking DUH this girl is lying or Jacoby is lying, and why is it ok to just let things slip by like that???? I mean c’mon you have two people saying two different things occurred at the same time, and they still used it in WOM. Did they think people wouldn’t actually catch onto this?????

      1. sorry correction: *Something else that REALLY bothers me is that in PL3 and WOM they introduce Jamie Ballards statement.

    1. I can’t understand a word Eddie Vedder says. His singing isn’t much better either.

      You actually understand him?

  9. I wish someone would put the film online. I refuse to pay to see another Peter Jackson film. I wonder if there are any child murders in New Zealand we can help set free?

  10. Don’t you all think the judge who listened to the WM3 taking the alford pleas was TOTALLY out of line in saying it was a tragedy also because of the fact that we cannot take back one minute of the 18 years spend in prison?
    i was flabbergasted seeing it in WOM. Does this judge himself not know what an alford plea is. THEY PLEADED GUILTY your honor!! Nothing of their 18 years in jail is part of any tragedy. The real tragedy is…….GODDAMN .. well you should read the wm3truth blog.

  11. BTW WOM is lie after lie. So THEY FOUND THE KNIFE after half an hour of searching the lake. NO they didn’t. READ the transcripts.

    BTW@ i think that if they had put the fragment of Byers on may 6 saying that he was scared to death for the safety and welfare of all three children in Paradise Lost 1 instead of in Paradise Lost3 and WOM they would never have been able to fool the general public in portraying Mark Byers as the number one suspect. Omitting that fragment cleared the way for the hatecampaign against Byers.
    And yet one other thing…The textfragment that was crossed out in the just said that Echols and Baldwins ARRESTS were based on the Misskelly statement.
    It didn’t say whether that was justified, it was a mere stating of a fact.
    Or am i wrong here…?
    Sorry..but i’ve just watched WOM and it makes me almost crazy with anger how the truth is twisted by these Oh So Happy Sing Along Parrots.

  12. BTW i’m from Holland and following the case and reading the Callahan etc. for several years now. Hope i don’t sound TOO stupid.

  13. This book is going to be one of many that will come out. There is going to be a lot of books disputing what the WM3 claim as evidence. That is what happens when you have a trial in the media. The WM3 are fair game now! There is going to be one that shows the lies that they claim as evidence that they are innocent. Talking about exhibit 500 and the rest of the files against the wm3. They are going to also clear up the DNA that they claim against Terry Hobbs as evidence that they are innocent. Also clear up all the lies they claimed about retractions and show how many times Echols has changed his story to fit the situation.

  14. Did you notice Echols entering the courtroom for the Alford plea. He walked like a man who has lost the ability to walk because of having had chains on for 18 years ( or having been molested by guards all the time for that matter )…. but when he left the room yo and behold he was healed…yep it was all pure magick!

  15. Jessie is obviously more stupid but also more honost. Back in the trailer park he acted like a man. he didn’t say it but what he meant was …Look guys, i did a stupid thing but i’ve done my time for it. Now the only thing i’ve got to do is stay out of trouble for the next 10 years and i can do that.
    I also was very happy that Misskelley SR finally told us why Jessie Jr. didn’t know Damien Echols….He was afraid of Damien and therefore stayed away from him as far as possible,
    THANKS Mr. Misskelley Sr. for clearing that up!!!

  16. One of my favorite lies that Damien repeatedly likes to tell is the one he talked about on the 48 hrs. Episode. Lets preface this by talking about his previous lies leading up to this one. ( they can be hard to keep track of, due to the fact that every time he speaks, he spews complete bullshit) anyway, Damien used to love to say that he was locked up 23 hours a day in prison, and that he denied his allotted 1 hr per day of outside the cell.

    Fast forward to the post release interview on 48 hrs. Damien was talking about going to a movie with his batshit crazy wife Lorri. He then explains how strange the feeling in the movie was, not having to constantly worry about someone behind him stabbing him. Dumbass, how the hell are you constantly afraid of being stabbed if you are in your cell alone for 23/24 hours a day?

    1. Actually, Scott, I’ve seen where he stated he would take no time away from his cell – ever. That the yards were littered with pigeon poop or some nonsense.

      I think he wouldn’t leave his cell because of the incidents surrounding him and Merk Gardner snitching on the other inmates. He was afraid of being stabbed in the back because when he got caught breaking the rules – he turned snitch. Only then did he make up the story about the guards raping him. He hoped that would calm the hostilities of the other inmates – by redirecting blame – but it didn’t.

    2. Not defending Damien, but I don’t think he was in solitary like that for the entire 18 years. In his book he talks about other prisoners who he talks to and their antics. Also, not saying his book is great. (Man I have to make so many disclaimers when posting on this site. lol) His book doesn’t talk about anyone who sounds scary enough to be constantly afraid they’re going to stab you, though.

  17. I really hesitate to say this but the Misskelley statement that there was cultactivity could be true in my mind. Of course this cultthing is a load of bull, but i think it wasn’t for the wm3 and i think they were prepared to act on it with their twisted minds.

    I was wondering WHY did Jessie bring up he DIDN’T take part in eating dogs because he said HE DIDN’T EVEN LIKE CHICKEN.

    Sounds to me he tasted it. If he would never have eaten dogmeat he would rather have said he didn’t eat Deer or something like that.

    I know i’m just speculating, but “just trying to get to the truth”BURK!

    1. Hey Brad, just a BTW, good point about the cult thing. Do I believe he killings were occult based? No. Do I believe that, at least Damien, was a Satanist? Yes. He has basically said he had leanings that way and believed in possession, etc. On a side note, I found this interesting, maybe not to others, but I’ll share anyway: Damien and Lori are VERY good friends w/Marilyn Manson, he has been involved since the begining, and if anyone needs to figure the connection out, just look Mr. Manson up and read on. Marilyn has stated he avoid being placed in the public eye in realtion to this case, due to the “assumptions” people would draw due to his involvement. Nuff said.

  18. Frank that statement bothers me too. On release day, Jessie Sr. Said something about gettin a load of fried chicken to celebrate – because it was Jessie Jr’s FAVORITE.

    1. THANKS BRAD for helping me not to doubt myself all the time.
      It may be a wild guess or long shot but…!!!!

      I’m going to re-read all Jessie jr’s statements again. it’s a wild guess but i think EVERY time that he gives a REASON for his behaviour or an opinion about it, he is not only LYING but he’s also covering something up and, stupid as he is, thereby REVEALING a part of the underlying truth.
      So let’s study it all over again!

  19. I, like alot of people, really wanted to believe these 3 were innocent. When this tragedy happened, I was their age, a little different, lived in a place much like they did, same kind of people and thought process. I remember seeing it unfold on the news as it happened, since then I have followed this case as much as possible, read as much as I could, watched whatever I could, etc. Even after watching the Paradise Lost movies, and feeling that everything that came out about this was seemingly very one sided (I really like hearing both sides of a story, helps when you get all the info, you know) I still rooted for these 3 guys. Then I read Damien’s book, after I finished, I dropped it in my lap and said “Oh my God, they did it, they really did it.” I was so sad, I felt deceived, fortunately I never gave my hard earned money to their cause or took off work to travel to Arkansas. The irony is that in my mind, after 20 years, is that Damien’s own words are what conveinced me of their guilt.

    1. OK Amy, i will read that garbage book to the end then. maybe i will get the same eerky feeling as you.

      BTW even the first time i saw PL i was suspicious being it heavily biased. I wanted to know the real timeline of events when i saw Pam Hobbs changing all the time….sickly skinny (Satan? yes i do..just look at the freaks they’re punks) or well-fed leaving the courtroom during the photo-exposure of the three boys.
      And she was also fat when collapsing by the policecar on may 6th.

      So according to PL’s Suggested timeline she was fat on may 6th,skinny when she gave the interview when she just got stevie’s boyscout back and wearing around her head, and fat during the trial. my guess is she got stevies clothes back AFTER the trial and was skinny because of her problems with the trial and with Terry. So she went from fat to skinny and not from fat to skinny to fat as suggested in PL.

      Well…anyway…I was supposed to think it had a lot to do with drugabuse but i didn’t trust the editing of PL from the beginning.

      Same goes for the damien-interviews. It’s VERY important to know if what he says is before the trial, during the trial, or after sentencing. ( Think of the West Memphis Boogeyman comment. It makes A LOT of difference WHEN that comment was made.

      1. Thanks Frank for the info. Like I said, even when I was holding out hope that these 3 guys still didn’t do this terrible thing, I was very surprised to see that alot seemed to be missing, that’s one thing I love about this site and the comments, no matter my personal belief, I want to hear as much as I can from BOTH sides. The book was given to me as a gift, thank God I didn’t pay for it, by my mother-in-law, because she knows of my interest in this case. Maybe I can save you a little trouble Frank: (1) It’s hard to put into exact words, but what really got me, is how conceided he sounds, not bitter as in “I didn’t do this awful thing and no one will believe me!!!”, it’s all about him and what a “rock star” he is. (2) He doesn’t address any of the accusations made against him or have any explanation at all, in fact, he leaves them completely out, the main one that pops into my mind is the one about him stomping that sick dog to death, there are many more though. (3) This was the best one, as far as his mental hospital stays and why, this is what I was personally, really waiting for him to address, he glosses over the entire thing and basically comes up w/a complete lie that all those papers (the 500) and everything related to it (which anyone can look up and see dates, signatures, etc.), he says that it was long after without his or Lori’s knowledge in a bid to help Jason, YEARS later, as in Jason’s lawyer made all this up, faked all those documents 10 years after the fact. Are you kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!! How in the world can he honestly think that no one will notice that huge lie!!!!!!!!!!! It wasn’t just one thing that made up my mind, it was the overall tone of the book and just what a liar or dillusional he was, whatever word you want to use. After reading it, it just hit me and I felt sick to my stomach. Well lesson learned, I won’t be falling for anymore of their BS again.

        1. Wow Amy. Just wow. Great post. I was just about to ask you what raised your doubts about Echols guilt inside the book…so thanks for answering!

          You’ve pretty much confirmed what I expected the book to be like. I have zero interest in reading anything from the sociopath. His behavior alone to the victim’s family during the trial was so disgusting, I would rather have teeth pulled than listening to a word more than the bullshit I’ve already heard from him.

          1. Thank you Jack, you are welcome 🙂 It was so much worse than I had even imagined it would be!!!!! I mean if I had been accused of something this terrible and everyone was talking about me being crazy and violent and giving examples and I was determined to prove my innocence, don’t you think it might be a good idea to address those things. Of course none of it would be the truth, as most of us have figured out by now.

          2. You are welcome, thanks for the compliment, I am new to posting on this site. My main thing was, if I was accused of such a horrible crime and I was determined to prove my innocence and the main thing people kept using against me were how crazy I was and violent and then gave examples, I think I would certainly address these things. I mean isn’t that the point of having your voice heard or trying to prove why you wouldn’t have done this or how misunderstood you are, but wait, he’s more worried about being a celebrity…..never mind.

        2. 3) is incredibly damning. Such a transparent, easily provable lie. Those records were submitted at his trial during the sentencing phase. It’s indisputable.

  20. This whole website angers me.. The American justice system fucked up. Big time. There is no way that those three teenagers were sophisticated enough to pull of that murder. They took a boarder line mentally retarded kid (Jesse misskelley) and grilled him for 10 hours until they got a false confession out of him.. The only reason these boys were arrested in the first place, was because they for the profile of being misfits and into “black magic”. The murders were supposably of a satanic nature. Which has been proven that no genital mutilation had been done by a person. These boys were murdered by someone they obviously knew. Not a stranger. Think about it? How could strangers Leir three young boys into the woods, and keep them there whilst watching each other be beat and murdered? It was someone they knew. It was someone they were scared of… Someone that had authority and control over them. Someone like Terry Hobbs.

    1. Well Caitlin wins the award for the “most cliched to the point of caricature” post by a supporter in the history of this debate.

      Well Done!

  21. Yes Caitlin, you managed to spew the gold standard blather the completely uninformed seem to cling to in regard to this case. You are about a half step away from having tourette syndrome. Sorry, but that kind of ignorant bullshit doesn’t fly around people who have done the homework on the WM3. Instead of wasting my time shredding your post with crazy stuff like facts, let me just ask you to please do us all a favor, don’t post here unless you have something to contribute. From the beginning these assholes have benefitted from mindless douchebags who can’t be bothered to look up anything with a shred of truth attached to it such as yourself, seriously, piss off.

    1. Scott,
      Your diatribe speaks volumes to both your knowledge and character.If you choose to believe that the earth is flat,well your most welcome to that point of view.Perhaps I made to many assumptions (not good I know) when I posted.The first being that we are all open to opine and promote discussion.The second, and by no means the least, that a modicum of sense relating to “common”was present. Despite all that has been read or said about the murders you believe that these three kids were sophisticated enough to pull it off whilst: 1.Leaving NO DNA or physical evidence of ANY kind 2. Possessing any transfer evidence of any kind 3.providing no link to the children whatsoever.Sorry Scott does not fly with me but hey your entitled to your beliefs.There joust not shared by may people other the tose corrupted by The Arkansaw Justice system…..

      1. Caitlin, probably without even realizing it, you continue to trot our tired talking points.

        Just for starters, DNA evidence is used in a small fraction of murder cases. This idea that murderers always leave DNA at a crime scene is rather humorous, just the slightest amount of research would inform you of that. Why do you groupies keep propagating this myth?
        How do you think murders were solved before the relatively recent advent of DNA testing?

    2. HAHAHAHAHAAHA “did homework on WM3?!?!?!?!” BAHAHAHAHAHA You sir are not a lawyer. Oh yeah you went to a website and looked at callhan8k documents. hahahaa way to go!!! youre awesome!!!!!!!!!! They are free end of story. get a life

      1. Thomas most of the people you are arguing w/on here are lawyers. You need to get a life. Do you idolize Charles Manson too? The 3 plead guilty so yea their free but they admitted their guilt. SO WAY TO GO YOU’RE AWESOME!!!! Callahan’s website is not biased and is all factual. It contains the actual case files!!!!!! Your salty b/c people actually took the time to read and research this case instead of going off of what they saw in a documentary???? I’m confused. People are posting factual things here about this case and then you come in and laugh and say are you a lawyer. Your pathetic and not a good example of a supporter. Your comments are just stupid.

  22. Sorry for jumping from subject to subject but i was thinking about kathy Bakken and how annoying she is to me. Remember the face she pulls when Echols in a telephone session says he thinks mark Byers committed the murders? And when she is interrogating Byers about his teeth? I know it’s just a minor issue, but couldn’t she even imagine that half of his teeth were rotting away AND some other teeth were lost in a fight? NO of course she couldn’t!! The little sherlock knew instantly Byers was lying because Damien told her so.
    Anyway..i can’t stand that selfrightiousness of them pro’s. Think of that balcony-conversation after the lisa-show between Bakken,Stidham and that forensic expert Turvey. All liars. Yes they are real members of the Damien-cult. So happy together.

    BTW did you know that the reknowned Werner Spitz who came up with the after death animal bitemarks theory did the same in another case about a woman found dead at the bottom of a staicase. Blood EVERYWHERE but it wasn’t done by her husband Michael Peterson no… it was an OWL-attack. Thank you Mr. Spitz for your expertise.
    And of course these theories don’t hold up in court but they do great in documentaries like PL.
    And for the pro’s…Yes Misskelley did kill JFK. Ask Stidham and he will tell you the end of the tape with misskelleys confession was ruined during transfer to digital.

    1. Something I had thought about w/Mark Byers teeth lose as well Frank, just a theory….Mark Byers used alot of drugs in his day and depending on what kind, they can cause you to lose teeth, have your gums rot, all kinds of nasty things. Now I am not condeming Mr. Byers, I mean who would stand up on TV or a Movie and say “Yeah I was a drug addict and my teeth fell out” probably much easier to come up w/anything else.

  23. Peter Jackson starts his documentary with under the premise that Echols is innocent and he funded his defense to get a positive outcome for Echols. His strategy is railroad Terry Hobbs in exactly the same Paradise Lost railroaded Mark Beyers.

    Everybody is guilty except the man who confessed to killing them in his guilty plea.

    This is so egregious, disgraceful, and corrupt that I nearly puked watching it.

    Echols is a murderous psychopath roaming the streets of Brooklyn, NYC, not Hollywood, not Framce, and not New Zealand. My city….thanks assholes.

  24. this website is the epitome of garbage. all of you are suckers one way or the other. stop following a soap opera that you know absolutely NOTHING about. They are free. get over it. Dont worry youre safe from satanic cults america. now watch american idol and stop pretending to be lawyers.

    1. When they were locked up, I didn’t give 2 shits about this case. But now that they are roaming the streets, free to reoffend? Yes, I have a serious issue w/ that

      They are free — you are right about that. But only as free as an ex con can be. It is now up to us to make sure that they do not simply disappear into the fabric of society. We owe that to our children. And why not educate those that feed into the lies propagated by the support team? And while I may not like Terry Hobbs personally if I were to meet him, I cannot believe the bullshit he is having to endure. This poor man!

  25. You and your followers should be ashamed of yourselves for this effort to raise these falsehoods, half-truths and misinformation in your campaign to re-imprison the WM3. Have you nothing better to do? With a seriously broken criminal justice system and thousands of wrongful convictions, you might spend some of your energy investigating the cases of the poor souls who sit in prison with no attorneys, no support and little chance of freedom. Do some good in your life instead of the time you spend maligning and trying to hurt these three men who spent half their lives in prison. It is a fascinating endeavor of yours but your motivation escapes me. If you bothered to spend a fraction of your time looking at the evidence against the WM3 with the evidence of their innocence you might have a different approach, but then you would not have your podium to spill your wrongheaded lies. Take a look at how people get wrongfully convicted rather than fighting the truth.

    1. So Damien Echols’ PR flack wishes everyone would stop talking about that time his client tortured and murdered a group of children for kicks.

      Duly noted.

    2. Lonnie Soury lamenting falsehoods, half-truths and misinformation…

      Folks, do you love the smell of irony in the morning?

  26. Lesson in logic:

    “This crime was awful and in my opinion was not committed by 3 young teenagers that left no DNA behind. ”

    This is a common refrain from WM3 supporters. Of course it makes no sense logically. The fact is that there was almost no DNA left behind at the murder scene, yet the boys were still murdered. Applying the “no DNA left behind” logic, the boys must not have been murdered because there was no DNA pointing to a killer.

    Somebody killed them. The lack of DNA evidence pointing to ANYONE doesn’t exonerate the West Memphis Three.

    I have been practicing law for 15 years, and have extensive experience in juvenile crimes as a defense lawyer. I have studied this case in depth, and I think the WM3 are guilty. Nothing in the inconsistencies in Misskelley’s confessions surprise me. Rather, the corroborative details which aren’t something that a “borderline” dolt would memorize unless he was actually there point toward the truth. Little things like Misskelley saying the one victim “wiggled like a worm” after being put in the water isn’t the type of embellishment that a juvenile would offer unless they actually witnessed it. The details about chasing Moore and the location of Moore’s body and his injuries are consistent.

    On the one hand, we are told that Misskelley was an idiot, yet on the other hand we are expected to believe that he was able to memorize all of this information from his trial or the newspapers when he confessed. The only way to reconcile these two conflicting themes is to conclude that Misskelley isn’t that bright but he didn’t have to memorize anything because he had his own memory of events to rely on.

    His initial interview with the police and the inconsistencies isn’t that surprising to me. Often times, a juvenile in his position is wavering on whether to tell the truth or some form of the truth. Along the way, they are deeply conflicted and may offer made up details believing that it may help their case. Note how many times Misskelley said “and then I left”. He is conceding the bad facts but trying to distance himself from the worst part of it. Once caught in one tight spot, he tries to get out of it until he is caught in the next tight spot.

    I have had juvenile defendants confess with all kinds of inconsistencies, yet still implicate themselves and in fact ultimately admit to guilt while still maintaining a story that contains the truth but also many other “facts” that could not be true. It’s also important to note that Misskelley’s perception of what he was being asked and his answers are directly related to his own vocabulary and understanding of words. Often times, there is a huge cultural barrier between the questioner and the person questioned, not to mention an age barrier and education barrier. A word or phrase that we think means one thing, may mean something entirely different to someone else.

    For instance, a person may refer to someone as a “next door neighbor” when in fact the person lives 10 houses down or maybe even on another street. There is no intent to lie, it is simply a different interpretation of the phrase that is not literal.

    The timeline in Misskelley’s first confession is the big inconsistency. Yet, it is possible that he was referring to Baldwin and Echols at times when he was being questioned about the three victims. E.g., the “boys” skipping school could have been in reference to Baldwin and Echols even though the police were asking about the victims. I have seen this many times where one question is asked, but the person answering thinks you are asking something else.

    Regardless, this case has become a travesty and the more people become educated about the facts, the more likely it will be that a lot of celebrities and media sycophants will have egg on their face for having defended three child killers based on movies that appeal to emotions and not facts.

    1. SSS-I agree with your observations. The “wiggled like a worm”- comment was something that convinced me that Misskelley was telling the truth about the heinous acts that were committed to these little boys.

      I started to research this case a couple of weeks ago and when googling “Damien Echols twitter” I found out he was actually coming to Sweden (I live in Sweden). I went to the “talk show” hosted by the Swedish publishers of his latest book that was just translated into Swedish. I wanted to see if I could tell wether he is innocent of the crime he’s been convicted for or if he’s a manipulative lier and a sociopath.

      My observations were: 1) he loves the attention he’s getting. 2) His replies seems to be rehearsed and when he’s done answering a question he stops abruptly and doesn’t add any additional information. 3) I recognize the rehearsed answers from other interviews I’ve seen – he usually uses the exact same lines. 4)He contradicts himself several times. 5) He commented on the Alford plea deal as “the deal they forced us to take” which I understand is a flat out lie. 6) He didn’t show any anger or bitterness for being wrongly accused for a crime he didn’t commit.
      7)I found him very self centered but he does know how to express himself and he could be quite funny at times. 8) The interviewer was a supporter and he did not ask any critical or penetrating questions at all – he was all in awe it seemed to me.

  27. P.S., if they have nothing to hide, why won’t they sit down with an informed interviewer and answer the hard questions about the case that nobody else in the media is asking?

    They don’t have to worry about jeopardy, yet all we get from the media is puff pieces on life in prison, life after prison, etc. Somebody needs to go through the damning facts with the WM3 – preferably in separate rooms with each one of them – and ask them to respond. Then compare the answers offered from each with the known facts. I suspect this whole house of cards would come crumbling down.

  28. The problem is the cops messed up the crime scene from the beginning so its impossible to look at all the evidence

  29. I watched the three films and initially thought it was possible they were innocent but after reading the actual transcripts, confessions, Exhibit 500, Echols book etc…..I’m convinced they are guilty

    What really gets me is Echols endless LIES……he lies about everything……literally EVERYTHING…and right on TV and in the press…he lies about things he has to know could easily be found out as a lie if any of these so called “reporters” and or supporters would merely look but they don’t bother to…his tall tale about exhibit 500 was especially gruesome.

  30. In West of Memphis Amy Berg uses a quick cut to leave the viewer with the impression that Jennifer Bearden’s testimony was that she talked to Echols from 5:30 to 9:30 pm……its at 24 minutes in…..obvious and blatant deception…Peter Jackson and Amy Berg are apparently comfortable LYING for Echols (as if he needed any help in that regard!!)

    Jennifer Bearden laments that she was not called to testify……well if she was called to testify she would have destroyed the fabricated alibi that Echols has been clinging to for 20 years now…..this is also why these film makers felt the need to use this deception…..after all they KNOW Echols is innocent so why not obfuscate to cover for his LIES?????

  31. Unless we’ve worked real murder cases before, we really know what in the hell we’re talking about here. We’re just switching tabs between this page and Facebook playing detective, throwing out opinions based on biased info posted on the internet. Only six people know (or knew) the truth: Those poor dead children and the “Memphis Three”.

  32. Excerpts from testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe (“false confessions” expert witness for the defense) at trial of Jessie Misskelly (one of the “West Memphis Three” – February 2, 1994)
    DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STIDHAM [attorney for Jessie Misskelly]:
    Q. Please state your name for the Court.
    A. Richard Ofshe.
    Q. And what do you do for a living, Mr. Ofshe?
    A. I’m a professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley.
    [Dr. Ofshe:] There is a very important example of the way in which the detectives refuse to allow Jessie’s inaccurate statement to stand and directly manipulated Jessie’s statement through skillful interrogation tactics.
    So for example, on page eighteen … There is nothing that precedes this about the timing [of the murders], but now for the fourth time [Detective Ridge] revisits the timing and this time Detective Ridge says and I quote “Okay. The night you were in the woods, had you all been in the water?”
    Jessie replies, “Yeah, we’d been in the water. We were in it that night playing around in it.”
    This is the first time in the record according to my analysis of it and according to Detective Ridge’s testimony that it is directly suggested to Jessie that the correct answer is, “This happened at night.”
    Immediately upon that being suggested Jessie is — responds by accepting and now he starts to use the word “at night”, where he had never used it before, where he had consistently said it was during the day. It is in direct response to Detective Ridge’s substitution and introduction into the interrogation the correct fact that this happened at night so Jessie now adopts that. That is an influence tactic. It is a way of getting someone to accept something out of pressure and out of suggestion.

    The “influence tactic” Dr. Ofshe described would be improper – if it had happened. But it didn’t. Dr. Ofshe was not telling the truth.
    A great deal was made of Jessie Misskelly’s incorrect specification of the time of the murders (later thought to be just before dark, not early in the morning as Misskelly first claimed). In the passage above, Dr. Ofshe told the jury that the first mention of “night” had occurred in this question posed by Detective Ridge:
    Okay. The night you were in the woods, had you all been in the water?
    According to Dr. Ofshe, Misskelly took the bait:
    Yeah, we’d been in the water. We were in it that night playing around in it.
    Dr. Ofshe explained the “influence tactic” that Ridge had used:
    Immediately upon that being suggested Jessie is — responds by accepting and now he starts to use the word “at night”, where he had never used it before…
    Indisputably, Dr. Ofshe was incorrect, and so one naturally wonders whether he knew this when he testified. Possibly he had “reasoned backwards” from his conclusion that Misskelly’s confession had been coerced, to find “facts” to support that conclusion. But he may simply have been careless in his reading of Misskelly’s confession. In any event, Dr. Ofshe was incorrect. The first mention of “night” appears much earlier in the transcript than Dr. Ofshe claimed, and Misskelly is the one who said it:
    GITCHELL: What time did you get there?
    JESSIE: I got there about 9.
    GITCHELL: In the morning?
    JESSIE: Yes.
    GITCHELL: Wednesday morning?
    JESSIE: Yes.
    GITCHELL: And…
    RIDGE: What time is it right now?
    JESSIE: Right now?
    RIDGE: Yeah, you don’t know what time it is?
    GITCHELL: Do you not wear a watch?
    JESSIE: It’s at home.
    RIDGE: So…
    JESSIE: My dad woke me up this…
    RIDGE: so, your time period may not be exactly right in what you’re saying?
    JESSIE: Right.
    RIDGE: It was like earlier in the day, but you don’t know exactly what time, okay, cause I’ve gotten some real confusion with the times that you’re telling me, but now, this 9 o’clock in the evening call [on the day of the murders] that you got, explain that to me.
    JESSIE: Well after, all of this stuff happened that night, that they done it, I went home about noon, then they called me at 9 o’clock that night, they called me.
    RIDGE: And what did they tell you on the telephone?
    JESSIE: They asked me how come I left so early and stuff, and I told them that I couldn’t stay there and watch that stuff no more, so I had to do something to get out of there.
    This was the first mention of “night” in Misskelly’s statement, and it was Misskelly who said it, not Ridge or Gitchell or anyone else. To be sure, Ridge had expressed puzzlement at Misskelly’s timeline, which suggested the murders had happened early in the morning. Arguably this had induced Misskelly to revise his timing to a later part of the day. But not “night.” Ridge had given no hint whatsoever that the police believed the murders had taken place at “night.” Indeed, if any “hint” can be discerned in the passage above, it is Ridge’s statement that (according to Misskelly) the murders indeed happened “earlier in the day” – just not as early as 9-10 AM. If Misskelly sensed skepticism about his early-morning timing, he had the whole day ahead of him. He could have picked afternoon, for example, or even later in the morning. At that point, after all, Misskelly was still claiming he had not worked at all that day and that the three boys had skipped school. Instead, Misskelly, without prompting, said: “Well after, all of this stuff happened that night, that they done it…”
    Many people believe the West Memphis 3 were innocent. They insist Misskelly’s confession resulted from police manipulation, and many cite Dr. Ofshe’s testimony in support. Probably few understand that Dr. Ofshe testified falsely. Though indisputably he did, this was less than obvious. Most observers simply assume that an expert witness will not misstate key facts.
    Indeed, even some close observers were fooled – and at least some jury members probably were fooled too – until the prosecutor (John Fogleman) highlighted Dr. Ofshe’s misstatement in his closing argument. Probably few who proclaim the WM3’s innocence have read or heard that argument. But Dr. Ofshe probably has (though I don’t know for sure). If so, he should have acknowledged his false testimony long ago. He may have made an honest mistake when he testified. But not to correct his mistake (assuming he later discovered it) was inexcusable. Almost certainly Dr. Ofshe’s knew that many WM3 supporters believed he had told the truth.

  33. The question I have… Is if this was such a damning way to disprove Damien’s alibi.. Why didn’t the prosecution call her to the stand?
    They called every other witness on hearsay, yet didn’t bother to call someone who could apparently “prove” he was lying?

  34. I recently watched the Paradise Lost films. I walked away with a slight doubt that maybe the WM3 didn’t do it. I have been to the supporter’s site and this one. It’s sad that PL left out so many crucial details, and also how disillusioned some people are (especially celebrities). Besides the lack of accurate or legitimate alibis, Jessie’s MANY confessions is basically the nail in their coffins. Jessie is very unintelligent, but far from retarded. First off, you need to remember he was drunk off his ass. He’s not going to accurately remember ALL of the details, but he initially gives enough to prove he was there. His knowledge of such specific elements of the boy’s murder places him there. He is constantly trying to downplay his involvement because he knows they have been caught. Slowly he reveals more and more. There are too many things he says that could not be merely a “made up” or “coerced.” He is also pretty consistent his placements of each boy with each WM3 member. Remember, this kid was drunk so some things are a little hazy at first but become more clear the longer he thinks about it. There was no “12 hour interrogation,” which could be corroborated by Jessie Sr. (taking him to the station, signing for his polygraph and taped confession). The initial confession is enough, but he then goes on to give many more, some to his lawyers and some when directly advise against it. Fast forward, the defense is grasping at anything that eliminates the WM3. The thought that animals did the scratches and cuts is absolutely preposterous. I have hunted my entire life, an animal is not going to scratch at something that is dead, and they definitely aren’t going to focus on the scrotum. There will be chunks of meat removed and all of the internal organs will be spilled out or gone. The organs/intestines are going to be the first and main things they will go for because they emit the strongest odor. Where is all of the DNA some ask? Far down that creek. The only major wound that would produce a lot of blood would be the removal of the scrotum because until you cut an artery and/or puncture deep into the body. Contrary to belief, water does wash blood away (many experiences with hunting in the rain) or soaks it into the ground, neither will be enough to provide any DNA. (*Also, animals WILL come by and lick up the blood) I saw pictures where they sprayed Luminol which picks up the smallest traces of blood that is invisible to the naked eye and it showed it enough to know that was where the murders occurred. Unfortunately, Luminol evidence was not admissible in court at that time. But my main focus here is Jessie’s many confessions that provide a detailed step by step timeline of what occurred. Even the “smartest” criminals couldn’t come up with that much detailed and accurate information. They didn’t even think he was a suspect until he started showing signs that he knew a lot. He was initially there to provide any information on DE that might implicate him in the murders.

  35. I always felt sorry for his girlfriend at the time, Domini. She was so young, not to mention pregnant with his child and he didn’t seem to be able to have cared any less about her. Their relationship seemed very one sided, you could see in her eyes throughout the entirety of the documentary how in love and devoted she was to him. Did she know about his relationships on the side with these little 12 year olds and just not care?

Leave a Reply

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