60 thoughts on “New Greg Day Post”

  1. PS Cant wait till someone writes a book about all the facts in this case ! Sick of hearing it is music and clothes and they were out cast . Sounds like the same story people tried selling with the columbine case . Someone needs to call Echols on all his lies .

  2. Donna, someone did write a book after doing all the research, William Ramsey. It’s called abomination, takes the view that the 3 are clearly guilty.

    1. Hi Donna and ScottH,

      I believe that Willian Ramsey’s “Abomination” was a radio show.

      If you would like to read a print or ebook that is chronological and has all the facts on both sides, read “The West Memphis Boogieman” It even tells who are the real killers.

  3. Thanks for the update. Nice article by Greg, and I’m happy to see he’s come down on the “right” side of the fence. But was it not just several months ago on this site that he–if I’m understanding correctly–seemed to defend the position that Hobbs is a viable suspect?

    With his new post, he states emphatically:

    “What’s more, the film’s designated alternate suspect—a position previously held by the likes of John Mark Byers—is a less likely suspect than Byers . . . or for that matter, the drunk and disoriented black man who stumbled into a near-the-crime-scene chicken restaurant on the night of the murders”

    1. You’re referring to this post: http://wm3truth.com/2012/11/interview-with-greg-day/

      I don’t think it’s fair to say that Day “defended the position that Hobbs is a viable suspect”, either in that interview or in his 2012 book Untying the Knot. Day was clearly skeptical about the case against Hobbs, though not to the degree of calling Hobbs “a less likely suspect than Byers”.

      1. Fair enough Only a matter of degrees that have changed with his views. I agree with his more adamant conclusions now, but just curious what’s changed in the past several months.

    2. If I ever said Hobbs was a viable suspect, I misspoke. Hobbs, for many reasons, is the least likely person to have committed the murders. I have to admit that after Untying the Knot I wanted to write a complete breakdown of why I believe (Mark Byers does not) the wm3 are guilty. I had spent many years on the case and just wanted to bet back to my life. But make no mistake about it: I believe that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were the killers of Chris, Michael and Stevie.

  4. Great post, greg!! The west memphis 3 are very guilty and should have been executed for their crimes!! Right on, donna!! Echols is a pathological liar and a child killer who will die a liar and a killer!! He will NEVER take responsibility for his crimes. Baldwin is full of bs, too. In a interview, he said ” I think of those poor kids all the time-YEAH RIGHT!!

  5. There are cracks around the margins of this fraud, and Day represents one. The whole charade likely will implode once the ball gets rolling.

  6. The 3 are innocent, not even a question.
    Animals caused the body mutilations after death.
    Look to JM Byers or, most likely, Terry Hobbs; one is the killer. Both have a violent past.

    1. I am so sick of hearing “animal predation”.

      While I am sure there may have been some, a snapping turtle did not cause Chris Byers to bleed to death.

      1. I totally agree, no turtle did this. And try as they may, they cannot convince me that the bitemark on Stevie’s forehead is that of an animal or a wound inflicted with a knife handle. I’ve looked at pictures of that bitemark so many times, and initially thought something was off about it. That is, until I turned it upside down and looked at it. Suddenly it became very clear that it is indeed a human bitemark and you can clearly see the front teeth marks and I realized too that the perp was either standing behind the victim or over him when he bit him.

        1. I spent countless hours reviewing this silly “bite mark” business and have come to the conclusion that the mark on Steve Branch’s forehead is NOT a bite mark, human or animal. When you look at the types of “sticks” that Misskelley pointed to as the murder weapons could have easily made the mark on little Stevie. But forget the “if” and ask “why.” Brent Turvey, a hack of a “profiler” dug up for PL2, was main purveyor of the bite mark hoax. He at one point suggested that Melissa Byers’s body be exhumed to try and match the marks on Stevie with Melissa’s bite. Was Turvey suggesting that Melissa Byers (was he suggesting that she was at the crime scene?) bit Stevie Branch on the forehead. Why would she do that? Turvey suggested that they dig up Melissa’s body and make the comparison. What if they matched? What would be Turvey’s conclusion then? This blowhard Turvey’s “conclusion”, which, more than anything else was born of a desire to give himself some credibility as a “profiler” (or maybe he was just trying to get into Bakken’s pants.)

    2. Give up the Hobbs thing.

      So many supporters have. Well known supporters.

      It’s just stupid, already.

  7. Animals did this postmortem.

    Do you people think OJ is innocent? Columbian drug dealers were the murderers?

    You believe some satanic cult bs vs. science? Who had motive and opportunity? Who had a history of violence against one of the victims? Terry Hobbs.

    1. Tangier, I agree this case is similar to OJ’s in the sense that one of the only scenarios where the defense was actually innocent of the crime involves the police perjuring themselves and framing the defendants.

      The case against Terry Hobbs is nowhere near as impressive as West of Memphis and other biases documentaries would make you believe. I am not saying everything can be summarily dismissed, but the case against Hobbs is nowhere near as plausible as the case against the WM3.

      After researching many hours (and not just biased movies and websites) I am about 98% sure the WM3 are guilty, 80-90% they could be convicted (again) beyond a reasonable doubt if all facts were admissible. Since all facts would probably not have been admissible, a million dollar defense would have made this a very intriguing trial that could have gone either way. There is a reason your heroes accepted the Alford plea. There was a significant chance they would have been found guilty again even with a million dollar defense.

    2. How about you? Do you think Fred Goldman killed his son and Nicole Simpson? Because the case against Fred Goldman is stronger than the case against Terry Hobbs.

      If OJ Simpson had given six highly detailed confessions in 1994-95, and a bunch of people told the police they heard OJ bragging about the murders, would you consider that proof that OJ was framed?

    3. You know I think Hobbs may have been a stepfather from hell, really look around there all you see is stepfathers. Everyone involved in this case had a stepfather. But I doubt he did it. If he had he would have had opportunity to do it with Branch only. The actions of hese crimes were from waco, stupid kids who thought they were bad asses. Echols and posse were just that. Only reason Hobbs became a suspect is his wife was not all there. Of course I would turn crazy too if I lost my child that way. The evidence found of Hobbs is a natural DNA being a family member of the boy.

  8. Not my heroes.

    Present you ironclad case against Jason Baldwin. Waiting…..
    State knew it would lose a re-trial; hence the Alford plea.

    1. I have spoken with many current and former inmates, and they all told me that they didn’t know anyone who had confessed to a crime – let alone a triple child murder – that they didn’t commit. Whatever Baldwin said about only confessing so that Echol’s wouldn’t die, falls apart with only a cursory examination. It is without question that the WM3 would have not only obtained new trials, but that they would have been acquitted. The state could not tolerate that level of humiliation, so they decided to settle on guilty pleas (means no civil action allowed against the state for wrongful imprisonment) from all three convicts. If I know that the case against the WM3 would result in acquittals, then the State of Arkansas knew it to. They figured 17 yrs (time served) was better then turning the killers free. I agree with their decision as the only one possible, though if the police, trial court and prosecution had done their jobs, Echols would be dead, and Baldwin and Misskelley would not have become household names. And Johnny Depp would kept his nose out of it.

  9. Defense knew it would lose a retrial; hence why they went to Scott Ellington with an Alford Plea. You do understand that now don’t you? The defense brought up an Alford Plea.

  10. Forensic pathologists would demonstrate to a new jury that animals caused the injuries to the bodies. There goes the wacko satanic cult killing theory.

    Misskelley coerced confession would be thrown out.

    Then the state has nothing. An empty bag.

    Aren’t you interested in seeing the real killer brought to justice? The one who killed the boys and transported their bodies to RHH in his truck?

    1. Tangier, everyone here is familiar with all the half-baked theories on both sides of the debate. No one is going to be very interested in engaging you as long as you shovel the same tired bullshit.

      You mentiond Baldwin, does it bother you that, to this day, he has not been able to provide an alibi for 5/5/93? In his ’08 rule 37 testimony he mentions interactions with Holly, Heather, Jennifer, Dennis Dent, and Damien on that day.

      None of them can support an alibi for the crucial time period.

      Gail Grinnel tried in desperation to give him an alibi but she was not home that night:

    2. With this much confidence in their case, you must have been very angry to hear that the WM3 chose to plead guilty instead of presenting all of this at their scheduled hearing. They could have gotten a new trial and been exonerated.

      1. And it could have been dragged out over years, I would jump at the same chance they had to get out. You spend your teenage and adult life in prison and see if you wouldn’t want out as soon as possible..or get a new trial and maybe it will be over in another year or two.

        1. A slim chance at exoneration or guaranteed freedom? That’s a tough choice and I can’t say I wouldn’t have made the same choice the WM3 did, especially if I was on death row. But you can’t have it both ways – you can’t plead guilty and demand I consider you innocent.

          That’s the point I was making – Tangier is adamant that animal predation would be proven and Miskelley’s confession would be thrown out, as is the position of many WM3 supporters. But by pleading guilty, the WM3 shut the door on Tangier’s predictions ever being tested.

          Now the only way the WM3 can be exonerated is for another person to be convicted. Time will tell, but don’t hold your breath.

    3. No. This case is a circus. I have never seen such strange, circus like people involved. And I am not talking about the 3.

      The real killers are the 3. To this day they are. They are not exhonerated. They are guilty. They said so themselves when they went under oath. They just had the circus rallying around them, what were they suppose to do say no? Echols and Baldwin had time to clean up and become devils in disguise. Echols in particular had a wife who is also in the circus. She went above and beyond the call of duty, but all she was just another fanatic to begin with. What is hilarious is to watch Echols in interviews. When asked about Meskelley, he tenses up and you can see that hate in him. Like he still wants to pummel him for ratting. He just talks poorly of him and says they weren’t friends. Lie, they were.

  11. Matt, it is in dispute who brought up the Alford Plea. Doesn’t really matter. You can not argue the state had the ability to put on a strong prosecution.

    1. Who proposed the Alford plea? That’s a good question. As far as I know (and please correct me if I’m wrong), there is no dispute that the Alford plea was the idea of the defendants. Read the transcript of the 8/9/11 hearing in which the pleas are entered and the WM3 are set free:


      On page 31, last paragraph, prosecutor Alan Copelin states that “the defendants proposed the Alford plea offer.” The judge says that he does not care who proposed it and the matter does not come up again. But has any of the WM3s’ attorneys disputed Mr. Copelin’s claim? If so, please provide links.

      Another (and much better) source is an article by Mara Leveritt (a supporter of the WM3 and expert on the case) that specifically discusses the legal maneuvers that lead to the plea:


      On page three, Mr. Echols’s attorney Patrick Benca describes meeting with prosecutor Dustin McDaniel in which “Benca mentioned how nice it would be if everyone could simply ‘resolve it.'” Mr. McDaniel arranged a meeting with Scott Ellington, the prosecuting attorney for Arkansas’s 2nd Judicial District and head prosecutor on the WM3 case. In this meeting, described on page 4 of the article, Mr. Benca states “We proposed an Alford plea with time served.” Stephen Braga, another of Mr. Echols’s attorneys, was the one who made the presentation to prosecutors. Ms. Leveritt writes: “Braga presented the proposal. ‘He was quite compelling,’ Benca said.”

      Supporters and non-supporters will argue over the implications of the Alford plea forever (a testament to the polarizing nature of this case), but there is no dispute on who proposed it. Again, if I am wrong, please correct me.

  12. eddiewhatever, seems like you are the one peddling the same bs. As long as you believe that animals mutilating the already-dead bodies is half-baked, I suppose it would be best to ignore me.

    The only thing you’re missing with your Baldwin arguement is evidence. Nothing puts him at the crime scene (Misskelley aside), no credible sighting even in the vicinity. You want to put someone in jail for life for that?

    Spend a little time looking at Terry Hobb’s activity with the same scrutiny.

    1. You do know that to this day, the forensic pathologists who actually SAW THE BODIES says its absolutely ridiculous to think that post mortem animal predidation is the source of all the wounds. But you know, it makes sense to dismiss this pathologists findings and believe a pathologists findings who looked at pictures of the bodies 17 years later.

        1. Huh? You do know 3 kids were in fact murdered that day don’t you? You do know standard operating procedure after EVERY murder is to get a forensic pathologists to figure out what happened in the murder, right? You do know said forensic pathologist had ZERO clue who the WM3 were when doing the autopsy(or any of the other 63 suspects that would later come up for that matter)?

          1. A reliable witness said many times in detail when, why, who, and how the boys were brutally murdered. He was there with them as they killed and there is no one who can say truthfully that they were anywhere else.

      1. Yes, an ASSISTANT forensic pathologist that had taken the exam and failed it five times! You can’t put very much weight on Perretti. Sorry!

      2. You do know that seven world class forensic pathologists (and even amusingly the author of the book that the original pathologist handles in the witness box) came to the same conclusions about the post mortem animal injuries? These were all pathologists way way way more experienced and celebrated than the original pathologist. The contention that the recovered knife was used to make marks was actually ridiculed! You also realise that the orginal pathologist worked from photographs? He examined the bodies once and then worked from photos. This pathologist was thought very lowly of anyway and even the prosecution discounted him. We are also talking of scores of detailed photographs which the seven renowned pathologists took their conclusions from. They also all came to pretty much the same conclusions independently. I find it surprising some will still take the original pathologist at his word. His reputation was in doubt long before this case and this case rubbished him. What is the problem is listening to the very most respected professionals in the field?

  13. 20 Years ago tonight on May 5th, 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas as the sun set and the moon rose, Christopher Byers (8), Michael Moore (8) and Steve Branch (8) were beaten, tortured and subsequently killed by Damien Wayne Echols, Charles Jason Baldwin and Jesse Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. The three spent 18 years in jail and now walk freely under the auspices of an Alford Plea. All three remain on probation until 2021.

  14. Day’s blog is now defunct. Is there a cached copy of this post anywhere?

    I’m intrigued by the title. I’d been thinking something similar: Tom Cruise has David Miscavige (current head of the Church of Scientology) and Johnny Depp has Damien Echols. It’s all the same phenomenon — narcissistic empty celebrities grasping at something they believe is “cutting edge” to believe in.

  15. I have often wondered if maybe the guilt of one ( WM3) does not necessarily exclude the guilt of the other ( Terry Hobbs ) .
    I believe the WM3 had contact with the three little boys that night . I believe they harassed , physically assaulted , and sexually assaulted the three little ones . Possibly submerging two bikes and maybe some articles of clothing to humiliate and taunt the boys . The motive would be that the younger boys interrupted ( either by accident or by spying on the older boys in the clubhouse/treehouse ) the WM3 in the midst of their meeting , whatever that may entail .
    I believe that when the neighbors claims to have seen the boys running toward the Hobbs residence she mentioned that only Stevie was still on a bike, Chris and Michael were “running behind Stevie ” . I believe the boys told Terry Hobbs what happened and that Terry sent the boys back to Robin Hood Hills to get the bikes back .
    I believe that after leaving Amanda with the Jacoby’s he followed the three young boys to the woods and found them there alone , the WM3 having dispersed .
    I believe Terry Hobbs then “punished” the boys , losing control and causing their deaths . He may have been reacting to what he perceived as homosexual activity between the younger boys , since he did not find the WM3 in the woods by the time he arrived .
    I believe he threw the boys into the water and that many of the boys injuries were caused by animals , postmortem .
    My theory explains the confidence in the WM3’s demeanor – they were not guilty of murder , only assault , and they believed the real killer would be convicted of both the assault and their deaths .
    I believe that Terry Hobbs knew the little boys were assaulted by the older ones and kept his mouth shut , hoping the WM3 would be convicted of both the assault and the murder .
    It explains the lack of blood at the crime scene ( blunt force trauma to the boys heads along with drowning would kill them with very little blood left behind ) . The smaller amounts of blood that were eventually found at the crime scene would be consistent with WM3 beating up the boys and raping them ., but not inflicting the cuts or mutilation .
    I could go on and on , and maybe I am crazy , but I believe in my heart that the WM3 hurt those sweet little boys , and that Terry Hobbs killed them .

  16. did anyone listen to byers in the sequel to paradise lost? he was being interviewed by the lie detector test guy and was being asked a slew of questions, asked about the death of his wife, said she died of a broken heart or something and then later answered another question and said “AFTER SHE WAS MURDERED”…this was a red flag to me that he killed her because he earlier denied knowing how she died and I think the state was still holding her death cert. I think it was a slip that he actually knew how she died. this fact, however, was never questioned in the documentary.

    1. But wasn’t byers off his head on some form of drugs at the time? that would’ve given incorrect readings to any lie detector test, or somebody observing byers. The killers of those 3 boys were already in jail, now they are walking the streets as free men, those poor boys haven’t had justice, and now they are all free making money off the backs of the 3 victims. Its a shame that a judgement wasn’t made saying that they could not earn a penny from books, films and documentary’s. Those 3 killed them boys no doubt about it.

      1. But I could of sworn they did have that judgement. I remember reading a mag back when they were just set free. It said they couldn’t earn money off the case. That was why one had to go into construction. The People article with Damaian also said he had to take plea as Baldwin was dying in jail and treated horribly. He had to do it for him. Now, it has reversed. Baldwin says he was fine in jail, even a teacher and had to do it for Damian as he was dying on Death row and wouldn’t make it much longer. These 2 silly boys, still sticking together and living up their wahoos.

      2. Hi Susie,
        There were lots of things that Arkansas officials should have done before allowing brutal killers to run free on society. Any deal they had should have the three of them standing up in court and apologizing to the families and the people of West Memphis for the harm they had done to the parents and the citizens. They should have restricted their movements to no closer than 10 miles away from any girl or boy under 18.
        Until someone explains whyWM3 supporters keep treating Damien Echols as a hero instead of telling the truth that this 18 year-old adult flirted with 12 to 14 year old girls, impregnated a 16 year old, and was convicted of murdering three 8-year-old boys. This 18-year-old adult sex offender of children ages 8 to 16 should still be behind bars trying to learn how to use a spork.

    2. Hi Tehila Sunrise: all Paradise Lost biased movies were produced by subjective producers in favor of the WM3. It was their movie, they should have caught that detail.

  17. Just reading back over these posts… I’m not coming down on either side. This seems to give people an “opinion” that they then can’t get past so I’m not showing my hand but I will say that it’s a scary thing that if someone has no alibi then they’re immediately in the frame… I live alone. Most evenings I get home from work and don’t see anyone until the following morning. Had I better start accounting for everything I do between locking the door and walking through it again the next day just in case someone accuses me of murder? As if I wasn’t paranoid enough before…

    1. Yes Pixiecat, have a believable alibi for the evening if you are planning on killing three very young boys.

  18. How do you account for the FACT that there is “0” evidence of satanic ritual at the crime scene? If you believe there is, you are obviously uneducated on both crime scene evidence, and satanic rituals.

  19. So….I am so on the fence about this. Parts of me feel like Misskelly was led towards the truth during his first confession, and continued with these truths the more he confessed because he had been told he was there. At the same time, part of me wonders how could he confess to that much and be lying about it? How much of Damien’s past is true? I think it’s a long jump from being mentally disturbed to child torturer/killer. However, it’s not a very far leap to go from killing animals to killing humans. My biggest thing is, how were the parents NOT the first suspects in this case? Terry Hobbs was who called his boy in missing, yet looking through the evidence submission, he wasn’t one of the first people suspected. None of the parents were. The reason why this case grew out of control is because of all the gossip and misleading. How can you say the hair matching Terry Hobbs is barely anything, but the fibers matching the boys is hard evidence? I am NOT a firm believer in the WM3 innocence. There’s too much that says, well, wait a minute, if you were innocent, then WHY….but at the same time, why weren’t so many different scenarios eliminated as possible suspects? A bloody man shows up less than an hour away but because he’s staggering and disoriented, there’s no way he could have done it. Bloody AND muddy. Maybe he was a suspect? Maybe he was on meth or coke or crack and did this crime? How can we ever know for sure? I guess, I wish I would have been able to sit on that jury and hear all the evidence presented. The Bojangles man alone, to me, might have been enough to cause reasonable doubt. I just don’t know. The problem is, all of this is so black and white. Either the information is presented as being for or against the WM3. There’s no unbiased information. The facts of this case are so open that it’s up for every ones own interpretation. There’s no definitive weapon, there’s no DNA distinctly linking the boys, there’s no finger prints. There’s flimsy hair and fibers of which match multiple people. At this point, I feel like Terry Hobbs committed this murder WITH the WM3.

  20. We all know that a reliable witness said many times in detail when, why, who, and how the boys were brutally murdered. He was there with the young men as they killed the kids and there is no one who has ever said truthfully that they were anywhere else.

    In his very first police interview, Jessie Misskelley had a chance to say: At the time of the murders I was at the trailer park disturbance and then I went out of town to wrestling practice. That is all I know about this. Instead he wanted to get the guilt out of his mind and told mostly the truth in a two hour confession.

Leave a Reply

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