A Real Journalist Reviews West of Memphis

The West Memphis Evening Times has a scathing review of West of Memphis written by Gary Meece. The article is only available to subscribers on their website, so I’m reprinting the whole thing here.

“West of Memphis, east of the truth”
by Gary Meece
West Memphis Evening Times – March 12, 2013

“West of Memphis” is here.

It’s in that desolate expanse of gumbo soil between the rotting Mayflower Apartments and the service road, on a weedy knoll that used to be the infamous Robin Hood Hills.

At this point, that bleak and forbidding site will yield as many new clues as to what actually occurred here May 5, 1993, as any other contemporary source anyone is likely to come across.

But they’ll keep trying, those “supporters.”

Before there were “supporters,” there was the first “Paradise Lost” documentary, which seemed to establish that the three Metallica-loving teens were arrested by incompetent police and convicted by conniving prosecutors in the brutal murders of three West Memphis 8-year-olds, all based on the flimsiest of evidence and fueled by Satanic panic over the teens’ strange preferences for black T-shirts and long hair in a throwback, inbred community that had never been exposed to lovers of hard rock and Stephen King novels.

By the time the second “Paradise Lost” movie rolled out, shameless camera-hog John Mark Byers, adoptive father of one of the three boys, was being suggested as the likely culprit.

Funny, but Byers’ whereabouts that night always have been fairly well-documented so the suggestion that he was directly involved in the brutal slayings has been and remains a “straw man” argument. It’s barely possible that he somehow could have slipped off into the woods, brutalized those boys and thrown them hogtied into the water, but it’s not credible. He was loud, though, and huge and kind of scary and had a trifling but real criminal record and liked to play around with guns, and hence was an all-too-easy target. The filmmakers didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story. The Arkansas author of the book on which the upcoming feature film about the case is based also could not resist pegging Byers as “a person of interest,” despite much evidence to the contrary.

By the third “Paradise Lost” feature and now with the fourth documentary in general release, Byers fell off the hook and the favored “culprit” has become yet another grieving dad in the case. We all have had moments we would not wish to share with the world, and Terry Hobbs, somewhat understandably given the nature of the wrongs done his family, has had more than his share of those moments, dug up for all to see. Mysterious overheard third-hand conversations about “family secrets,” allegations of a sometimes-nasty disposition from an ex-spouse and angry ex-inlaws, the discovery of a single hair that may or may not be from Hobbs (and with a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why it would be in a shoelace if it is his) make an even weaker case for prosecution than the supposedly feeble ones represented in the “Paradise Lost” epic. The ironies abundant in the latest round of accusations are absolutely lost on producers Peter Jackson and Damien Echols and their crew.

Other misrepresentations and obfuscations abound. Let’s give it this: It’s an artful look at West Memphis and environs, and we are not likely to see many such others.

“West of Memphis,” fourth movie about the case, is an advocacy documentary; it’s the movie that the aptly nicknamed “Icky,” his jailhouse bride Lorri Davis and their various movie star/rock god “supporters” wanted made. It’s been quite an effective piece of propaganda, directed by Amy J. Berg. It shamelessly exploits the memories of three little boys, Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Christopher Byers, whose families still suffer from their loss and from the many subsequent traumas visited upon them by this remarkable case.

If you go to the rottentomatoes.com Web site and survey the comments of critics large and small around the country, you’ll discover a couple of things.

One, seemingly every newspaper and Web site in the country that bothered to review “West of Memphis” unthinkingly accepted the premise the “West Memphis 3” were at the very least unjustly accused and convicted; many reviewers cluelessly have asserted their innocence, as if the killers were somehow exonerated by multiple convictions and by the plea-bargained guilty pleas that got them out of prison.

Two, virtually every newspaper and Web site in the country that ran a review employed the services of movie reviewers who know nothing about the case except what they’ve seen at the movies, and many of them can’t get even those details right.

Over the course of two hours and 30 minutes, “West of Memphis” supposedly demolishes the prosecution’s case against the West Memphis 3, or so bray the critics.

It largely does so by simply omitting the prosecution’s case. While far too much of the movie is taken up with Terry Hobbs’ supposed lack of an alibi, the movie suggests that the real culprits, with a real lack of alibis, have alibis that prove these teens just couldn’t have committed the crime. This is pure bunkum. Echols flat-out admitted on the stand that he and his family shaped their constantly changing and wildly divergent explanations to suit the changing circumstances. A woman who was at that time one of his 12-year-old girlfriends (not to be confused with his pregnant 15-year-old girlfriend) says she can provide an Echols alibi though she never took the stand in the 1994 trial, probably because her statements to the police offered no alibi. The Miskelley defense’s weak attempt at an alibi was demolished in the courtroom; the jury didn’t believe his witnesses provided an alibi, for a number of good reasons. Jason Baldwin’s explanation of his whereabouts was so weak that his attorney didn’t even try to present alibi testimony, and Baldwin offers none here. Where was he? What was he doing if he wasn’t brutally attacking and raping those boys? And yet we’re supposed to take his word that he has an explanation now? Sadly, many of our nation’s top film critics already have.

Like “Paradise Lost,” “West of Memphis” uses the “CSI factor” to play upon the audience’s prejudice that police investigators should be all-knowing, with all the forensics details immediately at hand to determine the truth with cool scientific ease. Real work is a lot sloppier than that, but then the West Memphis 3, their celebrity pals and many of their supporters aren’t that familiar with real work. Was the investigation perfect? Of course not. Did the prosecutors work hard to make their case and sometimes misstep? Of course they did. Did the medical examiner get some things wrong? Quite possibly, but that’s no reason why we should have to watch snapping turtles tear flesh off corpses just to make a point that would be more relevant if snapping turtles had tied up the boys, beaten them and thrown them in the water. And did Terry Hobbs slash open his stepson’s face and otherwise mutilate these children? Or was all the gore caused by snapping turtles? One supposes the filmmakers would like to have it both ways, as long as they can continue to argue for pardons.

The linchpin of the case is that Jessie Miskelley gave multiple and fairly consistent confessions before, during and after his arrest; anyone who can count can determine that the length of the interrogations has been routinely mistated. And it is misrepresented here. The police did not “sweat” the boy; he apparently wanted to talk. Unlike the other two in this case, Miskelley still had a smidgen of moral intelligence in May and June of 1993. He knew he had done wrong, and it often brought him to tears.

As for Baldwin and Echols, there are no signs yet that there is a soul in there.

Wow. Just wow. There are a few real journalists left, the kind with functioning bullshit detectors and a willingness to check facts rather than regurgitate the conventional wisdom.

629 thoughts on “A Real Journalist Reviews West of Memphis”

  1. Surpise, surprise, Terry Hobb’s defender, Gary Meece, found fault with the movie. I’m shocked.

    I thought he’d say “it’s finally time that we adjust our thinking to achnowledge that the City of West Memphis, et al, might have railroaded 3 teenagers into a wrongful murder convicton and 18 years in prison. There was no cult, the 3 weren’t involved; hence the fact that that no witnesses place them near the murder scene and no evidence was found putting them there. No DNA, no footprints, nothing. In fact, any evidence that was collected exluded them. And we might have to apologise to these celebrity types for the years they focused on John Mark Byers – after all, he was loud and huge and kind of scary and had a trifling but real criminal record and liked to play around with guns. And yes, Terry Hobbs lack of an alibi is troubling, his history of criminal activity and violence, his failure to notify his wife for hours about their son’s disappearce is suspicious, not to mention a hair consistant with his DNA found in the knot of a shoelace used to tie one of the victims – that looks really bad. I mean, do hairs just stick around on kids riding bikes & skateboards, waiting to become entangled in a knot? And we might have to admit that animals caused the mutilations to the body postmortem; but wait, if we do that the whole case falls apart!”

    1. The trash you call evidence against Terry Hobbs was plucked from his home and as one would know the defense needs a new goat since Byers fell thru and Hobbs was it ! They have lied and tried to manulipiate everyone they have come in contact with so the so called,not even his , evidence they have is just another ploy to try to sway everyones way of thinking that it was Hobbs ! For anyone to be able to sit down and tell someone exactly where they were 17, 18 or even 20 yrs ago , minute by minute is not gonna happen and while Hobbs was out looking for his child along with the other 2 boys and along with the town, and not really stopping to log his every second during this nightmare they were all going thru and still are as the big city , high dollar, rock and roll dudes, movies stars and all other people who really could care less that 3 small kids have died at the hands of vicious murders want to look at it, to go dig up any and every little thing about one human being cause they do need a scape goat, is sick and pathetic. Did not the rock dude say, the situation DE was in could have been him ?? Why would he say that ?? Did he have dirt in his life ?? But since he rock star now no one really cares about his dirt ?? I have things in my past some folks might consider dirt or bad or unruley or whatever one wants to call it, does that make me a supicious character ?? These 3 people said they did it . One of them keeps saying they did it . Where does it end ? How many more lives have to be disrupted ? When will the memory of those 3 little boys be what people remember ?? When does the ripping apart of peoples lives that just goes on and on and on ever gonna stop ?? For anyone who has followed this case from the beginning,as I have , it seems this whole thing has turned into a 3 ring circus and lets see who’s gonna make the most money and which book says it all and how many people we can convinece of this or sway to that side or believe this story or believe that documentary. All the HBO stories and the WOM documentary and all just bits and pieces of this or that and not one of them really tells all the truth, the whole truth nor nothing but the truth !! All from the lying , one sided , only want you to know just bits , only enough to try to make the three who said they did it,only the defense team because that is what they get paid to do . So in closing , I just have one question. Will Michael, Stevie and Christopher ever get to Rest In Peace ?

      1. I have a better question for you. Will you ever shut the fuck up, Donna/Pru/BA? Your fucking typo pedigree is ridiculously transparent. Jesus Christ, are you too stupid to proof-read your posts? It’s one thing to post like a moron consistently, and under your own name, but it’s another thing entirely to be discredited, then jump to a new identity making all the same signature mistakes. For instance, please stop putting spaces before punctuation marks. That’s not how it works. Also, doubling your punctuation marks doesn’t make your “point” any more convincing, it just makes you look like a bigger idiot. Next, the point of proof-reading is to catch when you’ve typed out a sentence that makes no sense. Very few of yours do, a little proof-reading can go a long way. I’m sure my old pal Egon would agree that this poster does her side a great disservice. What’s with the Eddie Vedder obsession? I’ve never heard ONE (and yes, in such a context it’s a good idea to SPELL out the number, instead of just putting the numeral, as Donna, Pru, and YOU so often do) supporter suggest that they give a far flung fuck about what Eddie Vedder or Johnny Depp have to say on the matter. Those guys served to bring awareness to the cause, not give it unimpeachable legitimacy. And the fact that you believe Vedder’s statement suggests he has some dirty secrets of his own says far more about you than it does Vedder.

        1. Jolly ,
          You are going nuts . LMAO I didnt write on this board for sometime . I been to busy . So leave BA alone Jolly and get on with your life .

        2. really? attacking grammar on the web? u r a loser. i bet u wasted an hour proof reading your stupid message, pissing in the wind. u sound like a 6th grader.

        3. I stopped reading after this post from “Jolly Roger”. This is a very typical approach to discredit any information that the writer doesn’t agree with, i.e. using expletives, and insults to make a case, when the only real case he makes is that another comment writer’s English skills are not ‘credible’. Since when does credibility have anything to do with education and/or writing skills? Although Jolly’s post did not make a case for the WM3 one way or another, it does show a tactic that would make me suspicious of his true motives. After reading a good deal of info on this site, it is clear to me that the jury made a decision based on much more credible evidence than any of the four movies on this subject. Does anybody look at their reasons for having an opinion on this case? IMO, it seems that there are two prevalent reasons: 1) Emotional response to a film, supported by hollywood, and music industry elite, or 2) Intellectual response based on reading all the details and facts…. Which path would you follow?

        4. It was not Vedder who said “that could have been me “it was henry Rollins , but they all feel that way, because they all know how small town minds nd police forces work.
          And I hate to say this but especially in religious communities , you find a suspension of disbelief sometimes bordering on psychotic ideation.
          This is partly what happened in this town. It only takes one authority figure claiming satan for the whole town to lose all sense of critical thinking.

      2. I can answer one thing: if my child had been missing and then found murdered and I had been looking for him or her, you can bet your ass that I’d remember every second of it…”not for 17, 18 or even 20 years” but FOREVER! It would be so engrained in my mind and heart that I wouldn’t be able to forget even if I tried!

        So, if Hobbs doesn’t remember or better yet, has conveniently forgotten selective time frames, he is not now or ever was mourning for the loss of that baby. In his own words from WOM he said and I quote,” I don’t give a shit what happened 17 years ago…” Any REAL grieving parent would have said,” the only thing I give a shit about that happened 17 years ago is that I lost my son!”

        1. true, people refuse to believe hobbs is guilty of assault and shooting a man, which was in paradise lost three, are you all blind?
          Hobbs was involved

      3. First of all, I really don’t like what I’ve seen of Damien Echols. I don’t know the guy personally but from what I’ve seen he’s a liar, and arrogant prick, and completely undeserving of his celebrity status. However, I think that those qualities are a pretty good distance away from murderer. After all, I’m a liar, an arrogant prick, and if I had celebrity status I would be undeserving. I’ve always felt this way since I saw the first Paradise Lost film 18 years ago. I would like to believe that Damien Echols committed these murders but then I wouldn’t be reading stuff on sites like this because I would be satiated that the evidence fully pointed at someone who was actually convicted.

        I never really believed that Mark Byers was the murder either. Yeah, he acted ridiculous in front of a camera, but I’ve seen enough news interviews where someone explained exactly how the tornado sounded to know that was all showman ship. Plus the evidence against him was circumstantial, just like the evidence against Echols.

        Hobbs, on the other hand, is the only name that has come up that the evidence points at. Where Echols is liar, and arrogant prick, and completely undeserving of his celebrity status, Hobbs is a little closer to the murder category by being a sexual assailant (arrested 1982), domestic abuser (not only accused by his wife, but by his friend and alibi, David Jacoby) and an attempted murderer (1994, just over a year after the Robin Hood Hills murders…NOT HIS PAST at the time). As for the hair that was found, secondary transfer could explain why Hobbs hair was found in the shoe lace if Jacoby’s hair wasn’t also found. I don’t believe that Jocoby was at the crime scene like the newest supporter theory says, but Jacoby’s hair could have gotten at the crime scene by secondary transfer from Hobbs if Hobbs had been at Jacoby’s home before before he was at the crime scene, which Jacoby has said he was on 5-5-93. Yes, Hobbs would have trouble today remembering where he was, so I can excuse that, but I cannot excuse the fact that the alibi he gave right after the murders (Byers) said he was not with Hobbs, and Jacoby said that he was only with him for brief stints during the night, Jacoby also said that Hobb’s left his four year old daughter at Jacoby’s house. Why would Hobb’s do that? Did he have to hide some bikes and some bodies and didn’t want the kid getting in his way? Also, according to Pam Hicks, when Hobbs picked her up from work he went straight to the phone and her daughter told her about her son still missing.

        On Hobb’s part, there is DNA evidence tying him to the scene (if not by his own DNA then by secondary transfer of Jacoby’s), lieing about his alibis, gaps in his whereabouts, and strange behavior on the night of the murders. If I were on a jury, that would suffice for a conviction.

        There’s also the pocket knife. Hobb’s claims that he took it away from his step-son in an effort to be a good parent. But, as fond as it Hick’s claimed Stevie was to that knife, I would think the kid would have gone crying to her about it being taken away and it would have turned into one of those household issues. Or possibly Hobbs would have told her about it, because after all aren’t parents supposed to communicate those types of things.

    2. DavidK: ” A woman who was at that time one of his 12-year-old girlfriends…”

      Do you really think that is accurate?

      1. Jennifer Bearden was 12 years old at the time, and she claims to have been Echols’s girlfriend. The journalist’s phrasing implies that Echols had other 12-year-old girlfriends, which is not accurate.

  2. “The judge commended the outside effort that had been made to win the defendants’ release. He said it was the first Alford plea he’d handled, but thought it was in the best interest of all involved. Judge Laser said: “I believe this ruling will give rise to discussions for a long time to come. I don’t think it will make the pain go away for the families of the victims. I don’t think it will make the pain go away for the families of defendants. It won’t take away a minute of the time these men have served in prison. This is a tragedy on all sides.” Gee, wonder what side he’s leaning towards…

  3. This article, along with the last few we’ve seen, is slowing eroding the facade of the WM3 innocence story. Thank you for continuing to post the truth, even in the face of all the Terry Hobbs conspiracy theorists (and Mark Byers, etc.)

    1. Yeah, LLcoolJ, this article is truly helping to erode the facade. Slowly, as you say (well, you say “slowing eroding,” which is clearly a shit-for-brains way of stating the point, but I got what you were going for). So I guess at this rate, the facade will officially be eroded in, what, 2065? That’s just an estimate I deduced by extrapolating the impact of this fascinating review that has surely been read by dozens, maybe even hundreds of people.

    1. I think the film brought up a plausible theory. The most far-fetched theory, in my opinion, is the satanic ritual one that the prosecution invented. Nothing about it rings true. It’s the stuff of fiction.

      1. I want to believe the WM3 are innocent. It would be less horrifying than what most likely in reality did happen.

        I, and nobody on this site believes it was a satanic ritual. It was a sociopath, a wannabe follower, and a drunk loser that killed those kids because they could. Not for any reason.

        1. Finally someone else has said it!!!! I believe they’re guilty after previously believing they were innocent from watching the HBO docs. When I read all the case files combined with Damien’s lies, his rehearsed interviews I changed my mind. I never thought this was a satanic thing either, just a sociopath who managed to convince two other kids he was something special. Now he’s got millions of people calling him their idol, it’s sickening.

  4. “[A]nyone who can count can determine that the length of the [Misskelley] interrogations has been routinely misstated. And it is misrepresented here…”

    Indeed, West of Memphis continues the tradition of misrepresenting Misskelley’s confessions in these respects:

    (1) Dan Stidham’s contention that the June 3 interrogation went from “morning till after dark” could imply to the casual viewer that Jessie finally broke down only after such an all-day marathon — when in fact Jessie implicated himself at around 2:20pm after having been at the station only since 10am;

    (2) A singular “confession” is mentioned in the film, when there are currently a total 6 confessions available on record (to police, his defense lawyer, and prosecutors) between June 1993 and February 1994;

    (3) The three-month period Misskelley maintained guilt to his own lawyer from June-September 1993 goes unmentioned;

    (4) Via its omission of the later statements, the film leaves the impression Misskelley never offered explanation of inconsistencies like the “brown rope” detail he’d offered instead of shoelaces, which he later contended was meant to “throw ’em [police] off track” and, I’d suggest, to minimize involvement (lack of complete knowledge of the tying up could lend credence to his insistence that he left the scene early). Not to mention, rescue worker Kevin Johnson testified he’d actually told Misskelley about the shoelaces, which, if true, may indicate Misskelley was dicking police around a bit, there, with a false detail.

    “The police did not ‘sweat’ the boy; he apparently wanted to talk…”

    Agreed. And don’t take my word for it. Take a look at how Misskelley himself later characterized his June confession in August of 1993, when speaking to his lawyer Dan Stidham. Again, during that summer he was still maintaining guilt. He agrees with Stidham that he volunteered the information and was in no way forced or threatened or made promises.

    http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s665/FredJWalsh/ConfessionwasVolunteered-StidhamandMisskelleyAug1993_zpsd315df13.jpg

    STIDHAM: “Okay. So basically what you’re saying is that you basically volunteered what you told them, you told them what happened and they didn’t force you to do it?
    JESSIE: Huh-uh. (Negatively indicating)
    STIDHAM: Is that what you’re saying?
    JESSIE: Right.
    STIDHAM: Okay. Did they make you any promises, talk about giving you the $30,000 reward?
    JESSIE: Huh-uh (Negatively indicating)
    STIDHAM: Or say they’d let you go home if you just told them what happened?
    JESSIE: They didn’t say nothing. They just said you tell me what we need to know, and stuff, and we’ll help you — and stuff.

    Filmmakers (and Dan Stidham) haven’t gotten more honest about the confession(s). They’ve just gotten a little more sophisticated in their deception since PL2’s infamous “12 Hour” Interrogation title card, which was rightly taken to task elsewhere on this site…

    http://wm3truth.com/2011/10/a-short-history-of-the-12-hour-interrogation/

  5. More and more people are realizing what utter bullshit West of Memphis, the Paradise Lost franchise, and Damien Echols and his minions spew. This is about to collapse like a house of cards.

    1. How would it collapse, exactly? You think they will arrested again? You know that there’s no evidence this is about to happen, right? No evidence seems to be a trend with the truthers.

      1. Reality will collapse the WM3 fraud. Granted, the slack-jawed, wide-eyed groupies such as yourself soon will begin to build a compound as the world “turns” against you. Lies collapse. The WM3 innocence meme is a pack of lies. How much effort has been spent to gather proof to exonerate these three? The answer, of course, is “none” since they are guilty. Intelligent and informed people realize as much.

        Enjoy the compound.

        1. Ralphie, seems to me you truthers are the one’s who have walled yourself in. You’re invested in the results of a sham trial and nothing can change your mind. Anyone who disagrees is a groupie, or a Hollywood lefty…or just plain unintelligent and uninformed.

          Seems to be you truther’s are a cult: do you hold regular meetings in a dark room, all wearing jackets adorned with merit badges you earned from reading Misskelley’s “confessions” over and over again?

          I agree that lies collapse. Many already have . That’s why the three are not in prison.

  6. It still pisses me off that I was a supporter for a long time because everything I knew came from the first two films which are solid propaganda pieces.

    When news got out about WM3 getting a new hearing it caused me to revisit the films which just reaffirmed my support for them. After I watched the films I went online to see what people were saying about the situation. That is when I encountered the Nons. Of course at first I was still defending WM3 and aghast that people couldn’t see the obvious truth that they were innocent.

    However the Nons didn’t use star power, edited footage, or wild theories. All the Nons used were the massive case files and said come to your own conclusion. After reviewing the files and digesting the information I came to the conclusion that I had been an idiot and the WM3 are guilty.

  7. Hey Spengler, if you’re reading this, I appreciated what you had to say on the last post. Unfortunately, there are too many douchebags on this site who, as soon as I post under my name, will then co-opt my moniker to make ridiculous posts. Unfortunately, they’re successful in their attempts to run me off, because I don’t have the patience to deal with that level of dickishness. I just want this person (or these people) to know that I believe they are fine examples of wasted sperm. I would have much preferred their slut mothers to swallow that load that instead ended up yielding them, a bunch of worthless, cowardly, wastes of space. Alas, I have no control over who their mothers fucked, or in what way their mothers internalized those loads, but, suffice it to say, I have little doubt they are miserable people leading miserable lives. So have at it, fuckwads.

    Take care, Egon Spengler…and good luck with the torch, Tangier.

    1. Yeah the impersonation is a pretty dickish thing to do and I would never do that, as Tangier accused me of.
      You take care too and thanks a lot for handing the torch to Tangier, I’ve had bowel movements that made better arguments than this polyp.

      1. Spengler, I’d thought perhaps you’d been put in solitary at the institution. Let you out to the computer in the rec room, huh?

    2. Maybe there is a way for this website to allow people to create permanent user names? Maybe not?

      They could still allow open comments, but having a way to prove you are you so no one can impersonate you would be great.

  8. Question for Joey and Tangier.

    What exactly did happen in your opinion? Please be as specific as possible. I want exact times for everything.

    From what I know of Terry Hobbs timeline, he is with his 4 year old daughter part of the time, with David Jacoby at other times, with his father in law, Pam, and other family members on other times. So in between all these times with various people he’s murdering three kids in a manhole, then later coming back in the middle of the night to move bodies and bikes? Why even come back? What is the motive to start killing children? One doesn’t just turn off that kind of psychosis very easily.

    It’s all a jumbled mess coming from your side. I want a clear timeline and plausible scenario.

    The Nons have absolutely no problem with exact timelines and detailing exactly what happened. Your side does.

    1. Sorry about getting so worked up over the waste of sperm here. You obviously know how I feel about that.. (as I lick my lips) I know I project too much these days, I keep telling myself I don’t belong here, but as you can see I spend allot of time here thinking about all of your sperm, non supporters. It’s like the Joey version of Green Eggs and Ham, you know I have thought of all possible variations you know.

    2. So you’re aware Steve Branch had old healed injuries on his penis right? Found on child sexual abuse victims. And Pam was showing interest in another man 2 wks before. He was getting rid of evidence before she left and Steve told! Why did he hide Steve’s knife? Why did he say he didn’t see boys when 3 witnesses saw him yelling to come home? Why lie about Jacoby? Byers likes standing by giving orders to younger blokes to beat kids holding shotguns apparently! Go read criminal profilers report cause it speaks volumes…

      1. Melissa Byer’s told school counsellor that she tht Chris was being sexually abused two weeks before he disappeared. Criminal profile from guy who knew nothing of these ppl clearly describes both Byers and Hobbs…

  9. “Byers’ whereabouts that night always have been fairly well-documented, so the suggestion that he was directly involved in the brutal slayings has been and remains a ‘straw man’ argument.”

    Again Mr. Meece has it right. Byers’ alibi was relatively tight and well-documented from 5:30pm onward. From his statement of May 19, 1993:

    “[W]hen I realized Christopher wasn’t at home, it would have been around 6:30… I left the house at 5:30 to come get my oldest son, Ryan, who was here at the courthouse testifying… [A]s soon as court was out…I got Ryan and we drove home. Well, we pulled up in the driveway, and I didn’t see [Chris] under the driveway… I asked [Melissa], I said, where’s Christopher…and [she] said, well, he’s right outside…She said, he’s been in and out a couple of times. He’s just right outside. So I…hollered across the fence to the neighbors, because sometimes he goes next door… We didn’t hear any answer, and then I told my son Ryan…go down and see if he’s playing with the two little girls down the street. So he took off down there and checked…he said, no they hadn’t seen him. So, we got in the car, my wife, myself and Ryan and started driving around our neighborhood…And about 7:30, we looked for about an hour, and I had come up here to Broadway and kind of sitting by the Dollar General…there was a black police officer sitting there in his car…I said, sir. We can’t find my son. He’s missing. He said, well how long have you been looking for him. I said about an hour or so…He said, well why don’t you give it ’til around 8 o’clock…if you don’t find him, call the police station…and they’ll send an officer by and you can give them a report… So…we looked a little bit more around the neighborhood before we made it back home… I called up here to the, you know, the main number. And they said okay, we’ll send an officer right over…Regina Meeks showed up just a few minutes later, came in and I told her when I last saw him which was 5:30 under the carport before I come up here to get Ryan.”

    With this simple account, corroborated by Melissa Byers and Ryan Clark, one could pretty much have crossed Mark off the suspect list — but then Berlinger & Sinofsky would have been denied the biggest walking, talking red herring (tm, Byers) known to documentary film. The piece of inflammatory, baseless horsesh*t that is Paradise Lost 2 rightly should have been the end to any claim of B&S’s professed “journalistic integrity,” and yet we live in a reality where they are Oscar nominees. It’s a strange world.

  10. If you believe the Misskelley confession(s); even just the basic elements; then your mind won’t be changed.

    If you think the confessions(s) are total crap, as I do; then you believe someone else committed the murders. http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessieFirstStatement.htm

    The someone else could be a stranger (unlikely, but possible) or someone who knew the boys, possibly a relative with DNA left at the crime scene.

  11. “The Ballard/Williams/Moyer testimony is highly suspicious. WMPD officers canvassed that neighborhood repeatedly in 1993 asking if anyone had seen the three murdered boys on May 5. How and why did these three witnesses avoid talking to police in 1993? And how do they remember the day and time so precisely sixteen years later?”

    “Terry Hobbs was watching Stevie’s sister play and wanted all the kids together.
    Then, I got in the car and went to church.
    12. On the night of May 5, 1993, I came back from church at approximately 8 PM. I
    did not see any kids out on the street at that time. I did not see Terry Hobbs at that time. I also did not see any police on the street. I had no idea that that kids were missing. There was no evidence that there was a search going on for the little boys.
    13. The next day, I saw Ryan at school and he was very upset. Ryan told me that the boys had never come home and that the police had found the bodies of the Stevie, Michael and Christopher. Ryan was so upset. When he told me that the boys had been killed, I said something like, “What, I just saw your brother last night playing in my backyard!” Ryan was crying and said to me, “Why didn’t you tell my brother to come home?” That really upset me and I told Ryan, “I did tell him to come home!” They let out school and everyone went home soon after that.
    14. Following the murders, the police never came to interview me or my family. In fact, after the murders, I do not recall ever seeing any police vehicles on my street or seeing any police interviewing any of the people in my neighborhood.
    15. If Terry Hobbs said he did not see Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, or Christopher Byers on May 5, 1993, he is not telling the truth. I know for a fact that Terry Hobbs saw, was with, and spoke to Stevie, Michael, or Christopher on May 5, 1993. I am absolutely, completely and totally positive that I saw Stevie, Michael and Christopher in my backyard and headed back to Terry Hobbs’ house on the evening of May 5, 1993. I am also absolutely, completely and totally positive.”
    Jamie Ballard 2009, under oath.

  12. “15. I believe Terry Hobbs was involved in the murders. Some of the reasons I believe Hobbs was involved are set forth below.

    16. Hobbs has claimed that the first time he met me was at 6:00 PM at Dana Moore’s house when Dana, myself and Hobbs were looking for our children. He has claimed that at this time, 6 PM, I said I was going to call the police and report my son missing. Hobbs has also stated that he and his friend David Jacoby were searching Robin Hood Hills for the boys at 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM. Hobbs’ statements ate false.

    17. In fact, I met Hobbs at my house at approximately 8:20 or 8:30 PM. I know it was 8:20 or 8:30 PM or so, because: (1) Dana Moore had last seen the boys riding their bikes around 6:00 PM; and (2) I called the police to report Christopher missing around 8:08 PM. Simply put, I did not and Dana Moore did not even think the boys were missing at 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM. At 6:00 PM I was in the West Memphis courthouse picking up my son, Ryan, who was testifying in a car wreck case. Officer Regina Meeks came over to my house to take the report after I called it in. Dana Moore, the mother of Michael Moore, saw the police car and came over to my house to report her son missing as well. As Officer Meeks was leaving, Hobbs walked up.

    18. I believe the reason that Hobbs’ incorrect statements about the time we met and when he was searching is so important is because in fact, Hobbs’ whereabouts from approximately 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM are wholly unaccounted for. David Jacoby, Hobbs’ friend, has stated to me that Hobbs came to his house at approximately 5:00 PM and that as he was opening the door to let Hobbs in, he saw 2 boys on bicycles and 1 boy on a skateboard ride by his house and that he believes one of the boys was Stevie. Jacoby has stated that Hobbs left at approximately 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM to see if Stevie had come home. No one knows Hobbs’ whereabouts from that time, 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM, until I saw Hobbs at the my house at approximately 8:30 PM. I believe that Hobbs has stated that he met me at the Moores at 6:00 PM so that he has an alibi for this time period in which his whereabouts are actually unknown. Jacoby also told me that he did not cross the pipe bridge or search in the woods for Stevie.

    19. Several years ago, I was talking to Hobbs and he made the statement that we had met for the first time around 6:00 PM on May 5, 1993. I told him that no, it was around 8:00 PM. He became enraged and started yelling, “it was 6:00 PM, it was 6:00 PM.” I believe he was trying to convince me that it was 6:00 PM so that he would have an alibi, and the fact that I knew that he was lying sent him into a rage.

    20. Hobbs also failed to tell his wife that Stevie was missing until he picked her up from work at 9:00 PM. This seems very strange to me. If a child were missing, the mother would want to know and I would think the stepfather would call her at work and tell her to leave work and come look.”
    John Mark Byers 2009, under oath

    1. I like when the supporters went after Byers instead . Only proves there is a fool born everyday . WM3 don’t have to provide any evidence that they are innocent . All they have to do is point fingers at someone else with secondary transfer and there you go . Has the WM3 provided any alibi yet ? Did they provide any evidence at all that proves they are innocent since they pleaded guilty ? Well now I see your point on how you come to the conclusion they are innocent . ROFL

  13. If you think the wm3 are innocent, it doesn’t follow that you have to provide an alternative answer to the mystery. Nobody but the killer and the victims know what happened. Not you, not me. JMB was focused on for good reason; the bloodstained knife, his history and general weirdness. Focus has shifted to Terry Hobbs for good reason.
    Nobody can prove the wm3 were at the murder scene. For that you need evidence.

    Random question: why would Echols, according to you Truthers the great satanic, criminal mastermind – why would he bring Misskelly into this? Hey, let’s invite the half-wit kid to come watch us murder and rape some kids so we can get caught? You all think he was smart enough to commit this crime, wash the crime scene free of evidence, right? And all without being seen.

    And Terry Hobbs..your stepson is missing and you don’t call the restaurant where his mom works to inquire whether he showed up there?

    1. If you think the wm3 are guilty, it doesn’t follow that you have to provide an answer to every mystery. Nobody but the killer and the victims know what happened. Not you, not me. Damien Echols was focused on for good reason; his obsession with the occult, his history and general weirdness. Nobody can prove Terry Hobbs was at the murder scene. For that you need evidence. Nobody can prove the WM3 were not at the murder scene. For that you need evidence.

        1. Your implication that the police shouldn’t have been looking into Damien Echols belies a fundamentally misguided bias, on your part.

          Before the WMPD ever arrested Echols, there were several reasons to believe he was a perpetrator of the crimes. First, his name was suggested by his parole officer as someone capable of doing it, based on knowledge of his demonstrated behavior and psychiatric hospitalizations. Second, when questioned four days after the crimes, and then once again five days after the crimes, Echols story of his whereabouts changed dramatically, in several respects, between the two accounts. Third, a family who knew Echols on sight came forward and said they’d seen him walking the service road in muddy clothes the night of the crimes, at a time he was supposedly at home. Fourth, a peer of Echols told police he’d privately admitted to the crimes on a very drunken night, but that Echols had then retracted his comments the next morning, citing drunkenness as the reason for having offered them. (This peer, William Jones, was set to be a witness for the Prosecution until he bailed out shortly before trials.) Fifth, there were various similar reports of Echols taking credit for the crimes in public spaces: the softball field, the roller rink, and around Lakeshore. And finally, on June 3, 1993, one month after the crimes, Echols’ friend Jessie Misskelley offered police a confession implicating himself, Echols, and mutual friend Jason Baldwin. Misskelley would go on to maintain their guilt to his own lawyer for three months, from the time of arrest through September 1993, and would offer a total of six (6) confessions available on record between the day of his arrest and the weeks shortly after his February 1994 conviction of the murders of Steve Branch, Michael Moore, and Chris Byers.

          I understand that you do not believe Misskelley’s confession has any basis in reality whatsoever. How then, do you explain his maintaining wm3 guilt for three months post-arrest, to his own lawyer, without police around to pressure him? He knew he’d gotten his friends (who, he’s said at one point, he did see in a neighboring room at the police station) and himself in deep trouble. Why keep telling a guilt story to Dan Stidham from June through September, 1993?

          1. But the people that place Damien near the scene also placed Domini near the scene. We are supposed to believe that they were mistaken when they saw their own family member, but are supposed to believe they did see Damien. Get real, I might not be from the south, where aparently you recognize people that you have seen before but can not tell the difference between your own niece with red hair and some strange boy with blonde hair, If you believe they saw Damien then you have to believe they saw Domini. So start over, Damien, Domini, and Jessie commited this crime and Jessie was the one mistaken. It was Domini not Jason there. Domini’s only alibi was her mother, maybe she lied to protect her daughter. See how crazy this sounds?

          2. I would agree that if the Hollingsworth sighting is accurate, it was Domini and not Jason they saw walking the road with Damien that night. They were consistently adamant that it was Domini they saw under highbeams that night, despite all attempts to suggest otherwise.

            To my mind the best explanation for the sighting was either that (1) it happened pretty much as the Hollingsworths said, or (2) they collectively lied about seeing Damien in muddy clothes with Domini that night. Would like to hear from them again. To date the Hollingsworths haven’t recanted their statements, and I’d have to guess there’s been some attempt made to get them to do that.

          3. Meanwhile my question for you (or for anyone here) still remains:

            How do you explain Misskelley maintaining wm3 guilt for three months post-arrest, to his own lawyer, without police around to pressure him? He knew he’d gotten in deep trouble both his friends (whom by his own account he did see in a neighboring room at the police station) and himself. Why keep telling a guilt story to Dan Stidham from June through September, 1993?

    2. Read Miskelley’s confession to his lawyer & the prosecution: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

      He describes how & why he met up with Echols & Baldwin that day if you are curious.

      The murder was a crime of impulse – a bullying that was escalated into muder by Echols & Baldwin specifically. No one is claiming this was the work of ‘satanic criminal mastermind’ . The whole thing is pretty pedestrian actually.

      1. That confession or the one where he said they met up at 9:00 am?

        I believe in the crime of impulse part, but my someone else.

        1. This was the confession he gave post conviction, and against his lawyers repeated advice.

          The same confession where he admits to misleading the police on certain facts in previous statements to ‘get em off track’.

          1. I’ll ask Amanda Hobbs. Aren’t you curious why Terry Hobbs ex-wife and daughter aren’t convinced of his innocence? C’mon.

          2. Not really. She sure spends a lot of time with someone she thinks may have murdered three children in cold blood.

            Cold hard cash will make Amanda say whatever you want her too.

            Do you deny money is a big motivator in lower socioeconomic areas?

          3. One can be forgiven for watching West of Memphis and concluding that Pam believes Terry had everything to do with the crimes.

            But. There have been some serious mixed messages from Pam. In March of 2012 she was photographed picnicking with Terry and Amanda and the grandkids — posing for jokey photos with Terry, and with her arm around him.

            http://www.terryhobbs.com/2012/03/day-at-park.html
            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8w_P_FPKYSs/T2_QtrnHCaI/AAAAAAAAAHw/rinCGq5tfqY/s320/Photo%2BMar%2B25%252C%2B7%2B17%2B24%2BPM%2B%25281%2529.jpg

            Further in that blog entry, Terry related a text he’d received from Pam: “Good morning. Thank God it will be nice and quite 2day. Thank u for your forgiving heart we know I have said stupid stuff mostly out of anger because I didn’t know sooner my baby didn’t come home. Forgive me for the hurt my anger caused. Have a great day!

            Between the photo and that text, does this seem like someone who truly believes that the man abused and then brutally slaughtered her child?

        1. If you pay her 50 grand, I have a good idea who she’ll say.

          If you’re not paying she’ll be going to BBQs with Terry Hobbs, keeping his last name, and hoping to get back together with him.

      2. Cory, that’s not what he told Ridge after the initial polygraph.

        Bryn Ridge (post polygraph):

        Jessie Misskelly, Jr.
        6/3/93 interview
        Me and Gary Gitchell

        Stated he had received a call from Jason Baldwin
        the night before Murders.
        They were going to go out and get some boys and
        hurt them
        Stated he received call from Jason, Damien in Background
        wanted him to go with them
        Said they planned something.
        Heard Damien say that Jason ought to tell
        that they were going to get some girls or something
        Jessie said he knew what they were going to do.

        1. Do you have a point? Seriously. What are you trying to say?

          Nobody believes 100% of what Jesse says, but that absolutely does not mean 0% of it is accurate.

          If you want to look up false confessions. Check out the Norfolk Four for a real example. Now those guys are almost certainly innocent, as opposed to the WM3 who are almost certainly guilty.

          1. Jack, why do you think Terry Hobbs didn’t call his wife and tell her Stevie was missing? Slipped his mind?

          2. Tangier – he probably didn’t want to worry Pam before he knew there was cause to really worry. Calling someone and stressing them at work is bad form. You call a mother at work and tell her that you can’t find her son and that mother is going to be in a panic mode until she lays eyes on him again. I’ve never found him keeping it from her until she got home odd at all.

          3. Bit odd that he didn’t ring to check the kid hadn’t shown up at his mums place of work though, isn’t it ? If I was in Hobbs’ shoes I’d probably exhaust that avenue first.

      3. I still believe it’s possible if not probable if the WM3 are guilty Damien’s occult interests did help warp his mind to the point something like this was possible. Do I believe if they did this it was an organized ritual? No, it was very disorganized.

        One thing that has always led me to believe the killer(s) are young is the poor way the bodies were hidden. A grown man (or men) could have hid the bodies better than just tossing them in a few feet of water. It doesn’t just speak of amateur it speaks of immature.

  14. Jessie wasn’t invited along to take part in a murder. It wasn’t pre planned, it was a thrill kill, a crime of opportunity. Why would Damien and Jason not distance themselves from Jessie after they were convicted? According to them they don’t know his whereabouts on the day of the murders. Why was it the WM3 and not the WM2?

  15. “The Ballard/Williams/Moyer testimony is highly suspicious. WMPD officers canvassed that neighborhood repeatedly in 1993 asking if anyone had seen the three murdered boys on May 5. How and why did these three witnesses avoid talking to police in 1993? And how do they remember the day and time so precisely sixteen years later?”

    Why? Because it was the last time Jamie Ballard saw them alive. Headed to Terry Hobbs.

      1. Re: Moyers

        Fame and money isn’t a reason to make something up 17 years later…is it?

        Very very little credibility.

  16. Is there evidence Ballard received a reward? Doubtful. Even if she did, would that mean she invented her story? No.
    Watch her statement at 6:20 into this video: http://youtu.be/_SeP5WaqsdE

    She is certain she saw Hobbs. Hobbs says he never saw his son that day. If Ballard is telling the truth (I believe she is) then the boys did not disappear into RH Woods, they went towards Terry Hobbs.

    I know he had Amanda that night. Wonder what she thinks…

    Hobbs’ Daughter Reacts to Accusations in WM3 Case

    Updated: Tuesday, 24 Jan 2012, 9:17 PM CST
    Published : Tuesday, 24 Jan 2012, 9:17 PM CST

    West Memphis, Ark. – Amanda Hobbs was four years old when her older brother Steven Branch was brutally killed along with his classmates, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers.

    The conviction and release of the West Memphis Three has consumed her since.

    “My whole life has been based on this. I grew up to this. It’s all I ever heard about my whole life.”

    Hobbs says she believes Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jesse Misskelley are innocent.

    But, the latest twist in the saga leaves her with mixed feelings.

    “I will never say I believe my dad had done it. Because it’s my dad. But why won’t he do the DNA or whatever their asking for. i Don’t know. I don’t understand that.”

    The West Memphis’ Three’s team of lawyers recently released new information that points to her father, Terry Hobbs.

    It includes depositions saying Terry Hobbs admitted to family members that he committed the murders and they are the Hobbs Family Secret.

    “It makes me ashamed to even say that’s my family but I know my little cousin, Michael Hobbs, who said this, he says they made it up, but how do you say you made it up and pass polygraphs?”

    Hobbs says she wants the case to be re-opened, although she knows it could mean her father becomes a suspect.

    “I feel like I’m going to lose my dad because he won’t defend himself. I feel like he’s eventually going to go to prison and I hate that. I hate to feel that way. It’s got me numb, I’m confused, I’m broken.”

    When asked if she could be certain about her father’s innocence, Amanda said, “No, I don’t know. I don’t want to feel that way.”

  17. It’s very clear that Tangier is new to the case. He watched WoM a few weeks ago and is now an expert. I’m going to ignore him from now on because his posts are either rude or have been answered a thousand times. If you asked him to look up Callahan he would go and watch a Dirty Harry film.

    1. Matt, you Truther’s are hilarious. I’m not touting myself as an expert. I have 1 merit badge for reading callahan through – you must have 8 or 9? Or, most likely, you made up your mind years ago and are immune to reconsideration.

      “answered a thousand times”? Jamie Ballard’s statements have been answered a thousand times? By whom? You and the other Truther’s on this blog? What was the answer…oh yeah, her memory was jogged by the promise of a reward and her times are in conflict with others (who might be wrong).

      Are you a criminologist? What makes you such an expert?

    1. Jack, seems there was a court picture of Echols flipping the bird too.

      P.S. I wonder how long before this moron claims a false confession? I mean, just watch the video. You can tell he went full retard.

    1. You could list children murdered by family members where the family member killed a child AND a non-related child.

      Much shorter list, I assure you.

  18. A mothers instinct…
    “Thinks whoever did this – the boys knew – at least one or all of the boys.”
    Re: Melissa Byers, May, 25, 1993

  19. It really comes down to this: the Gary Gitchell interview of Jessie Misskelley on June 3,1993, is one on the biggest miscarriages of justice in a criminal case in US history. If you believe his “confession” or even the basic elements, there’s not much that can be done for you. Seek medical help, because you’re nuts.

    1. You could probably get a little more traction on this line of thought if Jesse didn’t go on and confess another half dozen times over the next year.

      Oh I forgot….he’s retarded….right???

      You like to make fun of others about being “Truthers” and “Birthers”, while there is no evidence anyone on this site believes either of those conspiracies (I certainly don’t.) My politics are similar to Mike Blattys.

      Judging by your lack of critical thinking to not even realize there is another side of the story besides what biased documentaries tell you to believe, I know if we learned the real you, you would start to say a hell of a lot of more crazy and utterly moronic crap.

    2. Well 12 other people seemed to believe the confession was genuine. People who mattered in this case, unlike you and me. 12 people who were give mounds of evidence that the confession was coerced and false and decided otherwise. And 12 more might have had the chance to make that decision again.

  20. From Statement Analysis Website:

    Because Misskelley has an IQ of 72, this may account for some of his language. This may be the reason why he hesitates and repeats himself. This could be why he has withheld a lot of details, used present tense language and had some changing pronouns. However, his aptitude does not account for everything he said. If he was telling a truthful story, his language should still be consistent; did he leave or did he take off? His limited use of the phrase “you know” indicates he expects the detectives to take for granted what he is saying is true. He should remember if he held Michael Moore or if he brought him back after catching him. He should know approximately what time of day it was. Yet, his initial time reference is way off since the boys were still in school. He then changed the time he stated they were in the woods. His account of the injuries does not match the medical examiner’s findings. He states numerous times that he “left” or “took off.” When he mentions leaving the crime scene he usually changes his story. He said the boys were tied with a rope when they were actually tied with shoe strings.

    The authorities believe the discrepancies in Misskelley’s statement are due to the fact he is trying to minimize his involvement. However, his language indicates he was never there.

    1. If Misskelley was there, as I believe he was — you’re talking about an individual relating a traumatic experience one month later, an experience he had while supposedly drunk to the point of vomiting soon after — thus we can presume a fractured memory, by this point — all while he’s attempting to minimize his involvement, and tossing out occasional bullshit.

      Additionally, in Misskelley’s other accounts of things we know for certain happened — like recounting the day of his interrogation and arrest to Stidham/Wilkins or Ofshe, in December 1993 — he similarly jumps around in time and doesn’t always get the details right. So, telling a fractured story about something that happened in his past, is well within his skill set.

      You’re perfectly entitled to believe he was never there. Police, judge and jurors thought otherwise, as have numerous other people.

      1. – Tramautic event
        – A month later
        – Drunk to the point of vomiting
        – attempting to minimize his involvement
        – tossing out occasional bullshit

        Exactly Fred.

        To expect a “perfect” confession from anyone is unrealistic. To expect one from troubled bozo, loser, and child killer like Jesse is preposterous. (Albeit Jesse has a conscience unlike Damien and Jason).

        Did Jesse know details of the crime that he couldn’t have known unless
        1) He was there OR
        2) The police told him

        The answer to that question is unequivocally Yes.

        Therefore,
        1) The WM3 are guilty OR
        2) They were framed by the police

        Tangiers – you are the conspiracy theorist.

  21. Statement Analysis website on Terry Hobbs interview:

    Conclusion

    We can clearly see that at times Terry Hobbs is being evasive in his deposition and 2007 interview. He will always give an answer but often does not answer the specific question. This means he is withholding some information. Sometimes this information is revealed after repeatedly asking him the same question or reminding him that he is under oath.

    He stated that he tries to be honest which means he is not always an honest person. We saw this when he was asked about his drug usage. Not only did try to avoid answering some of the questions but he lied when asked, “What other drugs?” He answered “None” but then eventually admitted he tried crystal meth.

    When asked if he was mad at Stevie for being late he responded, “No. No. We didn’t act like that.” He repeats the word “No” and uses the pronoun “we” which means he did not personalize his answer. He does this again when asked, “Do you think it’s possible that somebody just got angry and got out of control?” Instead of answering “I don’t know” he replied, “We don’t know.” He is avoiding answering the specific question. When asked if he had a temper, he replied, “I try not to have.” The word “try” means he did have a temper.

    Hobbs wants us to believe that after taking his wife to work just before 5:00 p.m., he and his daughter drove around for a short time looking for the three boys. Hobbs met Dana Moore and Mark Byers around 6:00 p.m. to discuss where the boys might be. Hobbs and his daughter then went to David Jacoby’s house where he and Jacoby were together until 9:00 p.m. when Hobbs picked up his wife.

    There are several problems with Hobbs’s account of what he was doing the day/night the boys disappeared.

    David Jacoby has testified that Hobbs arrived at his house around 5:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. and played guitars for an hour. When asked about playing guitars Hobbs stated, “It’s possible.” If his stepson was missing, why was he playing guitars for an hour? Maybe it is because at that time Stevie was not missing. Jacoby also testified that when Hobbs came to his house “I believe I saw Terry’s stepson, Stevie Branch, ride by on his bicycle in the street in front of my house.”

    Jacoby further testified “Between approximately 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on May 5, 1993, Terry got up from playing guitars and told me that he was going to his house to see if Stevie was at home…Terry was gone from my house for a while.” When asked if he was alone searching for Stevie, several times Hobbs gave the weak denial “Not, not to my knowledge.” He said he was “pretty sure” he did not leave Jacoby’s house by himself. In his 2007 interview, Hobbs stated that he went into the woods “6 – 6:30.” This coincides with Jacoby’s testimony that Hobbs left his house between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.

    In regards to meeting Mark Byers and Dana Moore, Byers has stated they met around 8:30 p.m. which is much later than Hobbs’s statement they met between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. When asked if it was possible he was mistaken about the 6:00 – 6:30 time frame Hobbs replied, “It’s possible.”

    We can see that when he is confronted with what other people have stated, Terry Hobbs begins to change his version of what he was doing the night the boys disappeared. When we analyze his language we see that he is being deceptive in certain areas. This does not mean he killed Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. However, we cannot exclude him as a suspect.

    1. In PL2 ( 15 minute mark) Jessie explaines why he made the initial confession

      Because the police kept egging it on and on and on…..but none of that was true …because you can’t kill nobody without leaving no evidence and there was no blood, no fingerprints….and even when you’re a genius you can’t pull that off.

      WM3 supporters will probably agree because they fall for all twisted logic.
      But to me it is the logic of a manipulative SOB

      What he says is ..it took me 4 years in prison to realize i was innocent because there was no evidence

      jessie may be retarded, he is a manipulative lying psychopath just like Echols.

  22. you’d be surprised how manipulative people with even much lower IQ’s can be.

    ( ain’t i cute? is a manipulative trick even a dog knows how to play on you )

  23. Tangier…i knew you would fall for the logic in the mentioned PL2-interview.

    WM3 supporters( stupid as they are) use these examples of twisted logic as well

    1- absence of proof is proof of absence
    2- false confessions are proof of innocence

    but it’s double twisted when the convicted themselves use those arguments to convince us of their innocence. Or am i the only one to see that difference?

  24. The wm3 are out at shopping malls today, not in jail, Frank. Is that normal for people convicted to death/life for murder? Nope. They are free because people who knew they were innocent raised money to provide a proper defense, one denied them in ’93 when they were tried as poor kids by public defenders.
    Arkansas knows they fucked up. Hopefully, public pressure to find the real killer will force them to reopen the case.

    1. They are convicted and self-admitted childmurderers.

      BTW reading the Callahan archive will do you good. Especially all those transcriptions of interviews with people NOT mentioned in ANY wm3 documentary.

      Please read the complete Hollingworth clan and the Hungarian architect will lead you in a labyrinth of drugdealers, corrupt policedepartment and if you start off with reading the James Martin Statement, childpornography-networks will come to mind.
      It will make Hobbs look like a boyscout and it will certainly need a director like David Lynch to give it any credibility but it’s

      Enough to build your very own bandwagon.

  25. Ya’all know you’re a member of a small, ever-dwindling minority, right? The more people know about this case the more likely they are to support the wm3 and the pursuit of justice for the three boys.

    1. If you really felt that way Tangier, you would not be here.

      The fact that you are here and arguing with everyone when it is so obvious to you.. indicates your insecurities with your present view point. If the nons are so off base and so few, why waste your time?

    2. We’re all part of a dwindling minority. Now that the WM3 are free, public interest has dropped significantly and it will probably drop to zero after the Devil’s Knot film comes out next year. “Exhonerate the WM3” sounds a lot less dramatic than “Free the WM3.” I doubt there will be anything new in the future. What did 13 years, millions of dollars, two documentaries (at the time of release) and dozens of lawyers and experts produce? A hair that may or may not belong to Terry Hobbs and a witness who may or may not have seen the boys with Terry.

  26. By the way, Framk, you are a soulless ghoul. You don’t care that 3 innocent kids spent 18 years in prison. You don’t care that the murderer is still loose.

    1. Is he related to Lorrie Davis?

      Not so far fetched, seeing the other red herrings thrown out there.

      BTW, I didn’t need an alibi — but I have one.

  27. I don’t care 3 convicted and self-proclaimed childmurderers spend 18 years in jail. I hope their will be a lot of years more for them to spend there.

    OK Don’t read the transcripts or anything and focus your everlasting indignation on your next project. Your childmurderers are free.

    Great Clip BTW.. i saw Johny Depp and Eddie …Wonderful

    needless to say i will not respond to any of your messages again. Your 15 minutes are over.

  28. I’ve read callafuckinghan, Frank. Zzzzz

    Gotta listen to William Ramsey, Abomination author, in this radio interview. Aptly on Off Planet Radio. Apparently, they were able to receive his signal from Earth. Say hi to him, Frank. http://youtu.be/XhsF1XupRuQ

  29. “gave multiple and fairly consistent confessions “… Oh, yeah… OK. Like he named J&D in them, they happened were the boys were found and Michael ran away. Try to show me how else the were consistent. Cause they weren’t. I’m gonna spreadsheet this one of these days, and watch you all excuse the differences away.

    1. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

      His Feb 17 94′ confession is perfectly consistent with the crime committed. It even gives specific details on how some injuries occurred. The guy had something to say, and wanted to go on record.

      Focusing on inconsistencies in his initial confession as proof of innocence is a bit off because :

      1) he admits later on to misleading the police on certain facts to ‘ get em off track’
      2) most criminal confessions omit/change things (watch the First 48 some time)
      3) the volume & increasing accuracy of Miskelley’s confessions and how freely they were given

      Giving a purposely error ridden confession does not mean you didn’t do it.

      1. Exactly my thoughts Cory.

        Four years later Jessie said in an interview at jail that he initially told the police he didn’t know who dunnit because he was wrestling at Dyess.

        can you believe this little piece of s***?

        The Dyess alibi totally fell apart during the trial. Still it is used by teenage crackpot followers of the pro-wm3 movement.
        They apparently think well…Jessie says he was there and the prosecution says he wasn’t but we choose to believe Jessie.

        Within his capabilities Jessie is as much a manipulator as Echols.

    2. “I’m gonna spreadsheet this one of these days, and watch you all excuse the differences away.”

      Are you aware that there is a page on this site that discusses the discrepancies in Miskelley’s confessions?

      http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-6393-confession-discrepancies/

      I can’t speak for every non-supporter, but I agree with the site’s author that Miskelley was just throwing in a few lies in order to either fool the police into dismissing his confession as false (like Christopher Morgan’s) or give him an alibi later on. And I believe that Miskelley is capable of doing that despite his mental deficiencies.

  30. Misskelley made up the wild story because he thought he would get some reward money and because the police told him he could go home.

    If he had been there and is as smart and manipulative as you all say, why would he confess?

    1. I doubt anyone thinks Miskelley is smart and manipulative. He just lied about some stuff, that’s all. But I admit that’s just speculation, as is any theory by anyone.

      If he really was coerced into giving a false confession, why didn’t he he the stand and tell the jury?

  31. It just amazes me that people can honestly think that a person can confess 4 plus times before and after they have been convicted and it not be indicative of the truth. What inconsistencies are present in Miskelly’s confessions are admitted by Miskelly himself as being there to throw off the police…why? Because he wanted to minimize his own involvement. Having grown up around local toughs who were routinely in small time trouble like Miskelly, there is no way anybody with any experience in the system would confess to a brutal 3-child homicide and sexual torture case unless you were fucking there and did it!! Of course, Mkiskelly knew they would be eventually found out and was trying to downplay his role as just the guy who held little Michael Moore. Instead of the child raping Echols and Baldwin the castrator, I am just a drunk good ole boy who did what he was told. In addition to this point, I was a jail counselor for 3 years and can tell you people like Miskelly don’t confess 4 plus times without doing the deed. And he is no where as stupid and retarded as the murder groupies would like everyone to believe. Dan Stidham is the genesis of that myth and he started that to mitigate his clients culpability in the murders he knew Jesse was going to be convicted of. Why was local bully and overall tough guy Jesse having night terrors and breaking out in uncontrollable crying fits after the murders…Why could he not look up in court and continuously hid his head while on trial if he was innocent? Why because he and his cohorts are as guilty as sin. The thing I wonder about is how long is Miskelly going to tolerate being called in public forums by Echols as a moron. I am sure Echols is banking on mutually assured destruction to keep Jesse’s mouth shut. But he better hope Miskelly stays out of trouble and doesn’t end up getting sent back up. Then all bets are off.

    1. Nope, you’re wrong on everything.
      But Hobbs will likely walk.
      Arkansas has no interest in reopening the case, exposing itself to paying damages for locking up 3 innocent persons for 18 years.
      Such an injustice for the three little boys.

    2. Yeah,i remember initially Stidham said Jessie functioned on an 8 year old kid level, then it became a 5 year old kid level and in WOM he even dares to say a 3,4,5 year old level.
      And i saw some footage of his trial in between breaks or before a sessionstart and Misskelley walked around completely at ease with the numerous impressions around him. And also in PL1 while waiting for the jurydecision he seems quite alert with his family and friends and not at all as vulnerable as a 3,4,5 year old kid would be. It’s just pure BS.

      1. There were some another things that bothered me.

        The defense asked Gitchel if he didn’t think it important when a witness did NOT pick out one of the defendents from a photo line-up.
        Well…of course that’s important…if it weren’t that witness Aaron Hutchinson was showed a photo-line-up after he had said that the men he had seen at a cultmeeting all had their faces painted black.
        And yet another fine trickery example is Richard Offshe stating that Gitchel told Misskelley he flunked the polygraph WHEN HE DIDN’T.
        Again treacherous , because there was a bench conference in which judge Burnett
        ruled that Offshe nor any other expert witness could make remarks concerning the polygraphresults because they were not admissable and Burnett didn’t want a fight between defense- and prosecution-experts over guilt or innocence which was for the jury to decide.
        Still the biased opinion of Offshe is presented in PL2 as if it is an undeniable fact and the prosecution was lying about it.

        1. sorry for some misspellings like another i.o.other and showed i.o. shown. English is not my first language ( Dutch is) and i discover my mistakes often only after re-reading it 10 times or so.

      2. Doesn’t bother you, Frank, that the Wn3 were indigents? That Echols had to defend himself in a death penalty case with an unpaid public defender? Do you have any sense of justice? Any morals?

        1. there are also some clips on youtube where the poster of those clips asks himself…Would an innocent person behave like this?

          If i were to be in jail for something i hadn’t done and would have to wait 8 months till trial i would be so pissed. Every time i would see my lawyer i would ask “did they find the real killers? How’s the investigation going on?We’re wasting our time here.

          Didn’t hear nothing of that kind by none of the WM3.

          1. If they were innocent they wouldn’t have taken ( initiated) the Alford plea.

            And don’t say they lost all faith in the justice system…because you can’t have it both ways. If they didn’t have any faith in the justice system they shouldn’t have appealed their convictions as insisting as they did.

      3. The “3,4,5 year old” claim from Stidham in West of Memphis is his most ridiculous to date. Guy will have Misskelley in diapers if they make another movie.

  32. Imagine you’ve spent 18 years in prison, Frank, and for Echols, most in solitary confinement. You’re on Death Row. In the state that railroaded you on a false charge. And has continued for those years to deny you a fair trial. Why would you think you would ever get out? No same person would have rejected the deal.

    The real truth is out there, Frank, buried underwater, like Terry Hoobs says.

  33. I used to think along the same lines. But after all the lies of the wm3 supporters i began to realize i wanted the wm3 to be innocent so much that i’d taken the whole thing into an intellectual exercise. And in order to satisfy my indignation i had been neglecting more and more evidence.
    Whether i had been railroaded into that by the wm3-lies or by myself, rather wanting to believe those lies than question them, i don’t know, but i am still ashamed of it.

    How on earth could it be that the 2 names Jessie gave to the police both had no alibi. ( What coincidence). I really tried to answer that question, and the answers i came up with became more unlikely all the time. It’s where the conspiracythinking starts off. And that’s exactly what the supporters want. And i’m sick of all the lies that come from it.

    I watched WOM after not having read about the case for a long time but i was immediately appalled by the repetition of all those lies and when i saw the part with the Eddie Vedder concert and the reading by Depp and how Mara Leveritt stood listening in trance with a candle in her hand i felt sick to my stomage and i felt it to be the most awful injustice done to the parents of the three 8-year old boys only to be surpassed by the murders themselves.

    1. Agreed, Frank, the lies about the alibis are among the worst. Because what the WM3 proponents are trying to do isn’t limited to arguing that they DIDN’T do this — it’s become about arguing that they COULDN’T HAVE done this. An argument which does not sit at all comfortably with the available facts.

      To wit: Atom Egoyan, director of the upcoming Devil’s Knot, has said it is *not possible* for the Three to have committed the crimes. And Amy Berg, in West of Memphis, attempts to put forward information to indicate the Three had workable alibis — but of course the information is incomplete and misleading.

      Here’s a presentation about Echols’ alibi as put forward in West of Memphis. It’s pretty clear that Berg intentionally deceived her audience by leaving out information from the very same page that she was drawing selective snippets from.

      http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s665/FredJWalsh/Jennifer-Bearden-in-WoM_zps853dd50d.jpg

      When I recently posted this presentation to Berg’s wall with a politely worded question, I was removed from her page and the post deleted. Nuff said. If Berg were actually interested in the truth of this case above all, she would have engaged on the above points even if it were unflattering to her movie. She’s not. She has put forward her 2hrs27mins worth of info, regardless of its merit, as was her charge, and is done with it, apparently…

      1. ” Because what the WM3 proponents are trying to do isn’t limited to arguing that they DIDN’T do this — it’s become about arguing that they COULDN’T HAVE done this.”
        Couldn’t agree more.

        Since PL2 it also seems custom for the filmmakers to name some evidence presented at trial and then give the attorneys all the space and time they need to “put it all in perspective”. And to notice that every time they leave some incriminating evidence out, like in the Beardon statement. Or suggest that Michael Carson recanted. And the overall tone is “Now we know better”.

        In time everything is changed into a smooth story which it isn’t.
        BTW i suddenly remember a film about that subject by Raoul Ruiz.”Geneologies d’une crime “

  34. Frank…very well put! Tangier does it not bother you one bit that Echols repeatedly taunted the parents of the murder victims by licking his lips…blowing them kisses..and flipping them the middle finger…oh wait, these are all the actions of an innocent man…yeah right! I am beginning to think you must be paid to troll these boards. I actually think a majority of the supporters wonder themselves if they are not guilty but the pressure of group think keeps them chasing after red herrings like Byers and Hobbes…and that is why they go after them with such passion because if they did not to do it then our heroes probably did!!

  35. Frank,
    That sounds made up.

    Echols blows a kiss…this is so stupid. That makes him guilty? Well, I guess since there’s no other evidence.

    Not many reasonable people doubt the wm3 are innocent. That’s why they are out of prison, making up for time that the state of Arkansas took from them.

    Follow the DNA and you will find the truth

    1. That there hasn’t been conclusive DNA linking the WM3 to the crimes is far from exonerating. As Barry Scheck admits in West of Memphis, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” And a recent study of 400 homicides discovered that only 4.5% of the cases involved locating DNA from the alleged perpetrator. When taking into consideration that the West Memphis crime scene was outdoors, compromised by the search, and that the bodies were submerged overnight in water — and that all of this took place in 1993 — it does not surprise me that there’s been no conclusive DNA evidence.

      This argument “No DNA, the case goes away” is, to my ears, a reductive attempt to make wm3 innocence/guilt an easy determination that ignores the circumstantial, witness, confession, and limited physical evidence brought against them.

  36. yes Darren, the fingerflipping, licklipping and and kissblowing initally got lost at the cuttingtable of the PL docus. Better not show that. But now of couse it shows what an extraordinary independant person Echols already was when in his teens.
    And evolved to the marvelous philosopher he has become.

  37. “If you think the confessions(s) are total crap, as I do”

    The only people who think they are ‘crap’, are those who made that faith based determination long before even knowing more than one existed.

    This is clearly evidenced by the fact that you and your ilk can offer absolutely no explaination whatsoever for Misskelley insisting to his own attorney in private, on tape, post conviction, that he had indeed participated in the crime.

    For anyone of even average intelligence there really is only one explaination for this.

    Sadly however, you were duped into making an emotional commitment to these murderers prior to knowing this event had even taken place, and now when you try to dismiss it as meaningless,…. you just look stupid.

    1. Yes!

      I think this is spot-on because that’s exactly why I lingered as a supporter. I was emotionally invested in the idea that these 3 kids did not do this. It took some time to work through it, which included making a conscious effort to take emotion out of it.

      Remove emotion and look at the facts: the WM3 did it. Period.

      I can’t see how it’s possible that all the witness, circumstantial, and direct evidence of their involvement can reconcile with them being innocent. I suppose *anything is possible* but it takes an unreasonable amount of rationalization to make it so.

      Occam’s Razor

  38. Holy run-on sentences, Batman! If the substance of this article is as poor as the form, then it’s no wonder why the “truth” movement is considered fringe.

  39. Believe what you want, Farm. Doesn’t change a thing. WM3 are out of prison, not many support your viewpoint and the real killer is getting away with murder. As for looking stupid, that’s a trait belonging to the shrinking few, like you, that still think the wm3 are guilty. I guess when the Moore’s finally come around you all will too.

    1. No, most people are moving away from the WM3 being “innocent” as more facts have come to their attention after their release. Prior to their release, the people who believed they were guilty didn’t speak up because… they were already in prison. There wasn’t as powerful of an information drive prior to the release.

      Post release, more people have been motivated to speak up. Now as more people who’ve only seen PL1-3 as their prime source of info find sites like this and the growing list of other “Non” sites, they are changing their minds. The Nons are growing in numbers, not the supporters.

      Oh, and how cute – 4 minutes before your post, a random supporter shows up out of the blue to trash the article. Very, very cute.

  40. Other than the fact the 3 child killers known as the WM3 are walking about putting other 8 year olds at risk, they and their supporters shameless attempt to blame one of the actual victims in the case ( Byers or Hobbs) based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence is the second greatest abomination in this saga. A close third being the existence of a group of brain dead zombies and murder groupies elevating the 3 to hero status. As evidenced by the supporters here and their absolute refusal to answer any of the valid points indicating their guilt. All they can do is scream ” Hobbs…Hobbs…hair…shoestring.
    ” And Farm you are 100% correct in your assertion that the supporters are basing their support on a faith based emotional attachment….well said!

    1. How bout..”Turvey the actual qualified forensic profiler’s report? I’ll stick to facts and forensics, while you try to decifer the badly written english written statements from “witnesses” claiming reward money and tv time hokey dokey…

  41. This writing of Jason baldwin was posted by northpacific on the Salem website.

    Doesn’t it remind you of the FBI manual on what a guilty person would say what should be done to the murderers.
    Another thing to my mind is that an innocent man would not say this because he would know it was not up to him as a convicted killer to make a statement like this.

    And for the trolls….Does it proof guilt? no of course not….therefore it proofs innocence. yeah..sure

    “I lived for 18 years with people who committed serious crimes as kids. I lived with them when Bill Clinton gave his first State of the Union address. When DVDs came out. When the planes hit the Twin Towers. When Barack Obama was elected.

    I lived with them 10 months ago.

    In 1994, there were kids serving life without parole that I thought deserved it. They were convicted of murders and showed no remorse. Why shouldn’t they die in prison?

    But then, like kids do, they changed.

    It sounds so obvious to say that you aren’t the same person you were when you were a kid, but I saw people in prison who were punished forever as if they’d never be more than the worst thing they had done as a kid — as if, no matter what, they’d never change or be worthy of the chance to prove they might deserve release.” Jason Baldwin

      1. you speak as if it is whitout doubt that WM3 are the killers and that supporters are basing their support by troll – logic. If that is the case, can you justify, beyond reasonable doubt, that WM3 are the actual killers?

  42. Yes and the three killers walk free.
    According to the trolls yet another piece of overwhelming evidence proving their innocence. Yes trolls invented logic.

  43. Thinking about Kathy Bakken logic:

    Bite marks are absolute evidence. Match the bitemark and you’ll have the killer. None of the defendants teeth matched the bitemarks so that pretty much proves their innocence.

    Apart from the bullshit bitemark theory. What Kathy Bakken is giving us here is yet another fine example of troll-logic. ( keep it up Kathy )

  44. Kathy Bakken should be deeply ashamed of the way she hounded John Mark Byers in the PL documentaries. So should Mara Leveritt for blaming Byers in Devil ‘s knot. Of course, actually considering that their heroes are guilty as sin causes such cognitive dissonance that they latch on to anybody but the real killers…how ironic and hypocritical. Other less flattering terms like murder groupie come to mind when I think of Bakken and the rest of the KGB sycophants.

  45. So 2 convicted felons (rape, robbery etc.) Know who did it! By the way when they called the police back in 93 there was no answer so they just let it go….hahahahahahaha! Yeah right! Attorney Swindle in an attempt to swindle lady justice presented….never mind these new allegations are so ridiculous they do not deserve consideration. But the chupacabras are feeding as if the legal system will take this seriously. Amazing.

    1. http://wreg.com/2013/03/27/new-details-in-new-affidavits-about-west-memphis-murders/

      So now 17 year old LG Hollingsworth (former friend of Damien) committed the murder with Terry Hobbs! Makes perfect sense! It’s just too bad this contradicts with the Moyer sightings and the rest of team pyscho’s conspiracy theories.

      What happened to the sewers and the teenage mutant snapping turtles…and what about Hobbs going back and moving the bodies and bikes in the middle of the night??

      So preposterous, as is 99% of the garbage coming from team psycho. The only thing the supporter side proved after 20 years is that if you bring unlimited money into a poor community, you can buy a circus.

      1. What it actually comes down to is wherter it is without reasonable doubt that they did it or not, and since the procecution failed to perform a balanced investigation, both trying the guilt and inocence question, the inditement was biased and unfounded to begin with. The reason that WM3 was set free is because there are no evidence that show that the WM3 comitted the crime, in contrary their is reasonable doubt about it. This means that they never should have been sentenced to begin with, and it is unfortunate that prooving someones innocens comes down to how much money the defendant has in his or her pocket. So what this, after 20 years, comes down to is showing how deficient and fraudulent the juridical system, on levels beneath the supreme court in Arkansa, really is.

  46. “Believe what you want, Farm. Doesn’t change a thing.”

    I agree – what I believe had nothing to do with the fact that they were found guilty, and remain so today.

    Case closed.

    I do however still get a chuckle out of Echols groupies like yourself who continue to blindly insist that there was no evidence, despite the fact that the child murderers themsleves conceeded that even 18 years later they absolutely stood no chance of aquittal.

    It’s almost as if you don’t know what you’re talking about, isn’t it?

  47. The murdered boys were NOT raped or violated. There was no clear cut motive… the Hollingsworths were proven to be liars and fakes. Narlene especially, her own family dismissed her as a huge storyteller.Why and how did tehy do it? With all of the witnesses who claim they saw the boys, why weren’t there any audio witnesses to the murders?
    Where are the murder weapons? Being a wierdo does not a murderer make…

  48. any knowledgeable person can see that the wm3 are innocent and the true killer(s) are still out there. I’ve reviewed both sides of the case and IN MY OPINION they are not guilty. And yes i do believe the snapping turtle theory.

  49. The autopsy report of Michael and Steve states that their cause of death was drowning. This new “testimony” presented as a “strong witness” to what some Buddy Lucas allegedly admitted is completely inconsistent with what the report says.
    From the article;
    “The witness says Lucas told him Hobbs killed the boys with a pocket knife and mutilated their bodies.”
    None of the boys were killed with a knife according to the autopsy reports.
    Is this a “new witness” as the prior false once or is this Buddy Lucas admission of guilt a new Misskelley “confession”?

  50. Evidence shows the boys were beaten, yet none of the WM3 had scarred, scratched up knuckles and hands. There were no footprints, fingerprints at the scene or on the bodies, no clothing, no “ritual relics” left behind. The mud was soft around the murder scene, where were the “army boots” attached to Baldwin by some dumb witness? Army boots on a muddy bank would leave all kinds of tracks behind. There was next to zero shoe prints on the muddy bank; 6 people, 12 shoes frantically moving, running, struggling about- NO signs of any shoes? Bullshit.
    Other than Misskelly, who is a retard, where and why were the boys killed? No evidence of that except for a strange, coaxed and guided confessions that changed constantly. The poor kid didn’t even know the time of day of the difference between shoelaces and a rope. The murder scene was relatively clean of any incriminating evidence, is that the work of crazed teenagers- kill three boys and work frantically to clean up the site? No way… A thrill-kill, spur of the moment killing results in next to no evidence found, huh? At least none directed at the wm3, No way… does not work this way… thrill kills are what the Manson spree was about it- chaos, brutal, plenty of blood and evidence left behind, utter mayhem.
    This was somewhat controlled, the bodies possibly being dumped there only. Hobbs could have done it, he knew exactly where the search party was, knew the woods better than the wm3 kids and can not account for 6-9pm accurately.

    1. Why wouldn’t Hobbs’ hands be all scratched up and bloody then from beating the boys? He picked up his wife at 9:00 that night, you don’t think she would’ve noticed? He was wearing the same clothes that he dropped her off in that he was when he picked her up.

    2. Ace, there was a similar case in Sweden a couple of years ago which was widely broadcasted on TV and discussed, just as this one. A mother of two toddlers opened the door around 6 p.m one evening and someone attacked her and almost beat her to death and killed the two toddlers in a very brutal way with a hammer. The police imidiately arrested the biological father but soon let him go because they soon discovered that the mothers boyfriend had a stalker, a woman from Germany, who had been spotted on a camera in the subway just moments after the killing. The boyfriend said to the police that he didn’t have any contact with her, that they meet when he was on a vaccation a couple years back before he started dating the mother and that he didn’t have any contact with the german woman. When interrogated by police, the german woman said she hadn’t been near the house, that the reason for traveling from Germany to this small town was of studie and research purposes and not to spy on the boyfriend, and she claimed she never approached the house allthough witnesses said the had seen her walking near the house around the time of the murders. The police also searched her computer and found numerous of photos taken on the mothers house and on the boyfriend and the mother. The mystery was that the police and forensic team couldn’t find a single peace of evidence in the hallway of the house where the murders and attack took place, no fibers, DNA, hair. A Swedish professor in criminology said, when asked if it is possible to commit such a crime without leaving any evidence, that it is impossible to commit such a crime without dropping a peace of hair, fiber or other particales from clothes. He said the reason to why no such evidence were recovered is because lack in police rutin. If the police just walk into a crimescene and then out again the hair,fibers and such get stuck on their shoes and clothes when they tuch things so such evidence are indeliberately taken from the scene. Just as in this case, the first thing police should do is to call in a phorensic team and not walk around, removing or even touching the victims and so on to ensure the evidence remains on place. So, yes there were evidence on the scene just that they were not recovered due to lack in police and phorensic investigation.

    3. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

      Miskelley confesses to his lawyer and the prosecution. He explains he purposely mislead police about certain facts (like shoelaces/rope) to ‘throw em off track’. He was not coaxed into confessing, and in fact his lawyer is on record strongly recommending he not make this confession.

      He explains he feels he wasn’t as responsible as the other two for what happened – and certainly didn’t want to kill anyone. That is why he is confessing. I have not yet seen one explanation for why Miskelley gave the above confession other than the reasons Miskelley lays out himself.

      He describes most of the damage being done with sticks, which is why their hands aren’t cut. Your hands aren’t necessarily going to be damaged in a fight either.

      Finally there was blood at the site, luminol revealed it in several places. There is nothing that suggested this wasn’t the murder site to the investigators at the time.

      1. What Miskelley says in this interview is quite absurd since, if following his description, they where in the woods, got the boys attention, grabbed them as they approached, started beating them and so on. Miskelley says he beat one of the boys, he can’t recall what the boy anything about the boy moore than the word scout stood on the boys shirt. When the boy said stop, he stopped. When Damien told him to continue, he continued. When he was finished beating the boy he suddenly recalled he have to leave for wrestling (this would be after 9 pm, how many wrestling trainings start after 9 pm on a week day) and he just went up and left as if nothing had happened. He could remember the wrestling game but he couldn’t recall details of how he hit the boy, what the boy looked like, which one of the three boys he was hitting and so on. This is not a genuine confession since if it would than he has a very selective memory.

        1. I’m not sure what you are saying is absurd about the confession. It is completely consistent with the crime. This negates the common myth that Miskelley’s confessions are so ridiculous they can’t be true.

          No one can offer reasonable explanation as to why he is giving this confession (post conviction and to his lawyer) either.

          People harp on the errors in Miskelley’s confessions as meaning ‘omg he couldn’t have even been there!!!’. By this logic, any confession with any error in it (intentional or not) cannot be true, which is well … stupid. All confessions are ‘selective’ since the perp will often seek to lessen their involvement in the event to varying degrees. It doesn’t necessarily make them false.

          Look at the facts: Miskelley confessed 5+ times, never claimed coercion, offered these confessions freely in many cases (police ride, lawyers), and was not being given any sort of deal. Why don’t we believe him again?

          1. The point is more that it is inconsistent with what he is saying; first he claims he is to drunk to recall anything that could verify his statement, than he starts giving details on some things. This makes the testimony irrelaible, a continguency since it both could be true or false since at least one of the premisses are contradicted.

            The number of times he is admitted can also be because he is trying to plea bargin his sentence, he might think that if he provides valuable details it might lessen the sentenced time and conditions in jail. The first time he witnessed it was obvious he considered himself as a witness to a crime and not part of the crime. I think he was quite stunned by the fact that he got sentenced as an accomplice and his constant increase and changes of details for each of the confessions can be an attemped to make a change in his case and get a retrial.

          2. “first he claims he is to drunk to recall anything that could verify his statement, than he starts giving details on some things. “This makes the testimony irrelaible””

            This is how the majority of confessions go. Does “irrelaible” mean commonplace?

            Why is it that 95% of the points the truthers point out are so ridiculous they fail at every level of basic logic.

  51. A concrete fact attribution:
    In Christoper Byers autopsy report it states that 5.737 ug/ml Carbamazepine was found in his blood. Carbamazepine is used to treat bipolarism and sometimes epilepsy. Carbamazepine can also be used to releave extreme pain, such as during emasculation.
    Carbamazepine is given to bipolar patients who don’t respond well to lithium treatment.
    One of the sideeffects of Carbamazepine is that it causes blurry and reduced vision.

  52. Hello to everyone,
    I am going to be pigeon holed as a faith groupie supporter because WM3 came into my life thr0ugh the tv screen so apologies to all of you upfront. I wanted to engage in this conversation because I am from England and I am 100% against any country that still “legally” murdering people today, murder that’s approved by their law makers, calling it “state approved homicide” or whatever the terms used in their court of law, to carry out a sentence of death that is sought by the families of the victims, the police, the prosecutors and politicians, and the panel of neutrally selected citizens wanting to seek the beyond reasonable doubt threshold, that its ok, no blame on them, to take another human life to satisfy some sense of duty or whatever that faith is, that justice has been served.

    Fair and square. Job done. End of.

    I just don’t get it.

    I live on a small island that’s pretty much insignificant to the general scheme of things right, especially to you fellow humans in the US. We have not got the right to bear arms against oppression by the state or whatever like you have, we are not of the land of the free, land of opportunity or whatever because there’s little room here to swing a cat unlike yours. I’m not anti US, I’m of that age group that wishes the US today gave us that same inspiring feeling we all felt when NASA sent those 3 brave guys to the moon. All of that wonder and belief just vanishes when age makes us cynical and, in my humble opinion, I look at the US in horror these days when I see those documentaries on that death chamber in Texas and the methodical, sterile routine “procedures” that’s carried out by the chubby prison staff, executing 2 people a week is it still these days?

    I argued with myself for sometime what if the jury was wrong? What if they gave the lethal injection to someone who was actually innocent? How could they live with that. But then I reason out with myself, fck em. if a country that’s full of people who do nothing to bring about change that’s available to them should they unite, fck em because they just watch time and time again innocent kids getting slaughtered (yet to be slaughtered) in schools or cinemas by a “right to bear arms” crazy gunmen, fck em……justice served right? Got to protect and serve the right to bear arms and the right to legally send someone to death (that’s caged for 17 years or more but its not torture) fck em too. Never question the authorities right? They cannot possibly make a mistake, especially those that are paid to serve and protect.

    I just don’t get it.

    I read all of your comments and I just cannot find any compassion or forgiveness, it’s all about fck them before they fck you or fck you and you too.

    …and that state prosecutor who appeared to be well chuffed he saved the state $60 million in damages? Fck us all.

  53. I keep reading all the non-supporter’s comments and I just don’t see anybody pointing to any solid evidence that the WM3 perpetrated this crime. All I see is, “Why would an innocent person do this? Why would an innocent person say that?”. That along with a bunch of “he said, she said” BS. I believe the legal term for it would be hearsay. And why is it the non-supporters expect 100% proof of innocence?

    The reason this trial has gain so much attention is because three kids were convicted based on little to no evidence. The confession, you say? Have you actually read the transcripts? It wasn’t an interrogation, he was lead every step of the way until his “confession” matched the findings of the investigation. It is so blatantly obvious. Anyone who can’t, or more likely, doesn’t want to see this may as well throw facts and logic to the wind.

    But the right question isn’t being asked, or maybe I missed it. With the information and evidence that we have now, would a jury reach the same verdict, that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I don’t see how. Any good lawyer would laugh at the prosecution for even thinking about bringing this to trial. The flimsy case they had before has been shot full of holes. Did they fly the OJ jury in for the first trial?

    So to all you non-supporters, WHAT EVIDENCE?

  54. And just so you guys will shut up and stop asking why Misskelley made repeated confessions and somehow it proves he’s guilty.
    1. He’s not too bright.
    2. He felt stupid (I know, he’s not too bright to begin with) after being lead (yes lead) to giving the confession and it made him dig in even deeper. Refer to No. 1. In his eyes, his cooperation surely would lead to charges being dropped or lessened.
    3. Whatever you can think of. Who can explain why people do the things they do? What I do know is that his confession would likely be thrown out today or at the very least severely weakened by the way it was conducted.

    The fact is that the original confession was massaged out of him, not with questioning, but with an active role by the interrogators to to lead his confession to a story that somewhat aligned itself with the evidence. Any decent lawyer would beg the prosecution to put it into evidence. And how can the judge that presided over the trial repeatedly deny all appeals? Conflict of interest, anybody…anybody? Not only that, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld it. Why have trials, much less judges? Hell, just let the police be judge, jury and executioner.

    Definitely not a good decade for our judicial system. If you’re white, poor and different you can get railroaded for a crime you didn’t commit. If your black, rich and famous you can get away with murder, especially if the victims are white.

      1. Yeah, about as compelling as everyone saying, “he confessed multiple times, an innocent person wouldn’t do that”. I didn’t realize that everyone else was an expert on the things a person with an IQ of 72 would do under these circumstances. And he doesn’t give up a single thing without it first being fed to him. If his story didn’t fit they fed him leading questions until it does.

        1. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

          He’s not being fed anything. In fact Miskelley insisted he make this confession, against legal advice. This is the opposite of what you suggest is happening.

          Having a low iq is not correlated with confessing to criminal acts multiple times. Miskelley has no history of confessing/lying either, so we can’t write this off as typical behaviour for him.

    1. For a long time I also believed mp3 were innocent and I still want to believe that but there is one fact that I havn’t been able to look away from in this. After all the comments I read the Christopher Byer autopsy report, this isn’t my field so to say, anyway I found that this substance,Carbamazepine, was found in his blood. This is a very rare medicin, unless Byers was epileptic. This medicin is mostly given to bipolar patients who react badly to regular lithium – treatment. Today bipolarism is well known in compare to in 93 and these diagnosis were far as common as schizpoprenia for instance. So this fact narrows down the possible perpetrators drastically, either it is someone who is a doctor and have acess to this medicin, or it is a patient who has acess to it, or less likely a pharmacist had acess to it. So whoever did this had acess to Carabamazephine and also was most likely bipolar. Now look into the statics of how many bipolar patients who were given this medicin in 93 and you will have a very narrow list of possible perpetrators.

      1. Kevin,
        I’m not sure I understand what you mean about the meds. Byers was on medication for adhd, IIRC. Has it been suggested that he was drugged? I have never heard that anyone thought that he was drugged. Please explain how (or where) that was stated.

        1. Simply look at the toxicology parts of the reports. If they are reliable, one was given alcohol and the other had a medicine used to treat bipolar patients, I’m not sure if such substances are given to children as young as eight years old, even if they have adhd there are less strong medical treatment used when it is a child so I found this fact particularily remarkable.

          1. Damien had been in mental hospitals a few times and was under psychiatric care, likely on medication, but I can’t find a list of what he was on anywhere.

            We already know the WM3 had alcohol that night, maybe Damien tried to poison one kid with his meds as well. Either as a cruel joke or he thought it would help control them. Not easy to get a squirming kid to to take medicine though, forcing someone to swallow a pill even if unconscious would be difficult, so perhaps it didn’t work out so he abandoned trying to give it to all of them.

          2. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/suspects_10.html

            “Tegretol which is the brand name of the drug Carbamazepine. This is the same substance which was found in non-therapeutic amounts in Christopher’s blood after his death. Christopher had also been taking Tegretol according to his medical records, but Byers had stated that Chris had not taken his medication on the day that he went missing.”

            Nevermind, I finally did find the info on Carbamazepine. Apparently Chris Byers was on it, as well as JM Byers.

          3. Why would you bother? Here kid this will dull pain before I kill you! Are you ppl serious? Tht it was a frenzied attack? Geez who’s got low IQ again???

    2. “Any decent lawyer would beg the prosecution to put it into evidence.”

      It was – read Misskelley’s trial transcript. The defense attacked the confession from all angles, which included tough cross-examination of the police and expert witnesses. The jury knew about the leading questions and false statements (like the brown rope).

      “And how can the judge that presided over the trial repeatedly deny all appeals?”

      The WM3 tried this argument on appeal and was denied. Judges are assumed to be unbiased, and serving as judge in a trial where the defendants were convicted does not create bias in and of itself.

      “the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld [the convictions]”

      Read the opinions – they go through each of the arguments and explain their opinions, providing legal precedent whenever possible.

      1. Miskelley’s lawyer, Stidham, made one error though in saying that Miskelley couldn’t be sentenced to death due to the fact he is mentally challenged, which is true but Stidham should also have argued that a testimony from a mentally challenged person can’t be considered as evidence in court of the same reason as a testimony of a mentally ill person can’t be considered reliable. That way the court wouldn’t been allowed to use the investigation material in his trial.

        1. Stidham actually did try to claim Misskelley was retarted, but the judge was unconvinced:

          http://callahan.8k.com/images3/dec_hearing/december_21_929.jpg

          He also tried to have the confession thrown out on the grounds that it was coerced:

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

          Again, the judge was unconvinced and ruled the confession voluntary, a ruling the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld on direct appeal. In the end of the day, that’s all the judge was required to do; it was up to the jury to decide if the confession was truthful.

      2. When I said, “Any decent lawyer would beg the prosecution to put it into evidence”, I was talking about today’s standards, but it was obvious that the jury in this case didn’t listen to, much less consider anything brought forward by the defense. That is why they were given a deal and released.

        Judges recuse themselves all the time to remove the possibility of a conflict of interest. No one forces them. It is just the right thing to do.

        And the Supreme Court…again they were given a deal and released. Argue all you want about the actions, the verdict and the rulings of the judge, the jury and the Supreme Court. The original conviction supports your argument that they are guilty and their release supports my argument that the original conviction was baseless and didn’t hold water.

        1. I’ve given up arguing on the conclusions (if any) that can be drawn from the plea agreement; arguing either side requires inferring meaning in actions, something no human being can do accurately. All I will say is I do not consider a prosecutor’s lack of confidence in an 18 year old case to be proof of innocence. I found the evidence presented at both trials was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts and will consider the WM3 guilty until their convictions are vacated by a judge. I am unimpressed with the evidence they provided in their final appeals, and since that evidence never survived a court challenge, I consider it of little value when compared to trial testimony.

          1. An Alford plea isn’t a sentence in conventional terms, it is a legal compromise;
            the wm3 gained their freedom but of the cost to give up the right to claiming punitive damages

            the state “saved” 60 million but had to let them go.
            Hence, a compromise, nothing about guilt or innocence.

            John, do you consider a testimony of a mentally challanged person as sufficient evidence for convicition?
            I have yet not seen a single peace of evidence showing that they were anywhere near the crimescene when the crime occured, have I missed something?

          2. An Alford Plea is still a guilty plea. The WM3 have never been exonerated. Until that happens, I consider them the murderers.

            Regarding testimony of a mentally challenged person, I take that on a case-by-case basis. Misskelley is mentally challenged but not so mentally challenged that his confession should be inadmissible. Can you show me evidence to the contrary? Perhaps a similar case in which the outcome was different?

            Yes, you have missed something – the trials. There was plenty of evidence that they were at the crime scene (I won’t repeat it here – read the transcripts), and that evidence has never been debunked in court where it matters. Throw in a couple failed alibis and you got a solid case.

          3. An Alford plea is not a confession, they plea guilty for the purpose of saying that the state doesn’t have to pay them punitive damages but they have the right to retain their innocence. In this plea, no evidence are regarded, it is simply a compromise.
            In a legal working system it is “innocent untill proven guilty”, not the other way around.
            I have not read Miskelley’s medical journal, but in any case, a testimony isn’t an indicium(a chain of evidence), and cannot be an indicium, it’s simple a supplement to an indicium, which can help explaining it. When looking at Miskelley’s confession, he is on borderline of being an irrelaible witness due to his disability, but even if not, nothing he has stated is coherent with the facts or evidence, he even stated the wrong time of the murder itself, which someone who leaves a genuine confession simply wouldn’t confuse.

            I saw the trials, I saw how Mr Fogelman stood with a knife which he used to cut the grapefruit. This act is a joke since those wounds that he referred to were caused post – mortem and there was no evidence of knife wounds. Then there was the “satanic – panic” spindoctor. Then the other prosecutor talked about Alesteir Crowley, a well – known satanist who has nothing to do with Wicca, Wicca and satanism are two completly different believes, like budism – christianity. None of these things are “evidence” to anything, it is speculation at best. Are there any concrete evidence that shows that they were on the crimescene brought up during the trial?

          4. Wow, there are so many inaccuracies in your post, so please bear with me.

            First, you got one thing right – in America we are innocent until proven guilty. The WM3 were proven guilty twice – once in 1994 when they were convicted by two unanimous juries and again in 2011 when they plead guilty. I am very comfortable considering the WM3 guilty until they prove otherwise in a court of law.

            Now the falsehoods:

            Inaccuracies in Misskelley’s statements – there is one important thing he got right – the nature of the victim’s injuries that had never been made public. It has never been proven that information was fed to him, that he could have gotten the information from somewhere else, that he was abused, coerced, or threatened, or that he was offered a reward or leniency. The corroborating evidence shown by prosecution eclipsed the defenses’ complaints that the questions were leading and that there are inaccuracies. In Misskelley’s February 17, 1994 confession (one of six he made), he admits he lied about the brown rope to throw off the police. It’s possible he lied about the time and anal rape as well. That’s what the jury concluded.

            Post-mortem animal predation – this makes for great documentary filmmaking but has never been proven in court where it matters. In fact in 2008, in proceedings for a appeal, several defense experts testified that the wounds were consistent with post-mortem animal predation (they never examined the bodies). But the doctor who did the autopsy stood by his original opinion that the wounds were consistent with a serrated blade made while the victims were still alive, and flatly rejected the post-mortem animal predation theory. The appeal was denied.

            The grapefruit – Fogelman did in fact cut the grapefruit in his closing arguments. Defense objected, were overruled, and that decision was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court. During the trial, the defense suggested that the wounds could have been caused by a knife with a straight blade, which would contradict the opinion of the doctor who did the autopsy. By demonstrating on a grapefruit, Fogelman was showing the jury that knives with different blades make two different cuts, and that they should examine the testimony and determine that the wounds are consistent with a serrated blade. It’s not evidence, it’s argument.

            Echols’s religion – There was plenty of evidence presented at trial that Echols and Baldwin were passionately interested in Satanism and the occult. Much of that evidence came from Echols’s cross-examination (his alibi fell apart during that cross-examination as well). Also, the occult angle was presented as a motive, not hard evidence (there was plenty of that elsewhere). It went along with the argument that the horrific natures of the murders suggest they were committed by deranged individuals with a strong interest in the occult.

            I am starting to suspect that you got all your information on the WM3 from the documentaries and the parrot reporters who report on the documentaries. I used to think they were innocent too – until I took a look at the actual evidence used to convict them. I recommend you read some of the articles on this site and follow the links to the transcripts whenever possible.

          5. Oh, and one more: “In [the Alford] plea, no evidence are regarded, it is simply a compromise.”

            Wrong. The Alford Plea has everything to do with the evidence. While it’s true that in an Alford Plea the defendant is not required to allocate, he has to acknowledge that the evidence against him is strong enough to result in a guilty verdict if he were tried (or retried in this case). This is one fact about the Alford Plea the WM3 supporters conveniently ignore. In the hearing in which the WM3 plead guilty and were freed, the prosecutor listed the evidence against them. If that evidence was not enough to result in a guilty verdict, the judge had a duty to reject the plea. He didn’t.

          6. John,
            in two trials no concrete evidence were presented, the jury was in one trial biased and in the second they were convinced by a false grapefruit illustration by the prosecutor.

            Regarding the Miskelley confession, if you read the autopsy reports no conclusions are made that any of the children were raped. The rope story he corrected later by his common answer Yes, sir! and not by his own initiative.
            At least five professional doctors, including di Meio (or how it is spelled, who Perretti, the autopsy doc refered to) confirmed, indipendently that the wounds were made post – mortem by animals.
            The knife that Fogelman presented couldn’t be proven as used in the crime. Fogelman wanted to prove that the knife belonged to Baldwin and that it was found behind his house, the knife was found behind his house in the lake but nothing else could be proven about it. Fogelman claimed that the wounds on the bodies were the same as on the grapefruit, which simply wasn’t true.
            The occult religion you refer to is Wicca, read about Wicca and what Wicca is and stands for. Further, religous beliefs doesn’t make one a suspect in a murder.
            Regarding Alford, if there had been a retrail the WM3 would have wonn simply because there wasn’t sufficient evidence in the case. The things you list below are not evidence by “real unbiased” court measures. In order for them to be convicted there has to evidence that place them at least near the crimescene when the crime was commited and I’ve looked through a lot of material on callahan but never seen anything that physically places them on or near the crimescene. The state would have lost about 60 million dollars, that’s why they let them go, if they had been sure WM3 would have remained convicted after a retrial they wouldn’t have signed an Alford plea.

          7. You’re basically just repeating the same misinformation in your previous posts. My prior post pretty much applies to your new one. All you’ve offered is speculation.

          8. The things I pointed out above are documented facts and not speculations.
            Let’s reverse the question, what does it take to prove that someone killed someone in court?
            The least amounth of evidence that is required to convict someone for murder is to show that they were within close distance of the crimescene. In this case there are no such physical evidence showing that the WM3 was near the crimescene during the crime. On other hand, there are evidence against two other people that show that they might have been on the crimescene, plus one unidentified person who’s hair also was found on the crimescene.

          9. You said the juries were biased, the WM3 would have been acquitted in a retrial, Misskelley’s confession would be ruled involuntary, and that the state would have to pay $60 million if they were acquitted. Unless you can have a clairvoyant ability to read minds from the past and see alternate presents, that’s speculation.

            Regarding your question, read the closing arguments from the prosecution and the Arkansas Supreme Courts direct appeal opinions.

            Since the WM3 were convicted twice, and all of those convictions have withstood numerous appeals over 18 years, the burden of proof is on them to prove their innocence. While I have enjoyed reading your posts, you did not provide me with any new proof. I’ve seen all those arguments before and they are wrong, unimpressive, and/or never challenged in court.

          10. John, look at the end of the release trial when the district attorney says; I saved the state 60 million.
            By this statement it is clear that they knew they would probably lose a retrial because the new evidence show that the place where the boys were found was most likely a dump – sight and not the actual crimescene, and none of the WM3’s dna or other things that could have connected them to that sight, such as fiber, hair and so on could be found. Thereby Miskelley’s confessions would be worthless.

            The WM3 was granted a retrial because of the errors that the prosecutor made during the two trials, he didn’t try the question of innocence, and that’s why the first two trials were biased (only plea in speculation of guilt) and granted retrial by Arkansas Supreme Court.

          11. So you claim you are providing documented facts? Show me. Provide me with a link to the quote from Scott Ellington (or whoever) that said, “I saved the state 60 million dollars.” Did he say it a video? If so, what video and at what point in the video? And when did he say that the prosecutor made errors in the original trials? The Arkansas Supreme Court backed every decision the judge made in those trials, does Ellington know better? Are you sure you aren’t projecting your own logic onto someone else? Provide me a quote and I’ll believe you.

            Where is the documented proof that animal predation, and not a knife, caused the injuries? Where is the documented proof that it was a dump-site? That Damien Echols was just into Wicca and not Satanism? That the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by cutting the grapefruit? That the boys were with Terry Hobbs that night? That the jury was biased? And you haven’t addressed the failed alibis. Is it documented proof that the WM3 all had rock-solid alibis? Has a judge ever given any credence to these claims? If so, who? When?

          12. Watch the film West of Memphis. Pay attention to Riordan’s plea and how the Supreme Court sympathizes with his plea of the question of innocence not being tried properly, they even question the states attorney about it and he fails to answer. Ellington says it in the end of the film and in this clip
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKJ-94pwR0k
            The Arkansas Supreme Court didn’t back any of the states claimes, you got that backwards, they dismissed all the states claims, granted a retrail and exchanged Burnett for a new judge.
            The animal wounds – watch di Mailo’s statement in the film.
            The dump – sight claim was made by the FBI agent, also in the film plus written docs by him

            The pentagram is a WICCAN pentagram, not a satanistic one! They look similar but their not the same, google Wicca so you understand the difference between Wicca and Satanism, Wiccans don’t believe in God and Satan.

            I haven’t claimed they were with Terry Hobbs that night, I said that there are dna samples from two other people + one unidentified persons hair, see the film.

            Once again, it is innocent until proven guilty! Provide the evidence, real evidence, not occult speculation but technical actual evidence if you are so sure that the WM3 did it. You have not shown a single actual peace of evidence yet.

          13. I refuse to see any of the documentaries. I am familiar with the claims that are made in the films and other media, and have not found anything in the court documents to support those claims. Guilt or innocence is decided in court, not in the media. Show me something that was presented and accepted in court.

            Ellington just said that the Attorney General asked him if this was the right decision politically. If anything, it suggests that Ellington agreed to the plea to make it go away, not because he thought the case was week. When does he mention $60 million? If West of Memphis is the source, give me a time mark where he says it. Go watch the movie again if you have to.

            I believe you are referring to the exchange between Justice Brown and Riordan. This was for Echols’s appeal that DNA evidence showed actual innocence. Brown’s question was whether or not other evidence should be considered with the DNA evidence; it had nothing to do with the trial. While it’s true the Supreme Court overturned Judge Burnett’s decision and ordered a hearing in which other evidence should be considered, nowhere do they say anything about whether or not the WM3 were tried properly. And the fact that Riordan got tripped up by Brown’s question doesn’t prove anything. That’s what Supreme Court Justices do – ask challenging questions.

            Continued…

          14. You are wrong in several areas about the Supreme Court’s final decision. First, they did not dismiss the state’s claims, because the state didn’t make any. The defense made several claims in appeals over 18 years spanning all avenues – judicial mistakes, improper counsel, and actual innocence. They were all denied. Correction – not all were denied, the last one was abandoned by the WM3 when they offered to plead guilty.

            Which brings me to your second falsehood – that the WM3 were granted a retrial. What the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned was Judge Burnett’s decision not to have a hearing on the DNA evidence. This was not a retrial, it was a hearing in which the WM3 could present evidence of actual innocence (DNA, witnesses, animal predation, juror misconduct), and the judge would have made a decision on whether or not to vacate the convictions. Months before that hearing was to take place, Stephen Braga, one of Echols’s lawyers, pitched the offer to plead guilty to Scott Ellington and he accepted, making the hearing unnecessary.

            Third – The Arkansas Supreme Court did not exchange Burnett for a new judge, Burnett was already retired.

            Continued…

          15. Animal predation – A demonstration in a documentary is not evidence; you can’t cross-examine a documentary. In the 2008 appeal hearings, several forensic pathologists testified (and were cross-examined) that they believe animals made the wounds, but they could not agree which animal. Also, they could not prove that the boys were not in fact beaten, hog-tied, and drowned. One pathologist, Dr. Werner Spitz, suggested that the boys may have tied themselves up. Do they show that in West of Memphis? And none of those pathologists examined the bodies. The pathologist that did examine the bodies stood by his original trial testimony that the wounds were caused by a knife before death and rejected the other pathologist’s claims. Is that in West of Memphis?

            The prosecution made sure that the jury understood the difference between Wicca and Satanism, and that Echols and Baldwin were into the latter as well as the former. The fact that a Wiccan pentagram was in Echols’s possession does not prove he is not into Satanism. This is why I get frustrated when someone mentions satanic-panic. The prosecution made sure that the jury knew it was not about religion and appearances, it was about the evidence.

            The fact that none of the WM3’s DNA was not found at the crime scene does not prove their innocence. It just proves none of their DNA was not found at the crime scene. Instead of presenting this to a new judge at their scheduled hearing, they offered to plead guilty instead. And it cannot be proven that it is Hobbs’s DNA, just that 1.5% of the population, including Hobbs, could be a source of the hair.

            And there you go again with “innocent until proven guilty.” Whether you agree or not, the WM3 were proven guilty. I have not provided you with evidence for two reasons – 1) The evidence is well documented in the trial transcripts as well as this site, and 2) Since the WM3 were convicted twice, the burden of proof is on them to prove their innocence, not the other way around. And the only place to do that is in court. They had their chance and they chose not to. The fact that you and others do not agree with the verdicts does not shift the burden of proof to me. If they had been successful in winning a new trial and were acquitted, then the burden of proof would be on me. But that didn’t happen.

            [END]

          16. Correction – I said “It just proves none of their DNA was not found at the crime scene..

            I meant to say “It just proves none of their DNA was found at the crime scene.”

          17. I refered to the people in the film, all shown there is well documented. You asked to refer to the point where Ellington says, here it is on timeline; 135:02 – 147
            Yes, they could determine it wasn’t human but animal wounds, that is not knife wounds, and that’s all that matters.
            The Spitz judgment sound ridiculous and improbable, probably why they didn’t include it in the film.
            As I mentioned above, di Maio was Perrettis TEACHER, and he dismissed most of Perrettis conclusions as missinterpretations.
            About Wicca – The prosecutor spoke about Alesteir Crowley as main evidence for Damien to be seen as a satanist , and what the prosecutor missed, if we are to talk about Crowley, is that Crowley is a well – known philosopher who’s written numerous of works that are unrelated to satanism to. It is the same as with Nietszche, is everyone who follows him and nihilism a nazi because of his racial biology works, or can there be followers that like nihilism but not the racial works of Nietsche?
            However, I don’t see any connection or relevance for the prosecution about this since there are no signs of this being a ritual murder. That is, the point 1) if Damien is or is not a satinist is irrelevant 2) being a satanist isn’t the same as being a murder, one doesn’t entail the other.

            In the Arkansa Supreme Court hearing the state opposed a new trial for presentation of evidence but lost.

            Can you state some concrete evidence?

          18. While it is a fact that people appear in a film and present stuff, what they present is not fact. Until they go into court and get a judge or jury to agree with it, it’s their opinion, nothing more.

            No, what matters is whether a judge accepts the animal predation theory, not that forensic pathologists are presenting it. No judge has ever given any credence to that theory.

            I agree that the Spitz judgment sounds ridiculous and improbable. That’s probably why Judge Burnett was unimpressed by his testimony. And the fact that he got up on a witness stand and spewed that garbage should give anyone pause before accepting anything else being offered by the defense.

            The fact that Dr. Di Maio disagrees with his student does not mean he’s right. And why didn’t he testify at Baldwin and Misskelley’s Rule 37 Hearing in 2008 along with the other pathologists? At least the other pathologists were cross-examined. For that reason I consider their testimony of greater value than Dr. Di Maio’s film appearance. Not enough value to override Dr. Peretti’s though.

            Again – Echols and Baldwin’s interest in Satanism was presented as a motive, not direct evidence. That’s pretty relevant.

            Wrong again about the Arkansas Supreme Court granting a new trial. Want concrete evidence? Go to callahan, Pleadings, Pleadings and Court Opinions, November 4, 2010 and pull up one of the opinions. The last sentence starts with “Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.” An evidentiary hearing is not a retrial. I have a feeling you’ll respond with something like, “well they would have won the hearing.” Kevin’s confidence isn’t a retrial either.

            This conversation seems to be going in circles. You can have the last word, but I’m out. It’s been a pleasure.

          19. Cory, there was luminol testing done a shown on the callahan site, it was also assumed that the blood detected with the luminol wasn’t enough as pointed out by the FBI. I will follow Brent Turvey’s analyzes, the scene where the boys were found was to arranged to be the actual crime scene. Things were put in place in a way that they would not have been in the place where the murders took place. When the attack, there are defensive wounds found on at least Steven, which suggests he struggled and this would have left prints on the ground. There would not have been enough of time for the killer(s) to clean up the wooded area without being spotted, since they would have to make sure no fibers from clothes or anything else left of a physical struggle would be left in the gras, which is a time consuming task that can’t be made within an hour (including abducting, murdering and sinking the bodies of three children).
            If you look at the bikes for instance, they are neatly placed, linear on top of the pipe, not just placed there. The bodies are placed symetrically across the river bank, not grouped and bound togheter, their close are placed next to them so that they can be recovered, not shreded. This person has a narscistic/ perfectionalistic personality. In this persons world, things are and have to be placed in order.

            Another thing to, to emphazie Turvey’s analyzes, Michael Moore’s body was placed further away from the other two and less violantly damaged, it is like the killer wants to state to the public that Michael is of some irrelevance to his deeds. He was only killed as a potential witness.

            In these cases it is more probable that the children were lured into someones home, someone told them to come and check something out. From that location the bodies were taken to the dumpsight and placed exactly in the way the killer wanted them to be disposed of and later discovered.

          20. John, I would be horrified and deply bothered if I had to turn all my universitypapers over to a court before publishing them. To claim that all scientific papers are only valid if they’ve been tried in court, and by a judge that might not be an expert of that particular scientific field, sounds completley absurd.
            Science doesn’t withstand scrutny, but science is opposed by science, that is, new scientific evidence replace previous scientific evidence, as was done in this case.

            The fact that WM3 did approve an Alford plea doesn’t entail that the new scientific evidence are less of worth or less reliable, the reliability of those evidence is independently valid unless new scientific evidence would contradict them. As I recall, Jason Baldwin was reluctant to sign the Alford plea, so they didn’t just jump onto signing it. Further, it was clear that it wasn’t of the best interest to keep the WM3 in jail for another 10-15 yrs for a crime that lacked evidence of guilt. It was by reason that they would be released rather than have to wait for the same outcome. The fact that the new evidence contradicted the old once is enough for vindication.

            Further, at least five forensic experts made a judgment that was completly different from Peretti’s, not one of them draw the same conclusion or backed him up on it, including his own teacher, and that speaks for itself that his conclusions are far from withstanding scrutny.
            The murder was alleged to be a “satanic ritual murder” and the selecting of suspects was done by calling a church representative and ask who might be capable of such thing. The church representative, who clearily didn’t know the difference between Wicca and satanism pointed at Echols. And that’s how it began. Since we know today that this is no ritual murder, we can also conclude that the premisses this investigation began with are completely false which has lead to an unsuccesfull investigation full of speculative testimonies and questionable “facts” and in the end, if you have the false premises, they most oftenly lead to the wrong conclusions. And thereby, conclusivley, the killer(s) is walking as free today as he/they did the entire time.

          21. the selecting of suspects was done by calling a church representative and ask who might be capable of such thing. The church representative, who clearily didn’t know the difference between Wicca and satanism pointed at Echols. And that’s how it began.

            I’ve never heard this story. Who was the church representative? And who called him? Is there a record of this somewhere?

          22. Mr. Klein, you don’t want to argue with this guy. His ignorance of the case and the American criminal justice system makes it impossible.

          23. I don’t follow your line of reasoning in this comment since I’ve not refered to any US laws in this comment. I answered the comment above which refers to two statements made by two people in the Paradise lost documentary.

          24. You wrote “innocent until proven guilty” more than once in reference to the WM3, who have been proven guilty in a court of law. You consider opinions presented in documentaries to be proof of innocence, and ignore the fact that those opinions showed serious flaws when presented in court and ultimately failed to convince a judge. You consider Judge Burnett “corrupt” with absolutely no proof that he accepted bribes or favors. You think the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the WM3 a “retrial.” That’s just off the top of my head, I’m sure I could find more if I re-read your posts.

          25. John, the above comment was about statements made by Tommy Stacey and Steve Jones. The things you refer to is the comments prior to that, this comment was a response to the wm3truth, a reference to those statements and not to the law.

  55. A trial today would not be conducted the same way that it was then because the investagation would have been conducted differently. Things that were not tested then would be tested today. (the blood on the necklace, the luminol testing at the crime scene.) Forensics has advanced in the last 20 years and so has training in law enforcement. Why would Jessie’s confessions be kept out? And all confessions are “massaged” out. Most killers don’t just sit down and confess. Most recent example: Jodi Arias. She lied to but that doesn’t mean she didn’t murder someone, right? Ok, and please tell me where in Arkansas or anywhere else in the south your sideways statement of race is true.

    1. Jane, the blood on the necklace was tested, and the procecution sade it had the same kind of bloodtype as Jason och Steven and that they were going to say it was Steves, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKnGYZfuBBQ from Paradise lost, deleted scene.
      Also want to add to the discussion that a testimony, or confession is never sufficient to sentence anyone for anything. The reason why they believed it was Damien and the others is most probably because of Exibit 500 where it states that he is bipolar and that he treathend to eat his parents so they had to place him with another caretaker. So they did have reason to include him as a suspect, but not enough of evidence for a conviction.

      1. Exibit 500 came during the sentencing phase. During the trial there was no confession given to the jury. They reached a guilty verdict based on circumstanial evidence and Echols on testimony. His arrogance on the stand didn’t help him much.

        1. In the verdict Exibit 500 is a part of the evidence presented in the trial just as all the other evidence and was a factor in the sentencing. This part of the trial wasn’t shown in the paradise lost documentary.

    2. You also have to consider that if there were a new trial, prosecutors would make an offer to Misskelley again, and this time it would probably be more lenient. He couldn’t convince a judge his confession was coerced, and he couldn’t convince a jury is confession was false. It gets worse for if the luminol testing was allowed in the new trial. After spending 18 years behind bars, would he really want to roll the dice again?

    3. Why would Jessie’s confessions be kept out? Jesse didn’t give up a single thing without it first being fed to him. If his story didn’t fit they fed him leading questions until it does. Every bit of Jesse’s confession was given to him from start to finish. I don’t know how else to put it. Just like you said that nowadays trials are conducted different, things would be tested different, forensics and training have advanced, well interrogations are no different. Today they wouldn’t present facts during their questioning that could only be known by the perpetrator. They would try to get someone to make a confession that corroborated the evidence without it being mentioned in any shape, matter or form by the person conducting the interrogation. The exact opposite of Jesse’s confession.

      And the “sideways statement of race” was a reference to the OJ trial. You may have missed the comment from my first post, “Did they fly the OJ jury in for the first trial?”.

      1. Interesting. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are suggesting that if the WM3 were successful at their scheduled hearing, Jesse’s confession would be ruled involuntary and hence inadmissible in his new trial. That would mean that laws passed and/or Supreme Court decisions since he was convicted would set a precedent that would result in a new judge ruling his confession involuntary. If so, what laws? What decisions?

        I’ll give you an example: in Jesse’s first failed appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court said that a low IQ is not sufficient by itself to prove a confession was involuntary. Has that changed? Has a law been passed since then that says that if someone with a low IQ gives a confession, it is automatically deemed involuntary, even if he acknowledges that he understands his rights? If so, please provide the law.

        I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I’m actually curious.

        1. I think the point here is that Miskelley’s “confession” shouldn’t have been considered as evidence in the first place, the same as with the “satanic – panic” references they made. This trial lacked grounds from the start, they knew they had messed up the investigation, as Stidham said, the actual evidence that they presented were so vague so no conclusions to any suspect could be drawn based on them. They should have invested in a re – examination with a professional forensic – team instead.

  56. To all:

    Today is the first day of a Kickstarter campaign intended to raise money for post-production costs related to my documentary about the West Memphis Three. You can obtain more information here:

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1102312416/abomination-a-film-by-william-ramsey

    The film is currently in post-production. As 150 minutes of material has already been compiled, all that is needed are some additional funds to complete the project. Please help if you are able.
    If I can surpass the amount I’m looking for, I’d like to add an additional disc to the DVD case with visual information on the following provisional topics:

    Mara Leveritt and the Devil’s Knot: Grinding A Dull Axe;
    The Defense Rests: Obfuscation and Omissions in all Defense arguments;
    Fools on Parade: Hollywood and journalistic dupes, etc.

    I also just completed a small article about a data point many researchers have missed—the pentagram tattoo on the chest of Damien Echols. See here:

    occult911.wordpress.com

    Thank you!!

    1. William, you got the pentagram idea wrong, it is a wiccan pentagram, not a satanistic one. They look similar but their not the same. Wiccans are not the same as satanists.

      1. The way I see it, the evidence (or lack thereof) used to convict the WM3 could have just as easily been used to convict almost anyone else in the same manner. If the facts/evidence can’t be connected to any particular suspect you could pick a man off the street at random and get the same result. These types of cases should scare the hell out of anybody and everybody because it could be you or someone you know on the wrong end of the stick and I bet you would be changing your tune then.

        1. These cases are scary even if one catches the right perp since there are many others still out there. However, “satanic – panic” scenarios ain’t helping either.

  57. A couple yrs. back I was priviledged enough to get involved with an independent group looking into this case. The idea was to either prove or disprove the evidence using outside people. What we saw suggested that much of the evidence was either lost or tampered with. When the bodies of the victims were pulled from the ditch, they were placed on the bank, along with all of the items of clothing. The clothes were allowed to dry and then were placed in paper bags, not evidence bags from the police department, but from a supermarket! What should have happened is that the bodies, upon discovery, are left in the ditch until the water is “vacuumed” out. The articles of clothing would be placed in proper evidence bags and then carefully examined in a controlled lab by technicians. Any water removed from the ditch would then be filtered for evidence. The bicycles were removed from the location as well, before they were properly examined and tested for finger prints or fibers. The initial findings suggested by the WMPD was that the boys were brutalized, beaten and raped. In fact, none of the children were ever raped. There was no evidence to support the Misskelley claims that Jason and Damien raped the boys. Later, “experts” determined that the bodies were ravaged by turtles. The bite on Stevie Branch’s forehead was suddenly an animal bite. This is totally erroneous. The bite shape is clearly that of a human, and when the photograph of the child is turned upside down, it becomes evident that it is a human bitemark. The person who bit Stevie knew him, was angry with him and was standing over Stevie when he bit him. Stevie would have been on his back, his assailant possibly had him on a table or other such structure or both would have been on the floor with the assailant on all fours, and bit Stevie on his forehead. A bite is a “personal” thing, usually a parent or caregiver or possibly someone in a position of authority, who is very angry and loses control then bites the child. One of the members of the independent investigators has suggested that the boys were at their treehouse or someplace in the woods and were overheard talking about their situations at home. Chris Byers was often beaten with a belt by his stepfather, and it has been shown that he also was sexually abused by someone. Stevie also was sexually abused and it is likely that the two boys along with their friend Michael Moore, were commiserating about their shared troubles. They’d all brought along backpacks and extra clothing, indicating they were running away from home. If a parent or parents discovered them in the Robin Hood area and overheard a conversation whereby the boys were sharing stories about their homelife, that parent(s) may have become enraged and lost control. He then becomes a perpetrator of a very different type. Now he’s got 3 little boys to deal with. So what does he do? They have to be contained, controlled. So they’re tied up and moved to some place that is private. Things escalate and the boys are murdered. The killer then has to get rid of them. Obviously the person or persons responsible couldn’t transport the bodies to a location farther away, so they placed them and their clothes in the ditch.
    We have 2 parents who are “not” parents, but stepfathers. Both behaved strangely on the day the boys went missing. And later, Byers continued to act out in the oddest ways while being filmed for the documentaries. On the night of the crime, Hobbs decided to take down all the curtains in his home, empty drawers and closets and wash items that were essentially, clean. Both men have sketchy pasts. Byers’s wife, Chris’s mother, dies under mysterious circumstances after Chris is gone. She too, was a questionable figure in this whole terrible story. Some of the testimony given during the Echols/Baldwin trial came from teenage girls who claimed to have overheard things that Echols said or from someone who overheard someone else say something. This should never have been allowed in court at all. And then throw in the Hollingsworth testimony. Now we’ve really got problems. Not to mention the so-called “expert” in the occult who testified. Now the 3 men convicted of this crime have been released and there is still no viable suspect. Surely even in the backwoods world of West Memphis, someone can peice this together. If DNA didn’t match any of the 3 convicted but does match other known suspects, why hasn’t there been a real investigation into the murders? It’s been 20 yrs and that’s far too long to allow the memories of these little boys to fade into obscurity. Someone did this and they need to be found and punished for it. Misskelley is not the brightest star in the sky and was easily led to tell a very sketchy story, in fact he told several stories. None of which made any sense at all. He kept changing the story, the time of the crime, where he was, what he was doing and who was involved. Baldwin was a friend to a young man who was at the very least, troubled. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Echols, while not someone I’d befriend, was just a smartass kid with a huge chip on his shoulder. Just intelligent enough to read dark tales. He wore dark clothes and listened to dark music. Damien’s choice of music isn’t so cryptic. I listened to and still do, the same music. Jason and Jessie were tied to this by their association with Damien. Nothing more. I thought that Byers was involved from the beginning. After reviewing the evidence that was actually available I still believe he was involved, along with Hobbs and Hobbs’s friend. Both Hobbs and Byers had their teeth pulled after the discovery of bite marks, both were abusive, both had criminal backgrounds and both behaved in a manner which was questionable on the night the boys went missing. Hobbs kept a low profile after the murders, while Byers performed for the cameras, gave away a knife with blood on it and shot up pumpkins. Much has been said about this case, both for and against the 3 arrested. But no matter how much we discuss this case, the fact remains that the 3 are free, and someone out there is responsible for the murders. The actual murder scene was never discovered, or if it was, that too has been lost in the shuffle by inept police officers. And since Byers was a snitch for the WMPD, someone on the inside may have helped keep him out of prison. But my gut feeling is that the WMPD screwed this case up so badly that vital evidence was destroyed and lost, thus creating a case with no real suspects. At least not in the beginning. So someone had to pay the price. Afterall, this is the South and those good ol’ boys weren’t about to let this case get pushed aside. They would have called for an arrest and demanded that the WMPD do it’s job. So in order to quiet the locals, a case against a trio of troubled teens was built around rumor, fear and myth while the real killers sat back and let them take the fall. And let’s not forget the two men who just a yr. prior to the murders, decided to profile Damien as a Satanist. They conducted a yr. long investigation into occultic activity in West Memphis, going out all hours of the night during known satanic holidays, questioning locals and gathering “evidence” that never quite came to fruition. They could find no such evidence. But that didn’t stop one of them from proclaiming that the murders “had Damien written all over them”. Damien Echols is not a squeeky clean individual and not anyone I’d want to associate with, but neither are Hobbs and Byers. Echols and his buddies took the wrap for a crime they didn’t commit, but the killer(s) is still out there. And the 3 victims are still dead. Justice has not been served.

      1. Without revealing too much information, mostly due to the fact that John Mark threatened us numerous times, our research included the evidence collected at the time of the murders and all materials collected after. It also consisted of 2 of the group going out to the murder scene and the surrounding area. We reviewed the evidence and tried to piece together the events of that evening. I dropped out of the group shortly after being threatened by JMB and didn’t participate in any further investigations. I did, however, receive updates from a couple of the remaining team members. As I stated in my first post here, the bite mark on S. Branch is crucial to this case and was labeled as animal predation. That’s bullshit. I have just enough training to know that that mark is not from any animal except the “human” variety. If you have access to a photo of that bite, look at it again. Turn it upside down and then compare that bitemark to other human bites and animal bites. What animal could make such a bite? And keep in mind that all 3 of the convicted submitted dental impressions, and all 3 were excluded as the “biter”. On the other hand, 2 of the stepfathers had all of their teeth removed. Now ask yourself, why? I firmly believe that this single piece of evidence could have been a huge game changer had proper forensics experts been used to work this case.

        1. Is that, as saying JMB’s teeth were tossed after removal. He must have visited dentists before the removal and there must be saved xray scans of those teeth. Couldn’t the xrays be compared to the bitemarks?

          1. That dentist’s office mysteriously (conveniently?) burned down some time ago. As for Hobbs’s dentist records, I’m not sure.

          2. can’t you go further back into JMB’s history, which dentists did he visit before then, or maybee he also went to a dentist in another city or state. I think Hobbs dental records won’t be needed in this case.

  58. When you look at the bitemark, keep in mind that part of it is on his forehead while the other part is in a more fleshy part, the eye socket below the eyebrow. This change in texture would make a difference also. It’s been some time since I’ve discussed any of this and I will have to go back and review some of it. Not sure I want to do this. This case gave me nightmares, literally.

    1. What alerted me was Carabamazephine. This is because of the fact that one avoids giving this kind of medicin to an eight – year old child, there are less strong drugs used to treat ADD at that age so I’d like to know what made the doc prescribe that particular medicin to Christopher in January 1993?
      Carabamazephine can also be used to releave extreme pain, such as during emasculation.
      About Hobbs, Hobbs contradicted himself at least four times during the interview in 2007 but unlike the perp one is looking for, Hobbs doesn’t expose a sexual – aggresivity issue with his sexuality as the perp has. In contrary, he seems very sure about his sexual orientation.

      1. Most child molesters do not identify with being homosexual, even if they molest a child who is the same sex as they. So this crime is not about sexual orientation, per se’. If the perp was in fact molesting one or more of the boys, the bites and emmasculation of Christopher was not about that. It was about total domination of the child. It’s about overwhelming anger and “taking over” of the victim. When the bodies were placed in the water, Chris and Stevie were placed in close proximity to one another. Michael was placed farther down from them, as though the perp was making a statement. He, Michael, didn’t “belong”. He was merely there as an afterthought. An accidental victim of sorts. Michael’s family dynamic was different. His parents were still together and as far as I know there was no abuse present in their home. Because he was friends with the two other little boys, he went along with them when they “ran away”. Chris had been punished and whipped with a belt on his last day alive. He was left to clean up, alone, locked out of his own home. No eight yr. old should be pursposely left alone and locked out. Especially considering that other child murders had occured in very recent yrs. in that same area.

        1. no but deeply and chronically depressed people, who have pedophilic tendency, can have a confusion between sexual – agressive behaviour. It doesn’t necesserily imply rape but has strong sexual influence.

          I said the same thing in a comment above as “Michael was placed farther down from them, as though the perp was making a statement. He, Michael, didn’t “belong”.” Michael was as Turey persumed a colletoral victim.
          My impression, the way they were placed and their bikes were placed was well and neatly organized, the bikes were placed linear on the pipe facing the same direction and the bodies were symetrically placed and not stacked and bound toogheter. The clothes weren’t shredded but well – kept. That is a sign of someone well – organized, a bit pedantic and with a firm rutin.

          The perp had to have keept them inside for 1-2 hours and then drove of with them to the Robin Hood Hills sight.
          Is your team still working on this?

          1. I lost contact with the others in the group as I’ve been very ill for sometime now. Your comment about the perp being “well organized” is a good point. That was perhaps one of the most obvious things to me in the beginning. I knew that 3 teenagers were unlikely to have behaved in that manner. Especially one who’s IQ is so low. And Baldwin was just so young at the time. Echols, for all his oddities, didn’t even know the children and since the crime is so personal, it was less likely to have committed by any of them. The crime scene had a [purpose]. It was too clean, too neat. I’ve always felt the boys were taken to a remote place to be murdered. I read a few of the comments here and one person suggested that they may have tied themselves up. That is the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard.

          2. That person was Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic expert for the defense. You’re right, it is incredibly ignorant. Keep that in mind when you consider other evidence from the defense.

          3. The claim by dr Spitz was defentively ridiculous. Teenagers are not that organized in general but it couldn’t be excluded that this is could be done by someone unknown to the victims. JMB was said to have strong alibis, and if that is correct one is looking for an unknown perp. An unidentified hair was found on the crimescene, but that could have been there before aswell. What could be said is that it is a person with severe agresivity issues and following Turvey he had to have lived close by given the time frame and his possibility to return home without anyone noticing. He must have done it very carfully and somehow knew where the search party was at, since he wasn’t in panic to just dump them as quick as possible he must have had an idea about where the people were looking, and he might have chosen the other side simply to avoid them seeing him. He couldn’t, in advance, have known where exactly they were going to look. Turvey stated he must have gone to the place prior to check that the water was there but this is overanalyzes in my opinion since he couldn’t have known in advance that noone was going to be there at the time he arrived (unless someone else checked it for him).

      1. No teeth marks? Look again. You can clearly see, if turned upside down, the two largest impressions are crooked. The person who did this had a very distinct bite. The mark is imperfect. If the handle of a knife was used, it would have been less round, and not quite as large. Look at some of the pictures of the victims of Ted Bundy. The bite marks are very similar. No knife made those.

        1. “Dr. Mincer, president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology and an expert in the field of forensic odontology also concluded that the mark over the eye brow of Steve Branch was not a bite mark within a degree of reasonable medical certainty.”

          http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/ruling.html

          The mark was on the forehead and of a small radius (for an adult male). Odd place to bite someone, not an odd place to strike someone.

        2. The “bite mark” issue was covered in a 1998 Rule 37 hearing stemming from an appeal from Echols. Basically he tried to prove that the mark was from a human bite, but failed. From Judge Burnett’s opinion:

          “The bulk of the testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that no bite mark could be identified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”

          “The testimony of Doctors Peretti, Sturner, and Dugan, and that of Val Price and defendant’s investigator, Ron Lax, established that there are not identifiable bite marks on the photographs of the bodies.”

          “Dr. Harry Mincer testified that the identification of bite marks is not an exact science. Dr. Mincer, president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology and an expert in the field of forensic odontology also concluded that the mark over the eye brow of Steve Branch was not a bite mark within a degree of reasonable medical certainty.”

          2kd, did you read the transcripts of this hearing and the Judge’s opinion?

        3. I l’ve looked at the picture now, not something I easily do.
          My impression is that it is most likely a human bite – mark but I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that it might have been a turtle. It is defenetively not a knife, the pattern is to asymetric for each cut mark to be from a knife.

        4. Well there you go. Ignore the opinion of Judge Burnett, who heard testimony from several expert witnesses and applied his immense knowledge of the case and Arkansas criminal law. Kevin looked at the picture and thinks it’s a bite-mark. Case closed. So how ’bout that pardon, Governor Beebe?

          1. John, Burnett is not divine, his judgement can also be questioned. Burnett is the same judge that defended the testimony of the “satanic – panic” doctor when the defense lawyer questioned how he could call himself a doc when he hadn’t taken any courses on occultism, which is a very relevant question if he is suppose to be considered an expert in the field.

          2. Wow, just about every single post of yours contains misinformation. Judge Burnett did not defend Dale Griffis’s testimony. If a judge defended the testimony of a prosecution witness during a criminal trial, that would be an irrefutable indication of judicial bias. Judge Burnett simply allowed him to testify as an expert on the subject of occultism. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Are you smarter than them?

            If it is so likely that the wounds are human bite-marks, why did Judge Burnett deny the appeal?

          3. Hmm.. Burnett told the defense to stop questioning about the mail order phd and doc certificate and said it wasn’t relevant. If that is not taking sides than what is?

          4. If it’s clearly bias then why did the Arkansas Supreme Court disagree? And you didn’t answer my second question.

          5. “Judge Burnett simply allowed him to testify as an expert on the subject of occultism.” He couldn’t verify he was an expert.
            “The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Are you smarter than them?” When did they affirm that, all I saw was the supreme court hearing where Riordan questioned why the question of innocence wasn’t tried by the prosectution during the two trials. When was Burnett/Griffis mentioned? was there two supreme court hearings?
            “If it is so likely that the wounds are human bite-marks, why did Judge Burnett deny the appeal? ” Because of the same reason he didn’t bother to verify if Griffis was an actual expert, he was corrupt.

          6. The WM3 made several appeals over their 18 years of incarceration. The one I refer to is the direct appeal in 1996. This is a standard type of appeal that occurs after virtually every conviction, the purpose of which is to evaluate the trial judge’s decisions. There were several more appeals spanning virtually all areas of the case.

            I find it odd that you have browsed Callahan 8k dot com and are not aware of this. This is a good time to ask yourself if you truly know enough about the case to make firm decisions. Callahan can be confusing but once you get the hang of it it’s not that hard to navigate (for example, Echols’s Rule 37 testimony is in the Transcripts section, but the pleadings and opinions for that appeal is in the Pleadings section).

            If you read only one case document, read the direct appeals (there are two of them – one for Misskelley’s trial and one for Echols and Baldwin’s trial). It gives a full summary of the case, the evidence presented, and why the judge’s decisions were correct, which the Arkansas Supreme Court backs up with sound logic. I’ll point you to the direct appeals – go to Pleadings (top menu), Pleadings and Court Opinions (first item on page). Now do a text search for “Arkansas Supreme Court: Opinion (Misskelley)”, then “Arkansas Supreme Court: Opinion (Echols & Baldwin)”.

            So now Judge Burnett was corrupt? Are you suggesting he accepted money from someone to make decisions favorable to the state? Where’s your proof? Running for senate 16 years later is not proof.

          7. Those are interesting articles. So when has a judge overturned Judge Burnett’s decision to allow Griffis’s testimony? And again, where’s the proof that Judge Burnett took money to make decisions favorable to the prosecution?

            I have a feeling that we are at an impasse here. Cory and I place the highest value on trial testimony and the lowest on the media. You and 2kd seem to have the exact opposite view. Cory and I provide references to trial evidence and appeals decisions, and you respond with an article or a scene from a documentary, as if that is strong enough to debunk trial testimony. People like Cory and I will never feel that way. Your extremely limited knowledge of the case and criminal law doesn’t help either. By your own admission, you were unaware there were other appeals besides the one shown in West of Memphis. That’s pretty ignorant.

            One of my favorite books is “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” There’s a chapter called “You Can’t Win an Argument.” The reason is because your opponent’s ego will force them to stick to their point of view no matter how much sound logic you give them. I’m not a mind reader, but I suspect that is what is happening here.

          8. I’ve not claimed he took money, you suggested it. If you see the latest post I added about the fourth boy from the trial hearing you refered to and then compare it to this link below, then you will realize that everything noted in court, such as the Vicki Hutchinson testimoney, isn’t bullitproof information and that new evidence can ovveride old once.
            A discussion is based on opinions, neither you or I can winn unless we magically come over proof of who actually did this.
            http://www.jivepuppi.com/woody.html

          9. You called him corrupt, not me. “Corrupt” means to take money or other favors in exchange for a favorable decision. Getting elected to senate is not proof of corruption. Show me the money.

          10. no, corrupt means to disregard once obligations or expectations for personal gain, it doesn’t necessarily need to be money

          11. I assume you meant to say “disregard one’s obligations for expectations of personal gain.” Ok, so we don’t know if Judge Burnett got money. What then? A new house? A country club membership? A blowjob from Fogleman? Show me the reward.

          12. It was a highly publicly focused and mediacovered case, both the procecution and the state were under pressure to convict someone, anyone, so they pushed it beyond reasonable conduct just to be able to say that they had someone that they could convict. The corruption if the lies and fabrications of testimonies, confessions and fabricated evidence to be able to tell the public they had suceeded in doing the job, that was the reward in this case.

          13. Ok, just so we’re clear, there is no evidence Judge Burnett received money or special favors, correct?

          14. Nope, perhaps he was given money, who knows. Either way, he was guilty of corruption by his biased missconduct regardless of wether or not he recieved money.

  59. I read all the transcripts yrs. ago and I used to go to Callahan & jivepuppi all the time. But it’s been a while. Burnett, in my opinion is corrupt. Since I’m not from the area, but some in our group were, they filled me in on some of Burnett’s little quirks. I’ll have to look for my notes and all the timelines that we’d developed for the parents of the victims. I see from the posts today that there is a lot of emotion here and a lot of opinion as well. I can respect that. It’s always been a really tough case with not a lot of concrete answers. People made statements then took them back and made up stories and then recanted. I doubt that anyone will ever pay the price for this crime unless the perp is stupid enough to tell what he did.

    1. I agree, no one will pay the price for the crime. They had the right guys but were forced to let them go. But as long as the WM3 remain convicted, they are the murderers, and it is their responsibility to prove otherwise.

    2. The sad part about this is that the focus of this case was so wrong from the start, if the FBI profilers had been called in from the start and the forensic investigation had been conducted as you described above the chances of actually catching the right perp would have been far more probable. But these perps always make misstakes and hopefully further investigations can lead somewhere even if it is twenty years later.

      1. FBI should certainly have been called in, especially considering these were very young children. And let’s also consider that in recent yrs. there had been similar murders in that area and surrounding areas. This alone would at the very least, put into question the possibility that it might be someone else who committed the murders. Several other children, including eight yrs. old and up, were murderered. Look it up. It is well documented. http://www.jivepuppi.com/jivepuppi_ghosts.html

        You can read about them here.

        1. I read this horrific list, some cases share some similarity to this but if it was one of the perps from one of these cases it would be required that he had access to Carabamazephine, following Turvey’s analyzes.

        1. That sounds implausible, the only interest here should be to proove who actually did it. No police investigation collects a list of names of suspects to proove their all innocent, which is what your implying. Unless you can proove guilt their innocent, no compromise, simple fact of justice.

          1. Again, we’re at an impasse. You won’t consider them guilty until I prove it and I won’t consider them innocent until you prove it. It’s been a pleasure.

  60. From 96 supreme court hearing;
    http://web.archive.org/web/20000824033616/http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996a/961223sc/cr94-928.html

    “Between 6:30 and 6:45 Brian Woody saw four boys going into some woods known as the Robin Hood woods. He noticed that two of the boys were pushing bicycles, one had a skateboard, and a fourth one was just walking behind them. Neither Michael, Christopher, nor Steve returned to their homes. Their parents called the police, and a search was begun.”
    Anyone who’s heared something about a fourth boy?

    1. I remember someone mentioning a 4th child, but I believe it was later discounted as just a mistake. The person who claims to have seen a fourth child was upset and later recanted the statement. That’s what I remember, again, I’d have to go back and search my notes. After finding this website yesterday, I realized just how disturbing this is for me. It’s always been so, but now even more so as I’ve been so ill. Not sure I can continue, but will try to find what I can.

      1. That testimony clearly diviated from the others. I refer to read the interview
        between Gitchell and JMB on callahan, it is as diviating from all other things as this testimony.

      2. Here’s my take on the fourth child: an anomaly, nothing more. The lack of explanation for this alleged fourth child does not prove the WM3 are innocent. Several other people testified that they saw the boys heading toward the woods around 6:30, the last known credible sightings. A couple people came forward 16 years after the murders and claim to have seen them several blocks away with Hobbs, but the guilty pleas prevented them from testifying.

        I agree, this is a disturbing case. It’s fun to research cases, but sooner or later you say, “oh yeah, three little boys were murdered.” That’s the reason I can’t watch the documentaries, it brings me too close to the suffering. I prefer the boring court documents.

        I hope you get better.

        1. I think people get emphaty from hearing cases like this and want to engage to help find an answer. I think the documentaries and film is where most people get to know this story. I saw Damien on a swedish talkshow about a month ago, and that’s how I first heard about it. Even if the documentaries are “angled” I think, in the end people make up their own opinion and don’t just by the story straight from the producers. I think this is an important case to keep discusing to be able to gather knowledge to prevent these cases in the future and know how to better deal and recognize child abuse.

        2. My understanding would be that this 4th kid was Aaron Hutchison. He in fact gave many statements to the police that he witnessed the murders. His stories however were so everchanging and very very erratic and out of left feild that he was never called as witness? Later we find out that his mom, Vicki, was feeding him information to tell the police. But from what I understand, Aaron was still standing by his police reports(some of them) that he did witness the murders up until at least 2003ish. What’s really interesting about the Aaron Hutchinson part of this saga is that Jesse Miskelley had babysitted him many times and knew him and Vicki very well. After Jesse took his polygraph and failed, the police began to question him for another 2 hours. It was when Gitchell played a tape of Aaron talking that Jesse began sobbing and started his confession(1 of 6).

          1. The Vicky Hutchinson influence in this case is difficult to understand, she was an abstraction of justice in my opinion.

          2. Her testimony was used to corroborate part of Misskelley’s confession. In his confession Misskelley told police he would attend cult meetings in the woods with Damien Echols, and Vicky Hutchinson testified that she went to a cult meeting with Misskelley in which Echols was in attendance. She recanted but since the WM3 plead guilty, her recantation will never be properly evaluated for credibility.

          3. Well, we don’t know if she was being truthful when she said she lied. She’s a self-confessed liar after all, so for all we know the recantation could be a lie and her trial testimony could be the truth. It’s too bad we never got to see her recantation evaluated in court, like in the Troy Davis case.

          4. exactly my point, she’s not a credible witness. The same with Aaron Hutchenson. Therefor, testimonies shouldn’t be considered evidence by themselves.

        3. Thank you, I hope I do too. I agree with your statement about the 4th child. I don’t believe there ever was one. I looked through my computer for notes and I can’t find them, wish I could. We had some intersting information. Wish I could remember it all, but it’s too much. I forgot about the Huchinson boy and his “part” in this horrible story. There certainly were/are a lot of colorful characters involved in this case, including the detectives, judge and attorneys. From the beginning, this case was improperly handled. Had the FBI been called in, the investigation could have been much more productive. The WMPD most likely didn’t want them around though, for fear of other problems already evident in their department, coming to the fore.

          1. I’m not too familiar with the details of the investigation, but whatever mistakes the WMPD made are irrelevant. They suspected the murder was cult-related due to its grizzly nature, got to know the people who are involved in cults in the area, found a local weirdo with a history of mental illness and violence, then started questioning his friends, which ultimately led to the Misskelley confession.

            As far as I am concerned, the WMPD’s handling of the case was vindicated by that confession. If the mistakes lead to innocent men being arrested, it was the WM3’s responsibility to prove to the jury that these mistakes amount to reasonable doubt (and they tried). Hindsight is 20/20, and I’m sure if the WMPD knew the murderers would walk free 18 years later they would have done a better job.

          2. The 4th boy in the woods:
            “Detective Bryn Ridge was on of the first to question Aaron Hutcheson regarding the murders. Aaron Hutcheson told the police in the first interviews that Mark Byers hated kids and named him as the possible killer. Vicky Hutcheson says that Detective Gary Gitchell had both her and Marion police officer Donald Bray sign an “affidavit of silence” pledging themselves never to mention that Aaron had named Mark Byers as the killer.”
            Without a proper investigation all you have is an assumption that because someone has long hair, dresses in black and listens to Metallica, they’re instantly suspicious? What if the “suspect” had been over 40, female, dressed in black, has a tattoo, listens to Ozzy and drives a little too fast? Would they have arrested [me] instead :)? I’ve also read a lot of occultic books and choose alternative medicine over traditional forms of healing. So if ever there is a murder in my community and the investigation is anything like this one, I’ll be the one the go after. Jerry Drive and Steve Jones teamed up a yr. prior to the murders to investigate what they perceived as occultic behaviour in the WM area. They’d wait until a full moon or a witch’s sabbath or some other occultic holiday, drive around all night and question locals about the so-called activity. They decided that graffitti in the area was of a satanic nature, but in that entire yr. they were unable to prove one single thing about these activities. They once saw Damien and a couple of his friends walking around with long stick they’d found, and according to Driver, they were “staffs” and Damien was wearing a long, black trenchcoat that appeared sinister to Driver. So upon the discovery of the bodies of the victims, Damien was the first person Driver thought of. Not only did he think of him, Driver actually said that the murder had Damien’s name written all over it. That in and of itself may not be so wrong, and certainly detectives had a responsibility to follow up on all leads. But anytime there is a child murder, the first line of questioning is with the parents. Hobbs was never questioned, neither was Mr. Moore. The “grizzly” nature of the crimes did not suggest ritual murder, at least not satanic ritual murder. Serial killers (although this is not a serial murder either) are very ritualistic in their murders, but so are custodial murderers. There is a huge difference in the “ritual” itself, depending on which type we’re talking about. In this case there are a lot of “personal” details that cannot be overlooked. Even if the perp was not a parent, he/they, knew the children very well. It is a fact that Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin did not know the boys. The infamous “bitemark evidence” that is now considered either animal predation or a mark left by a weapon would have strongly suggested a parent. I stick by this despite so-called expert testimony. Looking beyond this evidence, there are other facts that point to someone who was close to at least 2 of the boys. M. Moore as I stated previously was a throw-away victim. He received less trauma, the killer spent less time with him and he was not grouped with the other 2 victims. S. Branch had a great deal of trauma to his head as did C. Byers and both had old wounds indicative of past sexual mutalation that would indicate both had been molested. These victims were found in very close proximity to one another, and this is very important as is the fact that they’d both been sexually abused in the past. The lack of mosquito bites strongly suggests that the boys were taken to a location other than the ditch prior to death, as was the lack of screaming. Whether or not Chris was emmasculated by a human or by animals, the beating and torture these children endured would have brought about some type of loud protests. No one in the woods that night heard any distressing cries. No one discovered the boys in the ditch, even though several people covered that area the night they went missing. M. Moore was found in the water, clutching a piece of red fabric in his right hand. There are pictures to back this up. The WMPD lost that swatch of cloth! The one piece of solid evidence, and those losers can’t account for it. How does this happen? This is not the first time law enforcement has lost evidence, but you must ask yourself, if you were working this case and you pull a body from a drainage ditch, photograph it, take note of the fact there is a scrap of cloth in the hand of an 8 yr. old victim and then it suddenly disappears, how can this happen? That one scrap could have led right to the person who placed those children there. And what about the presence of Tegretol in Chris’s system? There was an obscene amount for a child that is inconsistent with what the dosage should have been. Who, other than someone close to him or his family would have had access to this medication? Especially considering that Chris was locked out of the house on the day he went missing. The WMPD cannot find vindication for the lack of an investigation. If anything they should have been severely punished! Without an investigation all they had to go on was supposition and rumour. And that’s just what they did. No doubt, Damien was a mess. I certainly wouldn’t want to deal with him. Did he kill these children? I don’t believe he or Baldwin or Misskelley did either. If you trust the confession, which part do you trust most? The story of how they captured the boys that morning or that afternoon or in the evening? The police had to coach Jessie on the times because they simply didn’t add up. The victims couldn’t have been captured that morning or afternoon as all 3 were at school all day, as was well documented by school officials. The WMPD should have done their job at the time, whether they thought the 3 could ever walk free or not. It was their responsibility to prove their case and they were successful in convincing a jury that 3 weird teens killed 3 little boys, and the teens had lawyers that were incapable of handling cases of this magnitude. Had the investigation included [experts] from the beginning and if the crime scene had been preserved, along with the evidence, we would have witnessed a very different outcome, IMO.

          3. Another point: child victims of this type would not usually go willingly with strangers. Even if captured, they would have cried out. The boys were last spotted around 6:30-6:45 p.m. and parents, other children and neighbors were all out looking for them right after that. No one heard a thing. No one saw the 3 teenagers during this time either. So where were the boys, if not in the wooded area, getting bitten by mosquitos? Were they hiding from their parents nearby or did someone take them away? If they took them, how were they transported?

          4. It is appereant to me that the actual perp is nearly related to the victims, as you state above,2 kd. The reason of this unsuccseful investigation is simply predjudice and missinterpretations of what was there. If they had conducted an ordinarie child murder investigation this case would not have been a mystery or a dilemma.

          5. That’s what’s so infuriating about the fact that the WM3 are free. The WMPD and prosecutors, while not perfect, did a fantastic job finding the culprits and bringing them to justice. It must have been gut-wrenching to see the murders they worked so hard to convict walk out of prison after 18 years to a cheering crowd. The bad guys won.

  61. When this crime occured I was like everyone else who saw it on the news. All I knew was that 3 little boys had been viciously murdered and that I was afraid. I too had very small children and if it could happen to these families it could happen to anyone. Soon after the murders there was news about an arrest and of course I saw the faces of 3 teenagers on my TV. I saw 3 boys with longish hair, heard about the metal music they listened to, and then heard about how they were satanists. That last statement gave me pause. I didn’t doubt that people worshipped satan, but I wondered what had 3 teens from Arkansas been doing. How did they get involved in such things. Years later an acquaintance told me about PL1, and I watched it. Soon after I saw PL2, and then eventually bought the books. As soon as I got internet I started researching the case and became involved with the group I mentioned before. When I became ill, I had to drop it. I just couldn’t handle the stress. Then I saw a snippet on the news about the Alford Plea and the WM3 release. I hadn’t given it much thought for some time prior to that and have only sporadically kept up since. I just wandered over here and began reading a couple of days ago. For a time, I sort of vascillated between their innocence and guilt. Mostly due to Damien’s interest in the occult (his continuing interest). My biggest problem with the 3 being the guilty parties is that I can’t come up with a real timeline for them, all together, going into the woods, murdering the children, then depositing the bodies in the manner they were. These teens had no car, the children, if murdered where the bodies were discovered, would have screamed violently, and someone would have seen the teens leaving the area. If they were murdered at the site, they wouldn’t have needed a car, but if it occured elsewhere, they might have. And how would they have transported them, hogtied, without being noticed? I’m also stuck on the psychology of the whole thing. I can’t get past the “personal” aspect of it. I’m not saying it was impossible that total strangers did this, however, the psychological part of it points to someone who was familiar with the children in that they treated them like they “knew” them.

  62. Just remembered this: On the evening of the murders one of the police officers stated that mosquitos were so prevalent that she had to leave Robin Hood Hills. They were so thick she couldn’t breathe without them getting into her nose. Other people living in the neighborhoods surrounding this area also claimed that the mosquitos were overwhelming on that date. If the theory that the boys were murdered at the site where their bodies were discovered, where were the mosquito bites? It is well documented that the bodies [were not covered in bites]. If the perp(s) killed them at the ditch, the bites would have been there, but if they killed them elsewhere that would explain the lack of bites.

    In regards to Michael Moore’s autopsy:Lack Of Injuries
    When compared to the other two victims in this case, who were found at the same location, bound nude with shoelace ligatures in the same fashion, the most striking discrepancy is the lack of injuries suffered by this victim. In the crime scene and autopsy photos made available to this examiner, there were no readily discernible bite marks visible, the genitals have not been visibly disturbed or molested, and there are no discernible stab wounds. This lack of attention is very telling…

    1. It is also important to emphasize that the injuries done to Steve and Chris seemed as punitive to some percieved wrong, a punishment, in contrast to Michael’s injuries.

  63. I just wanted to thank you all for the reality check. It is so shocking that the possible perpetrator of this horrific crime is flaunting himself at bookstores and in front of the cameras and so many are defending this.

    I just don’t understand this: How is this possible? Are Americans really this brainwashed? It is evil and tragic that children are killed all the time – but to have the possible killer “in your face” and “looking for the real killer” is truly insane. It is beyond anything I can understand. And even if he were innocent, which I don’t believe he is, what kind of people make money off of the deaths of innocent children? But then, being a satan worshipper tells a lot about his values:I, Me and Mine. May more people read these websites and learn the truth: put an end to this madness: I think theWM3 will self-destruct, anyway.

    1. The only one that will self-distruct is the actual perp. People with that kind of mental disorder do not outlive it if the treatment isn’t working efficiently. This is a publicly important case to discuss in purpose to bring justice to those three boys. They shouldn’t be forgotten or an additional number in the statistics, and this book and continued discussions keeps the memory of them alive.

    2. I’m not a “Damien” fan and I don’t believe he should be allowed to write books about the victims or profit in any manner off of them. I also am of the opinion that Damien is as crazy as they come. I certainly wouldn’t want to have him move to my neighborhood. He was more than just a teen who wore black and listened to metal, etc. But the way the case was presented focused on the “weirdness” factors and less on his mental illness. Part of that was due to the press and the other part was just ignorance. We must remember that each of us still has [freedom of religion] so D. is free to worship a tree, satan, or a rock if he so chooses. I personally think he’s full of sh*t about his beliefs and does much of this to get attention. Now he’s into Reiki, which for someone like me who is a Christian, is a very frightening thing. I won’t get into it here, but this so called “religion” is dangerous. My problem with this entire case is that it was never investigated properly due to the fact that police couldn’t have gathered vital forensic pathology after contaminating the bodies, clothes and surrounding site as they did. When the cops began talking to and interviewing people, they gathered rumours from school children instead of beginning with the parents of the victims. You always begin with family first. The only one they focused on at all was JMB! Then we have D. Giffis, who lied his butt off about being an expert in occultic activity. These people bought his story completely! So it is no wonder they’d think nothing of the changing stories that Jessie told when interviewed by police. And then there’s this: ” the prosecution presented a procession of expert witnesses who testified that a battery of tests on hair, cloth fibers and other items failed to produce any physical evidence linking the accused to the crime.”
      Read this about Misskelley’s “confessions”. http://www.statementanalysis.com/WM3/jesse-misskelley-confession/

      1. 2dk, I don’t know Damien, I’ve never met him, never spoken with him so I chose not to pass any judgement about his characteristics. Regarding the Exibit 500, it is difficult to see the relevance of it since this isn’t a ritual murder and secondly, yes he has mental issues but that in itself is not enough to proove he commited the crime in question. Many people have these disorders but can lead a normal life with medical treatment. I’m not familiar with it Reiki. I know of Wicca and it isn’t a hostial religion but Reiki I have no idea. People can be satanists if they want, as long as they know right from wrong these beliefs aren’t a threat by themselves. Reading further into this, my impression is that this is could be a domestic violence case. Chris disobeyed his orders, first he was told to wait outside the house until his brother and JMB arrived. When he disobeyed and wasn’t there JMB went looking for him, he got whipped as a punishment and told to clean the garage area. When he once again disobeyed, went playing with Steven and Michael instead of cleaning the garage, it could be the catalyst of the crime. As you said, had the police started the investigation with the families as outset, these things might have been explored more thouroghly and actually lead to a justified verdict.
        About the analyzes of Misskelley’s “confessions”; it is clear that he lacks reference, he doesn’t actually tell a story as something he wants to confess since he leaves out possibility for the hearer to verify his statements by using general terms instead of specific information. Some of the things pointed out could be a bit overanalyzed if he is illiterate by low IQ grammatical errors such as “Damien started..” instead of perhaps “Damien did..” which would imply a finish of the act could be due to this fact. However, it is clear that most of his utterances are hollow and pointless and that this is no actual confession, or anything that could contribute by explaining what actually happened. It is a scandal that this was used as main evidence, it really shows how corrupt the trials were.

        1. Kevin, I’ve never met Damien but when the 3 were still in prison and I was helping gather information on the case with my group, I was told that I could help them by going to amazon.com and sending them books to read in prison. I looked at the books each of them asked for (although I can’t remember what Jason and Jessie requested) and what struck me first was that despite all this horror and having to spend his life in prison, Damien’s book list was shocking! His list consisted mainly of books dealing with Tarot cards and necromancy. I love to read and have read many books in my lifetime. Some of them were about the occult, serial killers and witchcraft, just to name a few. I’ve always been a Christian but the occult and witchcraft fascinated me. Not because I believe it’s ok to practice these things, but because I’d often wondered about them, what makes someone believe this instead of believing in God or in following Christ. I’ve read about the Wiccan religion, Santeria and other forms of witchcraft and those who’ve practiced such things. It gave me a very strange feeling to see the books that Damien wanted, because I knew instinctively that he didn’t want to read out of boredom. There are thousands of other kinds of books he could have chosen. This caused me to look at him more closely and our group did so as well. We really began to believe that he could have been involved in the murders. But despite his interests in the macabre, the dark arts and such, we could not place him at the dumpsite at the time the bodies were found. Nor could we explain how he might have taken the children to another place to murder them. As much as we tried, we couldn’t give credence to the occultic, ritual murder theory either. In the end we all decided that Damien has his own demons to wrestle and we’d just let him. Needless to say I never purchased anything for the 3 men. My ideas about Damien are that he is a very disturbed individual. But so are Hobbs and Byers. Neither of them, as far as I know, are involved in the occult, but both are just evil in many ways. Our group eventually decided that we come up with a theory of our own. We couldn’t agree on all of the details so we wound up writing individual theories. This case is so complex because of a lack of details, lost and destroyed evidence and a lack of interviews. It was doomed from the beginning.

          1. I agree that he might have a darker side to him but wouldn’t you’ve found it more harrowing if he gave you a list requesting child pornography or even more odd if he requested Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard?
            My impression is that this case wasn’t complex from start, but became so because of the forensic misstakes. However, there are still possibility to solve this and that question is more political than technical. If the state of Arkansas would take responsibility they would fund an investigation where the loctation of the actual crimescene, the place where the murder took place, would be in focus. If one has a potential suspects, it could be possible to narrow down the possible accomodations that person could have had access to, and work from there. I don’t think this case is that much more complex than any other murder case. The only difference with this case is that it was misstaken for being something unusual when in fact it is no different from most of the murder cases on the list you linked to with the previous cases of child murders in Arkansas.

          2. The case may be solvable, but any evidence left at the dumpsite would surely have been destroyed by now. That whole area has been leveled since the murders and lots of people have gone out there in search of something, anything. The case “shouldn’t” have been complex, but was made that way because of the ineptitude of the people investigating. Or rather a lack of investigation. In reference to Damien’s book choices, necromancy is very disturbing, at least to me. Even tarot cards are not something I would ever consider owning or “playing” with. For traditional Christians, these are very dangerous tools of witchcraft & devination. At any rate, as I stated before, I have my own theory about this case and it would likely take quite a beating here as this is clearly a site that supports the original findings that the 3 were guilty of these murders. And certainly for fundamentalists, Damien’s behaviour, coupled with his inclination toward the dark arts, so-to-speak, is a questionable lifestyle. In the area where I live we had a young married couple who gave away their first child, a girl, but chose to keep their little boy. Police discovered that the husband was involved in an online child porn operation and when they rushed the house, they discovered a pentagram painted in the middle of the living room. People here were very upset over the entire ordeal. He went to jail and the home’s owner, asked the wife to move out. When she had gone, they had the floor painted over. I personally could care less if they had the pentagram in their home, but I wouldn’t want it on my own property.

      2. I saw the first two documentaries and thought well, 50/50 as far as the wm3’s guilt. The films were compelling but I thought there can be no substitute for being at the actual trial and living it day by day. And when John Douglas the FBI profiler thought they were innocent I also had to reflect that Douglas also believes that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone.

        But when I purchased Echols’ book “Life After Death” at a used book store, some of what he has written is revealing. For example, “I’m convinced that people see the ghosts of themselves all the time, but most just choose to block them out.”
        p 330. (And am I allowed by law to write this sentence here?) Also to paraphrase, “everyone on death row is innocent”. He wrote all on death row are mentally ill, poor, retarded etc., but innocent?

        And I thought what is it exactly, he is trying to sell here? And/or what is he hiding? So for the first time, I looked up the various sites on the internet and read for the very first time about the multiple confessions of Misskelly and within a few minutes, I am a fast reader, I believed that they are guilty. I don’t have to inspect every nook and cranny of this crime, go down every path seen and unseen, etc. The obvious is: Multiple confessions, no alibis, witnesses who saw Echols at crime scene, history of violence, mental illness.

        My two cents, only my opinion.

        My prayers to the families – may God bring complete Justice for your losses.

        1. There were no witnesses who saw Echols at the crime scene on the day the boys went missing. I don’t know where you got that from, but I’ve never even heard that one before. There was a rumour that he and then girlfriend, Domini, were spotted walking down the road near the neighborhood where the children lived. Then the supposed witness to this couldn’t decide if it was Domini or Jason. She said that Echols and his girlfriend were covered in mud, but no one who saw Damien later saw mud on him nor were there any muddy clothes found at any time.

          1. http://wm3truth.com/the-hollingsworth-sighting/

            You say “rumour”, I say multiple eyewitness reports.

            The witnesses never changed their stories — they all insisted they saw Damien and Domini walking along the highway frontage road around 9:30-9:40 pm, covered in mud, roughly 100 yards from Robin Hood Hills. All these witnesses knew Damien and Domini personally.

            Prosecutor Fogleman suggested in his closing argument at the E/B trial that the witnesses might have mistaken Domini for Jason. I don’t find this convincing, I don’t know of any non-supporters who find it convincing. The witnesses were all loosely related to Domini, so it’s very unlikely they all made the same mistake. Fogleman was reaching on this one.

            Damien was arrested 29 days later. He could have washed or discarded muddy clothes during that time.

          2. I’ve followed this case nearly from the beginning. I still have questions. Can you shed light on why Hobbs, during the hours that followed the children going missing, washed clean clothes, linens and basically scrubbed his house? Why did he wait so long to tell Pam the boys were missing?

          3. when terry hobbs went home he took down all the curtains and cleaned up the evidence. he claimed there were between 20 and 100 people looking for the kids before dark but nobody reported them missing till after 8 p.m. terry kept changing his stories. he even said he was at the ditch where the boys were found then he changed and said he wasn’t. jacoby said he went out looking for the kids with terry once but terry said they went together a few times.

          4. I just wanted to say that I’m amazed at the patience the nons with wm3truth show with “supporters”. And the calmness and civility.

            I don’t understand why supporters have to nitpick every little imagined or hearsay detail to support their view. Why all this emotional investment?Is it because it’s easier emotionally for them to focus on three “underdog” guys who they think were wrongfully accused than the three children that were killed in such a horrific fashion? This crime is more than most people can comprehend and “cries out to heaven for justice.”

            I look forward to the day when I am no longer compelled to follow this case, but that may not happen until there is full closure, which I am hopefull will occur sooner rather than later.

            Again, thank you, thank you so much for your patience, for having this site, and deprogramming the misinformed.

          5. It’s a variation on the “just-world” hypothesis that conspiracy theorists often rely on. Just as they find it impossible that a natural-born loser can kill the leader of a free world with a single shot from a building, it’s just too disturbing for them to accept a teenage psychopath and his two dumb friends can kill three eight-year-old boys that they never met in a thrill-kill. You’re right, it’s so much more comforting to believe the drunk, violent, child-molesting step-father did it. Throw in a few anomalies (Hobbs’s conflicting statements), fake experts (celebrities), conflicting opposing views (animal predation, alternative suspects), and you’ve got yourself a bona fide conspiracy theory. This one just happened to resonate with mainstream media.

  64. The question is still on the table. Why did Hobbs wait so long to tell his wife her child was missing? And from reading the comments of John and Cheyenne, I can see neither of you believe that Hobbs scrubbed down his home or that he lied about the timeline of events, specifically his changing stories of searching for the kids and his encountering numerous people in the woods. So, I’m just asking for clairification. It would be great to get answers from anyone who might be able to shed light on this for me. I’m not here to argue or to stir up strife, just to get answers. Thank you.

    1. It’s been answered numerous times, and usually a little common sense kind of helps answer it too. But, as a stepfather(hell, as a real father), would you be super pumped about telling your wife that you don’t know where her son is? Is 30 minutes after it turned dark(8:30 was when it got dark, 9:00 when he told Pam)really a LONG time not to be informing your wife? Hell, the Moores officially reported their son missing ONE MINUTE before the Hobbs did(9:24). I would have to say there’s a little worry if your kid is usually home by sunset and he isn’t home yet, but the fact that he had numerous friends in the neighborhood, is it that far fetched to wait it out a little bit longer before notifying your wife and getting her stressed out for no reason?

      1. EJ, I suppose I could thank you for the information, I could also have spent a lot of time here reading all the remarks, but as I stated in an earlier comment, I’ve been extremely ill. So it isn’t a matter of “common sense” for me. It’s more like I can’t remember a lot about this case that I once knew. As a mother of 2 sons of my own, I’d want to know if one of them went missing whether or not he was usually with his friends at this hour of the evening or not. At only eight yrs. old, anything is possible. I simply asked for clarification about Hobbs’s actions.
        So to anyone else, who doesn’t feel it’s too much trouble, can you tell me why he might have scrubbed the entire house, including washing clothing that was already clean, the curtains, etc.?

        1. when a parent loses a child or even a stepchild they remember every detail they can. they don’t usually forget the smallest thing. it seems to be etched into their brains because it is so important to them and so ingrained in their memories. the reason hobbs kept changing his story is because like anyone else who keeps changing a story, he is lying. it is a classic move for a criminal. cops are trained to catch this right away. it is one of the things cops look for first. if you can’t stick with your story you have a problem. not that criminals who do stick with a story are telling the truth but when you grasp for a story or keep changing it it shows dishonesty.

        2. So you’re asking us to speculate on Hobbs’s motives for actions that he may or may not have taken? Well, if he did indeed clean his clothes and house the night of the murders, and if he was willingly deceptive in his interrogation, I suppose you could argue that he did this because he was the murderer.

    2. It may be true that Hobbs gave improbable and contradictory accounts of that night, but I don’t know why. I think it comes up in his deposition for the Hobbs v. Pasdar lawsuit, but I haven’t read it.

    3. In the interview he described a story where he claimed his daughter and wife were at home when he got home from work but he didn’t see Steve. He then drove his wife to work and told her he would go and look for Steve. He said he drove around with his daughter, asking people on the street if they had seen him and followed their directions. Later he met up with Jacoby and others and they went looking in the woods. Then he went to pick up his wife at work and told her he hadn’t found him and that they kept looking through the night. This interview was from 2007, he confused the time frame a couple of times but that can be expected after such a long time.

      1. I don’t have the legal expertise wm3truth has nor have I been studying the case as long as they have.

        I do know after having been a drug and alcohol counselor that I could not take anything Ms. Hicks say as the truth. Addicts will lie about anything, it’s a symptom of their disease. Even if they get honest enough to get clean off drugs, they will still continue to lie out of habit. I would wait until she had 3 years clean and working a solid 12-step program to get some degree of sanity from her where she might show some truth. Sorry if that seems cold.

        I have more faith in the judicial system with its imperfections than movie makers. You keep bringing up Hobbs and I think you have been influenced by the same movie people who brought you Byers, and wow, did they make him look suspicious in the film.

        Do you think that the prosecutors, the 24 jurors, the judge, the police, the detectives, the witnesses, Echols’ psychiatrists and counselors, his teachers and school principal, his family and friends, the other 2’s family and friends are all liars or stupid? And also the confessions from all 3 given at different times and information about the crime are all lies?

        But all this legal jargon aside….As a parent, if you are one, or an aunt or an uncle or a person who cares about children….Do you think that the detectives and others involved would jeopardize the lives of their own children and neighbors children by letting the “real” killers go free just to pin it on 3 guys that they didn’t like because one of them looked goth? Or would they would want to put away the real killers to keep their families and community safe? I just don’t think people from Arkansas are that stupid.

        Just my opinion.

        Just m

        1. I hope I didn’t sound rude or cavalier in the last reply. I didn’t mean that you’re not intelligent because you disagree.

          1. Cheyenne, I’ve worked in media and with editing documentaries so I’m well aware of how media can angle certain facts so that they are viewed in the way the producers and directors want them to be percieved by the audience. I view media critically and I think anyone should do that. I belive this crime accoured during a time when there was less technical possibility to investigate crimes that aren’t as easily investigated as other crimes; where there are no obvious evidence pointing towards any perp, and in a time where there was an ongoing rumor about satanic ritual killings. This crime, due to the cruelty in it, was misstaken to be satanistic, and satanistic was confused with sadistic, which are two different things and don’t need to co-occur. My suspisions of JMB’s involvment has to do with the Carabamazephine levels found in Chris Byer’s autopsy, toxicology report. Further, Chris Byers was killed in a more brutal way than the others and died first, which indicates that he was the primary target of the three boys. If Hobbs had done it, it would be more reasonable to assume that Steve Branch would have been the one castrated and killed first and had Carabamazephine (which can be used to releave extreme pain) in him, and Chris and Mike would have been drowned for being possible witnesses, or collatoral victims. Further, I agree with Turvey’s analyzes that the castration was done as a punishment, Chris disobeyed JMB’s orders twice that day, which is a motive for JMB. JMB is also manodepressive and had an anger managment issue and has access to Carabamazephine,which Hobbs didn’t. Hobbs didn’t have any motive for punishing Steve in a diciplinary way since Steve was allowed to be outside playing, in contrary to Chris who was told to stay at home and clean the garage area. There are clear motives here which the investigation should have been focused on. In my opinion the police went completely wrong by taking advice from a satanic – panic spindoctor who made them believe and unreasonable story about that this would be a satanic sacrafice when all the evidence point at a domestic violence situation. So yes they were wrong. I don’t blaim the families for believing in the justice system, but sometimes even procecutors can be corrupt and Mr Fogelman has been accused for corruption in many other of his cases aswell. There are no physical evidence that show that WM3 would have been involved, and when the satanic rumor is set aside, there is no motive for assuming the WM3 would have been involved. These are the reasons I disagree with the thought of WM3 being guilty of this, I’ve seen the documentaries but formed my belief by reading documents on callahan and similar sites.

          2. Before you judge me, remember that this was my original theory. Today I am less convinced of any of this. Mostly because there are too many unanswered questions and because the WMPD totally destroyed valuable evidence. They completely botched the crime scene, evidence and even the handling of the bodies. Also, Damien’s little idiosyncrasies are questionable, but I can’t place him at the crime scene despite a witness saying she saw him near the service road. Especially if that were to indicate he left the boys in the ditch at that time. If that were true, someone would have found the bodies that night as several people now say they searched in and around the ditch that night.
            I sincerely wish I still had all my notes from the past, but I didn’t keep up with them when I became ill and I also switched computers at some point. Anyway, I’d stated earlier that the group I was with formed theories. I’m going out on a limb here, both because I don’t have access to all my notes and timelines and because this is a site that supports the WM3 is Guilty verdict. But here goes: On the day the boys went missing, and after Chris got a beating from JMB with his belt, they took backpacks with extra clothing in them and “ran” away from home. Michael Moore was their friend and although I don’t believe he was abused at home, there is a possibility he was abused by an outsider. I believe that both Chris and Stevie shared a secret of sexual abuse and that they told Michael about it. Both Chris and Steve had “signs of sexual abuse” as noted in the autopsy reports. These signs were old wounds in the genital region. My theory is that the boys went into the woods and to their hideout. It was here that one of the parents discovered them and overheard a conversation regarding their mutual abuse. (Note that in the past, Chris and M. Moore were seen behind the school, taking a crap then throwing it at one another. This is thought to be, by psychologists, a sign of sexual abuse.) That parent would have herded them all into his car/truck and taken them home or to some location, then called in another parent. The boys were confronted and things got out of control. In order to teach them a lesson, the parent(s) ripped their clothes off, beat them, and at some point, emasculated Chris. It is clear to me, at least, that the person who committed thewse murders wanted to completely control the children, to own them. He wanted to show “he” was in control and to dehumanize them. It was a crime of passion, of humiliation and of savagery. It was ritualistic, but in a parental way, not an occultic one. The person or persons doing this needed to teach them the ultimate lesson and to shut them up. If M. Moore was not an abuse victim of the murderer’s he was simply a throw away victim in the wrong place at the wrong time. His autopsy shows that he received the least amount of trauma and had less time spent on him. Steve had more trauma than M.M., and Chris had the most. Chris and Steve were close together in the ditch, M.M. was further away. Had it been an occultic ritual killing, other things would have been present and the 3 would have been placed in the water differently, or not at all. Also, one of the boys was bound with shoe laces that didn’t match any of the shoes. They were far too long for a child’s shoe, but could have come from an adult’s shoes. They were cut in half and used to bind. After the murders, they were bound and moved to the ditch with their clothes.
            There were no screams being heard at the time the boys were being searched for, so the theory that they were murdered in the RHH area is wrong. Also, several people searched the area that night where the bodies were eventually discovered the following day. There are gaps in the stories of Terry and Pam Hobbs and of JMB and Melissa. I’ve put together a few notes that I believe are important to this case. They are:
            Byers, after Chris’s death, moved with Melissa to Cherokee Village. There they continued to have legal problems. Byers beat a neighbors 5 yr. old with the wire end of a fly swatter. Melissa threatened the same neighbors, asking if they wanted to find out what it was like to be in a hole in the ground like her son was. Byers incited a fight between teenagers another time, and together, he and Melissa stole several thousand dollars worth of furniture.
            When Melissa’s death was reported, Byers said he’d likely be suspected. Her cause of death is highly suspicious due to the fact that she suffocated.
            Random pieces of evidence and other facts:
            A knife belonging to Byers was discovered with human blood on it that matched the type of both him and his [stepson] Christopher.
            When police questioned Byers about the knife, in January of 1994, nine months after the murders, they did not tell him at first that the blood had been discovered. They asked, instead, if he had ever used the knife.
            “No,” he said, according to a transcript of that interview. “That knife had not been used at all.”
            When told about the finding of blood, Byers changed his statement, claiming that he had used the knife to cut deer meat to make jerky.
            Prior to marrying Melissa, Byers was married to another woman with whom he had 2 children. In the eighties, after divorcing his first wife and marrying Melissa, a neighbor called police to report that he was beating her 2 yr. old, Christopher and the neighbor was afraid for the child’s life. July 1992, Byers was arrested by sheriff’s deputies in Memphis. He was charged with a felony cocaine count and carrying a weapon.
            Chris was never officially adopted by JMB and so the name on his grave should not be “Byers” at all.
            Hobbs:
            After the murders an incident occured at the Hobbs home whereby Terry beat the hell out of Pam. Her face and the back of her head were swollen and bruised. Her brother, Jackie went to her aid and Terry shot him with a .357 magnum. He survived, though I don’t know how.
            [In Terry’s defense regarding the DNA and the hair in the shoe lace, it is possible that it could have been transferred or picked up at home. The Jacoby hair is another thing altoghether. Not so sure how that would have been transferred to a tree root. ]
            Strange details:
            The day of the murders, Chris went to Pam’s house and went inside to watch Muppet Babies with Amanda, but Pam did not reveal this until 3 days after the murders. Why?
            JMB stated that he’d worn overalls or coveralls while searching and continued to wear then for days after, yet he is seen wearing shorts and flipflops.
            JMB’s whereabouts can be “mostly” accounted for during the evening of May 5, but some of his statements were contradicted by Ryan.
            According to WMPD, the search for the children ended that night then began again the next morning. It seems that the shift change at 11 p.m. forgot to inform the incoming officers of 3 missing 8 yr. olds. So no one continued the search.
            The original theory was that the children were murdered by 3 satanic teens, then it changed to someone else killed them and put them in the water. The wounds, initially thought to be made by the killer(s) suddendly are “consistent” with animal predation that occured while the bodies were in the ditch. However, there is one big problem with this. In the case of Chris Byers and the mutilation of his genitals, the initial case was built around the theory that the mutilation occured for the purpose of occultic ritual and that it was done with a serated knife. There were stab wounds in and around the entire area. Remember, Chris was the only victim who was dead prior to having been placed in the water. The other 2 were hit in the head, but alive, and drowned. So Chris’s wounds in the genital area show a pooling of blood beneath the skin, this can ONLY happen if the heart is still beating. If animals made these wounds, we would have to believe that he was alive when animals attacked him! But he was not alive at the time he was placed in the water. No giant turtle killed these children nor did they make the wounds to Chris’s body.
            The “new” autopsy reports that support animal predation had to be conducted long after the fact. Meaning, the bodies of the boys were buried and these “experts” who conducted the new autopsies did so by relying on original reports and photographs. For me, this is not acceptable. Even though some of the Med. Examiners are quite famous, there are well documented cases where even they were mistaken!
            The “Bite Mark” on Stevie’s brow is another questionable piece of evidence. It has been theorized that it was not a bite, but a mark made by a knife handle due to the “X” in the middle. However, the X could have been made by the knife if the compass was missing and that center piece is raised. Then, after it is made, the perp bit the child.
            The boys were seen riding their bikes into the woods, each wearing a backpack. What happened to the backpacks? Did the turtles take them?
            In the original police report it states that Chris was dicovered first, then Michael and Stevie. It also states that “M. Moore was castrated”. They confused Chris for Michael! More ineptitude.
            I can’t say who I believe is responsible at this point. Too much has been mishandled, lost and lied about. I can say that someone is still out there and is guilty. I doubt that person(s) will ever be found.

          3. Continued…
            I would like to, when possible, give the WMPD the benefit of the doubt. As difficult as this may be, I will try. On several occasions I’ve tried to put myself in their shoes and to show empathy toward them.
            Imagine that you’re a cop and you’ve been called to investigate the disappearance of 3 eight yr. old boys. The parents have given descriptions of them and you’re told that they were last seen going into a wooded area approx. the size of a football field. It’s early June, in the deep South and the heat, humidity and mosquitos are taking a toll on you. If I were in that position, I’d keep my eyes peeled and hope that I get a call saying that the 3 boys just returned home after a night of “camping out”.
            Even a rookie cop would know that if this ends up being a kidnapping or homicide, you don’t touch anything. But when an officer sees what he thinks is a ball cap, it turns out to be a tennis shoe, he removes it from the water and soon he finds a body. By the time all is said and done, the police find all three bodies, submerged in a ditch full of water, their clothes wrapped around sticks that are plunged into the mud so that they can’t be seen floating.
            I don’t know if it was ignorance, ego or what, but no one called the FBI. Three little boys were murdered and the WMPD chose to handle this on their own, and quite poorly. Everything and every “body” is taken out of the water, placed on the ground, clothes left out to dry, then place in shopping bags. Samples of water in mason jars were either lost or never tested. Why? What happened to the scrap of cloth that M. Moore was clutching in his hand when his body was pulled from the water? Lost!
            The first thing they do is notify the parents and then question JMB. They completely overlook all of the other parents and siblings. Again, why?
            Mr. Driver was out there that day and immediately names D. Echols as the perp. He decides right then that Damien is guilty and they set their sights on him.
            Echols is a very disturbed teenager. He’s into the occult, thinks he’s a Wiccan, and listens to metal. He wears black has been in minor trouble and has a 500 page psychological medical report from the various hospitals that have treated him. He’s a punk with a smartass attitude. Baldwin is his friend, and Misskelley is an acquaintance. Misskelley has a very low IQ, and I believe he thought he’d tell police whatever they wanted to hear and then just go home. He didn’t ever really implicate himself. He got the times all wrong until the officers “helped” him remember the correct times.
            But what about the parents? What about the lost or overlooked evidence? The evidence that was destroyed? What about the older siblings? Even if none of the parents were to blame, it is imperative that the case begin “at home”. No one thought to do this. In order for this case to ever end, it would have to begin all over again. Perhaps even with the exhumation of the bodies.
            Melissa Byers is dead too. So she can’t tell us anything. But the other parents are very much alive as are the siblings. If they can all be ruled out, this case may very well tie into other murders of children in and around the area.
            If, at the very least, the WMPD had split into 3 groups and simultaneously investigated the families of the victims, the 3 teenagers in question, and outside possibilities, this case might have ended differently. Twenty years later and an Alford Plea hasn’t changed much about the case at all. I don’t know if Hobbs and Byers are guilty or involved at all. I do feel that they had reason and time to do these murders.
            Hobbs can’t get his stories straight and JMB continues to be an anomaly. He hammed it up for the cameras for the documentaries and is still doing this. He changed sides and went from wanting to kill the WM3 to being their biggest cheer leader, and is now on the “Hobbs is guilty” team. Even he can’t decide. Neither can I.

          4. another point to add is that Hobbs was at Jacoby’s house during the time JMB returned from court. Ryan said in his statement that JMB told him he would ground Chris for a week, what was he punishing him for? did Chris know he was going to be punished further? If he knew, it would be a reason for him to escape. JMB had already been looking for him once that day, before he drove Ryan to court, and he said to Ryan that he would go look for him again when they get back by which he was assuming Chris would not be cleaning the garage as he was told.
            If JMB went after them into the woods,got them into his truck and drove to the crimescene, where was he driving? Wonder if anyone saw him driving around, and where he was driving exactly between the time he got back from court and the time he reported Chris missing?

          5. There is a huge gap of missing time in JMB’s story, so why do some believe he couldn’t have been involved. In an interview with the police he makes an odd statement about an abandoned shed in his neighborhood, yet this is glossed over too. As is Hobbs’s changing stories. They bought Misskelley’s changing account of the murders, but not Hobb’s accounts of the events of May 5, 1993. It is interesting and quite disturbing to note that no on bothered to interview Hobbs until 2007.

          6. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t believe JMB was involved for two reasons: 1) I’ve seen no solid evidence tying him to the crime, and 2) I believe the WM3 did it.

          7. John, 1) there are numerous of evidenence implying JMB’s involvment, some mentioned in the above comments and he should be considered as a suspect and investigated as such.
            2) have you thought of considering JMB and other possible suspects aswell purely based on the evidence found?

            2dk, I’ve read a statement where JMB says that he and another person went to a building in the middle of the night to search for the boys there since they thought they might be playing there and that they saw a black car parked there. He said he couldn’t find them there so there was no need to search there. I find it odd that this wasn’t checked out by the investigators, what if it was the crimescene he was referring to? He also said, in another statement, that he and Ryan went to the Blue Beacon car wash, parked outside and looked for the boys from that area during the same night. According to Ryan’s statement, he went to sleep after looking in the woods, in his statement he doesn’t mention being at the Blue Beacon car wash with JMB that night. This is something that he should have recalled, JMB said he went inside the car wash and told the people that they were going to look for his son so that the people inside the car wash would know why there was noices comming from the parkinglot outside and that they didn’t have to come out.

          8. Question: Does anyone know if the families can file a civil lawsuit against Echols for damages as Ron Goldman did against OJ? Is this allowed in Arkansas? I’m sure they already thought of this.

            Since Echols has made a goldmine from these murders and the Son of Sam law doesn’t exist in Ark., I would hope the families could do it, though they might want to wait for the media circus to simmer down. But if they waited too long, Echols could be broke.

            A real human being would donate celeb profits to the families, anyway, or set up a memorial fund, lawsuit or not. Esp. if he were innocent.

          9. If Echols hadn’t signed an Alford plea. They can only ask for punitive damage in general and in this case they would most probably loose such a plea. The Jackson family suied Dr Murray .
            Echols has funded most of the ongoing investigations in the crime, since the state of arkansa won’t allow spending more money into the investigation. The West of memphis film is done with concent from two of the families. The Moore family is the only one still considering WM3 guilty.

          10. Also, I appreciate all the info the supporters are giving in their replies. I read all of it, and though it can seem compelling, to me it just can’t compare with the wm3 being the ultimate suspects.

            Also, in reply to replies from a couple of days ago, satanism is a major motive. Where I live, there are plenty of wiccan/satanists and I have also counseled some in the past for addictions. I’ve found at times, there’s very little difference between the two. There are wiccans who want to be satanists, satanists who want to be wiccans and some of the above who want exorcisms. These religions are attractive to those who’ve been victimized and want to feel a sense of empowerment. Wiccan rituals have been influenced by Crowley.

            In metaphysics, anytime a person manipulates another’s will for one’s own selfish benefit, it is a form of the “left-hand path” or “black magic”. The group cult activity the 3 were involved in with the reported animal sacrifice, Echols drawing pictures of dead children in his journal, his girlfriend saying he wanted to sacrifice their baby, his sucking others blood is all satanic. Yes, he was seriously mentally ill, but he chose satanism.

            If I had been living in West Memphis at the time, And I consider myself a very open-minded person in regard to people’s eccentric lifestyles, I would believe Echols with his occultic obssession along with his types of mental illness a very dangerous person.

          11. Well, Wiccans, in general, do not believe in God and Satan, they believe in a Godess of the nature, so satanism is not part of their believes. Excorism is a catholic ritual and has nothing to do with Wicca or Satanism in theory, allthough they might adopt the ritual for other purposes than catholics.
            Crowley is a bit tricky and easy to missinterpret, as many other philosophers. Crowley doesn’t actually encourage sacrifice, he doesn’t say that this is what someone should do. In his fictional work, he says that in order for a Magicician to optime energy from Mars, he must sacrifice a human, as younger they are as better. But this is said in a context of his fictional work. Alike Hubbard speaking of Lord Zenu. People might worship Crowley and Hubbard but none of them have encouraged that this is something that should actually be done by a human. I’m not familiar with the process of becoming what Crowley calls a Magician but he wrote that for the Magician to optimize the energy the sacrifice needed to be made within the lines of the cross and facing a certain direction to the moon.

          12. To answer your question Kevin, no, I have not considered other suspects, I see no need to. Misskelley confessed, the WM3 were convicted by two unanimous juries, and they plead guilty 17 years later. Also, I haven’t read all of the comments from you and 2kd because they are very long and rambling. But I skimmed them and did not see anything that qualifies as evidence against JMB or Hobbs.

          13. I haven’t read that particular one, but I have read others, as well as the trial testimony from defense experts. The main issues are 1) Misskelley made incorrect statements, particularly the the time (around noon), the ligature (brown rope), and the anal rape (no semen or serious injuries), and 2) the detectives were asking leading questions. That’s not enough to convince me that his confession was involuntary or that his entire confession was false.

          14. If he states the wrong information, doesn’t that make his confession irreliable?
            When he says he goes away from the scene, don’t you think it is odd that he doesn’t mention the change of clothes. If he hit the boy the way he described he would have had blood on him, but he says he walked away from the scene just like that. What did he do with his clothes, does he tell us that so that we can verify his story?

          15. I’ll give you that – it’s unreliable. As to your other questions I have no idea why he said that, you’d have to ask him.

          16. my point about his clothes is that these are the things the police would have asked him if it was his own confession. They would have wanted the clothes to verify bloodstains on them and thereby connect him to the crime, which would prove he did it. By not asking such questions it is obvious the police never had the intent to technically prove his guilt, which is probably because they knew they couldn’t. If they would have believed that his story was true they would have asked for such items.

          17. Further,
            In the exibit 500 it says Echols was diagnosed as bipolar, so was Melissa Byers and JMB was given treatment for bipolarism so this fact doesn’t make Echols the only possible suspect.

            Are you referring to metaphysics as defined by Dans Scotus? What does metaphysics have to do with “black magic”? metaphysics is about ontology, the knowledge about human beings as a race or species.

            Perhaps Echols could be percieved as scarry and I could grant the police to put him on the list of possible suspects but without further evidence that is all he could be considered as.

          18. Good God! I’m rambling??! Nice. Anyway, here I go, rambling again. There is no evidence linking the WM3 to this crime. It was all circumstantial. I would say that Byers’s knife, the one he told Gitchell was never used, then in the same interview says he only used it a couple times. Then Gitchell says, “Mark we have a problem, we found blood on the knife”. To which Byers responds, “Oh yeah, I used it on a deer that I killed but it was too [jagged] so I used another knife”. Gitchell responds, “Mark we found the blood is not from an [animal] but rather it matches Chris blood”. Byers goes on to deny any wrong doing and says he can’t imagine how Chris’s blood got on the knife since the child never touched the knife. And still, this is not enough to suspect him? Really? My Ass! Byers was an informant for WMPD at the time of the murders and the Ark. state police were about to launch an investigation into the WMPD over drug trafficing. The main players in the whole WM3 case are no longer at the WMPD. They were fired, let go, due to drugs & theft. Says a lot about the type of men who were working this case. Even Burnett was involved with them. Go to midsouthjustic.com, it’s all there. Read it John, if it’s not too long and rambling for you.

          19. So now we’re back to “Byers did it”?

            For those who want to read it, the 26 January 1994 interview with John Mark Byers is here:

            http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmb2.html

            Testing on the blood found on the Kershaw knife narrowed the source to appx 9% of the population. Chris Byers was in that 9%, the other victims and defendants were not. Authorities ordered a rush DNA check on other members of the Byers household. The full report arrived on 27 January and showed that John Mark Byers also was in that 9%.

            http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/gdjan.html

            So that blood could have come from either John Mark Byers or Chris Byers or both or neither. JM Byers owned the knife and used it to cut his fingernails and to slice deer jerky, so the most obvious possibility is that the blood was his. The common claim by WM3 supporters that Chris Byers’ blood was definitely found on that knife is false.

            JM Byers had reason to be angry with the WMPD over this interview. Gitchell questioned him on the 26th and confronted him with the incomplete DNA results. Gitchell could have waited 24 hours for the full DNA report to arrive before interviewing Byers.

          20. JMB contradicted himself about using the knife to cut deer meat, first he said he never had used the knife, when Gitchell told him they found blood on it he said it was from deer meat and when Gitchell told him it was Chris’ blood he said that he didn’t know why Chris’ blood was on it, he didn’t deny it was Chris blood.

          21. Byers said he used the knife “a time or two” when he first received it (December 1990); then he said he “never used it”; then he said “when I first got it I trimmed on my fingernails some with it”; then he said he used it in fall 1993 “cutting up [deer meat] to make some beef jerky”. This was all before Gitchell mentioned anything about Chris’s blood.

            I honestly don’t see any attempt at deception there. If Byers was trying to deceive the cops by saying he “never used it”, why would he then volunteer details on the various times he used it? It’s much more likely that he said “never used it” when he meant “rarely used it” or “used it briefly, then put it away and didn’t use it for three years, then used it briefly again”. That’s a technically inaccurate but very common colloquial use of “never”. I know I’ve said “never” that way a million times (not literally).

            Question: how would you expect an innocent parent to respond to Gitchell’s “the problem is we have sent this knife off and had it examined and it has the blood type of Chris on it” line of questioning?

          22. evidence 1-7 was probably not included because of the fact that they don’t point at anyone specific, whereby they arn’t of any actual use for them. The attorney’s only look for evidence that can show that it was moore probable that someone else did it than WM3. The conclusion however is quite interesting because there is a part that says ; “The most likely explanation is that the hair beneath Michael Moore’s ligature, the tree trunk hair and the dyed hair on the morgue blanket are from the same source.” http://www.jivepuppi.com/heteroplasmy.html .

          23. Wow, you guys at WM3truth really have your work cut out for you with all the endless “he did this, and why did she do that, and I don’t believe this, I do think that”, ad infinitum and, of course, no matter what, they’re innocent. All these “what ifs” put my mind in a tailspin.

            Hey, what if they actually did catch the three that did it?

          24. As innocent I would say;” no it isn’t possible, the knife was hidden all the time”. I would not affirm Chris blood on it, since I wouldn’t believe it was possible. This was Gitchell’s intent with that statement, to see if he would deny or affirm that possibility.

          25. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. When a defendant is convicted on mostly circumstantial evidence, it is because the jury could find no reasonable scenario other than the defendant is guilty. Failed alibis and a defendant lying on the witness stand make the case even stronger. And you are incorrect that there was no direct evidence – there was the confession, fibers, and candle wax.

          26. John, your not entirely correct about circumstantial evidence, testimonies aren’t evidence, testimonies are used to explain evidence, e.g John fiber was found at the crimescene then that is a technical evidence, and Joe saw John at the crimescene, is a testimony exlpaining how John’s fiber could have been at the crimescene. Without the fiber, Joe’s testimony isn’t sufficient.

          27. For goodness sake…IRRELIABLE isn’t even a word…it’s UNRELIABLE. Doesn’t anyone here have spell check.. just sayin

  65. To Cheyenne: the WM3 “are” the ultimate suspects, that’s why they were “chosen” to take the fall. Don’t misunderstand me, I’ve said before and will say again, Damien is a scary fellow. I certainly wouldn’t want to be his friend. He’s now into Reiki, which is a dangerous place, in my estimation. But who better to have chosen to take the fall than 3 punks? Damien’s mental history and his affinity for witchcraft was an easy target in the “Bible Belt”; Misskelley’s lowwww IQ made him an easy person to lead, and lead the WMPD did!; Jason was guilty by association. He was quiet, unassuming and believed he’d be found innocent…because he is. Driver and Jones tried, for an entire year, to find some hint of occultic activity in WM and the surrounding areas. Nothing, not one iota of evidence! Metal heads, black coats, black T shirts, wicca, long hair, and a lot of gossip. Nothing more was needed for folks who were greatly lacking in intellect and education. The WMPD was in deep dogsh*t with their drug running and they knew it. “When the murders happened in 1993, the Arkansas State Police was investigating several members of the West Memphis Police Department’s “Narcotics Unit.” A state police investigator said that Detective James Sudbury was “leading a higher than normal lifestyle” on his police salary. Guns and drugs were “missing” from the department’s evidence lockers. “Prosecutor Brent Davis, also in charge of prosecuting the case of the West Memphis Three, signed a consent order to terminate this investigation sometime during mid- to late June 1993. There were allegations that he had appropriated drugs and stolen merchandise for their own use.”

    1. I don’t think Echols was simply an easy target because of witchcraft and his long history of mental history and living in the Bible Belt. I would ask what it is about him that makes you think , as you wrote, that he is a scary individual? And I do appreciate that you used the word “is” scary instead of “was” scary. I’ve read that death row doesn’t give psych. treatement so Echols illness has gotten much worse as mental illness is a progressive disease and , by the way, mostly incurable. What treatment does is alleviate symptoms and assist a person to mainstream into society. I think at this point in his disease he would be extremely difficult to live with if he’s not getting treatment and more dangerous than he was in 93. And Echols may think he doesn’t need treatment, which much of the mentally ill believe, and which he glossed over in his book.

      His occult obsession expressed through his cult activity and behavior is a red flag. More important, his severe mental history documented by his workers is a red flag. I don’t think people in Arkansas are that stupid that they nailed him on these 2 conditions alone, Bible belt or not. I’m no expert, like others are on this site, but it would seem these conditions were part of his profile and combined with evidence, nailed him.

      In answer to questions, I don’t know if wiccans or satanists worship Crowley, but many do revere him. Also, there are a few of the above I counseled who wanted exorcisms because they were frightened they were being possessed, or experiencing paranormal activity. They said they couldn’t make it stop. It’s difficult to get an exorcism from the catholic church, but there are others in my area who will do them, or deliverances or new age healings. I have my own opinion about this.

      1. In an earlier post I stated that Echols involvement in Reiki coupled with his interest in other occultic things is what makes me not wish to be in his close proximity. While in prison all 3 were allowed to have an Amazon wish list. Supporters were encouraged to order off the lists and send gifts to them. I looked at all their lists. Jason’s was straight forward stuff, so much so that I don’t really remember much about it. Misskelley’s list was very juvenile in nature, but Damien’s was a whole different thing. He wanted every type of tarot card there was and books on Necromancy. His obvious interest in communication with the dead is something that, for a conservative Christian, is troubling, frightening and just plain crazy! I can’t imagine wanting that many books on the subject of evoking the dead. Up until that time, I’d been a pretty avid supporter. This gave me great pause, to say the least. I began to question, in great detail, the possibility of guilt for the WM3. That’s when I got involved with a group who was basically in the same position. By the time I stopped communicating with that group, they’d all decided that the 3 were innocent after all and pretty much didn’t question anything. I’m still asking questions, but lean more toward innocence. One of the things I love most about being an American is that we [still] have freedom of religion. And that means that if Damien wants to worship satan, he can. He can also practice magic, or as he calls it, magik. It is very telling to see that he’s moved to Salem, Mass. Part of this, I believe, is that he’s sending a clear message: he’s going to pursue his heart’s desires by moving to a place that to him is “magical”, he’s opened a Reiki center where he treats people with a form of healing, and he’s living out a childhood fanstasy by living in a place where it is always Halloween (his favorite holiday).

    2. Why in the world would the cops or a whole community want to let the “real” killers go free so that they could frame poor little innocent Damien? The only saving grace here is that at least the “real” killers spent the better part of their lives in prison and one on death row in solitary confinement. Those “innocent” three got life with mercy, the three true victims got NO life past 8 yrs…that’s the injustice

  66. New question: What about the DNA discovered under the fingernails of M. Moore? It didn’t belong to any of the WM3 either. And there’s the hair evidence: Six hairs each had different individual profiles, not matching the victims or those in prison. So how do you account for this if the WM3 are not part of this DNA evidence? If they’re [excluded] from this evidence it shows that someone else is “included”. Who are these other people? Six different hairs? This just gets more and more complex.

    1. I’ve never heard of DNA under Michael Moore’s fingernails, can you provide a link? And I do not consider the fact that none of the WM3’s DNA was found at the crime scene to be proof that they are innocent.

      1. http://www.jivepuppi.com/DNA_results_part_four.html
        This page contains a plethora of DNA info. on the victims. Not only was there DNA under MM’s nails, there were also penile swabs taken. They couldn’t make a positive match. If DNA under nails is not linked to any of the WM3, how can you not exclude them? Whoever was viciously attacking MM, Michael clawed at that person and took with him some of the person’s DNA. Period.

        1. I have no idea how someone else’s DNA got under Michael Moore’s fingernails. These samples were taken in 2004, if they are so conclusive of the WM3’s innocence, why were they no included in appeals?

          1. all appeals were judged by Burnett, that’s why no new evidence could be included until Riordans appeal in the Supreme Court hearing

          2. I’m asking why the WM3’s attorneys chose not to include the fingernail evidence in their appeals.

          3. evidence 1-7 was probably not included because of the fact that they don’t point at anyone specific, whereby they arn’t of any actual use for them. The attorney’s only look for evidence that can show that it was moore probable that someone else did it than WM3. The conclusion however is quite interesting because there is a part that says ; “The most likely explanation is that the hair beneath Michael Moore’s ligature, the tree trunk hair and the dyed hair on the morgue blanket are from the same source.” http://www.jivepuppi.com/heteroplasmy.html .

          4. Interesting. It’s not enough to convince me of the WM3’s innocence, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

  67. This is slightly off subject, but does pertain to Damien. There is a TV program called Ghost Hunters. The founder is Jason Hawes. Some years ago Jason became involved in Reiki. Just after, he began to have some major issues and discovered that he was being harrassed by demons. He won’t go into a lot of detail about it, but does state that it took a lot of work to rid himself of these spirits. For people who don’t believe, this will not be of interest. I am a firm believer in the dangers of dealing with spirits. Reiki is a form of spirit communicaton and healing. But it is not a form of Christian healing. In other words, I personally only deal with the Holy Spirit. Anything else is off limits.

    1. From what I’ve read on Reiki it is a japanese and has healing and meditation methods where hands are in primary focus, it is believed that treatment is better with massages instead of medicine, which is also believed by Scientologists.

  68. I feel like I’m just repeating myself, but I don’t know how to make it any clearer. So this is basically to non supporters of the WM3. I have gone from believing that they’re guilty to believing they’re innocent, to now questioning the whole thing. For me, so much of what I’ve read at callahan, midsouth justice and jive puppi, is all very subjective. I’m not accusing JMB or Hobbs of murdering the children, nor am I convinced that the WM3 are guilty. DNA evidence is supposed to clear things up, but with this case it seems to have clouded it even more. I stand by my assessment that the WMPD totally botched this case from the moment they discovered the bodies. I also stand by my view that they DID NOT question the parents and should have. If anyone here can difinitively state that they questioned all of the parents just after the discovery, I’d like the details of that. If anyone here can tell me that the investigation was handled properly, all I can say is you are delusional! How can you defend police officers who pull 3 bodies from the water, lay them out on the ground, pull their clothes out and string them out all over the place, allowing some to dry, lose VITAL evidence like the very valuable, very important piece of fabric in the hand of M. Moore? This is as bad as the OJ Simpson trial. The LAPD did the same thing, and he walked free! Evidence was completely destroyed/compromised.

    1. I have no idea what the proper police procedure would be in the case of the Byers Branch Moore murders, and I don’t know if the WMPD followed it. As far as I am concerned, that is irrelevant.

      1. So the collecting of evidence, evidence to find the perp, is irrelevant? How does one come to such a conclusion? Anyone, even those who are not nor have ever been in law enforcement, have enough common sense to know that the collection of evidence is crucial to the case. Proper procedure in ANY case is always the same…follow the procedure. Collect the evidence, use official containers, and handle the bodies properly. Laying them out on the bare ground is stupid!

        1. The WMPD found a likely suspect, investigated him, got a confession, then made arrests. The prosecution gathered more evidence and won convictions. I’m not seeing a problem here.

          1. The only “evidence” was Miskelley’s confession. What if something like this happed in your living area and someone, alike Miskelley, pointed and witnessed that it was you ? would you be fine with sitting in jail in 18 yrs based on those “evidence”?

          2. If someone accused me of murder, cops and prosecutors would look fore more evidence before charging me. If they didn’t, it would be my accuser’s word against mine and would not likely result in a conviction.

          3. hmm… why would they look for moore evidence when the confession was taken as enough of evidence? miskelley’s confession was questioned by the defense and the accused said their were innocent, but it didn’t help them, why would it be different in your case than in theirs?

          4. I disagree that Misskelley’s confession was the only evidence used against the WM3. It wasn’t even used in the Echols/Baldwin trial, so obviously there was other evidence. I believe Misskelley was telling the truth when he claimed he, Echols, and Baldwin committed the murders.

          5. It worked that way for the 3, why not you? Again, I’m very unsure of this whole case. Even after 20 yrs. there is much to question. When you do a side by side comparison of the 3 against the possibility of 3+ adults, it doesn’t gel.
            3 Teens, totally unrelated to the children, never met them, suddenly murder them in a faux occultic ceremony. No physical evidence is left behind, no matching DNA can be found; one is borderline retarded, one is scary and mentally ill, and a third is a throw away. The victims are all friends, only 8 yrs. old, live in the same neighborhood and at least 2 of them had prior sexual abuse, the third was probably a throw away. Strange parrallel. One biological father, 2 stepfathers. The children of the 2 step parents are both sexualized, and both stepfathers have a history of violence; one has a history of mental illness and an arrest record, has been in jail, has done drugs and is an informant for WMPD. The parents have automobiles, the children are afraid of them and would be more likely to go with them if the parents approached and ordered them to. No one heard a single scream that night in the woods. Why? How? If not the parents of the children, and not the 3, then who? And what about the DNA? No match to the 3 but possible match to stepfathers.

          6. I’m still not seeing what Kevin’s hypothetical question has to do with the Byers Branch Moore murder case.

          7. John, it has to do with the fact that there was never enough of evidence for a conviction. The jury was manipulated into believing it would have been an occult crime. As I replied to Cheyenne, the procecution made the claim this would be a sacrifice according to Crowley’s rituals, and what Crowley says in his fictional work is that for a Magician to optimize energy from Mars the sacrifice of a human is done within the lines of the cross. The boys were not found within the lines of such a cross, which means that the procecution both made an irrelevant reference between the crime and Crowley, and that they missinterpreted what Crowley says about sacrifice and in which context he says it.

          8. I guess you and I disagree, I feel there was enough evidence to support a conviction. So did the jury. So did the Arkansas Supreme Court.

          9. Since the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of presenting new evidence they clearly didn’t agree with the state. Cases of corruption are tricky and as much one wants to believe that justice exists in every case there are exceptions, and this is one of them. I’ve not seen any actual evidence indicating WM3 would have done it, only speculations. It seems that everytime I’ve looked for them I’ve ended up empty. In contrary, I’ve found compelling evidence against another individual.

          10. The Arkansas Supreme Court has never said there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.

          11. neither have they confirmed there was. Their job is not to try evidence, they only try faul play of the procecution and similar faul play in the trials.

          12. Actually, on direct appeal, their job was to “determine whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.” They determined affirmatively and denied both appeals.

          13. they did approve a new trial allowing new evidence to be presented, so perhaps they did so in the earlier hearings but in the latest they did agree with the defense. Probably why the state signed the Alford plea.

  69. about Byer’s 1994 interview in contrast to what he said in court about cutting himself on the knife, the deep meat story and so on it is pretty obvious he’s not a good liar.

  70. About JMB’s 1994 interview, about the Kershaw knife he said the following stories; 1) he said in court he cut himself with it, 2) he said to Gitchell in an earlier interview and also in 1994 that he cut deer meat with it, 3) he said no one had used the knife, 4) he said it wasn’t his fault that Chris’ blood was on it. He’s not a good liar.

  71. It seems you can’t get any real answers, so I’m taking my toys and going home. A bogus confession and and bullshit story about the occult is not enough for me. If they did it, then show me how. If they did it, show me evidence and show me how none of their DNA was left behind but DNA from other sources was. Thanks, Kevin, for your information and input.

    1. Answers to what? The Byers Branch Moore murder case is well documented, why do you need answers from nons? Go read the evidence, and if you disagree with it, more power to you. And all you’ve said (repeatedly) is that the WMPD made mistakes. So what? How does that prove the WM3 are innocent? You’re not making a connection.

      1. I realize now that at this point this site is about discussing evidence and the trial. I apologize if my replies did not do this or for any rude statements I have made. I am compelled to make one more reply because I think closure is coming soon with all of this in a way which his supporters may not have anticipated. This reply is in someway subjective but also comes from my 23 years working as a counselor. I probably won’t be replying again for awhile but will continue to read here and others.

        I have just seen a picture of Echols taken within the last 2 weeks from an Arkansas news site. This site was used to show excerpts from his new book where he has written about his childhood and death row. I think it was done to attract more sympathy for him, because at this point I sense that the interest in him is waning, along with the emotional support. It’s just a matter of time but it is happening sooner rather than later.

        The picture of Echols show him in a state of what I think is mental deterioration.
        He appears confused, disoriented and depressed. It is only one picture but I’ve seen thousands of people with the same appearance. It is so obvious to me, my first thought was why isn’t any of the movie people trying to camoflauge it through make-up, grooming, exercise.

        But then I remembered his history of Exhibit 500, documented by his mental health workers, and you can’t hide it. He can try to escape it through the extreme drug usage as before his incarceration, anything from alcohol to huffing gasoline and glue. He can get treatment but may not want it because the meds used can dull the brain and “stifle” creative and artistic urges which he thinks is a large part of the inner world he lives in. Without them though he will be having psychotic episodes, as he has in the past, and I’m guessing he has already. Any sane community would force treatment on him given that he has been convicted of a heinous crime and admitted to his guilt. And they would do it whether they thought he was innocent in the past or not. They would not want to take any chances.

        Echols mental health will be his undoing. All the people in Salem, MA, who have welcomed him will think twice when they see him acting out his mental state. They will have to wonder “Did he really murder or not? Are we safe?” The glamor will rub off. They will start to investigate for the first time, lookup the sites such as this one. And Echols may not be able to control his speech there’s no telling what he will say about the murders.

        The movie people may turn on him in the end. Decide there’s a new movie and money to be made about what a villain he turned out to be.

        I care deeply about the mentally ill. It is a mystery to me why some with tragic childhoods can end up living useful lives while others cross over the line into what I think all 3 did: the madness of sexual sadism and murder where there’s no turning back.

        Probably no one has an interest in reading this but I felt compelled to write it.
        Thanks guys for this site. And all the others, Blink on Crime, Trench Reynolds, Salem log, all of them. Thanks.

        1. Cheyenne, as said earlier, there are many people diagnosed with mental deseases such as bipolarism, schizophrenia and so on but when taking treatment and being under observation they are not a threat to anyone. Recall, JMB was also diagnosed as manodepressive and recieving treatment for bipolarism, just as Echols. If you listen to his statements they sound just as crazy and threatening, if not more, than those said by Echols in Exibit 500. A very good analyzis is provided Turvey, he makes a very valid point about that Chris was whipped by JMB in such way he couldn’t have been going out on a skateboard or on a bike afterwards without being in pain. JMB’s story about the whipping doesn’t add up, and therefor, with all the other points made about him above, it is much more likely he did it than Echols.

          1. I agree most mentally ill are not a threat when they are treated and even most are not a threat when they are not treated. In Exhibit 500, it is clear Echols is a threat, to himself and to others. His workers were not making it up. It’s incredible how his supporters, not you Kevin, but others just sweep Exhibit 500 under the carpet. Anyway, a photo is not altogether conclusive, but Echols simply does not look well. He has to want the treatment first to get it, and I doubt if he’s getting treatment. He’s a dangerous man, even if he were innocent.

            Kevin, I’m just about absolutely convinced the 3 did it. There’s a site by Blink.com where I think he was paid by Depp and Vedder. You’ve probably seen it already. He told them he would investigate the crime but he would be truthful about the results. He just would not be bought off. I was very impressed by that. And it tells me that Depp and Vedder may have had doubts, why would they hire a detective? I think Depp looks scared standing next to Echols in the more recent photos.

            I’m being subjective, but there’s a part in the movie when Byers goes to Robin Wood Hill pours out gasoline sets it on fire and rages at Echols, curses him. The movie is trying to make him look like a guilty lunatic. But I knew when he did that the anguish and rage was real at the time, I don’t think this man did it.

            But the facts are more important than what I feel. I don’t want to be like the supporters who “feel” that they’re innocent. Kevin, I truly have all the evidence I need from this site, from Callahan, from Blink and the others.
            But I appreciate that you’re trying to come up with evidence instead of getting all emotional about it.

          2. I’ve read many documents of the Exibit 500. What they say is that Echols is diagnosed as bipolar and has behavioral issues. Bipolarism means that he exposes a shift in emotional behavior, which is common amongst teenagers with hormonial imbalance. This can be regulated medically, which it also was. Other things such as outbursts, saying radical things, treathening behaviour is common amongst teenagers with behavioral issues, most of the things they say are in purpose of seeking and recieving attention, why they need someone to listen to them and talk to. It is important to remember that with treatment these conditions can improve with time, he doesn’t need to have the same extent of behavioral problems now as he did as a teenager. Therefor, exibit 500 cannot be applied on Echols today, we would need an updated version of exibit 500 to see if Echols still has these behavioral difficulties as an adult. Many teenagers have an exibit 500 and when becoming adults such behavioral issues often fade away and decrease substantially.

          3. Kevin, I simply must disagree with most of your comments about Exhibit 500. What I do agree about is hormonal imbalance causing behavioral problems with teens, which anyone who has raised a teen knows.

            Echols was also diagnosed as schizophrenic and psychotic. And Echols himself admits to this when applying for Social Security Disability benefits. In his book, he makes it seem like this was an easy “slam dunk” and just a way to have money to live on. He makes it seem it was his decision and he alone did it. I guarantee you it is not easy to get this benefit the first time. And Soc Sec. makes their determination by what the mental workers document and the history of the patient .

            If Echols is truly schizophrenic/psychotic the routine and the daily predictability of death row could have been helpful to him, as strange as that may seem. Plus the support of his wife and thousands of others. Echols is no longer insulated in prison from negative feedback about his guilt on the outside. There is no cure for mental illness although it can appear to temporarily be in remission, it can be exacerbated by stress which I’m sure Echols has in volumes.

            There are times when no treatment is even effective for schiz./psychosis. Anyway, Echols has revealed in his recent book, that he doesn’t think he has s problem. Thus, no treatment.

            And also, I hate to bring up the dreaded “S” word again, but it is obvious to me that he is obsessed with the occult, his book is saturated with it. All this tells me is that he has chosen a spiritual ideation that is narcicisstic and self-serving. There are those with his illness that choose a higher path that can admit they need help and will rely on something bigger than themselves and on others for that help. They will also take steps no matter how small to help others which is perhaps the best antidote of all..

            Clearly, not Echols.His spiritual system is he is god, he is in control and can control others. Believe me, Kevin, I wouldn’t care less what he believes, if not for the fact that he is schiz.psych, his history of violence, and I believe guilty of a heinous crime.

          4. And I wouldn’t be writing about this if I hadn’t seen Echols recent photo. “A picture is worth a thousand words” He’s in a downward spiral – his promoters need to catch him, if they can.

          5. look at the documents again, Echols was tested for schizophrenia but tested negative. He is not diagnosed with schizophrenia, but bipolarim. Bipolarism is a boarderline condition, if he had tested positive for schizophrenia he would be considered mentally ill and thereby he wouldn’t have been sentenced to jail.

          6. Is it Blink on Crime?
            I read it but some things that are stated there, such as Echols “knew” they had urine in the stomach, aren’t entirely true. During one of the first interviews Echols stated that he had heard an ongoing rumor that someone had urinated into the boys mouths. He also mentioned other rumors. The autopsy never confirmed urine in the boys stomachs, it was assumed by Peretti but never concluded to be urine.
            Depp is still a close friend to Echols, he was on a book signing event promoting Echols book recently.

            Byers does a theatrical act to seek attention. It could be a way to establish a false impression as a victim.This was done by Ian Huntley in the Soham murders, he appeared in front of camera as a primary witness who last saw the two girls and pointed out a way where he said he saw them go to the reporter when in fact he had tricked them into his home.
            Very few things Byers says about what happend from that he came back from Ryans court hearing and whipping Chris adds up.

          7. There are 3 different photos of Echols I suggest you look at. The first 2 are from a recent article under “Jonesboro Ar Death After Life, the Guardian”. There is a third photo , not as recent, which is “Echols releases statements on fedex withdrawing from conference. ” The fedex photo shows a side not seen of him in recent media that I know of. FedEx did not buy into the Echols “lovefest”.

            Kevin, I don’t expect you to share my perceptions. But it has served me well in my past vocation. I have not always been correct, but I believe once the dust settles, and the lovefest wanes, he, if not all three in time will self-destruct.

          8. Yes, I’m sure Byers has issues. He can be a scary guy. They really tried to make him look suspicious in the films. But then they ignored him. It’s like well, we’ll throw this spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks. Well, that didn’t work so let’s go after Hobbs. We have more movies to make, got to keep milking that cash cow.

            I know you’re not any more impressed with these people than I am, I think you’re looking for evidence. But I’m amazed at how few, yes, few celebrities are in Echols fan club, when I think about it.

            They rattled off about 30 names, mostly musicians, and I’ve never heard of most of them. There’s Depp. Oh, and Marilyn Manson…Now, there’s someone you really want standing next to you in a photo. Esp. since you were trying to dodge the satanic rap. But where are all the Hollywood activists? They’ve rallied behind causes before.

            So few. Maybe they can tell the difference between truth and story-telling in movies.

            Yes, Byers has problems. But I really believe the 3 did it. I’m not good at arguing the evidence with you like wm3truth is. But the evidence against the 3 convinced me. And also, Kevin, I just don’t think the detectives, officials, prosecutors, etc. would allow Byers or Hobbs to go about their community if they thought either one did something this horrible. I don’t think they’re trying to save face because they convicted the wrong guys or its their pride and ego or any of that. They love their kids. They want to get the right bad guys. And they had them.

          9. Well, the “actual murderer” got away because they thought they could make this look like teens did this and the occult was the motive, however, realizing they were wrong about the motive, the prosecution didn’t want to apologize the wrongful conviction since such would cost them their carriers, the state a million dollars for wrongful imprisonment per year and per individual. Instead they signed an Alford plea whereby they don’t have to pay punitive damages or take responsibility, or risk their cariers.
            I hadn’t seen Revelations when I made up my mind about JMB, only the first documentary. What is obvious is that he is the only one who could have done it if you read the docs on callahan you will realize this, because he is the only one who could have given Chris an overdose of Carabamazephine, this substance isn’t ordinarly given to eight year old ADD children since it could negatively affect their growth. Then nothing off what he says makes sense and goes togheter, after he left Ryan at court at four he says he picked up Melissa and then got Chris and whipped him, allthough Ryan says Chris wasn’t home.If he had whipped him and grounded him, how could he not be home? His explenation of what went on after 6.pm doesn’t make any sense.
            I don’t believe in the alligations towards Hobbs, the witness says they were drinking but he couldn’t have driven Pam to work drunk or picked her up, and how was he going to get Chris who was being whipped by JMB at the time. These witnesses are just as reliable as Vicki.
            To me it is clear JMB went after Chris when he disobeyed or tried to escape, JMB is bipolar which could be an explenation to why he sent HBO the knife which I believe he used on Chris, bipolar people have strong emotional moodswings and if he started feeling a sudden sense of remors it might be the reason why he sent the knife, and later, when the moodswings settled he might have regret he sent the knife and tried to deny things about the knife to Gitchell.

          10. Blink.com is the worst possible place to get information. Just read up on blink and the morgan harrington case to get a feel of shannon stoy’s insanity and/or greed.

        2. And I hope and pray the parents of Salem keep their children very close and safe. The police have got to be watching this guy.

          1. Recidivism – Prison – from Wikipedia

            “Is highly correlated with psychopathy – as defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Punishment and behavior modifications techniques do not improve the behavior of a psychopath.

            Psychopathic individuals have been regularly observed to become more cunning and better able to hide their behavior. (Echols) It has been suggested that traditional therapeutic approaches actually created psychopaths that are if not worse then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior.(Echols)

            “They are generally considered to be not only incurable but untreatable”.

            Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves.
            They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behavior.”

            Clearly Echols. He is more dangerous and insane than he was in 93. He thinks he is shielded by money and people but its a two-edged sword, this also feeds into his addictions and illness. He can get all the drugs (heroin is one favorite drug of choice with movie people), perverted sex, adoration for the god he thinks he is. This will all get him sicker and sicker. How far will his people go to protect him?

            Time is on the side of the non-supporters.

          2. A psychopath/sociopath is a type of character, it is not a mental illness, a phychopath can tell right from wrong and doesn’t experience psychosis or hallucinations, just as on ordinarie person. My impression of Echols is that he seemed to be perceiving himself as a vampire or vampire – wannabee. Ok so its clear you don’t like Echols but looking at this crime, what implicates him in it? did he have access to Carabamazephine?

          3. Kevin,
            The drug is Carbamazepine. It was prescribed to Chris as Tegretol on 1/14/93 by Dr. Estmead. Sub-therapeutic levels found in his blood per the autopsy report.

          4. If you look at the use of Tegretol/ Carbamazepine, it is for patients with bipolarism, extreme pain and epilepsy. Chris was supposed to be given Riddelin, which is used for ADHD children. I would question the doc who prescribed the Tergretol to Chris since he wasn’t diagnosed with epilepsy why the purpose of giving him Tergetol instead of Riddelin doesn’t make any sense.

          5. further, Carbamazepine is only given to patients that are resistent to Lithium – treatment, which is a very small number of patients. JMB was given Tergetol since he probably was resistent to Lithium, Melissa was on Lithium treatment for manodepressivity. Chris wasn’t tried with the Lithium treatment which, in praxis, would be the first thing he would be given, and if resistent then given the Tergetol, not the other way around. I suspect JMB used Chris’ name to get more Tegretol since he was convicted for selling his own medicine for money. Tegretol also releaves extreme pain, such as during emasculation.

          6. I misspelled ” recividism”. And you know where to look to see the evidence. You’ve drawn a different conclusion.

  72. New thought; I’ve read a lot of comments wherein it’s claimed that the WM3 were fairly sentenced on basis of unanemous jury ruling. The jurors themselves are ordinary people which makes me think “what makes these jurors so divine in compare to other citizens that makes their opinions unquestionable and necessarily reliable?” what makes them more devine than anyone else ?

      1. if one says that two jurys convicted them as guilty and that it is enough to claim they did it then the jury that made that decision must be considered extraordinary in compare to others, since their judgement is taken to be justified by itself

          1. has no one here said that they are guilty because they were found guilty by a jury in two trials?

          2. They have been proven guilty in a court of law. That is not the same as saying the jurys’ verdicts are proof of guilt. As far as I know no one has said that.

          3. You said people are claiming “two jurys [sic] convicted them as guilty and that it is enough to claim they did it.” I’m saying that 1) no one has made that claim here and 2) claiming that they have been proven guilty in a court of law (which HAS been said here) is not the same as saying the guilty verdicts are proof that they actually committed the crime. That’s how I interpreted your prior comment (at 2:28).

          4. I don’t follow your point in 2), you say that a guilty verdict doesn’t necesserily mean that they were found guilty of the crime, in my opinion that is exactly what that means, that they were believed to have commited the crime by a jury, hence, they were convicted.
            In this case “in a court of law” is synonymous with “being convicted based on a jury verdict”

          5. That’s not what I said. I said a guilty verdict doesn’t necessarily mean that they actually did it. A guilty verdict means that the jury unanimously found that the evidence presented in the trial proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in the end of the day, the jury did not witness the crime, so it would be illogical to consider the verdict to be proof in and of itself. If someone were to say “they were found guilty, that’s proof that they did it,” I would disagree with them. But like I said, no one has said that here.

          6. some have made such claims though not you. However, proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt means that it is proven that there could not be any “reasonable” doubt they commited the crime, that is, it couldn’t be concluded that anyone else could have done it in sense of what would be reasonable to assume. No jury can witness a crime in retrospect, that is why the evidence should be strong enough to compensate for that opportunity, and the question then comes back to “why would we belive the jurys verdict is reliable when there isn’t a sufficient amount of evidence to support such a conclusion?”

  73. Kevin, where are you from? Here in the states our court system, while not perfect, is a very fair system. The jurors in this case couldn’t have witnessed the crime so they couldn’t judge based on that. They merely listened to the evidence as it was presented and then made a decision. Lawyers here are a very different breed of animal. Defense attorneys who decide to take a case often do so even if they know or eventually learn that their client is guilty. A district attorney, or prosecutor is often very locked into presenting a case against someone and especially in smaller towns or in this case, in an area where the majority of people are fairly uneducated. I’ve listened to a lot of the prosecutor’s remarks and presentation of the “evidence”. The guy is an idiot and talks to the people of the jury as though they’re little children.

    1. demidoll, I’m from Sweden, and the Swedish law system differs from US law when it comes to trial by jury, which doesn’t exist in Sweden, all convications are made by a judge and a group of counselors. It has been discussed if Sweden should adopt the trial by jury system but it has always been declined since, in Sweden, there is a common conception that verdicts should only be based on forensic evidence and there is very little room for emotional input during the trials. The major concern of jury verdicts is that they are based on the jurors interpretations and perceptions, similarily as the voting for a political party or president, and not founded on the opinion and interpretation of professionals.

      1. Our system is flawed, but in many cases it works. The biggest problem with this case or rather the presentation of it is that lawyers for both sides failed. Defense did a terrible job of handling clients and DA as I said before is an idiot.

        1. I think the defense lawyers in the first trial weren’t given the means they needed to provide a good defense. Had this been an fair trial where all the relevant forensic evidence would have been presented, the hairs belonging to Hobbs and Jacoby would have impliyed that it was more likely they commited the crime than Echols and Baldwin and Miskelley’s “confession” wouldn’t have had the kind of impact it had on the outcome.
          These things happen in Sweden aswell but you wouldn’t see a procecutor walking around with a picture of a dead child and holding it up as a scare tactic, or see him cutting a grapefruit, if not in a situation where he actually could prove that the knife belonged to the suspect which would have been the justified reason for demonstrating the cutting of the grapefruit. These kind of “dramatical” acts are used to manipulate and misguide the jury and then, if a jury system is supposed to work in a reliable way, it has to be precluded that the jurors know how to distinguish such irrelevant facts presented by the procecution from those facts that are actually relevant and could be considered proven.

          Another point in this matter is that trial by jury is done in cases where there is little forensic evidence. In this case there was plenty forensic evidence, blood samples, hair, peaces of clothing and so on but because of the procecutions missconduct some of it was “lost” and newer tested, and these tests cost to much for a single individual or even a lawfirm to afford to pay for. If the evidence would have been treated properly a jury trial wouldn’t have been called for.

          1. That is a good point. The evidence was lost, all of it. That knife display, cutting a grapefruit, was so inaccurate and outrageous! You can’t compare a grapefruit to human flesh. There have been so many twists and turns in this case that I can barely keep up. I listened to Fogelman’s presentation of evidence, the way he talked to the jurors, his talking down to them as though they’re small children who can’t possibly undertand (grownup) talk. He does with them much what was done with Jessie, he leads them down a path of made up information. And then add Dale Griffis to this and you get a lot more made up stories of people wearing black and listening to metal. If this were indicative of satanism I’d be in deep shit. I often use black nail polish and wear black most of the time. Not because I worship satan or believe in some alternate religion. I just like black. I also like metal. I also have a tattoo. None of this makes me a monster, it just makes me weird, especially given my age. But that’s a different subject. My point is that listening to Griffis’s expert testimony is like listening to someone who’s read a book on the occult and now believes he can determine, just from the book, whether or not a person is involved in the occult. The fact that Burnett buys into Griffis’s “expertise” is relevant too. He’s about as dumb as a brick. Burnett said that based on Giffis’s mail order degree and experience he was qualified. I can’t agree, due to the fact that he didn’t really have any credible experience that I could find. He came up with crazy drawings from the West Memphis area that proved nothing. I’ve seen things like that in lots of places. Pentagrams and 666 are sometimes things kids draw/write for attention. Either way Griffis couldn’t prove one single thing. Speculation is all it was.

          2. Just wondering if anyone knows why the test results of the Byers knife were not presented at the Misskelley trial? And why, when Ridge interviewed Byers, he told Mark that the blood on the knife matched Chris’s type, then Byers says that neither he nor Chris had ever cut themselves with the knife, yet Ridge ends the interview with this remark: “Byers noted he had cut himself with the knife”.

          3. They didn’t know about the knife until Byers sent it to HBO, which was after the Miskelley trial. He stated numerous and conflicting explenations about the blood on the knife. The blood was tested to be either his or Christophers, further testing to exclude on of them was never done with motive that there was to little blood on the knife to enable further testing.

          4. That is not true – the filmmakers turned the knife over to the police on 1/24/94 and Byers was interrogated on 1/26/94, the day Misskelley’s trial began.

          5. So John why wasn’t Byers interrogation presented at trial? 2 of the boys were determined to have drowned. Did the water from their lungs show it came from the creek they were found in? And why did police find only 1 sock in the creek? Where are the other 5? If the kill sight was the creek bank and the clothes are found there, where are the socks?

          6. Byers was a witness for the defense at the Echols/Baldwin trial, and they ask him about the interrogation. As to why he didn’t testify at the Misskelley trial I have no idea, nor do I have answers to any of your other questions.

          7. John, the filmmakers, HBO, turned over the knife Byers sent to them to the police, which was the knife with the blood on it.

          8. Why didn’t the boys have mosquito bites on them? None of this makes sense to me. Officer Meeks said mosquitos were so bad that night, why no bites on the kids?

          9. That part is true – I was referring to your claim that they didn’t know about the knife until after the Misskelley trial.

          10. John, the verdict for Miskelley was given on 5 th february 94 and Byers was interrogated by Gitchell on 26 january which is to close in time, and he wasn’t considered a suspect. It was brought up in the Echols/Baldwin trial when Echols lawyer questioned Byers about it and he said he might have cut himself with it.

            demidoll, the lack of mosquito bites has been a reason to assume that the ditch was a dump site and not the actual crimescene.

          11. Have Misskelley’s lawyers ever said that they did not know about the knife until after the trial?

          12. The knife would imply that Byers should be considered as a suspect, so the procecution should have asked the judge to postpone the trial on the basis of new evidence, which is their obligation when new evidence come up, not the defense’s. The defense attorney in the Miskelley trial was not given a chance to interogate Byers before the verdict.

          13. As the Lord Chief Justice observed in R v Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim. 1354, [2007] 1 Cr. App. R. 8: “The passage of time is, of itself, no impediment to the fairness of a retrial.” Delay per se will not necessarily lead to proceedings being stayed without trial, particularly if there is no evidence of bad faith or manipulation on the part of the prosecution, and/or the defendant has caused or substantially contributed to the period of delay. Reference to the case law on delay reveals that courts are less concerned with the period of time that has elapsed than the effect that delay can be said to have had on the ability of the defendant to mount an effective case.

            further ….
            from Court of Appeal in Altaf v The Crown Prosecution Service, West Midlands [2007] EWCA Crim. 691, in which Moses LJ said:

            “A breach of the defendant’s right to have a cr “A breach of the defendant’s right to have a criminal charge determined within a reasonable time, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Convention, will not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be stayed. It will only be appropriate to stay or dismiss proceedings if there can no longer be a fair hearing or it will otherwise be unfair to try the defendant … Once there has been a conviction, this court should only quash that conviction if the hearing has proved to be unfair, or it was unfair to try the defendant at all.”

            see link
            http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/abuse_of_process/#b01

          14. So if this part is true, the lack of mosquito bites, what is your opinion? This has always perplexed me. I’ve lived in a mosquito infested place like WM and it’s tough. I can’t stand them! 3 little boys in the woods at night would probably have lots of bites. Just can’t figure this out.

          15. Following Brent Turvey’s analyzis, the lack of mosquito bites indicates that the ditch was a dumpsight and not the actual crimescense. The boys were most likely transported to the ditch, carried to it and tossed into the water sometime early in the morning of the 6th of May. It is also possible that the people that thought they saw the boys walk into the woods at about 6.p.m on the 5th of May might have confused them with other boys walking into the woods.

          16. I have no opinion on the mosquito bites. As for crime scene/dump site, I agree with the author of this site that it was the crime scene. Read the section “Crime scene or dump site?” to see why. I do not consider Brent Turvey’s analysis to be reliable evidence of innocence.

          17. I think that if the children went into the woods to play they would most probably have gotten some mosquito bites on them, even prior to the attack.

          18. Maybe, but who knows? Maybe Brent Turvey is wrong. I’m sure he makes a convincing case in a documentary, but how would he fare on the witness stand in a criminal trial? Would his theory survive a thorough cross-examination by a prosecutor? And wouldn’t the prosecution have presented their own expert as a rebuttal? And how does his theory stack up against the rest of the evidence in the case? It’s these kinds of concerns that cause me to value trial testimony over opinions presented in the media.

  74. the crimescene information is wrong. when the cops left that first night they changed shifts and didn’t inform the oncoming shift that the boys were missing. the next morning the search continued about 8 a.m. That gave the killers time to take the bodies out there and leave them in the mud.

    1. From jivepuppi.com: Clothes. The victims’ clothes had no rips, tears, blood stains or skin scrapings indicating they had been removed before the attacks. The clothes must have been removed also before the victims were bound. If the clothes were shed at the site of the killings, and Byers and Branch were killed near where their bodies were found, why were their clothes transported to another place for dumping? Or conversely, if their clothes were removed near the site they were discovered, why would Byers and Branch be taken to the other bank before being placed underwater? The clothes in a single site is consistent with them being transported in as a bundle from elsewhere.

      If they were killed there, where are the socks and underwear? This is crazy! I’m getting a headache.
      The same questions that have been asked, where are the clothes, where are the water samples, where is the cloth sample, where is the Bojangles man blood scrapings? Every piece of viable evidence collected is missing or lost. Why weren’t the parents questioned? What about the neighbors, why not question them? The cops suddenly think of D.E. and that’s where they begin the case.

      1. Another point made by an earlier poster, T.H. washing clothes that night. All the clothes in the house. What if he washed those clothes after they were taken from the kids and then brought them back to the dump site? And how would police know if they didn’t question him or search the homes of the families? The website midsouthjustice.com shows police reports that were changed or doctored. How is that possible? Regina Meeks changes her story between the Baldwin/Echols trial and the Misskelley trial. Look it up, she give inconsistent testimony.

        1. Don’t give yourself a headache thinking about every detail. Maybe they are just mysteries that will never be solved, nothing more. First, try to get some verification on these facts. I’m sure the people behind Jivepuppi and midsouthjustice are knowledgeable, but if the claims are making cannot be verified against an official source (such as trial transcripts at callahan), that should be a red flag.

          Take the allegedly doctored police reports for example. I have read much of the trial transcripts and appeals pleadings, and no where does it mention doctored police reports. If defense attorneys had solid evidence that the police reports were doctored to make their clients look guilty, why wouldn’t they present that in an appeal? Were they incompetent? Or perhaps the police reports were not doctored and midsouthjustice is wrong? Or perhaps there really is something fishy about the police reports, but for some reason not yet known to you the defense attorneys didn’t think it proved (or even suggested) anything. Do the research and decide if there’s something to it or if it’s just an anomaly.

          You also have to avoid thinking in hindsight and attempting to judge other people without knowing their motives. Perhaps the WMPD didn’t question the families extensively because they were able to quickly establish that it was unlikely they were involved. I’m not a police officer so I can’t answer that question, but I don’t think that the fact that they didn’t focus on the families as much proves that they didn’t do their job, perhaps there’s some protocol that you and I don’t know about. The police officers testified at the trials and were asked a lot of questions about the investigation, that’s a good place to start if you want to understand their motives. And John Mark Byers was questioned on May 19, so it’s not entirely true that the families were not suspected.

          In the end you have to ask if all of these anomalies add up to something, and if so, if it actually proves the WM3 are guilty (or at least provides reasonable doubt) when weighed against the hard evidence. The Misskelley confession is hard evidence. The fiber matches, Hollingsworth sighting, lake knife, bragging, that’s also hard evidence. Are questions about clothes in the water, mosquitos, and other anomalies enough to torpedo all that evidence? Do the research and find out.

          1. Sorry, I meant to say “if it actually proves the WM3 are innocent,” not “if it actually proves the WM3 are guilty.”

          2. not all family members were questioned or suspected. and these are not anomalies, they are oversigts. cops don’t usually have that many oversights. there were no difinitve fiber matches, the lake knife was never proven to be the knife and knife wounds were disproved, if you believe the new experts who claim animals did the damage. the lack of mosquito bites completely dispells the myth that they were killed at the sight since everyone else out that night was bitten. why would the little boys not have bites when everyone else did? I think demidoll is right to question the police and to judge their actions or rather lack of action. even if they suspected the three right away, what motivated that suspicion and as has been stated here before, family is always questioned first even if they’re not suspects. it gives police a clearer picture of what was going on prior to the murders. just because someone is suspicious doesn’t mean they’re guilty. so questioning the family and neighbors would let cops know who was lurking around that day and what the kids were doing.

          3. 2 of the kids drowned, so they were alive for a little bit while in those woods. I guess you think that the killer was lighting quick with grabbing the bodies from the car(or whatever mode of transportation) and dumping them in the water so that no mosquitos could’ve bitten them in the process. Cause I mean, from the way you make it sound, it doesn’t seem like you could walk 2 feet in those woods without being bitten hundreds of times.

          4. Even if they are oversights, and I’m not convinced that they are, that doesn’t prove anything. Simply saying “they should have questioned the family more” does not prove innocence.

            Regarding the lack of mosquito bites, the prosecution provided a very reasonable explanation. And the animal predation theory has never been proven. A bunch of experts saying “animals did it” is not proof. You can certainly choose to believe them, but their opinions are not proof in and of itself.

            I don’t want to argue the case again, the point I’m trying to make is that if you are going to evaluate the case and decide if the WM3 are guilty or not, go to where the evidence is presented and challenged. That means the trial transcripts and pleadings. Appeal decisions are also a great way to get summaries of the evidence and legal and procedural background. Don’t get caught up nit-picking every tiny detail of the investigation. Let websites like this one and others be your guide, but not your source.

          5. no time to look at it again right now, but will soon. the trial transcripts prove nothing to me. most of it is silly, made up material that the prosecutors used to talk down to the jury. and damien didn’t help with his antics or his attitude. he was and is a punk.

          6. For me it’s the exact opposite: I consider the trial transcripts to be the highest quality source for evidence, because that’s where evidence is most scrutinized. In a criminal trial, you are guaranteed to hear both sides of the argument, because the Constitution demands it. You don’t get that with a documentary or website.

          7. the judge in their case was just as ignorant as the prosecutor so looking at trial transcripts is useless. burnett was convinced or tried to convince himself that the occult expert was actually an expert when he was nothing of the sort. so i can’t use any of this as proof of guilt. when asked how to identify participants of occult activity the (expert) replied they wear black t shirts and have black colored hair and listen to heavy metal. how many people in this country alone would be labeled as satanic if this were really true?

          8. You, too, are uneducated on the facts and have done nothing more than watch documentaries that are putting WM3 in the best possible light. Whether you believe in guilt or inn0cence, the verdict was not determined by the color of shirts or the music. It was multiple things presented in court-lack of alibis, confessions, eye witness accounts, and whether we like it or not abnormal behavior during the trial from Echols. READ THE FACTS before arguing a child’s level defense, DevilsAdvocate.

          9. First, Dale Griffis’s identified specific things about the nature of the crime that suggested someone with a strong interest in the occult could have committed it. If you actually bothered to read his testimony you would know that. You don’t have to agree with him, but your assertion that his testimony consisted of “black t shirts and have black colored hair and listen to heavy metal” is blatantly false.

            Second, Judge Burnett’s decision to allow him to testify as an expert was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court on direct appeal. Is it possible that both Judge Burnett and the Arkansas Supreme Court were wrong? Maybe, but it’s going to take a lot more than the opinion of some dude on a message board to convince me.

            Jane and I are not trying to be mean, we’re just saying to know the facts first before you start arguing.

          10. Just because you read these documents does not make them true. I’ve read them as well. I can’t use much of what is there because, frankly, it is incorrect. Defense attorneys were blocked at every turn by Burnett and prosecutors consistently relied on rumour and supposition, not to mention the rumour by Carson that Jason confessed. Why should we believe Carson? The Hollingsworths were liars as well. As for “protocol that you and I don’t know about”, I actually do “know” about such protocols. As someone who has experience in law enforcement, the family is the first place to begin. Even if they’re not suspects, family can lead cops to someone who is likely the perp. As parents we know our own children better than anyone and can give insight into motive. Despite the almost cult-like following that the WM3 have acquired, they are just 3 very regular people with very irregular lives. Well, with the exception of Damien. I believe that at some point he will lose his grip on the outside and regress back to his old problems from his youth. In prison he was “trapped” and had a very structured life. Now he’s got responsibilities that he may not be able live up to due to his schizophrenic tendencies. We’ll see. Contrary to what many here may believe, I am not a WM3 supporter. I’m a Chris, Michael and Steve supporter. The person(s) responsible for their murders has never been caught, and they deserve at least that much.

          11. Rumor by Carson? Carson testified at the trial and was cross-examined. That’s not a rumor, that’s evidence. Baldwin was free to get up on the witness stand and refute Carson’s testimony, but he didn’t.

            And the Hollingsworths were liars? Says who? You?

            And perhaps Judge Burnett blocked the defense because there was a legal and factual basis for him to do so. Read the Arkansas Supreme Court opinions. Do you notice that they reference laws and legal precedent? That’s how you evaluate a judge’s decisions. All you have provided is your opinion. I’ll take legal precedent over opinions any day.

        2. Regarding the clothes, the killer wouldn’t have to have placed them in the water at all, he could have tossed them or burned them. So leaving the clothes well kept is also a sign of personal attachment to the victims. He could also have buried the children further away than he did, so the fact that he placed them the way he did is in a sense that he wanted them to be found, perhaps for purpose so that they could have a proper burial. This would also be a personal gesture.

          1. The way the clothes were found proves nothing. I can say it proves guilt, haste, whatever; but your point doesn’t make any more sense than anyone else. Your point, Kevin, without pouring over this entire page, seems to lead to TH. Ridiculous. This crime was committed quickly and covered quickly. Let Terry Hobbs alone. You over analyze things from watching documentaries that show the wm3 as victims of southern prejudice and ignorance and your riding a bandwagon without the full spokes on your wheels. People have tried explaining things to you and I’m just going t0 c0me right out and say it; YOU ARE IGNORANT.

          2. Actually he isn’t pointing to TH. If you had read his posts you’d know this. The psychological aspect of the case points to a familial murder. You’re the ignorant one.

          3. Damien has/had feelings of superiority and was a tempermental teen. He did many things to get attention, including the wearing of black and growing his hair long. According to Damien, someone at the mental hospital once told him he could be another Manson or Bundy. Not sure if that really happened. Either way he was not a stable boy back in 1993. Did he and his friend Jason and acquaintance, Misskelley actually murder three little 8 yr. olds? I’m not convinced. Especially when it comes to Jason and Jessie. It is my opinion that Jessie would have said whatever they “prodded” him to and that Jason was guilty by association. It is not impossible for someone, or in this case, 3 someone’s, to be wrongly convicted. Is Damien innocent? Probably not. But is he guilty of these murders? Probably not. So if these 3 didn’t do it, who did? I am convinced that more than one person was involved, that at least one of them was a family member, and that the murders occured out of anger. Direct anger toward one or more of the boys for some perceived wrong. The convictions of the 3 came in spite of there not being enough evidence to do so. The prosecutors in the case used “language” to their advantage. They talked about how devil worshipping teenagers ran down 3 little boys, sodomized, beat and then disposed of them. They talked about Damien’s mental health issues and his penchant for heavy metal and how Jason was his friend who went along with the whole thing. Then there is Jessie’s “confession”. Clearly Jessie’s IQ quickly became a point of contention among non supporters. Despite the fact that he has a lower than normal IQ, many do not agree that he could be led by police to “go along” with their (police) made up story. Again, my opinion is that they led him. Anyone listening to or reading the confession transcripts can easily see/hear this happening. Everytime he gets a time wrong, investigators “correct” him or lead him in the “right” direction. So-called witnesses were made up of teenage and preteen girls whose stories were constantly changing. My question is still on the table, why, when 3 little boys are murdered, do police instantly go for rumours and ignore immediate family members for questioning? That crap about how “obviously the WMPD had other leads and didn’t feel a need to follow correct procedure or that no one knows what the correct police procedure is”…that is total BS and we here all know that. Just because some chooose to deny it does not make it so. I’ve said before, I am not a Damien fan, but wrong is wrong and I don’t believe that, as crazy as Damien may have been and as frightening as he may be now, I can’t say that I believe he killed those children.

          4. I have two answers to your question: 1) You are wrong, they didn’t ignore family members, they questioned John Mark Byers, and 2) Damien was a viable suspect, much more so than family members. He had a long history of violence and mental illness and appeared to know details about the murders that were not yet made public. Considering that their pursuit of him led to a confession and convictions, I’d say they were right.

        3. Don’t waste your time quoting other websites unless it’s callahan. “They” don’t like anything that doesn’t come from Callahan. But just remember, even the info on callahan cannot prove that the 3 did it. Most of the info there contradicts the so-called evidence. Prosecutors made contradictory statements and the one thing that convinces the jury in the Baldwin conviction is the testimony of Michael Carson, a lying little con artist who was also a heavy drug user. What everyone is forgetting is that 3 little boys are gone forever. Thousands of “followers” have focused on the WM3 and their freedom, which certainly is important if all 3 are innocent of these murders. But so much is missing. The biggest question mark of all is who did it?

          1. You’re right, just because it’s on callahan doesn’t mean it’s true. But you can also say the same thing about websites, documentaries, articles, and books. What you get on callahan are trial transcripts and pleadings – the highest quality evidence in my opinion. Why? It is the only place where evidence is properly challenged.

            In trials, witnesses are cross-examined, and rebuttal witnesses are provided, also with cross-examination. Pleadings are the same – you get the pleading from the defense, but then you also get the rebuttal from the state. You are free to read both sides of the evidence and decide for yourself. You don’t get that in a documentary. A documentary basically says, “we’re trying to prove something, and we’re only going to show you evidence that supports what we are trying to prove.”

          2. I’m not quoting or even referencing “documentaries”. I’m going by the case information provided at callahan [only], in this statement.

  75. Interesting article from 1994. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/1994/jul/17/files-slain-boys-reveal-grim-detail-gritty-police/?print=1

    From this article:Very interesting…and stupid.
    “Driver, a heavyset former commercial airline pilot, had told investigators about a cult and gave them a membership list that included a Jason Baldwin and eight others, but not Echols or Misskelley.

    If the police worked with the assumption the killers were part of a cult, there is no indication in the file that they talked to several people on the list – although it might be contained in the estimated 400 pages that officials said are exempt from disclosure and did not make public.”

    1. While not a “callahan” article, this is nonetheless an important one:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/memphis3/WestMemphis3Account.html

      Just a little snippet, but please read all of it. It certainly answers many questions. One of the most important things to note is that police never allowed Jessie to be taken to the “mureder site” to give a better picture of what happened and where it happened, exactly.

      “Stidham considered one of his most important witness to be Warren Holmes, a detective and polygraph examiner associated with several well-known cases, including Watergate and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Holmes was prepared to testify that his review of the polygraph results indicated that Jessie truthfully answered all questions except one, a question relating to his prior drug use. Officer Durham, he believed, lied to Jesse about his polygraph results in an effort to scare Jesse into making a confession. Judge Burnett, however, thwarted Stidham’s plans when he ruled that testimony about the results of a polygraph test, whether the results suggested innocence or guilt, was never admissible under Arkansas law. Burnett allowed, for purposes of a possible appeal, Holmes to testify outside of the presence of the jury about factors contributing to false confessions. Holmes said warning signs including having the confessing subject tell you nothing “you don’t already know,” having what they do say not fit with known facts about the case, and having the story of the crime not told “in narrative form.” In the case of Jesse’s confession, Holmes said, all three of these warning signs appeared. Holmes said that telling someone they failed a polygraph test can lead to a false confession because they tend to view the test as “a last hope,” and when they are told they are lying, “their will is beaten to a pulp, and then they just give up.” Holmes also criticized the failure of authorities to take Jesse to the crime scene where factual disputes about the truth of his statement might have been resolved. After finishing his proffered testimony, Burnett allowed Holmes to testify in front of the jury only concerning a few matters, such as the fact that Jesse “certainly knows the differences between shoelaces and a rope.”

          1. Please explain why and how you determined that you are “more convinced” when a [real] expert refuted pretty much everything the prosecution said?

          2. Jesse Misskelley knew specific details about the injuries to the boys that were not made public, and Holmes admitted under cross-examination that was a significant factor in determining if the confession was true.

            Holmes may be an expert, but he wasn’t in the room with Jesse when he confessed, nor can he read Jesse’s mind. Just because an expert thinks the confession was false doesn’t mean it is.

      1. This is a very credible testimony and what makes it credible is that none of the accused; LG, Buddy Lucas, Hobbs or Jacoby, had an alibi during that time. It also explains why they didn’t come forward, why Hobbs and Jacobys hair was found at the crimescene, a realistic motive and the details of the assult coheres with the autopsy reports. I hope Ellington follows up on it.

        1. The only way this could go anywhere is if Lucas testified against Hobbs and Jacoby. I doubt that would happen. Until someone else is convicted, I will remain convinced that the WM3 did it.

          1. I disagree, if this will be investigated than Lucas will be useful by disclosing details about how they got rid of evidence, point out perticular paths they took forth and back from the woods and also which car they used where DNA could be extracted to verify who was in the car, or that they were in Hobbs car. Lucas doesn’t need to testify towards Hobbs by sitting in the courtroom, he can leave a testimony during the trial when Hobbs is escorted out of the courtroom and only his lawyers are present, this is done during mobb – trials and trials when there are threats for the witness personal safety. Lucas would be sentenced as an accomplice and by testifying towards Hobbs he will be able to negotiate his sentenced time to be reduced since in this case the DA will most likely offer him pretty much what he wants if he agrees to testify since his testimony is crucial for the prosecution.

          2. ” Until someone else is convicted, I will remain convinced that the WM3 did it.”
            This might by according to the North Corean law system, in democratic countries it is “until proven guilty the WM3 remains innocent”.

          3. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The WM3 were proven guilty in a court of law twice – once in 1994 when they were convicted and again in 2011 when they plead guilty. That’s what “proven guilty in a court of law” means – a conviction by a jury or a guilty plea.

            In the court of public opinion however, anything goes. You are free to have the opinion that they are innocent and I am free to have the opinion that they are guilty. We are allowed to use whatever criteria we chose to form that opinion and neither of us is obligated to prove to the other that they are right.

            Until the WM3’s convictions are vacated by a judge, they remain “proven guilty in a court of law.”

          4. During the Alford plea, they were NOT proven guilty. They simply accepted the Alford as a means of getting out of prison. They accepted the plea but stated they were innocent. So they were handed guilty sentences once during their initial trials.

          5. You are wrong. Pleading guilty means you are taking legal responsibility for the crime. Even if they are maintaining innocence and just pleading guilty to get out of prison, they are still guilty in the eyes of the law and hence “proven guilty in a court of law.”

          6. Since the Alford Plea means that they have the right to be considered innocent they are no longer considered guilty by law.

          7. You are wrong. An Alford Plea is simply a guilty plea in which the defendant does not have to allocute. They are allowed to maintain their innocence, but they are still considered guilty by law. Go read the documents at callahan; they read “I plead guilty.”

          8. They only “plea guilty” in a formal matter so that they can’t claim punitive damages from the state, it isn’t actual “guilt” as if they did or didn’t commit the crime.

          9. You are correct, but since they plead guilty, the are still considered guilty in the eyes of the law. If the WM3 had won a retrial and not been convicted again, then they would be innocent, but that didn’t happen.

            You are certainly allowed to believe they are innocent, but as far as the American judicial system is concerned, they are guilty. Please stop saying “innocent until proven guilty” in regards of the WM3, it is blatantly false and just proves that you are ignorant of the American justice system.

          10. John, they were convicted according to “trial by jury”, as we discussed earlier it is not the same as “trial by judge” which is based on actual evidence.

          11. Fine. You’ve made it clear that you don’t think there was enough evidence presented at the trials to convict them, so I’ll just assume that’s what you mean when you say “innocent until proven guilty.”

          12. exactly, it is a verdict based on the judgement and opinion of fourteen jurors and not on actual evidence.

          13. You are wrong. First, it’s 12 jurors, not 14. Second, they made the verdict after hearing the evidence. You are certainly entitled to your opinion otherwise.

          14. They were hearing theories based on fabricated evidence of a knife which wasn’t proven to belong to anyone and thereby not actual evidence and a lot of speculations about Crowley, which is completly remote to this case. Based on that they formed an opinion.

        2. The hairs found were not necessarily those of Hobbs or Jacoby, only that the hairs belonged to a certain percentage of the population but that they were not the defendants, which is not evidence of their innocence to me. I can about guess that my sons friend has my hair somewhere on his clothes when he leaves my house, its normal. People seem to grasp at straws on here, but I’m like John, I believe that the confession was true, he seemed to have guilt over what they had done, and was trying to get it off his chest. Plus he sure knew a lot about the injuries that weren’t made public, and it didn’t’ look coerced or “fed” to me. Also, if you’re drunk, it can be hard to remember exact times or sequences of events.

  76. John, you say that the WMPD “did” look at family since they questioned JMB, however, they did not question [ALL] the immediate family members, therefore they did not conduct the investigation properly. Common sense tells us, even those of you who are not familiar with police procedure, that interviewing all immediate family just after the discovery of the bodies is crucial. It gives them a clearer picture of everything that happened from the time the boys awakened that morning until the time they arrived home from school. They should have had copious notes on each child regarding what they ate for breakfast, what time they stepped onto the bus, what clothes they wore to school, what time they arrived home and if they changed clothes, who was home when they left that morning, who was there when they returned, who wasn’t there when they left/arrived, the comings and goings of others in the immediate neighborhood, etc., etc. The investigation is non-existent!

    1. Sorry, I just don’t agree with you. The WMPD found a credible lead (Echols) and pursued it, leading to a confession, evidence (both physical and circumstantial), and convictions. I don’t see a problem with that. Some guy in an internet forum saying “they should have questioned the family more” is not going to convince me otherwise. What they ate for breakfast? Gimme a break.

      1. Well, John, I’m not some guy, I’m a woman. I don’t really wish to convince “you” otherwise. I’m merely here giving my thoughts and opinions on this case. And I won’t give you a break. The food they ate, breakfast, lunch and dinner could tell a lot about the case. You’d be surprised what could be discovered just by knowing what a victim ate prior to a murder. I will agree that Echols was a credible lead, he still is. However, he was their only lead. They didn’t persue anything else. The WMPD, despite your “feelings”, failed miserably. Since you’ve already told us that you are not in any fashion or form a police officer nor do you possess any law enforcement knowledge or experience, you cannot attest to the fact that the investigation was improperly conducted. I am not saying the 3 are innocent. I am saying that they “may” be innocent and that I strongly feel someone else is responsible. I was not involved in the investigation. At the time of the murders I watched the news footage and one month later, I saw that 3 weird teens were arrested. I was relieved to hear this since I live only hours from the area and had small children of my own. My interest in the case never waned and anytime there was information coming forth I paid attention. When callahan, many years later, first appeared online, I was totally intrigued and began communicating with someone who was an acqaintance of JMB. Since I had a background in law enforcement it was of great interest to me and what I read and from the photos of the victims, I learned that many, many mistakes were made. That was very apparent from the beginning. I’ve simply never heard of or been taught that a case begins and ends with a suspect or suspects that were in no way related to or associated with victims while family members, whether innocent or not, are completely left out of the loop. Minus one stepfather of course. If Echols had been the only lead from the first day, police would have gone after him on day one. The fact that it took a month to go after the 3 means several things. 1. police didn’t conduct a proper investigation 2. police failed to speak to all family members and neighbors 3. police were more interested in rumours of witches and satanists than in anything else 4. vital evidence was lost or disposed of 5. Viable witnesses were overlooked. By your own admission you say that you know nothing of police work, so that means you can only comment on what you’ve read. And if you’re also not in the legal field, you can’t make an argument for the prosecutors nor the defense teams. I have stated repeatedly, this case is still a total mystery. Jurys do wrongly convict all the time. If there is no DNA that matches the 3, but points to others, then why would they, how could they have been involved. According to the coerced confession of Jessie, both Damien and Jason would have left behind large amounts of DNA when they supposedly performed oral sex and sodomy on the children. But this is not the case since it has been proven that someone else left DNA behind that does not match any of the 3.

        1. Well, you and I don’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of things. You think what the police did or didn’t do is significant, I don’t. You think Misskelley’s confession was coerced, I don’t. You think the lack of WM3’s DNA is significant, I don’t. You are not convinced the WM3 are the killers, I am. I guess in the end we will have to agree to disagree.

          1. The main issue with the Miskelley confession is that nothing he said or affirmed cohered with what actually had happened. People can leave false confessions out of numerous reasons but that doesn’t mean they are to be considered as true, in contrary, a detective is supposed to exclude false testimonies and confessions.
            It is what is there that matters, by saying that they could be guilty without physical evidence you might aswell accuse Johnny Depp for killing the children or any one in the state of Arkansas, pick anyone you’d like and place them on death row.

          2. You are wrong. Misskelley knew specific facts about the injuries that had not been made public. There’s no way he could have known that unless he participated in the murders, and his account was corroborated by other evidence. That’s why the jury convicted him.

          3. Misskelley’s “facts” came from the news, newspaper and people like Vicki Hutcheson…and the police themselves! For instance, he was shown pictures of the bodies, then asked about the injuries. This clearly is not following procedure, again. Jessie, even while looking at the phtos, got the boys confused. He referenced the injuries he saw and then built on the story accordingly.
            Ridge: “and you know where the little creek is that goes out to the expressway, and it doesn’t have a lot of water in it, but it’s got some water in it, and it’s flowing through there… [snip] …(we’re going to correct that even further), that’s the east side, Memphis side is the east side and you were standing at the top of the bank on the west side” [Misskelley’s first taped confession, June 3rd, 1993. Jessie had made no statements to this point describing the interior of the woods.]

            Ridge says, “we’re going to correct that”. This is interrogation 101! A big no, no. You don’t do this when extracting a confession. This is not only leading the suspect in the story, it’s [giving] him the information.

          4. He identified who was castrated and other injuries without being told this by the police. The defense was never able to prove that the police gave him this information, or that he got the information from somewhere else. Also, his confession was corroborated by other evidence – specifically the Hollingsworth sighting and the fiber evidence.

          5. John, he didn’t “identify” anything, if you read the interview you see that all he does is repeat what Rigdge and Gitchell is telling him. They constantly push him into correcting his guesses. He stated the wrong time about the murders, he first said it was during the morning of the 5 may, then changed to lunch and when Gitchell asked him “are you sure” in the sense that “are you sure you’re not wrong” he picked up on it and adapted his statement according to Gitchell’s reactions. The only detail he stated by himself was that the boys were tied with a rope, which was false, the other things he just said “uh – um” or “yes sir”. He didn’t state any detail that only a killer could know and that was correct. They had to correct him numerous of times by adjusting the questions so that he would repeat what they had told him to say, this is very obvious. Anyone could make such a confession.

          6. Please state those specific facts which he knew and that weren’t asked by Ridge or Gitchell.

          7. John, in regards to misskelley correctly identifying which boy was castrated, he had a one out of three chance to guess right (if indeed he was guessing). Those are good odds. And, if its true he was shown pictures of the bodies, he may have picked the boy that showed the most sign of trauma. Then there’s the possibility police may have unintentionally influenced his choice via body language.

            I am not clear on this case, yet. I have only watched bits of PL1 years ago. Of course I am aware of the controversy surrounding it. I’ve stumbled here because I saw a reference to this case elsewhere. I am the sort of person that questions popular opinion. I plan to read all the documents on the Callahan site.

            Until then, however, I must say your insistence that it doesn’t matter if the police followed procedure is ridiculous. Parents are always under the umbrella of suspicion at first, regardless if there appears to be other leads. That this was not followed concerns me. It may make me question the rest of the investigation, the evidence gathered from the investigation, and the verdict based on the evidence gathered from the investigation.

            It seems to me, from reading your comments here, you are the sort of person that believes that courts and government institutions can’t be questioned. You refer to the testimony and ruling as if they were some sort of mandate from god. Verdicts can be wrong, prosecutors unethical, and juries comprised of idiots.

          8. Which one of my comments here makes you suspect I am the sort of person that believes that courts and government institutions can’t be questioned?

          9. Amen on the agree to disagree thing. I totally feel that what the police did/didn’t do is very crucial to ALL murder cases. They set the stage for the entire investigation and left out all of the most important “props” by either losing them or just ignoring them. This case may continue to be an enigma for many more years to come.

  77. An intersting side note: upon discovering the bodies of the 3 victims police never made any notes of any kind. There are no known notes in existence in regards to the discovery of the bodies, the location of them, the location and discovery of clothing, notes on how the clothes were handled after discovery, notes cataloging all items found, water samples or the now infamous scrap of fabric in MM’s hand. In all my years of experience, I’ve never heard of any murder case being worked this way.

    1. Additional notes: An interesting subject that ties directly into this case is that upon examination of the bodies of the victims the medical examiner noted signs of sexual abuse or genital scarring. It has been determined that this information was relayed to police in the autopsy report. The scarring was “old”, meaning it didn’t happen during the murders but rather the scars had been made at a time prior to the murders. This fact points to the possibility of a parent or other close relative who would have perpetrated this (the abuse) crime. This single fact should have prompted police, despite the suspicions they may have had about Echols and his friends, to begin collecting information and evidence directly from the parents, all of them, and other close relatives of the children. It should also have caused them to ask each parent how the children obtained such scarring. Older siblings, grandparents or babysitters would also have been questioned. Yet there is no indicaton that anything of this nature occured. Why? The idea that a satan worshipping teen led a pack of boys to sacrifice the children may have sounded plausible at the time, but that didn’t answer the question of how the scarring occured. While investigating the 3 suspects investigators had another important job that they completely ignored. This is a huge problem that has only added to the mystery and cast doubt upon the validity of the “evidence” that WMPD claimed to have accumulated against the 3.
      According to the “confession” of Misskelley, “Damien an em’ choked the boys and stuff”. He said several times that the boys were choked, yet the autopsy revealed that they’d not been choked at all. They’d been knocked unconscience and beaten. There was no physical evidence of choking.
      It is important to also remember that while police should have followed up on the leads they had on Echols, it is just as important to have interviewed, NOT interrogated family members, teachers, physicians who’d treated the children in the past and all other close relations. This would have painted a clearer picture of the lives of each child prior to the murders and ruled out possible suspects or broght to the fore anyone else who could have been involved.
      Police had a responsibility to obtain information, not share it. Which is exactly what they did with Jessie. They gave more details to him than he did to them.

  78. “STIDHAM: You still want to give a statement despite my advise and counsel?
    MISSKELLEY: Yes, cause I want something done about it.”

    Other than the reason Misskelley gives himself, I’ve not heard one remotely plausible explanation as to why he confessed so many times. He even continues confessing after his conviction and against his lawyers advice.

    His Feb. 17 , 1994 confession is sincere, remorseful, detailed and consistent with the crime. Why don’t we believe him again?

    1. He later withdraw and said that the police ordered him to confess over and over again and that they corrected him for each time. Allthough numerous confessions he repeatedly stated the wrong facts and didn’t mention things that could be expected that a killer with a genuine remors would say, such as details about the boys appearence, the enviroment of the crimescense and such that truly could be used to verify his statements. Buddy Lucas’ confession is coherent with the evidence found at the scene, and thereby his confession is much more likely to be a genuine one than Miskelley’s.

    2. He says they beat the children with their fists and with sticks…while the children “still” had their clothes on. Yet there were no blood stains nor were the clothes torn. How is that possible? There is no evidence that they were beaten with their clothes on. He states that the sticks used to beat them were larger/longer than a baseball bat, yet the 8 yr. olds were not knocked unconscious. He also says that the “one with the ‘boy scout’ on his uniform”. He then accuses Jason of swinging his arms and a knife at one of the boys’ face and then all of a sudden that particular boy “is missing everything”. And Jessie saw blood flying and then says he saw what Jason had done and that the victim was “hollering”. With all this beating and “hollering” and crying and yelling, why didn’t at least one person hear them? The details came from the news reports and the trial itself. The sincerety is real. Jessie, in his limited mental capacity, is truly convinced he needs to do this and that it will somehow help him get home.
      He goes on to say that he (Jessie) beat his own victim unconscious then just held his hand??? He then says he left the woods when it was getting dark and that the boys had been thrown into the water. Jason and Damien, according to this account are still in the woods. At this point, parents and officer Meek are also looking in the woods, calling out to the children. Yet Jessie doens’t mention hearing or seeing any of them. In the beginning, he states that he was so drunk he was sick and that it affected his memory. He can’t even remember which boy was wearing what clothes.
      Why do you believe this, again???

      1. I don’t know about the audio characteristics of the murder site. Maybe sound just doesn’t carry several hundred metres up from the wooded gulley to the truck stop. Maybe no one was there. Maybe truck engines were running. Maybe someone heard something and didn’t really pay attention. Maybe all of them. I don’t know.

        Miskelley says in his confessions the kids stopped making noise quickly and just took the beatings – he compared it to beating a dog and how they stop crying.

        1. What about the clothing? How do you explain the lack of tearing when they were supposedly beaten to a pulp while still wearing them?

          1. Read Misskelley’s confessions, he describes how Damien removes the clothing from the victims. He doesn’t tear them.

          2. I’m refering to them being beaten with clothes on yet the clothes didn’t reflect the beating.

      2. ” They were like puppies, when you whoop a puppy and tell it to stay, it will.”

        ^ From Misskelley’s unsolicited confession in the police car.
        http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmpc.html

        You state people would have heard the murders taking place, yet don’t think twice about how Terry Hobbs (or Byers or whoever you think did it) could drive up and nonchalantly drop off the victims (some still alive). What you argue applies both ways.

        1. This has been discussed previously. The children were taken elsewhere, Chris was murdered and the others were beaten into unconsciousness, then dumped into the creek. This was likely done in the very early morning hours, when searching had ceased. The police changed shifts and dropped the ball, again. They failed to tell the oncoming shift that night that 3 little boys were missing. If the boys were taken to a remote building and subdued, and especially if the perps were parents, the children would have been more compliant. Not so if they’d been taken by strangers into the wooded area. And there is still the infamous mosquitos to consider…

          1. This is speculation and not supported by facts or what was found by the investigation.

            No one saw a vehicle, there were no tracks in the adjoining field where a vehicle would have to drive (otherwise you’d need to carry bodies a great distance from the service road at night through muddy woods). If the victims were alive before drowning, then they would be bitten by mosquitos or whatever you are thinking here. That this was a dump site and not the murder site wasn’t even brought up by the defence as far as i know. It’s not supported by facts.

            On the other hand we have …

            Misskelley’s multiple confessions, no alibis for the convicted and multiple pieces of physical evidence (fibre’s, blue candle wax, bragging, pendant that matched Byer’s blood, multiple knots implying multiple killers, etc.) all of which ARE documented.

            Why eschew the facts of the case in favour of hypothetical scenarios which are not supported by evidence?

          2. The blue wax as well as fibers were never proven conclusively to have come from any of the accused. The blatant lack of mosquito bites is not speculation, but fact. Neighbors saw the 3 little boys go into RHH on the afternoon they went missing. It is well documented that there were an overwhelming amount of mosquitos in those woods that day/night. So if the children were murdered there, their bodies would have have multiple bug bites. They did NOT. Transporting the bodies was not impossible for grown men, especially if there were more than just one. That would also account for the different types of knots. You say, “if the victims were alive before drowing”. Both Steve Branch and Michael Moore were proven to have been alive prior to drowing, thus assuring us that mosquitos would have bitten them. Go back and read the autopsy reports about the pooling of blood and how this works.

    3. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

      There were no police present, what are you talking about? In fact his lawyer is there repeatedly telling him not to confess. The majority of Misskelley’s confession are offered voluntarily and not not under questioning.

      His lawyer argued false confession at his trial (through which Misskelley silently hung his head down like a bad puppy). When the jury didn’t buy it, Miskelley decides to confess some more after his conviction because ‘he wanted something done about it’.

      No he didn’t withdraw this statement later. It’s consistent with the crime, and he admits to changing facts in his earlier statements to ‘get em off track’.

      2kd you say Misskelley confessed multiple times because he has ‘limited mental capacity’. This is not an explanation. Admitting guilt for things they didn’t do multiple times is not a behavior associated with a low iq, or with Miskelley himself. Like i stated, no one can explain why he is confessing over over again other than ‘he is retarded’.

      1. It absolutely is associated with his low IQ! He could be led to say things when he was frightened and just wanted to go home. There is no other explanation and none needed. In all of the “confessions”, his comments are jerky, yes and no answers. For the most part. There is no flow to the information. He must be “helped” each and every time. It is a characteristic consistent with someone who is giving a false confession.

        1. If he says things because he is frightened and wants to go home (evidence for this by the way?) , why does he demand to go on record & against his lawyers advice to make yet another confession on Feb. 17 , 1994?

        2. He could be led to say things? Evidence for this?

          Even if he is easily led (which is speculation by the way) why couldn’t his own attorney then lead him into not admitting his guilt both before and after the trial?