Damien and the Animals

The avenging prankster who runs the DamienEchols93 Twitter feed recently posted various accounts of young Damien’s treatment of animals. This eventually got a rise out of Damien Echols himself, who dismissed “the animal lies”. The whole thing is documented here: Damien Echols Responds to Animal Cruelty Claims.

I’ll just add that all of this information was available to the Paradise Lost filmmakers, who chose not to include any of it. However, the first film did address the animal issue. At around the 8:00 mark in Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, Joe Hutchison, father of Damien Echols, says, “This boy is not capable of the crime that he’s been arrested for. I’ve seen him take a little kitten and love it just like you love a little baby.”

So who you gonna believe?

151 thoughts on “Damien and the Animals”

  1. “If there were any truth to those stories they would have brought it up in the trial.”

    And that’s why they didn’t bring up animal predation and Baldwin’s alibi.

    1. These stories were a part of Exibit 500, look through it on callahan and you’ll find the Dane – story there, and the procecution did present the Exibit 500, including those documents in the trial, so these stories were presented in court.
      This prankster seems to have made a Twitter account focused on some documents from Exibit 500 in intrest of exploting them to dishonorate Echols. He probably didn’t like “Life after death” a lot, or perhaps Hobbs is seeking vengeance for being pointed out as a suspect.

      1. Expect us

        Fellow citizens of West Memphis Arkansas, West Memphis Police Department, and governor Michael Beebe.

        If you are not aware of who we are we would like to introduce ourselves. We are Anonymous.

        If you are unaware of what we are capable of we suggest you educate yourselves quickly.

        It has come to our attention that a petition has been created to pardon Damien Echols, Jessie Miskelley Jr, and Jason Baldwin, also known as the West Memphis Three. Anonymous supports this petition and the pardon of these three men, and will do everything in our power to ensure that these three men are added to the pardon list. The injustice that these men have faced and continue to face are beyond words. It speaks to the justice system in the community, that anyone, at any time, can be charged and convicted of a crime without so much as a shred of evidence. To ignore this injustice is abandonment of everything the men and women of our armed forces have fought and died for. This makes you an enemy of freedom, this makes you an enemy of justice, this makes you an enemy of Anonymous.

        Our message to the West Memphis Police Department.

        You have evidence that points to the real murderers of Steve Branch, Michael Moore and, Christopher Byers. You continue to ignore this evidence and bring the real murderers to justice, because you refuse to admit to mistakes made that led to the conviction of three innocent teenagers. You in fact have more evidence against the real murderers than you ever had against the three teenagers convicted of the crime. As investigators you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing prejudice and friendships guide your investigation instead of the evidence at the crime scene itself. Anonymous will not turn a blind eye to your ignorance nor the injustice that your department has committed. If these little children were your own you would not stop until the real murderers were behind bars.

        Our message to governor Michael Beebe.

        Governor Beebe, you took an oath to uphold justice, freedom, and the rights of their citizens your duty is to remedy injustice when you are aware of it, or when it is brought to your attention. As such it is your duty, before you leave office, not to follow but to lead. Your duty is to recognize the corruption and injustice and to step forward as a man to fix it. Anonymous urges you to perform your duties as your last act of governor and add these three men to your pardon list. Real justice cannot be obtained otherwise.

        Our message to the murderers.

        The clock is ticking. Anonymous is everywhere, Anonymous is everyone, you cannot escape the eyes and ears of Anonymous. You cannot escape justice. While you feel comfortable thinking that no one knows the truth. Know that Anonymous knows the truth. The eyes of Anonymous are everywhere. Yes, Anonymous knows who you are. While one of you can never be brought to justice, the remainder if you can. Know that Anonymous will not stop until you are.

        We are Anonymous.

        We are Legion.

        We do not forgive.
        we do not forget.

        Expect us

    2. Expect us

      Fellow citizens of West Memphis Arkansas, West Memphis Police Department, and governor Michael Beebe.

      If you are not aware of who we are we would like to introduce ourselves. We are Anonymous.

      If you are unaware of what we are capable of we suggest you educate yourselves quickly.

      It has come to our attention that a petition has been created to pardon Damien Echols, Jessie Miskelley Jr, and Jason Baldwin, also known as the West Memphis Three. Anonymous supports this petition and the pardon of these three men, and will do everything in our power to ensure that these three men are added to the pardon list. The injustice that these men have faced and continue to face are beyond words. It speaks to the justice system in the community, that anyone, at any time, can be charged and convicted of a crime without so much as a shred of evidence. To ignore this injustice is abandonment of everything the men and women of our armed forces have fought and died for. This makes you an enemy of freedom, this makes you an enemy of justice, this makes you an enemy of Anonymous.

      Our message to the West Memphis Police Department.

      You have evidence that points to the real murderers of Steve Branch, Michael Moore and, Christopher Byers. You continue to ignore this evidence and bring the real murderers to justice, because you refuse to admit to mistakes made that led to the conviction of three innocent teenagers. You in fact have more evidence against the real murderers than you ever had against the three teenagers convicted of the crime. As investigators you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing prejudice and friendships guide your investigation instead of the evidence at the crime scene itself. Anonymous will not turn a blind eye to your ignorance nor the injustice that your department has committed. If these little children were your own you would not stop until the real murderers were behind bars.

      Our message to governor Michael Beebe.

      Governor Beebe, you took an oath to uphold justice, freedom, and the rights of their citizens your duty is to remedy injustice when you are aware of it, or when it is brought to your attention. As such it is your duty, before you leave office, not to follow but to lead. Your duty is to recognize the corruption and injustice and to step forward as a man to fix it. Anonymous urges you to perform your duties as your last act of governor and add these three men to your pardon list. Real justice cannot be obtained otherwise.

      Our message to the murderers.

      The clock is ticking. Anonymous is everywhere, Anonymous is everyone, you cannot escape the eyes and ears of Anonymous. You cannot escape justice. While you feel comfortable thinking that no one knows the truth. Know that Anonymous knows the truth. The eyes of Anonymous are everywhere. Yes, Anonymous knows who you are. While one of you can never be brought to justice, the remainder if you can. Know that Anonymous will not stop until you are.

      We are Anonymous.

      We are Legion.

      We do not forgive.
      we do not forget.

      Expect us

  2. And that’s why you give credit to William Ramsey, John — because you’re a douchebag!

    Hey Spengler, it’s a new post! I love new posts, gives us all a chance to start afresh. So what’s the deal here? We’re still harping on Damien supposedly killing animals? How about Hobbs supposedly molesting his daughter, beating his wife and kids, having gay sex off in the woods, molesting old ladies, and shooting his brother-n-law in the gut after…oh yeah, beating his wife…?

    Fact? Fiction? Blend of both? We don’t know, but what we do know is West Memphis was a breeding ground for white trailer trash of the highest order. Trotting these ridiculous animal rumors around is tantamount to people trotting out what Stevie Branch’s aunt said — that Terry Hobbs molested Stevie. Ok, have at it. You too, William Ramsey, you failed filmmaker fuck-nut.

    1. Well, I don’t know whether it’s worth harping on about something that isn’t specifically evidence of Damien’s guilt, but for the record, I do believe that it’s more substantial than just “rumours”. It’s interesting, but not surprising, that Damien and supporters would completely deny it. I’d find it more convincing if they just admitted that, yeah maybe he did and so what? He was a fucked up teenager, it doesn’t prove anything.

      The ridiculous 3/27/13 hearing aside, it doesn’t bother me either, whether supporters want to harp on about Terry Hobbs being a molesty redneck. Whether it’s true or not is debatable (and less substantial than the animal rumours) and if it were true, so what? He could be a fiddly, rapey fuck for all it matters, it doesn’t mean he killed the boys.

      It’s probably not the answer you’re looking for, but I think that considering the amount of people who think that Damien was just some kid who liked Metallica, I don’t mind that there are people painting a darker picture of someone who, whether he’s guilty or not, was a pretty fucked up kid. Sugar coating in the docos was manipulitive.

      Same goes for Terry Hobbs.

      1. Once again my old pal Egon offers a perfectly measured and reasonable response. William Ramsey, if you’re out there, you can learn a thing or two from him!

        Now, in response to Egon, I admit that I am, more or less (I guess) what you might call a Damien supporter…in so far as I don’t think he’s guilty, thus I think he’s innocent, thus I think he got railroaded by the State and spent 18 years in prison, on death row, for something he didn’t do. If that makes me evil, or a groupie, or a Metallica lover, or a big fan of Johnny Depp, or a lover of child murderers in anyone’s mind…well, so it goes. And yes, I agree with the statement that, “maybe he did and so what?” (regarding the animal killing) “He was a fucked up teenager. It doesn’t prove anything.” However, having said that, although I’ll allow for this “maybe” (being that I wasn’t there, and stranger things HAVE happened…) I don’t think Damien did murder any animals.

        Now, on to Jack-O and his over-the-top ramblings, as usual. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize it was “mighty arrogant” to say that West Memphis is full of trailer trash. Guess what, the Gaza Strip is full of radical Muslims…you know, because they democratically elected Hamas. Guess what, the West Bank is full of radical Jews…you know, because they keep building homes illegally on land that is supposed to be earmarked for Palestine because they believe God wants them to. Guess what, the Vatican is full of dumbass Christian idiots…you know, because they worship the Papacy, which has been the best friend to child molesters in the history of the world. Is there something wrong with calling a spade a spade? You don’t think Jessie Misskelly is trailer trash??? How about his father?????? You’re probably one of these “mighty arrogant” folk who thinks you’re so cool because you’ve read Callahan…have you SEEEEEEEN the interview transcripts with the people of West Memphis? They can barely fucking speak English! They speak hick!!!! Get off your high-horse.

        “Unless there was a police conspiracy to have people lie or misrepresent their statements. It was much more than rumors.”

        If I’m an “intellectual giant,” then you must be a mental midgit, man! First of all, it doesn’t take a cabalistic police conspiracy for the police to have done a bad job and suffered from tunnel vision, in which they started with a conclusion (Satanic sacrifice) and worked backward. You know, guys like Jerry Driver, from DAY ONE suggesting that Damien was probably involved. Or what, was that just a cute coincidence?

        Second of all, after reading Exhibit 500, and believing that Damien was a fucking nutty crazy freaky-deaky fucking teen with some serious mental health issues, is it any big surprise that people would whisper about him in school? Make up stories? Have you ever heard of urban legends? Did you not have weird kids at your school that kids used to tell stories about? Maybe you were one of those kids yourself. It’s an unfortunate trait of human nature to make shit up about the weird kid.

        And then when word spreads around town that the weird kid you were in homeroom with is a murderer?!?! You don’t think it’s even POSSIBLE that attention whores would want to trot out some of those rumors (perhaps embellishing a little, perhaps making some up out of whole cloth) to bring themselves a few inches closer to the story? To give them a personal connection? God, you people have a serious fucking case of tunnel vision yourselves…

        1. Anyone who calls supporters “murder groupies” is just instigating.
          I’m not sure they’re even aware what murder groupie means.
          I wouldn’t suppose anything about you Joey, although I would find it hard to believe you’re the only hot blooded earthling who doesn’t have a chubby for Johnny Depp.

          I’ll just ask one question and then we can leave it at agree to disagree if you prefer:
          What do you think about the animal skulls?
          His own mother spoke about him hanging a dog’s skull on the washing line, unless I’m mistaken.

          1. While Johnny Depp was pretty cool in his 21 Jump Street days, Egon, I just can’t get on board with his weird Tim Burton/Pirates of the Caribbean schtick. I guess I’m outing myself now as a non-Johnny Depp fan, hard as it may be for William Ramsey to believe… (By the way, if you haven’t seen his documentary on Satanic Hollywood, it’s HIGHLY reccommended).

            To answer your question (so politely asked, which I appreciate), I think very little about the animal skulls. I’m sitting in a room right now where there are four different skulls. Human skulls. Now…they’re not REAL human skulls, one’s plastic, one’s pottery, one’s chrome. They’re decorative. I’ve got a poster of The Evil Dead hanging on my wall (the original, not the shitty remake). I’ve got a full shelf of Stephen King books. I’ve got a stack of Resident Evil Playstation games. Maybe I’m getting too personal here, but I’m trying to answer your question openly and honestly. I’m a creative person, that’s a big part of my character, and what I do for a living, and when I was growing up I kept all my Halloween decorations in my room eleven months out of the year. I had severed heads and bloody faces and fake road kill and all that shit. I was drawn to it. I also had a very loving and supportive family and a lot of friends, I wasn’t weird or an outcast. In fact, my Bar-Mitzvah theme was horror movies, and the centerpiece on my table was a severed head with a dagger through its eye (which was modeled after the VHS box of Friday the 13th part 4). Judge me all you want.

            My point is, I could separate fantasy from reality. Most kids can. It’s certainly true that some can’t. It’s certainly possible that Damien, like most serial killers, started off by killing animals. But when you read about serial killers in their youth killing animals (and I have), although they have no guilt or emotion about killing animals (being sociopaths) they also tend not to leave evidence of their deeds hanging from washing lines, and displayed in their bedrooms. They’d go do that shit off in the woods, or keep that portion of their life hidden, because they’d know (intellectually) there was something wrong with them, and they wouldn’t want people to find out.

            My belief is that he, like many kids with morbid fascinations with death, would have no problem collecting skulls and displaying them in his bedroom. While my parents would buy me cool Halloween decorations growing up, I was upper middle class, and Damien was dirt poor, he wasn’t buying anything like that. So he’d have to go out and find it. Is it weird? Certainly. Does it cross a line? Very possibly. But is it unthinkable? Not at all. I personally think it’s sick that my uncle hunts animals for sport, and has deer heads hanging on his wall. What the fuck is up with that? He found some beautiful deer, off minding it’s own, and with a high powered rifle, he shot it. Skinned it. Maybe ate it, I don’t fucking know, or care, but he chopped its head off and spent days treating it with chemicals and filling it with sawdust and replacing its eyeballs (!) and then mounted it on his fucking wall like it was some great accomplishment that he should brag about. Whatever. To each his own.

          2. Thanks for answering with equal politeness.
            Your room sounds a lot like mine, including the original Evil Dead poster, so no judgement from me. You have good taste, The Final Chapter is my favourite in the series.

            Your response is fair. Like I’ve said before, I don’t think that torturing/killing animals and/or keeping skulls is evidence that someone is a killer. You can only judge the nature of that in hindsight.

            I do believe that Damien wanted to be seen as dark and evil, a trait that a good portion of teenagers share. I think the morbid stuff that Damien was into was for show, a narcissist (IMO) building a scary persona. Hell, he even changed his name to Damien.

            You’re probably right that a lot of truly twisted sociopaths don’t advertise it the way Damien supposedly did, but I’m certain there are exceptions. Whether or not Damien took his schtick several steps too far is the million dollar question, the thing we’re discussing twenty years later. Who knows, except the child of Satan himself? Oh, and Tangier. He knows everything.

            Speaking of the devil, I’m sure Satanic Hollywood is good for a laff, but I might hold off until I’ve developed a drug induced paranoia and complete mental breakdown worthy of the most tortured science fiction authors and rock stars so I can get the most out of it.

          3. “I wouldn’t suppose anything about you Joey, although I would find it hard to believe you’re the only hot blooded earthling who doesn’t have a chubby for Johnny Depp.”

            This is one of the strangest comments I’ve read on this board.

            I can’t stand Johnny Depp and it has nothing to do with this case. (Although if he came out publicly as a non, I would probably drop dead of shock).

            Any movie Johnny Depp is starting off with a big negative. I hate the way he looks. I hate the way he acts and his idiotic mannerisms. I hate his lunatic politics (although we vote the same candidate). I hate his stupid makeup. Is he even a woman or a man?

            Frankly, I’m having a tough time even remembering a movie he was in that didn’t completely suck. I’m sure there had to be one or two. (maybe?)

            So no, I am an “Earthling” but I do not have a “chubby” for Johnny Depp. What a ridiculous comment.

        2. I know this is an old thread, but I would like to also point out that this entire ordeal was being filmed, there were probably a lot of people who came forward hoping to make it onto the movie somehow. Not saying that all of them were liars, but…lets be fair the notion about the “hick town” is pretty spot on, and there were probably several people in said town who were like “hey HBO is making a documentary in our town, and if we say some crazy sh*t about these kids maybe we will be on it…” just saying…

      2. i do not support anyone who worships the Devil. Y’all being in the heart of the bible belt is a shocker to me that you would codone any of that Jazz. The Devil represents evil and what happen in west memphis was pure evil. so be it, so let it be done. they should of been denied a trial and put to the stake just like their cohorts in west salem in the 16th century.

        1. Oh my. They nearly were! That’s kinda the point. WM was a repeat of the fear&irrational hysteria of Salem.
          And it’s the one of the most shameful example of human ugliness I’ve ever heard of.

          1. & by human ugliness, I’m referring to the WM community response, police department and “justice” system-and of course, to whomever actually murdered the boys. But what happened instead was pure mob mentality…

    2. “Fact? Fiction? Blend of both? We don’t know, but what we do know is West Memphis was a breeding ground for white trailer trash of the highest order. ”

      Mighty arrogant of you to say this. We can’t all be intellectual giants that are pure as the driven snow morally as you are Joey.

      “Trotting these ridiculous animal rumors”

      Unless there was a police conspiracy to have people lie and or misrepresent their statements. It was much more than rumors.
      I simply cannot understand how anyone can doubt their truth after reading Exhibit 500.

      You either have a ludicrous police conspiracy to frame the highschool kid wearing Metallica (ubiquitous in 1993)….or Damien Echols in reality, actually was an unstable and erratic psychopath.

        1. Yes, Echols (with Lorri sitting in) claimed that Exhibit 500 was engineered by Jason’s lawyers (rather than his own legal team) and was generated by one perjured woman (rather than by a host of medical and law enforcement professionals).

          Now matter which side of this you sit, that kind of bullshit is ridiculous. One might rationalize that Damien doesn’t have the best grasp of case facts. But remember, Lorri has been neck deep in this case for years now, and it’s safe to assume she knows what Exhibit 500 is.

        2. Echols’s attorney, Patrick Benca, said this about the Alford Plea: “We felt we could fight this better with them out of prison than in.” This is what he meant. The WM3 and their supporters can make whatever false claims they want and most journalists will not dare question them.

    3. Agreed – Hobbs record is disgusting – His Bother in law died due to complications about 18 months later – one murder one record- beat Stevie to the point that he was deathly afraid of him – molestation of daughter – she is a freakin messed up kid / young adult …. cops called for him peeping on older lady taking a shower and grabbing her breast …… all facts – the ONLY fact on DE ever was that he did indeed have a cat skull he found at 14 in the woods , he thought it was interesting and brought it home – normal teen age boy crap – …. skulls are cool ….. it wasn’t even there 4 years later when he was arrested – this sight is full of non-factual bogus bunk …… nothing holds true – the research is terrible – I’m actually embarrassed for whom ever put this together …… its pathetic and sad sorry but of all the WM3 guilty sites out there ….. this is by far the worst and most inaccurate
      ……. very very sad

      1. Also why would Joe Bartoush wait 8 months and after DE JB and JM were arrested for the killings to speak about his beloved dog to Detective Ridge , let alone anyone else in the eight months between the time he said DE killed his dog , and the killings ????????? hmmmmmm need a little spotlight , and media attention there Joe ?????? perhaps ??????? …… also he NEVER mentioned to detectives any indication what so ever that Adam Phillips was a witness to this “dog beating/killing” ….. but then miraculously Adam Phillips is giving eye witness statements to Fogleman about the incident …… wow HBO comes to town and all of a sudden everyone was the “loners” best friend and companion and knew all the ins and outs of DE entire life …….. everyone all of a sudden knows DE …… BFFs ……..

  3. I got a question, how often do attorneys plead their clients guilty if they 100% believe they’re innocent? Are there many cases where people have gotten so extremely unlucky that the state just randomly and coincidentally has this obscure evidence that will be impossible to overcome, and the defense doesn’t have close to enough evidence to prove that they are in fact innocent, so therefore they have to bite the bullet and plead guilty to reduce their sentence? Is this common place, hell, has this ever happened?

    1. EJ, you are naive. Pleaing is all about assessing the odds and presenting the client with their choices. Are you suggesting that because the WM3 took the Alford Plea, they are, without a doubt, guilty by virtue of their lawyers convincing them to take the plea? You ask a lot of questions, why don’t you just come right out and say what you’re thinking.

      And to answer your final question, yes, “this” has happened.

      1. “Pleaing is all about assessing the odds and presenting the client with their choices.”

        Move over, blind pigs. Even dumb fuck murder groupies find one now and then.

  4. It’s understandable that Echols, in his current energy healer form, would prefer the animal cruelty claims to be dismissed outright as lies. And some supporters are, of course, quite ready to oblige. (Obligatory Disclaimer: EVEN IF TRUE, THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF GUILT IN THESE CRIMES. We know, okay? Just-as-Obligatory Observation: DOCUMENTED WITNESS ACCOUNTS WITH DISCERNIBLE, NAMED SOURCES ARE, BY DEFINITION, NOT “RUMORS.” NOR “RUMOURS.” Thank you.)

    Putting Occam’s Razor back in his medicine cabinet for a second…

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that they are all lies — that young Joe Bartoush’s dog story was dogshit. And the corroborating account of Blaine Hodge was second-hand, after all. And Littrell’s frog tales are maybe more trivial, anyway, on the animal spectrum. (Sorry, frogs.)

    That leaves us with Heather Cliett saying D told her he stuck a dog in the eye with a stick and jumped on it, and Farris/Schwarting telling some writers that Damien talked of how he doused a cat with gasoline (taking a moment to huff or not, it’s unknown) and stuck a firework in its butt, for some pretty sick kicks.

    If it’s reasonably safe to say that, of Schwarting, Farris, and Cliett, at the very least Cliett didn’t make up her account — because, why? — then doesn’t Echols still bear some accountability for falsely (for sake of argument) painting himself an animal abuser to her and/or to his friends … presumably (again, sake of argument) in order to cultivate his scary guy persona? If he’s going to say it’s all lies, can he at least throw us a bone (uh) and say “I encouraged a scary public image by making up and repeating stories about having done those kind of things, terrible things I would never really do”? Of course, the documented chronic dissembler wouldn’t ever go on record for having lied about it (or about anything, really), but that would be some concession, at least.

    In any case. From what I hear, the Devil’s Knot movie — an early draft of which reportedly kept D pacing the floor, for its portrayal of his troubled teen self — will include reference to the Bartoush dog-stomping account. In the wake of the movie, perhaps we’ll hear from Bartoush himself on that score. I’d be curious what he has to say.

    1. (Hodge’s account is *partly* second-hand, that is. He says he saw the dog carcass himself, and heard from another source, “Adam,” that Damien had supposedly killed the dog.)

    2. Now John Walsh…let’s discuss your disclaimer, shall we?

      “DOCUMENTED WITNESS ACCOUNTS WITH DISCERNIBLE, NAMED SOURCES ARE, BY DEFINITION, NOT “RUMORS.”

      What the FUCK are you talking about, man???

      That is all.

  5. I am sure it is more than Echols who wants those animal cruelty rumors squashed. His PR team knows it is always best to deny, deny, and deny no matter what the truth is. And I am also sure Damien himself is well aware of the link between animal cruelty and sociopathic morally reprehensible behavior. Thus, he knows he must deny these rumors to keep his spell over his dear little chupacabras intact. Heaven forbid even harder factors start coming up in the public consciousness like the blue candle wax, the fiber evidence from Echols and Baldwin’s clothing, the blood from the pendant and on and on. I would like to add, despite some saying William Ramsey’s theories are outlandish, it is a fact Echols obviously idolized Aliester Crowley based on his own words regarding good old Uncle Al both then and now. And it is a fact Crowley stated the best sacrifice for raising occultic magickal power was a young male white child of good health and high intelligence. While this proves nothing it certainly is enough to speak to possible motive. Those three boys on their bikes and wearing scout uniforms were certainly the epitome of 3 all American boys.

    1. Did Crowley really write that?

      Bizarre. I am not quite getting this Aliester Crowley character.

      Anyway, I have to consider it a longshot for a motive…and one not even needed to convince me of the WM3s almost certain guilt. The exact thoughts going through teenage sociopaths are not particularly important to me.

      But is there any evidence Damien was very aware of Crowley’s work, and would almost definitely be aware of that, particular, belief.

      1. Echols didn’t exactly come out and say “I am a fan of Alister Crowley” during cross-examination (in fact, he claims to have never read his books), but based on his testimony I think the jury could have reasonably concluded that he was at least familiar with Crowley, that he was lying when he claimed he never read his books, that Crowley wrote about sacrificing children, and that Echols may have shared that belief. It helps to establish motive. Of course, only the jury members themselves know if that was a factor in their guilty votes.

    2. I’ve read some of Crowley’s work on thelematic philosopy but not these parts so I looked it up. It’s in the book “Magick in Theory and Practice”
      Crowley states that these sacrifices are used to obtain fierce energy by Magicians to invoke Mars. What kind of parallels do you draw to this case which makes you believe that this could have been the motive?

    3. Crowley taught through parables and riddles; one has to decipher the “truth” from his writings, they are not to be taken at face value. That sacrifice comment wasn’t referring to actually murdering a child, he was talking about sacrificing a neophyte’s self, as in “the self”. Losing or “leaving behind” ones mundane, average, normal self.

      …. not sure why I’m even bothering to try and explain this to you all though, since you’re not interested in hearing anything that doesn’t fit your (ignorant though already concrete)conclusions.

  6. Yes, Brent Davis questions Echols extensively on his knowledge and admiration of Crowley during the trial. Now, Echols routinely retweets the daily Crowley on twitter.And yes, Crowley really said that. Of course, Crowley’s followers say he was referring to masturbation. Although Crowley did little to clarify the exact meaning or even defend himself when questioned about this particular passage. Then again, he relished the role of black magician. The exact Crowley quote I believe is from his masterwork, ‘Magic in Theory and Practice.’

    1. Echols is making the ‘Sign of Harpocrates’ in about half of his pictures since his release. Magickal!

      Personally I feel Echol’s continued interest in new age and occult BS is irrelevant really. I suppose it makes him feel mysterious and whatnot, I just get the impression he doesn’t understand it very well (and mentally he’s a tad immature).

      His interest in demonology, Satan, blood, etc. as documented in Exhibit 500 IS very relevant as character evidence. It illustrates his mindset and the extent of his mental illness at the time of the crime.

    2. Darren,
      Where was Printing Crafts located in WM? Was the “3-D screen printing company”, where Gail had worked, the same business? Also, who was Proffit? Name only got mentioned once , by Schwarting, in the comical “picnic” definition dispute.
      Only a coincidence that some of the kids liked to “Ham” it up?
      Last thing, on the JB/JM Rule 37, Ehibit 2, timeline there is an interesting entry (ADD1498) at 8pm. The one where someone confirms something is true. Now, assume they are telling the truth. With this might come the assumption DT was telling the truth about the time they were picked up (5/10/93 interview notes). Last assumption, they arrived at the pay phone from the East.

        1. Darren,
          April 20, 1999 I was driving back to the coast on I-40 East. Heard news breaking, on my radio, of a school shooting. Just up ahead, to my left, there was a dog track. Later learned the two shooters were wearing trench coats. Six years earlier there were others wearing trench coats, who prowled the town now in my rearview mirror.
          One of the school shooters was wearing a baseball cap bearing the logo of his favorite team. One of the origanal trench coat mafia sat on death row He had claimed to care nothing about sports, but was soon to embrace a sport and a team.
          The kid wearing the cap never got Fenway. The man, once on death row, paid silent tribute to him from the owner’s box.

  7. Haha! It is me! Alister Crowley!!!! I am back from the dead, resurrected by my minion, Damien Echols!!!!!!!!!

    And no, John Walsh, this is no rumor!!!!!! This is a DOCUMENTED WITNESS ACCOUNT WITH DISCERNIBLE, NAMED SOURCES, WHICH BY DEFINITION IS NOT A RUMOR!!!!!!! OR RUMOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Employing condescension and mock bombast against a common sense observation is sorta funny, I guess, but in a way that was unintended.

  8. Fred,
    He can’t attack your statements so he has to attack you personally.
    So he may be giving you a backwards compliment (lol).

    1. Ok Freddy Krueger and Jimmy Falon. I’ll address the statement head-on since the “self-explanatory” nature of its stupidity is obviously beyond your comprehension.

      Fred Savage over there thinks it’s “a common sense observation” that… “DOCUMENTED WITNESS ACCOUNTS WITH DISCERNIBLE, NAMED SOURCES ARE, BY DEFINITION, NOT “RUMORS.”

      Being that the definition of “rumor” (according to Dictionary.com, which you may or may not agree with) is “a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts”

      Now…you little twits…is it possible, do you think, that witness accounts by named sources can, in fact, also be statements made without confimration or certainty as to facts? I sure think so. Or, put this way, so we’re not just playing a game of semantics, do you ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT…

      …people may have come forward with bullshit stories because they either didn’t like Damien, or heard weird things about him, or wanted attention, or wanted to feel closer to the crime than all their other buddies, or wanted to help put him away because they believed he did it?

      You may not THINK this was the case, but if you don’t deny that this shit happens, you’re clearly wrong. Do you know how you’re wrong? Because when you read Callahan (as I know so many of you like to brag about doing) and you read allllllll those other statements by alllllll those other people, they say lots of weird shit about lots of people. Vickie Hutcheson talks all about being taken to a Satanic ceremony by Damien, remember? Do you believe her? Here’s a hint, even if you believe they’re guilty, you shouldn’t believe Vickie Hutcheson (or whatever the fuck her last name is, I don’t want to look it up) BECAUSE SHE WAS CLEARLY LYING.

      1. Damn you are thick, boy. If you can spit out Damien’s man love long enough to get oxygen to your brain, you will notice “rumors” refers to “documented witness accounts,” not the content therein. This assumes a great deal more of mental agility than you have demonstrated to date.

        You can resume with Echols’ cock.

      2. RUMOR
        Per Merriam Webster’s first definition:
        1. talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source

        So, for instance, Heather Cliett saying that Damien told her directly that he’d put a stick into the eye of a dog and jumped on it, is not a “rumor.”

        Your presence on these pages continues to be combative, obfuscating, and far more condescending than is merited by your demonstrated level of intelligence, you fucking shitheel.

        1. The problem with moronic murder groupies who have overblown estimations of their intellect, of course, is that any counter-argument is fruitless. It is too easy to attribute willful ignorance or outright obfuscation to Joey’s inability to follow what you meant by “rumor,” Fred. It is neither of those things. No, the man is simply too stupid to grasp the concept.

          Either of us could fisk one of Joey boy’s posts beyond humiliation but it would be the equivalent of sending the Knicks to play a Special Olympics team. It would be satisfying in the same way the Romans achieved climax to bear baiting, but in the end all those guys had were a wet toga spot and a maimed bruin.

          Just piss on the Joeys of the world and move on to the infrequent supporter who makes a semi-valid point. It is rare, I know, but more productive.

          P.S.: A good rule of thumb is that when you have to point to the actual Merriam Webster definition the idiot is probably is a waste of time.

          1. Alright…I’ll take the bait. But I warn you, I won’t continue to do so. I prefer wasting my time on exchanges with people who are willing to give a name along with their opinion, and any name with the words “cock sucker” encoded into it don’t suffice.

            You wanna keep making this about semantics, fine. Per Mirriam Webster, the word “rumor” is NOT applicable to the situation in which the young lady stated that Damien told her he killed the dog. Uncle! Uncle! You win. This is not a “rumor.” Check mate, mate. It’s not a “rumor.” You got me!!! Congratulations. I really put my foot in it there. I backed the wrong horse. “Rumor” that was NOT…

            …now that I’ve eaten crow, I would prefer to move on beyond the semantics to the substance if we are to continue this dialogue. Because, as I believe I have backed up EXTENSIVELY in my posts on this particular thread, I think there are a whole lot of things that could reasonably explain this occurrence. If you really want to sound smart (and I suspect that anyone bandying about terms like “maimed bruin” would like to), play the ball, not the player.

            Unlike William Ramsey, douchebag extraordinaire, I am not posting on this website to raise money for narcissitic endeavors…I am posting on it because I have a genuine interest in the case, I have a perspective I have cultivated over 15 years of following it, and I prefer to probe and prod the perspectives of those with whom I disagree than the folks on the other boards who parrot slogans in a vaccuum about how wonderful a human being Damien Echols is.

            I don’t think he’s wonderful. I just think he’s not a murderer. If that makes me a “cock sucker,” then consider me down on my knees.

          2. It just makes you a foolish liar. You were a cocksucker long before this latest meltdown. The only reason you backpedaled was because you made such a public ass out of yourself and couldn’t hide it although I noticed below you still have tried to mitigate your stupid deception.

            You can revisit Damien’s tool now, wait until no one who will call you on it is around, and then dissemble some more.

      3. Funny stuff, Joey. Thanks for proving my point. You didn’t have a pair of legs to stand on so you ridiculed us. Try to write a comment without lashing out and/or cussing.

        FYI – I am from West Memphis and am Damien Echols age. He went to school in Marion (but lived in a West Memphis trailer park). His walking path would put him through the crime scene on a regular basis. He was disturbed mentally and capable of very malicious acts.

        Another point, I listened to Metallica and read Stephen King/Dean Koontz yet no officer questioned me or my friends.

        This case is tragic in the fact that three small boys died and their murders have been set free.

        1. Jimmy Jimmy Cocoa Pops — you seemed to have good taste growing up, but one thing I’ll never understand is how people can like Dean Koontz…

          John Walsh, I tried to distance the conversation from semantics because they always seem to muddy things up. For instance, you found a perfectly applicable definition to the word rumor, and I believe I did as well, and I believe they both suit our purposes. But at the end of the day, debating about the merits of a word is ultimately futile.

          You’re right, the Heather Cliett story is certainly not an example of a rumor. However, I believe my other points still stand. There are plenty of reasons why she may have made that up…OR…there are plenty of reasons why Damien might have TOLD her that story without it even being true. In fact, to double-back, Damien might have been starting rumors about HIMSELF…because, as Spengler points out, he’s a narcissist, and he was clearly a twisted, confused, mentally troubled kid, whether or not he ended up murdering the boys.

          1. As much as you now assume the trappings of reasonableness, please note it was you who first decried the 6 witness accounts as “ridiculous animal rumors,” and then called “inanity” my offered, not-calling-you-out-personally general distinction between rumors and witness accounts with named, discernible sources — a distinction offered because it’s been my experience that supporters like to incorrectly categorize and easily dismiss the dog stuff in one fell swoop with the title of a celebrated Fleetwood Mac album.

            Most people’s notion of “rumors” are that of a suppositions flying around without sources attached. In my day it was “they found spider eggs in Bubble Yum,” or “Mikey on the Life cereal commercial died from eating Pop Rocks and soda,” or “Jon Bon Jovi/Rod Stewart/whoever got his stomach pumped at the hospital, and they found sperm in there! He’s totally gay!” Bartoush saying essentially “I witnessed Echols stomp a dog” is not rumor, to most people, or shouldn’t be. It’s a guy offering a stated and signed witness account that may or may not be true. Similarly, Cliett telling cops that Damien told her about jumping on a dog, is not rumor. Hodge saying he saw the dog carcass that conformed to Bartoush’s description (intestines strung out the butt) is not rumor. To call these things rumors only aids in obfuscation of what they are, leading a casual reader towards “oh, rumors, eh, I don’t need to pay attention to such things.”

            Ultimately we can only guess at the truth with probabilities as a guide. My feeling continues to be, that with 6 accounts, the probability that all the abuse claims are lies, as Damien asserted, is not very high, especially when factoring in D’s generally tenuous relationship with facts. It is certainly possible everyone lied — and, as I stated in my post before you yourself made the suggestion, there remains a possibility Damien even encouraged fabrications by making them up or repeating them himself. To me the likelihood is that he actually did some of this stuff, but each may draw his own conclusions.

          2. Please refer to the above post for my response, Freddy. Although I am, personally, a big fan of Fleetwood Mac…even to the extent of singing “Gypsy” in the shower from time to time…I admit I lost the “rumor” battle. I was coasting on auto-pilot, and not giving your position the respect it deserved. And I apologize. But ultimately the semantics surrounding the scenario are of little importance, in my mind. At least, I should say, the IDEAS of the discussion are far more important than the specific LANGUAGE.

            Because ultimately, whether a girl saying Damien told her something is a rumor or a documented witness account, it’s still second-hand information. If you have no problem giving this credibility, then you should have no problem giving Pam’s sister’s statements about Terry abusing and molesting his kids. Of course, there might be alternate reasons for that…she may have ulterior motives…same with this girl. Same with Damien TELLING this girl. How many people have had daming things to say about Terry Hobbs? And why does that not (along with his resume of horrors, which in my mind is at very least as equally troublesome as Exhibit 500) seem to bother any “WM3 Truthers”? Why does Terry Hobbs get a pass for having an alibi that people contradict and no one can verify? Why are sworn testimonies about him irrelivent?

            Why is it ok that Terry Hobbs was never questioned by the police? Why is it ok that on day one of the investigation Jerry Driver was telling people it was probably Damien? Why is it ok that the cops didn’t give a shit about Bojangles and proceeded to casually lose all that evidence? Why is it ok that Dale Griffis, a notorious sham of a detective, who galavanted around the country testifying that practically every murder in the 80s and early 90s was an act of Satanism, was allowed to taint the jury’s mind with horse shit? Why was it ok that the Jury Foreman took it upon himself, before the trial had even started, to convict them? Why was it ok that the Prosecutor used that bogus knife to cut the grapefruit to suggest that a knife like this (even though he readily admitted it wasn’t that knife, even though he wanted them to know the knife was found near Jason’s) was used on the boys when clearly it wasn’t? Why do you take Peretti’s word on the forensic evidence and not all the rest of the world’s BEST forensic doctors who have since studied the case? I don’t know, I’m just rambling now…

            Do I know that Damien and the others aren’t guilty? No. I don’t think they are, but what do I know? All I know is there’s a whole lot of uncertainty in this case. And I would sooner have MORE further investigation than LESS. I hope you can at least agree with that last statement.

  9. This boy is not capable of the crime that he’s been arrested for. I’ve seen him take a little kitten and love it just like you love a little baby.

    What Joe Hutcheson meant here of course was:

    I’m worried sick Damien might have killed those little boys. I know for a fact that he likes to torture animals so i’m afraid he is quite capable of the crime that he’s been arrested for.

    1. Hey — it’s Frank Stallone, back in town! How’s it going, Frank?

      Joe Hutcheson must have quite a sense of irony…and his delivery is so dead-pan, silly me, I thought he was actually being serious!!!

      1. If Joe Hutcheson hadn’t been suspicious at all he would have said:

        This boy is not capable of the crime that he’s been arrested for. He wouldn’t hurt a fly.
        The little kitten remark is just over the top and an indication of Hutcheson’s concerns.
        Oh and hi to you too Joey..seems this thread really got you going. (smiley)

        1. Yeah, I’ve been pretty busy, but it’s good to be back. Apparently now that I am I’m being goaded on by…some guy who’s saying something about Damien’s cock in his handle…?

          I agree with you, Frank, that what he said was kind of over-the-top…but cut the guy some slack, he was defending his son who was staring down the death penalty! Guys like William Ramsey think 9/11 is a conspiracy because when Todd Beamer called his mother from flight 93 to say goodbye to her, he said, “Hi mom, this is Todd Beamer.” Conspiracy theorists jumped all over that, determining that this was a smoking gun to suggest that it wasn’t really Todd Beamer who called, because what son would ever say that to their mom? Well…the answer is, the dude was under some serious stress at the time, and we don’t always say the perfect thing under stressful conditions.

          Anyway, to put a nail in this whole “rumor” debate, which has aroused the ire of the trolls, I was hoping we could move past that by not having a semantics debate (which we could have, but I’m not interested in engaging in) or we could just get down to brass tacks and talk about the subject at hand.

          A girl giving a sworn statement that Damien told her something is hearsay. She could be lying, she could be telling the truth. Damien could have been lying, he could have been telling the truth. End of story. You wanna harp on it some more? Be my guest.

          1. “Hearsay” is an evidentiary construction that isn’t necessarily untrue.

            “Rumors” are unattributed claims.

            “Documented witness statements” kind of speak for themselves for most sensate beings.

            As does “bullshit,” which seems to be your forte.

            You can get back to Damien’s cock now.

  10. i think Hutcheson was on the top of his nerves and the kitten remark was some slip of the tongue, a premature denial of the suspicions of animalcruelty he himself already had of Damien.
    I also think Gail Grinnell showed the same type of reaction concerning Jason in her here documented freakouts.
    They were in denial, understandable ok, but against their better judgement.

    Damien’s parents knew a whole lot more about their son’s misbehaviour than they were prepared to tell the documentarymakers as well as Grinnel. She had to fight with the thought that Jason’s grandparents weren’t at all surprised when he was arrested. Hard to cope with but denial, denial and more denial.

    1. It is a curious juxtaposition: the available documentation of D’s parents not wanting him to return to their home in Sept 1992, because “they are frightened of him and what he can do, not only to them but to other children that reside in the home…” with the PL interview comments from Joe Hutchison that his son was gentle, would not hurt anything, and would cuddle a cat/kitten.

      1. His son being arrested for triple murder made him turn a 180 degrees. That makes it understandable although not commendable imo.

        I think there’s more truth to be found in what i think are slip of the tongues than in so called official statements of the familymembers of the guilty wm3.
        it’s what they are trying to hide and deny what’s still interresting in their statements…not what they are trying to convince us of.

    2. Just a thought. Could it be that Gitchell is doing the same when he says ’11’ & that he has a ‘very, very believable story’. Denial against his better judgement?

  11. “…people may have come forward with bullshit stories because they either didn’t like Damien, or heard weird things about him, or wanted attention, or wanted to feel closer to the crime than all their other buddies, or wanted to help put him away because they believed he did it?

    You may not THINK this was the case, but if you don’t deny that this shit happens, you’re clearly wrong.”

    It’s good you are being critical. You should take the same approach when you accuse Terry Hobbs of crimes in which the only ones claiming he made them come from his in-laws, who beyond any shadow of doubt, hate the man.

    Exhibit 500 corroborates the fact Damien was extremely mentally disturbed. People who have no discernible reason to lie (jason’s nephew?, the softball girls). Then just look at Damien’s completely insane behavior at his trial. Without a doubt some of the most offensive behavior a convicted murderer has ever inflicted to parents of murdered children.

    It is true just because he was a homicidal maniac it does not mean he committed the murders. But there is corroborating evidence. The jury made the right decision. And even with a multi-million dollar defense and the backing of Hollywood stars, the WM3 pussied out of winning their innocence. They are guilty as hell. They know they are. And they admitted it under oath.

    At least you have the scumbag Paradise Lost movie chain with their gloating pictures of dead children and complete bullshit propaganda trying to free the murderers. Evil mother fuckers.

    1. I take all second-hand Terry Hobbs information with a grain of salt, Jack-O. While I’ve long believed the WM3 innocent, I was also a Terry Hobbs agnostic until I watched the entire marathon run of his Dixie Chicks deposition…at the end of the day, we all look at the same set of facts, and we all interpret them our own way.

      You clearly look at Damien’s behavior at the trial and see something completely insane. I look at at and see something that makes perfect sense. Not saying I endorse it, or think he did the right thing or anything…I’m just saying I “get” it. First of all, if I was innocent of a crime (not saying he was, I’m saying IF I WAS), and I was put on trial, my life in the balance, I would be pretty damn pissed, and pretty damn afraid. And that attitude might manifest itself in any number of ways. Certainly one of those ways might be defiance…John Mark Byers didn’t just sit there teary eyed waiting to hear the verdict. He wanted blood. Damien blood. Did you hear what Melissa said outside the courtroom? She was praying for them to get raped repeatedly and whatnot. Of course…we can COMPLETELY understand where they were coming from to…but back to the hypothetical, if I was accused of something I didn’t do, and people were praying for me to get the chair, or get raped repeatedly in prison, my sympathy for them might start to dwindle. And, with pressure mounting, I might even go and do something stupid, like blow them a kiss…

      Google “Albert Fish” if you want to hear about offensive behavior from a child murderer to the child’s parents…but do so at your own risk…it’s pretty fucked…

      You say “the jury made the right decision”…ok. That’s a perspective. Do you have a problem with the fact that the Jury Foreman had determined they were guilty before the trial had started and lied during the jury selection? Hardly makes for a fair trial. They did pussy out of winning their innocence, and they did so in favor of winning their freedom. IF you allow for the hypothetical scenario where they ARE completely innocent…and have thus spent 18 years of their lives (arguably the best 18 years we get in our lives) behind bars…can you not imagine a scenario where they would just want to walk free? Do you really begrudge them for taking that dangling carrot? Another trial could have meant years…it could have meant bullshit legal technicalities…it could have meant getting shanked in the shower… come on, man…they didn’t admit they were guilty under oath. They pled guilty while maintaining their innocence.

      And if you think Paradise Lost has “gloating pictures of dead children,” then I think you misunderstood the movie, and I think you’re viewing the whole situation with some very tinted glasses.

      1. What was the worst thing about the Terry Hobbs deposition? I haven’t watched it (Don’t plan too). I wasn’t too impressed with the criticism against is. There are real discrepancies and sometimes people like Terry Hobbs really do forget things or don’t say things right.

        Did you think it was Byers after Paradise Lost 2? Be honest. Sometimes when you’re focusing on someone for too long who frankly LOOK like they could be the killers (Byers or Hobbs), you start to think maybe it was them. After watching Paradise Lost 2 without realizing the extent of propaganda the movies were. I thought Byers was probably guilty.

        I don’t like documentaries that are pure propaganda. They are asshole scumbag liars of epic proportion.

        Did he ever try to tell the parents he was innocent? I believe the answer to that is No. I would probably try that approach before blowing them a kiss, holding up my baby, and giving them the finger.

        The Jury Foreman clearly failed.

      2. Regarding the allegations of juror misconduct, was there every any testimony on that? All I could find is the affidavit of Lloyd Warford (May 30, 2008), the foreman’s accuser, and Echols’s motion for a new trial (April 11, 2008), in which his defense lays out all the accusations regarding juror misconduct.

        Is that all there is on this matter? Trial testimony? Depositions? Affidavits from the jurors? Statements to the media from the foreman and/or his accuser?

          1. I’m familiar with that, but can you tell me where to find that on callahan? And have the authenticity of the notes been verified? I think the pleading from the defense says something like “a juror who took good notes…”

          2. if you freeze the frame at that point of WOM you will see that it only says that Jason and Damien were ARRESTED upon Jessie’s statement. Not that the statement itself was entered into the jurydiscussions of the Echols/Baldwin trial.

        1. Like several points made by the supporter movement, the claim that there was evidence of jury misconduct bothered me. At least until I actually read the statement.

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

          In this affidavit, Mr. Warford began by giving us his background. Specifically, that he was a lawyer, had been for 6 years prior to the event in question, and was retained by Kent Arnold. He also mentioned that he had at one time worked for the prosecutor’s office.

          The first question I have with this statement is, Mr. Warford states that 2/94 Mr. Arnold retained him to represent his brother. Now, while I get that what I’m not clear on is if Mr. Arnold did the retaining, isn’t her Mr. Warford’s client too? He goes on to state that at a later time (he doesn’t remember the exact date) Mr. Arnold hired him to represent himself (related to his real estate business) so it’s a moot point. I just found it curious.

          My first problem with this statement is specifics. Mr. Warford can remember instances (sometimes providing quotes) but at the same time can’t remember exactly he was hired to be Mr. Arnold’s attorney specifically. He can remember Mr. Arnold’s body language but can’t give even a ballpark estimate of when/where/how falling back on “at one point” or “on occasion”. His statement also leans heavily on assumptions. ex: “Kent clearly did not believe there was any such thing as a false confession. As far as he was concerned, the confession settled it.” “He seemed to want to prove he was a good guy and would be a good juror no matter what his brother had done.”

          My second problem with this statement goes back to Mr. Arnold’s profession. A quick Google search shows that jury tampering is a felony in every state I can find. And while attorney-client priviledge is solidly grounded in legal theory, it is not absolute.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

          Please note under the exceptions list: “2. the communication was made for the purpose of committing a crime or tort”.

          So my 2nd question is basically this: Is Mr. Warford a liar, a criminal, or just a crappy lawyer? If he knew his client was committing a felony, why did he not report him then? Is he either A. lying for whatever reason B. is telling the truth, knew his client was committing a felonly, and purposfully hid it for 14 or so years or C. doesn’t/didn’t know he was required to report it and should go back to law school. Not knowing this raises a big read flag IMO.

          My third problem concerns the circumstances as to Mr. Arnold hiring Mr. Warford. Per Mr. Warford’s statement, he was hired by Mr. Arnold (initally) to represent his brother charged the rape of Mr. Arnold’s 4 year old niece. Mr. Warford’s claim is that while Mr. Arnold believed Jessie Misskelley deserved to be punished, he was willing to not only stay by his brother’s side but to retain counsel for him? That doesn’t add up. Sure this was his brother we’re talking about… but it was also his niece.

          Lastly, there’s a few wording issues that bother me concerning Mr. Warford’s statement. Specifically him saying “confession” singularly. While I understand Mr. Warford mentioned he didn’t follow the case much in 1994, he mentioned, ” I was vaguely aware there was a confession of some sort but was not aware who made it or that it had been the reason the defendant’s trials were severed.” He also mentioned that his secretary was following the case and that she was aware of the reason the trials were severed. Also as pointed out, this statement was taking 14 years later. Surely he knew by then… through his courthouse contacts (that he pointed out in the beginning of the statement), from his secretary, or simply by then doing his own research in the case… that there are more than one documented confession. The fact he was toeing the WM3.org party line raises suspicion in my eyes, though it’s far from the only reason I find fault with his statement.

        2. So I think it is safe to say that the answer to my questions is “yes” – Lloyd Warford’s affidavit is the only evidence of juror misconduct.

    2. Do you know anything about this case? ” They are guilty as hell, And they admitted it under oath”. I’m pretty sure they said Your Honour I am INNOCENT of this crime, But I understand it is in my best interest to take this ALFORD PLEA. I never heard them admitted to killing three little boys under any oath, either did you. Crazy how we can all just say stuff that isn’t true & anyone that doesn’t know the facts about this case, would believe it & spread the lies on, it is easily done. If I never seen them take the Alford plea, I could go onto another site & like you spread fucking lies…..

  12. It’s not so strange for people to have skulls or animal heads. Not in this part of the country. I don’t see the point in displaying these in your living room but that is part of a southern tradition. Damien was a twisted teen and probably did a lot of messed up things. He may have even been the one that killed the boys, but it’s a far stretch for those who don’t understand anything about this culture to draw that conclusion because he dried skulls on the clothesline. (You’ll only ever find clothes on mine) On the same point, those who believe Echols are quick to point the finger at TH. Again, much of the accusations used to say he is a murderer simply don’t hold water. He was mean. He was a racist. He whipped his kids and some hair that may have been his was found on a shoe lace. My hair is EVERYWHERE. When I go to field day tomorrow, half the elementary school will probably end up with a hair from me on them.
    Now, to say something about my old friend Joey. You all get firing mad at him, but without him this site would be a bunch of non’s just continuing to misquote information that you wish were true. Seems like everyone would appreciate a good debate. At the end of the day, none of us win because none of us were at robinhood hills. (I still wish Domini would finally tell us what she actually knows) There is nothing I like about Echols, he’s creepy and arrogant and today I think he is guilty, but tomorrow I may change my mind again. Who gives a shit? It has nothing to do with baby kittens.

    1. “[Damien] may have even been the one that killed the boys, but it’s a far stretch for those who don’t understand anything about this culture to draw that conclusion because he dried skulls on the clothesline.”

      The conclusion that we are attempting to draw from the catalog of animal cruelty claims — for which the skull collection is a possible (but by no means certain) additional corroboration — is not whether he killed the children, but whether he abused animals. He says the 6 available witness accounts related to the cruelty claims are all lies. Occam suggests otherwise.

      In the bigger picture of the case, the possibility of Echols abusing animals doesn’t help him, of course. But no one here is saying “Skull on clothesline = WM3 Guilt.” That’s your false suggestion, not ours.

    2. Well, I for one can relate to having an animals skeleton in my room when I was a teenager. In the 90’s there was a band I liked called Fishbone, and their logo consisted of a drawing of, well, a fish skeleton. One day I was at the supermarket and I saw some whole fish and thought it would be cool to take the fish’s skeleton and fashion a Fishbone poster out of it. I boiled the fish, discarded the meat (looking back, I should have made some mojarra frita out of it, yum!), spray-painted the bone red, stapled it to a piece of black construction paper, then cut out red construction paper to spell the word “Fishbone” on top.

      But after a few days (and mixed reactions from friends and family), I realized this was weird. I threw away the real fish bone and replaced it with a cut-out of a fish bone from the leftover red construction paper, and the poster remained on my wall for a couple more years.

      Of course, I didn’t kill the fish to get its skeleton, and even if I did, killing a fish is not a big deal. Killing a dog however, that’s different. Most people in the western world would agree that summarily killing a dog, even a stray, is wrong. And displaying its rotting skull in your room would be a reasonable cause for alarm. Does it prove Echols is a killer? No. But if true, it definitely puts Echols more into the “horrific murder kind of weird” (as the site author states) category and away from the “sensitive, curious kind of weird” that he and his supporters make him out to be.

      1. I don’t see how having a few skulls translates into being a killer.

        I have sucked a cock or two, does that make me any more gay than your average guy?

  13. “It’s not so strange for people to have skulls or animal heads. ”

    Fake Human Halloween skulls = No
    Wild Game skulls = No
    Cats or Dogs = A little, especially if there are police statements about him killing the animals himself

    “but it’s a far stretch for those who don’t understand anything about this culture to draw that conclusion because he dried skulls on the clothesline.”

    Who do you think came to the conclusion that Echols was guilty because of the clotheline incident reported by Damien’s mother?

    “Now, to say something about my old friend Joey. You all get firing mad at him,”

    Joey adds debate. Drunk or not, I thank him for his posts.

    “At the end of the day, none of us win because none of us were at robinhood hills. (I still wish Domini would finally tell us what she actually knows) There is nothing I like about Echols, he’s creepy and arrogant and today I think he is guilty, but tomorrow I may change my mind again. ”

    True, true, and true

  14. I am once again being impersonated by someone on this site who just can’t STAND it when someone disagrees with them, so they resort to, what I consider, the ultimate in on-line trolling. Stealing someone’s handle and sullying their reputation.

    If you think I’m such an asshole, let me sully my own reputation, thank you kindly.

    Like I said, “Uncle.” I’m going back to just reading posts, not making them. Congrats.

  15. Ok to point a couple things out… When I was a early teen I was a bit of a geek and got picked on and so got fairly unhappy and later on turned to metal music, black hair and black nails but really in an innocent way. This want very normal in my school and I soon had people making up all kinda of stories about me. It really got quite ridiculous to the point I started to play in the idea just to ‘freak people out’. I was not some loon and I was definitely not a satanist but I pretended because I thought most of my fellow students were idiots and just slightly mean. I once got called to the office where the head of the upper school, a woman of around 60 accused me of being in a cult. I could not believe and was utterly astounded that a mature person would be so small minded as the rest of the student body was, go’s to show the idiocy of conservatives. It was a real ‘facepalm’ moment for me. Also other teachers seemed to be cut of the same cloth. I was a reactive teen taking the piss out of small minded bigots. This is why I fully understand where Echols issues lie. I am a teacher now and am very careful not to judge a book by its cover and to LISTEN to the source not prejudge and damn students for having certain facades as they do.

  16. Oh and I still love skeletons, I collect bones, ever since doing an anatomy for the artist course at a leading art school in London, one of the best in the world. Although I am atheist the marks on the bones, especially the scapula made me think they were made of humans hand, sculpted by god as they seemed to have finger prints on them. This does not make me weird, just a searcher of truth and an interest in anatomy so I can draw better. Some if the best people in history have been quite macabre and yet still not murderers.

  17. Oh and I know plenty of artists who keep skeletons of animals, one of my lecturers had half a human skeleton, the remains of a past friend of hers who left it to her and another in their will. Just as my grandpa is leaving his to medicine. I could list so many people who keep skeletons. University of central London had a body plasticised in its main hall behind glass, that of the founder, his head is kept in the safe.

  18. Oh and the kids at one school u worked at consistently killed and abused animals. I really dislike this, I love animals am vegetarian and find it difficult to kill a fly. But it’s a fact, some kids kill animals, lots at the school I worked at, using sling shots they like to chase down cats, goats, whatever. Little s***ts.

    1. If they’re out killing cats and goats just for the sake of killing them, they definitely have issues with empathy. They obviously have none.

  19. And in his movie “Heavenly Creatures” he already proved he likes to portray ordinary murderers as very interesting figures.

  20. This may be off subject……but i personally have found it somewhat strange that the west memphis three were “picked on” and supposedly singled out for this crime because they wore black and listened to Metallica(particularly Damien and Jason). Ill be the first to say that i have always thought of West Memphis as being kind of behind the times(i lived in Memphis back then)but to suggest that Metallica fans in West Memphis in the early 90s was unusual is like saying Skynyrd fans are unusual in the south. Being a Metallica fan had become quite trendy by this time. Soccer moms and preppy types had started to embrace them thanks to their mega success with the Black album. The idea that West Memphis is full of these square ultra christian rubes who dont understand how someone could like metal is ridiculous. Maybe in 1983 this would have been an issue…just sayin

    1. None of the WM3 look exceptionally different from any other low income resident of the area either. I never got this argument either.

        1. Exactly. The “Metallica” defense is completely preposterous and pure nonsense.

          Yet, it’s their only motive to explain why the police fabricated evidence and jury found them guilty.

  21. Great web site you’ve got here.. It’s hard to find quality writing
    like yours these days. I really appreciate individuals like you!
    Take care!!

  22. You will all be happy to know that “Devil’s Knot,” the WM3 movie has premiered at the Toronto Film Festival…and it has gotten terrible reviews that have likened it to a Lifetime original movie. Looks like it will get a VOD release with a few theatres thrown in just so Reese Witherspoon can save face. Congrats.

  23. So I have some questions. Ive seen most of the docs on the WM3 and read a little bit of Callahans stuff, but i am still confused. 1) What ties Misskelley, Baldwin, and Echols to this case? Say Im a cop, and im looking for the perpetrator. 2)What brings me to Misskelley? Is it really just a random list of “delinquents” that some Dwyer guy or whatever makes and gives to me? Was he interviewed and picked up at random? 3)How did they even know he was friends with Echols, and 4)why would they think Miskelley would know anything about the murders? 5)Would there have even been a case without Miskelleys confession?6)What are the WM3’s motives, means, and opportunities? 7)what is Baldwins connection to cults? 8) Assuming that Echols, Baldwin, and Miskelley are guilty, what is their connection to the three boys, and 9) how would they have come int0 contact with them?

  24. oh and i have one in particular that keeps me up at night. Ive read that the police at first were not even interested in Miskelley as a suspect, and when they brought him in it was for a simple interview for information on Damien. Assuming this is true and that at some point the interview became an interrogation, why was Miskelley held for so such an extended amount of time for a simple interview? Im not claiming he was there from sun up to sun down like the docs, but even if it was from 2:30 to 5 or 6, doesnt that seem to be an overly long time to be holding someone for just an interview? Ive read the transcript and i am afraid i just dont understand what point this detainment changed from interview to interrogation. Honestly, it seems to me that the police wanted to avoid having to press charges or push Miskelley to clam up and ask for a lawyer. And where was his lawyer?! when was he going to be appointed a public defender?

  25. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/jmtimelog.html

    “…why was Miskelley held for so such an extended amount of time for a simple interview?”

    Ok, let’s look at the time frame.

    -They didn’t find Jessie until 9:45 and didn’t get to the PD until 10:00. After filling out a suspect description card they begain to question him.

    -After an hour Jessie was read Miranda because they believed either Jessie was lying or omitting something. It was determined they wanted to polygraph him. Jessie has been in custody for 1 hour and 15 minutes at this point.

    -Sgt Allen drove Jessie back to his dad (and I always mention this: Jessie was UNCUFFED and RIDING IN THE FRONT SEAT. At this point he is not a suspect.). The polygraph was explained and Jessie’s dad signed a consent.

    -They go back to the PD where Jessie is read his rights (again). At this point it’s 11:30 a.m. and Jessie has been with the police 1 hour, 45 minutes.

    – 1st polygraph chart done at 11:55, 2nd one done at 12:03, 3rd one done at 12:11.

    -12:30 Durham advises detectives Jessie’s charts showed deception. We’re at the 2 hour, 45 minute mark. During this time Jessie has been picked up, driven to the police station, filled out some paperwork, answered some questions, read Miranda, driven back to his dad so Jessie Sr. could sign consent for the polygraph, driven back to the PD, read Miranda AGAIN, then had 3 polygraph charts done.

    -12:40 It’s decided to interview him again. Remember, there’s nothing here to indicate they think he killed anybody, they just don’t believe he’s telling them the entire truth.

    -2:20 p.m. Jessie cofesses. 1 hour, 40 minutes of questioning.

    -2:44 p.m. They start taping. **This is a guess. At this point I think they’re having an “oh shit!” moment where they’ve gone from “he knows something” to “he said he did it” and started scrambling to get his confession on tape.**

    -3:18 p.m. Confession tape finished.

    From this point, Jessie is in custody. He just confessed to murder so there’s no way they’re just going to let him walk out. He was held, fed, given cigarettes, and given the opportunity to go to the bathroom.

    So from 9:45 a.m. till 3:18 p.m. (5 hours, 33 minutes) we have the following:

    -3 car rides totaling 45 minutes in duration (from his Dad to the PD, from the PD back to his dad, and from his dad to the PD a 3rd time.

    -1 hour of questioning/filling out paperwork (10-11 a.m.)

    -3 polygraph charts done totaling 35 minutes (1st started @ ll:55, last one read by 12:30)

    -1 hour, 40 minutes of questioning (where he confesses)

    -34 minute long confession tape.

    -read Miranda 3 times (11:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 2:44 p.m.) **The 3rd Miranda isn’t listed, but was captured by the recording of the confession.**

    “Ive read the transcript and i am afraid i just dont understand what point this detainment changed from interview to interrogation.”

    It changed from an interview to an interrogation somewhere around 12:40 p.m. when the polygraph showed deception. By this point he’d been read Miranda twice.

    “And where was his lawyer?! when was he going to be appointed a public defender?”

    Jessie waived his right to a lawyer. http://callahan.8k.com/images/jessiem/miranda_waiver.JPG

    Hope this helps.

  26. I understand your concerns. They are quite common for those starting to explore the case. But have a look at the calahan page of documents and see for yourself how many interviews the police conducted after the murders. And to me it’s not that strange they got focused more and more on juvenile delinquents.

    And then read the timeline of june 3rd and Jessie waving his rights on an attorney here at this site’s chapter on the june 3rd confession. The complete timeline and notes available DO make sense.

  27. The tourism industry in Thailand has the very local characteristics.
    Alot More Black Tgirls has an incredible collection of
    videos from several years of being online. Before I could
    react, Boots (my cat) springs past my head, coercing fear into
    my spine.

  28. I’ve done a lot of reading on this case and also realistically looked at the stuff listed on this website. When it comes down to it, a lot of the information is conflicting. The “real facts” listed on here does not convince me that they are guilty. I can see a bit more how people might even now still think their guilty. Even though I completely disagree. But to each their own.

    What I find interesting is how nobody ever centers on Jason. The focus is always on satanic Damien or Jessie’s haphazardly dense confession.

    What about the 16 year old Jason sitting in the courtroom quietly while his poor mother desperately tries to navigate the judicial system and having an alibi for him. Nothing links Jason to the murder. The hollingsworth sighting didn’t even include him.

    1. Frank…with all due respect…but are you serious here?

      Joe Berlinger goes out and makes an (unambiguously and unashamedly) advocacy film against a multi-BILLION dollar gas company…the poor-as-dirt Ecuardorian villagers win a $19 billion judgement against Chevron (maybe you think Berlinger’s little-seen doc swayed the judge?)…and Chevron CLAIMS the case was won through fraud…and you think this somehow exposes…Berlinger?

      Look at the headline of the article: “Chevron Claims Ecuadorians’ Lawyer Won Case Through Fraud.”

      It’s the second biggest oil company IN THE U.S. and their LAWYER is fighting a 19 BILLION DOLLAR judgement against the company he represents!

      Do you have any idea how desperate this makes you look?

    1. Yeah, or it could be because a 500 hour documentary is probably more difficult to market than a 90 minute one.

      Sounds like a fishing expedition…and one shouldn’t be surprised that Chevron is going to fight a little before rolling over and paying a 19 billion dollar settlement. How do their lawyers justify their astronomical fees if they don’t fight tooth-and-nail?

      Also…consider the source. The NY Post is a tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch. Seeing Rupert Murdoch defend big business is nothing new. Do you believe everything you hear on Fox News about Obama?

      1. Well..could all be..but i think you get my thought about Berlinger’s way to create controversy and that the massive support against Chevron may be raised again by omitting and twisting critical facts. Much like omitting Jessie’s multiple confessions, the absence of alibi’s, the 12 hour interrogation etc. in the WM3 documentaries

        Berlinger must have thought he found the golden ticket to fame.

        1. Admittedly, we’ll never know exactly what makes Berlinger tick. However, facts are facts, and any way you cut it, Chevron is the Goliath in this fight. I’d even sooner say the WM3 are guilty (which I emphatically believe they’re not) than say that Chevron is innocent.

  29. Turned out those 500 extra hours of footage did show fraud, deception and half truths. The judge ultimately ruled in favor of Chevron.

  30. Thanks EJ for that update. Now i would really wanna see a new WM3 trial.
    Just think of it…Echols 500 into evidence, Jessie’s multiple confessions into evidence, including the one in which he didn’t want to confess to a made up robbery by Stidham, Luminol test into evidence and hundreds of hours Berlinger footage into evidence.

    ALL much stronger than unreliable witnesses who ‘recant’ their testimony 20 years later or come up with new exonarating testimony 20 years later.

  31. Way behind the rest of you, but have read through this thread. Let me first state that I have not read several of the documents nor watched the Hobbs interview (yet).

    Some simple things, though, I’d like to discuss.

    Someone very wisely stated that, basically, even though you and I might witness the same event at the same time, we will both most likely come away with differing memories. I could cite many instances, one particularly glaring instance…in my own life…that attests to the truth of that observation. That being said, yes, I have watched the first (and I did watch 2, but cannot recall it in detail) Paradise Lost.

    To me it did not seem that the filmmaker tried to influence me either way. It seemed to be edited to show the audience what ‘they’ had experienced by way of making this documentary.

    But things did rather jump out at me, and I was not looking to form an opinion, just to see whatever unfolded before my eyes.

    I do not know, nor have I formed a solid opinion one way or the other as to the guilt or innocence of the “West Memphis 3,” but I did form an opinion about the trial itself, and I have a lot of questions, so I will have to read and view.

    It has been stated on this site that the right people are in jail (or were) but convicting persons for the crime of murder, especially such a heinous set of murders…it is my understanding of the law that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that you must prove that guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. But we know that this rarely happens. Sometimes the guilty go free and are unpunished, and sometimes the innocent are punished as a convenient end to a case that brought so much public outrage and governmental pressure. It does happen. We know it does, and it happens all too frequently. Quite a number of people convicted of crimes have been now released due to DNA. You also have judges that refuse to reopen cases as new forensic DNA tests become available. How can anyone justify the refusal of further DNA testing? Would the guilty want to exhume someone just to reinforce the fact that they were guilty? I don’t think so.

    When the one prosecuting attorney delivered his closing statement, he was, IMO, being a stereotypical red-necked Southerner. He said that neither the black clothing, nor the taste (or lack of) in music, nor the interest in the occult made Damien into a murderer…but…if you add them all up…. So this attorney adds them all up and gets a murderer. He probably moonlights at the IRS. This crime happened in the bible belt, where everything is either Christian or Satanist. No gray areas. No room for curiosity or questioning or exploring. Personally, I found what I heard from this attorney to be laughable, something a director in a B movie might use as script.

    Damien’s attitude? I agree with those that said he had had enough and just didn’t care anymore and chose to antagonize his antagonizers. Would a guilty person do that? I don’t think so. But I don’t live in that area, never have, and would have to explore the mindset. So my observation is only that, an observation and nothing more.

    Some very valid areas that were mentioned:

    Three different kinds of knots…shoestring knots. As I read that, and that they were scouts…a whole new possibility came to mind. But before I even remotely approach that, I’d like to know if anyone knows what types of knots they were. I’d like to know if anyone photographed the knots, and if perhaps these knots are ones that are commonly covered in Boy Scouting. The “Devil” is in the details! 😉 (Pardon the pun, couldn’t help it.)

    Blood. The author of the blog spoke about rain, water, trampling, all contaminating the “crime scene” beyond recognition. Rain or not, the blood would have had to soak into the ground, and there would have been a lot of it if the poor boys met their grim fates at the site upon which they were found. Were samples taken of the earth surrounding the corpses of the children? (As a mother, the thought of this is more horrible than can be imagined, but what point is there to not having the right persons caught, be they the WM3 or party/parties unknown?)

    I’m going to say one more thing and then wait for any input before going further, but the knife that should have been with the one boy being found with the step-father’s stuff…and never mentioned by the stepfather…is either a giant red herring, or something so sinister as to be beyond belief.

    Be checking back for replies because, for the most part, there are some intelligent people posting here, and not the rabble who usually cannot even use your and you’re, there and their, where and wear (to mention just three) properly. So I have very much enjoyed reading your posts.

  32. As stated, I’ve forged ahead and read much.

    It is beginning to look oh so much that these teenagers were, in fact, railroaded by a lopsided judicial system. There is absolutely no evidence that I can find (yes, not all is available to me or to you or to anyone else) that puts these three fellows anywhere into the picture other than that they were being teenagers. Many teenagers go through a ‘Goth” period, especially if they are not into sports or the like. Remember where this took place. Beer, cigarettes, sports…all very accepted ways of life. Right up there with bible thumping, all normal.

    Those three babies were murdered in the most horrible way, and any reasonable person would do anything they could to a) have prevented it, b) having failed that, go after the perpetrators and not the most vulnerable, making it six murders instead of three.

    Jason Baldwin’s defense team, speaking out-of-court, conversed amongst themselves (camera was rolling though, obviously) to merely look at Jason’s arms, and is he going to be able to lift a lifeless 8 year old and carry him from wherever these crimes were committed to the discovery spot? Common sense. No, I don’t think he could.

    Jessie Miskelley: That ‘confession’ was so ‘smoke and mirrors’ as to be an outrage. Either get the entire interview on tape and/or video, or get nothing. Is there any question that a frightened boy with an IQ of 72 would not have had his heart skip beats, gone through moments of severe fright and anguish during a polygraph? I’d go through it and I have never in stepped foot in Arkansas! I’d have failed the polygraph! Without question!

    It makes far more sense that Terry Hobbs be looked into, and this time professionally, by people who actually know what they are doing. The knife that Stevie Branch’s mother found amongst Hobb’s belongings is scary. IF that is true, and IF the legal system does not see that as a probable cause to follow that path, then I can only draw one conclusion. The state does not want to be sued by the WM3 and their supporters for wrongful conviction. $$$$$$$.

    It’s going to seem as though I am going off-subject for a minute, but I’m not.

    Many, many years ago, as I was cleaning up the kitchen after a meal…a brief news bulletin was broadcast. I hadn’t been looking at the screen at the time. The boys were in their respective rooms, and their father was reading something. So no one was paying attention, but I was listening. It is my habit to listen to old radio suspense or books, or news as I do other things. Multi-tasking. I heard the announcer quickly state that the Democratic offices had been broken into at the Watergate hotel. He said perhaps three or four lines and then, of course, the commercial. My jaw dropped.

    “Did you hear that,” I asked my husband.

    “What?” Clearly he had not. I told him what was said and he said something to the effect; “So?”

    I have no interest in politics. None. Yet I knew as surely as I knew my own name that this meant trouble. If you asked me how, I could not tell you. But those words hit me like a ton of bricks. Of course the millions upon millions spent in courts, and what’s even worse…who was minding the store while the President and his flock were busy trying to cover their derriere’s? Now I’ve brought that to your attention for one reason. I was not involved with politics, yet the obvious was right there to an outsider.

    If that prosecutor, Fogleman, could put away three teenagers on no evidence at all, if a kangaroo court was allowed to do this on our dime, it is time to take the collective nose out of the bible in Arkansas and start seeing reality. God is not going to come down from heaven and put up a big screen TV so you can see what actually took place. God is not going to fax you either. Guaranteed. If you believe in that stuff, then I’ll give you one of your own lines to chew on: “God helps those who help themselves…” God didn’t help those three babies, nor did he help the three teenagers unjustly convicted. It is up to HONEST law professionals to handle this, that is why they are paid, that is why they go to classes and study, to learn what we do not know. There has to be a clean separation of church and state, as we are promised by law. People have to be innocent until proven guilty, and no amount of pressure from the public nor the climbing echelons of public office should hold any sway nor force the police or prosecutor to grab convenient whipping boys instead of the real perpetrators.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I think the Alford plea is another miscarriage of justice. Both sets of victims and their parents deserve the truth and nothing less. Pam Hicks has been acting out, getting arrested, well…I think I’d be far worse. I think any loving parent, going through this fiasco would want to have the brain numb just to get by day to day because the justice system is not, by any stretch of the imagination, dispensing or serving any justice in this case. Now it is all CYA.

    From the judge, jury and prosecutors…the police involved…all and I mean ALL should be held accountable. There is no time limit with homicide cases, and the real perpetrators are out there. So why are Arkansas professionals sitting on their thumbs? Is anyone in that state doing anything other than protecting themselves? The parents of all six of these boys deserve truth, justice. I am not speaking of step this or step that, either. No short-timers. No disposable spouses. I’m talking about parents.

    1. Besides Pam, (who I have plenty of sympathy for, but is a mess) and that lunatic Byers (remember the guy Paradise 2 tried to pin the murders on). The rest of the parents know who did it.

      And that is very telling that you think the paradise lost movies have a neutral POV. I think there is very little hope of having a decent conversation with you when you start off with something so preposterous. The pictures of mutilated dead children against the wishes of the parents was a good indication of the arrogance and self-righteousness of the writers. But oh, the pictures are sooooo powerful. They must know what they’re talking about. I mean how could they be wrong when they show something like that?

      I am glad you think the knife is a big deal. I don’t. The rest of your post was the same old weak arguments from supporters. The police and backwards redneck hick prosecutors framed the WM3 because they wore Metallica shirts. Blah blah blah. Utter nonsense. To claim something as major a conspiracy, you need clear evidence not folly about snapping turtles and manholes.

      Here is a simple basic logic question for you. If the police framed the WM3. How were they planning on not being exposed when the next batch of mutilated kids showed up? Thank god no other kids were murdered. It’s almost like the murderers were caught….I guess the real guilty person decided to turn the psycho switch off and go about living a normal life again like nothing changed (sarcasm). It is very unlikely.

    2. If I was charged and convicted of those heinous murders I would definitely “NOT” be smiling whilst be driven away to my death sentence.

  33. Would love to take an informal poll (for all 2 of you who still check this site, which may as well be condemned these days)…

    Please state where you stand on the WM3, and where you stand on Woody Allen and the claims of molestation.

    Thank you.

  34. If I was 18 and being charged with the horrific crimes involved I guarantee you I would not be sitting and smiling. However they must be innocent because Eddie Vedder and Peter Jackson say they are. I’m convicted , oh happy day I’ll just flash a smile for the camera…. case closed. Once they realized wtf happened and that this was really happening , anyone and everyone will do or say anything to gain their freedom.

    1. Wow, ladies and gentlemen, “kingroboem” has given us his personal GUARANTEE that if he was 18 and being charged with horrific crimes, he would not be sitting and smiling. I gotta tell ya, I was all about the WM3 before “kingroboem” came along, but now that he’s submitted his two cents, the fact is, things will never be the same again. “kingroboem” has shown us the light. “kingroboem” has spoken.

      And if Eddie Vedder or Peter Jackson is out there reading this…and we all know they are…all I’ve got to say is, “Watch out, fellas. KINGROBOEM is onto you!” And you can’t hoodwink the justice system or the public anymore, you two rich/famous douchebags! We now know the WM3 aren’t innocent just because YOU say so. We, in fact, know they are guilty…after all, “kingroboem” has so kindly offered his GUARANTEE.

  35. LOL… Who put this site out there?? West Memphis PD.. Man take this bullshit down.. Hey the guys were innocent.. Terry Hobbs and his buddy did it.. Everyone in Arkansas knows this.. We all know, the PD had to get someone quickly because of public outcry and boom they did.. LOL this website is fucking stupid..

  36. Honestly, when I read all of the information presented on the Internet I don’t really know what to think regarding their guilt or innocence anymore. I do know that the physical evidence presented against the WM3 is weak to non-existent, and the one thing that has me leaning toward doubting their guilt is the unknown suspect who came into the Bojangles restaurant. He was a black/dark Hispanic male covered in mud up to his knees and spreading blood everywhere.

    Scrapings of the dried blood and samples of the mud were not taken until the next day, and this evidence was never sent to the crime lab and was then subsequently lost. This is the single biggest part of the case that places doubt of their guilt in my mind. Who was this man? Why was he covered in mud and blood? Where did he go? Were efforts ever made to locate and identify him? Was he an an over the road trucker from the truck stop that bordered the Robin Hood Hills woods?

    I’m afraid that this unknown suspect is a big key to this case and unless he is found we may never really know the truth about what happened to those poor boys.

    As for the Misskelley confessions, it is my opinion that they were coerced. I think that Gary Gitchell felt he had the perpetrators and wasn’t going to let something as “trivial” as a few confused facts get in the way of his case against the WM3. Anyone who listens to those confession tapes can easily see that Jessie does not have any of the facts of the case correct and is just telling the police what they want to hear in an effort to end the interview. I firmly believe he thought that if he told them what they wanted to hear he was going to be allowed to go home.

    As for Terry Wayne Hobbs, I doubt his guilt. Yes, his DNA was present on Stevie Branch but since they both resided in the same house together, it’s not beyond the scope of reason that a piece of hair or skin could be transferred from Terry Hobbs to Stevie Branch by way of Stevie Branch simply laying on the floor or even sitting on the same couch that Hobbs had sat on.

    John Mark Byers is a different story, however. I believe he is capable of committing such an act based on his behavior following the crimes and during and after the subsequent trials of Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols, not to mention the suspicious death of his wife, Melissa Byers, who was found deceased in their home on the evening of March 29, 1996. Her death is still classified as “undetermined.”

    Again, I firmly believe that the key to solving this case remains in finding the unknown suspect who entered the Bojangles restaurant on the evening of the murders.

    1. Chris, you’re an idiot. Byers has been excluded beyond any reasonable doubt. You stating that you “believe he is capable of committing such an act” just renders anything else you say null and void. Who gives a shit what you believe? The only reason this case EXISTS is because people were so busy BELIEVING other people were guilty that a miscarriage of justice was allowed to take place. People need to get over themselves and stop being so fucking proud of their “beliefs.”

        1. That’s because there’s nothing new to add to this case. The killers of those boys were convicted in 1994, then plead guilty in 2011. Case closed.

  37. Also you claim that christopher morgan right were violated and Jesse Misskellys rights were not. They even allowed you to cover the camera with a tissue. In the video do you see the police forcing a confession and all thirteen hours were on tape unlike Jesse Misskellly whose “confession” was the only thing taped where he gets the pictures wrong. On top of that the police you leading words to get him to confess. Also it does not explain why Chris wanted a picture of Stevie branch for himself a little creepy.

  38. You are so awesome! I don’t believe I’ve read through a single thing like this before.

    So nice to discover another person with a few original thoughts on this issue.

    Seriously.. thanks for starting this up.
    This site is something that is required on the web, someone with some originality!

  39. Until someone explains whyWM3 supporters keep treating Damien Echols as a hero instead of telling the truth about his adult life as a sex offender of children ages 8 to 16, and why most child sex offenders charged with much lesser offenses would still be in prison, I will continue be confident that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley murdered the three innocent 8 year-old second graders in West Memphis.

  40. Honestly this whole website makes me sick. They are innocent and if you havent educated yourself on this case in the past 2 years your information is false. They recently had found the DNA of Stevie Hobbs step father on the ropes used to tie the boys’ feet and arms together. There were witnesses saying that they had been told my numerous people, involved with Hobbs’ stepfather, that that they were the ones who did it. Hobbs and his friends murdered the boys after the boys seen them doing drugs. The WM3 were falsely accused because of false accusations of them being devil worshipers and the fact that Jessie Misskelly was tested and found that he was mentally retarded and so obviously that’s why the police chose him to interrogate like they did. Ya’ll are ignorant and need to get your facts straight.

  41. FACTS straight?

    That’s rich when you talk about ‘ropes’ as restraints when it was the children’s shoelaces which were used.

    ‘Stevie Hobbs’ the child was called Steve Branch.

    And false accusations of devil worship? Damien Echols is a proud satanist even today. He upholds the religions created by aleister Crowley today and is an active member of the OTO. Maybe its you who should look into the ‘facts’

  42. Expect us

    Fellow citizens of West Memphis Arkansas, West Memphis Police Department, and governor Michael Beebe.

    If you are not aware of who we are we would like to introduce ourselves. We are Anonymous.

    If you are unaware of what we are capable of we suggest you educate yourselves quickly.

    It has come to our attention that a petition has been created to pardon Damien Echols, Jessie Miskelley Jr, and Jason Baldwin, also known as the West Memphis Three. Anonymous supports this petition and the pardon of these three men, and will do everything in our power to ensure that these three men are added to the pardon list. The injustice that these men have faced and continue to face are beyond words. It speaks to the justice system in the community, that anyone, at any time, can be charged and convicted of a crime without so much as a shred of evidence. To ignore this injustice is abandonment of everything the men and women of our armed forces have fought and died for. This makes you an enemy of freedom, this makes you an enemy of justice, this makes you an enemy of Anonymous.

    Our message to the West Memphis Police Department.

    You have evidence that points to the real murderers of Steve Branch, Michael Moore and, Christopher Byers. You continue to ignore this evidence and bring the real murderers to justice, because you refuse to admit to mistakes made that led to the conviction of three innocent teenagers. You in fact have more evidence against the real murderers than you ever had against the three teenagers convicted of the crime. As investigators you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing prejudice and friendships guide your investigation instead of the evidence at the crime scene itself. Anonymous will not turn a blind eye to your ignorance nor the injustice that your department has committed. If these little children were your own you would not stop until the real murderers were behind bars.

    Our message to governor Michael Beebe.

    Governor Beebe, you took an oath to uphold justice, freedom, and the rights of their citizens your duty is to remedy injustice when you are aware of it, or when it is brought to your attention. As such it is your duty, before you leave office, not to follow but to lead. Your duty is to recognize the corruption and injustice and to step forward as a man to fix it. Anonymous urges you to perform your duties as your last act of governor and add these three men to your pardon list. Real justice cannot be obtained otherwise.

    Our message to the murderers.

    The clock is ticking. Anonymous is everywhere, Anonymous is everyone, you cannot escape the eyes and ears of Anonymous. You cannot escape justice. While you feel comfortable thinking that no one knows the truth. Know that Anonymous knows the truth. The eyes of Anonymous are everywhere. Yes, Anonymous knows who you are. While one of you can never be brought to justice, the remainder if you can. Know that Anonymous will not stop until you are.

    We are Anonymous.

    We are Legion.

    We do not forgive.
    we do not forget.

    Expect us

  43. I really don’t see how rumors of having a dog skull in Echol’s past really compares to the documented domestic violence, attempted rape, and attempted murderer in Hobby’s past.

  44. Hello, I have been following this case since 2002 and would personally like to say those Three Boys were Innovent of the crimes they were convicted for and they lost seventeen years of there lives for false reasons. I do believe however that the real murderer of the three eight year old boys is still among us and WE spent far too long concerning each other on how Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley are the real murderers, in which they are innocent.

  45. It started for me when I saw the first HBO documentary but didn’t follow again until 2015 when I saw PL2 and googled Damien and found out he lived across the bridge in Salem mass a crappy little city congested by shops and the district court house I didn’t know he was there since then he’s moved but why would he choose Salem , After reading up on everything from the case I believe they are guilty of the crime the Misskelly 94 confession pretty much gives you what happened, I don’t think they were satan worshipers but I believe they were drunk little punks who went to far guided by Damien’s twisted mind

Leave a Reply

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