249 thoughts on “New pages added: Hutchesons, Marked Tree”

  1. I have written a book that gives over 80 clues that show who killed the three innocent boys in Robin Hood woods. The title is, “The West Memphis Boogieman”. I would like some comments from informed readers about a few of those clues.

    When asked where he was on the night of May 5th 1993 between 6:30 and 8:00, it’s not what he said, but what Jessie Misskelley, Jr. didn’t say that indicated he was ready to be mostly truthful during his interview with the West Memphis Police. He didn’t say he was watching a trailer park disturbance or wrestling 35 miles away. Jessie told the truth to the best of his ability and how his mind remembered it; that for about 90 minutes he watched and helped two friends brutally kill three young boys in Robin Hood woods.

    1. That’s real interesting, 90 minutes you say? Jessie Jr said they got to the woods at 6 pm, then the boys arrived around 7. Terry Hobbs confessed in his 07 police interview that he was there in the woods at 6:30 pm and saw the Byers from the woods at 7, driving on the service road, which put him just feet from the crime scene. How does he miss seeing six people? He has given pathetic answers to that very question, put to him.
      Terry Hobbs is there in the woods (he claims he knew nothing about) looking for 3 boys that he didn’t know were missing yet? Seriously? You may have left some very important clues out of your book!

      1. Just about all physical evidemce was soaked off of the boys.
        And if say the hair that didn’t wash away is because it was not
        from secrondary.The only reason it didn’t wasn’t away is because
        none of the parents tied their shoes that morning.It’s not impossible
        except even if one of the mothers tied their son’s shoes, they likely would
        have left long hair as Mrs Byers did, as Mrs Moore, plus Pam and Mark.

        There’s only one explanatiom Terry Hobbs’ hsir didn’t stay in the ditch is
        because IT WAS caught in a knot at the time Hobbs was cinching those
        shoestrings up.
        Realize that the offender was prolly a bit winded and sweating=plus the bugs.
        The offender would have steadily been wiping his forehead, brows and lips (mustache)…

      2. Without a time piece the times given by witnesses is estimated. Anyway, 90 minutes is not one of my 80+ clues. Near the end of the book are 16 “until someone explains” that need explaining.

      3. that is a good question John. Do we know Jessie did not mention that he went to wrestling. The police have said they can’t remember everything they asked him before he was tape recorded. Can Jessie remember everything he told them when interviewed for 10 to 12 hours or however long it was.
        Hobbs and his answers are crap. He does all he can do not to answer and evade as much as possible.
        Got to agree with John Nickerson here for sure.

    2. I diagree, it seems to me the fact tgat he didn’t metion any of those thise thing could of been because he did even realize what day it was the murder took place. He didn’t realize they took place the same day, which would inducate he was lying. Becasue if he did he wiuld definitely remember. Also using closing syltate of a person having no soul is the most unscientific and rediculuse thing i ever heard.

    3. Is this the book titled “hunting the west Memphis boogie man”?

      If so, I see it is co-authored, are you the author that is a registered sex offender? Also The same author who is being accused of plagiarizing most of the content in most of his other books? David Pietras??

      If not, the titles just happen to be coincidentally close, I would suggest finding a new title. If you are one and the same plagiarizing, sex offender, I would suggest you NOT accuse anyone of having less intelligence as yourself.

      M.

    1. Hi Boro,

      Okay, you’re a royal dumb ass. But be proud that you did not kill 8-year-old kids to show how tough you are.
      You are the most intelligent WM3 supporter I have encountered. I wish that others, especially celebrities. would search for facts and evidence about this case and express them as well as you do.

      1. The three that were arrested, convicted and PLEAD guilty, were guilty. Plain and simple. I would love for any brain-washed supporter to explain away Misskelley’s confession to his lawyer. When asked how he would know Jessie is being truthful, Misskelley tells him that he was angry about the murder he just participated in and witnessed, thus threw his bottle of EvanWilliams whiskey bottle under the overpass. Dan Stidham says he will believe his client’s guilt when the broken bottle is found. Well it was. Yet, he continued to profess his client was innocent. Why?? The same reason Damien scum-bag Echols completely changes his entire demeanor after Paradise Lost was aired. That FALSE documentary raised questions with the public of their guilt and gained supporters. ( in my belief because of the West Memphis police department and prosecution more than the actual belief of innocence of the accused ) It was the only way these murderers were going to have a chance. It is a real shame that so many people are naive enough to fall for the smoke and mirrors, even worse, have taken this tragedy and twisted into a circus! I will focus every effort I have on the three true victims in this case.

    2. Ya, dude goes through the trial documents and thinks he discovered some new clues. haha My advice to him is to get an actual clue, Jessie Jr got more wrong than right and the rest was fed to him by WMPD before the tape recorder came on, Jessie Jr just repeated what they said, it’s in his ‘confessions’.

      I believe that Jessie Jr got the information about running down Michael Moore from Buddy Lucas, now there’s a suspicious character that lied and had no alibi.
      Buddy was subpoenaed to court when the two new affidavits of Guy and Stewart were presented in court and Buddy Lucas never denied a thing like Jacoby was doing and Jacoby lied about being with Hobbs and searching, he admitted to it on camera at the courthouse that day by saying there was a 2 hour window he was NOT with Terry Hobbs before dark. Wow, and people don’t get this?
      Hobbs and Jacoby are each others only alibis and Lucas and Hollingsworth do not have one at all, making those two affidavits very, very real. It’s also my understanding that Lucas has repeated the whole story of what happened to a REAL private investigator, not some book author looking to make a few bucks off of evidence that was presented back in 93-94, nothing new.

      1. Agreed!!! Byers, Hobbs and Jacoby are guilty as hell! See Hobbs hiding his head, smoking while his wife lies screaming after arriving at crime scene? He was sexually abusing Steve and found out Pam was showing interest in another man! He stabbed him with his own knife that’s why he trophied it. Do not count Byers out either he is dodgy as well…they need to match Hobbs and Jacoby’s dental records against bite mark and test that knife! Appalling! Jessie MisKelley And feeds his kids at night, Byer’s beats his, and others it appears, with a belt! What the???

          1. I meant… I meant…

            If only… If only…

            WELL IF ONLY MY AUNTIE HAD TESTICLES SHE’D BE MY UNCLE!!

      2. All that writing and not one word to explain why Jessie would not say he was watching a trailer park disturbance or wrestling 35 miles away. Jessie could have stuck to those two statements and never again be bothered by the police. Instead, he told the truth to the best of his ability and how his mind remembered it; that for about 90 minutes he watched and helped two friends brutally kill three young boys in Robin Hood woods. Furthermore, if Damien and Jason were innocent they would not care that Jessie was giving false statements. They were mad at Jessie for being truthful.

        1. “Furthermore, if Damien and Jason were innocent they would not care that Jessie was giving false statements”

          What an absolute load of shit! You are telling me that if you were innocent of child murder you “would not care” if someone gave false statements incriminating you? Go away, dopey and write another crap book

          1. Sorry J Eagleman,
            That comment was meant for critical thinkers who comprehend written words with their brains, not blowing it out their ass. Yes, I am telling you that if you knew you were innocent you would be confident enough to stand false statements. They knew his statements were true, considering that Jessie was trying to downplay his involvement, and they did not like him telling what he witnessed.
            You shouldn’t call my book “crap” until you have read it.

          2. I agree with you, he shouldn’t call your book crap until he had read it. Only those that have read it can truly appreciate just how crap it is.

          3. Hi Birdapple,
            If you had read my book you would have something of substance to say. When you get someone to read, “The West Memphis Boogieman” to you then you will know what I’m talking about.

          4. Sam Dennis McDonut, only someone as brainless as you would not care if you were wrongfully accused of child-murder. If ever you visit the real world you may meet normal people who would feel angry at what ‘no-smoke-without-fire’ accusations can do to a person’s life. Or fearful that a court may actually believe the lies told about you, as has happened to many an innocent man. Perhaps you should shut-up now before you plummet below the idiot bar you have already set for yourself.

          5. Hi J E,

            I would never sink to WM3 supporter level and accuse grieving innocent fathers of killing their boys when all thinking people in the world know that Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley did the brutal murders. There is absolutely no solid evidence against Byers or Hobbs.

          6. Ah, Sam… hate to break it to you, but there is actually more evidence against Hobbs than anyone else in this entire case. I am disappointed you wrote a book without doing the proper research first. Today, in 2015, with modern day science and technological advances, the majority of citizens believe the West Memphis 3 had nothing to do with these tragic murders.

          7. Sam, then do us all a favor and never serve on a jury since you’re not man enough to put the right person away, and have a delusion that parents don’t kill their kids. You speak of no evidence against any of the fathers,,well, if the trial proved anything it proved that the WM3 didn’t do it. How that simple logic escapes you is mind boggling. They were not convicted on evidence, they were convicted on fear of those who are different, and that ridiculous satanic panic that gripped this nation during the 80’s and early 90’s.

          8. Or echols, misskelly, or baldwin. by the way none of the three accused were allowed to see the documentarys in prison. just read the court transcrips(avalible for all to see) it shouldve been a mistrial from day one. in america we dont imprison people on very weak circumstancial evidence. do we????

          9. Sam, you do realize that the very first suspect in most child murders, abductions, and hospitalization of a child for injury, the parents are usually the first suspect? In addition, studies of behavioral analysis shows that killers typically return to the crime scene and stay heavily involved with the case, such as continuously following it, being at interviews, and always seeming to stand out as the most interested in the case? To comment on Jessie and his confession you claim to be so true, he rejected a very very good plea bargain after being charged guilty of his crime. All he had to do was testify against the two boys and receive a large chunk of his sentence taken off, but refused to because he knew his statement to the police was false. I’m baffled at how many ignorant statements and false accusations you continue to make. Please, step back and collect yourself for a minute. Think before you act, and for gods sakes open your eyes. These three boys did not kill. Otherwise they would not be released today. The real killer is still out there.

      3. 15 minutes into revelations part 2 of the documentary inspector gitchell makes an amazing freudian slip saying that he has never had a moments doubt that “we did not arrest the right individuals” just saying.

  2. Hi Boro Dumb Ass,
    You are so smart, maybe you can answer this question: Someone explain whyWM3 supporters keep treating Damien Echols as a hero instead of telling the truth that this 18 year-old adult flirted with 12 to 14 year old girls, impregnated a 16 year old, and was convicted of murdering three 8-year-old boys. Why is this convicted 18-year-old adult sex offender of children ages 8 to 16 not still behind bars trying to learn how to use a spork?

    1. Because the state of Arkansas wet their pants thinking about a $60 million dollar payout to the WM3 if they got sued? Sounds about right, Scott Ellington said it.

      1. Ellington also helped sex killers be free on society. The WM3 is in no position to even think about suing anyone because they are convicted felons who brutally murdered three innocent boys. All the evidence needed is in my book, “The West Memphis Boogieman”.

        1. “All the evidence needed is in my book”…

          Thanks for stating that your book is highly biased. Wouldn’t touch it now even if it were required reading. I’m the type of person that will listen to both sides, but you just want to sell the conviction.

  3. I like to read all books associated with the case, when is your book out Sam?

    Just out of interest I wonder if anyone can answer this- I have recently been looking further into the transcripts of Misskelleys confession to Dan Stidham,in it he refers back to discussing a ‘clubhouse’ in a prior conversation and mensions a ‘bubba’ person with respect to this. I’m just curious to know who bubba is ?as I understand that was also the nickname given to Stevie Branch and that there was indeed speculation at the time that the boys made a fort or clubhouse somewhere in RHH. It has often been quoted that the defendants did not no the victims however is it not true that they were friends with Aaron Hutchison who knew Jessie Misskelley as he often babysat Aaron. All very curious, just like this case always more questions than answers.

    1. Wow you hve no idea! It gets worse the more you read and watch. Criminal profiler nailed it! Forget forced interviews go with forensics, too many nutters to believe cashing in on reward money! Funny how 3 long haired teens can kill 3 kids yet the ONLY DNA match is Hobb’s hair caught in Michael’s knots? Funny how NONE of accused’s matched bitemark on Steve’s face! Imprint On Chris was from his stepdad driving it into him to the hilt. Hence blood found in hinges. They didn’t bother doorknocking Steve’s neighbours, they led hve realised Hobb’s lied in his original statement…

      1. “The West Memphis Boogieman” can be found at bookstores worldwide, including Barnes and Noble nook, Amazon, ibookstore, and at the Lulu printers. Katie, all the answers to your questions are in my book. Aaron’s stories became so impossible that the police stopped listening to him so I have little about his witness. Also, don’t spend time on the clubhouse; one was never found. If someone called Steve Branch “bubba” it probably was not common. Mostly people referred to him as Stevie.

        1. Sam Doughnut,

          If you’re so above the WM3 supporter mentality why are you selling the book? If you were so intent on telling the truth, you would offer the summary for free but instead you seem to be overtaken by any opportunity you get to sell your book. I will read your book because I am interested in the case from all angles, but I won’t pay for it as a matter of principle. As you have preached, the real victims are the 3 slain cub scouts who met their fate in the most brutal circumstances. Your’e just trying to cash in, like many others.

  4. During his confession, Jessie talks about the location and the Dog Track being “right there”. Google the area – the next culvert under the highway, to the east, matches his description.

  5. I’ve read and watched nearly everything to do with this case, I firmly believe Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols did not commit this crime.
    The evidence, after PROFESSIONALS looked at the case, shows Jacoby and Hobbs’ DNA at the crime scene, they have said were together that evening, and they have no alibi for the hours between 6:30pm-8:30pm.
    Expert opinions show that the boys were drowned, but the gruesome mutiliation occured by flesh eating animals which DO exist in those waters.
    I don’t believe anybody inflicted those wounds on those little boys, but they were murdered. There is ZERO evidence to show that Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols did this. Only hearsay and fake stories by people who have since RETRACTED their statements and said they were lying.

    I think it’s easy for people to put the blame on the ones who look suspicious, it’s how the world has been for years and years. But there comes a time where one would feel the world has evolved maybe, giving someone the death penalty because a random person says they overheard him confessing to the crime is ridiculous. Or because he was a growing boy wanting to learn about the darkness and good in the universe. Educating himself on different books which he kept in his house. I mean, I have books about the Wicca religion, does that mean I’m a satanist who could kill children? I wear black, does that mean I could? I listen to rock music? I went through a goth phase?
    No.
    Teenagers growing up explore things to try and find themselves, I do not blame Damien for wanting to look outside of his surroundings where everyone is so close minded, or feeling depressed growing up in a broken home etc etc.
    But nothing above equals to murdering a child.

    However maybe Hobbs – who has a history of hitting his ex wife, his child with her, his neighbour who tried to stop him doing so, his stepson… maybe he was capable.

  6. I’ve read and watched nearly everything to do with this case, I firmly believe Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols did not commit this crime.
    The evidence, after PROFESSIONALS looked at the case, shows Jacoby and Hobbs’ DNA at the crime scene, they have said were together that evening, and they have no alibi for the hours between 6:30pm-8:30pm. The blood of Christopher Byers on John Mark Byers’ knife has not been explained and although the spotlight is no longer on John Byers, that is still very odd. He has admitted to ‘spanking’ Christopher but why his dried blood would be on the handle end of the knife is not explainable. This was brushed under the carpet under the blood probably being John’s blood as they are related.. but isn’t he his stepfather? Not biological?

    Expert opinions show that the boys were drowned, but the gruesome mutiliation occured by flesh eating turtles which DO exist in those waters. Their bite marks compared to those on the bodies of the boys are exactly the same. The mutilation has been clearly examined as post mortem, occuring after they drowned.

    I don’t believe anybody inflicted those horrible wounds on those little boys, but they were tied up and drowned. There is ZERO evidence to show that Misskelley, Baldwin and Echols did this. Only hearsay and fake stories by people who have since RETRACTED their statements and said they were lying.

    I think it’s easy for people to put the blame on the ones who look suspicious, it’s how the world has been for years and years. But there comes a time where one would feel the world has evolved maybe, giving someone the death penalty because a random person says they overheard him confessing to the crime is ridiculous. Or because he was a growing boy wanting to learn about the darkness and good in the universe. Educating himself on different books which he kept in his house. I mean, I have books about the Wicca religion, does that mean I’m a satanist who could kill children? I wear black, does that mean I could? I listen to rock music? I went through a goth phase?
    No.
    Teenagers growing up explore things to try and find themselves, I do not blame Damien for wanting to look outside of his surroundings where everyone is so close minded, or feeling depressed growing up in a broken home etc etc.
    But nothing above equals to murdering a child.

    However maybe Hobbs – who has a history of hitting his ex wife, hitting his son with his ex, attacking neighbour who tried to stop him doing so, hitting his stepson and molesting his biological daughter Amanda Hobbs (she has said so herself, and also said that she has no memory of her younger years which is typical with a child that has been abused, she told her aunt that her dad had touched her inappropriately, which her mother then took her to the hospital to be examined and the doctors results were that she had been penetrated. She also said she remembers her dad’s friend David ‘messing’ with her. And even if the sexual abuse isn’t true, she stated ‘I definitely know he beat the hell out of me’.)
    So when someone has put his hands on the women and children in his care, shot his brother in law, did not call his stepson’s mother after he realised he was missing, who’s wife stated that he takes drugs frequently, and also stated that he mentioned to her that she gives Steve more attention than she does him (motive), who had hidden away with his stuff a little pocket knife that was Steve’s prized posession which he always had with him..
    This person is really not considered a suspect?

    Only those little boys know who killed them, they deserve for that individual/s to be put away. Rest In Peace little angels, Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

    1. I agree with you 100% Tannaz. I am the same age as Damien. In 1991-1994 I wore black, listened to Alternative and heavy metal music. Hung around kids with shaved heads or spiky hair, biker jackets, etc. People stared at us like the freaks we were. But none of us would have considered killing a child. We were growing teenagers searching for our own identities. What was done to Damien, Jason and Jessie, could have been done to any one of us!
      False confessions are made all the time. The DNA facts are what should be considered here. Why wasn’t anything ever mentioned in court about the teens’ alibies? That is what I don’t understand.

      1. Ditto, I grew up in the 90’s where Metallica t-shirts were as ubiquitous as NY Yankee hats.

        For some reason I haven’t seen an ounce of evidence of police framing the “weird Metallica” kids before. Probably because it is a bullshit, ridiculous, pathetic, lazy, and intellectually insulting theory.

    2. Dear Tannaz,
      Yes, your life may have turned out differently if you were a homicidal, suicidal, schizophrenic, sociopath as Echols’ described himself in official government papers. Damien got into fights, started fires, killed animals, threatened to kill his mother, eat his dad, and finally found three little boys that the three teens (almost men) could beat down, cut up, and throw alive into drainage ditch water to drown.

      1. He threatened to “eat his dad” – that well know sign of a psycho-about-to-happen and not just a silly sense of humour at all

      2. sam, you sure are persuaded that these three killed the little boys but from everything that I’ve read and seen there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the three did it. None. Nada. No matter how much you try and spin it, the fact is there is no evidence and there never was any evidence implicating these boys in the murders. You seem to take an inventory of damiens life and try and paint him as a bad person who kills animals. You need to stop with all the name calling and get your facts right. I’m a neutral party and it’s clear as day that misskelley was blatantly led down the rabbit hole and fed facts that the detectives wanted to hear. He falsely confessed, don’t you get that? All the evidence points to this. Half of his claims were not true and had to be coached into saying what the detectives wanted him to say. Lastly, the overwhelming evidence that these three boys didn’t commit these murders is in fact due to them being released after 18 years…Damien being on death row! You just don’t get time served when you’re on death row. So go sell your book elsewhere you hack. You need to stop slandering these boys and do some research and seek out the real killer (as the FBI claimed it was done by someone close to the boys , probably somebody with an anger problem..probably Terrry Hobbs.

        1. John Sauny, Mojomom you are completely right. It makes the utmost sense that it was Terry Hobbs. At the end of the day, the lack of care and the unprofessionalism that occurred at the time of the deaths by the police department in West Memphis is unbelievable. It almost makes you wonder why they wouldn’t do every single thing right to make sure they put the culprit locked away. Losing evidence? Really? It’s a joke. The biggest shame was at the time, the mothers of those children and the one biological father didn’t question the police more. They trusted the police, as we are supposed to do but they sometimes take advantage of their power which proves to be the case here, oddly.
          The first thing I thought was.. what dirt do Hobbs and Byers have on the police? Because my god.. they are just sliding past ANY arrows pointing at these men!

          Misskelley’s confession is another issue. I’m pretty sure when someone has developmental disabilities the law does not and can not take their word.

          Echols may have hurt some animals and threatened to do things to his family. A lot of people threaten to do things. A lot of teens suffering from pain of a broken family going through different phases get angry and SAY things.
          IS there evidence of any of those teenagers at the crime scene? No.

          Hobbs DID abuse his first child with his ex wife. He DID beat up on his ex wife and his neighbour who tried to intervene.
          He DID take narcotics often, and not weed.. the hard stuff.
          He DID abuse his biological daughter. He DID have a motive for these murders as he DID state that he is jealous of the attention his wife gave her little boy. He DID participate in homosexual activities secretly as two other young boys that have come forward to the police stating that they were there and they took part and they SAW what happened came clean with a statement. They said they joined Hobbs and Jacoby with some alcohol and drugs and started doing things in the woods when the boys came by with their bikes and Hobbs ordered them to catch them before they ride off because they have now seen something they shouldn’t have. His gay secret is a motive. His jealousy of his wife and her son is a motive. (this statement has NOT been retracted unlike ALL of the other statements against Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin. However the police after hearing these statements decided to not take it further. Hmm..)

          There is EVIDENCE of Hobbs and his dirty friend at the crime scene.

          This is clear. This is common sense.
          Those poor babies were at the wrong place at the wrong time and unfortunately the people in charge of this covered many important facts up and went about it all very wrongly. They did not get justice.

          1. Their homosexuality and drug use are two separate things. They were fucked up in the head, and taking drugs and drinking alcohol combined with having secret relations with men and being seen by those kids is what caused this nightmare bullshit that people are still so blind to.

  7. Tons of case files have been uploaded to YouTube.

    These include two long, video-taped interrogations of Aaron Hutheson.

    Here is the link to one of them. Click the user’s name for tons of other stuff.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efqcPT5Jg8k

    My history with this case: at first, getting swept up in all the hype. You can’t really avoid it when all the documentaries and websites give you such a polarizing first impression. After a few years, I changed my beliefs about many things in life. One thing was this case. Once I found this website, I really switched sides. I don’t think there was enough evidence to convict them, but I still think they are guilty.

    Anyway, watching these interrogations, it’s clear Aaron doesn’t have any info, but they keep asking him questions, hoping to get something. I think it shows how the police were never really sure about the case to begin with. Why did they continue fishing for info through Aaron?

    Also, on Callahan you can hear a taped call with Fogleman and Hollingsworth (roughly oct 93) where he asks Hollingsworth if he knows a kid named Aaron Hutcheson. To me, this shows how they were still open to an array of possibilities after the WM3’s arrest.

    Ultimately, I look at Misskelley’s later confessions the most damning evidence. I find no reason for him to keep confessing. The pressure simply wasn’t there. As well, I don’t like Damien’s lack of an alibi, his lying on the witness stand about Alistair Crowley, and his suggestion that (the other) Jason Baldwin might have done it.

    1. Billy
      Why do you think Damien did it, if there is no evidence? Just because he has no ‘alibi’, because he looked weird? I think the whole hesitancy on Alistair Crowley was because he didn’t want to give the jury the impression that he was satanic when he wasn’t. Just because someone has read the books, doesn’t make them satanic. If I were in his shoes, on the stand being accused of a ritualistic killing, I probably would have hesitated too. Especially if I knew I was innocent. I don’t think what he did was a lie, as he admitted to knowing who he was, but not to reading his books. The sad part is that this wasn’t even a ritualistic killing – so the whole theory is moot. The injuries to those boys occurred after death by animals.
      As far as the confessions of Jessie, I can tell you from my knowledge of detective work, that the police will use all kinds of tactics to draw out a confession. Take a mentally challenged kid and shut him in a room and drill him for 12 hours and eventually he will wear down. Jessie wasn’t even a close friend of Jason and Damien. Where are the taped interrogations of Damien or Jason? These boys had no idea the reality of the situation they were in at the time. As Damien had said, how could they convict him on something he didn’t do? He honestly didn’t believe that the courts would convict him for something that he knew that he didn’t do. And they shouldn’t have.

        1. Why are you so mean on your posts? Classy. Easy to be so rude without breeding and while you type behind a computer screen. Bet it would be a different story face to face. Have a good day.

          1. “Easy to be so rude without breeding ”

            It’s easy to be rude without doing anything. And what does ‘breeding’ have to do with anything anyway? Little wonder people resort to rudeness when there are so many on-line silly people like you.

    2. You don’t hear the pressure in Misskelley’s confessions because they had done that already and conveniently didn’t record it. They played Aaron’s tape to him for hours and eventually he repeated it, he couldn’t even get the times right.. first he said they did it around 12 noon and the kids had skipped school. Then he said they tied them with rope! Because thats what Aaron said in his tape. He was literally repeating the story thinking they will let him go if he tells them what they want to hear.
      As far as evidence goes, ok lets say Terry Hobbs’ hair was on the shoelace from a previous encounter – what about Jacoby’s hair on the tree branch? What about the fact that no one knew where they were during those hours? What about the fact that to this day – Terry Hobbs’ refuses to take a polygraph test? What about Stevie Branch’s pocket knife who his mother saw him with the day he died – was found with Terry Hobbs?
      These are only a few unnerving things about Hobbs.
      The main issue for me is that people think three teenagers with one of them having developmental disabilities can kill 3 little boys and leave ZERO evidence?

  8. 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

    1. Hahaha thank you Anonymous! Stevie can’t go to the light til he get’s justice, he feels bad for Michael! He misses his momma and it’s cold, wet and dark, so please make these pricks nail real murderers!!!

      1. Did you even bother reading the whole comment?

        Yes, we rather pompously introduced ourselves as ‘Anonymous’ but by the end of the comment we had quite clearly changed our minds and decided we were called ‘Legion’.

        We do not forgive.
        we do not forget.

        Expect nothing

  9. So I was reading this part…:

    “WM3 supporters have touted the Hutchesons’ recantations as strong evidence that the WM3 were framed and that the case against them was flimsy and deceitful. I disagree, for two reasons. First, believing Vicki Hutcheson’s later story is just as foolish as believing her earlier story. In 1993-94 she was a lying grifter seeking attention and money. After the trials and over the next two decades, she continued to be a lying grifter seeking attention and money, just playing a different side. Second, the Hutchesons’ stories were never all that important to the investigation and prosecution. Discounting everything Vicki and Aaron said in 1993-94 does not weaken the case against the WM3 in the slightest.”

    …and I thought to myself…:

    ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaa…. *catches breath* Sure buddy, whatever you say….*continues laughing*

    1. The important statement that havoc vulture said was, “Discounting everything Vicki and Aaron said in 1993-94 does not weaken the case against the WM3 in the slightest.” Neither gave reliable information and should be given little thought.

      1. Hutcheson actually played a major role in this, which is why I would like you do to your research next time before writing a book and spreading hateful propaganda. Hutcheson got Jessie Misskelley to introduce her to Damien Echols. They went to a Wiccan meeting 2 weeks after the murders and she told police that there, Echols got drunk and boasted to the killings of the three boys. This was considered a big deal at the time, lest you forget. She has recanted everything, and it is much easier to believe her recantation than her original confession, which was ALSO coerced due to threats of having her child taken from her. She had allegedly been caught stealing from her employer, and was attempting to take a polygraph when her child said that he saw the murders. This was also found to be bogus and without merit.

  10. Thanks to John for another update. He is right this case is closed, the murderers have been convicted and pleaded guilty. But I still love the work he put into this site to layout so clearly the evidence against the WM3.

    I was not very familiar with either Vicki or the Marked Tree elementary school., so I found the reads very interesting. What an utter and complete mess, and I never would have made sense out of it if John didn’t lay everything out so clearly.

    Vicki, obviously, has very little credibility. The $30k dollar reward explains everything. But she does cloud the whole case to some extent, was anyone else lying over the award? and the overall picture of the police investigation takes a hit too. That the police did not see through Vicki’s lies is bad. They were right to smarten up by the second trial and keep far away from Vicki. Still the damage was done.

    I do find it interesting that Vicki’s amateur sleuthing was actually on the right track when she began “investigating” Damien as the murderer.

    The Marked Tree incident is also interesting. A very minor piece of evidence against the WM3. More importantly, it shows the cop in a positive light and there behavior was not indicative of trying to “set up” Damien.

    Considering the police conspiracy against the WM3 is pretty much the only way it makes sense they are innocent. It’s borderline preposterous, but not out of the realm of possibilities. Vicki slightly adds credibility to the police conspiracy. The Marked Tree takes away slightly.

  11. I have studied this case for a while and I was completely convinced of the innocence of all three teenagers at first. But, the more I researched and the more that I found, I began to think that maybe, just maybe, they had arrested the right guys to start with. I couldn’t stand all this uncertainty. It was maddening to think that a case like this could have so many twists and turns and no rock solid proof of who really did this. I came to mention this case to a true crime writer on Facebook and he ended up sending a private investigator to West Memphis to question all the people there that were involved, as well as digging extensively into all the original crime reports. We spoke with several family members of the victims as well as some of those of the three convicted. It was truly an eye opening experience. I am passionate about seeing the truth come out and justice prevailing for Steve Branch, Michael Moore and Chris Byers. I don’t assume to have all the answers and I don’t assume that I am always right. I have seen enough in this case to know that no one really has all the answers. After we completed as much research as we possibly could, a book began to take shape and I was asked to help co-author it. I would love for you all to follow the link below and read what we came up with. I truly hope that it will help to bring some clarity to some issues, and that it will contribute, at least in some small way, to helping the people involved to finally have some closure. Again, I don’t claim to be 100% right. I will continue to learn and research this case until there are answers. Thank you all for all that you do to bring awareness to this case and to keep the memories of those three precious children alive. It is because of you that people stay interested and that justice will one day be served to whomever it is due.

    http://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Memphis-Boogeyman-Amanda-Pettrey-ebook/dp/B00Q6XD6NI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417498010&sr=1-1&keywords=hunting+the+west+memphis+boogeyman#_

    1. To: Some people who laugh their asses off at people they envy.

      From: An Irish-American who is proud that his fore-fathers had the foresight to leave a biased land like Ireland.

  12. Hi,
    I’m new to the WM3 case after having discovered the propaganda doc “West of Memphis” last week. I have become to a degree obsessed with this case, or more to the point, disgusted with the complete Charles Manson level of idolisation of Damien Echols, and a complete lack in camp “innocence” to actually push for justice, and have the state satisfactorily investigate the crime and ensure the correct killer/s pay for those poor boys lives.
    When I began watching West of Memphis, initially I believed they were probably wrongfully accused, until I saw the shot of Echols arrogantly smiling in the back of a police car. Then I watched all three Paradise Lost documentaries and was disgusted at the heavy handed agenda that was being forced upon me. Since then I have researched the crime, the accused and the suspected. The more I read the more I feel in my gut that the WM3 are guilty. As they were released in 2011 I thought I’d look into what they are doing now and could not believe the “celebrity status” of Echols. Johnny Depp’s new best friend is a sociopath and narcissist and the majority of the world seems to be completely blind to it. He repeatedly lied throughout the investigation, his imprisonment and still continues to do so.
    I know personally I still couldn’t say that I’m 100% convinced they are guilty, there’s that tiny percentage of what if, but I feel this is due to the oversights in the police investigation. The fact that Terry Hobbs was never questioned is a mystery to me. Even if just to be ruled out, but because of this I feel the police didn’t completely look at every other possibility (for example Mr Bojangles – even though it’s probably a red herring, but still). Maybe the police just knew Echols was responsible and they wanted a quick conviction I don’t know. What I really wanted to see was a new trial, as they had banged on about this new evidence that exonerated them, I thought they’d take the opportunity to clear their names, however taking the Alford plea in my mind just made them look even more guilty. The murder of those poor children has upset me so much, and add to that the fact that they still have no justice is horrendous. The documentaries so far have manipulated people and most cannot even see that. I am an editor myself and understand the power of editing too well. They call it the invisible art for a reason – and these documentaries are a prime example. I think to a lot they feel because it’s a documentary, it must be “real” and a true to events. I’ve edited documentaries and how it can be twisted and manipulated to convey what the filmmaker wants is a true magic trick. If only the doubters could sit in an edit room!
    What I am also infuriated at is that the blind supporters and celebrities pushed so hard to get them a re-trial, campaigned to raise money etc. If they can accomplish all that for the WM3 why haven’t they done the same to push the state into a complete reinvestigation???!!! It is outrageous to me. The power celebrities have is genuinely terrifying, again if only they realised anyone who’s pay check is in the millions, who live life in highs of screaming fans and crowds, premieres, gigs etc is probably one of the worst judge of reality there is. They used celebrities to convince groupies that this was the truth.
    The complete lack of remorse or emotion from the WM3 in 1993 is worrying itself, now the narcissist artist/celebrity/producer/ that Echols has proven himself to be is another tick on the guilty list. No decent human being would behave in the way Echols has done. Also as for the people I’ve heard say they didn’t buy that kids would have done this should research the horrific murder of James Bulger in the UK. No one believed two ten year olds could have done that, but they did.

    The next on my list is to watch Devil’s Knott, but I suspect it’ll fuel my anger. Can anyone recommend any books on the subject that take any stance other than team Echols?

    1. Go Google the forensic expert’s opinions then you might get the whole team echols thang…funny how only hair found twisted in binded knot around Michael Moore isn’t it? And they had such long hair…?

        1. Here’s a criminal profile from am actual profiler about case. No mention of devil worship here…www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/memphis/evidence_11.html

    2. In case you didn’t know, that sardonic smile of Damien’s in the back of the police car, was him smiling at his family standing behind the car. But of course, you don’t see that part.

  13. Hi. I think this case has been made into a puzzle. A big one, the type of puzzle that when you’re 1-2 pieces away you can’t find them. There’s always someone hiding missing pieces just to see you struggling to find it, maybe kidding or looking at you with a sadistic smile. That’s how the world will always turn for each and everyone.

    1. Try looking round the back of the couch, or in-between the cushions.

      By the way, nobody hid the pieces, you just lost them

        1. Hi IWM,

          A well thought out piece with a lot of insight. Your critical thinking has brought you to the right conclusion. Read, “The West Memphis Boogieman” for answers to all your questions. Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley had the motive, opportunity, and means to kill the innocent boys, and none had an alibi that would stand up in court. Also, a reliable eyewitness told many people, many times when, where, how, why and who brutally murdered Steve Branch, Chris Byers and Michael Moore in Robin Hood woods on the evening of May 5, 1993.

      1. oh and buy the way, they do not “have the killers”, they have nobody in prison for these crimes. Congrats on getting everything wrong in such a short comment

        1. Richard, an Alford plea is inherently a guilty plea.

          “An Alford Plea is a guilty plea of a defendant who proclaims he is innocent of the crime, and admits that the prosecution has enough evidence to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

          This is rather damning, considering the three child killers have stated all along that there no evidence to convict them. You seem to put a lot of faith in these convicted child killers continued insistence of their innocence, as if its some sort of proof they are not guilty. Of course, the flaw in this is, what killer ever really admits their guilt? Oh, wait, one convicted child killer has admitted numerous times to his and his cohorts guilt and it so happens to be one of the people who are intimately involved this this crime.

          1. The point is that they did not plead guilty. An Alford plea is not a guilty plea. Read the definition in full. In a guilty plea you do not proclaim your innocence, as the WM3 have done.

            Of course this does not prove they are innocent either. I never said it did. But pointing to the Alford plea as proof of guilt is just a misunderstanding of what an Alford plea is.

          2. I can see why you fell for the white wash. An Alford plea is a guilty plea. To be honest, if you can not acknowledge this simple FACT I must assume that you are either being willfully disingenuous or are stupid.

            “Proof of guilt”

            That is an interesting statement, to say the least. “Proof is guilt” is what the Alford plea is all about. The three convicted child killers admitted their is enough evidence to prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an indisputable part of public record. The child killers admitted there was proof of guilt, why cant you?

          3. Who said “I fell for the whitewash”? You assume I am a supporter of the WM3, when in fact I am one of the diminishing few that admit to having no idea if they are guilty or not. Always amazes me how many people online who either know for certain they are guilty or innocent, you seem to be one of them. Doesn’t matter which side you take, you can’t admit you just don’t know.

            What I have a problem with is when people like you make ignorant statements about them ‘pleading guilty’, you are basically accepting the case is closed. Meanwhile whoever did this crime is free. THAT is the simple FACT.

            The WM3 accepted an Alford plea to get out of prison on the advice of their lawyers. As part of that plea they maintained their innocence. They did NOT admit they were guilty. And saying it was ‘inherently a guilty’ plea is as negatory as insisting it was “inherently an acquittal” because they were released. It was neither an admission of guilt nor an acquittal. So because of the Alford plea we just don’t know if they are guilty or not. The case remains unsolved.

            Hopefully some evidence will come to light and either the WM3 are convicted beyond doubt or someone else is. But you armchair detectives that don’t even understand the difference between a guilty plea and an Alford plea, well you’ve already made your mind up, so I doubt there’s any changing that no matter what happens.

          4. “What I have a problem with is when people like you make ignorant statements about them ‘pleading guilty’, you are basically accepting the case is closed.”

            Richard, the case was closed in 1993. It’s never been reopened and never will, considering two juries convicted the three and all three child killers subsequently plead guilty, albeit at later time. There is no reason to open the case. The Alford plea allows the three to “proclaim their innocence”. It does not demonstrate, imply or suggest the government shares this proclamation. As far as the government is concerned they convicted the persons responsible for this crime despite what ever proclamation the offenders make. You seem to think this Alford plea somehow indicates the case should be open. The three convicts and the state of Arkansas both agree there is evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the three committed these crimes. It would be irrational to reopen a case that’s already identified, arrested and convicted those responsible.

            “Meanwhile whoever did this crime is free.”

            Unfortunately the state felt 20 some odd years was justice in this case so, yes the three child killers are free and you will find a great many who are immensely disappointed and angry about that fact….but the case is closed and this is how it worked out, for better or worse.

            “The WM3 accepted an Alford plea to get out of prison on the advice of their lawyers.”

            “The child killers lawyers, specifically Echols, “asked” for, they did not accept. The prosecution accepted when asked. This is a standard distortion of truth by people who proclaim the innocence of the three. You done quite a few things like this that goes lock step with those who believe they are innocence. ”

            “And saying it was ‘inherently a guilty’ plea is as negatory as insisting it was “inherently an acquittal” because they were released. So because of the Alford plea we just don’t know if they are guilty or not. The case remains unsolved.”

            Richard, you are being willfully disingenuous or stupid again. They plead guilty and took time served as their sentence which amounted to 20+ years for each of them. It was a plea deal. As a matter of law and justice an Alford plea is the same as a guilty plea, irrelevant of what they “proclaim” similar to a no contest plea, I’m sorry you do not want to understand this but its the simple truth. Same as if they plead no contest. Think about that, the people who spent 20+ years yelling at anyone who would listen and fooling untold number of people in believing and giving them money that there was no evidence then admit in open court there was sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously they did not feel too strongly about their “no evidence” claim as they decided to forgo the hearing where they could demonstrate this in lieu of asking the prosecutor if they could plead guilty and admit there is sufficient evidence to obtain prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

            I know they are guilty, I also know they been proven guilty in a court of law and I also know they plead guilty. Take the “we” out of your statement. You are the only one confused here.

            “Hopefully some evidence will come to light and either the WM3 are convicted beyond doubt or someone else is.”

            First, its a reasonable doubt…not “beyond bout”, second, even if they have video of the three committing the crime, they can not be retried….want to know why? They already plead guilty and served their time. You can not try, convict and have them serve their sentence, then retry them unless they win an appeal that overturns their conviction, which they waived as a stipulation to the guilty plea. It does not matter what evidence that comes to light in regards to this crime the three committed that will put the three back in jail. They cant be retried as a matter of law.

            “But you armchair detectives that don’t even understand the difference between a guilty plea and an Alford plea, well you’ve already made your mind up, so I doubt there’s any changing that no matter what happens. ”

            I think you are the only who is confused here Richard. An Alford plea is a guilty plea, it says it, in its definition. There is no ambiguity. All three have a criminal record the indicates they are convicted child murderers. ‘

            Yes, I’ve made up my mind, was there any confusion about that? So has the state of Arkansas and the convicted child killers. As a matter of law all three are guilty irrelevant of what they proclaim.

          5. “Richard, the case was closed in 1993. It’s never been reopened and never will,”

            Yes you are just stating the obvious here, everyone knows the case was closed in 1993, my point is that you are accepting the verdict because of the Alford plea, simply because you insist on seeing it as the same thing as a guilty plea. Echols said only the guilty want closure in this case. Even if we take those words at face value, he is forgetting that there are also those like you who are insisting on closure because their mind is closed. Yet people rationally argue that others may be responsible for the murders are not ready for it and why should they be?

            “ considering two juries convicted the three and all three child killers subsequently plead guilty, albeit at later time. There is no reason to open the case. The Alford plea allows the three to “proclaim their innocence”. It does not demonstrate, imply or suggest the government shares this proclamation. “

            Again, it is obvious the government do not share this proclamation, otherwise what would be the point of it? You seem to be intentionally missing the issue again and again even though it is staring you in the face. Yes, the Alford plea allows the three to “proclaim their innocence”, and this is the clearest indication to you of why it is not a guilty plea. Those that plead guilty do not plead innocence in the same breath.

            “As far as the government is concerned they convicted the persons responsible for this crime despite what ever proclamation the offenders make. You seem to think this Alford plea somehow indicates the case should be open. “

            No you have it backwards, you seem to think the WM3 have pled guilty just because of the Alford plea. But you thought they were guilty anyway and so you took the Alford plea as further confirmation of what you have already decided, which is an absurd piece of fallacious reasoning.

            “The child killers lawyers, specifically Echols, “asked” for, they did not accept. The prosecution accepted when asked. This is a standard distortion of truth by people who proclaim the innocence of the three. You done quite a few things like this that goes lock step with those who believe they are innocence. ”

            Now you are being ridiculous in your irrelevant hair-splitting. Echols and his co-defendants are free to accept or decline offers made to them by their lawyers, and it is the lawyers who know how best to get them out of prison, not Echols. By the same token, the prosecution would not accept any deal that worked solely in favour of the defendants. So the deal suited both sides. Let’s not pretend the state are doing them any favours.

            “Richard, you are being willfully disingenuous or stupid again. They plead guilty and took time served as their sentence which amounted to 20+ years for each of them. It was a plea deal. As a matter of law and justice an Alford plea is the same as a guilty plea, irrelevant of what they “proclaim” similar to a no contest plea, I’m sorry you do not want to understand this but its the simple truth. “

            No it is you that is being stupid by repeating the same obvious points again and again while steadfastly refusing to see the fallacy of your position. An Alford plea is NOT the same as a guilty plea, otherwise it would be called a guilty plea. You laughably say “irrelevant of what they claim”, without seeing that what they claim as part of the plea is what should make it clear to you it is not a guilty plea. Furthermore, if the WM3 pled guilty then they could hardly continue to claim innocence as they have always done. By focusing solely on the obvious points of what is “a matter of law and justice” you are as blinkered as those people who judged Echols and Byers on how they looked. The WM3 have not pled guilty, they and the prosecution came to an Alford plea deal because it suited both sides. It in no way points to their guilt or their innocence (and by the same token it no way points to corruption or admittance of wrongdoing by the state as some WM3 supporters claim).

            “Same as if they plead no contest. Think about that, the people who spent 20+ years yelling at anyone who would listen and fooling untold number of people in believing and giving them money that there was no evidence then admit in open court there was sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously they did not feel too strongly about their “no evidence” claim as they decided to forgo the hearing where they could demonstrate this in lieu of asking the prosecutor if they could plead guilty and admit there is sufficient evidence to obtain prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

            Regardless of whether Echols and co were guilty or innocent they would have no way of knowing what evidence the state would come up with without legal advice. It is their lawyers that advised them to accept the Alford plea or else spend untold number of months and years going to trial with the possibility of being found guilty. Yes, a guilty person would jump at this chance, but an innocent person who knows he has spent 17 years in jail with no genuine evidence against him would also take no chances. An innocent person knows the state put him away once with what the state claimed was “evidence”. If it happened once it could just as easily happen again. So accepting the Alford plea on the advice of their lawyers neither proves nor suggests anything either way. They just wanted to get out, while they were presented with what might be their only chance. The logical consequences of the position taken by both sides is inevitable and only the obtuse who can only quote the obvious matters of law cannot see this

            “I know they are guilty”

            This is where you reveal your ridiculous position. You do not know they were guilty. If you strongly suspected they were guilty, based on the evidence and the fact that they were found guilty, that would be fair enough, but you are unable or unwilling to see the distinction between this and knowing for sure.

            “First, its a reasonable doubt…not “beyond doubt”,

            Missing the point again. Yet I justly wonder if it would be enough for people like you if someone is convicted beyond reasonable doubt, not unless it’s the WM3 then it would be accepted without question.

            “second, even if they have video of the three committing the crime, they can not be retried….want to know why? They already plead guilty and served their time. You can not try, convict and have them serve their sentence, then retry them unless they win an appeal that overturns their conviction, which they waived as a stipulation to the guilty plea. It does not matter what evidence that comes to light in regards to this crime the three committed that will put the three back in jail. They cant be retried as a matter of law.”

            Again, a lot of obvious, irrelevant flannel for the sole purpose of covering up the fallacy in your argument. You say “they pled guilty and served their time.” This is patently untrue. They pled not guilty, and did not serve the full-term because their lawyers and the prosecution came to an Alford plea deal which got them released. Big difference

            “I think you are the only who is confused here Richard. An Alford plea is a guilty plea, it says it, in its definition. There is no ambiguity. All three have a criminal record the indicates they are convicted child murderers. “

            Hah, as if anyone doesn’t know they were convicted of child-murder, way to go to miss the point again! An Alford plea would be a guilty plea if you skipped half of the definition, which you do every time you mention it because it suits your argument. You take the guilty part as cast iron fact and conveniently toss away the denial of criminality and assertion of innocence, because this is the part that of the deal that suits the accused and not the prosecution.

            “Yes, I’ve made up my mind, was there any confusion about that? “
            None at all, it tells me that even if they went to trial again and were acquitted you would still be saying they were guilty, people like you are scary, wonder how many of them were on the WM3 jury

          6. oh and by the way, many killers DO admit their guilt and plead guilty. Jessie was not one of them however, a confession is not the same thing as a guilty plea

          7. Any argument in dispute of the evidence in this case was made moot once they asked for and received (they did not accept, the prosecutor had to accept it at the pleading of the child killers) a chance to plead guilt due to the evidence being suffice to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

          8. They just did as their lawyers advised, it wasn’t something they thought up themselves. Besides you are missing the point, you said “what killer ever really admits their guilt” and I pointed out that many killers do, (although the reasons are frequently self-serving). And whereas the WM3’s final claim of innocence in no way proves their lack of guilt, its petulant to pretend it didn’t happen.

          9. Ask Damien if he pretended serving nearly 18 years for murders that they committed or did it not happen. That is, if you can get past all of his lies about prison rape, horrible treatment, and having to eat with his hands because he was unable to learn out to use a spork.

        2. Hi Richard White,

          They were found guilty by their peers in a fair and lawful trial and they accepted that guilt to this day with the same ability to say what they mostly said before. That they were innocent.

  14. If the the 17 year old had been drunk on Evan Williams on the night in question. Then any question pertaining to the events on that night would reflect deception on a polygraph. That’s one reason they have the reputation as being whimsical and changeable.

    1. No reputation of being whimsical or changing. His eight or more confessions were in every important detail (where, how, why, and who) consistent throughout.

      1. I was in high school when this case and trial was being shown on the news and I have always been a supporter as I listened to heavy metal music and wore the same clothing and died my hair. I watch the PL films and also truly thought they were innocent. It was not until my shock they were released in 2011 that I truly did the research on the case. With all the NON DNA at the crime scene ( TH hair or the WM3 fibers) I was still considering they were not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I then read opinions such as the comments here and the Callahan files. Many can point to the hair DNA which is just about as conclusive as the fibers so in my opinion they cross one another out. What we do have is facts and not speculation. THE CONFESSIONS I would believe it was coerced if there was one and were not multiples on tape and even to Jesses own lawyer after conviction with his lawyer advising against it. I also am biased by exhibit 500 and Echols now saying 20 years later it was a lie made by Baldwins lawyer. Echols has done nothing but lie and no matter if he was innocent or guilty I (if nothing else fear for my safety/retribution) would now want to live a quiet life. Echols has been living a celebrity status and living in Salem and is repeatedly adding to his satanic stereotype. Innocent or guilty I would think he would be happy to have freedom and still sad for the families of the victims and not flaunt his freedom or the weirdness that brought these events on him to begin with. Innocent or guilty I have never once seen any compassion for the victims.

    2. expert testimony about how misskelly was not showing deception was not allowed to be heard by the jury. the expert in question has worked with the fbi, rcmp, and many local agencys. but hey lets take the word of the cop who performed the test. a drug addict who was fired for police misconduct

  15. FYI Richard an Alford plea is a guilty plea, not an exoneration nor is it any kind of acknowledgement of innocence by the prosecutor or state. In leymans terms, its a graceful way to let people plead guilty.

    1. Wow, your stupidity is breathtaking, any idiot with Google can see that an Alford plea is not “an exoneration nor is it any kind of acknowledgement of innocence by the prosecutor or state”, AND I have explained to you many times what it IS, why do you keep coming back with what it is not, you moron? Why don’t you admit you fucked up when you revealed you didn’t understand the difference between an Alford plea and a guilty plea? Why don’t you admit you were bullshitting when you quoted only half of the definition in order to make them appear to be exactly the same thing so you could draw the same conclusions from them? Why don’t you do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself and shut the fuck up?

          1. Have someone read my book to you and then explain the meaning of the words, then comment on my book, and no I am not your mate. Checkmate.

  16. This the only thing I’m responding too…

    “Let’s not pretend the state are doing them any favours.”

    OMFG. You are fucking willfully delusional. Lets take all the personal opinions out of this, other than what we have for each other. There are three convicted child killers…two juries, a trial judge, appeals court, the attorney general, all have either supported the verdicts or upheld them. Lets believe for a minute that the judge, jury, AG and appellate system is good or even adequate at their jobs (there is no evidence they are not in this case, other than conjecture by you and others)….you want to sit here and tell me the prosecutor did not do them a favor? In order for this not to be a huge favor (letting three convicted child killers out prison), you’d have to believe the judge, jury and appellate court are all wrong. Their conviction never got overturned. The prosecutor made this decision on his own with out input from the AG or anyone else for that matter. Irrelevant of my or anyone else opinion of the particulars in this case, I do not want my prosecutor letting convicted child killers out of prison, especially when all legal objections to the conviction have been rejected up to that point. This plea deal occurred outside the purview of the appeals process. Basically, the prosecutor interjected himself into the situation once approached by the defense team. NOt sure if you know this but the AG argues appeals, once a conviction is obtained, the prosecutor has almost nothing more to do in the case other than maybe writing a letter to a parole/clemency board.

    I’ve heard it all now, letting convicted child killers out prison is not a favor to them. Go back to the forum where you got this bullshit.

    1. “OMFG. You are fucking willfully delusional”

      A favour is an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual. It is YOU that is fucking delusional if you think their release was an act of kindness! Not even the state would claim that. How does it feel when even the prosecution that you trust so much would regard you as an idiot? For a start you might want to listen to what the prosecutor said on his decision to agree to the Alford plea. The AG asked him if he was sure it was the right thing for him politically. He is then very clear about the reasons why the Alford plea was agreed, and why it suited BOTH SIDES, and even the most cynical of WM3 supporters should be able to understand what he is saying, regardless of whether they think it is right or not. You must be the only idiot on the planet that interprets it as an act of kindness!

      “In order for this not to be a huge favor (letting three convicted child killers out prison), you’d have to believe the judge, jury and appellate court are all wrong. ”

      What utter, conspiracy-laden bullshit, you would have to believe judge, jury and appellate court conspired in this act of kindness, and only unthinking cretins like yourself would believe that. The prosecution gave clear reasons why the Alford plea was granted, and just because it suited the WM3 that doesn’t mean it was granted out of the kindness of the prosecution’s heart. As you have been told numerous times already (and the prosecution admits this) the decision suited the prosecution too!

      “I do not want my prosecutor letting convicted child killers out of prison, especially when all legal objections to the conviction have been rejected up to that point. ”

      Don’t you understand anything? What you want is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the facts. The decision was made to suit the prosecution and the defence, not you or I, it makes shit difference to the facts whether you like it or not. All that should matter to anonymous nobodies like you is that when you talk about it you understand the reality and you plainly don’t. Do you even read the shit you write, seriously you are embarrassing.

      “This the only thing I’m responding too…”

      I’m not surprised you have been proven to be an idiot by not knowing the difference between an Alford plea and a guilty plea, second you have been revealed as a close-minded fool by insisting you know for sure who committed the crime. You are as moronic as the idiot WM3 supporters that “know” Terry Hobbs is guilty. None of you know shit, I have no opinion one way or the other, but I do know that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate and that they laugh at you close-minded morons who think you know it all but know fuck all. So carry on showcasing your stupidity, at least its giving plenty of people a good laugh.

    2. The intelligent officials in Arkansas saw that fighting silly appeal after sillier appeal was robbing Arkansas citizens of funds that could be better spent on its citizens than fighting unlimited funds from misinformed Hollywood’s rich and famous. By the way, being rich or famous does not make movie producers or song and dance dudes any better at determining guilt or innocence than red neck, Bible spewing hill billies from small town Arkansas.

      1. lol. you are one dumb son of a bitch sam. are you even listening to the shit your spewing? you’re standing up for the government when everybody knows the government is out to fuck us all. this makes you look like an idiot.

    1. It’s “you’re”, dumb-ass, not “your”, as in YOU’RE a stupid fuck-wit that know YOU’RE stupid, which is why you post YOUR stupid bullshit anonymously, understand, moron?

      1. Phillip,

        I understand that you are the typical child killer supporter who reverts to irrelevant attacks on grammar and personnel identity when its shown one of your cohorts brought the same bullshit conjecture and distorted facts used manipulate public opinion for the past 20+ years. As someone intelligent enough to know grammar, I would hope you can understand that my grammar, nor my identity has zero to do with the fact an Alford plea is, in fact, a guilty plea and an admission of the three child killers that there is enough evidence to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in spite of what ever proclamations they want to make.

        1. I can see the irony of your stupidity is lost on you. Here’s a tip: if all you can say in response to someone is ‘you’re stupid’ make sure you get the grammar right, otherwise it’s you who looks stupid, you stupid cunt.

          1. Phillip,

            When I attempt to explain that an Alford plea is, in fact, a guilty plea and the person continues to debate such an obvious and easily proved fact they are either one of two things, a disingenuous person or they are fucking stupid. Considering this guy has discussed on the same old distorted and manipulated information that we’ve all heard for the past 20+ years, I have to assume the guy is stupid. Its interesting you failed to read or just flatly ignored my previous four of five post when I explained to this fool why he was wrong but I digress, people like you tend overlook or dismiss obvious facts and instead point to grammar mistakes and personal insults. Go back to your forum where you came from and take it all in from the crowd that so gleefully supports three child killers who have, in fact, plead guilty.

          2. Still prattling on about the Alford plea, you sad tosser, like its your damn security blanket. You haven’t explained shit. You just Googled what an Alford plea is like anyone can and copied and pasted half the definition here because it makes you feel clever. But your childlike grammatical and spelling errors gives it away that you are really just a no-nothing punk pretending to be smart. You aren’t fooling anyone, so shut the fuck up.

            No wait a minute, copy and paste us all some of the Alford plea one more time, go on punk you know you want to

          3. To theconfession,

            I am also of the opinion that the WM3 are guilty.

            But you are wrong about the Alford Plea. An Alford plea is when a defendant enters a plea of guilty without making an admission of guilt. In other words, he pleads guilty but at the same time he maintains that he’s innocent. This is VERY different from the typical guilty plea where the defendant usually admits, in open court, that he’s guilty of the crime.

            Whereas the state can disregard what the defendants says about their innocence, the public and media cannot. You will no doubt have noticed that when the WM3 had their Alford plea accepted, the media had to report the outcome in full. No media outlet reported that the WM3 simply “pled guilty”, as this would have been disingenuous. They had to report what occurred in full, so that it was clear to the public that an Alford plea (unlike a traditional guilty plea) allows the WM3 to maintain their innocence. This maintenance of innocence makes no difference in law, but it makes a huge difference to how the defendants will be viewed and treated by the public and the media when they are released, which is probably the most important thing to them (so long as they do not re-offend). The public and the media would view the WM3 very differently if they simply pled guilty to the murders (a traditional guilty plea would be viewed as a plain admission of guilt).

            Any subsequent reporting by anyone that says the WM3 “pled guilty” is disingenuous, because it deliberately gives the impression that their plea was a traditional guilty plea and not an Alford plea which allows the 3 to maintain their innocence. Those that repeat what happened at this hearing make themselves look dishonest if they do not report it in full, including the claim of innocence. It would be a bit like a journalist reporting that a defendant admitted in court that she”stabbed her husband”, when what she actually said was that she “stabbed her husband accidentally and phoned the emergency services immediately”. Missing the last bit off deliberately misleads the public as to what the defendant is admitting to, regardless of what judgement is eventually made by the court.

            In my view, the state should not have accepted the Alford plea. I can accept another trial, but the WM3 should be in jail awaiting it, not free.

            I believed that the WM3 are guilty because of the evidence. I believed this before the Alford plea and the Alford plea has not changed anything other than freed them, so I still believe they are guilty, based on the evidence. I am secure enough in my belief in the evidence that I do not have to wrongly inform people that they “pled guilty”, as if they didn’t maintain their innocence. I simply ignore the Alford plea when trying to convince people of their guilt because the Alford plea only allows the state to stick to their original judgement, it doesn’t bring anything new to the evidence. I don’t need to pretend it is something other than it is. Doing this only reinforces the belief in the public and media mind that the WM3 supporters are still being victimised by people who twist the truth. It becomes another excuse for the public to stop focusing on the only thing that matters. The evidence.

          4. I’m not wrong. I’ve made two points, one it is guilty plea and and two it is admission of the convicted child killers that the evidence would lead a jury to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the offenders proclaim their innocence or guilt is irrelevant to the two central points I’ve made numerous times thus far. Further, it is identical to a guilty plea in every sense. The ONLY thing an Alford plea does is allow the convicted child killers to make a legally irrelevant proclamation their innocence. Their proclamation has no legal standing.

            You can talk about public opinion all you want, it is irrelevant when you are talking about opening the case and finding the killers. Read through the idiots post, he was arguing about using the Alford plea as some fucked up reason to reopen the case while insisting that an Alfrod plea was NOT an explicit guilty plea when it very much is.

            “Any subsequent reporting by anyone that says the WM3 “pled guilty” is disingenuous, because it deliberately gives the impression that their plea was a traditional guilty plea and not an Alford plea which allows the 3 to maintain their innocence.”

            No, its not. The original conviction was vacated and they were convicted again based on their guilty plea. For all intents and purposes, its the same. If some gullible person who does not want to objectively research the case and think this proclamation has any sort of merit or relevancy well, its a free country. Suggesting that its an objective and logically different from a guilty plea is simply wrong on every level. Its identical to someone being found guilty by a jury but proclaiming their innocence.

            “In my view, the state should not have accepted the Alford plea. I can accept another trial, but the WM3 should be in jail awaiting it, not free.”

            In my opinion they should not have negotiated a damn thing until after the hearing. Most people familiar with the law felt that it was along shot that the child killers would be successful at that hearing.

            “I am secure enough in my belief in the evidence that I do not have to wrongly inform people that they “pled guilty”, as if they didn’t maintain their innocence.”

            They did plead guilty and its funny to me that these child killers spend 20+ years fabricating a myth about “no evidence” and when they finally get a chance to prove it, they back track on that proclamation and accept a conviction for murder. No one talks about that yet wnat to make a big deal about their proclamation of innocence….give me a fucking break, rarely has the media reported accurately in this case and you want to talk to me about the media having an obligation…they plead guilty and its irrefutable.

          5. “whether the offenders proclaim their innocence or guilt is irrelevant to the two central points I’ve made numerous times thus far. Further, it is identical to a guilty plea in every sense.”

            This isn’t quite correct. First of all, the proclamation of innocence is not irrelevant because it allows the WM3 to continue to make their case to the media and the public that they are innocent, something they would find difficult to do if they put forward a traditional guilty plea. Secondly, it isn’t identical to a traditional guilty plea in every sense because with a traditional guilty plea the defendant would not proclaim their innocence, and so the public and the media would take them at their word and assume they were guilty. This is a difficult impression to overcome once made.

            “The ONLY thing an Alford plea does is allow the convicted child killers to make a legally irrelevant proclamation their innocence.”

            Absolutely true, it is legally irrelevant. Unfortunately it is not publicly irrelevant, especially in this case. The Alford plea has allowed the public and the media to make more of the proclamation of innocence than the legal judgement warranted, but it was inevitable that would happen and one of the chief reasons I did not want the Alford plea to be accepted.

            “No, its not. The original conviction was vacated and they were convicted again based on their guilty plea. For all intents and purposes, its the same. ”

            Legally yes, but unfortunately they were permitted to proclaim their innocence AND were freed, which makes A LOT of public difference. Legally they are guilty but because the Alford plea allows them to plead innocence in a public domain and then get released, it was obvious that public and media attention will be focused on their innocent plea and new liberty rather than the fact that the state still rightly view them as guilty. This is why I maintain the Alford plea was a bad move by the prosecution – it was inevitable that the WM3 would enjoy roaming around free like heroes and victims even though they are convicted child-killers.

            “If some gullible person who does not want to objectively research the case and think this proclamation has any sort of merit or relevancy well, its a free country.”

            It has no legal merit, but it has a HUGE public merit for the 3. Not only were they able to maintain their regular proclamations of innocence, but their final one was on TV, to massive publicity just before they walked free.

            “Suggesting that its an objective and logically different from a guilty plea is simply wrong on every level. Its identical to someone being found guilty by a jury but proclaiming their innocence.”

            Legally yes, but publicly different to someone pleading guilty to murder (as a traditional guilty plea)

            “They did plead guilty and its funny to me that these child killers spend 20+ years fabricating a myth about “no evidence” and when they finally get a chance to prove it, they back track on that proclamation and accept a conviction for murder. No one talks about that”

            Well unfortunately they did not JUST plead guilty, they accepted an Alford plea which allowed them to proclaim their innocence and get out. This sort of thing makes a big difference to what people talk about. If they ever made a traditional guilty plea they would not be the public heroes and darlings of the media which they now are. They may not even be free.

            “give me a fucking break, rarely has the media reported accurately in this case and you want to talk to me about the media having an obligation…they plead guilty and its irrefutable.”

            The media’s “obligations” are not what I was talking about at all, they are irrelevant, all that matters is what has happened for real. The media DID NOT report that “the WM3 pled guilty” and leave it at that. You may continue to repeat “the WM3 pled guilty” until you are blue in the face, but unfortunately, the journalists that matter (the ones people read) were never going to say just that. The whole world sees the WM3 proclaim their innocence and get out, so of course the media are going to report the hearing in full. Sure, they explain what an Alford plea is, but the damage is done. People see them plead innocent and walk out. This is nothing to do with “media obligations”, its simply a horrible, inevitability of what the Alford plea was going to do for the careers of the WM3. Its done great for them, so how is that justice? The legal implications of the Alford plea is having zero negative affect on the 3 (unless they re-offend). Real justice can now only come from the media and the public, but it isn’t going to because by and large they are more convinced than ever that they are innocent. You can continue to scream “they pled guilty” all you like if it makes you feel better, but nobody is listening, they only heard the innocent bit, and it was on TV so you can’t deny it never happened (although you sound as if you are trying to, even though I’m sure that is not your intention). All you can do is point to the evidence and the evidence does suggest they are guilty.

            “they plead guilty and its irrefutable”

            Stop arguing about it with “idiots” then. If it needs no refuting in your mind why waste your breath refuting it?

          6. What evidence? Because they found no trace of the 3 teenagers there.. they did find strands of hair from Hobbs and his friend Jacoby which no one talks about. But no evidence from Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley.

    2. A typical WM3 supporter comment. Here is a thought that might keep you mind working for a week or two: Paradise Lost, II and III, Devil’s Knot, West of Memphis, Life after Death and other movies and books that WM3’s supporter money have produced are loaded with allegations, anecdotes, assertions, confabulations, embellishments, exaggerations, gossip, hearsay, hyperbole, misinformation, rumors, and sensationalism way more than documented fact. (2)

      1. You cant be serious? Do you have any idea of the deranged activities of people who support these three child killers? Look at the three of you fucking idiots who cant but help jump on the first idiot’s bandwagon and start calling me names. First, you people are stupid, next you are like a swarm of roaches who attack anything that opposed your stupid and willfully ignorant position. I mean, the evidence is right here. The person I was discussing this with continued to insist the Alford plea was not a guilty plea….this in the face of literal definitions. I digress once again, while you idiots maybe good at grammar, you fucking horrible at comprehension.

          1. ah we have number four the the loonies deciding to jump on the bandwagon. I bet you all belong to the same forum and its one that most certainly has a theory about the “man hole”.

          2. Calm down, nobody is going to stalk you, you’re not a celebrity or even a somebody, you’re just a random nobody on the internet, nobody cares what you think or where you live or anything about you. Yes, you’re probably living a pretty pointless life but at least your safe and you will remain so, you’ll die alone and safe, probably at a very old age (although by the sound of you, you’ve been old and grumpy for a while now)

          3. You make a rather uninspired insult….maybe if I was on the level of your inferior intellect, I’d be insulted. What I’d suggest for you is to go back to what ever forum you are a part of, get your high-fives from the other child killer groupies and validate what ever imagined status you think you have achieved and stop making your self look like a child who can do nothing more than talk trash. In other words, stop trolling it only makes you stupid when you’ve contributed nothing else.

          4. “maybe if I was on the level of your inferior intellect”

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that is the funniest line yet, you actually BELIEVE you have finally discovered someone who is ‘inferior’ to you intellectually? And after littering this page with evidence of your ignorance, stupidity and drivel? Even that troll you are squabbling with is smarter than you. THAT is how low you are

    1. You post anomalously because ‘anomalously’ means ‘peculiarly’, idiot.

      Might want to spend more time in school learning the difference between words like anomalously and anonymously instead of wasting your time copying and pasting the same partial definitions which you don’t even seem to understand anyway

        1. PREMISE 1: Continuous spelling and grammatical errors and confusing similar words with each other are all a sign of an ill-education.
          PREMISE 2: Repeating the same point again and again without adding anything new is a sign of mental deficiency.
          PREMISE 3: Misunderstanding simple definitions which are available to all on the internet is a sign of stupidity.
          PREMISE 4: Knowing the full definition of something but trying to pass it off as something else is a sign of a bullshitter.
          PREMISE 5: The cunt that calls himself ‘theconfession’ is guilty of all of the above and is also a cunt.
          CONCLUSION: theconfession is an ill-educated, mentally deficient, stupid, bullshitting cunt.

          Effective enough for you?

  17. From his own fucking website:

    August 19: In a rarely used plea arrangement known as an “Alford Plea,” Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley [b]plead guilty[/b] to murder while still maintaining their innocence. They are released with time served and a suspended 10-year sentence.

    http://damienechols.com/history

    1. The key part of that, as far as Echols is concerned, is “while still maintaining their innocence” and that’s the bit non-supporters like to conveniently miss off, as if its really a traditional guilty plea.

      1. because its means absolutely nothing. I’m sorry to inform you but it is a completely rational and logical opinion to dismiss the claims of convicted child killers.

        1. Means absolutely nothing? You’re joking aren’t you? Their claims of innocence are raking them in a fortune. They are no longer just child-killers, these guys are CELEBRITY CHILD-KILLERS, or haven’t you noticed?

          1. meant to add:

            it probably hurt them a little…I’m not sure how many people they gained after the plea, there was nothing left to fight for so the campaign ground to a halt. I’m not even sure wm3.org even exist anymore.

          2. I just checked the forums and most of them are rather dead…in other words, no one in the general public really cares about them anymore.

          3. They are still buying Echols books though. But yeah the forums are dead, probably because the 3 are free and enjoying their lives. There isn’t much of a ’cause’ when who you are fighting for is free.

  18. Besides, I guess everyone forgets the dumb ass who I was discussing this continued to repeat and insist an Alford plea is not a guilty plea. It amazes me, I’ve clearly in my discussion with people in this regard has, in fact, stipulated to their ability to profess their innocence while the idiot who was discussing this adamantly refused to acknowledge the Alford plea as explicit guilty plea. Typical support bullshit trying to change context of the discussion.

    1. “It amazes me, I’ve clearly in my discussion with people in this regard has, in fact, stipulated to their ability to profess their innocence”

      What the fuck is this drivel you are you blabbering about now? LEARN SOME BASIC FUCKING ENGLISH for fuck’s sake. Just LEARN TO FORM A BASIC SENTENCE, that would be a start. No wonder you come across as full of shit, you can’t even express yourself at the most basic level.

          1. Oh and even stupid people can comprehend my point….the fact you cant kind of proves my initial theroy that you lack the ability to comprehend basic concepts and principals, although I guess you get a A+ for grammar police?

          2. Grammar? You dopey moron, your sentence had FUCK ALL TO DO WITH GRAMMAR. It wasn’t even basic English! Read it again you gibbering fool:

            “It amazes me, I’ve clearly in my discussion with people in this regard has, in fact, stipulated to their ability to profess their innocence”

            And you think your GRAMMAR is the issue? Holy fuck, retard, can’t you see the reason nobody gives a shit about whatever “point” you are trying to make is because you plainly have the brains of Jessie Misskelley and the deluded ego of Damien Echols. In short you are a fuckwit joke. Now piss off back to the bottom of the page and type your Alford plea shit again. Its obvious how much you are getting off on it.

          3. Good idea, stick to text-speak and youth-subculture-lingo, that is your level, leave the English language to adults

          4. Yep I’m finished. It’s been a whole day since you repeated the Alford plea, and if you can show such restraint then so can I. So bye.

            oh and by the way – fuck off and die 🙂

  19. Just to keep the distorter from manipulating the truth, here is my first post in this discussion in response to a closet supporter:

    Richard White February 7, 2015 at 3:34 pm
    They did not plead guilty, they accepted an Alford plea and maintained their innocence

    REPLY
    Richard White February 7, 2015 at 3:36 pm
    oh and buy the way, they do not “have the killers”, they have nobody in prison for these crimes. Congrats on getting everything wrong in such a short comment

    REPLY
    theconfession February 9, 2015 at 1:49 am
    Richard, an Alford plea is inherently a guilty plea.

    “An Alford Plea is a guilty plea of a defendant who proclaims he is innocent of the crime, and admits that the prosecution has enough evidence to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    This is rather damning, considering the three child killers have stated all along that there no evidence to convict them. You seem to put a lot of faith in these convicted child killers continued insistence of their innocence, as if its some sort of proof they are not guilty. Of course, the flaw in this is, what killer ever really admits their guilt? Oh, wait, one convicted child killer has admitted numerous times to his and his cohorts guilt and it so happens to be one of the people who are intimately involved this this crime.

    1. oh and buy the way, they do not “have the killers”, they have nobody in prison for these crimes.

      Ask Damien if he remembers spending time in prison for killing three boys. There might be a line in his book about that.

  20. The laughable part is, Misskelley admitted guilt to who ever would listen, numerous times. The proclamation of guilt by the convicted child killers had no weight with the child killer groupies but now, the distorter’s and manipulators want make a big fuss about them professing something….it’s quite comical how they pick and choose which proclamations to put stock will argue to their blue in the fact about how credible their proclamations are.

      1. I think if there were only a few circumstances that led to the three, I could find reasonable doubt. However, there are just too many circumstances that point to their guilt that I can not reasonably or logically believe they are innocent. Like I said, I can discount a few things but when you look at the fibers, the statements by Echols, the multiple confessions, the Evan Williams bottle, the 500, the false alibi’s it just becomes incredibly unbelievable that all of these things are coincidences or some perfect storm of events to wrongly convict the three.

        Personally, Misskelley’s confession(s) have a considerable amount of weight with me but honestly what convinced is to the extent they (Echols and his defense primarily) have out right lied, distorted and manipulated the facts during the past 20+ years. Before they were released and still today, most of the information on this case has been acquired from supporters of the three and not objective research from Callahan’s.

        Misskelley undoubtedly gave inconsistent statements and its largely the reason most people discount them however, an inconsistent statement is in no way a reason to dismiss the credibility of the admission of guilt. People tend to focus on Misskelley’s description of how it happened but that is the least relevant part of it. He consistently identified Echols and Baldwin in the woods murdering those three boys. That’s never changed. The other argument is he was retarded. The problem with that argument is, retarded people dont continue to make the same mistake over and over again….for instance, say I told a retarded person he can have a cookie if I slap him….I slap him and dont give him a cookie, seriously how many times you think he is going to ask for a cookie. That is the critical flaw when you try and discount Misskelley’s statements….he may have been stupid but he was not insane because the only people who keep trying the same mechanism with no results are insane people. people with autism or other mental defects….

        Yeah, I think they are all guilty and think who ever votes for that prosecutor is a fool.

        1. The reason Misskelley’s statements were inconsistent was because he was trying to downplay or minimise his involvement. His confessions are a classic case of a guilty man who knows he has been found out, but is trying to make it sound as if he was the least culpable. The police were far from perfect and probably dishonest, but they were very experienced and a whole bunch of experienced cops cannot be fooled by a dimwit, teenage punk. They KNOW he was guilty, without a shadow of a doubt, it was just a question of how much info they could get from him.

          If Baldwin is guilty then I believe HE was the one with the minimum involvement. Baldwin may have been the one who ran and caught Michael Moore and gave him minimum injuries. Misskelley did all the knife injuries that he attributed to Baldwin. In his statements, Misskelley swapped roles with Baldwin, that’s why there are so many inconsitencies

          1. I really think no one will ever know how it happened. I think it was some sort of thrill kill based on opportunity. I could forgive and accept their freedom if they ever took responsibility for their actions as they were all terribly young and had mental issues. I’m not proponent of giving up on human beings however as the years have gone by its hard to find any sort of empathy for Echols or Baldwin who have lied consistently about this. That’s what baffles me about the their supporters, they maintain their support in the face of these lies.

          2. I agree it was an opportunistic attack, the WM3 could not have known those 3 boys would be there when they were, the boys did not plan to be there, they could have been anywhere. The WM3 stumbled upon them and we can’t know how it started but I believe things escalated, as these crimes often do.

            Satanism was suggested as a motive by the prosecution or the police and Misskelley ran with it, so he could put most of the blame on Echols and Echols ‘leader’ who I doubt even exists. There is no need to mystify or complicate the brutal crimes of young punks – this crime has all the hallmarks of bullying that escalated to brutality and finally murder.

          3. Are you aware of the fact that he first said he didn’t have any involvement, until they played Aaron Hutchesons tape to him numerous times WHICH has since been proven to have been lies as Aaron’s mother came forward and said that she told her son to say he was there.. and Misskelley was repeating things he was hearing in the tape? He was certain that they tied them with rope, he was certain it was in the day, he was was certain of many facts that were simply not true. Because they were said in Aarons tape so he repeated the info until the police let him go. It’s funny how they chose the retarded one to interrogate for one whole day. He obviously thought if he just said he helped a bit then ran off that they would let him go. You guys think that these three grown ass teenagers wrestled with those 3 little boys and didn’t leave a shred of DNA? ok.

      2. Jessie has told us many times that it took all three “men” to beat down and cut up three 8 year old cub scouts.

  21. If you are a supporter of WM3 movies, Paradise Lost, II and III, Devil’s Knot, West of Memphis, etc…and ever wondered what it’s like to be a fear-mongering, rumor-spreading, misinformation-spouting, twaddle-spewing, rabble-rousing zealot. Well, wonder no more. You’re a natural.

  22. First time to post on here after reading the hundreds of posts about this topic. I have a few questions…..

  23. First, I will say that I am basically not sure at all on either side of this issue. I have no real certainty either way on who is right or wrong and what the overall truth is. I’m sure I’m not the only person out there that falls into this category, but would like some more info and questions answerred. Actually answered, and not just given links to websites that are biased either way.

    I have watched the documentaries about the case, but also have tried looking through several websites that show the other side of why the three boys are guilty. Please if someone can, lay out what the real evidence against the three boys is. AND PLEASE PLEASE don’t mention Echols’ sinister looks or smiles on camera or his behavior; I personally don’t believe you can use his scary looks as evidence of his guilt. Also I have tried to read a bunch of websites that use some of the clues or leads as the never ending trails of “this person who knew this person heard Damien say that he committed those murders”. If any of those people testified in the trial than that info is important, but otherwise I don’t give that much weight.

    What I would like to know, other than the Misskelley confession, what evidence was there that they committed this crime. Again, I basically am in the middle on this, and would just like to be sold either way. Please don’t just send a link to a book to buy instead of giving some info too.

    And, Sam Dennis McDonough, I tried to look for your book on Amazon, but coould only find a condensed version that was 74 pages long. I would prefer not to spend 13 bucks on a condensed book. Is there anywhere else that I can find the full version.

    1. Typical closet WM3 supporter, pretending to be neutral and then acting like there is no evidence against CONVICTED CHILD-KILLER Damien Echols. Now fuck off back to the forums with your fellow trolls

      1. If you read again, I have no hard stance either way. I would like to know the evidence or an un-biased view so I can form my own opinion on what I think happened. Every post I read is so extreme to either side, it’s really hard to determine what is fact. Again, I just want to know what evidence they have, because I am really not sure. They may be guilty they may be innocent, I don’t really know for sure.

  24. I am not a supporter of anyone and just wish that those involved would pay for this heinous crime. I would like to point out that some people continue to over look. This is just a scientific fact and I am just adding it here because no one seems to want to realize the evidence. I am not connecting it to anyone who might have been involved. lots of finger pointing and blame games in all corners. Please take a look at the autopsy report.
    It is reported that the little boy, Stevie Branch -1 of 3 boys murdered and horribly discarded, had green vegetable like contents in his stomach. It is a fact that the digestion of any food depending on the meal, takes between 2-5 hours to leave the stomach before passing through the intestines. This is a fact. So the child did eat something green, and he was murdered within the 2 – 5 hour window of time after he had this food.
    I am sorry to have to point this out. The mother of this little boy stated she was preparing dinner before going to work, and hesitated to allow the child to go play, because it was close to the time she had to be at work. the other two boys were being looked for because it was dinner time, and both of the other families remarked on they’re looking for their child because of dinner plans. So if you think that the step father did not see the boy, and the child managed to eat without anyone’s knowledge is total bull. I wish people would just look at the evidence. That puts a big light on the subject.
    If you watch the film by HBO Paradise lost, #1, the local news interviewed Mr. Byers, before he knew the scope of the investigation. He was not seeking the attention in that interview, he was concerned for the children, and I feel he was honest in his answering the news reporter. He did not at that time , appear to be deceptive.
    My prayers are with the families of the boys and the law enforcement that had to deal with this outrage. No amount of police training could prepare anyone for what was to follow on that day of discovering those 3 little boys.
    God Bless

    1. Thank you justaguest2u! This is the kind of information I would like to know more about. Instead of people letting emotion drive the issue, I would really like to know or have a list of all of the evidence that helped convict them, or any evidence, such as the food content in their stomachs, that shed reasonable doubt on the case.

      Everyone seems so set in stone on either side of this, and I just would really like to know both sides in a clear un-biased way.

  25. Hi Dean Keaton,

    The information you are looking for is in my book, “The West Memphis Boogieman” for sell at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Ingram, IBookstore and others in all English speaking countries. It will seem bias to WM3 supporters because it states only the evidence and facts from beginning to end. And it tells who the killed the boys in the evening of May 5, 1993 in Robin Hood woods, and it tells the part played by rich and famous celebrities.

    1. The only version I could find on Amazon is a condensed version that is 74 pages long. Is there a full version, or is that the only version out there?

          1. Wow, not just a shit writer, but a homophobic, shit writer. No wonder you shamelessly use these pages to sell your shit, you’re an embarrassment.

          2. First of all…Diane Keaton is clearly trolling you and isn’t going to buy one of your cunty little books.

            Second of all, thanks for coming out of the closet to all of us as the homophobe you so clearly are. It all makes sense now. I bet you’re a good little Christian boy too, aren’t you? That explains why you’re such a dumb fuck cracker hick. You want evidence, Diane Keaton? It’s all there in the bible, or so Sam Dennis McDonough believes. Rest assure, if this was the 1600’s he would be burning witches at the stake right now. Hey Sam, you’ve managed the rare feat of simultaneously being both a penis AND a cunt. Cuntgratulations.

          3. I hear you Boro, it’s Dean Keaton by the way, not Diane. From the Usual Suspects man. I actually have read enough now to have formed a solid opinion on it all. Fact of the matter is, there is not even close to enough evidence to have convicted the three. After reading the case files the fact that the prosecutions closing argument can be summed up with the statement “look at Damien, you can tell he’s evil by looking at him, and that he has no soul” is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of in a court of law. There were no facts or real evidence, and really no circumstantial evidence if you think about it.

  26. On the Marked Tree page, Pat Steele was the vice president of the public school. You can check out the 1993 yearbook on classmates.com.

  27. Hysterical that supporters carry on with the whole ‘where is the evidence? ‘ shout , when Echols and Co by definition of the Alford plea they entered acknowledged that the state had enough evidence to convict. So whilst you are all chomping at the bit shouting where is the evidence? Maybe you should ask the WM3 because they seem to have heard it.

      1. Katie, honey, sit down and let me explain something to you. I know it may seem hard to understand…but if you think about it for a moment or two, I’m sure you can wrap your stupid little head around it.

        If the state had “enough” evidence to convict (in other words, ANY evidence) they wouldn’t have thrown out the option of the Alford Plea. Why would the state just let convicted child murderers go free if they had the facts behind them to keep them locked up? DUMBASS.

        1. The state of Arkansas was trying to save its own ass in the case by not overturning the verdict completely and throwing out the Alford plea. Look at it this way Katie, if they were told that they would be free tomorrow by taking the Alford plea, or rot in jail for possibly another year before their case comes to trial, and then run the risk of another witch hunt trial with little to no evidence like the first time, which may or may not set them free, then why on earth would you not take the Alford plea.

  28. August: Steven Braga, a Washington D.C. Attorney with the Echols defense team, proposed a rare and intriguing idea: an Alford plea. Braga asked the State of Arkansas to forgo the planned evidentiary hearing to get a new trial and to let his client plead guilty to three counts of first degree murder, admitting there was enough evidence to re-convict if a new trial was held. The state would get their guilty plea but defendants could continue to assert their innocence as convicted felons. Clue 87

    1. No, thank you, Sam Dennis McDonough, for outing yourself as a childish homophobe. Gives all the readers here much confidence in what you have to say.

  29. By law Baldwin and Echols are each guilty of three counts of first-degree murder. Misskelley is guilty of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. That makes nine times by jury, by law, by evidence and by clear critical thinking that all three convicted felons are “Guilty of Murder”.

  30. Readers who find that facts and evidence are interesting or fascinating may like other print books or ebooks about these controversial true cimes: 120 Clues that Show Who Killed Jon Benet Go to Sleep Baby, Mommy has to PARTY (Caylee Anthony) ; Oswald, Conspirators and John F. Kennedy (JFK assassination) Steven Truscott and the Murder of 12-yer-old Lynne Harper; Crime Does Pay in Canada (Truscott – Harper murder) ; The West Memphis Boogieman (the WM3 murderers) ; The West Memphis Boogieman O. J. Simpson Murders, Who killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and Why the jury found O. J. Simpson Not Guilty

  31. Sam the Spam is such a ham. No one wants your books, McDonough. That’s why no one would publish them and you had to publish them yourself. Don’t you think your time would be better spent making fun of gay people? Where’s that book?

  32. I am new to this subject, having just seen the first two HBO films and I am in no position to make any suggestions about guilt.
    The question I would ask of anyone who believes in the guilt of the three imprisoned is why no DNA belonging to any of them was found where the bodies were located or on the bodies? I assume the police took samples of soil, the blood of the victims, etc?
    The children’s bodies would have surely yielded up some DNA of the person(s) responsible? How can the three who were imprisoned be guilty in view of a total absence of their DNA?
    Indeed, irrespective of who anyone believes the guilty are, how did the murderer(s) manage to carry out this outrage without leaving DNA? You would think in the chaos, something like hair would have been dropped? How on earth was this possible?
    In the UK, there have been instances of murder when the police have asked every male aged about 14-80 in the area to offer their DNA and anyone refusing to do this are looked at ‘very closely’ Why wasn’t this done?
    http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8734726_first-documented-use-dna-criminology.html

    1. You’ve got lots of other vids up there too, Ramsey, don’t be so modest! Curious, do you have comments disabled because you know people will laugh at all your crazy conspiratorial bullshit?

  33. Anybody concerned of their “sociopathic” personality or state it as a mental illness that they have exempt themselves of that trait by that very action. The only person with sociopathic and/or psychopathic personality traits in this whole case is Terry Hobbs. This guy is a near perfect example of a psychopath. You cannot simply state, in your own words, or quote others unless you’ve researched the point and understand it beforehand. I wouldn’t read any publication where it is apparent that I am more intelligent and knowledgeable than the author. Unless, of course, it was my children’s homework

  34. gets old seeing “supporters” just spew insults and have nothing to add. tough to admit you were wrong i know……but cmon its time to let go…..the West Memphis 3 are guilty…..and it’s really obvious

  35. Has anyone noticed that the WM3 supporters,for the most part,when confronted with an actual fact in this case,become rude,start hurling insults and worse? I think I know the reason why……I was leaning toward the supporter side when I first started reading up,whatchin’ videos on it, etc. And I felt the same way that I think the supporters feel when I finaly came to my own conclusion that the WM3 are GUILTY…….and that is….pissed off. yep,i was pissed off that at first I was fooled by this cunning,lying,crooked,evil kid named Damien Echols….and his 2 puppets. Made me feel pissed off and not very smart for believing the lies. Trust me “supporters”,its nice over here on the truth side. just let it go and focus that anger on the 3 that killed 3 innocent kids………..by the way,pointing out spelling errors comes off as really petty. lets be adults and just chat about this tragic yet fascinating case

  36. Hi “JoeNobody,” funny you remind me of my old pal PRU. And my other old pal DONNA. And, oh yeah, I’m also reminded of the time I proved that Pru WAS Donna. Funny, huh? Well, I have news for you, pumpkin tits, those evil WM3 demons have been free walking the street for four years now and they haven’t killed anybody. Can Terry Hobbs say the same? NOPE. He killed his own brother-n-law. What a fucking saint. Let’s all give THAT guy all the benefit of the doubt in the world. Yeah.

  37. Interesting…….. how there were three suspects and three victims……3 documentaries. 333 mean anything??? Gonna look into it!

  38. There were no documentaries, only several subjective, biased movies. As for not killing anyone else that we know of, give Damien 14 more years. He did, after all, walk the streets without killing anyone until he was an 18 year-old-sex molester, offender, killer.

    1. Hey, Old McDonald, where were YOU on the evening of May 5th, 1993?

      Tell you what, let’s both agree to meet back in this message board in 14 years and then tally up all of Damien’s new victims.

      Terry Hobbs is a murdering scumbag. That he wasn’t investigated was a pure and utter disgrace. You seem to research true crime enough to know that chances are when a child is murdered it’s one of the parents. I’d honestly be very curious to hear why you feel Terry Hobbs couldn’t have done it?

      That means no straw men arguments about Damien’s psychological records, or Jessie’s laughable confession, or Jason’s…well…I guess there was never a single thing pointing to Jason except for his ill-advised friendship with Damien. But seriously. Attention on Hobbs for a moment. Please vindicate him in our eyes.

      1. Jessie did have one laughable confession but the first seven were serious and true.

        Of the tens of thousands of people in West Memphis that night, only three could not come up with a believable alibi. The Jury heard the story: Damien was out with Jason. Jessie was out watching Damien and Jason kill three little 8-year-old boys. Terry Hobbs was the step-dad of one of the boys that was brutally murdered, and with absolutely no real evidence you want to frame this grieving parent. Again, the facts are and the evidence shows that WM3 supporters keep treating Damien Echols as a hero instead of telling the truth that this 18 year-old adult flirted with 12 to 14 year old girls, impregnated a 16 year old, and was convicted of murdering three 8-year-old boys. This 18-year-old adult sex offender of children ages 8 to 16 should still be behind bars trying to learn how to use a spork.

      2. “Jessie’s laughable confession”
        I think you mean multiple confessions.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjemWSO0uKA

        No matter what anyone wants to believe is true or not, the fact remains that Jessie Misskelly confessed to these crimes. Even if the first confession was forced, what about the other recorded confessions? were they all coerced?

        1. No, just wrong. Look into it the state medical examiner testified the time of death was 1 am. Can anybody explain how one could confuse 1 am with 9 am, or noon, or 7 pm????

  39. WOW is all this ever hard to figure out. What Truth is there and where is it. There is so much not true and made up and then recanted.
    Almost looks like everyone in town got blamed at one time or another.
    I have looked into this and read and seen everything available and I have no idea what to believe and am not swayed one way or another. I just plain can’t choose.
    Sure it could be the wm3, sure it could be t hobbs.I saw in one of the films hobbs was washing some clothes late at night and cleaning up in the house and he never does that ever. it could be the bojangles guy and maybe his buddy, nothing to say it was him by himself.
    it could be the two boys that moved away real quick afterwards. probably not.
    it could be people not even looked at to this point either.
    Does look bad I have to agree after all Jessie’s confessions and he did lots of them.
    Even to his lawyer, what was that about? have not heard any good reason why he did that. Someone or something scared the crap out of him for him not to be able to shut up.. He either saw , or heard something or was threatened or he just plain did it.
    Now which one of those was closest to what happened. It would be hard to get a real answer out of that nut job Jessie. Maybe he talks in his sleep and that’s a good time to ask him.
    Maybe that Jessie fellow will shoot his mouth off again.
    Just wondering how long till someone else maybe starts to talk.
    What a screwed up case with lot’s of whacky people in it.

  40. that hobbs guy needs quite a bit more looking over.
    throw him in jail for a while and see if a film maker bails him out.
    Easy,,, just get misskelly to say he and hobbs did it.
    That should be enough to get hobbs, it worked before.
    no big deal to misskelly he has already served his time.
    Get the media to say they will buy him and his paw a used pick up truck
    and Macdonald’s hambuglars for a month, with Regular fries and a medium coke.
    once that all get’s done see if Jessie forgets and tells on Jason and Damien again.
    Then throw all of them back in jail at the same place with their wife’s and girlfriends
    and let them sort out who dun it.
    Then we can have a new book deal come out for everyone involved.
    And one more movie called the Memphis 3 plus 1

    No harm no foul, if you are right then perfect, if not who cares
    anyways.

  41. This WM3 case has got to be the most messed up case that I have ever researched. I am almost convinced that everyone in the West Memphis area is a pathological liar. It is discouraging to read comments and accusations only to later discover that some people recanted their original statements. Some have even gone as far as recanting their recantation. All in all, I feel that the entire community is to blame for so much chaos and confusion. Sure, the WMPD could have shown a little more professionalism, but I truly believe that they are not solely to blame for the breakdown of this particular case. Due to certain things being misplaced or not even being placed at all, the documentary film trilogy should have been called Evidence Lost instead of Paradise Lost. I personally view the three films as unofficial documentation simply because they don’t show the entire event and one should not from an opinion without having all of the information. I feel that Damien, Jason, and Jesse are guilty, but because there just wasn’t enough hard evidence connecting them to the scene of the crime, the Jury should have returned a “not guilty” verdict for all three accused. Since so many things became blurry and due to the inaccuracies and false information, I don’t think people should necessarily be asking if those three grown boys/young men were guilty of committing that horrendous crime. Instead, I think that the more important question is, “Were they CAPABLE of committing that horrendous crime?” And I strongly feel that the answer is, “Yes!”

    Just because someone is “capable” doesn’t mean that they committed the crime. However, because it’s so difficult to be absolutely sure that they are the murderers, I will have to be satisfied with knowing that they truly were capable of murdering three 8-year-old boys based on the information available and the overall behavior of the WM3 at the time of the murders.

  42. Until someone explains each of the 17 confessions, admissions, facts and evidence, I will continue to be confident that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley brutally murdered 8-year-old, 2nd-grader’s Michael Moore, Christopher Byers, and Steve Branch in Robin Hood woods on May 5, 1993. The 87 clues in my book, “The West Memphis Boogieman”, tell how, when, where, and why.
    Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief, or ignorance.

    1. Until someone tells me conclusively where Sam Dennis McDonough was the night of the murders, I will continue to be confident that he committed them. Bullshit will always be bullshit, regardless of disinterest in understanding, belief (without evidence, or smarts.

      Which Sam Dennis McDonough doesn’t have.

      Because he’s a bitch.

      1. Okay, please explain the reason for Jessie Misskelly’s multiple confessions? Even when there was nothing to be gained. I have never had this explained to me by a WM3 supporter.

  43. The creator of this page likes to claim Jessie Misskelly was not mentally retarded and had IQ test scores of 84 and 88. 85 is considered borderline retarded. I have met some dumb people who definitely would score higher than that. Those people were easily made to agree to things they knew little or nothing of. I guess to show they were smarter than they were. A borderline score would also be susceptible to going along with an authority figures statements. He writes that Misskelly is adaptive functioning and can live on his own. There are many retarded people who live on their own. He likes to make points that don’t create a logical premise for his argument. He selectively uses material instead of giving the entire nature of an issue. Not in regard to guilt but in regard to any aspect he can use to foster a flimsy argument. If these men were guilty. He does a bad job of showing it.

    1. Okay, fair enough. This explains why he could of made up a confession for whatever reason when he was first interviewed. This does not explain however his multiple confessions during his trial and after he was convicted. This is more than likely the same reason why Misskelly has never been interviewed after being released from prison. Because there is no plausible answer to this questions other than he is guilty.

  44. I was so relieved to see the three released and would like to see them exonerated and the real killers looked into! Here this police and court system put three boys in prison and allowed them to be abused and tortured for committing a crime they had no part of, and you absolutely refuse to even entertain the thought that maybe there is no DNA evidence tying these boys to a horrific murder scene because they had no ties to it???? Are you kidding me !!!? The most bizarre thing in the whole case is that you have DNA from two men at this scene and you don’t even polygraph them both of all the polygraphs you handed out at this time and all of them that you lied and gave false information about???? These two men were never even thought of they were the only two people who were in this horrible scene by DNA evidence!!!! They are involved in this scene by DNA !!!! The three accussed of touching and murdering these babies leave not a stitch, not a hair, not even a piece of trash at a scene where they would have been so hands on and close to these bodies and in the dark there is no possible way that those teenage boys could have done this and the detectives in this case made themselves look like complete imbeciles by letting this go to trial and repeatedly for 18 years !!! I knew at 18 that these boys were innocent and I was only looking at the little bits the country saw as an uneducated highschool dropout, and officers trained to investigate still can’t see how wrong they were and are ???? These children were brutally murdered and the person or persons is still free he lives and lies in wait for another innocent baby to wander into his hands!!!! This is unconscionable!!!!!!

  45. Hey, all you stupid fucks who find it completely impossible to believe someone could be coached into a false confession, and then give various false confessions after the fact, despite CLEARLY having not done the crime…go watch Netflix’s new doc, Making a Murderer. It’s Paradise Lost times ten. The big difference is these filmmakers got EVERYTHING on film, every step of the way. Things we had to imagine in the Paradise Lost series are all on full view for anyone to see in this series. There is absolutely such thing as prosecutorial misconduct, police tunnel vision, false confessions by impressionable idiotic kids who can’t comprehend the repercussions of what they’re saying…you dip shits really need to stop being so proud of your idiocy. “Innocent men don’t confess! Especially more than once!” Fuck off you stupid fucks.

  46. Sadly, there is a new documentary about another crime that does the same thing Paradise Lost did in this case, but much more subtle and it’s apparent it has the internet defending murderers again. I do not get the need for the media to slant this shit for murderers.

    1. Obviously the new documentary leaves shit ton of incriminating evidence out of it and largely relies on defense speculation for the narrative to which people are buying hook line and sinker.

  47. I am not saying the WM3 are innocent or guilty. I am just saying from what I have read of the testimony and seen on the web I have a hard time seeing how reasonable doubt was not present in the jurors minds. I have sat on a jury we were repeatedly told that the prosecution had the duty to make sure we had no doubt to the defendants guilt. For me, and I am again say this is me, three things brought doubt in my mind. The first is the Mr. Bojangles man in the restaurant, the evidence from that scene was lost. The second is the knife; I saw nothing that linked the boys to the knife that was found. ( I will admit I may have missed something in the records there.) And the final would be the lack of a “smoking gun” in physical evidence. The necklace does give me pause, it is not enough for me to say that he/they did it. I hope in the future there can be justice for these young boys. I see lots of comments about the evidence that was used to free the WM3, just know I was not looking at that stuff but what I could find in what was presented in the original trial. Again I want to say I am not making a statement of guilt or innocence, just that for me there is enough for reasonable doubt.

Leave a Reply

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