WEST MEMPHIS THREE ON 48 HOURS

Categories: Essays
Written By: Billy Sinclair

Let me state at the outset I do not know if Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelly are guilty of the brutal murders of three eight year old boys: Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Chris Byers. The murders occurred in May 1993, apparently at or around a local playground known as Robin Hood Hills in Crittenden County, Arkansas where children were known to play. The playground at the time was near a major interstate. The horrible nature of the murders shocked the rural West Memphis community, and the crime was quickly linked to “satanic cult” worshipping and sacrifice (both of which were part of a national media craze in the early 1990s).

            And that’s where Damien Echols came into the picture. He was a troubled teenager who always dressed in black, wore his hair in styles similar to “Satan worshippers,” and had some serious psychological problems. In fact, a local juvenile probation officer named Jerry Driver who was assisting the police at the crime scene immediately tagged Echols at the crime scene as the person probably responsible for the murders. Perhaps it was Driver’s initial assessment of the crime scene itself or the official belief that the murders of the young boys was tied to Satanism which prompted the local police to round up, question, and even polygraph a number of West Memphis teenagers, including Echols.

            The public record in the West Memphis Three case suggests Echols actually requested a polygraph examination which, according to the police and the polygraph examiner, revealed the teenager was being deceptive about his alleged involvement in the crime. But these findings are subject to critical debate because no written record of the polygraph examination was kept, leaving its conclusion in serious doubt. But the “deceptive” findings of that initial polygraph examination, and the fact that Echols had reportedly boasted in the presence of others about his involvement in the murders, led the West Memphis Police Department to believe Echols and his two frequent associates, Baldwin and Misskelly (who was, perhaps still is, borderline intellectually challenged) were responsible for the murders.

            This is where the case takes its most incriminating turn against the West Memphis Three. With the approval of Misskelly’s father, the police took the teenager into quasi- official custody at which time he confessed, primarily pointing the finger of blame at Echols and Baldwin. All three teenagers were arrested and charged with the murders of the young boys. While Misskelly has recanted that original confession, claiming it was the product of police coercion, six months later he confessed a second time in much greater detail to the police in the presence of his attorney and against his attorney’s advice.

            Misskelly was tried first and separate from Echols and Baldwin. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and two 20-year terms. Echols and Baldwin were tried together with Echols being found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death while Baldwin was spared the death sentence and given a life sentence.

These convictions and sentences occurred in 1994. Two years later HBO aired a documentary about the case titled Paradise Lost which cast grave doubts on the guilt of Echols, Baldwin and Misskelly. The documentary was the spring board for national and international support for the three convicted murderers who became known as “West Memphis Three.” The case became a cause celebre for stars like Johnny Depp, Nathalie Maines, and Eddie Vedder. Another HBO documentary and at least one book would be devoted to establishing the innocence of the West Memphis Three.

In their zeal to establish the innocence of the West Memphis Three, supporters for the trio have been shockingly irresponsible in pointing the finger of blame at other people as the probable killers of the three boys. First, there was the possible African-American man who was seen by employees of a local Bojangles’ restaurant on the evening of the crime at the restaurant. The restaurant was located near the bayou in Robin Hood Hills where the bodies of the three boys were found. The black man was reportedly dazed, covered with blood and mud, and went into the ladies restroom. The employees called the police who responded to the call but did not fuly check out the information. The following day the restaurant’s manager called the police a second time when the bodies of the young boys were found, operating on the premise there may be a connection between the two events. This time the police took blood scrapings from the walls of the restaurant’s restroom but it was later carelessly lost or deliberately destroyed. No one knows for sure.

Supporters for the West Memphis Three labeled the bloody African-American man as “Mr. Bojangles”—a moniker reminiscent of the Old South. Contrary to what some of the West Memphis Three supporters believe, I don’t think the local police deliberately destroyed the “Mr. Bojangles” evidence just so they could convict three local white teenagers for this unspeakable crime. If the police even remotely believed the mysterious black Mr. Bojangles was connected with the murder of three white kids, they would have devoted every law enforcement resource in the State of Arkansas to make a case against him (or any black man they could ‘frame” as him).

The next person who became a target of the West Memphis Three supporters’ “red-herring” blame game was Mark Byers, the step-father of Chris Byers. Police took some photographs of the boys’ bodies shortly after they were found. One of these photos indicated a “bite mark” was left on at least one of the victims. This was the conclusion drawn by HBO’s second documentary, Paradise Lost 2. The fact that Mark Byers had all his teeth extracted and replaced with dentures after the murders was enough “evidence” for some of the West Memphis Three supporters to conclude he was either the killer or somehow connected to the murders. And the fact that Mark Byers gave the HBO producers of the first Paradise Lost documentary a pocket knife which was discovered to have a speck of blood on it added to the clamor of his guilt, even though test results on the blood proved inconclusive. And the fact that Byers has some “garden variety” violent episodes in his past (accusations by a former wife that he assaulted her, for example), which are woven into the cultural fabric of the South, added fuel to those who believed he was involved in the murders. It didn’t matter that Byers eventually took and passed a polygraph examination which cleared him of any involvement in the horrible crime, or that he was eliminated as the source of subsequent DNA evidence discovered at the crime scene—some still believe he did it..

And, finally, the West Memphis Three supporters, including the mother of one of the victims (Stevie Branch) pointed the guilt finger at Terry Hobbs. Pam Branch is now estranged from her former husband, Terry Hobbs, and there has been a lot of animosity associated with their estrangement. The basis for the guilt finger being pointed at Hobbs is a strand of hair found in the ligature which bound Michael Moore and proved to be consistent with Hobbs’ hair and another strand of hair found nearby which proved to be consistent with the hair of a friend of Hobbs, David Jacoby. This was enough to make the local police some fourteen years after the crime  question Hobbs about the crime and later declared he was not a suspect. Still, Stevie’s mother has concerns about Hobbs’ involvement because after the murders she found a pocketknife belonging to her son in Hobbs’ personal belongings—a knife the boy carried with him everywhere. Hobbs recently told CBS’ 48 Hours host Erin Moriarty that he took the knife from Stevie before the crime because he didn’t want an 8-year-old walking around with it.

Based on what I have read and viewed about the West Memphis Three murders, particularly the latest 48 Hours program, I do not believe one person committed the crime. It would be hard for one person to corral three 8-year-olds and slaughter them with a knife or a blunt instrument and hogtie them in the manner they were found. It’s possible but not likely. That certainly eliminates the “dazed and crazed” Mr. Bojangles who was so messed up he couldn’t even control his own bowel movements. And I don’t believe the step-fathers did it either. Just because Mark Byers got his teeth pulled and replaced with dentures after the murders and may have slapped a former wife certainly does not translate into enough evidence to even suspect he slaughtered three innocent children, one of whom was his own stepson. And Terry Hobbs didn’t do it—and for anyone to believe the two strands of hair found at the crime scene which are consistent with Hobbs’ hair and the hair of one of his friends is sufficient “evidence” of guilt is out of touch with reality and knows very little about forensic evidence.

Did the West Memphis Three commit the murders? I don’t know, but I do know there is more “evidence” indicating they did it than anyone else so far tagged as a potential suspect in the case. There’s the two Misskelly confessions, there’s the possible failed polygraph examination by Echols, there’s Echols own boasts that he participated in the killings, and there’s the serious psychological disorders Echols was suffering with at the time of the killings. But even this “evidence,” taken in its totality, leaves plenty of room to doubt the involvement of the West Memphis Three in the killings.

Having said that, I must say quite strongly that Echols and Baldwin are entitled to a new trial. It has been indisputably established that one or more of the jurors who convicted them were influenced by Misskelly’s confessions. In effect, the Echols/Baldwin jury relied upon evidence not presented at their trial and which was not subject to cross-examination. The law is clear on this issue: a reversal of their convictions is mandated.

Of course, a reversal of the Echols/Baldwin convictions could lead to an unholy result. They could either be set free because the State elects not to retry them due to the high-profile nature of the case or they could be acquitted by a jury. This would leave Misskelly as the only convicted defendant in the case—the alleged mentally retarded individual who stepped up to the plate and accepted responsibility for the horrific murders, assuming he and Echols and Baldwin committed them, locked up in prison with a life sentence and two 20-year sentences while the other two are walking free. Talk about a miscarriage of justice.

I would suggest that supporters for the West Memphis Three, some of whom have deep money pockets like Johnny Depp, hire a litany of experts to have Echols and Baldwin undergo truth-seeking examinations: a polygraph examination (the results of which would be maintained this time), hypnosis, voice stress analysis, and psychological examination designed to detect deception. If the two men pass these tests (and any other their defense team could put together), their supporters would have credible evidence to present to the American public that the two men are, in fact, innocent of the horrible murders for which they stand convicted.

Personally, I have a number of questions after viewing the recent 48 Hours program. Why didn’t Erin Moriarty interview Baldwin? Why didn’t she interview Misskelly? Why didn’t she ask Echols, whom she did interview, if he would be willing to undergo a polygraph examination at the program’s expense? The program, I suspect, was set up to give Echols and his supporters an opportunity to make an uncontested argument for his innocence and to point the finger of guilt at the three other possible suspects, Mr. Bojangles, Mark Byers, and Terry Hobbs.

The one thing 48 Hours got right about the West Memphis Three case was to call it a “mystery” and one not likely to be solved anytime soon. One other thing is also clear: Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin should be given a new trial based upon juror misconduct and let the chips fall where they may afterwards.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/27/48hours/main6251328.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3

59 Responses to “WEST MEMPHIS THREE ON 48 HOURS”

  1. Cheryl Stafford Says:

    you did not mention that Jessie misskelley and Jason bold win aft er there conviction were asked to point the finger at Damion for a lesser sentence and both declined also why was a hair found on Michael moor who was not the stepson of terry Hobbs i know about transfer but that’s a bit of a stretch and knife the child had that was found in his possessions why would he not of gave it to the mother for a keep sake i find that very interesting the fact that she found is the point hear not to mention he shot her brother who later died of those wounds and mark Byers step son is found murdered and later his wife found dead in her bed no apparent cause he must be one unlucky guy what say you.

  2. june miller Says:

    I think that the things you say would be much more credible if you would learn how to spell and use punctuation.

  3. Ellis Ahuja Says:

    I am not surprised rather shocked to read American history of crimes and conviction of innocents’. It is shame, a stigma on the forehead of a free, most progressive and economically advanced country. why can’t we have just, and impartial justice for all . Defender of justice are blind but not deaf ; . why haven’t those innocent been exonerated . They have suffered for no fault, like many others . Is this American justice? Poor, innocent have to fight all their life to prove their innocence. Law is well established that one is innocent till proved guilty, but it seems every one is guilty until proved innocent . there are many rich ones who have never been punished for murders and other crimes and poor are convicted and punished, even excecuted despite being innocent . Is riches a qualification or proof of innocence and poverty proof of guilt?

  4. Ellis Ahuja Says:

    I am not surprised rather shocked to read American history of crimes and conviction of innocents’. It is shame, a stigma on the forehead of a free, most progressive and economically advanced country. why can’t we have just, and impartial justice for all . Defender of justice are blind but not deaf ; . why haven’t those innocent been exonerated . They have suffered for no fault, like many others . Is this American justice? Poor, innocent have to fight all their life to prove their innocence. Law is well established that one is innocent till proved guilty, but it seems any one is guilty until proved innocent . There are many rich ones who have not been punished for murders and other crimes and poor are convicted and punished, even excecuted despite being innocent . Is riches a qualification or proof of innocence and poverty proof of guilt?

  5. Gloria Virgilio Says:

    Howdy there,I find out that your web log is incredibly educational and helpful and we were curious if there is a possibility of acquiring More article content like this on your site. If you willing to help us out, we will be willing to compensate you… Best regards, Gloria Virgilio

  6. Valentin Haugabrook Says:

    Nice site, I like it, but it seems a kind of weird while using mozzila browser, keep it moving:)

  7. Ed Teadh Says:

    I think it is funny how supporters can see a hair as enough evidence to show guilt but all the evidence against the three which is much more is only circumstantial.
    I really think that celebrity’s getting involved to me anyway does more harm than good. I guess I can’t save the world I don’t sing folk songs. Echols was more than a black wearing targeted kid. He had sociopathic tendencies’ if you watched the movies during the trial. He did more to sink himself than anyone else. Combing his in the mirror in a obsessive manner during a capitol murder case showed indifference for his situation and the murdered. The way he laughed and his attorneys had to try to being him to reality when he said he was day dreaming on the stand and no paying attention was classic sociopath. It takes a sociopath to do what was done to those kids. An indifference to the suffering of others, and Baldwin fit the bill of someone who would follow his leader Echols. Couple this with the boarder line retarded lackey that would do what he was told and you have the mix of personality that could commit the crime and had the man power to do so. Celebrity activism like in this case and others like free Mumia when the evidence points to them more than anyone else is sickening.

  8. jerry price Says:

    fuck that them three boys are innocent, its the damn step father who needs to be shot in the damn head for killin them kids. set them boys free. and make sure that step father never sees the light of day again!!!

  9. Shirley Horne Says:

    I agre the stepfather should be the one in prison and they need to let them boys go they have already done enough damage to them.

  10. snowbird Says:

    I don’t get it. I found dozens of sites to free these 3 on nothing but “hearsay,” or what was published on their so called innocence. Lots of cursing or filthy language..and that in itself explains a lot. Not to mention dopers like Johnny Depp standing up for them…oh and lets not forget the self proclaimed devil worshiper Marilyn Manson..and the one Dixie chick who just adores the limelight. I searched online for over 3 hours to find the truth about all this “lack of evidence” and found court records, conversations, and plenty of evidence against these 3. When I watched the first film I knew they were guilty then. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the truth of what really happened. But the worst part of this for me is the lack of compassion or hardly a mention of those 3 little innocent boys. Its a heyday and a circus of arguments, disagreements, fights and opinions. I want justice and I want this over with. I want these young boys to rest in peace. The true judgment for this case is already in…a much higher court will deliver the correct sentence in time..take my word for that.

  11. Alvin Says:

    What really. Bothers me is while these innocent men sit in jail the murdering stepfather of one sits free and everyone is so caught on cults satanic worship and whoopyty whoop whatever else. I was 13 when I saw the first movie and I knew it was the stepfather, now they have evidence and still won’t convict him. This really urkes me. These guys were an easy target for an open shut case. Rediculouse I mean listen to hobbs long enough its common sence, he talked about what he would do to them if he could get his hands on em. That was all a bunch of BS to keep the attention off of his sorry ass. Sometimes laws fuckin suck these guys r gonna lose there whole life before they decide to get the guy or guys that really did it and when its all said and done all they will get is I’m Sorry fuckin stupid ppl make me sick

  12. Rednecks Suck Says:

    Snowbird, you are a complete.. well moron. I quote “when I watched the first film I knew they were guilty then”. You watched a film showing no evidence against those 3 boys whatsoever. There was no DNA/hair/eye witnesses.. nothing to put them at the scene, nor convict them of murder. They are in jail because of police pressure put on young kids forcing confessions by innocent boys. Even if they did it, which is highly in question, there is no evidence, not even circumstantial. Seriously grab a brain before you decide someone is guilty of murder.. idiot.

  13. David Perry Davis Says:

    Please, Steve — do not ever again link Mumia Abu Jamal to the West Memphis Three.

    Mumia is guilty as hell. There were 4 independent witnesses who saw Mumia kill Faulkner, 2 of whom saw him give the coup-de-gras shot, his jury had 3 blacks – and was picked by Mumia himself. The gun used to kill Faulkner was lying next to Mumia. There was powder residue on his jacket. What the hell more do you need?! MUMIA IS GUILTY AS SIN – WAKE UP.

    Linking Mumia with the West Memphis Three does nothing but turn off people who have read the record and know Mumia is guilty.

    Anyone interested in the latest on the West Memphis Three should come on over to wm3blackboard dot com and join the discussion. The website is run by one of the victims’ fathers (one of the loudest supporters of the WM3).

  14. David Perry Davis Says:

    Doesn’t appear to have come through – sorry if this is a re-posting:

    Please, Steve — do not ever again link Mumia Abu Jamal to the West Memphis Three.

    Mumia is guilty as hell. There were 4 independent witnesses who saw Mumia kill Faulkner, 2 of whom saw him give the coup-de-gras shot, his jury had 3 blacks – and was picked by Mumia himself. The gun used to kill Faulkner was lying next to Mumia. There was powder residue on his jacket. What the hell more do you need?! MUMIA IS GUILTY AS SIN – WAKE UP.

    Linking Mumia with the West Memphis Three does nothing but turn off people who have read the record and know Mumia is guilty.

    Anyone interested in the latest on the West Memphis Three should come on over to wm3blackboard dot com and join the discussion. The website is run by one of the victims’ fathers (one of the loudest supporters of the WM3).

  15. WEST MEMPHIS THREE AND POSSIBLE INNOCENCE Says:

    [...] chronicling most of the essential facts about the horrific crime for which they stand convicted (here). But I will restate the crucial facts for the sake of this post. In May 1993 three eight-year-old [...]

  16. WEST MEMPHIS THREE: ANOTHER LOOK Says:

    [...] the “facts” in the case. The supporters suggested that my core factual presentation in my two previous posts was not entirely “accurate.” Their primary concern was about my assertion that despite all the [...]

  17. THE CASE AGAINST THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE Says:

    [...] case which have garnered significant interest, and criticism, from West Memphis Three supporters (here, here, here and [...]

  18. Trixie Says:

    I didn’t know abusing your wife was a “garden variety” offense. That shows how much you know about domestic violence. Any man who hits a wife or kid can do just about anything. If they go that far, what’s to stop them from going further? The majority of people are not abusive so that tells you something about that man’s personality. I’m not saying he’s guilty but for you to pass off abusive behaviour as something that is no big deal and happens in the south makes me sick. Do your homework and read The Devil’s Knot, a book about the case and then tell me there is any evidence at all. As for the confession, I have a 20 year old son and believe me, they will tell you want you want to hear and they are very easily coerced. Most boys that age could not stand up to the pressure put on them by the police. They would crack, trust me.

  19. sally Says:

    This is very interesting to say, but hair at a crime scene to me is a big deal, Hobbs the stepfather, claimed he did not see the children all day so how did it get there? Also it was said he went to pick his wife up at 9 at night from work, and she asked where her son was. What type of person who is a parent would not be worried about their 8 year old son. A guilty person.

  20. sally Says:

    This is very interesting to say, Hair at a crime scene to me is a big deal especially when the step father claims he had not see his stepson all day. He cared so much about his son where he stated he took the knife away because it was dangereous. Why would not that same caring nature call the mother of the son and let her know that he has not seen him all day, and he does not know where he is at. Instead he casually goes and picks her up from work at 9 at night and she has got to ask where he is at. When was he going to start worrying about his 8 year old son.

  21. A Says:

    You haven’t followed this case from the beginning, it is apparent. You should probably do more research before you write a blog like this. First thing – “Robin Hood” hills is not a playground. Get your facts straight and dig further before you do something like write this.

  22. Billy Sinclair Says:

    You’re correct I have not followed the case from the beginning, but whether or not “Robin Hood” hills was a “playground” or a place where children sometimes frequented. I analyzed the possible guilt/innocence of th West Memphis Three based on the evidence presented at their trials and other evidence that has been disclosed since their convictions. I have advocated that they should be granted a new trial, but I stopped far short of saying they are “actually innocent.” That’s my story and “I’m sticking to it.”

  23. Mimi Says:

    Morning All. I am disappointed in how they will let those 3 men leave tie them up too the lie ms hen too see if they lie only God knows when there lowing those presus boys will sleep until Jesus will wake them up it is making me sick when sweet little children die. Mimi

  24. Miss V Says:

    They are innocent and now freed. Thank God.

  25. RedZack Says:

    If they find out the truth and have to declare them not guilty, the state will have to pay lots of money to these 3 men.
    Also they have to admit that they stolen them 18 years of their life, that they did a horrible mistake, and almost “murdered”one of them, since he had the death sentence. All that will question the justice system and make the judges guilty of a crime too.
    And thats why nobody wants to allow a reworking on the case.

  26. WEST MEMPHIS THREE PLEAD GUILTY—ALMOST Says:

    [...] in West Memphis, Arkansas in May of 1993. I have posted five articles about this case on this site (here, here, here, here, and here). In those posts I expressed a troubling belief in the guilt of the men [...]

  27. Dannybohy Says:

    Billy , thank you for the Blogs! glad to see someone can see past the BS documentries and Celeb worship!

  28. chloe Says:

    I viewed this case with a completely open mind not to be swayed one way or the other and to make up my own mind.To many mistakes were made in this case to get any conviction against anyone ..Evidence was lost,misplaced and destroyed.A lot of circumstantial evidence was inaccurate and now some of the main witnesses have said that they lied.Damien’s behaviour in court was troubling to say the least but as he has a very high IQ I do feel he felt indifferent to what was happening around him.I also remember feeling indifferent and smug through my teenage years.I thought i knew it all (what teen doesn’t)and i also dabbled in wicca I had a alter in my bedroom ..I have since grown out of that like most teens do Damien being no different.This case is a reminder to every prosecuter and defense attorney and police officer what not to do ..They also questioned selected people often skipping suspects or failing to find them

  29. Sasha Fierce Says:

    Billy Sinclair?…hmmm
    When you are in a hole…stop digging!

    Mr Hobbs, oopps I mean, who ever the killer is should pay for the horrific killing of those little boys and for the suffering that he put the West Memphis 3 in!

    Mr Hobbs, oopps I mean, (I dont know why I keep doing that..silly me) Mr Sinclair…keep digging u will get to where you deserve

  30. Georgey Says:

    It really bothers me to think that people actually think that the police coerced Misskelly into a confession. Please just think about it. BTW Misskelly NEVER said the police treated him badly or were going to give him a deal. He just said they told him to say it. Now, I don’t care that he was mentally challenged (he is not retarded), you just would never admit to murdering three 8 yr olds if you are innocent. Even after 12 hours of intense questioning. What, you just give in and say I can’t take it anymore, yes we did it??? YOU JUST DON’T ADMIT IT if your innocent. Not the first time he gave it up and not the second time (in detail).
    Take a listen to his confessions he was very calm and knew exactly what went down.

  31. Reply to Georgey Says:

    There was more evidence never mentioned here…I agree with Georgey… I dont care what anyone “tells” me to say… I would not confess to something i did not do…especially murdering three boys…Did he think by confessing, they would be like, Oh, okay, well now that we have this sorted out, you can go home…He wanted to go home…Okaaaaayyy? How was that going to do it exactly?! The boys are walking free, and I hope that someone does to them, what they did to those boys…They had no sympathy for the families, at all, during the trial. I did not know them, knew nothing about them, but this broke my heart, and they were more worried about pointing fingers at EVERYBODY else, the prosecution, the step dad, this person that person did/said this or that… than what happened to those boys… Did they have an alibi? Cuz I have searched over and over and over so many pages, just looking for an alibi, and I find NO WHERE at ALL where ANY OF THEM have ANY alibi?! I would like to know if they ever had one… I really would…They say they are innocent, but I have yet to see what in the world can prove they did not do it…I see all this evidence that shows that they could have, or did…Cuz to me, the fact that all three of them lack an alibi for the time frame given in these murders shows a LOOOOOOOOT about it…Not a coincidence…confession plus not having alibis…

  32. Brenton Says:

    Concerning coerced interviews. It is a reality and I just watched another documentary wiuth 12 yo boy being interviewed . again they only showed the child at the end of the interview who had to confess to the murder of his brother. On camera when hyis mom came in he was to9ld to tell the truth to his mom. He quickly whispered to his mom sonething and then proce3eded to admit the murder.,. Anyway to cut things short , he whispered I am going to lie to you mum.” Before he confessed. It was proven the kid did not do it and was under police pressure for hours to come up with the words the police wante…

    Also the biggest evil in the world is religion. without religion bad people will do bad things and good people will do good things. With religion good people will do bad things. And accusing the innocent because they do not follow christianity is simply bad.

  33. JP Says:

    Oh, journalism and all your flaws. People write what they want, read what they want, and believe what they want. I have seen very few people, on either side of the argument, who have actually taken the time read ALL of the information about the case and truly form their own opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Yet, so many people are very certain and have no reservations about adamantly defending their beliefs and citing the few facts and rumors that support the side they are on. Usually rife with improper grammar, spelling errors and odd capitalization choices like an e-mail you’d get from someone who won the Nigerian lottery and just needs your assistance claiming the prize in exchange for several million dollars transferred directly into your bank account.

    In just the third paragraph of this essay, there were several things that struck me as inadequate and improperly researched. For example,

    Echols and his two frequent associates, Baldwin and Misskelly

    Wrong. Do very little research on the case and discover that Jessie Misskelly was not a frequent associate of Damien’s. Damien and Jason were best friends. Jason knew Jessie, but didn’t consider him a friend. He thought he was “alright” but admitted they mostly “laughed at him” rather than with him. Damien met Jessie through Jason. The three boys hung out together maybe a couple of times, but Damien didn’t like Jessie and Jessie thought Damien was “strange”, so it was a short-lived acquaintance at the most. Next:

    Misskelly (who was, perhaps still is, borderline intellectually challenged) were responsible for the murders.

    “Perhaps still is”? No, suddenly his “borderline intellectual challenges” have disappeared. During his stint in lock-up, his IQ suddenly skyrocketed and he’s studying to become a lawyer….no, better yet, a journalist. Yes, Jessie is intellectually challenged. At 7 years old he scored 67 on an intelligence test and it was reported that he was “mildly mentally retarded”. At 10 years old he was examined by a psychologist and reported an IQ of 75, at the low end of normal but with verbal abilities in the mildly retarded range. At 17 years old, tests results showed that his IQ hovered around 70 and he was only “moderately functional” in society. How on earth would he NO LONGER have these “intellectual challenges?.

    I urge anyone who is interested in this case to go out and read everything. Read the books written about the crimes, “The Devil’s Knot”, “Blood of Innocents”, and any other relevant books, though they are all slanted one way or another, they do provide a wealth of important information. Be careful to weed out rumors from fact – unfortunately, the ethics of the “journalists” documenting these events is as questionable as the investigation. Watch the Paradise Lost documentaries to see for yourself the demeanors and behaviors of those involved. Watch West of Memphis to get new information and insights that weren’t available at the time of the original investigation and trials. Then decide for yourself. Anyone with half a brain will see that there in no way is enough evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the three teenagers were guilty.

    Sinclair writes, “There’s the two Misskelly confessions, there’s the possible failed polygraph examination by Echols, there’s Echols own boasts that he participated in the killings, and there’s the serious psychological disorders Echols was suffering with at the time of the killings. But even this “evidence,” taken in its totality, leaves plenty of room to doubt the involvement of the West Memphis Three in the killings.” Let’s take into account that the confessions were inadmissible since Jessie refused to testify, and the polygraph examinations were inadmissible period, and even if they had been, Stidham had an expert who would testify that the results of Jessie’s polygraph were misread, and Damien’s report was mysteriously missing. You’d think these professional investigators would make sure to retain such an important piece of evidence. And then there’s the juror misconduct. In no way was this investigation or trial accurate, fair, or unbiased. In no way was justice served. Even if Echols, Baldwin and Misskelly DID commit the crimes, it was not proven and justice was not served. And if they didn’t, someone got away with murdering three 8 year old boys. All due to a corrupt police department, a sloppy investigation, prosecutors who frequently broke the law, and an extremely biased judge who allowed them to do so.

    The victims, the families of the victims, the convicted men and their families, and the concept of justice in general all deserved better than this. They deserved the officials to work hard, obey the law and the ethics of their jobs, and ensure that the perpetrators were found, and prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt, to pay the penalties for their crimes. They deserved more than a botched investigation and a sham of a trial. They deserved more than, 20 years later, no one to be truly held responsible for their deaths. Christopher, Michael and Stevie would be only 28 and 29 years old today, with so much life ahead of them, if it hadn’t been stolen from them, and NO ONE is paying for it. Let’s all get our heads out of our asses, stop perpetrating the rumors, listen to the facts, and support the reopening of this case so these victims can finally rest in peace.

  34. zap Says:

    “Watch West of Memphis to get new information and insights that weren’t available at the time of the original investigation and trials. ”

    JP

    Why bother watching West of Memphis when Amy Berg and Peter Jackson committed an outright outlandish unconscionable deception by presenting Jennifer Bearden as an alibi witness and doctoring the audio tape to do so???

    Its at 24 minutes in

    Bottom line for me is none of the 3 have an alibi and Echols alibi is a complete fabrication….and if he wasn’t at home…..where was he…where was Baldwin and Miskelly???

    Circumstantial evidence is still evidence

    Ive read Echols book and this guy is a compulsive liar.

    Which scapegoat should the reopen the case to investigate John Mark Byers or Hobbs?

  35. JP Says:

    I suggested watching West of Memphis because every news source, every book that has been written, every movie that has been made, have all been created by someone with an agenda. My point is – take in everything so you can pick apart the facts from the rumors and then make a valid indisputable argument for your position. It’s easy to discredit someone when they spread misinformation even if they have a valid point, that’s basically what you’re saying about West Of Memphis, isn’t it?

    I saw WOM quite a while ago and I don’t recall any “doctored audio” in the scene you mention, but I do recall that there was some valuable information in the film, although it comes from an extremely biased source(s). I do know that wmtruth.com makes a case for the scene not being in the film at all because they feel it is misleading:
    http://wm3truth.com/2013/01/jennifer-bearden-in-west-of-memphis/
    Perhaps that’s what you are referring to? That’s not “doctored audio”, that’s biased filmmaking – perhaps not ethical, but not the same thing. And this represents the issue I have with many of the arguments. They aren’t based on facts. If you want to say that you feel WOM is not worth watching because it’s biased and purposefully misleading, then fine – that’s a valid argument and you might have a point. If you instead choose to say that something was “doctored” because you have to lie or exaggerate to prove your point, then your argument is null. Valid arguments don’t need lies to support them, they can stand alone based on the facts.

    If you have some other proof that the audio in the film was indeed doctored by the filmmakers, or if you ARE Jennifer Bearden, then please provide evidence and I will stand corrected.

    At the risk of repeating myself, I never said Byers or Hobbs were guilty, just as I never said the WM3 are innocent. I have repeatedly said that “Even if Echols, Baldwin and Misskelly DID commit the crimes, it was not PROVEN and justice was not served. And if they didn’t, someone got away with murdering three 8 year old boys.” and that “The victims, the families of the victims, the convicted men and their families, and the concept of justice in general all deserved better than this. They deserved the officials to work hard, obey the law and the ethics of their jobs, and ensure that the perpetrators were found, and prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt, to pay the penalties for their crimes.” Everyone researching this case knows that if the state could prove, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that the WM3 were truly responsible for the crimes that there’s NO way they would all be out on Alford pleas. The problem is that they can’t, not because the WM3 may be innocent, but because the police investigation was so completely inadequate and the trials so unfair (due to prosecutorial and juror misconduct and a judge with his own agenda). This is why the case should be reopened. The scapegoat comment is ridiculous and ignores or misses my point entirely.

  36. Zap Says:

    The source from where I initially read Beardens testimony did not have the summary page that Bearden was reading from in the movie thus I assumed the audio was edited….as I believed she was reading from page 2 of her actual testimony…when in fact she was reading from a summary page (which I only saw after my post) wherein Det Ridge makes a misstatement and the producers of WOM jumped on it in a blatant act of deception in order to fool the public about Echols completely discredited alibi.

    cant post link

    This is the pertinent testimony

    cant post link

    The deliberately chose to have Bearden reading this summary statement, where clearly the Det makes a misstatement……as the summary does not match Bearden’s statements in the actual interview……possibly a grammatical error on Ridge’s part!!…..hahaha

    Bearden didn’t give Echols an alibi, she never has given him an alibi and his alibi has always been a lie and the propagandists that produced this movie knew this fact.

    I made a MISTAKE in assuming the audio was doctored…..they LIED by having her read from that page in the movie…..hey but apparently for Peter Jackson and Amy Berg LYING about extremely key, in fact crucial testimony, gets us closer to the TRUTH.

    Reopening the case would be as futile as OJ “searching for the real killers”

  37. Zap Says:

    JP

    Ok sorry I had been trying to post this response but apparently but if I post the links my the browser freezes

    The details can be found at WM3 truth and especially callahans where J Bearden interview including the misleading cover page can be found

  38. JP Says:

    Zap,

    You made an invalid assumption that you reported as fact. The WOM producers omitted information to make something fit their story. I really don’t see a difference. Both parties have their own agenda. Your response actually helps illustrate the key point I’ve made all along – it doesn’t really matter what you, or Peter Jackson says about anything in the case – you’re not actually involved, and you’re helpless to effect change, except for possibly swaying public opinion. I’ll admit that WOM is accessible to a much larger audience than you have to influence, but in the scheme of things, neither your nor Peter Jackson’s nor Amy Berg’s opinions make a damn bit of difference.

    What DOES make a difference – is the complete inability of most of the people involved to effectively do THEIR JOBS. Oh, Ridge made a misstatement? What a surprise! Another mistake by the Ridge and the WMPD. If Ridge hadn’t made yet ANOTHER mistake, there wouldn’t BE anything for the producers of WOM to “jump on in a blatant act of deception in order to fool the public”. Let’s bring it full circle now – just as if the WMPD, the prosecution, the jury, and the judge had done their respective jobs accurately, thoroughly, and lawfully, there wouldn’t be any reason for the State of Arkansas to agree to allow Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley to take Alford pleas and go free. Except that the State recognizes the corruption of the court system and the incompetence of the investigators in this case and didn’t want to risk not only admitting they made inexcusable errors but also have to pay the convicted men very large sums of money in restitution. It’s common sense. Do you really think they would allow three men who murdered three children in horrific circumstances to walk free? Not unless they had a great deal to lose otherwise. It doesn’t mean the state believes in the innocence of the convicted, it means they acknowledge (to themselves) that everyone screwed up *royally* and they don’t want to have the pay the literal or figurative penance for the inadequacy, misconduct and corruption of most everyone involved in the case.

    Your OJ point was great, and also serves to correlate what I’m illustrating. OJ walked free (from the murder charges, at least) because of investigative corruption. If those detectives had done their job, instead of deciding what the outcome was and then ONLY focusing on information that corroborated their theories (or tampering with evidence, as the case may be), there would have been a much greater chance of the responsible party being convicted. But a killer walked free because of the blatant incompetency and corruption of the investigators. It’s the same thing, except in the West Memphis case they were incarcerated for a period of time before they walked free, again due to the incompetency and corruption of the investigators (and judge, jury, and prosecution).

    So I see your point – reopening either case would be futile in your opinion since you so strongly believe the correct men were convicted and we can’t have double jeopardy. I believe the evidence in the OJ case was considerably more compelling, and I believe wholeheartedly in his guilt. About Echols, Baldwin, and MIsskelley, I’m undecided. I believe that in either case the officials should have done their jobs. I also believe that the justice system should be fair and accurate and consistent. Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman’s families have to live with knowing the murderer went unpunished for this crime. Stevie, Christopher, and Michaels’s families are split – some of them have to live with knowing the murderers walk free, others have to live with knowing the murderer(s) have always walked free – in either case, no justice. None of these people should have to live with the knowledge that those responsible for making sure the killers were tried, convicted, and punished couldn’t be counted on to do their jobs – jobs that the people are paying them (in some cases handsomely) to do correctly.

  39. Zap Says:

    “You made an invalid assumption that you reported as fact.”

    I explained that adequately

    I made an honest mistake, they lied

    3 people accused not one of them has an alibi….

    Echol’s psychiatric reports, Exhibit 500, reveal everything from narcissism to Satanism…..violence…..sociopathy….psychosis…this as asserted by his own PARENTS……he has lied about everything from being familiar with the area to actually living in the area at the time…he was not in Marion as he has been claiming…..he was living at the Broadway Trailer Park in WEST MEMPHIS at the time detectives interviewed him in his bedroom there initially….they are GUILTY….so what good would it do to reopen the case

    To see the TRUTH in this case you have to examine Echols LIES……copious lies…..damnable lies….lies about every single detail in the case……LITERALLY……lies that are trivial to prove as lies…why would an innocent man have to lie so much?

    Because he is guilty that’s why

    All this case amounts to is bullying by an extremely mentally disturbed teen and his sycophants against some little kids that quickly turned into an assault that would have put Echols, Baldwin and Misskelly in the penitentiary that then turned into cold blooded murder as a means of covering up…they were drunk as per Miskkely’s NUMEROUS confessions and they panicked.

  40. Zap Says:

    JP

    I suspect you are a female

    Maybe you have never been an 8 year old boy and never have been confronted by drunk teenage guys in an isolated place and that decided to “have a little fun with the brats”…..but most guys are well familiar with this scenario..and I have sure seen this when I was young…..in general this usually amounts to harmless bullying followed by “we will get our big brothers after you!!!”……..but when this scenario happens with a violent extremely mentally disturbed person as Echols clearly was at the time of the murders…see his 500 page psychiatric report for proof of that…that is when things like usually harmless bullying turn into cold blooded murder.

    I’m surprised Johnny Depp and Henry Rollins are unfamiliar with this scenario…….cause it happens ALL the time…..its simply a part of life for boys and always has been.

  41. Zap Says:

    “You made an invalid assumption that you reported as fact. The WOM producers omitted information to make something fit their story. I really don’t see a difference.”

    This is an absurd statement!

    You don’t see the difference????

  42. Zap Says:

    JP

    Read Bearden’s reiteration of her testimony in the 2004 affidavit….I was aware of all this testimony but nit aware of the error Det Ridge made on that cover page…….

    but Jenny Beardens actual testimony is old hat, everyone that has followed this case should know well that her statements are not exculpatory in regards to Echols……they are in fact DAMNING….because they DESTROY the entire premise of his alibi….”I was home all night that night!”

    the producers of that movie knew this…..and if you cant see the difference between a simple error on my part and their lies then either you are obtuse or intellectually dishonest……they were manipulating the audience to believe that Echols had an airtight alibi which he did NOT!!!….NONE of them did

    This is where the crux WM3 support comes from….not from the facts of the case but from distortions and blatant outright lies by their supporters in the media and from Hollywood….

    http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_SS_07.jpg

    Echols will get his someday……maybe he will BURN like Jack Parsons

  43. Zap Says:

    JP

    Next time you are looking through Damien’s glasses do me a favor and stand in his frigging shoes and walk a mile in them……then report back here post haste!!!

    Just don’t do both at the same time though or you are liable to get a bump on your noggin walking into an ABYSS

    : )

    hahahahahah

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upwY47g-uP0

  44. Zap Says:

    JP

    Face it, its all over until Saint Damien Omen 4 commits his next atrocity…or gets an early call to join his hero Satan like Jack Parson…..so nothing can be done about it

    its a moot point now

    Cheers!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5c5B7p-tOI

  45. Zap Says:

    JP

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32DARlE4xhU

    : )

  46. JP Says:

    Zap,

    I’m loathe to reply since you continually ignore/don’t understand the entire premise of my argument, but thanks to your copious assumptions, I can’t help myself but to point out/refute a few things.

    You wrote, “the producers of that movie knew this”, which is another assumption. The producers of the movie are Damien’s friends, they clearly believe Damien’s story – including his alibi. You don’t know that they’ve taken the time to read Jennifer Bearden’s entire testimony. That they knew the entire testimony and yet decided to show something different is your opinion. You have no way of knowing that they had all that information. Just like I have no way of knowing that you “made a mistake” in assuming the audio was doctored. You called it, “an outright outlandish unconscionable deception”, based on what you believed to be true, and you seemed pretty adamant to me. They assume Damien’s innocence based on what they have been told, and told the story based on that point of view. No, there’s really no difference. You just can’t see past your own ideology long enough to recognize the logic. I’m sure you can tell how obtuse I am since my posts are so unintelligible and inarticulate. Give me a break.

    You also assume that I am female, just because I am not convinced that Damien, Jason and Jessie are guilty. You’re correct on one assumption – I have not born witness to the scenario you described but I’ll admit that I’ve also never lived anywhere as poor or uneducated as West Memphis, AK.

    You assume I know about Damien’s glasses because I’ve looked through them, which is not the case. I have no interest in disclosing how I know that, other than to say that I have an acquaintance with Damien (he is not my friend).

    Since you hardly address the real crux of any of my comments and just spout on about (mostly) Damien’s guilt, it seems you assume I am a “supporter” although I’ve stated several times that I am not. I have followed the case since the trials, read “Devil’s Knot”, seen the Paradise Lost trilogy, West of Memphis, and many other shows and interviews about the case, read many articles and op-ed pieces on the case, and reviewed countless websites and blogs. I have a well-rounded view of the suspects, victims, crime, investigation, trial, and post-trial lives of many of the parties involved. I know that the investigation was insufficient and inaccurate, and I know that the trial and related proceedings were unfair and in some parts, illegal. It’s nice that you are so convinced that the right parties were convicted, but Pam Hicks, Ricky Murray, Amanda Hobbs, and Mark Byers are not. Steve Branch and Todd and Dana Moore believe that their children’s murderers are free men. They are the ones that matter now – not you or me. The State of Arkansas owes it to these people to right their wrongs.

  47. Zap Says:

    Now now……Calm down girl!!

    : )

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7TLnRThxL0

  48. Zap Says:

    JP

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBzitaeeFsg

    : )

  49. Zap Says:

    JP

    I’m not ignoring your point, I dont agree with your point, your point assumes the WM3 are innocent and the case should be reopened, my point is that they are guilty so what would be the point?…..hey that’s 5 points in one sentence!

    : )

    I explained why I thought they doctored the audio…since I had already read Jennifer Beardens testimony and knew what she had said to the police about calling back at 8 pm and finding Damien NOT AT HOME..I assumed they did a quick cut from the top of page 2 of the actual transcript to the bottom of the page…I was unaware that the cover page containing the detectives ERROR even existed….they had to be aware of what Beardens testimony actually said….including her in that film was a blatant act of deception by the producers of said shlockumentary, done so in order to convince the audience Echols had an alibi for that night which EVERYONE that has followed this case even casually should know, HE DOES NOT, DID NOT and is NEVER GOING TO!!!

    Beardens actual testimony in fact destroys Echols alibi it doesnt corraborate it.

    Dont accuse me of deliberately lying in order to decieve, like THEY did!

    I should be less critical of WM3 supporters as I am sure many of them recieved all their percieved FACTS about the case from these 4 extremely manipulative films….whats in those movies are not the FACTS…they are distortions and in the case of WOM outright frigging LIES!

    Hollywood is one cynical bunch of smug elitist smarter than thoughs, they seem to believe one can get to the TRUTH by LYING about the FACTS.

    “At the risk of repeating myself, I never said Byers or Hobbs were guilty, just as I never said the WM3 are innocent. I have repeatedly said that “Even if Echols, Baldwin and Misskelly DID commit the crimes, it was not PROVEN and justice was not served. And if they didn’t, someone got away with murdering three 8 year old boys.”

    You are playing an intellectually dishonest hand waving game of hide the pea with me here…..you statement is contradictory…your not saying their innocent but you are saying someone got away with murder….which is it JP, you cant make both statements at the same time?

  50. JP Says:

    Zap,

    “your point assumes the WM3 are innocent and the case should be reopened”

    Wrong. I have repeatedly stated that I don’t have an opinion as to their guilt or innocence. The case should be reopened because the investigation and trial were incredibly inept, inaccurate, and unlawful. The case should be reopened because the State released the three men convicted of the murders for the same reasons. The case should be reopened because the families of the victims deserve closure. Let me break it down for you:

    Point 1: The police investigation was rife with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, lost or mishandled physical evidence, lack of adhering to policies, complete lack of documented procedures, and overall subpar detective work.

    Point 2: The trial was rife with inconsistencies, shoddy defense, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct and juror misconduct.

    Point 3: Many family members of the victims believe that Jessie, Jason, and Damien are innocent.

    Point 4: The state acknowledged their mistakes by releasing Jessie, Jason and Damien on Alford pleas. If the state believes they are guilty, they should not have been released. They should have reconstructed the case and allowed it to go back to trial instead of accepting the pleas. If the state does not believe they are guilty, the investigation should be reopened. This should have happened long ago, before the state became so handcuffed by the glaring misconduct in the investigation and trial that they were willing to allow 3 convicted killers to go free.

    Regarding your last 2 paragraphs, you can’t possibly be that daft. My statement is not contradictory. It asserts the same thing I’ve asserted ALL along. Pay attention here – IF Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley DID commit the crimes, it was not PROVEN (so they burden is on the state to prove it, fairly and lawfully, as Mr. Sinclair has even pointed out multiple times and he is convinced of their guilt), and IF they DIDN’T commit the crimes, someone got away with it. It’s a pretty clear statement. They may be guilty, but I’m not sure because it wasn’t proven, so maybe they aren’t. I don’t know. Neither do many of the victims families…therefore the case should be reopened…blah, blah, blah. I tire of repeating myself and trying to argue with someone who can’t see logic and reason, or understand a hypothetical sentence.

    If you truly believe that the investigation was well done and the trial was not unlawful or unfair, let’s just agree to disagree. The facts are there, all it takes is logic and reason. If you don’t have all the information, please get it. You may still believe the convicted are actually guilty, as many do, but you can’t deny that the proceedings were ludicrously unjust. I believe that you personally are so caught up in your own ideology about this case that you refuse to look at all of the facts, except those that you believe support Damien’s guilt. I believe that you may even be aware of how unjust the proceedings were, but since you believe they are guilty, you don’t care – and that’s both ignorant and frightening, not to mention, decidedly un-American.

  51. Zap Says:

    You said it….blah blah blah

    You want to have your cake and eat it too, you wish to remain totally no committal and still argue that you have some point of view, you are a fence sitter.

    They plead guilty, the case is OVER!

    “The producers of the movie are Damien’s friends, they clearly believe Damien’s story – including his alibi. You don’t know that they’ve taken the time to read Jennifer Bearden’s entire testimony. That they knew the entire testimony and yet decided to show something different is your opinion. You have no way of knowing that they had all that information.”

    For a confused totally illogical person you sure can sling the accusations of same sister

    They didnt take the time to even read Beardens statement yet you say

    “Watch West of Memphis to get new information and insights that weren’t available at the time of the original investigation and trials.”

    So the producers of WOM were either hopelessly incompetent or merely reckless or liars….which is it?….they did not even bother to look at the testimony…..or they did and misunderstood it…..or they read it understood it and lied about it?

    At any rate we should watch WOM according to you and be informed about the case by liars or incompetents.

    You are also very generous in your assessment of the motivations of the producers of these outrageous works of HISTORICAL FICTION.

    Don’t bother me with your kvetching…you wont take a side because if you did you would have to defend Damien and his ENDLESS lies

    So why dont you just give my grammar a good going over and HARRUMPH a self satisfied HARRUMPH to yourself, why dontcha, you don’t have anything to say!!!

    : )

  52. JP Says:

    Zap,

    Now, now, calm down boy….

    They are FREE – the case is OVER. There’s another way to look at it. That doesn’t make it just.

    WOM isn’t a short film about Damien’s alibi, it’s a 2 1/2 hour film with a lot of other information, but I guess you can only focus on one thing at a time. My assessment of the motivations is generous? Their motivations were to show a film that supports the WM3 innocence – clearly. Did you forget that Damien Echols and Lorrie Davis are also listed as producers? Just because something is skewed, doesn’t mean it’s completely incorrect. Nor, did I only say to watch WOM – it was simply ONE of the sources I mentioned. I also said, about all of the media, “though they are all slanted one way or another, they do provide a wealth of important information. Be careful to weed out rumors from fact – unfortunately, the ethics of the “journalists” documenting these events is as questionable as the investigation”. But I guess you missed that part because you read and see only what supports your agenda.

    This case is FAR from one-dimensional. I have taken a side, you’re just too stupid to understand. Matter of fact, Mr. Sinclair has taken a similar position which you would know if you read his entire article above. You *could* just thoroughly read my last post and realize its reason, and still agree to disagree. Instead, you choose to pick apart things from old posts and use only parts of what I wrote, to make it look a certain way, and ignore the rest. Then write a post again completely avoiding the crux of my issue and attempt to insult me throughout. I’ve been trying to be nice, but I’m done arguing with an idiot. Anyone interested in reading some reasonable, sensible, logical opinions is more than welcome to read my comments. With you, I am clearly wasting my time. Since my intelligent, well-researched, fair and grammatically correct commentary is such a “bother” to you, please stop reading it. You’ll never get it anyway. I recognize that anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence capable of critical thinking will understand the points I make, although they may not necessarily agree. As far as the rest of the population, I don’t give a damn.

  53. Zap Says:

    “Just because something is skewed, doesn’t mean it’s completely incorrect.”

    It’s not “skewed” it is completely fraudulent, presenting Bearden in order to trick the audience into believing Echols had an alibi is an outright lie and it makes anything and everything else in that movie suspect.

    “Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”

    Watching a propaganda piece “produced” by the murderer himself and expecting to find any truthful information is an absurd idea.

    Not A Bad Guy Once You Get To Know Him….The Ted Bundy Story…written by Ted Bundy…..produced by Ted Bundy….starring Ted Bundy….Special Guest Star….Ted Bundy….with special musical guest Ted Bundy and The Caledonia Soul Orchestra……

    Give me a break

    I think anyone reading your comments can see through your hand waving and intellectual dishonesty.

  54. Zap Says:

    From life After Death….by Damien Echols look for it under Historical Fiction

    “Today a bird landed on my dingy windowsill. The window itself is only as wide as the bird was tall. It sat there as still as a stone and stared directly at me for over an hour. I stood on my bunk with my face right up to the glass, but it didn’t fly away. Our eyes were only about two inches apart as we gazed at each other. The bird’s entire body was a dusty gray, but it wasn’t a sparrow. I know what a sparrow looks like. The odd part is how it sat perfectly still, with its mouth wide open. A thin string of saliva hung from the top section of its beak to the bottom, reminding me of a strand of a spider’s web. After a few moments I raised my hand and tapped on the glass right by its head. The bird didn’t even blink. It continued to stare at me with a beady black eye and an open beak. I’ve never seen a bird behave that way before. It feels like it meant something, as if it were some sort of bird omen. I’m positive that bird smelled like a coming rainstorm.”

    He wrote this not me sister!!!

    Hey JP….but what about Damien’s “light deprivation”….here he had a window in his cell the entire time!!!????

    You will believe anything..you are completely gullible another one of Echols murder groupie dupes

    As Henry Rollins would say HAHAHAHAHA Sucker!!!!…Sucker!!!!!!!

    Here is Damien’s theme song as related by his good pal Henry Rollins

  55. Zap Says:

    Keep up the good working muddying up the waters with your doublespeak JP, I’m sure Satan’s Little Helper appreciates your efforts….hey wasnt that Barts dog on the Simpsons??

    Sucker!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awY1MRlMKMc

  56. JP Says:

    Zap (or should I call you “sister”),

    Have you ever read and comprehended anything in it’s entirety? Don’t answer…it’s rhetorical.

    Perhaps you’ve read all of Life After Death. Which I have not read any of, except for the rather long excerpt you took the time to post. Groupie.

    Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t make it “intellectual dishonesty” or “doublespeak”, it just means you’re less intelligent.

    I think anyone reading your comments can see that you’re an idiot.

    And now, I’ve stooped to your level – which I’m sure is precisely what you were going for – so maybe you can think you “won”. Except you’re still a moron, and I’m not, so I wouldn’t really consider it “a win” if I were you. I’m truly done with this particular discussion on this particular article, now. I’ve made my very valid and comprehensive points (which really have little to do with Damien, Jason and Jessie and everything to do with the inadequacies of the justice system in this case) a number of times for anyone slightly less dense to comprehend and decide to agree or disagree.

    I’m sure you’ll rant, insult and write a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with anything I’ve actually said, or post fragments of things I did say ignoring the rest of the context (lies, manipulation, deception), or just make assumptions about things you literally know nothing about (like my gender!) but I won’t be here to read them.

    C’mon, Zap – make sure you get the last word!

  57. Zap Says:

    You wont admit that you think the WM3 are innocent, so you just keep rambling on and on with circular arguments that go round and round and round but are completely NON COMMITTAL and therefore meaningless.

    “They should reopen the case,,,,,I’m not saying the WM3 are innocent….this is a great injustice the real killer is still out there…I’m not saying Terry Hobbs is guilty…they should reopen the case…blah blah blah”

    Its obvious that you feel they should reopen the case and try Hobbs!!

    That is why you keep recommending WOM but you don’t want to commit because then you would have to defend your position in regards to Hobbs and therefore also your support of the WM3

    They are guilty, the were convicted twice, they plead guilty…

    here are 2 nice last words

    THE END

  58. zap Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Ud1e423i0

  59. Gayla Naldrett Says:

    I beleive Terry Hobbs had something to do with it, and who said he was alone? I beleive for several reasons because since of the boys were sexually molested what would anyone else get out of it? Most pyschos have some reason to kill. The other reason that I think he did it was because Pam Hobbs said he acted strange after it happened and he did not even tell her when picking her up from work that Stevie had not come home yet, and that was around 9:00 pm. Pam said right after it hapened he acted like the only concern that he had was that Pam was greiving and was not as attentive to him. He told she needed to get over it, and move on. He left town very soon after Stevie’s death stating he had to get away, and was gone for about 2 weeks. Pam said he never had very nice to her son, and physically disiplined him often, but the daughter they had together he treated much better, and also he is an compulsive lier. Even John Douglas the criminal profiler thinks he may be responsible. Anyone who stil thinks the WM3 are guilty I wonder on what grounds? Ever since they have been released they have wanted to find who really did it themselves. They have a website set up with a number for anyone that has information, and if they were the real killers it would have been like letting Ted Bundy out of prison. Phychos don’t change, but all they have done is positive things since their release.

Leave a Reply