Categories: Essays
Written By: Billy Sinclair

           The first time I saw Damien Echols, and encountered the West Memphis Three case, was last year when both were featured on CBS’ 48 Hours Mystery. The title of the program was “A Cry for Innocence.” That’s what captured my interest enough to watch the show. When it was over, my wife asked me: “Well, what do you think?”

            “My gut tells me he’s guilty,” I replied. “He plays to the camera, the interviewer. It’s a classic con.”

            “But there’s no solid evidence,” she countered, “and the police really botched the case from the start—especially the Misskelly confession.”

            There was no doubt in my mind that Echols and Jason Baldwin deserved a new trial. The use of Misskelly’s confession at their joint trial without Misskelly testifying violated their Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.

            Still, I had a strong feeling Echols was lying. The problem was he kept basing his “cry for innocence” on the inconsistencies in the state’s case, not about how he could not have committed the crime or his willingness to undergo any truth-seeking examination to prove his innocence. And what was particularly disturbing was the casual manner in which he dismissed his out-of-court statements indicating he had something to do with the crime as “goofing off.”

            But I became convinced Echols is a calculating, manipulative liar when he made the claim that he was “raped” by prison guards on death row. I may not know a damn thing about a Porsche but I know prison, and I knew Echols had not been raped on death row. The act itself could not have happened in his cell without the other inmates knowing it, and there would have been a clamor to either stop it or address it afterwards. Rape is a hard thing to discuss in the free world where there is a certain anonymity but it is not something you would openly admit to in the prison setting. Regardless of the circumstances of the rape, an inmate becomes a “punk” (or a galboy) once the rape happens—and in prison, being a punk is the worst possible thing that could happen to you.

            But there’s even more evidence of Echols’ casual lying. Jeanne Nuss, an Associated Press reporter, wrote a piece about the “first night of freedom” for the West Memphis Three. Nuss attributes the following quote to Echols:

            “I was up all morning and most of the night trying to figure out how to use those IPhone things,” he said Saturday in the lobby of a posh Memphis hotel, just across the river from West Memphis, Arkansas, where the Scouts’ bodies were found.  “One minute I’m looking at something about Judge [David] Laser. The next minute, it’s on, like, some hardcore porn site.”

            I’m not an IPhone user, but it has remarkably similar features as a computer. There’s no way he was “one minute” looking at something about Judge Laser only to have in the “next minute” a “hardcore porn site.” It’s a classic Echols lie—and it was designed to earn him some “sympathy point” for having to “catch up” with a new technology-driven society. But why say a “hardcore porn site?” I suspect someone (like his wife, perhaps) busted him checking out the porn site and he dismissed at it as, “well, I don’t know how that got there.” If there was a “hardcore porn site” on his IPhone, it was there because he made a specific search for it.

            There was a troubling aspect about that big party hosted by Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder and Dixie Chicks’ Natalie Maines on the roof of the “posh” hotel that first night of freedom—a celebratory bash not attended by Jesse Misskelly who had not spoken to Echols or Baldwin during his first week of freedom. Misskelly said he wanted to spend the time with his father who had staunchly supported his son during his incarceration. Sounds plausible ..

            But that’s not what happened, I suspect. Misskelly was the “snitch” in the group—the one who fingered Echols and Baldwin in the brutal murders. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know there aree “bad feelings” by Echols and Baldwin against Misskelly—always have been, always will be. Echols and Baldwin either dis-invited Misskelly to that party because of the bad blood between them or Misskelly elected not to attend because he understands the lie all three are ensnared in.

            And perhaps that is the poetic justice in this case. Misskelly is the only real witness to the lie. Will he one day reveal that most, or all, of what he initially said in his confession was actually the truth; that the West Memphis Three in fact killed the “three Scouts?” I’m sure Echols and Baldwin live in fear of that prospect; that their house of lies could tumble down if Misskelly decides to publicly announce their guilt. Misskelly was, and remains, the key to understanding what happened to those boys.

            I suspect one day he will open the door with his key. He is the only one of the three with a conscience.

174 Responses to “DAMIEN ECHOLS’ “LYING EYES””

  1. Umm Says:

    Get a life.

  2. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Umm – anyone with a moniker “Umm” shouldn’t be taken seriously about anything … but, for the record, I have a life and with it the right to say what I please.

  3. pam Says:

    I have been on the internet and clicked on a site only to get something I really was not looking for. Really not hard to believe. Either way does not tell me if he is innocent or not.

  4. k Says:

    If Misskelley plans on using that key to (once and for all) separate himself from Jason & Damien and show that he has a conscience, he’d better do it soon.

    This case is being taken apart piece by piece and the clock is ticking.

    People that were dormant before (thinking the WM3 weren’t going anywhere) are wide awake now.

    Time to either Go Big or Go Home.

  5. Brad Says:

    k, I could use some clarification on what you mean by the clock is ticking. What clock?

    Billy, I have suffered many figurative slings and arrows for saying what you said above about him playing to the camera. He tries to mask his absolute thrill about getting attention, but I can see the subtle grins and nonverbal hints that he’s thinking “I can’t believe they are actually buying this bull crap!”

    He lies about stuff he doesn’t even need to lie about I believe for practice and so nobody can get a baseline on him. Once he said something about not eating anything but crackers and M&Ms for the last 10 years. Why say that? Well, for practice, garner sympathy and to see who takes the bait. It’s standard psychopath protocol.

    I also notice that once the subject is turned to a serious matter, he will change to a more “floaty” subject. Like the lights in his cell dimming his eyesight. I’ve come to believe he is one of the best cons – after all, he’s out of jail right?

    Someone asked me recently “is a psychopath guilty by default?” That is a good question. One I am not sure I know the answer. Do you have an opinion?

  6. Wendy Says:

    Wow. I’m not sure how your employers can trust you to work on their cases, given what kind of “facts” you choose to base your judgements on.

  7. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Wendy – my employers trust me because I am good at what I do – and, also, because I understand the difference between fact and fiction. It is your right to believe in fiction.

  8. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Brad: A psychopath ususally needs a trigger to set him off – and that was, and will be, the case with Damien Echols. As long as he is the focus of attention and can play to the camera in the court of public opinion, society is probably safe. I don’t think being a psychopath is “guilt by the default” – guilt requires action rejected by society as a whole and criminalized. As for the “slings and arrows” for speaking my mind about the WM3, I wear it as a badge of honor. Their supporters are entitled to their opinions as we are ours – and their petty little “sticks and stones” really do not bother me. Hang in there – criticism is truly like the proverbial water rolling off a duck’s back.

  9. Brad Says:


    I think the reason we see Echol’s lies and you don’t is simply a matter of exposure. I have several family members with narcissistic personality disorder and one psychopath. Watching Echols is like watching my own brother. There is nothing admirable or noble about what he says because while you are feeling good inside (and bad for him) he is robbing you blind.

    I am sure Mr. Sinclair has had his fare share of exposure to psychopaths in prison.

    If this is an area that interests you, I recommend going to YouTube and checking out the Dobsen/Bundy interviews. Can you see where Ted is eating up the attention? Can you see where he is lying gleefully about his murders? Once you can see that darkness, return again to one of the Echols interviews. Pick one, any one. Can you spot it now?

  10. Matt Says:

    You really dont know all the facts about this case and its so obvious. You come off as an iggnorant fool. Abd maybe you really are.

  11. Sarah Says:

    “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist” to read the terms of their suspended sentence and see that Misskelly was barred by the terms from attending the “bash.”

  12. Lily Says:

    Oh em gee, he “lied” about the “hardcore porn site” on his iPhone. “Typical” Echols lies. Yeah, because you would know, because you and every other skeptic always relies on the Eyes of Echols that “obviously” show he’s guilty. Oh wow, he was watching porn on a phone when he got out of prison out of 18 years. He’s obviously a murderer! Pft. Get over yourself and look at the facts, jackass.

  13. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Sarah: There were no “terms of their suspended sentence.” First, there was no suspended sentence. They pled “guilty” under an Alford arrangement, i.e., plead guilty while maintaining their innocence. But is still an admission of guilt–just a qualified one. Second, there was nothing about either Misskelly’s plea or sentence to keep him from attending the “bash.” Second, the only reason he did not attend the bash was either because Echols/Baldwin did not invite him or he voluntarily chose not to attend. I believe it was the former. Third, they three did not get a “suspended sentence” – they got a sentence with credit for time served.

  14. Sarah Says:

    I apologize, I should have been more precise. Baldwin and Echols entered a plea of guilty to three counts of first degree murder. They received credit for time served plus an additional sentence suspended for 120 months. The suspension is subject to various terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of Echol’s and Baldwin’s suspension would disallow them from associating with Misskelly without risking a revocation of the suspension.

  15. Nikki Says:

    When did Damien ever say he was raped by the guards on death row?? He said that he was raped on death row and the guards did nothing to stop it from happening…..that is why he sued the prison authorities.

  16. Wendy Says:

    Brad, why would you assume anything about what I have seen, what I have experienced in my life?

    It’s nice that you feel like you’re an expert on psychopaths. I don’t feel comfortable declaring that other people are bipolar because my mother and half-sister were bipolar. I guess I just internalized that old trope about making assumptions. I’m sure you know the one.

    Good lord. Just go back to the Hoax website, dude, and take more orders from Farm and notgullible, whose moniker is hilariously ironic.

  17. randall j. fox Says:

    It is particularly damning that Echols testified under oath that he did not make the admissions, and in subsequent media interviews admitted it. He perjured himself and has now confirmed it. Yet people will act as if he is truthful.

    Your take on why Baldwin and Echols have shunned Jessie is dead on. It is the classic case of the snitch being scorned by his co-convicts.

  18. randall j. fox Says:

    Sarah, you have confused parole/probation with “suspended sentence.” I did the same until someone corrected me.

  19. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Nikki: I have responded to this question before. In a previous reply to a comment submitted to this website, I hyperlink an article from an Arkansas newspaper (Jonesboro, I believe) in which Echols told the reporter during the interview that he had been raped by prison guards, not just inmates. If you Google about Echols being raped on death row by “prison guards,” you will fnd my source. For the record, I do not put any specific allegation or assertion n this website unless it is sourced.

  20. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Lily: Never been called a “jackass” before, but they are a sturdy creature. Thank you for the compliment. And since you obviously missed the point about Echols and lying, let me re-state it for you. The point was not that he watched “hardcore porn.” I could care less what he watches, or how sexually wired he is. Just don’t lie about it. He did not land on a hardcore porn sight while practicing on his !Phone. So why even lie about it – and even if someone is gullible enough to believe him, as you obviously do, why even insert that in the public debate? The real issue is that Damien Echols is a pathological liar, and you can call me a jackass all you like, but that will not alter the overwhelming evidence in the public record that Echols is a lying, sick puppy.

  21. jack dobson Says:

    I swore off further commentary here on the WM3 case, as intellectual honesty flies out the window every time their supporters pipe up. Yet this does deserve a quick observation and flame away, I won’t be back here on this topic not because I can’t stand the heat but because the lies and misinformation bore me now.

    Damien Echols comes across as the classic “attention whore.” He has claimed a litany of ailments and injuries since his release that bear no relationship to reality. At first he wore sunglasses because he claimed daylight hurt his eyes. Then he made some claim about an inability to walk with ease because he had been shackled in leg irons. He had prison computer access yet plays the victim of a technological world that has passed him by.

    In an interview several years back, he claimed he had subsisted on candies for about ten years.

    Previously, as has been hashed out here, he made false rape allegations.

    Given his troubled psychiatric history and violence linked to his mental illness, this does not bode well. As Mr. Sinclair has noted, the spotlight eventually will shine elsewhere. Echols’ latest Munchasen-by-proxy “prison injury” won’t be noticed.

    It is apparent what he will do. Compelled by grandiosity, the root of much of his lying and latent dishonesty, he will need to get back into the public eye. Tragically, he knows one certain route to sudden fame.

    This won’t end well.

  22. Ted Says:

    I think at some point, when everyone has forgotten them, maybe even on their death beds, one of them will confess. Misskelley seems to be the one with a conscience, maybe he’ll say something first.

  23. renae Says:

    wow what an idiot… you are not damien and for that who are you to judge what he says or does… just saying you should definitely try walking around in his shoes for 18 years behind bars and 8 years in solitaire confinement before you go and sound like a jack ass….

  24. Wendy Says:

    Mr. Sinclair, the “evidence” you present here is simply you passing moral judgement on someone else, jumping to conclusions, and quite obviously you’re parroting talking points from a “non-supporter” website that doesn’t quite seem to understand how legal issues work, or that Satanic ritual abuse has been thoroughly debunked.

    It’s very plain that you haven’t even bothered to study this case, you’re simply taking a pack of lies, rumors, and innuendo, and you’re leaping to wild conclusions that can’t be supported by any evidence at all, and you are trumpeting this pile of garbage as fact. You are completely untrustworthy, and I feel so terribly sorry for anyone who reads your words and trusts that they come from an honest, upstanding man.

  25. Ted Says:

    Wendy, I’m pretty sure Mr. Sinclair has a pretty good understanding of “how legal issues work,” seeing how that’s what he does for a living. Also willing to bet he has a better understanding of law than many of the WM3 supporters who have have put-up websites. But I’ll let him speak for himself.

    And what is exactly has he said that is a “pack of lies?”

    Is he untrustworthy simply because he disagrees with you? Maybe he’s just not as easily fooled.

  26. Tony Says:

    For one thing ,, the way Damien thanked Jason on tv ,, and ignored Jessie was crap , Jessie should have bitch slapped him ….

    Maybe one day Jessie will beat the hell out of Damien Echols !

    if there is a facebook page you have about this , let me know

  27. Tony Says:

    Jessie may or may not have got them convicted ,, but he damn sure got them out !

    Jessie should have delayed it , or just not excepted it just because of Damiens sorry ass …

    But i cant say i would`nt have taken it too ……

  28. k Says:


    So actually being on death row doesn’t qualify Sinclair to talk about the legal issues involved with being on death row?

    hehehe…how much closer do you have to get?

    Check the mirror if you’re looking for a parrot. I gotta say that I’m a little embarrassed for you right now. You have a pretty name tho.

  29. Brad Says:

    Wendy, you seem to be a very bitter person. You are very good at attacking people for their beliefs. While you berate and try to bully the author and other commenters here, isn’t it you in fact being judgmental?

    You told me to leave – as if this was YOUR site. if the site owners want me to leave I will. I have no reason to listen to you though. I came here for a discussion. All I’ve heard from you is shrill, over the top personal attacks.

    I realize it might be hard to step out of your comfort zone, but I see no point to trolling a discussion just to insult people and contributing nothing of any value.

  30. susan Says:

    Insightful article. I couldn’t agree more. I do try and check in to the Wm3 site to see what the supporters are saying. They don’t like me there. I answered someone’s post who was a “fence-sitter” who had some legitimate questions and gave them info. on where to read “the facts” (Calahans) and where they might find “the dark side” (as opposed to “the sunny side” that the WM3 org. is always pushing). They deleted my answer after a few hours and I never saw any reply at all to the curious poster I’d responded to. Guess I sounded a sour note in their praises of “the three” and then they couldn’t (wouldn’t?) try and answer a couple of hard questions…
    I have not seen anything from Mr. Depp concerning their release anywhere and I’m wondering why that is (or have I missed it). I’m also very curious about Lorrie Davis. I would expect a separation/divorce within a relatively short period of time. Hard enough to have a relationship with someone who was truly innocent after so many years on death row – can’t imagine trying to build a life with a self-absorbed, lying and disturbed individual like Damien Echols. I’m not a big believer in serious mental issues being really “cured.” I would expect that he is still very ill and without treatment/drugs would be a danger even to Lorri.

  31. Nikki Says:

    Brad, your last name wouldn’t happen to be Gitchell, would it? ; )

  32. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Renae: Walk in Damien’s shoes! I spent 6 years on death row, a total of 10 years in solitary confinement, and 40 years, 4 months in one of the nation’s most violent prison system. I lived in prison settings that would have “bitch slapped” Damien every time he opened his mouth. And during those four decades, I crossed paths with a lot of Damien Echols – the old saying, “you can fool the fans but not the players” applies here. So don’t preach to me about the virtues of Damien Echols from the soapbox that I should “walk in his shoes.” Damien Echols killed three innocent kids (and in general prison population that would have made him a “baby killer”); he admitted to killing them. There have been real innocent people who have served 20 and 30 years – so I have no respect for a lying, baby killer. And, yes, my life experiences gives me the right to express such a view.

  33. Christina Says:

    Awesome article! It’s nice to see an article that isn’t one of those “puff pieces” that are being churned out talking about how the 3 have to “adjust” to our society. (Seriously? You need to re-learn how to use a fork, but you’ve figured out an iPhone?)
    For anyone interested, there is a facebook group for non-supporters – but it’s numbers are much, much smaller than the supporter sites. How sad.
    I do hope Jessie confesses again (would that make it the 5th time on record?) or kicks Damien’s and Jason’s @ss – I’d be OK with either one.
    And – he wasn’t invited to that celebrity shindig – his father said they didn’t know anything about it – it was in a Commercial Appeal article. How nice.

  34. Jess Says:

    Fantastic article. I’ve wondered why more people don’t talk about the rape in prison thing. I’ve read about it numerous times and the story he gives as to how it happened is completely ridiculous. The story goes that the inmate next to him had been harassing him relentlessly while removing bricks from the wall that separated the two of them. Obviously this would have been time consuming…and eventually he got a hole big enough for a person to fit it (REALLY!? no guards noticed this?!) He has since confessed to the guards/warden that it didn’t happen and so did the other party involved, who is now deceased. However, Damien did go so far as to write his pen pals and go into grave detail about the rapes. The same people he was pledging his innocence too. They eat up every bit of it. Unfortunate. Anyway, thank you for your article!

  35. Truth Says:

    Billy – excellent article and you are spot on. It’s incredibly frustrating to see how many gullible idiots have been fooled by Berlinger and Sinofsky’s “documentary”.

    Your writing is a breath of fresh air.

  36. sandy Says:

    Damien is a liar and the wm3 are GUILTY!!!!!!!!!

  37. vicki Says:

    I think tthe West Memphis 3 did do the crime! my heart goes out to the victims family .

  38. keith Says:

    I agree Damien is a liar ,his eyes are scary to! hes a sociopath and seems he enjoys the attention.

  39. Jim Faris Says:

    Billy this is a great writing here and also true!
    I find it scary that these 3 monsters are turned lose.
    The supporters of these monsters would be talking a different story if it were a family member of theirs that were killed by these 3 murderers.

  40. Cindy Says:

    damien is liar and a murderer.

  41. David Klein Says:

    Great article. One thing I would call to your attention:

    The media accounts always discuss Misskelley’s initial confession, but they never mention his many confessions post-conviction. He was convicted on February 4, 1994. On the drive to prison that afternoon, he told the whole story again to two deputies. Four days later, he gave a lengthy, detailed, tape-recorded confession to his lead defense lawyer. And nine days after that, he gave another tape-recorded confession to prosecutors with his defense lawyers present.

    The full transcripts of the 2/8/94 and 2/17/94 recordings are available online. Those really should be considered the key documents in weighing guilt or innocence today, even though they weren’t admissible at trial. It’s shameful that 48 Hours and other news outlets choose not to mention them.

    I agree that Misskelley is the only one with a conscience. He showed remorse back in 1993-94. Rather than let all three go, the state should have offered Misskelley a deal to go free in exchange for one more confession and testimony against the other two.

  42. Demosthenes Says:

    I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of these things called search engines, but quite often you put in a search term that doesn’t seem to be sexual and end up getting porn for results. Also, rape can be experienced as pretty wide variety of offenses to the victim. It doesn’t have to mean full on penetration. If a guard did happen to touch him in an inappropriate way on the sly do you really think it would be so easy for a death row inmate to get someone to believe him?

  43. Demosthenes Says:

    And about Misskelley’s confessions… There was no evidence about the sort of sexual things he was describing happening. Also much of the information he gave otherwise about locations and such, on each and every one of those confessions, was dead wrong. You want to talk about a person being dishonest, to me that is when what a person tells you doesn’t match the facts.

  44. Mkc30 Says:

    The reason Misskelley was not involved in the party on the roof top, the release reports (Whatever the proper term is for those) states they can not hang out with other each other with the exception of Jason with Damien and Damien with Jason. WM3.org has the link to those documents.

  45. K Says:


    Funny you should pick that name. A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.

    I wish the WM3 were innocent and yet I don’t believe that they are. The more I read, the more I’m convinced of their guilt. Some things in the confessions were wrong, yes, but enough of it was correct. He said that the shoes he was wearing during the murder weren’t in his possession any longer. He said that he gave them to Buddy Lucas (verified fact). He also said that he broke an Evan Williams bottle by the bridge (verified fact). How do you explain away those things? (seriously, tell me…I’m open minded)

    As for Search Engines…it’s been a few years since porn came up so readily on generic searches. Algorithms & default search settings have been doing a decent job of weeding out such things. If Damien said that he just wandered onto porn, then he’s lying. He typed in something obscene to get there. Why not just admit it? Who cares if he wants to look at porn? He just got out of prison, and just discovered the internet. I’d be more surprised if he DIDN’T look at porn. It’s just a small observation of him lying (again) and he does it all the time.

  46. Demosthenes Says:

    Show me a link to a document proving those things were verified and explain how that implicates him and then we’ll talk some more. Everyone believes what they wish to be true, that’s exactly what you are doing as well. You can’t hold debate an issue without taking a side. While it’s not as common porn does still show up on search engines, not to mention advertisements. Or maybe he did look at a porn site or borrowed a phone from a person who did and managed to navigate back to it. I don’t know and neither do you so don’t be sure about such an open ended statement.

  47. Ted Says:

    @ Demosthenes Misskelley said Echols motioned as if he were having anal sex with one of the victims, he didn’t actually penetrate him. That would explain why there was no evidence they were sodomized. Misskelley also later told investigators he lied about certain details of the crime as part of a ruse to throw them off.

  48. K Says:


    I can’t believe that you don’t know those are verified facts. What all have you read on the callahan site?

    Have you read Jessie’s confession to his own attorney (Stidham)?


    There’s 74 pages there.

    I’ll dig up some more documents for you but you’re going to have to read that first and explain to me why you think this confession isn’t real.

  49. Demosthenes Says:

    I’ve read the Callahan confession documents. I don’t really care if swears on a bible, it doesn’t make those things verified facts. There’s a reason those other confessions weren’t allowed to be used during the trial. His story is inconsistent and to me just sounds made up. He made it sound as if the motive was to rape and then kill those boys and there’s absolutely no evidence of that. The prosecution went with the satanism bullshit because that’s the only way they could make it sound plausible someone like Damien would do it. He’s not a pedophile and he’s not a rapist, regardless how screwed up he is. Also it’s pretty damn obvious the murders didn’t even take place at that site as Misskelley described. I’m sorry but this is the United States of America and the confession of a kid is just not enough to find a person not guilty and that is all the prosecution had. Where was the evidence?

  50. K Says:


    In all his accounts, Jessie makes it clear that he doesn’t know WHAT the motive was. Whether Jason & Damien were peeing in the mouths of these kids or taunting them sexually, Jessie took it as homosexual behavior and was turned completely off by it. If his specifics are vague it’s likely because he didn’t watch with much enthusiasm.

    Want motive?

    Damien was a smart kid being brought up in the Bible belt by crappy parents. With that kind of introduction to religion, not wanting any part of it is completely understandable.

    It appears as if Deanna was going through something similar herself when they met and She had turned to the occult. In his book “Almost Home”, he brags about how he likes to impress Lorri with his knowledge of things she’s interested in, but he never really gets into what he did to impress Deanna.

    Deanna dumps him, Damien finds out she cheated on him and attacks the other guy. Deanna rewards him for his violent behavior by taking him back. They run away, get caught, she dumps him again.

    Here come the shrinks. Damien goes full on dark. FTW, he doesn’t care about anything anymore. Deanna thought she was dark? Ha…Damien trumped her.

    Personally, I don’t think Damien’s as physically violent as people give him credit for. He needs other people for courage. Pretty much a coward for the most part so he needed to be drunk to follow through. Jason & Jessie just got sucked up into Damien’s destructive, depressive state.

    Simple motive….screwed over by love. When that love happens to call herself a “black witch”, well that’s where all this occult crap came from.

  51. Demosthenes Says:

    Deanna has already stated she made most of the information about occult meetings and such up. Damien was always interested in religion he just couldn’t find one he identified with until Wicca and even that was only temporary.

    I was interested in the occult when I was a teenager. I read all kind of Aleister Crowley books and things on witchcraft and the paranormal. Most kids don’t understand a lot of those things are metaphorical and are about inner transformation and changing how you see the world by through ritual. The concept of sacrifice means giving up something that causes you pain to let go of, and that adds a certain emotional importance to whatever ritual you are conducting. Anyway, I don’t think Damien understood any of that, but I still don’t think he has it in him to murder three children on a whim. Misskelley made it sound in those confessions as if there were an older man directing him to do these things, but of course he couldn’t remember the name and the police never found any evidence of an occult ring operating in or near West Memphis. How hard could it be to track something like that down in the bible belt…

    I’ve been in some pretty depressed and destructive places myself and I turned those destructive impulses inward because I don’t have it in me to be a killer or abusive towards other people. Damien had some more serious issues than I did and had some delusional ideas that could potentially lead him to hurt another person. The statements about drinking blood he made are unsettling. However, those types of behaviors don’t match the sort of violence perpetrated on the children. Evidence now says the deaths were caused by blunt for trauma and drowning. Some of the wounds may have been from animals as well, but I’m skeptical about that myself. Either way the murders were ritualized, and in my opinion that’s the only sort of motive Damien could possibly have for something that extreme. I like the way you describe it as a sort of revenge, he did seem like he has something to prove to Deanna and the rest of the world that doesn’t get him. Makes more sense than satanism. But for me it’s just when it comes down to it I need physical evidence and reliable testimony. Damien may be a deceitful slightly unstable human being, but it’s a not enough. I see Jason Baldwin and Misskelley look into the camera and say they didn’t do it and I don’t get the feeling they are like Damien in that way. If the prosecution was so sure these three did it why couldn’t they hold a fair trial? Why are they so scared of getting sued that they’d let them out of prison?

  52. Demosthenes Says:

    Meant to say “weren’t” ritualized on the last post.

  53. K Says:

    Demosthenes –

    They were giving Damien some pretty serious drugs (Imipramine) that I really don’t think he needed. Pot probably would have helped him more than this crazy shit….


    Comes with your standard warning…

    “Call your doctor at once if you have any new or worsening symptoms such as: mood or behavior changes, anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, or if you feel impulsive, irritable, agitated, hostile, aggressive, restless, hyperactive (mentally or physically), more depressed, or have thoughts about suicide or hurting yourself.”

    The drug Tofranil (aka Imipramine) was also mentioned in this document…


    In regards to Chris Byers, it says…

    “Tofranil caused visual hallucinations, and this will not be tried.”

  54. Demosthenes Says:

    Yeh, I read up on that drug after reading those exhibit documents from the mental health clinics he was sent to. Mainly for depression, but they don’t give those kind of drugs to teenagers anymore because those side affects tend to be more prevalent in people under 18. Certainly is possible that it made his delusions worse. I totally understand why he was a suspect. He’s was much more dangerous of a person than the Paradise Lost documentaries let on.

  55. chris Says:

    I just watched “Revelations,” and the emotion shown by Echols during a prison interview soon after he filed the lawsuit against the state for not doing anything to prevent him from being raped “repeatedly” sure seemed genuine.

  56. Sara Says:

    Having read pretty much all of the original police interviews and testimony, it seems clear to me that Damien is innocent.

    However, I do agree with you that he comes across as self conscious and a bit narcissistic. He seems to be someone who likes to be in control of the situation, and someone who like to control the image that he presents to others. I will even agree with you that his style is not dissimilar to that of Ted Bundy’s. But what does that prove?

    I know quite a few people who come across like that, and none of them are murderers.

    While we are focusing on personal style, what about the personal style of Jason Baldwin? To me, Jason’s style is diametrically opposed to Damien’s and seems about as sincere and spontaneous as can be. How do you reconcile that with your seeming ability to detect guilt and innocence by personal demeanor?

  57. Lulu Says:

    Billy i believe you.
    I just finished watching their interview on CNN. I didn’t know anything about this case until today. One look at that Damien Echols, i knew right away he is guilty. I can’t explain it to you but it is a gift i have. Thrice i’ve saved my husband from doing business with fraudsters and had a child molester in my neighbourhood arrested.

  58. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Sara: Jason (nor Misskelly) was not the leader of the pack – that was Echols. It has probably been exceedingly difficult for Baldwin (and more so for Jessie) to reconcile what he did that day and what kind of person he really is. Echols is evil; he is psychopath without a conscience. He is the same person today as he was in 1993 when he orchestrated the murder of those boys. The problem with Jason is that he has hitched his wagon to Echols – he must now remain, and even more so become, this “victim” person Echols has created for him. He parrots what Echols has taught him to say and believe. People who killed for Jim Jones did so with a religious fervor.

  59. Sara Says:

    Look, Damien was initially fingered because his juvenile probation officer didn’t like his demeanor. He was convicted largely because the jury didn’t like his demeanor.

    All this proves : Damien Echols has demeanor issues.

  60. Sara Says:

    Look, Damien was initially fingered because his juvenile probation officer didn’t like his demeanor. He was convicted largely because the jury didn’t like his demeanor.

    All this proves is that Damien Echols has demeanor issues.

    I know a lot of people who have demeanor issues — people who are not completely comfortable in their own skins — people who try to hard to control the image that they project, etc.

    Maybe we should throw out juries and all standards of evidence and simply substitute a panel of demeanor judges.

  61. Sara Says:

    (Billy, could you please delete the first of the two most recent submissions; it shot off before I finished. Thanks.)

  62. Kelly Says:

    @ Lulu, I find it very interesting that you can look at someone and “know” that they’re guilty. Why have trials at all when they can just ask you, without knowing all of the details of the case, whether or not someone is guilty?

    @ Billy, I also find it interesting how you automatically think that they are guilty, and assume anyone who believes in their innocence is “gullible”. Tell me, what evidence do you have that they are guilty? Sure there is Jessie Misskelley’s confession. Did it occur to you that he is mentally handicapped? Or that the police were giving him details of the crime? Does it not strike you as odd that they waited hours to start taping it? Or that it was riddled with error? Being that my sister ismentally handicapped, I am very aware of how impressionable someone like that is. I also find it interesting that you didn’t mention or seem to consider that Christopher Morgan also confessed to this crime, then left for California. There is no hard physical evidence to support that any of these guys are guilty. However, there is evidence implicating someone else. How is it that you don’t suspect Terry Hobbs whatsoever, when a hair matching him was found in the ligature of the rope? It is not the hair of the three convicted, it is not the hair of the victims, the only person they tested that it didn’t rule out is Terry Hobbs. The fingerprint found at the scene did not match any of the three convicted. Furthermore Jason is said to have been with his famiy on the night of the murders, and Damien was on the phone with friends, and had been out with his family, which was confirmed by both the girls he was on the phone with and the family friends that he and his family were visiting! What about the incident at the Bojangles on the night the boys went missing, where a man covered in blood went to the bathroom? One of the boys friends claimed to have seen him talking to a man roughly fitting the description. You mentioned in one of the comments that there is “overwhelming evidence”. Where is it? You said Damien admitted to the crime? Where?

    In my opinion the only thing Damien was guilty of is being a smartass teenager

    I respect that you have your opinion, but I find it highly offensive that you consider anyone believing in their innocence is ignorant, or gullible.

  63. curious Says:

    What do you think of Lorri Davis? Why would such an educated woman connect with Damien Echols??

  64. curious Says:

    question? Could you face a guy that you were responsible for putting away for 18 years bc of lies you have told and he could have faced death… AR would have not ever let those boys out if they had a sred of evidence… They knew they were going to get another trial and be innocient and AR just wanted to put this under the rug… And This was a bad case…. There was no evidence that led them to that 3 boys… they just took their names off a list of paper for a probation officer….

  65. Shannon Says:

    I find it extremely interesting that once truly compelling questions are asked by intelligent, well-informed people on this site about the case, Billy Sinclair goes silent. I wrote a long comment with many questions that I KNOW the non-supporters can’t adequately answer to show WM3 guilt, but of course, the highly informed and prison expert, Billy, again, remains silent.

    Wouldn’t it be easy if we could use “internal lie detectors” like Billy to know if someone is a brutal murderer? Billy likes to say that he uses “sources” for his information, yet outright lies about Jason being “a trouble issue in prison.” This was another article. When the truth was that he only got into trouble playing games on a computer (WHOA what a danger to society!) He says he didn’t mean to get that wrong, but the damage is done, the statement was made and the “source” was very wrong.

    My thoughts on why Jessie would not want to be at any bash (if it was legal) was that maybe he feels guilty for being a big reason he put two innocent guys in prison and almost had one executed. The nons like to keep on beating that ridiculous stinking, dead horse of Jessie’s confessions as “proof they are guilty.” Well, if Jessie was so remorseful and disgusted by these awful child killers, then why didn’t he testify against Jason and Damien? His prison sentence would have been drastically reduced, so why didn’t he do it? You simply cannot explain that away.

    Billy, if you truly think you know for a fact that the WM3 are guilty, you have to have adequate evidence, not your “feeling.” Your excuse about Damien being the ringleader is comical. Jessie said in his “confession” that Jason was the one who did most of the worst brutality on Chris Byers, not Damien. How’s that fit with your assessment? Jason is a good guy, anyone can see that. Even the prison guards wanted him to be released. By your assessment, this “child killer” should have been killed by an inmate, but of course, that didn’t happen once they got to know him. You, like Blink on Crime, are so off on this topic, and you both sound so unprofessional. At least Blink is trying to sound professional with her “maybe the murder weapon.” But she still fails miserably, and doesn’t address the many, many problems with the prosecution’s case, most notably, the hogties.

    If you think you are dead on, then please answer my comment here: http://www.capitalpunishmentbook.com/?p=638&cpage=1#comment-5596
    I would very much like to see your answer. Thank you.

  66. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Shannon: It is not an open discussion about the WM3 you desire. You simply want an audience before which you can sling your criticisms at those who do not accept the innocence of the WM3 as you do. I am not an “expert” on the WM3 case, but I have read a significant amount about the case and have watched several television interviews with them. The one thing that is crystal clear from any objective analysis of the public record is that Damien Echols is a career liar. But be that as it may, all the proof I needed to form an opinion of guilt was their own guilty pleas, albeit “Alford pleas.” Before the court will accept an Alford plea, the defendant must concede that the judge has enough credible evidence before him that would probably result in a gulty verdict at trial. And there was, by their own admission, credible evidence of guilt. But I do respect your belief in their innocence and your right to establish a pro WM3 website to promote their innocence. Billy Sinclair

  67. Shannon Says:

    Thank you, sir, for responding, I appreciate that very much. You know, I didn’t really find myself a “supporter” until recently, and certainly not from the documentaries, which I hadn’t seen. You are wrong that I do not want an open discussion about the case, however. I am not an easily duped “liberal” who just wants an audience. I truly want reasonable answers for the questions I brought up on the other page. Believe me, if these three men are guilty, I would detest them. I have a gorgeous 9-year-old boy and I can’t imagine the horror those parents experienced. I just feel that the responsible thing to do is to look at the physical evidence that we do have and see where that leads. I want a non to convince me. They may not succeed, but you have to have your reasons, and you can’t cherry pick evidence either.

    About the Alford plea, yeah that sucked, IMO. You have to concede though, that there have only been a handful of those offered to anyone and the State of Arkansas did not have to offer it at all. The reason they did, was because there was a very good chance the three would be found not guilty (this from Scott Ellington-sp?). The state wanted to save money and avoid being sued. I think the reason the three took the plea was because this was a sure thing, a new trial was not. I could never know what kind of feeling that would be and again, Jason didn’t want to do it.

    Thank you, again sir, for taking the time to read this. I want you to know that I am no fool. I have a degree in Psychology and extensive background in family development. I am not duped easily, but I have worked with many families like those that the three came from, and I know what kind of teens extreme poverty, access to drugs and abuse can churn out. This doesn’t give law enforcement the right to “create” killers that have nothing to do with the evidence. The crime scene needs to lead to the killer(s), in this case, it did not. Thanks for your time.

  68. Thomas R. Says:

    Shannon – Mr Sinclair writes “before the court will accept an Alford plea, the defendant must concede that the judge has enough credible evidence before him that would probably result in a gulty verdict at trial. And there was, by their own admission, credible evidence of guilt.”

    I have to admit that I have not followed this case nor made an effort to examine any evidence or lack of, but reading your theory that the state offered this Alford plea because there was a chance these WM3 would be found not guilty just kills your argument. Consider that the three had a very competent attorney and themselves were not dummies. If chances existed that they would be found not guilty based on whatever lack of physical evidence you claim was not there, they would most certainly tell the state’s attorney to take that Alford plea and shove it.

    Any one of us (you included), would reject the Alfordf plea and go ahead with trial knowing there was a very good chance of not being found guilty based on lack of evidence. WM3 realized that there was enough credible evidence supporting their participation in the crime, for them to ultimately take the Alford plea and avoid trial.

    Death row inmates in general take every opportunity to argue and plead actual innocence. WM3 did not have a leg to stand on, knew it, and took advantage of the only reasonable option out of this predicament.

  69. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Shannon: I understand how someone with your background would want to believe in the innocence of the WM3. No one really wants to believe that three troubled teenagers could kill those three boys in the manner their bodies were found. But if not the WM3, then who? The Mr. Bojanles theory does not fly. The suscipion against John Byers, Christopher’s father, did not stand up under scrutiny. Many WM3 supporters point to Terry Hobbs, Stevie’s stepfather, as the real killer because a strand of his hair was found at the crime scene, but so was a strand of David Jacoby’s hair. To accept Hobbs as the killer, you must accept that he and Jacoby did the murders together. These two men really didn’t know each other–they merely worked together. Do you believe that these two could keep that secret for nearly two decades? Why would they even kill the three boys? This was Damien’s crime – the WM3 came upon those innocent kids, and Damien instigated Baldwin into the killings. Stupid Jessie would join anything. During the span of his teenage life, Damien wanted to be the center of attraction, a famous person, if you wlll. The murder of the three boys, which began as a spur of the moment thing, provided that ticket to fame once it became clear how big the story was, and would become. Damien got his wish – he became famous and he wallows in it. And, at the end of the day, when Damien’ lawyers worked the Alford plea deal (and they are the ones who proposed the deal, and I don’t know any attorney who would advise an innocent client to enter an Alford plea), Damien jumped at the deal because he truly believed that “fame and glory” awaited him in the free world. The story is dying, the light of Damien’s fame receding–and Damien is thoroughly incapable of accepting a normal anonymous life in freedom. I don’t know if he wll commit another crime, but he will never have a successful life in freedom.

  70. Shannon Says:

    Thank you, Thomas and Billy for your very thoughtful and respectful responses, I appreciate your kindness. :) You are totally right about the Alford plea being presented by the attorneys to the prosecutor. Thank you for correcting me.

    Billy, thank you for outlining your beliefs, I really wanted to see where you were coming from. Honestly, I don’t know who did this crime. BTW, it is “Mr. Bojangles” like in the song, and I doubt this guy was involved. The Hobbs and Jacoby DNA is very interesting. I find it interesting that Hobb’s hair was found in the ligature on the Moore child. However, if that is all the new evidence the defense had, then its no wonder they went for the Alford plea. It is very compelling though, that again, DNA is found from another party, not the WM3. I am also wondering just how Hobb’s hair survived a violent pull from the shoe, a whipping around action of the hogtie to finally rest in Moore’s ligature. Interesting, to say the least. My biggest concerns are the HOGTIES (which are specifically for moving a lifeless corpse) and the fact that there is very little physical evidence and DNA linking the 3 to the scene. I find both of these things highly compelling. Most of the evidence supports the boys being killed elsewhere and moved there (via hogties). I haven’t the professional expertise to evaluate the luminol properly (info rec’d from Blink on Crime), but I believe most of the trace blood was found where the bodies were placed after being removed from the water. There is evidence of blood along a trail and other areas not explained by the placement of the bodies. Blink believes this all points to an attack, and that this area is the crime scene. I am not so sure. The hillside trail could have been the entryway for the killer carrying the boys (dripping blood) and the areas that are concentrated blood, could have been areas where the boys were placed while the clothes were being wrapped on sticks and prepared for immersion (this could explain the concentration of blood by a stick pile (dripping blood from the clothes.) These are just my thoughts. I do not think the luminol found significant blood splatter (as would happen if the boys were struck by fists and sticks). Not a smoking gun on either side of the fence, IMO.

    Finally, about good ol’ Damien. I don’t think Damien is a wonderful person, but I am just not won over regarding your belief that he was “out to become infamous” and thought that brutally murdering three little boys would be a great way to do that. In order to be famous for this, he would have to be caught and convicted. Uh, why would he want that? Why would he want to go to prison, or get the death penalty? He had a girlfriend at the time who was pregnant. In fact, I don’t think he ever had difficulty getting a gal. I just don’t know any girl who would be impressed by the father of her baby being a baby killer. I think he likes the attention, no doubt, but I don’t see even the most disturbed teen taking this horrifying route to “infamy.” And again, the crime scene did not lead to the killer, it didn’t!! Don’t you think that Damien would have left just a wee bit of evidence of this presence if he wanted to get caught? I am just not convinced of this theory, Billy.

    See, I can have a decent discussion about the case and evidence. I truly am interested in the truth whatever that may be. Thanks again for reading!:)

  71. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Shannon: There has been a total of seven suspects in the murder of the three boys: WM3, Mr. Bojangles, John Byers, Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby. The WM3 defense team, the WM3 themselves, and WM3 supporters eliminated all the suspects except for Terry Hobbs who has been consistently tagged as the real killer. But, as I said, to link Hobbs to the murders, you must also link Jacoby. That scenario does not survive serious scrutiny. That brings us back to the WM3, and, in particular, Damien Echols. Jason or Jessie would not have committed such a horrific crime on their own or together. There had to be an instigator, a ringleader. The killings, I believe, were a spur of the moment decision to be evil or mean. Damien did not set out to kill the boys to be “famous.” He just wanted to do something that was “shocking”–he was engaged in pre-murder behavior that indicated as much. His claim to fame occurred only after he saw the impact the crimes had on West Memphis. He wanted to take “credit” as the person responsible. During his initial interview with the police, he divulged information that Christopher’s body had more damage than the other two. He made several pre-arrest admissions and/or statements about having participated in the crime. He attributes the motive for making these admissions/statements as “goofing off.” Who would “goof off” about such an horrific crime. Not even a “troubled” teenager would do such a thing. He continued to “goof off” throughout the trial as he said. I know prisoners and crimes. An innocent person, particularly a teenager charged with the brutal murder of three boys, would not behave in a way that flaunted his alleged involvement in the crime at the community. Damien loved the publicity the trial brought. For the first time in his life, he was truly “important.” At the end of the day, all each of us have is our opinions, our gut feelings (which are generally based on experience and our own logic). That’s what drives many jurors, despite the evidence, or lack thereof. I have examined the public record about the pre-arrest and post-arrest behavior of the WM3, particularly Damien. It is primarily this behavior, and the Alford pleas, which convinced me of their guilt.

  72. Shannon Says:

    One last thing, and I won’t trouble you anymore on this. I realize you have your gut feeling, but it is a gut feeling based on Damien’s personality, illness, and previous activities prior to the murder that makes you go with guilty. This all makes sense to me, as a jury has to size up a defendant, however, it has to fit the crime scene as well. In my experience, I have seen troubled youths make outrageous statements that you would think they would believe to be out of line, but it is done to further “create” this character they have developed. I don’t know if Damien was doing that, but I can see it. I could see him wanting the community to believe it was him that did the murders, because as you say, he was delighted to get the attention and promote his “evil character.” I grew up during about the same time Damien did, and I knew exactly the type of guy he was, the difference is that there weren’t any murders where I was from.

    I wanted to address your statement that you believe that Damien had personal knowledge about “Chris Byers body having more damage than than the other two.” From everything I read, Damien did not know anything more than what was in the papers at the time. I got this from jivepuppi.com (this may be a pro site, I googled and it came up, I think it is a pro site, but the article probably does exist) Although not presented at trial, Echols may have been referring to this news article. From the May 7, 1993 issue of the West Memphis Evening Times: “Byers, father of Christopher Byers, said Gitchell told him one youth had been hit above the eye, a second’s jaw was injured, and the third ‘was worse than that.'”

    What I am getting at is that there were three sets of parents who were told stuff by police and news broadcasts reporting plenty of info. During the Ridge interview, Damien was not tape recorded, so Ridge could have written down his statements incorrectly. Who knows? I like the police, but the WMPD were desperate to catch a child killer, you have to know that. They didn’t take enough time to properly investigate, they didn’t canvass the neighborhood to see who the kids talked to before they ended up in the woods.

    Before, you said it wasn’t likely for Hobbs to have the time to kill the boys, since they were being searched for, but what about the WM3? They had to have known the boys were being looked for once it became dark out. Do you really think they would have been comfy brutally murdering three boys in a place the boys were known to play at? What about the lack of mosquito bites on the boys’ bodies? What about the road rash, and the rebar-like abrasion? And again, the HOGTIES. Please, if you can tell me why hogties were used on these boys to restrain them, I would love to hear it. Had the WM3 ever been known to hogtie anything?

    What I am getting at is that you can have your gut feeling about the WM3, but your gut doesn’t line up with the physical evidence in this case, and that is why my gut tells me they are innocent. Thanks again for your time.

  73. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Shannon: About the hogtie issue, the boys were naked, hogtied and dumped into a creek. The medical examiner said he could not determine if they had been sexually abused. As a paralegal, I have encountered numerous sexual assault of a child cases in which there was no medical “evidence” of sexual abuse. My point is this: one or more of those boys were sodomized by one or more of their attackers. Two of the boys were alive when they were dumped, hogtied, into the creek. They were hogtied with their own shoelaces–almost indisputable evidence that more than one killer was involved. One killer could not have stripped, hogtied, and dumped the two boys alive in the creek. People in the legal community understand that sexual assault, particularly sodomy, does not always leave physical evidence. As for Damien knowing about how Christopher was more abused than the others, he gave this information to Detective Bryn Ridge when he was questioned before arrest. At trial he testified that he had “read” it in one of the newspaper accounts of the crime. The prosecution on cross quickly refuted Echols’ newspaper account by introducing all the newspaper accounts before he was arrested. There was nothing in those accounts about Christopher’s body. Detective Ridge testified that nothing about the condition of Christopher’s body had been released to the media. Echols lied, and he was caught in that lie on the witness stand. How would someone being questioned about the murders know one of the victims had been more brutalized than the others, unless he was there? Why would anyone speculate about such a thing? The incriminating evidence provided by Detective Ridge, which has never been undermined, is more than my “gut feeling.” In cases where there is an absence of eyewitness or physical evidence, an accumulation of circumstanial evidence can provide a basis for a “gut feeling” of guilt.

  74. Shannon Says:

    Oh, gosh, Billy, I need to respond again (I love debates, can ya tell?:)) Touche on the hogtying. They might not have been hogtied for moving purposes. One or more could have been sexually molested, true, I agree with this. I don’t think it is indisputable that the hogtie evidence reveals that more than one killer is involved though. I think it is possible that they knew their attacker and were afraid of him or felt he was an authority figure. You know how kids are. None of them would think an adult they knew were going kill them. Quickly, this would change though. A single attacker could easily deal with three kids who are knocked out (the autopsy reports all showed skull fractures). I read the autopsies and interestingly, they all had skull fractures at the base of the skulls. You would think that the WM3 would have been hitting them from the front or side. Remember, this was a thrill kill, so there really is no enjoyment from quickly knocking them out. Someone who wants to quickly immobilize the children in order to move them to the creek would do so with some weapon to the back of the head while they are helplessly hogtied. Now, this doesn’t exonerate the three, but it does bring up more points. Obviously, they could have done that last after all the awful torture, but what I am getting at is, another suspect or suspects could have also.

    Regarding the Chris Byers statement supposedly made by Echols. I went to Callahan site and read both of the detectives notes, because, like I said, I am only interested in the truth (if he really said Chris, that would be something). Ok, in the notes, Damien never says Chris. He says this (from Ridge notes): WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHAT HE HAD HEARD ABOUT HOW THE MURDERS HAD OCCURRED HE STATED THAT THEY PROBABLY DIED OF MUTILATION. HE STATED THAT HE HEARD THAT SOME GUY HAD CUT THEM UP. HE HEARD THAT THEY WERE PLACED IN THE WATER AND THAT THEY MAY HAVE DROWNED. HE STATED THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT HE HAD HEARD HE BELIEVED THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE BOYS HAD BEEN CUT UP. HE STATED THAT ONE OF THE BOYS MAY HAVE BEEN CUT MORE THAN THE OTHERS.
    Sorry about the caps, it is transcribed in caps. Anyway, this statement pretty much matches up with the statement that Mark Byers made in the paper. Here is the link to that page in paper: http://callahan.8k.com/images/eveningtimes/may7thpagetwo.jpg

    So, basically, the prosecution embellished the report by saying that Damien said “Chris Byers” when he was just parroting what was in the paper. I don’t know how the judge allowed this into the trial. He could read that the notes never said a name at all (both detectives notes never had a name of any boy), so if this was allowed into trial, it was prejudicial and just plain wrong. If you can find that I am wrong, and Damien did say a boy’s name, please correct me.

    Everyone read that article I am sure, and you just KNOW everyone was talking about it and what Mark Byers said, plus anyone who knows this case knows that Mark can’t shut up. If Mark knew that one boy was mutilated more than the other two, then I’ll bet most of the community knew that too.

    I want to thank you for not just depositing me into the “nutter pile.” I am a firm believer in facts backing up statements. I agree that circumstantial evidence is sometimes all you’ve got, but you better be damn sure you have the right person if you are going to send someone to their death. I believe Casey Anthony is as guilty as sin and just about all that evidence was circumstantial. Sadly, the jury didn’t see it that way (although I think they just wanted to go home, which is a terrible thing to say, but I think it is true.) Thanks again!

  75. Jemma Says:

    Echols is guilty.
    Jason is guilty.
    Jessie is guilty
    All attention is on Echols and his likelyhood to reoffend and I think he will, but
    Jason is just as evil & creepy. He is just quieter about it. He looks like a geek and people ignore how dangerous he is. Please remember he bragged about drinking Chris’ blood. He was so passive during the trial. He worships Damien I believe they are homosexual lovers.

  76. hunter Says:

    I think Mark Byers killed them. I think he’s tried to railroad authorites and anyone who will listen. I also feel that once dna was discovered he became spooked thinking that if evidence was found from another person it could potentially lead to the discovery of additional evidence, that would link him to the crimes. Luckily for him, this hasn’t happened.

    As of yet. I think Byers is a sociopathic pedophile. I really think its him.

  77. Sheldon Says:

    Wow you people are dumb and Jemma don’t profile like a 12 year old girl, read books and take classes on psychology if you want to sound credible.morons!

  78. Doe Says:

    So basiclly your gut and suspicions trumps all scientific evidence? Sounds like someone has a huge ego.

    Like Robert Anton Wilson once said, “what the the thinker thinks the prover proves”. In other words you had your bias going into this and then will find whatever way you can to prove yourself right regardless of the actual facts.

  79. eric Says:

    first of all you’ve obviously never been in the alienated teen category growing up, but i was and its very easy for me to see a teenager who hates all the ignorant dumb citizens of his town that goofing off meant scaring them, shocking them, pissing them off as much as they do you…. Secondly you must have as low an iq as misskelly to see the situation as you do… they are innocent and free

  80. eric Says:

    it is soo easy to see where damien was coming with ALL HIS STATEMENTS before and after the whole circus… He knew he didnt do it and was young. He thought in his head that the justice system wouldnt ever convict him of this because he knew he didnt do it. He was an eighteen year old who thought there was no way the united states justice system would fail soo hard, but hey if all your employers fire you because of your ignorance im sure west memphis would love to have you as a prosecutor…

  81. farrah Says:

    I completely agree with Jemma and Billy sinclair, its so frustrating that they have all these supporters brainwashing them that they are the victims. Damien will do something evil again. He is twisted and evil and Jason would do whatever it took to impress Damien. Including 18years in jail. Bet they are having a good laugh now, but they wont have the last.

  82. AB Says:

    I have worked for the Arkansas Department of Corrections and I have to say that your right. Echols is a liar. There is no possible way that he was raped on death row either by inmates or Correctional officers. First of all it would not have been hard to prove, there are CCTV cameras so unless everyone in the Prison was in on it they could not have raped him and gotten rid of the recorded footage which is not saved on just a simple VHS tape but onto a DVR multiplexer that not just anyone in the prison has access to.

  83. Patrique Roman Says:

    So, you are able to detect whether one is honest or not so honest just by glaring into his or her eyes in a photo? Whether or not Echols was raped in prison, or whether or not he is a technophone head or not, has zero to do with guilt or innocence. If the entire West Memphis AK justice system dropped the ball and could not catch the actual a hole that took the lives of those 3 scouts back in May 1993. It was the same garbage from those such as yourself that convicted the 3 teens back in 1994. Take a good hard look at yourself and your own levlels of honesty before you thrust judgment upon others you do not know nor will you ever get to know! Good Luck with that…….

  84. Ginger Says:

    This “essay” is a joke. The West Memphis Three are NOT guilty of murder. The State of Arkansas should be embarrassed by the miscarriage of justice. Not only were three innocent boys murdered, but three innocent teens were wrongly incarcerated for the murders. There is absolutely NO evidence that Echols, Baldwin, or Misskelly committed this crime. A confession by Misskelly, who has mental retardation and an IQ of 72, was garnered after 12 hours of being forced to confess. Isn’t it interesting that only the last 45 minutes of this forced confession was taped? What about the other 11 hours and 15 minutes of the conversation in which he declared his innocence and begged to be returned home to his father?

    Experts, including FBI profilers, all agree that the West Memphis Three did NOT commit this crime. Anyone that disagrees and continues to besmirch their names is obtuse and ridiculous. And you are helping to further prevent justice for the little boys that were murdered.

  85. Adam Says:

    I hate to say this, but I honestly believe the reason Echols is free is because we live in a society full of people who enjoy child abuse. My gut feeling tells me he did it, because he shows no emotion regarding the death of the boys and seems highly preoccupied on himself. I think this kind of behavior gained him some fame among people who would take pleasure in torturing and murdering children. Everyone should know that there are many people in the world who have interests in human child sacrifice/torture and blend in with society as normal or even famous people. They have big parties where they rape, abuse, and murder children. The way the kid brushed his hair in the video, that to me looked like he was secretly proud of his crime and showing off. Maybe he was hiding his feelings because he was scared. I don’t have any proof that he did those things, so I cannot say for sure.

    THE STRANGEST THING is how so many people came to his aid, when it seemed SO likely that he did it. Why would the -so called- handicapped guy make a bogus confession like that? He didn’t seem handicapped to me beyond a speech impediment. I think the guy who made the confession was telling the truth, or telling part of the truth mixed with lies.

    It breaks my heart that so many people think these guys are innocent – what about the children who died?

  86. Charles Says:

    It’s possible to be a liar, self-centered, to revel in notoriety, all these things mentioned, and yet not be a murderer.

  87. eliza Says:

    bill are you a lawyer, a policeman and phycitarist and expert on murders or john douglas from the fbi …..no so i would shut up about things you dont know dna doesnt lie neither do facts…… i was there im with the fbi and believe me they didnt do it..

  88. joe Says:

    Sadly, most people, including the WM3 supporters here, just don`t get the
    resourcefulness of the psychopath. I`ve known a number of them (though
    most people will never even meet one), and I can tell you from experience,
    that they can hoodwink entire nations, as we may all observe by simply
    picking up a history book. Google ‘Matthew Hardman’. You`ll see some
    interesting similarities. He too was a gifted artist and consummate liar.
    He too denies his murderous actions to this day.

  89. Keese Says:

    “The problem was he kept basing his “cry for innocence” on the inconsistencies in the state’s case, not about how he could not have committed the crime or his willingness to undergo any truth-seeking examination to prove his innocence.”

    Except that he has repeatedly stated he could not have done it, but more often submitted to many tests — DNA, mostly, but as soon as bite marks were spotted on those children, all three submitted dental impressions (none of the three matched). You don’t have to like the guy and can speculate all day on his words and demeanor, but you lose credibility when you omit actual facts.

  90. Keese Says:

    Like someone else had said, I want someone who does not support the WM3 to give me a critical argument for guilt, and that just cannot conclude the Misskelley confession (which, by the way, could only get better in detail the more he was exposed to the details) because he confessed and recanted too many times. To use it, you have to choose when to believe him and when not to believe him, and you have to overlook the glaring inconsistencies with known facts. His first confession, he said those boys were killed while everyone was in school. That kid lies. He is a demonstrable liar. Second, a critical argument cannot include a highly subjectable assessment of Echol’s demeanor. He may well be a complete jerk, but tell me you can see his guilt by looking at him, and I will expect you to be running around with a pillow case tied around your neck staring people down with your “magic eyes”! Come on, man! Give me something real.


    […] That’s the suggestion Reese gave me recently concerning one of my previous posts about Damien Echols and the West Memphis Three […]

  92. mstby Says:

    I think Damien Echols is a narcissist and a cunning and deceitful manipulator. Everything is about him his poor living conditions while in prison, his poor health, his lack of exercise, his lack of seeing sunlight and more. While I agree that living on death row is most likely not conducive to maintaining a healthy lifestyle, those on death row at least are alive, something their victims are not. Why do prisoners feel that they are so deprived of basic things? Their victims are dead and gone, never to see the sun rise or set, never to feel the comfort of a loved ones hug or touch, never to eat meal again, never able to experience the joy of a wedding or the birth of their own child. Yet Damien married, he got contact visits and is now free to experience life
    I do not understand how anyone can read the exhibit 500 and think for a moment that he was a misguided teen experiencing teen angst and this was just a phase. If you are a parent that has a daughter and she brought home her new boyfriend that had the same record as in Damien’s exhibit 500, could you honestly say you would be fine with this? Supporters will say the exhibit 500 is a lie. How do they explain away that Damien wrote he was a sociopath and homicidal on his application for SS disability benefits? Was he coerced into this? Was he joking or doing what it took to bring in money? If so, then that is fraud.
    While supporters yell that the three could not have done the crime as there was no DNA evidence found, one should realize that the lack of DNA does not mean one is innocent. Good DNA material is available in only one in five felony cases:] and often there is not enough DNA for a sample, or it is old or contaminated. And it is not necessarily proof of guilt or innocence. You can commit vicious crimes without leaving physical evidence behind.
    I think Damien Echols is a ticking time bomb and time will only tell. I question the fund that is asking for donations, the one that his wife runs/started. Has anyone been able to obtain a report of where that money goes and to whom? I have read that Peter Jackson has paid most of the fees associated with this.
    “Hollywood director Peter Jackson announced last week he secretly bankrolled much of the investigation — one insider says defense costs might reach $10 million through direct expenditures and in-kind contributions — attacking the state’s case from virtually every angle. They challenged forensic findings and witness statements, uncovered new witnesses and even pointed a finger at a new suspect.” taken from http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/aug/28/hollywood-directed-defense-of-three/?print=1
    so donations are supposed to pay back some rich film maker? Peter Jackson is a New Zealand-born director, writer, and producer with an estimated net worth of $315 million dollars.
    Does anyone find it odd that Damien and Jason jet set to far away places, enjoy a trip to Disney world, while Jessie struggles to find $300 bucks to get his electricity turned on? Or maybe Jessie is a lot smarter than the claims of the borderline mental retardation and is playing people for donations? Is Jason and Damien employed? Was this not one of the stipulations of the Alford deal?

    While I agree that the PL films are very convincing, so is Al Gore and his theory of global warming, which another documentary film challenging his claims will convince you the other way. Documentaries are biased and made to convince you to believe their point of view.

    I digress…post is Damien’s lying eyes. How do supporters explain away the exhibit 500 without some doubt? How do you accept he received SS disability benefits without thinking he was truthful or not, and if joking not understand this is fraud?

  93. Keese Says:

    Mtsby, I’m not a “supporter” so I don’t speak for anyone else or accept anyone speaking for me. So, I will answer your question from my own thought and say Exhibit 500 does not prove Echols was guilty of killing those children. It is really that simple. There were known child sex offenders in the area – doesn’t automatically mean any of them were guilty of *that* crime, either.

    Also, “documentaries” are not one-sided. The Paradise Lost films were “docu-dramas.” Just saying.

  94. mstby Says:

    sorry Keese…did not mean that the Exhibit 500 makes him guilty….but it does make him a person of interest , My point, which obviously was not very clear, was about the psychiatric problems that Damien had before these murders took place and how people, mainly supporters, easily dismiss these problems as if it was teenager thing. He can not outgrow these problems and his behaviors exhibited during the trial were bizarre to say the least. I do not buy his response that he thought it was a dream or something and thought it (trial) would go away. I am bothered by his deception and manipulation and have a hard time understanding why people just dismiss this. While having mental issues, being deceitful, cunning and manipulative, does not make one a murderer, it does impeach their credibility.

    There are many unanswered questions concerning this case, many most will never get the answer to as well.
    A quick copy and paste of docu drama……”Even when well-researched, a docudrama is only one presentation of events, and it is important to remember that there may be other interpretations and that many filmmakers are guilty of sins of omission, leading people to erroneous conclusions by not providing them with all of the facts.”

  95. Jessica Cole Says:

    Billy – Just wanted to say LOVE YOUR WORK!

    It is such a relief to find something concerning Damien Echols that doesnt have tones of “I want to fuck you” beaming out from between the words.


  96. Keese Says:


    You left the definition of a docudrama but no comment on it, so I am uncertain if you understand we are on the same page with that. In your previous comment you called Paradise Lost a “documentary.” I was trying to point out that it was clearly drawing a conclusion for viewers and was therefore a “docudrama.” I’m big on credibility; that distinction is a peeve. ;)

    I imagine exhibit 500 is dimissed for a few reasons. For some, it just doesn’t look good. For others, there is a cognitive disconnect. For others still, there is a real discomfort with the idea that the stupid things they said and did as teenagers can shape the perception of their character with such a catastropic result – and for those people, Exhibit 500 is no more or less notes on a “troubled” teen peppered with presumptions/assumptions made by adults. On that note, you would have to be more specific on what you think a person (Echols, here) can/cannot “grow out of.” My personal thought: I bet the majority of “supporters” AND “non-supporters” haven’t read it. For *me,* Exhibit 500 is purely circumstantial. I could accept that he is a complete jerk, a walking fruit loop, and not guilty of this crime. His behavior during the trial is less revelant to me. One could argue Exhibit 500 could have dictated odd behavior, or one could take the statement Echols made that he did not take a possible conviction seriously because he was innocent as the explanation. Regardless, I’m not a fan of armchair behavioral analysis. It’s weak.

  97. mstby Says:


    A quick copy and paste of docu drama……”Even when well-researched, a docudrama is only one presentation of events, and it is important to remember that there may be other interpretations and that many filmmakers are guilty of sins of omission, leading people to erroneous conclusions by not providing them with all of the facts.”

    Copy and paste of documentary: doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)
    1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
    2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
    n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
    A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

    I think the story was made with the “idea” that it was a documentary, hence “factual” , but was more of a “docudrama”. I read online that people that see these PL films come away with a steadfast conviction that the three are innocent. I am attempting to “find” evidence that support this innocence.

    First off let me state this is the third time I have viewed the PL 1st film. Today being the 3rd time and taking some notes. Scribbled at that and hard to follow.

    What I noticed is a scene where there is a board of white sheets to make statements. (shortly after opening statements) This was at 17:08 …it shows Dan Stidman pointing to the board and it says B) False story , he talks and at 17:20 the white board shows C) WHY?, but we do not get to hear everything from the first board B) to C) in those 12 seconds. I would have liked to see the whole scene on this with questions and answers. But it is left out, leaving one to draw their own conclusions.

    At approx 82 minutes in, Jason Baldwin is shown and he is asked, “If you could speak to the families of the kids who think you did it, what would you say to them?” Jason , fidgets, shakes his head and after what seems like “forever”, but is only about approx. 40 seconds, says “I don;t know” Forgive me for being judgmental, but my statement would have been, I didn’t do it. Whether showing remorse or sympathy, I would have stated I did not do it.

    The Byers step dad is shown in a damning way. His Jesus rant in the ditch. Later in the film he is shown at the trials in a more subdued way, almost IMO a drug induced state. Later it shows a dialogue where he is asked about a brain tumor, which he responds that he has one. This could explain his “erratic” behavior. Point being made is the 1st film attempts to throw suspicion that he is the perpetrator. I must admit, they do a good job at this.

    Back to the first part of the film, they show Pam Hobbs, in a damning way…..her in the red dress, excited about being on TV and cursing the three. Personally think , scenes were cut/spliced/or made to “make their statement” they fail miserable at the way grief is handled. Not everyone handles grief in the same way. IMO, Pam Hobbs and Mark Byers in this movie, had scenes or talk taken out of context.

    There is another scene where a detective is questioned about DNA and he states he “lost” the DNA.

    Later in the film, Damien is questioned about the Crowley (sp) books. He seems to falter under questioning and his testimony of the secret alphabet. While I feel , we are shown some things, some things are left out. Not supporting him. But In would have liked to see more.

    Then there is a scene that keeps panning back to Damien, where he is combing his hair with this mirror on a stick. I forgot to write down the time of the film.

    After the trial, i what I would call the ending…..there a scene with Damien approx 147 min, Damien says that he knew he would be famous, something about he would be known as the West Memphis Bogeyman.

    So IMO to state that that this film “proves” they are innocent and they were wrongfully convicted, I did not see this. I saw mistakes, many mistakes but most importantly I had more questions than answers and my questions were geared more towards the three and the claim of their innocence. ( or lack of response and their actions depicted in the film)

    I believe that actions speaks louder than words and IMO I saw actions that made me wonder about the three……what was being withheld from these films.

    I, like many others, wold like to believe that teens are incapable of committing these crimes, other crimes such as Columbine show that teens are capable.

    As for the exhibit 500, Echols exhibits/was diagnosed with personality disorders/issues in his teens. Yes, teens like to be shock jocks, but his issues are far deeper than the shock jock. He will not outgrow these issues….one can only hope that with proper medication and help. he can keep his disorder in check.

  98. julie Says:

    Wow ,some of these people can just look at someone and can tell whether they are guilty. These people should be cloned and brought into court rooms throughout the world, where they can just point to someone and say Guilty or Not Guilty, sure would save lots of $$$$ and time. Can’t believe some of the things I just read.LOL

  99. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Life in the Balance: The Billy Wayne Sinclair Story, A Journey from Murder to Redemption Inside America’s Worst Prison System. Re-released in hardback in March 2012 and now available on your Kindle in less than a minute. The New York Times Book Review called it a “numbing tale of crime, punishment, and redemption.”

  100. Angel Says:

    damien has fooled everyone. well actually not everyone cause many people do still think he is guilty. supporters will look at his past mental history and brush it off simply because it doesnt help their cause. the supporters jumped on the bandwagon after celebrity numbskulls all contributed to the cause. the hbo crockumentaries were terribly misleading. they didnt show it all such as that coward echols blowing kisses to the victims families. i side with supporters on one thing the lack of evidence. so if there is no evidence the wm3 did it why is there no evidence someone else did it? he has contradicted himself many times. calling john mark byers the strangest creature on two legs and that he should be in jail for killing those 3 innocent boys but now thhat john mark byers is on his side he gladly welcomes him and says he really appreciates him. wow what a lame hypocrite. those 3 die hard supporters in the documentaries were out to get three killers out of jail and years later they got it. it is evident to me that the dolt head no brained blonde kathy bakken wanted something with him. one day someone out there will crack again and the supporters will be red faced then. but knowing them they will make up excuses yet again to defend that bipolar killer echols. face it people everyone of those supporters jumped the bandwagon

  101. wend brandon Says:

    Psychopathic liars are brilliant, addictive, and dangerous. I have a person I love dearly who has this defect of character. I no longer have contact with this person. When I did, I had to run a tape in my head simultaneously when he spoke that said, “everything is a lie, remember everything is a lie…” Everything that came out of his mouth was a lie and he made it believable…Thankfully this person is surrounded by loving family that make sure he receives the psychiatric supervision and care he requires.

    That really has nothing to do w/ the case, but I just feel I had to write it.

  102. Sean Says:

    Billy , I will be honest with you . I read what you typed , I saw that it was posted at the TOP of a google search when typing in “Damien Echols today ” I read all of what you typed and then also read alot of the responses . I scroll down and then walla – there is Billy Sinclair advertising his pathetic story of himself stirring the pot of damien echols to advertise and publicize himself for attention on the dime of thought of whether or not Damien Echols is guilty . He lied about visiting a porn site so he definitely had to have killed those boys . Pathetic . I think the guy is definitely going to be looking at some porn and I dont blame him to be quite honest and if he lies to cover it up , well you have about 90% of the population where wives dont approve of it . Please Billy , your right – you are 100% entitled to post any opinion you would like and my opinion as also deserves to be posted is that you sir are a moron and pathetic in strategy to push yourself into a prison lime light . Here’s what I have to say to all of you , ( my opinion ) the reason why they are all 3 out is because there by far wasnt not only enough hard direct evidence in the case but not even one person could prove that the boys knew the little kids , were ever seen with them , had any motive to kill them and there was no evidence of a weapon used linked to them . A confession coarsed through hours and hours of info feeding to coarse it and of course Damiens stupid kid mentality of his stupid evil crap he was glamming around as a punk kid is what got them in sitting in prison for many years . Everyone is able to con , manipulate – whatever – its not a CON that cons – everyone cons so drop the ego analyzing ya got there and just accept the truth . We con as kids to get our way from our parents , we learn what to say so that people will believe us . SO WHAT . They arent in jail because theres no where near enough evidence to put them there . Plain and simple . Its about justice , law and court proceedings little Billy , not your moronic star wars use the force mentality of calling out a manipulative liar . If my wife didnt want me looking at porn then I would have to lie about it if I got busted by her . once again , so what . BUT my girl likes porn too so no worries there ….lol. :)~~~ now go share your story billy boy , tell them all about your poor me prison time ok there little buddy ?

  103. Sean Says:

    one other thing . I dont believe that Damien is innocent or guilty . I have my doubts but I also have alot more reason to believe he is innocent , however if I were a juror then I would want to go into any murder trial not suspecting a persons guilt or innocence but I would rather rely on the state prosecutor and witnesses evidence as well as the defense’s evidence of innocence to make my decision for me . A guilty verdict would have to be triggered by FAR more than has ever been dug up on this case with the west memphis three . Terry Hobbs on the other hand and the evidence against him is definitely stronger where there is DNA involved with the rope used to tie up the boys , a motive – words spoken even by Mr. Hobbs saying he wish the son was out of the picture , a neighbor witnessing that they saw Terry Nichols with the boys about 10 minutes prior to their deaths and no alibi for Terry Hobbs as to his whereabouts of the time of the murder as well as the words he spoke to someone during the search party for the little boy scouts . That by FAR is much more court quality evidence than 3 punk kids with a chip on their shoulder , listening to heavy metal music and drawing evil pictures with once again a coached confession for HOURS to where it was documented that over and over Misskelley didnt even get it right each time .

  104. Sean Says:

    Terry Hobbs’ nephew, Michael Hobbs Jr., allegedly told his friends “my uncle Terry murdered those three little boys,” according to declarations under penalty of perjury recently given to Damien Echols’ defense team. The three new witnesses were polygraphed about what they stated Michael Hobbs, Jr. told them.

    “One day Michael picked us up in his truck. He was very quiet and upset. Michael then said to us, ‘you are not going to believe what my dad told me today. My Uncle Terry murdered the three little boys.’ According to Michael, his dad called this ‘The Hobbs Family Secret’ and he asked us to keep it a secret and not tell anyone.”

    Another witness stated, “One night last winter, Michael and I were playing pool in his basement when the third friend asked about the West Memphis Three case which had been in the news. Michael responded by saying, ‘My uncle killed three kids in West Memphis.’ Michael was dead serious when he said this.”

    * * *

    A third witness stated that he was at Michael Hobbs Jr’s home in 2003 or 2004 when he was told by Hobbs Jr. that the two of them could not go down to the basement to play pool because Michael Hobbs Sr. was down there having a conversation with Hobbs Jr.’s uncle. The witness said that he “ listened with Michael Jr. at the top of the stairs. I heard two men talking. One appeared to be very upset even crying and he said ‘I am sorry, I regret it.’ The other man was trying to console him and said, ‘You are in the clear, no one thinks you are a suspect, those guys are already in prison.’”

  105. Sean Says:

    oh and above is now witnesses ( including his own family ) that declares he did it . – Sorry to go on about this but I have always wondered why are people so willing to just point the finger and want to keep the WM3 in jail or wish they were back in jail but they arent willing to look at this as much more stronger evidence ? We live in a weird society – thats for sure .


    Oh – and here is another bit of witness info from his own family that the cops knew of but blew off –

    After the murders my sister Jo Lynn McCauhey and I found in Terry’s nightstand a knife that Stevie carried with him constantly and which I had believed was with him when he died. It was a pocket knife that my father had given to Stevie, and Stevie loved that knife. I had been shocked that the police did not find it with Stevie when they found his body. I had always assumed that my son’s murderer had taken the knife during the crime. I could not believe it was in Terry’s things. He had never told me that he had it.

    Also, my sister Jo Lynn told me that she saw Terry wash clothes, bed linens and curtains from Stevie’s room at an odd time around the time of the murders.

  106. damien Says:

    They didn’t use the confession. That’s one of the major focal points, a juror knew about and pushed the confession, even though it wasn’t used in the baldwin/echols trail.

  107. damien Says:

    You reak of desire. You aren’t important and it bothers you. You’ve found a market and you are gonna sell your wares. They are free, Maybe that boy is and was crazy but that doesn’t make him guilty. Someday you’ll be in a horrible situation with few choices, then maybe you’ll have empathy. there is no way on god’s green earth anyone will know the full story, but using the evidence at hand its fairly clear that day by day the WM3 are getting closer to freedom in their collective souls.

  108. Brandon Roney Says:

    A couple of troubling things…. One… Echols did fail a polygraph … So did Baldwin… Two… none have ever declared that they wanted to take another one which bothers me because as we all know polygraphs are very reliable. Two … Baldwin and Echols could not prove their alibi stories at the time of their arrest and convictions. Three… Echols statements to the detectives during his many interviews with them were extremely troubling to anyone who reads the transcripts. Four …. Echols blew kisses at the victims families while being escorted out of the courtroom during his trial. What innocent man does this? Why not take a polygraph now to prove to us all he is truly innocent. If it were me… I would do this so everyone would know I was innocent. But after 18 yrs. there is still no physical evidence, no witnesses and the only DNA is consistent with two other suspects, notice the consistent part, it is mitochondrial DNA and is not an exact match with Mr. Hobbs… infact it is consistent with about ten percent of the population, far from concrete evidence of the wm3 innocence. But fair is fair, if they got a n ew trial today then they certainly would not be convicted, nor should they be. You must have evidence to convict and in their case there was little to none. The Misskelly confession was not reliable or consistent with the facts of the case. I beg of the wm3 that if they want the public to believe in them to take another polygraph test for all the world to see on Dr. Phil or Oprah, given by an expert examiner. Polys are about 99 percent correct, that would prove it to me.

  109. guilty? Says:

    i totally agree with everything you say……ive been following this for 7 years now and all my hope is THAT THEY ARE innocent but all the video and reenactments seem to faultier
    I’m really against myself at this point i hope i didn’t wish them free and that they should be dead like the scouts…………… its not our position to judge…..tHAT is for GOD to judge, not us. whether or not we find out the truth….. one day they will meet their maker(JESUS CHRIST our lord and savior) Justice will be served
    for all of you out there questioning your own path…we would love to have you on our side…..open a bible or find someone with one and if you can’t find someone well there is that thing called the INTERNET(not sure if you have heard of it) lol but look up john 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. please do understand that there is ALWAYS time GOD BLESS and if you need guidance please feel free to email me at jskalniak@yahoo.com

  110. Gibbons Says:

    Wow Billy you must really find something else to do with your time since Damien and the others are now free.

  111. Amy Says:

    Jessie Misskelley has an IQ of 72, he is mentally retarded. I was at a screening of west of memphis last night that damien attended. He did a q&a afterwards. He has no bad feelins towards Jessie whatsoever. He blaims the police for their interrogation on Jessie, a kid at the time. Jessie has not coped well since being released and apparently does not leave his house nor interact with anybody. He is a lost soul, corrupted to the highest degree by the police.

    If you want to find out who is guilty of these horrible crimes take a look at Terry Hobbs.


    […] of killing those helpless boys. Last September I posted a piece on this website about Echols’s “Lying Eyes.” And I honestly thought that his false claim about being “raped” on death row could not be […]

  113. UndisclosedbeczEcholsISaWITCH Says:

    I have studied this case, and believe with all of my heart that Echols was the mastermind of this; he got power by controlling Jason and Jessee–and more so the three precious boys that were not only brutally murdered–but no one should ever have to endure the horror they did. May they rest in peace.
    I see that Echols’ is a self centered narcisist and he “believes he is innocent” because he believes he has super powers and has the right to do such an act. He has never once spoken of any compassion or empathy regarding these precious babies. He has only spoken of his horror of no light in prison, etc.
    He never once has denied his doing this or that he could do this.
    Jason Baldwin refused an early release or his own plea bargain because he was and still is a follower of Echols.

    I also don’t believe the state of Arkansas would let the real killers go just to make a spectacle of a kid who dressed different, they put a lot of work into this case.
    Echols, I believe will eventually have to fade away because with his extreme narcisism he has not the ability to use his “suffering” as a way to help others, or to give back. He is a rock star now and he loves every bit of it..

    “he also says he has no angry feelings for being charged unjustly” he says this because he knows its true….
    that he did this and he wants to forget it.

  114. Dominique Says:

    I am so glad to know that there are still people on this country who use their fucking brain. When I hear Damien Echols speak, it all sounds like bullshit. I’m honestly disappointed in celebrities like Johnny Depp, etc. who are taken in by his lying. I’m genuinely amazed. I wish the West Memphis PD hadn’t so severely botched that case. I believe in my hearts of hearts that Damien Echols had everything to do with the deaths of those poor little boys and if the WMPD had properly executed their jobs I wouldn’t have to live in this world knowing a person like that is walking free, and with very powerful support no less. It disgusts me.

  115. Teena Dugan Says:

    I agree with you, Mr. Sinclair. But I think everyone needs to just take a breath, sit back and wait. This guy will eventually show his true colors to his wife, and she’ll go on t.v. and “tell all”. I can’t stand to watch the court footage of Damien sitting in his chair, all kicked back, that smug look on his face. Granted, at that age, he had no concept of “LIFE IN PRISON”. But for SURE, if he had an ounce of empathy, he could have appreciated the gravity of 3 dead little boys, their parents openly weeping in court. The situation called for a silent, respectful demeanor.

    This guy is a psycopath. Whether or not he committed the crime, I can’t say from the evidence. But I think some day Johnny Depp will feel REALLY STUPID.

  116. Patrick Says:

    Thanks for publishing this, Billy, and comments by Brad. Very useful to understand how psychopaths lie, why they lie, and what they hope to achieve by doing so.

    From the comments it appears that most of the wm3 supporters are young, naive women. Seems that Damien’s looks have something to do with this, you don’t see hordes of groupies for Jessie or Jason. They probably like a good looking “bad boy”. It does make me sick.

    I guess it goes to show that a sucker is born every minute, this comments section is proof of that.

  117. felicia Says:

    I dont know, you seem to be reaching on a few points.

    1)I havehad porn pop up a time or two on my phone, especially if i have recently previously visited a porn site. It happens. Also in his quote he doesnt really say he didnt click on anything to get him to the porn site. I took it more as him exclaiming how easy it was to one minute be doing one thing, next is porn.

    2) Misskelly not attenting the after party celebration– whoop de do! they guy is practicually retarded and socially awkward as hell. Who the hell knows why he didnt go and who cares. Guy doesnt strike me at all like the schmoozing with Hollywood type and he doesnt seem to have gotten any smarter over the years. The other two seemed to handle prison a little better and seem to have come out the other end more evolved.

    I have no opinion on whether or not Echols is guilty. But this article read liked bias silliness from the first word. Reaching!

  118. Billy Sinclair Says:

    FELICIA: Talk about reaching! Your assessment of Misskelly, without any first hand knowledge of the guy, is reaching. I believe (and this just another belief) that the whole Misskelly-being-retarded thing is a Wm3 supporter thing to undermine the credibility of his confessions. And, Felicia, blogging is almost always biased, one way or the other. I confess to my bias against the WM3 and their supporters. As for reaching, beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder. My far reaching belief, based on my own life experience and analysis, is that Damien Echols is pathological liar. You have every right to believe that my belief is silly. I respect that. Thank you for your input.

  119. A smart person Says:

    Billy, you’re a horrible human being without any logic. You’re all fucking idiots if you believe this assholes “opinion” on the WM3. Clearly, terry Hobbs is behind this asshole’s writings. Keep telling yourself they are guilty. it will NEVER be true!! It’s people like you and the corrupt lawyers and judges in this case that make the world suck!! You are no better than person who straps a bomb to themselves and takes innocent lives. You suck at life!! Take a lap asshole!!

  120. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Ms. Smart Person: Such a brainy-wack, you are. Nature certainly took the lion’s share of intelligence and gave it to you. “Here’s your sign.” Hell, if you try hard enough, you could land a position as the p.r. person for the WM3, and that would put you all in the same nut basket.

  121. Pearlyhart Says:

    WELL WRITTEN!! VERy well written!

    Your article is a sort of a poetic justice as well. I feel they fear that they are on borrowd time, and as long as they can deny it, they can avoid looking at it in a legal setting. Jesse wont speak about it, I am sure his family have told him to forget it and let it lay.

    I believe that Echols’ focuses on the evidence because he does not want to talk about the actual act, it’s too much to look at, and for some odd reason, he is maybe even regretful of the way it makes him look. He’s a dichotomy if I ever saw one; part of him wants to be the innocent poor victim, and part of him wants tthe glory of getting over on the system

    Well written article, thank you, I agree

  122. Scott Says:

    I have probably put more time than i should reading anything i could find on this case since i saw the PL docudrama films a number of years back.

    Most thinking people will dismiss observations like “i can see it in his eyes ” and “lied about surfing porn”. However “Damien is innocent” tunnel vision is getting way out of control with the ever growing army of lazy uninformed supporters.
    I would advise people who have not researched the case THOROUGHLY that they are best to remain undecided.

    You will not be researching the case by reading Damian’s book or Johny Depps speeches..

    At the very least…
    Listen to the available AUDIO of the Jessie M confessions (armed with a map of the area and the crime scene) Follow it up with John Foglemans closing statement. Read all of the confessions that don’t have audio also. Download it onto your ipod/phone and go for a walk. Concentrate. Try to stay unbiased.

    If you have done that at least twice, and still believe its a false coerced series of confessions, and you are reasonably intelligent and stable (be honest)! Then you are likely swimming with Egyptian fish.

    a) in de Nile.

  123. Tammie Says:

    This is the dumbest shit I have ever read.

  124. Ben Says:

    Brilliant! A breath of fresh air to know you’re out there. I agree with you 100%. It’s only a matter of time before one of them cracks and so many people will walk away, red-faced. Sad, sad saga when you consider that more people care about 3 miscreants than about 3 brutally murdered 8 year olds. Defies logic to say the least. Such is the world we live in. Oh, well. Continued success to you, Sir.

  125. mara Says:

    I use to think people playing armchair qb was the most obnoxious thing, but I was wrong, people playing armchair detective is worst.

  126. Billy Sinclair Says:

    MARA: What do you think “public discourse” is? You clearly have no objection to WM3 discourse so long as it is touting the innocence of WM3. I don’t think they are. And I put my “armchair detective” qb in the arena of public debate. Thank you for your input.

  127. AURA Says:



  128. Henry Says:

    /I just finished watching their interview on CNN. I didn’t know anything about this case until today. One look at that Damien Echols, i knew right away he is guilty. I can’t explain it to you but it is a gift i have./

    Reading some of these comment would be comical if the situation was not so sad. I simply have no idea of guilt or innocence without DNA. Now years after the crime there is DNA testing which does not link any of the three to the crime. I doubt the perpetrator(s) of this crime could not have left the scene DNA free. so therefore I have to believe in their innocence. I believe this would not be the first time a mistake have been made within the American justice system.

  129. lista gratis sutton Says:

    Woah this weblog is great i like reading your posts. Stay up the great paintings! You recognize, many people are looking around for this information, you could aid them greatly.

  130. Fed up Says:

    It will only be a matter of time before he strikes again. Did anybody see his tweets about the Holly Father…. It’s Wiccan ….. I thought he had no beliefs in that. Not saying every Wiccan is a murderer but you would think in that mans situation he could show a little respect to those murdered little boys and not make comments like that. Maybe this time one of his victims could be a celebrity… Then see what they think justice should be hypocrites …. Such morons

  131. Fed up Says:

    Holly king …. Sorry…. Not great w my paganism

  132. Fed up Says:

    Come on people… You don’t think that is his wink and nod … I pulled one over on these idiots lol

  133. Stu Says:

    This is pretty bad.

    Are you basing your opinion entirely on the CBS special or did you actually do research on this case?

    I agree that Damien acted like and continues to sorta act like a jackass, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of that crime.

    There is literally no direct evidence linking him to it. You think a couple of teens could pull that off?

    And Jessie Misskelly’s confession clearly cannot be taken with a grain of salt. He could have reduced his sentence dramatically had he offered to testify against the other two, but he didn’t. Can you imagine interrogating a 9 year old (his IQ at the time) for a period extending over 8 hours? They’re likely to say “anything” to get out of that situation. Granted what he said was baffling and horrifyingly implicating, this confession alone cannot be seen as valid evidence of their guilt.

  134. MyssiD Says:

    I have followed this case since it occured. I just read “Life After Death” and Damien and Lorri make “moonwater” and drink it….that is Wiccan as hell!! I also saw on Amazon.com where you can purchase an autographed picture of Damien for 195.00. I think I will have to pass on that and reserve my money for Kindle purchases.

    Personally, I cannot decide guilty or not guilty. There are compelling arguments on both sides. I cannot begin to imagine what it is like to be in prison for 18 years. I am sure it is horrid beyond my knowledge.

    My question is, in regard to the Alford plea, what implicating evidence does the State have? Are they saying the evidence already presented is damning in itself, or is there other evidence that was not available or brought forth earlier?

  135. God Says:

    To all the haters and ppl saying bad things abt Damien- your opinions are like your arsehole- they both fucking stink

  136. Hyena Says:

    Isn’t saying “you can tell Damien’s lying by just looking at his eyes” a lot like what happened when the WM3 were convicted? “Of course they’re guilty…just *look* at them…they’re weird!” And as far as Echols and Baldwin not being buddy-buddy with Jessie now, I think has more to do with the fact that they were never really friends in the first place, before the murders happened, and less to do with Jessie “snitching” on them.

    For the record, I’m not on either side of this case…I’m just a true crime buff who finds this kind of stuff interesting. BUT … since I was a misfit in school because I didn’t march to the same drum as everybody else, I take huge offense to people who says things like, “of course he/she is guilty/lying/gay/whatever-the-case-may-be … just *look* at them.” How would you people like it to be labelled as something you’re not just because someone else thought you “looked like” that specific thing?

  137. Hyena Says:

    One more quick comment. The person signed in as guilty?, this website is for discussing the WM3 case, not for you to get free advertising for Christianity and to preach it! It really upsets me when Christians like you take advantage of things like this to spout your beliefs. Only TWO of your sentences were about the case and the whole rest of your paragraph was about God and the bible.

    We’re here to intelligently discuss a criminal case, not religion. When I want to be preached to, I’ll go to church! Billy, this site is obviously moderated and you approve each post before it’s published here, so could you *please* edit out the bible-thumper crap? You created this website for discussion of the WM3 case, not to give people like guilty? a free forum to cram their religious views down your readers’ throats. Thank you!

  138. William Ramsey Says:

    If you are interested in Damien Echols and his interest in the occult, see my new book Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders. Also, I have a few new articles at my website: http://occult911.wordpress.com

    William Ramsey

  139. Adrian Says:

    The Alford plea was conditional on not sueing the state of Tennessee. I agree with the first poster. You need to get a life. Thank god the wrongfully accused in Canada get compensated for their imprisonment. Look up “David Milgaard” on search engines. It completely reminds me of WM3. Incompetent ignorant police and a total asshole prosecuting attorney for the crown.

  140. Jesse Kieffer Says:

    Wow, I would like to see you spend 18 years on deathrow then have your “post prison” essence be scrutinized by some pompous, judgemental prick Who posted some obscure and biased article on the web for the world to see. You sit in your office typing away assuming to be some authority on prison life and psychology when you dont have the slightest idea what he’s been through. So I would say yeah get a life.

  141. Dina Says:

    Mr. Sinclair,
    Thank you for this post. I have been interested in the case for a very long time. I am still not certain who is guilty and who is not. One thing truly confuses me: why is there no physical evidence? I mean, if — as you say — the killings were “spur of the moment’ and commited by these 3 inexperienced teenagers, don’t you think it is fantastic that there is no physical evidence (even a foot print) that links any of the 3 of them to this crime?

  142. Mary Says:

    The reason Misskelley wasn’t at the party is that one of the conditions of his release is that he can’t associate with Echols or Baldwin. Echols and Baldwin are only allowed to associate with each other with special permission.

  143. Edwards Says:

    Obviously Mary you haven’t read Echols book, or the statements from Baldwin. Let me fill you in Echols is mad at Baldwin and Miskelley for making the movie Devil’s Knot he says so in his book, try reading it, Jason responded to his book, whinning that he tried to help make Echols look good, it actually doesn;t matter because if Echols says hes innocent supporters will get down on there knees and worship the child muderer. Maybe Mary you should read his sisters book, and a few weeks ago his mother made a statement she loves her son but she is done with him, him and Lorri have gone out of their way to lie about them, poor Pam waiting in a wheel chair for that creep to get out of prison and he didn’t even acknowledge her presence, what did she do to him, I read the lies in the book that his grandmother raised him I knew that was a lie because the whole family moved in with the grandmother because she lost her leg. And where does Echols get off saying the 500 hundred were a bunch of papers. The 500 hundred were medical documents that Echols signed to be released to the public, read them Damien is a psychopath he doesn’t care about anyone except himself. Once his celeb standing fades away and the fool has to get a real job, Damien is not going to be able to handle this. You see Damien thinks hes above everyone else. Soon his celeb friends will get tired of paying his bills and they will see him for what he really is. Then beware,because that is when Damien will become dangerous. Take a look at Miskelley, a few weeks ago Susie Brewer his finance and her kids got the shit beat out of them by Jessie, if this wasn’t posted on the Wm3 discussion nobody would have know but she posted and said she is through with him, I guess she got a little irritated because they were living off of food Vouchers and Echols was living like a king. She wanted Jessie to do something, but Jessie is probably the smartest one, since Susie left him hes back with his dad and working with him. He wants no part of Echols and his celeb friends, can’t say I blame him home many times can you listen to his story, now hes going on about the guards and how he was beaten, funny thing I watched all his interviews and never seen a mark us his icky white skin. Yes Echols is the murderer, and soon he will go down for something and I hope it’s not murder, hes not talented, he can’t write his new book was Almost Home with a few other things thrown in. He claims he wants to write, whats he going to write about since his book wasn’t a best seller, life with a middle age women. He lied to his mother, his sister and to Lorri. The end is coming for him, people are getting sick of him and the same old shit, take a look at Salem Message board, they don’t want him in Salem. Mary you don’t know a thing.

  144. Victoria Says:

    I just saw “West of Memphis” and was prepared to believe that the men were innocent after I’d seen the movie.

    But I left the movie angered at the way the director tried to manipulate us. I didn’t know until i searched the internet about Echols’ prior criminal record and psychiatric hospitalizations. The story is a whole lot messier than what is up on screen.

    I believe Echols is a master manipulator of the highest order and he really lucked out when Lorri Davis got in touch with him. It was she who basically got him out of prison – every convict’s dream.

    I fear for their future and their marriage. Echols does not seem like a good person.

  145. Crossball Says:

    Again, why did Terry Hobbs say he didn’t see the boys that day. I am so sick of reading peoples “interpretations” of humans here. Someone tell me why Hobbs denied this.

  146. mate naoto Says:

    i think Echols more genius than osama bin laden

  147. Lisa Says:

    I’m surprised at how many people think he is guilty , ill be honest I was a huge supporter of the WM3 but after reading some things and seeing paradise lost 3 where they used footage of Melissa Myers knowing full well she died years ago makes me angry at the way the filmmakers/ HBO manipulated the whole thing to make them look innocent bet they could have done the same with Manson , Ramirez etc etc

  148. distantobserver Says:

    The very notion of “I looked into his eyes and was convinced he was evil” always provokes two reactions in me.

    First, just like “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”, one could say “evil is in the eyes of the beholder” – and I would add that (just IMHO) there is something seriously wrong with the “beholders” who see evil everywhere.

    Second, I am SERIOUSLY WORRIED about any justice system that takes this “gut feeling” seriously as a piece of evidence. I am equally PROFOUNDLY suspicious of any forum where this kind of gut feeling is taken as a serious argument..

    This “gut feeling” prompted many commentators to say in August 2011 that they would be shocked if Echols and Davis were still together in a few months. Well, it is now February 2013 and they are still together. Has the commentator returned to the site and apologized – of course not! People spouting this kind of hatred are anonymous and do not take ANY responsibility for their statements, however outrageous.

    But there is the far more serious issue that has to do with the core of the American justice system: this kind of “gut feeling” should not EVER to acquire the status of evidence. EVER. Not just in this case. Yet it did in this case (where it was practically THE ONLY piece of evidence) and it keeps dong it all the time. I am no groupie of Echols (though I do like Lorri Davis a lot, and I definitely like Jason Baldwin) but whatever feelings I have about him do not qualify as evidence – not by a long a long shot! We are all biased in our feelings and there is No scientific evidence, and I mean NONE, for the notion that the gut feelings are ever reliable.They are so influenced by subjective factors, e.g. what a person regards as “normal behavior ” (all studies have shown that this varies enormously), that they should be banned from any court proceedings, let alone capital crime proceedings. If they are not, we are ALL subject to possible convictions – there is always somebody who feels we have not grieved enough or have grieved too much, and that they have looked into our eyes and saw a) no soul and b) pure evil. This is Middle Ages! These things have happened to normal middle-class educated suspects who have signed a forced conviction – so it could really be you and me.

  149. distantobserver Says:

    Billy Sinclairi -this is where I get mean – but I have ample excuse for it from your own articles and posts. The following MIGHT sound as an ad hominem attack but so what? I am so thoroughly disgusted with your posing as an “expert”, with no grounds whatsoever other than having been on Death Row yourself, that I just do not care any more. So this is a post I have long wanted to make, and your latest contribution was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    So here you have a person who was convicted on FAR more reliable evidence than the WM3. And one who avoided death only because for a short period of time those “bleeding-heart liberals” had their way Is he grateful – no, not by any means. He has made a career of his “first-hand knowledge” of capital criminals. First-hand knowledge actually meaning an “enhanced” knowledge of capital criminals and an ability to spot “evil” in their eyes. Basically meaning nothing.

    So Billy, you are only ALIVE because of “bleeding-heat liberals” like me would either like to abolish capital punishment altogether or think that the “gut-feeling” – “i looked into his eyes and saw no soul” (that is word for word from what the prosecutor of the Damien Echols – Jason Baldwin trial said in court) is just plain wrong or unreliable, and certainly not admissible as evidence?

    I am becoming personal here, but I feel this is justified: what is your motivation? Envy that WM3 got out far earlier than you? Envy that not one of them acquired the status of a jailhouse-snitch? I agree that perhaps you acted out of the noblest of motives, but you were regarded as a snitch, whereas Jason Baldwin, although admitted as a “child-killer” and treated accordingly, actually won the respect of his fellow-inmates as well as the guards? And was never a snitch.

    Echols did not have that chance: he was a different personality and spent most of his time in solitary confinement. Yet he did not become a snitch either (nor did Jessie, for that matter).

    Or is it just greed/ambition? You have set yourself up as an “expert” on prison affairs (I can understand, this is the only positive way we can use your years of uncontested sentence), so you have to prove your are really an “expert”? This is also the credentials behind your book. (I may be wrong, but Damien’s book was far more successful than yours and actually earned very high praise from John Grisham?) So you MUST re-establish yourself as an expert?

    And back from the ad hominem part: NOBODY in their right mind would ever accuse Jason Baldwin of the crime. You know full well that he even refused to take the Alford plea for several weeks. Nobody has ever seriously believed that Jessie Miskelley, with his IQ of 72, would have hidden the children’s clothing the way it was hidden, stuck with the help or poles inside the ditch.

    So what you have – and what you have always stuck to – is the “warped” personality of Damien. Jason would NEVER obey his friend, even his best friend, to the point of killing young boys – or drinking blood from their penis. Not one of the “gut-feeling” people have dared to claim this for Jason. But clearly Damien, however “demonic” and “manipulative” your gut-feeling declares him to be – could not have overpowered the three kids on their own. So if you insist on his guilt, you would have to find other accomplices. Remember that all the original WM3 had alibis independent of one another, i.e. they were not together at the time of the murders. The reason the murder has been able to be presented at all as Damien’s work has been this “gut-feeling” about Damien. Nobody has had similar gut-feelings about Jessie, and DEFINITELY not Jason. So who, according to your warped scenario, were the REAL accomplices of Damien?

  150. Crossball Says:

    Damn, Distantobserver that post was far from that, that was upclose and personal.
    I enjoyed your conviction. Can I ask you this? with all your knowledge about the crime who do you SUSPECT (Safarin, notice I use this word) is the culprit?

  151. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Distant Observer – you are right – you are such a distant observer as to be totally irrelevant. I don’t mind that you got personal – my life’s an open book, out there for observation and analysis by individuals like you. I’m a big boy who can handle “sticks and stones.” But I do resent the “snitch” bit – I exposed the largest pardons selling scam in Louisiana history. I wear it as a badge of honor. Only a moron with a criminal value system would call exposing corruption “snitching.” Your values are no different than some convict goon on the Big Yard – and speaking of goons, I survived 40 years among the prison’s worst. I suspect you would last about five minutes before one of those goons would have you washing his clothes and dressing like his former wife. So have a good day, and if you can get your head out of Damien Echols’s ass for a few minutes, you might see a little sunshine.

  152. Crossball Says:

    uh, Billy I think she was simply saying, in a somewhat direct manner, don’t judge a book by its cover in reference to Lying Eyes.
    I will also like to add, as where I enjoyed her conviction, I am equally intrigued by yours.

  153. Gil Says:

    Being a seasoned con (grew up in reformatories and prison), I watched the first film with interest and could easily see how the filmmakers were manipulating and covering up evidence in the film to con viewers into sympathizing with Echols.

    Read the case of Edgar Smith who conned even the brilliant William Buckley into believing he was innocent, and the latter helped get him off death row. And, of course, Smith went on to attempt another murder, but fortunately was caught before the woman was killed.

    It’s amazing, he gullibility involved when filmmakers aid and abet for their own interest in self-promotion and career development.

  154. JP Says:

    99% of these comments are such crap. It boggles my mind. For a few minutes, I got all heated up thinking about my witty retorts, but soon found myself just skimming the rest in this OCD, “I have to read them all” manner. They became just more and more absurd. Opinions are fine, but stop denying FACTS under the guise of having a different opinion. And for Pete’s sake, IF YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO SPELL SOMETHING, LOOK IT UP! If I have to read “psyco”, “pyscho” or my favorite, “phycitarist” (WTF?!) one more time, I’m going to stab myself. Half of you can blame it on Damien Echols and the other half on Terry Hobbs. There won’t be any evidence either way, but Damien does have those “lying eyes”.

  155. zap Says:


    “One loss came from Jason’s attorney right away. The cornerstone of his defense strategy from the outset was to make me look guilty. His plan was to dump the weight of the entire case on me and say that Jason had been sucked into the situation only because of his proximity to me.
    To accomplish this goal, the attorney lied to Lorri and me. He asked us to talk to a mitigator, who he believed could be helpful; in capital murder cases, a mitigator comes in after conviction and works to lessen the sentence—ideally to eliminate a death sentence. We agreed. I spent a day talking to a woman who wove together a mental health report that came to be known as Exhibit 500. In it she claimed I was schizophrenic, bipolar, and suicidal, and suffered from extreme hallucinations, and anything else you could think of. To this day that report is still cited as the most damning piece of evidence against me. The woman who wrote it couldn’t even testify in court because she’d already said in the past that she had lied on the witness stand in another case. To circumvent that little problem, she simply had another person file her report on me. That person’s name is on that report to this day. Events like this honed Lorri’s skills, sharpened her claws, and turned her into the warrior she became. Without her strength and drive, I would have been dead long ago.”

    Utterly absurd and completely transparent fabrication by Echols

    This Exhibited was presented post facto when the trial was OVER in order to provide mitigating circumstances to keep Echols off death row…….another of Echols absurd whoppers, that are trivial to prove as lies……

    Damien’s double talk in the above really takes the cake for chutzpah.

  156. Kristin Says:

    Just found your website in an attempt to find criticism of Echols other than that at wm3truth.com — a good resource but not especially useful to a journalist who can’t really get away with using anonymous sources. Plus, I haven’t found reintroducing court records to a general public that has already made up its mind is very effective. I just wish I could find credible sources willing to speak on the record.

    As a lifelong activist against the death penalty and someone who has worked in mitigation, I am predisposed to believe narratives about wrongly accused people. I could tell you about several people in my home state who have spent decades in prison, only to be exonerated by DNA evidence introduced by the Innocence Project.
    But I got chills the first time I ever heard Damien interviewed, and then every time after that. It was very obvious to me that he was a genius at manipulating the media — and that he was a dangerous person. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone with such dead eyes before. I am convinced that Damien made up that story about becoming unused to light in prison and needing sunglasses when he appeared on The View because he knows others have looked in his eyes and seen what I see. It’s not very scientific, and it’s nothing I could ever include in a legitimate news story, but over the years I’ve learned to trust my instincts about who is and who is not dangerous.

    So I read all of the records, and I especially poured over the psych records produced by the defense team during the sentencing trial. I’ve prepared similar psychiatric histories for capital cases. His profile perfectly matches the psychological profile of a murderous psychopath, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he went through a goth phase. Nor do I see evidence that his alleged involvement in some sort of “Satanic cult” was a preoccupation of the prosecution — more that it was drummed up by the media. Sometimes violent people will take up certain kinds of rhetoric — like that attributed to involvement in “Satan worship” — to make people fear them. It’s not about Satan worship or wearing black clothes. Most goth kids were never bad kids, but people like Echols have appropriated the rhetoric of goth culture to command respect and fear. That’s what Echols did. It’s not a supernatural explanation. It’s not a case of backwoods overly Christian rednecks jumping on the “Satanic panic” bandwagon. It’s just an explanation of who Echols was — or is — and what motivated his behavior. In the midst of a “Satanic panic,” you could use “Satanic” rhetoric if you wanted to intimidate people.

    I will believe these three are guilty until the day I die. I want to reintroduce this story in the media in a way that will make people question the dominant narrative, but quite frankly…? I don’t know an effective way to do that. Without people willing to provide new on-record information, the public has made its decision and no amount of “okay, but please go back and read these court records, and note these details…” helps. I’ve tried that. One thing, though? White celebrities like Depp will never, ever identify with wrongly convicted people of color who really have been victims of the justice system. Take the case of another documentary, “The Trials of Darryl Hunt” — Darryl Hunt was exonerated from North Carolina’s death row by DNA evidence after many years… Peter Jackson didn’t give produce the movie about him. It’s only been screened in North Carolina, and it will never be shown on say, HBO.

    Damien Echols is a talented manipulator, and he’s got two things Darryl Hunt did not: He’s white and relatively young. Of course they turned him into a superstar.

  157. Billy Sinclair Says:

    Kristin: I suggest you contact Jessie Misskelly. He is the key that unlocks the hidden vaults in this case. He provided the police with very specific information in his confessions that only the killer would know. Supporters claim the police fed him this information. I don’t buy that. Had the police gave him information, they would have clarified some of the inconsistencies in his statements. None of the defendants can be retried because of double jeopardy. Misskelly hasn’t profited from the fame and celebrity of the case as Echols has. That’s a burr under his saddle. Appeal to his sense of community; the need to serve the public good. Nothing ventured, no gained, as they say.

  158. s.g. Says:

    Look……Damien is caught on video saying he was not familiar with the crime scene…..yet he lived once just meters from it in an apartment.
    Caught in a blatant Lie !!!
    I read and heard Jessie’s numerous confessions, even to his own lawyer. There is a reason he’s not hanging out with Damien doing the interview rounds.
    Damien looks like a rockstar enjoying all this attention.
    Let’s not forget these simple facts:
    He lied about his alibi. None of the 3 guys had an alibi.
    He flunked a lie detector test. So did Jessie.
    Fibers found on the victims were consistant with clothing from both Damien & Jason.
    The smoking gun was Damien’s necklace which contained DNA from 1 of the victims but it was not introduced into evidence because it came too late in the trial.
    These are all documented facts.
    Don’t take my word for it. The confession , lie detector results and court documents are available to the public.

  159. Erica Stenkrona Says:

    @kristin: interesting post. I remember reading on one of the message boards (can’t think of which one) an account by a supporter who started to write to Jessie Misskelley while he was in prison. I don’t remember all the details but she believed in the innocence of the WM3 and wanted to help. However, the mail exchange with Jessie made her change her mind and she stopped writing to him because his letters made her feel uncomfortable and if I’m not mistaken she became convinced of their guilt.

    I think you should contact Jessie. I’m not even an American and I have no connection to this case and I’m not a journalist but I’ve toyed with the idea to go to wherever he lives now, knock on his door and ask him to tell me what happened.

    Maybe he would speak to you.

  160. Karl Says:

    @kristin I agree with what you said regarding court documents, however i believe they are invaluable at the very least in casting some serious doubts on the supporters repeated claims.

    Im sure your already aware but all the documents are here: http://callahan.8k.com/

    A poster going by the name of ‘jos3ph’ provides an excellent summary of whats contained, you can find that here:
    At the very least might be a quick reference to find potential ppl to interview?

    Im surprised hardly any ‘journalists’ has called Echols out on his bullshit and his constant lies. ie having his teeth broken/smashed by the constant bashings etc etc.

  161. Karl Says:

    interview with MyFox Memphis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEtbjm2uHI&feature=youtu.be&t=11m14s

  162. Malena Says:

    Echols definitely strikes me as a manipulative sociopath, now, that’s a different thing to go and actually say that he did commit the murders. I guess it’s like you say, only Misskelley knows the truth.

  163. dfh Says:

    This is long winded and I apologize.

    I preface this with the fact my mind is made up, if you are a supporter reading this good for you, but I will not debate this with you. Besides, at this point, the killers are walking free, so you “win”. But just because “everyone else agrees with you” doesn’t make any of you right. It just makes you of the same opinion, kinda like the nazi’s in germany were of the same opinion as each other.

    Moving along to my point:

    I don’t know how anyone can read Jesse Misskelly’s multiple confessions and come away with the opinion that these three are innocent. He describes the death struggle of one of the victims in such a way that no 17 yr old (at the time of the crime) with a supposedly questionable i.q. (70 = very high end mental disability, highest score you can get to receive services from the state – Jesse was 72 to 74 until coached) would know had he not seen it happen. He admits to lying about some details (rope/shoestrings) to “trick” the cops. He also lied to lessen his own involvement, as confessors to crimes do.

    On the subject of Jesse Misskelly and his supposed low iq, a score of 70 on a credible i.q. test would mean he is eligible to receive state and federal services due to intellectual disability. Again, his actual scores before coaching were 72 and 74, which is why he was not receiving services. If he could have gotten a check, trust me, he would have.

    This is my line of work and I can tell you if you don’t believe intellectually/developmentally delayed adults who are only borderline low i.q. can’t be violent, you are wrong. We have behavior support plans for some service recipients due to their extremely violent outbursts.

    If you don’t believe they have inappropriate behaviors in the presence of children, you are also wrong. Many of them are strictly prohibited from being in parks, etc. because of the presence of small children and although we do want to provide a good quality of life for the intellectually/developmentally delayed adult in our care, we also have a duty to protect the people they come in contact with and that often includes children.

    Were his i.q. actually that low (which on the scale for intellectual/developmental disability , that score is high functioning) then he would be easily led. He would also know right from wrong. He may also be likely to lie to keep himself out of trouble. But I don’t believe he is functioning at such a low level. Had Jesse Misskelly never met Damien Echols, he would have just been a guy with a rap sheet for drugs and small petty crimes and probably domestic violence and assault charges. We all know guys like him.

    Jason Baldwin is a little different. He is highly intelligent. There is no disputing that. But all you need as far as proof that he bends to the will of Damien Echols is to look at the fact that he would not give any testimony against anyone involved (to protect Damien, and again, to lessen his own involvement, he’s definitely smart enough to know right from wrong and knows he’s smart, so thinks as long as he never admits anything, nothing can be proven, he’s smarter than you in his opinion).

    From there, he served time in prison for a crime he definitely participated in, but did so in his effort to follow Damien who is some kind of puppet master to him. Beyond that, he once again folded to Damien’s will when he entered the Alford Plea which he swears was against his better judgment, but he says himself he did it “for Damien”. He’s sick, but he needs a catalyst, someone to push him to act on his sick thoughts. More a watcher than a doer. But he will do if the stronger personality expects him to, and Damien expected him to get his hands dirty. So he did. He wanted to do it, he just needed someone to encourage him, and Damien served that purpose for him.

    Damien Echols is deeply mentally disturbed and that is well documented. I won’t spend any more time on him because he is a narcissist who thrives on all the attention. A typical con. It’s unfortunate these two boys came across him but they did, and they are all guilty as sin regardless of the reasons for what they did.

    But what everyone seems to forget when discussing this crime is how those three little eight year old boys who didn’t stand a chance against these bigger boys suffered. Little boys who by the teen murderers own account tried to fight back.

    One boy tried to run and would have gotten away but Damien said get him, so Jesse did. If Damien had not said get him, Jesse wasn’t even thinking about getting him, and one boy would have gotten away, and that boy would be the witness. But Damien made sure that did not happen.

    So when I read about this crime, the only thing I can think of is those poor little boys and what must have been going through their minds. I don’t care about Damien, Jason or Jesse and their supposed suffering one bit.

    I think about the mother of Stevie Branch losing it on T.V. and falling down in the street crying over her little boy. (I live in TN, when this case broke we got blurbs on this crime as well as trial footage on our news stations. I didn’t learn about it from an HBO documentary, it hit close to home.) Then I think about this miscreant Damien Echols blowing kisses to her while in court, combing his hair, laughing, making jokes… in the presence of these women who lost their children.

    Guilty as charged, and Hollywood has set three child murderers free. Well done. People will believe anything if a celebrity says so.

  164. Kimberly Says:

    After watching the HBO documentaries I can not say definitively that they did not do it but I can also not say that they did. There is too much left to question about evidence that was and was not presented and the judge and the police had their minds made up , I’m wondering did the officer who did not go into the restaurant get reprimanded for not investigating the call as she should have immediately and what of the so called detective who lost the blood evidence from said restaurant. Another problem is all of the news reports and media coverage of the arrest and up until the trial these boys did not have a shot at a fair trial going into that courtroom and why in the world did every hearing , every appeal, every new piece of evidence that was found after these boys convicted go through the same judge who in my opinion was not competent to oversee a trial of this magnitude. I think you should also take into consideration that you have three teenage boys who while on trial for their lives where being filmed by tv cameras which is not something that am average everyday person is used to , they went from being teenagers who lived in trailer parks, poor, and a product of their environments to being celebrities all while there lives were hanging in the balance , we are all adults and it’s nice to sit here and say they should have said this or I would have liked them to say that , as I myself did many times throughout but in reality if you were raised as they were how would you have handled yourself. You have your attorneys telling you they have no evidence to convict you and also these boys were probably scared to say anything as it would have been used against them and possibly twisted. You also have to think that these appeals went on for years and you can not base guilt or innocence on whether someone gives what you deem to be the appropriate response verbally or emotionally. I am not a supporter of the wm3 but I am neither a supporter of a legal system that seems to be broken in many places. As I end this I will reiterate that after watching and reading many aspects of what happened with this case I can not say that they are innocent but I definitely can not say that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I think we should all be scared that our legal system is as broken as it is .

  165. Capaty Says:

    The fact that he got to hardcore porn sites says nothing about his innocence and actually I believe it ties in very well with who this person was before the arrest. Damien was never an innocent little angel. He was the typical trying-too-hard badass, or what I call a “terribilist”. He was not a nice person. He was intelligent, yes, and surprisingly cultured for the habitat he came from – but it’s still clear from everything that’s been said about him and even his Paradise Lost segments that he was unpleasant, obnoxious and a bit of a narcissist.

    That being said, this personality of his makes it impossible for me to form an opinion on whether or not he did it. For one thing, if he DIDN’T do it, then he is indeed the perfect scapegoat, especially in that deeply religious area of the USA. But it’s not just because of his clothes and music and interest in things deemed “occult”. Perhaps the fact that I share these interests with him made me initially sympathize with the “character” and assume he was innocent – much like his celebrity supporters do. But it’s also his personality. As I said, he seems to have been a very unpleasant individual, violent and arrogant, so it’s not a surprise that people would point the finger to him when something like this happened.

    But if we ever find out that the WM3 had anything to do with the murders it will be clear to me that the real culprit will be Damien, with the other two just following in his tracks. Again, he seemed like the type of youngster who did stupid “bad” stuff to prove something to himself and the world. From cutting himself and killing animals, the extension could’ve easily escalated to killing people. So I do see him doing it. And given how Jason barely responded when he was asked, in Paradise Lost, whether he thinks Damien did it (or something to the effect), it seems that even those close to him either didn’t know what to think about it (if Jason was really not in on it) or were aware of how guilty he had managed to make himself look (in the case where Jason just didn’t know what to answer because he was afraid for himself).

    All in all, Damien Echols’ personality either ruined his life, or saved it. Because of it he either lost almost two decades in prison, having been sentenced to death… or thanks to it and the the possibility of self-victimization (“of course they’re pointing at me! They don’t like me!”) he got away with triple child murder and became famous in the process.

    And the lies and self-victimization? All the whining about his eye-sight and teeth and health and the cold hard floors? He’s a drama queen. He’s the “poor little victim” at the moment and whether or not he was guilty at the beginning, he can play this card for a while and keep the media focusing on him because of his “sufferings”. It doesn’t point to him having murdered those kids or not. It just points to him being melodramatic and STILL obnoxious – but perhaps in a different way.

  166. Amber J. Says:

    These “lies” that you catch Echols in are nothing more than your misinformation.

    He never said he was raped by guards on Death Row, he said he was raped by other inmates and that the guards did nothing to stop the attacks. If you really don’t believe things like that happen in prison you really don’t know it like you claim to.

    And he didn’t say the he went directly from looking at something from the judge to hardcore porn, he said “one minute later”. It must be nice to be one of those perfect people who has never accidentally hit an ad to go to a dating site, which almost always has ads for porn, I guess cause they think your lonely or something.

    From your own words, the first time you saw Echols you believed he was lying and trying to con the camera and interviewer-your article is nothing more than your trying to justify your both arrogant and ridiculous claims.

    Stop trying to pretend you are smarter and better at reading people than everyone else, because really, you’re not.

  167. David Says:

    I also have the gut feeling of guilt on the part of the WM3. Early on there is footage of Damien flipping off the camera and smiling. You can also catch him looking for the cameras in courtroom footage and elsewhere. During an interview with Echols and Baldwin when Echols is explaining their whereabouts the evening of the murder he refers to the police as “pigs” and Baldwin erupts with pleasure and amusement. Baldwin can be seen fawning over his friend as Echols is being naughty for the cameras.

    I also agree that Jesse Miskelley Jr. is the key to this case but the real winner for the defense and ultimately was the water. I am referring to the water the bodies were placed in, for any real hope at getting to the truth was washed from the crime scene ultimately by that medium.

    As to whether or not the WM3 are guilty or innocent I cannot say, but my gut says they are guilty. Footage of Echols and Baldwin and Echols’ own writing tell me it’s so. But it’s the legal system of Arkansas that was ultimately put on trial and found guilty here in many ways and perhaps it’s karma or poetic justice that it is so. It’s really too bad someone has gotten away with murder or have they? Perhaps not for this deed but for others whomever is guilty has been plagued with a life that would lead to such acts and very likely continued to do so after the horrible crimes of that day.

    Peace, Love and Lowell Fulson

  168. Sam Dennis McDonough Says:

    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 boys in Robin Hood woods.

  169. Sam Dennis McDonough Says:

    Until someone explains whyWM3 supporters keep treating Damien Echols as a hero instead of telling the truth that this 18 year-old adult flirted with 12 to 14 year old girls, impregnated a 16 year old, and was convicted of murdering three 8-year-old boys. This 18-year-old adult sex offender of children ages 8 to 16 should still be behind bars trying to learn how to use a spork.

  170. Sam Dennis McDonough Says:

    There are over 100 clues in, “The West Memphis Boogieman” that tell who killed the three cub scout 2nd graders. I am still looking for someone to send corrections about what is in the book so we can discuss it.

  171. mk Says:

    I think everyone has made good points about the guilt of these three. I did think they could be innocent when I watched one of the HBO specials. I know they are guilty after reading through most of the, court documents ,Jessie’s 5 confessions,and all of the contradictions that have been made by Damien. I believe they took the plea because the necklace with the blood of one of the little boys on it ,would have been able to be used in a new trial. Btw ,Most cases don’t have a smoking gun to prove the guilt.

    I wondered if Jessie may feel guilty being free, knowing what he had did, and that is why he is ” low-key” and staying quiet; because he has a hard time holding it in and wants to confess if he talks to much , as he has many times in the past.

    I am not here to argue with anyone about whether they are guilty or not. We all have the right to our own opinions. I did want to know if anyone knew if the necklace could be used if they did have a new trial. ( just courious).

    My heart goes out to the parents of these little boys , and I am so sorry for their loss. I have two young children and I don’t like to see murders walking our streets.

    I also wanted to point out that I am sure these three murderers were not the only people in that town who listened to matellica, read Steven King, and wore all black..

  172. bonnie Says:

    The documentaries and Supporters forget that no alibi Damien was seen coming out of the crime scene at 9:20 PM muddy and wet. It was NOT a stranger ID, it was someone that knew him. Also Jessie’s Bible confession to his own attorney Stidham, against his advice. put me over to 100% guilty, no doubt.

  173. stacia Says:

    I was convinced for years of Echol’s innocence. Then, when he was released, I was just as sure of his guilt. I’m not sure exactly…something in his eyes. Like, he had an expression in them that seemed to say, “Ha! Gotcha!”

    I guess we’ll never know what really happened. Either way, we can’t say justice wasn’t served. They were locked up for almost 20 years. People convicted of 1st degree murder usually serve less than that.

  174. tanita Says:

    Eschols is guilty. Not only of killing those boys but also of ruining the life of his friends who certainly wouldn’t do so if it wasn’t for Damien.

    They may be free now but I think that many people start to think of their guilt. I think it won’t last long untill these losers loose all the attention that they are getting now.

Leave a Reply