Monday, March 8, 2010

Don't Free the West Memphis Three

by Pat Brown

On October 23, 2009, nine-year-old Elizabeth Olten told her Mommy goodbye and skipped over to her little friend's house. She didn't come home. This young child, sugar and spice and everything nice, encountered the exact opposite late that afternoon. She went trustingly into the woods with her friend's older sister, fifteen-year-old Alyssa Bustamente (left), to explore, to play, to enjoy the special feeling of being given attention by an older girl. Only this teenager morphed into the nightmare her mother always told her wasn't real.

In the next moments, the last moments of Elizabeth's short life, she saw a monster come for her, cruel and nasty words spewing from her mouth. The monster hit her, shoved her to the ground, and there as the evil loomed over her, Elizabeth (below right) terrified, her eyes blurring with tears, wanted her Mommy. Mommy! Mommy! She felt hands clawing her throat, clamping down around her neck, and she couldn't breathe, couldn't breathe ... no ... no .... Mommy ... stop, Alyssa, stop ... no ... the fear screamed through her little body. The hands left her throat and as she gasped for air, she felt a pain shoot through her left wrist, and then her right. Through the tears coursing down her cheeks, she saw blood coming out of her arms, her blood, and the monster was laughing.

The monster with the knife came at her face, and she felt the burning, searing ripping of her throat ... and the knife came down again and the choking this time was from the blood filling up her airway .. and she knew ... she knew she wouldn't see her Mommy again ... she knew ... she knew the worst thing in the world had happened to her. She felt the dark rush over her, and she screamed silently in her head one last time.

Alyssa Bustamente confessed to killing the little girl. She wanted to know "what it would be like to kill someone." This is the same girl who thought it was funny to watch her little brothers shock themselves on an electric fence. She hated the world; she wrote that her hobbies were "cutting" and "killing people."

Now, let's back up to to an early May, 1993, evening in West Memphis, Arkansas, when three eight-year-old boys rode their bicycles into a wooded area known as Robin Hood Hills. They zigzagged through the terrain, daring each other to do a better trick, to jump a ditch, to beat each other to the far tree. They would have played on happily until one of them remembered it was time to go home -- if they hadn't encountered three other boys, teenagers, in their play space. At first, they thought it was cool; big guys, like older brothers, all dressed in rebel black, grins on their faces, yeah, swaggering, a bottle of whiskey in one of their hands, yeah, we are hanging with the men now, we are member of their club. The older boys joked with them, told them they had something neat to share with them. The little kids got off their bikes, let them fall to the ground, and eagerly went over to the trio. They were shown something, all right.

Each boy was grabbed, thrown to the ground. At first, confused, they thought maybe this was a game, like a wrestling game, until fists hit them in the face, repeatedly, and their clothes were pulled off. Shoelaces were stripped out of their shoes and used to hog-tie them. Pants dropped to the ground from the older boys' waists, and then the unimaginable happened, things that they had heard of, whispered and giggled about on the playground, repulsive things that were now happening to them. Pain, humiliation, terror rained down on the little boys, the brutality increasing by the minute until the knife came out and screams came from one of the boys as he was stabbed and mutilated. The other two lay in their agonizing contorted positions, frozen in horror as their watch their friend dying -- and then their heads were bashed in. They were still alive when they were dragged into the stream. Water filled their lungs and, if they were conscious at all at that moment, they would have felt themselves choking as they sunk into the their muddy, watery grave.

Chris Byers, Steve Branch, and Michael Moore (all above left) would never ride their bicycles again.

Jessie Misskelley, 17, (right) confessed to the crime in detail. Three times. He had a temper and got in fights. He had a record for shoplifting and vandalism. He was a bit slow and a follower.

Jason Baldwin, 16, had a record for vandalism and shoplifting. He was Damien's best friend.

Damien Echols, 18, had a history of psychological problems for which he had been institutionalized. He is reported to have stomped a dog to death, attacked patients in the mental hospital sucking blood out of their wounds, starting fires at school, threatened to kill his teachers and parents, claimed he was a supernatural being, said he liked to drink blood because it gave him special power, and read Anton LeVay's Satanic Bible. Damien exhibits psychopathic behaviors. He bragged about committing the crime

Circumstantial evidence supported the involvement of the teens in the crime.

The three had no alibis.

Then who did it?


The defense needed a new suspect and a new motive. They brought in criminal profiler Brent Turvey. He provide one. His analysis concluded that the boys were killed at dawn, not dusk (giving the three teens alibis), that they were abducted, killed elsewhere, and the bodies driven back to that location (eliminating teens without trucks), and that there were bite marks that did not match the West Memphis Three (nor anyone else for that matter, because those blurry autopsy photos were not teeth impressions). The focus of the attack was to punish little victim Chris Byers (locking in his father, Mark Byers, as the killer). Recognizing the attack on the three boys required more than one person, Turvey allows the killer to have a more passive helper, his wife Melissa. She would be responsible for the "bite marks" on Steve Branch's face, the result of a female style of Battered Child Syndrome.


Okay. So let me get this straight. It is not believable that a violent psychopath like Damien Echols (left) got together with his deviant buddies and decided to follow some young kids into the woods and get a sick thrill out of attacking and torturing them, but THIS scenario makes sense?

The Byers leave their other son at home (and tell him to tell the cops he was with them when they went looking for his brother). They go out to find Chris and when they see him with his friends, they are already mad that he disobeyed them and didn't come home on time. They decide to lure all the boys away to some hideout and strip them naked and tie them up with their shoelaces. Then they leave them there while they go help search the park with the other parents. Sometime in between helping search the woods, Mark Byers and his wife sneak back the hideout, beat the crap out of the kids, and stab them as well. While Mark Byers is busy hacking off his son’s genitals, Mom is too busy biting up the Branch kid to be all that concerned. After Chris is dead, they jump in the truck with his body and his bleeding, dying little friends. They rush to the park to dump the bodies, hoping no one happens upon them while they are doing it, go home to their other son, meet with the concerned parents, talk with the police, go out on the search all night, and keep up this pretense for the duration of the trial.

This scenario lasted for years, with the Free the West Memphis Three side standing firm that Byers was the killer and had his teeth pulled in 1997 so he couldn't be matched to any tooth impression evidence. I am not sure when this theory went downhill, but maybe they were counting on those "teeth" to match something.

Now, they needed a new suspect. In 2007, one hair was found entwined in one of the knots and it was stated that it was "not inconsistent with" the hair of Terry Hobbs, victim Stevie Branch's stepfather. Another hair found nearby was supposedly "not inconsistent" with that of his good friend, David Jacoby, who he hung out with Since hair could have ended up there through secondary transfer and the one that was "not inconsistent" with David Jacoby was found two weeks later by a searcher (the hair was consistent with 7% of the population), it's not any evidence that can convict. But this hair and the new theory that Hobbs and his buddy killed the boys is what the defense hopes will get an appeal.

I hope they don't get it. The deaths of these three boys were not the result of domestic child abuse gone out of control. I have never seen a case where a parent becomes angry, decides to assault and kill the child AND take out a couple of friends as well, especially stripping them, hogtying them. Then leaving them close by where the bodies can be found along with any evidence? Unless the stepdads, one or the other did not have vehicles, those bodies should have been dumped some thirty miles away in a ravine or in three shallow graves.



Here is what I believe happened:

The crimes were committed by more than one person.
The offenders lived nearby the crime scene.
The boys were targeted because they were easy to access and control.
The boys were probably followed and conned or lured into the woods.
The boys were overpowered by larger assailants and the crime was committed at the scene, most likely in the water during the waning daylight hours.
The crime was planned but not in the sense that it would necessarily end with homicide. Like wilding, crimes involving groups of young teens often end extremely violently.
Nothing but a knife or two was brought with the offenders nor was anything but the weapons taken away. This shows lack of maturity or criminal experience.
The offenders did not attempt to get rid of the evidence. The water was a lucky break.
The crime was violent and was a show of power. Essentially, it was a thrill crime.

Now, who would be likely to live near the scene, not have a vehicle, have a posse big enough to handle three boys and be recognizable to the boys so they could lure them without them running away? Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence and no evidence of the bindings being on a live body for any period of time), who was unaccounted for at that time? The crime was planned (even if just minutes before, when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought; a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth. The sexual aspects of the crime encompass power and control as do the actual murders. Who does this sound like to you? How about that cold-blooded psychopath who wanted to kill people and drink blood and be God, who knew the boys, lived near the boys and had his homeys with him?

Damien Echols is an evil, soulless creature. His two buddies aren't worth much either. They aren't being discriminated against because they wore black or were a bit weird. They are in prison because, like Alyssa Bustamente, sometimes teens kill.

165 comments:

Anonymous said...

Then why does all the evidence in the case point AWAY from the WM3? Jessie's confession was a forced confession from a borderline retarded boy who was interrogated for over 14 hours without parents or a lawyer present. Like you said, he is a follower, he tells people what they want to hear.

And all that you said about Damien is false too. Blood sucking out of people he attacked in the psych ward? Please. Do some research Pat.

Pat Brown said...

I did my research and it didn't consist of just watching two documentaries made by the defense (which actually were interesting because they made me feel the boys were guilty and this was a DEFENSE film) and listen to constant claims by the defense the prosecution conjured everything up. Mostly, I used profiling of the evidence to determine who were the likely suspects but there is other documentation out there (which the supporters of the WM3 will immediately discount).
_____________________________________________
After leaving St. Vincent's hospital in Oregon, Damien returned to Arkansas. He was arrested after several days with Driver presenting the reasons as "Violation of probation by threatening the life of his mother and father and refusing to obey their lawful commands." (p. 345)

... in a note to Charter Hospital:

"[Driver] Says he [Damien] is going to eat father and needs to be locked up or he will hurt someone." p. 341

While in Craighhead County, Arkansas Juvenile Detention Center, an incident occurred. According to the report, "One of the boys scraped his arm a little, it was bleeding some. Without warning, Damien grabbed the arm that was bleeding, and began to suck the blood from it. (page 464)" Damien was transferred back to Charter Hospital and stayed there from September 14 to September 28.

Anonymous said...

There was no evidence of sexual mutilation, and there were no stab wounds. Damien passed a polgraph that was "lost," just like the Bojangles evidence. Jessie only failed one question on his, which was referring to his use of alcohol and marijuana. Now, I am a firm believer in the effectiveness of profiling. However, not all teens with even the most serious issues will go to these lengths. The majority of everyday sociopaths do not kill, and psychopathic behavior does not always lead to crime. As with Damien, he was primarily deemed to be a victim of severe depression from environmental factors and a possible genetic predisposition. The fact that they fit a likely profile of the possible perpetrator(s) does not change the fact that not only was there no physical evidence or eyewitnesses, the circumstantial evidence was weak at best and based solely off of a community that was rightfully terrified and exerting pressure on those who took an oath to protect and serve. When it comes to justice, it cannot be served without the truth. Today, we do not have the truth. We have your scenario, Ms. Brown, that is rooted in the belief of their guilt. We have scenarios from those who believe in their innocence. When it all boils down to facts, the side of their innocence actually has a stronger favor for being the most logical. Driver is a less than respectable felon who was obsessed with the Satanic killing hype that spread briefly in the 90s until it was disproven. If a profile of a possible killer or killers and the words of a man who is clearly mentally unbalanced defines the reasoning for keeping these men locked up, then I fear my faith in the justice system will diminish profoundly.

Pat Brown said...

The defense believed there was sexual mutilation and stab wounds until they changed their theory and now it is animal damage. Each time the defense changes its suspect, the analysis of the evidence changes with it.

Damien Echols was and is a violent psychopath. All one has to do is watch his behavior and statements on film and in his own words to know this is true.

West Memphis 3 were guilty said...

Great article. The legal evidence shows they are guilty. The 3 have lost all of their appeals. Recently, the Assistant Attorney General Brent Standridge discussed his views at saline(dot)com and confirmed this. The confessions and evidence prove they were guilty.

West Memphis 3 were guilty said...

Great article. The legal evidence shows they are guilty. The 3 have lost all of their appeals. Recently, the Assistant Attorney General Brent Standridge discussed his views at saline(dot)com and confirmed this. The confessions and evidence prove they were guilty.

Dena said...

I think they shouldn't be freed!!!! The hair on the shoelace used to tie them up could very well have been secondary transfer, but not from the killer's. Example: I found a hair from my long haired cat entwined in the weave of my son's shoelace. It wasn't going to fall off, so I had to pull it out of the weave, and some still broke off. It could have came off when the stepfather tied the boy's shoes, and the hair pressed into the weave of the shoelace. I have pulled hairs out of the weave of my sons sweat pants as well, because the lint brush wouldn't take it off. So by the reasoning of the defense, if my cat left this hair my cat would have been guilty of murdering these 3 boys.

WM3 case evidence said...

This was an excellent article. The legal evidence is much stronger than the bloggers that state they were not guilty.

West Memphis 3: Police Chief Takes On Celebrity Defenders - Chief Bob Paudert Says Celebrities Haven't Presented Any New Evidence In The West Memphis Three Case Alex Coleman March 1, 2010 The West Memphis Chief says he's convinced they have the real killers. Paudert said, "I heard that statement made by one of the three that concerned him that after 16 years the murder is still on the loose. Well, we haven't had any more child killings in West Memphis that's unsolved. The ones we have in custody are the ones who did it."

ECHOLS and Baldwin v. STATE of Arkansas CR 94-928
Twelve-year-old Christy VanVickle testified that she heard Echols say he "killed the three boys." Fifteen-year-old Jackie Medford testified that she heard Echols say, "I killed the three little boys and before I turn myself in, I'm going to kill two more, and I already have one of them picked out." The testimony of these two independent witnesses was direct evidence of the statement by Echols....

ECHOLS and Baldwin v. STATE of Arkansas CR 94-928
Jason Baldwin does not contend that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt. This is, perhaps, in part, because of the testimony of Michael Carson, who testified that he talked to Baldwin about the murders. Carson's testimony, in pertinent part, was abstracted as follows:

I said, just between me and you, did you do it. I won't say a word. He said yes and he went into detail about it. It was just me and Jason [Baldwin]. He told me he dismembered the kids, or I don't know exactly how many kids. He just said he dismembered them. He sucked the blood from the penis and scrotum and put the balls in his mouth.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article. The theories of the defence team have become increasingly outlandish since the trial. Unfortunately most online commentators on the case don't have the legal training to recognise the tactics of the defence team. Some of the comments posted here illustrate this perfectly.

The story concocted by the defence team (and their supporters) that a repressive state apparatus conspired to jail to WM3 because they are "different"/goths/etc seems to appeal to the persecution complex of many young people (and, apparently, celebrities). In their zeal to construct the WM3 as persecuted innocents they are willing to ignore all the evidenc that proves that they tortured and murdered three children.

Anonymous said...

The defense at trial believed that because they were not seasoned murder trial lawyers and did not consult with actual experts. They took the prosecution nonsense and thought, "Okay," but the guys did not do it. If anyone was there in that town during all of this, the pressure was immense and lawyers and policemen alike were pressured by the public and taken in by the Satanic Panic "noise." Damien was a disturbed teenager, no doubt, and I knew many exhibiting worse behaviors than him when I was younger that turned out to be quite successful people whom escaped their ways as a teen. I'd say maybe 1 in 20 of them continued to demonstrate sociopathic and psychotic behavior or committed crimes matching that persona. Even if I believed Damien was a psychopath, the evidence does not exist to convince me he did it. If I fell in love with a theory instead of letting the actual evidence lead me then I would hate myself on my death bed upon realizing all of the people I judged wrongly. That's just me though, I guess. I respect any opinion that is supported with reasons that move someone without bias, and I respect the opinions of those who feel they are guilty. I just believe seven independent forensic experts and renown polygraphers and false confession analysis over a judge who almost admittedly allowed juror misconduct, a jury foreman who admits he used banned information as the primary source for conviction, and police who confess to losingat least six items of evidence. I guess I could believe they were guilty if the evidence existed. If casual transfer accounts for the Hobbs hair in Michael's lace, then common sense and statistics scream that one of the three imprisoned would have left something behind. Then, what about Jacoby's (Hobbs' friend) hair? Why was it there? There's too many things that demand answers, in my opinion. More than anything, I want justice for these eight year olds who were senselessly murdered in their innocence. Pam Hobbs deserves to know the truth and have some peace. She wonders why her now ex-husband never called her at work or the police, like all of the othe parents did. Witnesses put Hobbs with the three boys that day, while he says he never saw them. His stories have changed more than Joran van der Sloot's; but the three locked up never changed their story, except for Jessie the two times police got to him without his lawyer present to convince him to testify against Damien and Jason. Even then, his story matched the police version and not the true evidence. I challeng any body language expert to anayze Hobbs in interviews and even the recent 48 Hours interview. Pam even said Stevie had that pocket knife up until he went to play on the last day she would see him. She ends up finding it in with Terry's knives? I just think it is time for some truth and a proper investigation.

Anonymous said...

Also, no one ever accepted that there were stab wounds, even at the original trial. It was concluded during the autopsy no one was stabbed. Therefore, the police proposed the idea they were scraped and tortured with knife. The prosecution followed suit with that allegation. I am honestly not trying to debate or argue. It was a good article. I just feel that the facts that can be proven in no way support any assertion of the WM3 being involved.

Sam said...

Fascinating article. I'm not an expert in the case details (unlike everyone who posts under "Anonymous," who all seem to have advanced degrees in criminology), but the scenario you present sounds much more logical than anything the defense has offered.

Could you recommend any books on the subject that aren't too biased?

Stacy Dittrich said...

Sam,

Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three, by Mara Leveritt is a pretty comprehensive book on the case. I am including the WM3 in an upcoming book, but haven't researched or read Devil's Knot yet to see how biased or unbiased it is. As of now, I'm not sure where I stand on the matter.

Anonymous said...

Not everyone here is some "online commentator" or a blogger or so closed-minded to only look at or favor one side. I know all too well about tactics and strategies from defense attorneys, as well as the supposed-to-be "good guys." That is where research comes in that produces supported facts.

Terry Hobbs Deposition: http://vimeo.com/9456618

Is this man not, at the very LEAST, a compulsive liar?

Anonymous said...

Devil's Knot is not biased and gives cold hard facts and represents the case from someone in the area where it occurred. She does believe in the innocence of the WM3, but it is based solely on all truths she has discovered. "Blood of Innocents" has some portions later that have been publicly and professionally discredited, but it is known to be the least "biased." It allows the reader to draw his/her own conclusion and is not written to persuade.

West Memphis 3 asst attorney general comments said...

Good article

Comments at saline(dot)com
from the West Memphis 3 assistant attorney general

Anonymous said...

I can not believe you're on here responding to posts, Pat Brown. You're incredible! My ears perk any time you're on TV, because you're usually so spot on and you never hold your tongue. I truly think you're amazing.

I just read this.. and had to read it again, because it was so well-written and completely on target.

I would LOVE to know how supporters canWhy did Jessie confess even AFTER he was convicted, while his lawyer begged him NOT to confess?.. It is all transcribed and apparently it was taped - you can see the transcript on callahan's site.

Damien might be one of the scariest murderers to ever exist - he still is able to manipulate people, even while behind bars.. even hollywood actors and musicians.. The WM3 support group has managed to get millions in donations.

Sometimes I wonder if he just sits in his cell at night and laughs at how stupid people are.. I bet he does.

Thanks so much for this blog post, Pat.. I will trust your opinions and insight as a criminal profiler, over the opinions from the defense's hired guns.

Pat Brown said...

Thanks for the kind words, Anonymous. What the defense often does when trying to convince a jury or the media or supporters of their client's or clients' innocence is to downplay the totality of the evidence and overemphasize one bit of evidence or information they connect to another suspect. Or they mock a piece of prosecution evidence but they crow over a similar bit of evidence on the defense's side. For example, the knife found in the lake behind Jason Baldwin's house is called meaningless but the fact Hobb's ex-wife said he had his stepson's knife is proof positive that Hobbs was at the crime scene (because supposedly the boy never went anywhere without his knife). Fibers consistent with material at the WM3' homes is laughed at but Terry Hobb's hair at the scene is considered damning. Yet Terry Hobbs DID have contact with his stepson earlier in the day so a secondary transfer makes sense but if the WM2 didn't commit the crime, it is quite coincidental that a bunch of fibers microscopically similar to clothing from their homes ended up at the scene. Likewise, blood on Damien's necklace taken off his neck when he was arrested had a blood on it that matched the blood type of James and Steven. While it may be true that Damien went somewhere else and someone with that very same blood type bled on his necklace, it is more likely that the blood came from the victims' of the crime.

Except for seriously conclusive nuclear DNA matching a suspect to a crime in a manner that leaves no question that he did the deed, most cases are built on trace evidence (like fibers) plus lack of alibis plus circumstantial evidence plus confessions plus behavioral evidence. In other words, it is the TOTALITY of the evidence that usually convinces a jury someone is guilty. Yet the defense and the supporters of the WM3 attempt to discredit each piece of evidence as a way of convincing others not to look at the amount of evidence that adds up to guilt. And, then, they trumpet one piece of circumstantial evidence or trace evidence as the smoking gun and try to label another individual guilty because of just that! All smoke and mirrors and a fairly common defense scenario.

I will concede that prosecutors can put people in prison on crappy evidence; I worked one case where the man was convicted because his angry ex-wife claimed he once owned a gun (a .38) LIKE the one used in the crime and she even wrote the manufacturer's name on a piece of toilet paper which she subsequently lost. I profiled that crime and I do not believe the evidence supports the guilt of that man (and he was a piece of pondscum himself). I don't have any particular liking either Mr. Hobbs or Mr. Byers and I think both of them are perfectly capable of committing criminal acts, but, in this case, I just don't find the evidence supports their involvement.

Farm said...

Excellent article, and long overdue.

Anonymous said...

That's sad Pat,and what I mean by that is the fact that you wrote this a number of years ago. I would think if you really put a lot of effort into a good profile you would know the names of the people involved.. Who are James and Melinda?

You painted a pretty picture of the boys going off to play, yet forgot to mention that one,if not two of those boys were most likely running away from home. Christopher was hit with a belt that day and took off out of his yard to meet up with his friends. This wasn't the first time he disobeyed his father that day. These boys were on a mission this day, and I don't believe they just happened to stumble across a few satanists in the woods while they were conducting a satanic ritual. If you believe the states case, then you must believe that these children were murdered as a sacrifice to the devil. Ya know a full moon on a Wednesday on the 5th day of the month, that sort of thing. Oh let's not forget the storing of blood to drink at another place in time. This theory was started by a probation officer immediately after the children were discovered. Who by the way, now states he *may* have been on a witch hunt, especially when it came to James,(Jason) for those of us who know who is who:)

Dr. Peretti stated that one of the boys had possible belt marks on his body,with raised studs. Dr. Peretti also asked a dentist if he thought there were bite marks on the victims before the defense ever brought that up. The police wondered if the children were attacked by animals, long before the defense ever brought it up. And Dr. Peretti said the children could have died between 1-5am of the 6th.

Now I am not saying that any of the parents committed this crime, but let's just forget about the sexual predators who lived in close proximity to the crime scene and knew more about the murders than the teenagers accused, this way the devil and his followers will be where they belong and the sex offenders of West Memphis Arkansas can live free,James Martin who is still trolling the internet for his prey. It's funny that one sexual offender(mentioned above) even knew shoelaces were used to bind the boys, yet Jessie said it was rope. You did hear his confessions right? According to Jessie this crime happened in the morning while the children had their bikes at the bus stop. Well I don't need to tell you, you read it..

Damien had his problems as we all know, but his criminal background is lacking even though you felt the need to mention it. As with his mental health issues, which by the way were entered in the penalty phase. But if I am to believe your profile, then the fact that you mentioned them means you believe the boys were attacked by satanist, had the blood sucked out of them and sacrificed at the satanic alter? Maybe I missed the part where the devil left his calling card.

Doll

Anonymous said...

The lake behind Jason Baldwin's house also had an old car in the bottom of it, guns, other knives, balls, loose change, shoes, and bicycles... The knife had no blood traces and could have been anyone's, why Jason's? It was in no way linked to Jason, Damien, or Jessie. That is a different animal from the relevance of Stevie's knife that calls into question why Terry had it and did not tell his wife Pam (Stevie's mother) for years? She always wondered why it was not with him when it was found and thought it might have been stolen. Hobbs also never called police until he picked her up, and never bothered to "disturb" her at work to let her know her son was missing. Why is Pam suspicious of her now ex-husband and want the WM3 to have a new trial? In addition to his daughter's claim he molested her and the physical abuse Stevie, Amanda, and Pam endured, Hobbs was unaccounted for during most of the search. I trust Pam Hobbs.

I am more aware of defense strategies and totality of evidence than anyone here may know. It does not change the facts of this case or increase my blindness to prosecution desperation, as I have also witnessed. The so-called fiber evidence also matched several items if clothing in each of the victims' parent's home and in the local Wal-Mart, as well as may be found in our own home closets. The blood spots (there were 2 types found) were consistent with the type of Chris Byers, John Mark Byers (stepfather), Jason Baldwin, Domini Teer, or close to 50% of the population in West Memphis alone. It was not even ruled out as possible fish blood. How's that for forensics? The other stain was Damien's own blood type. Also, as this piece of evidence was not supposed to even be considered, why then does the prosecution now refuse the defense' request to test the blood on the necklace against the victims for a DNA signature instead of a weak blood type argument? Could it be because it is also "lost" or that the victims' DNA will not be present on this necklace? Perhaps, that is why the prosecution avoid that topic like the plague when the heat is on. What are they afraid of? If they could prove that one of the victm's blood was on the necklace, case closed right? I wonder why they don't "go there" when asked and dance around the subject then. That could end the scrutiny once and for all.

We have evidence that was similar to probably even articles in the police officers' own homes as fibers and nothing definitive and blood types before DNA evidence emerged into the technological embrace. As advances in science were made, West Memphis police and prosecutors alike shied away from more exact and consistent testing that could prove one way or another the identities of the "blood letter" via Damien's necklace or the lame fiber long shot that Fogelman himself admitted was extremely weak. How can those things be compared to Hobbs' DNA and other DNA all over the crime scene/dumping site that the state convenientl failed to address?

Among the DNA collected, there was: a hair beneath Michael Moore's ligature, a hair beneath Chris Byers' ligature, a hair recovered from the scout cap, (HV1 was sequenced), a hair recovered from the tree trunk, a dyed hair recovered from the sheet used to cover Stevie Branch, and a negro hair recovered from a white sheet covering Chris Byers. None of the DNA listed here matched the three imprisoned or the victims. Additional testing after heteroplasmy, the mtDNA was linked to Terry Hobbs. It was not found loosely on his stepson or similar to most secondary transfer. It was present with the root intertwined and tangled in a shoe lace used to tie up Michael Moore. The DNA on the tree root was consistent with David Jacoby, Hobbs' primary alibi.

Anonymous said...

cont'd.

Doll, you ares so correct. The devil did not leave his calling card. You missed nothing. I think some people have such blind faith in civil servants and the courts to the degree their thousands of errors can be overlooked, and the defense lawyers only defend the guilty and have no interest in true justice. This is a sad portrayal and echoes the fear that police can grab up any suspect and make circumstantial evidence fit. I can also do that with anyone. The true way to catch the criminal is to let the evidence lead instead of making the pieces fit once you've created a digestable theory to a terrified public that are rightfully thirsty for blood. These children were horrifically murdered. That makes it even more heartbreaking that the investigation was botched merely to satisfy the county's inhabitants. I am usuall thinking like a prosecutor, but there are times like this where the prosecution and law enforcement are "sneakier" than folks can fathom. I have seen it happen before, and it will keep happening if we are not responsible Americans that will not allow officials to insult our integrity.

We can swallow what authorities give us whole, but we will often choke on it and nevr healthily digest it; or we can chew up bits from each side and do not only a taste test but examination of each recipe with patience and knowledge. From someone who adamantly tried to believe the WM3 were guilty, I could not be fooled by the lack of evidence and the shoddy srategies that took place. Totality of evidence does not always mean throwing chicken, mustard, and celery together to make a meat loaf. It is not meat loaf unless the right ingredients are added. The WMPD fell short, way short, and they know it... It is a shame people spend so much time researching one side of the matter instead of both sides equally. Only then can a clear picture be presented. However, there will always be those with an agenda, vested interest, or wearing a blindfold to some truths while making excuses for falsities to fit their fantasy.

Anonymous said...

I want to have faith in the West Memphis Police Department, but the absence of pertinent answers to overly significant evidentiary issues force me to pause and hope some things can be cleared up once and for all.

Other questions to ponder for those who believe in the guilt of the WM3:

- Why do witnesses have Hobbs extensively doing laundry (including bedding and linens) after the boys were discovered, a "chore" he normally left to his wife?

- Why do so many family members and ex in-laws of Hobbs accuse him of the kilings upon looking at the "totality of evidence" against him?

- Why does the main witness who claimed she heard Damien bragging about the killings at a softball and her mother now claim police exerted intense pressure to testify to the sincerity of the comments; and now they maintain that the comments were taken out of context, not worded as they testified, were made sarcastically, and that they now believe Damien and the other two are not responsible for the crime?

- Why do neighbors put Hobbs with the boys around 6pm (the time Hobbs claims he was w/ Byers and Dana Moore, which they deny happened until around 8-8:30) when he claims he never saw the boys all day?

- How does Damien, Jessie, and John Mark Byers' passing of polygraphs related to the killings and Hobbs' refusal to take one not create some necessary suspicion as to what really happened that May?

- When Hobbs is questioned by anyone, how come everyone is a liar except him (al in-laws, cousins, a brother, Stevie, his daughter, ex-wife, two former girlfriends, a police officer, reporters he spoke to, David Jacoby,etc.)?

- Why has Hobbs' story changed more than Joran van der Sloot's, another sociopath, especially from the accounts he proclaimed in a handwritten journal he began writing in the month of the murders? Why the blatant paranoia in these writings when no one had even considered suspecting him?

- Hobbs shot his brother-in-law, was arrested for drugs, and was guilty prior to marrying Pam of breaking in to a woman's home and attempting to rape her; so why aren't his propensity for laws not applying to him as he minimizes his involvement of these and dozens of other incidences as either "minor" or blaming everyone but himself considered as behavioral evidence?

- If one watches Hobbs' interviews and depositions, who can honestly say this man is not sociopathic, an obvious liar, a manipulator, void of real emotion for the victims, and "obsessed" with telling various stories putting him in hero status? What do his words, tone of voice, facial expressions, and body langage communicate?

- What about foreign DNA found on the penises of two of the victims that exclude Echols, Baldwin, Misskelley, and the victims themselves?

- FBI CRIMINAL PROFILER John Douglas believes the profile of the killer(s) is not consistent with the WM3 but with Terry Hobbs, why?

- Am I to believe Peretti, unexperienced with these kinds of crime scenes, saying that the WM3 scraped and tapped the boys with knives when seven independent forensic experts all agree the marks on the bodies (including the cobbing off of Chris' penis) were consistent with animal predation?

- Even Peretti, so-called medical examiner for the prosecution, emphasized the strong likelihood of the crimes occurring somewhere else due to lack of blood or mosquito bites preceding death, which means the WM3 would have probably committed these murders elsewhere and transported them there (none had vehicles); so does this make logical sense?

There are many more relevant questions, just off of the top of my head. To believe the WM3 are guilty, I cannot ignore such important questions that demand an answer for justice to be served.

Anonymous said...

Everyone read these, especially those of Jo Lynn Pam Hobbs,and David Jacoby (as well as Hobbs' words damning himself), and then honestly say that Echols is so psychoathic in comparison to Terry Hobbs. These declarations show the real Hobbs, fearful of what may be down the road for him.

http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/index.php?option=com_jotloader&view=categories&cid=4_8ec4657ecfd26088be6f17fab974be0d&Itemid=84&28e5bbf660cb545fc854f5c048c7be7c=51a8702229a46f0332ce9964b9896e7e

Also, has anyone listened to the secretly recorded phone calls John Mark Byers made to Terry Hobbs? Those are quite chilling, indicative of a man quite concerned with Echols' defense team's "pursuit" of him before any of the DNA data was released publicly.

Anonymous said...

Two more things to introduce for pondering before I go.

How come the police searching the Robin Hood Hills area centered around the "fact" someone in the neighborhood told Hobbs they saw the boys headed in that area? Why was this "tipster" never identified by Hobbs? He recalls his every move in intimate detail relating to some minor events that support his innocence but has trouble remembering whether this person was male or female, does not know what they look like, and only says they were an adult but cannot guess at an age range. He never got their name, and police never interviewed them. They took Hobbs' word for it, and what do you know? The boys were found there the next day.

Second point, why did Hobbs wait until 2007 to tell police he saw a suspicious "black bum" in the Robin Hood Hils vicinity after it was public knowledge that a negro hair was found at the scene and "Mr. Bojangles" was never found? It was not mentioned at the times of the murders, and even more interestingly is that he claims Pam Hobbs also saw this weird guy. She denies it vehemently, and his other friends, family, and acquaintances confirm the first they heard of this sighting was Hobbs' 2007 police interview. He says he believes the right men ar behind bars though, so why the focus on this man he never bothered to mention until over a decade after the killings?

Food for thought...

Anonymous said...

Doctors confirmed forced penetrationon Hobbs' daughter Amanda, giving credit to her repeated molestation claims of instances having Terry inserting finger(s) into her "booty," she said. He also was arrested for drugs he had in his home, and Memphis, Tennessee police saw all of Stevie's belongings when searching his car trunk that Pam and sister state he declared he was stealing from her. Later, when Amanda got older, she wanted to flee from Terry who was touching her breasts and also comments he caused her a miscarriage by assaulting her during her pregnancy... his own daughter.

Damien sounds less and less "suspicious" with every new fact brought to light on the man whose DNA was connected to a boy other than his stepson at the crime scene.

Dena said...

The court concluded that Echols’s DNA claim must be denied under section 208(b) because the results were “inconclusive as to Echols’s claim of actual innocence.” The DNA results were considered “inconclusive“. There was not enough markers to determine if any of the West Memphis Three were the donors or not. All this tells me is the defense doesn’t know if one of them left the DNA, it does not tell me they were innocent. The possible reason is, the DNA was a mixture of the victims and West Memphis Three perhaps. In DNA testing, the lab cannot separate a mixture, all donors of the mixture markers are present, resulting as inconclusive. As far as Terry Hobbs hair, well he was in contact with this child on a daily basis and lived in the home. I would find it more unusual if secondary transfer of the hair wasn’t present, from members of the family who resided in that home.

In regards to the mutilation: For argument sake let say it was animals. The three children had blunt force trauma to the head, left hand tied to left foot behind them, right hand tied to right foot behind them, 2 thrown in the water to drown, 1 left tied for animals to feed on him, it is still murder and torture. Was there any animal saliva, or trace evidence from an animal, on the body that remained on the bank, as Dr. Baden has discerned? I would think there would have been. Many animals urinate on their pray, to mark it as their own. Was there any animal urine on the victims body, who was on the bank?

Anthony and Narlene Hollingsworth, stated that they saw
Echols and his girlfriend, Domini Teer, “walking after 9:30 on
the night of the murders near the Blue Beacon Truck Stop,
which is near Robin Hood woods. They also stated that
Echols’s clothes were dirty, and he had on a dark-colored shirt.
Second, the court cited the testimony of twelve-year-old Christy
VanVickle and fifteen-year-old Jackie Medford. Both girls
stated that they heard Echols say he “killed the three boys. This testimony was never challenged by the defense.


The sighting of a possible black male suspect was implied during the beginning of the trial. According to local West Memphis police officers, on the evening of May 5, 1993, at 8:42 pm, workers in the Bojangles' restaurant about a mile from the crime scene (a direct route through the bayou where the children were found) in Robin Hood Hills reported seeing an African American male "dazed and covered with blood and mud" inside the ladies' room of the restaurant. Defense attorneys later referred to this man as "Mr. Bojangles." The man was bleeding from his arm and had brushed against the walls. The man had defecated on himself and on the floor. The police were called, but the man left the scene.

Now if this man was bleeding from the arm, wouldn’t he have left a trail to the bathroom, on the floor? There was not trail on the floor. Could it be that this man found the 3 boys, and was in shock and disorientated at what a horrific sight he had found, causing him to defecate on himself? I know I sure would have. Did he leave because he didn’t want the police to suspect he was the one who did this, in Arkansas there is a lot of racism, to this day? Was he involved in a fight and almost had lost his life himself, and scared that whom ever did this was still after him? Was he almost hit by a car? Once again the defense has not proven reasonable doubt.

continued on page 2

Dena said...

(page 2)

On June 3, police interrogated Jessie Misskelley Jr. Misskelley, whose IQ was reported to be 72 (making him borderline mentally retarded), was questioned alone; his parents were not present during the interrogation. Misskelley's father gave permission for Misskelley to go with police, but did not explicitly give permission for his minor son to be questioned or interrogated. Misskelley was questioned for roughly twelve hours; only two segments, totaling 46 minutes, were recorded. Misskelley quickly recanted his confession, citing intimidation, coercion, fatigue, and veiled threats from police.


It must also be noted that eight months after his original confession, on February 17, 1994,Misskelley made another statement to police with his lawyer Dan Stidham in the room continually advising Misskelley not to say anything. Misskelley ignored this advice continually and went on to detail how Damien and Jason abused and murdered the boys, while he watched until he decided to leave. I thinks this speaks for itself…….. The first thing a defense attorney does is to get a confession thrown out, and is why Misskelley recanted his first confession, just to give another confession at a later date.


On May 10, 1993, four days after the bodies were found, Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, asking Echols to speculate as to how the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols' answer is abstracted as follows: Echols stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.



At trial, Echols testified that Ridge's description of the conversation (which was not recorded) was inaccurate. At the time that Echols had allegedly made these statements, police thought that there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others. This contradicted John Mark Byers' (the stepfather of victim Christopher Byers) statement to reporters only minutes after the three bodies were found, "that two boys had been badly beaten and that the third had been even worse."

Read this carefully: John Mark Byers at no time said to the press that the boys had been mutilated, “HE SAID TWO HAD BEEN BADLY BEATEN AND THE THIRD HAD BEEN EVEN WORSE”, why did Echols say they were mutilated, bodies cut up, one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others?


In closing the defense has provided no reasonable doubt, only smoke and mirrors to hide the truth, and get their client acquitted. After all that is what they get paid to do.

Dena said...

On June 3, police interrogated Jessie Misskelley Jr. Misskelley, whose IQ was reported to be 72 (making him borderline mentally retarded), was questioned alone; his parents were not present during the interrogation. Misskelley's father gave permission for Misskelley to go with police, but did not explicitly give permission for his minor son to be questioned or interrogated. Misskelley was questioned for roughly twelve hours; only two segments, totaling 46 minutes, were recorded. Misskelley quickly recanted his confession, citing intimidation, coercion, fatigue, and veiled threats from police.


It must also be noted that eight months after his original confession, on February 17, 1994,Misskelley made another statement to police with his lawyer Dan Stidham in the room continually advising Misskelley not to say anything. Misskelley ignored this advice continually and went on to detail how Damien and Jason abused and murdered the boys, while he watched until he decided to leave. I thinks this speaks for itself…….. The first thing a defense attorney does is to get a confession thrown out, and is why Misskelley recanted his first confession, just to give another confession at a later date.


On May 10, 1993, four days after the bodies were found, Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols, asking Echols to speculate as to how the three victims died. Ridge's description of Echols' answer is abstracted as follows: Echols stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.



At trial, Echols testified that Ridge's description of the conversation (which was not recorded) was inaccurate. At the time that Echols had allegedly made these statements, police thought that there was no public knowledge that one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others. This contradicted John Mark Byers' (the stepfather of victim Christopher Byers) statement to reporters only minutes after the three bodies were found, "that two boys had been badly beaten and that the third had been even worse."

Read this carefully: John Mark Byers at no time said to the press that the boys had been mutilated, “HE SAID TWO HAD BEEN BADLY BEATEN AND THE THIRD HAD BEEN EVEN WORSE”, why did Echols say they were mutilated, bodies cut up, one of the children had been mutilated more severely than the others?


In closing the defense has provided no reasonable doubt, only smoke and mirrors to hide the truth, and get their client acquitted. After all that is what they get paid to do.

Anonymous said...

Wow, all I got from that was what you are calling the factual defense arguments, "smoke and mirrors." Once this goes federal, it will be crystal clear just how innocent they actually are. It seems the rebuttals to many of the rumors and mistruths included in your analysis are something you have not read. If the blood was "inconclusive," as you stated, mixture of blood/DNA would be detectable. Many of the witnesses and testimony have since recanted their claims, as has Peretti in his original declarations... talk about "changing stories." This "police version" sounds more like one created by Baez, and the WM3 Defense are doing the jobs as prosecutors. It is obvious by your response that you have not thoroughly researched both sides, as I have. I was unbiased until I realized the "totality" of lack of evidence and the true smoke and mirrors introduced by the WMPD & Company. What a tragedy. The defense has created more than reasonable doubt. When Judge Burnett is out of the picture, who came out of retirement to handle the appeals so that fresh eyes could not fall upon this case, it will be seen how this case was screwed from the get-go. It is amazing that those who disagree with the defense's claims cannot and will not give a factual basis for rebuttal on my points. It is also telling that the questions I ask go ignored and are piled on by the same rubbish force fed to the public years ago. The fact that the questions I ask are not answered by any of the "know-it-alls" speaks volumes... In order for justice to be served, are these questions not crucially important to ensure this? If the WM3 were tried today, who in their right mind believes they would be convicted? Personally, I do not know anyone that does.

Anonymous said...

It is also obvious, Dena, that you ignore the fact that Hobbs' hair was found with root present intertwined in Michael Moore's bindings, NOT his stepson's. How do you also explain Jacoby's hair at the scene? If you are so surprised that a parent's DNA or hair would not be there, are you not a little shocked that no other parents' or family members' DNA was found? Are you not equally as puzzled as to how these alleged secondary casual transfer hairs were found but no direct DNA from the WM3? You know, since they did it and all. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

Dena said...

The fact is the hair was microscopically similar to Terry Hobbs, thus indicating that no root was present on the hair, for DNA analysis. The DNA was from semen found on the blood spattered pants of the child on the bank. I have read everything on the internet, including VOX website concerning this case, and nowhere did I find that the root was enacted on the hair, nor it was entangled in the shoelace. I did find the source of the DNA evidence, in the court documents for a new trial, and a hair was listed separately. I read everything from the documentary, which convinced me that the defense didn’t prove reasonable doubt. The only reference to Jocoby's hair was in the documentary, that I could find. I wish you would show me a legal document, newspaper or news broadcast concerning this hair. They didn’t say there was any direct DNA from the 3 convicted, court documents said the DNA was inconclusive, which means that they could or could not be ruled in or out. Anthony and Narlene Hollingsworth, and Christy VanVickle and Jackie Medford never have recanted their testimony. The shoe lace was identified as being from the stepsons’ shoe. I went to a lot of web sites where people had posted incorrect information, that was misinterpreted, from other posts and web sites, not from newspapers, news broadcasts, or court documents, which is where I read my facts. The mixture of DNA is detectible, as just that a mixture, but the donors due to the mixture is inconclusive. The hair would have been compelling evidence if the child didn’t know or live with Terry Hobbs. If you have any newspaper, news broadcasts, or court documentation to prove your facts please post them and I will be happy to check them out. To address the “shock that no other parents hair was found there” No I’m not because the random shedding of hair is just that, a random shedding of hair. Yes I do put my name on this, because I will not hide behind Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

There is much more to it than what is read on the internet. There are several legal documents and court documents or references to and directions to access such at:

http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/index.php?option=com_jotloader&view=categories&cid=4_8ec4657ecfd26088be6f17fab974be0d&Itemid=84&28e5bbf660cb545fc854f5c048c7be7c=51a8702229a46f0332ce9964b9896e7e

P.S. Who is "hiding"? If you have ever been a victim of cyber stalking and identity theft, you may also be as careful as I am.

Anonymous said...

How random it is too that the only parent to have hair at the scene is the one who was unaccounted for during the crucial hours, abused his kids, never called police or told his wife until that night around 9pm when he picked her up from work, refuses a polygraph, has conflicting stories, and began a handwritten journal on May 5th before Pam was even aware Stevie was still missing. Why did police have to retrieve Stevie's "Ninja box" Terry tried to steal from his trunk? Why did he keep Stevie's knife and never tell Pam, then he says Byers gave it to him and then says he took it from Stevie a long time ago? Why do his and Jacoby's sworn testimony conflict extremely and contradict each other? Why do Byers and Dana Moore dispute they spoke to Hobbs, as he claims? Everything that I am stating comes from official documents, sworn testimony, analysis, interviews, actual personal research, and official releases. I verify information and am insulted that I am the one being implied as a rumor grabber. All I want is the truth.

Anonymous said...

Yes, because Dena is so verifyible. Dena, let me ask you this. Whether you think that the defense proved innocence beyond reasonable doubt, do you think that the prosecution proved guilt?

If so, then why?

West Memphis 3 were guilty said...

This is a good article. The courts have looked at all of the evidence and the 3 have lost every appeal.

West Memphis 3 Assistant Attorney General Brent Standridge
http://www.mysaline.com/forum/topics/west-memphis-3?commentId=873760%3AComment%3A179986

West Memphis 3: Police Chief Takes On Celebrity Defenders
http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-wm3-paudert-story,0,7376855.story

Farm said...

I think those who have posted in support of the WM3 here have pretty much defined how this "controversy" came to be in the first place.

So far not one of them has offered anything more than failed Defense arguments - as if they were the established facts of the case.

Anonymous said...

Same song, second verse for supporters to free the convicted baby murderers so I'm glad to see this blog.

- Why do neighbors put Hobbs with the boys around 6pm (the time Hobbs claims he was w/ Byers and Dana Moore,

Because they're either lying or got the wrong day.


which they deny happened until around 8-8:30) when he claims he never saw the boys all day?

Quite the opposite which means you've just lied. Apparently you're unaware of events that day and Terry has an alibi. Get it right.
http://westmemphishomicidesdiscussion.yuku.com/topic/5661

- How does Damien, Jessie, and John Mark Byers' passing of polygraphs related to the killings and Hobbs' refusal to take one not create some necessary suspicion as to what really happened that May?

Hobbs isn't a suspect in this case.

- When Hobbs is questioned by anyone, how come everyone is a liar except him (al in-laws, cousins, a brother, Stevie, his daughter, ex-wife, two former girlfriends, a police officer, reporters he spoke to, David Jacoby,etc.)?

Because most of them are and assembled facts show just that. It's easy to see you believe everything you hear or whatever some make up.

The better question is how Misskelley knew so much about the crime scene and injuries. He did.
http://westmemphishomicidesdiscussion.yuku.com/topic/5630?page=1


- Why has Hobbs' story changed more than Joran van der Sloot's, another sociopath, especially from the accounts he proclaimed in a handwritten journal he began writing in the month of the murders? Why the blatant paranoia in these writings when no one had even considered suspecting him?

I suppose to write a book and make money?

- Hobbs shot his brother-in-law, was arrested for drugs, and was guilty prior to marrying Pam of breaking in to a woman's home and attempting to rape her; so why aren't his propensity for laws not applying to him as he minimizes his involvement of these and dozens of other incidences as either "minor" or blaming everyone but himself considered as behavioral evidence?

I don't know; Maybe because he shot in self defense, which you'd know if you knew the facts. Maybe because an older woman didn't want to get caught getting it on with a younger man in a small town as it would tarnish her reputation.

- If one watches Hobbs' interviews and depositions, who can honestly say this man is not sociopathic, an obvious liar, a manipulator, void of real emotion for the victims, and "obsessed" with telling various stories putting him in hero status? What do his words, tone of voice, facial expressions, and body langage communicate?

That he's a simple man and not guilty.

- What about foreign DNA found on the penises of two of the victims that exclude Echols, Baldwin, Misskelley, and the victims themselves?

"Foreign alleles", get it right.

Anonymous said...

- FBI CRIMINAL PROFILER John Douglas believes the profile of the killer(s) is not consistent with the WM3 but with Terry Hobbs, why?

He got paid?

- Am I to believe Peretti, unexperienced with these kinds of crime scenes,

Peretti does have experience with the variables and injuries associated with this crime.

saying that the WM3 scraped and tapped the boys with knives

Hey, there's another lie.


when seven independent forensic experts all agree the marks on the bodies (including the cobbing off of Chris' penis) were consistent with animal predation?

They got paid. Since there were no human adult bite marks they had to come up with something else like child mauling killer turtles.

- Even Peretti, so-called medical examiner for the prosecution, emphasized the strong likelihood of the crimes occurring somewhere else due to lack of blood or mosquito bites preceding death, which means the WM3 would have probably committed these murders elsewhere and transported them there (none had vehicles); so does this make logical sense?

It makes sense that you should go back and read the testimony where Peretti was asked hypothetical questions by the Defense to which he gave appropriate responses.

The only reference to Jocoby's hair was in the documentary, that I could find. I wish you would show me a legal document, newspaper or news broadcast concerning this hair.

Please do. I'd like to see it.


To address the “shock that no other parents hair was found there


Yet no shock is shown that a fiber found at the crime scene was found similar to an item found in the Moore residence. All of those fibers found from the crime scene found similar to items in the residences of Echols and Baldwin surely are in for consideration and quite damning.

Anonymous said...

Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence),

And green vegetable matter stomach content which hadn't entered the large intestinal tract as their last known meal was lunch. Since the younger children have school lunch earlier, then that would put TOD before 8pm.

who was unaccounted for at that time?

The 3 convicted which was proven in court.


The crime was planned (even if just minutes before,

Or when Echols and Baldwin earlier would fall silent in their discussion as a girlfriend entered the room.


when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought;

Except a staff, a knife, fists and logs around the scene.

a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth.

Both.

The sexual aspects of the crime encompass power and control as do the actual murders. Who does this sound like to you? How about that cold-blooded psychopath who wanted to kill people and drink blood and be God, who knew the boys, lived near the boys and had his homeys with him?

Who used to live in that neighborhood growing up and rode his bike until the new father took him away around the age of 8 from all his childhood fun. Who also walked through the neighborhood all the time.

Anonymous said...

On June 3, police interrogated Jessie Misskelley Jr. Misskelley, whose IQ was reported to be 72 (making him borderline mentally retarded),

It was only "reported" that way since it was a later test in which he freely malinger. His previous IQ test scores were in the 80's.

Doctors confirmed forced penetrationon Hobbs' daughter Amanda

Where can this Pediatric medical document be found and where is the accompanying Police report?

Anonymous said...

Dena,
There is so much wrong with what you said, I don't know where to start..

Dena said:

It must also be noted that eight months after his original confession, on February 17, 1994,Misskelley made another statement to police with his lawyer Dan Stidham in the room continually advising Misskelley not to say anything. Misskelley ignored this advice continually and went on to detail how Damien and Jason abused and murdered the boys, while he watched until he decided to leave. I thinks this speaks for itself…….. The first thing a defense attorney does is to get a confession thrown out, and is why Misskelley recanted his first confession, just to give another confession at a later date.

First off, On Jessie's ride to prison the police officers(if you want to call them that)talked to Jessie about how he should testify against Damien and Jason. They told him he would get a deal. They promised him beer and visits with his girlfriend. Even the Judge and the supreme court said this came dangerously close to breaking the law. The police then went to the prosecutors and told them that Jessie Misskelley made another statement. Of course not recorded. The Prosecutors then went and talked to Jessie, turning him against his own lawyers. Of course none of that is recorded either. The Prosecutors then told Jessie they would take away the life sentence if he would make a statement against Damien and Jason. Jessie made another statement against the advice of his lawyers. This confession was only a tiny bit better than the crap he had already said and probably fed to him by prosecutors or Jessie said things he heard at his own trial. Jessie didn't testify, but it sure made the papers and media all hyped up enough to let the jurors know that Jessie Misskelley might be testifying at the Echols Baldwin trial. The jurors who were not supposed to consider these supposed confessions, surely did. Even the Prosecutors said they needed his testimony real bad in order to convict Damien and Jason. They had no evidence against them. That fiber evidence was crap, as were the writings used to claim Damien was a satanist. Damiens journals consisted of lyrics from Pink Flyod songs, and Metallica lyrics.

This confession doesn't speak for itself. It speaks to how desperate the state was to get a conviction with no evidence, period..

Doll

Anonymous said...

The "answers" to my questions, Hobbs' alibi, calling me a liar, and taking Hobbs' sociopathic approach to everyone being a liar (including all 3 of his children)clearly shows that you refuse to accept some of the facts. Hey, I accept Damien's and Jaoby's mtDNA are eeily similar, which I do not like but is truth. This sounds like "friend" of Hobbs. Oh well, the truth will prevent in the end. Somehow, it always does.

Anonymous said...

* Jacoby's

* eerily

* prevail (not prevent)

Sorry, I am operating on a faulty keyboard.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Doll

West Memphis 3 court transcript said...

Well written and well researched article.

from saline.com
Reply by Brent Standridge - I have been following the WM3 cases for some time. As an Assistant Attorney General I represented the State's interests in the cases on appeal, handling the Misskelley case by myself before the Arkansas Supreme Court, and represented the State's interests in the Baldwin and Echols case by orally arguing that case before the Arkansas Supreme Court. I had the benefit of reading all of the transcripts of the proceedings and have read all of the appellate decisions regarding the cases. I never put much stock in the blogs or the Hollywood crowd who evidently have not read the materials regarding the cases, and have instead based their opinions on what others have said about them....

I saw no error in the trials of the cases and the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously affirmed their convictions and sentences (Echols also sought review of his case by the Supreme Court of the United States-that review was denied). Had Echols not received the death penalty I have serious doubts as to whether theses cases would have seen the light of day in the press, much less have received the nationwide publicity that they have received, the anti-death penalty crowd being the driving force behind much of this.

Anonymous said...

Pat,
You stated this regarding Damien Echols; "He is reported to have stomped a dog to death,". I'd like to know where that was reported please. I've never heard that and I find it telling of Damien if true. If not substantiated then I find the comment irresponsible and telling of you.

thanks
DJB

Anonymous said...

I admire your objectivity then, in respet to other suspects. The main reasons I believe the WM3 deserve a new trial, specifically Echols and Baldwin, are that the jury foreman confessed he used the confession as the primary piece to convince to convict when it was barred after some did not feel like they would be able to convict; and Damien was denied proper mental health care for trial. In addition, one prosecution "expert" witness did not have the credentials he claimed. Vicki Hutcheson and the main "softball" gal and her mother claim they were pressured to give testimony that conflicted with actual events and/or their perceptions of them. For these reasons, at the very least they deserve a new trial constitutionally. Since no direct physical evidence is linked to the three but other people can be linked, this case does deserve a new look.

The dog stomping incident was an unconfirmed rumor, to whomever asked.

Janet Braunstein said...

Opposing viewpoints are welcomed and encouraged here--as long as they are on-topic and expressed appropriately. Generally, this leads to interesting, lively discussion. However, all reader comments that contain malicious personal attacks will be deleted. Women in Crime Ink reserves the right to re-post comments after redacting any offensive material. Thank you for reading Women in Crime Ink and for participating in the discussion. -ed.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat. Just a couple of questions:
If you believe the crime was committed at the scene during the waning daylight hours how do you explain the total lack of blood at the crime scene? Cutting with knives surely would produce an enormous amount of blood, surely it can't all have been washed away, leaving no evidence?
Also at a scene, it was teeming with mosquitos so how do explain the lack of mosquito bites on the murdered children?

West Memphis 3 evidence of guilt said...

This was a great article. These were brutal crimes.

Damien Wayne ECHOLS v. STATE of Arkansas CR 99-1060 127 S.W.3d 486
Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered October 30, 2003
The gruesome, disturbing facts of these crimes were set out in great detail in this court's opinion in Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 936 S.W.2d 509 (1996) (Echols I), and we see no reason to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that Echols was charged, along with Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, with the murders of three eight-year-old boys, Michael Moore, Steve Branch, and Christopher Byers, which occurred on May 5, 1993, in West Memphis. The boys' bodies were found submerged in water in a drainage ditch near their homes. The bodies were naked and they had their right hands tied to their right feet and their left hands tied to their left feet. The evidence showed that two of the boys, Moore and Branch, had multiple knife wounds, but ultimately died from drowning. The third boy, Byers, had been mutilated, such that the skin of his penis had been removed, and the scrotal sac and testes were missing. The evidence demonstrated that Byers had bled to death. The evidence further demonstrated that all three boys had been sexually abused.
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2003b/20031030/cr991060.htm

ECHOLS and Baldwin v. STATE of Arkansas CR 94-928
Twelve-year-old Christy VanVickle testified that she heard Echols say he "killed the three boys." Fifteen-year-old Jackie Medford testified that she heard Echols say, "I killed the three little boys and before I turn myself in, I'm going to kill two more, and I already have one of them picked out." The testimony of these two independent witnesses was direct evidence of the statement by Echols.

Anonymous said...

If you do your research, the fact of the matter is, that the West Memphis police completely botched the case from start to finish.
Likewise, you will also find that False Confessions are not uncommon anywhere in the world.
Misskelly is borderline retarded, so it was even easier to get false confessions from a kid who operates with the mind of a 5 year old.
This is a tragic and shocking case and it deserves to be revisited with a new trial and a new judge.
There is something rotten in the state of Arkansas.

Anonymous said...

So in the case of BTK he confessed to murders he didn't commit? I don't doubt that. What is scary is that, this means a killer is still on the lose, and false confessions are accepted to close a case.. Kinda like what happened with Jessie Misskelley in the WM3 case, wouldn't you say?

Doll

Anonymous said...

Christie was lying. Damien was already in custody when she said she heard him saying that. The date that she said she heard him saying that to be clear.

Anonymous said...

http://web.archive.org/web/20040816162009/sheprofilers.com/pages/abou/nicegirl.htm

Anonymous said...

Bartoush is Baldwin's cousin.

INVETIGATIVE REPORT
TRIPLE HOMICIDE
BYERS/MOORE/BRANCH

ON 061493, I DETECTIVE B. RIDGE INTERVIEWED JOE HOUSTON BARTOUSH AT THE RESIDENCE OF HUBERT BARTOUSH AT 1037 PARK STREET IN WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS. JOE WAS PRESENT WHEN I WAS INTERVIEWING HUBERT ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF JASON BALDWIN ON THE DATE OF 050593. JOE STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN WITH DAMIEN ON 112792 WHEN DAMIEN HAD KILLED A DOG IN LAKESHORE TRAILER PARK.

JOE STATED THAT HE AND DAMIEN WERE WALKING ON THE ROAD THAT GOES WEST OUT OF LAKESHORE INTO THE FIELDS WHEN THEY CAME UPON A SICK BLACK GREAT DANE DOG. THE DOG WAS LAYING ON THE GROUND AND DAMIEN GOT A BRICK AND STRUCK THE DOG IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. THE DOG WAS DEAD AT WHICH TIME DAMIEN STARTED JUMPING ON THE DOG AND KICKING IT. DAMIEN STATED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE DOG'S EYES POP OUT AND BLOOD STARTED COMING OUT OF THE DOG'S MOUTH.

JOE STATED THAT DAMIEN HAD A CAMOFLAGE SURVIVAL KNIFE THAT HE CUT THE DOG WITH AND STARTED PULLING THE DOG'S INTESTINES OUT AND STRETCHING THEM OUT TELLING JOE TO HOLD ONE END.

DAMIEN TOLD JOE THAT HE WAS GOING TO COME BACK TO THE DOG WITH SOME BATTERY ACID SO THAT HE COULD BURN THE SKIN AND HAIR OFF OF THE DOG'S SKULL AND TAKE IT HOME WITH HIM. JOE STATED THAT DAMIEN HAD TWO CAT SKULLS, A DOG SKULL, AND A RAT SKULL THAT HE KEPT IN HIS HOUSE WHEN HE LIVED IN JACK ECHOL'S HOUSE IN LAKESHORE BEFORE HE MOVED TO WEST MEMPHIS.

JOE STATED THAT DAMIEN HAD USED A KNIFE TO SCRATCH HIS NAME IN HIS ARM WITH ON ONE OCCASION BUT THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER KNIVES THAT DAMIEN MAY HAVE USED.

JOE WAS SURE OF THE DATE OF THE DOG KILLING BECAUSE HE SKIPPED SCHOOL ON THAT DATE AND GOT CAUGHT.


DETECTIVE B. RIDGE
WEST MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT

Anonymous said...

Read the name Turvey and I got the willies. Does he make it a habit of having relations with clients/their spouses/their family members? Ugh.

His background according to sworn testimony in Oct. of 1998:

1993-At the time of the murders Turvey had a high school diploma and an undergraduate degree in history.
1994-Turvey received an undergraduate degree in psychology.
Turvey didn't receive his masters degree in forensic science until 1996.

Upon hearing of this case, first sent 2 resumes to Mr. Davis with the State and later sent one to Stidham. Whichever pays eh?

Turvey had never had any training whatsoever as a medical doctor. He had never worked in the lab with medical examiners. He wasn't a law enforcement officer and he hadn't worked in a crime lab.

End of the idea that the guy was credible imho.

Anonymous said...

The "answers" to my questions, Hobbs' alibi,

He has one. Now what's your point?

calling me a liar,

Don't state information as fact when it isn't a fact.

and taking Hobbs' sociopathic approach

I bet Echols' Exhibit 500, priors including setting fire, trying to claw out a student's eyeballs, terroristic threatening, having a night time visitor named "Rosie" spending time with him and hearing a voice in his head being the psychopath that he is I suppose is ok with you. Hobbs is no more sociopathic than his ex-wife or Mark Byers and the nuts that try to get on camera with him. They like money don't they.

to everyone being a liar (including all 3 of his children)clearly shows that you refuse to accept some of the facts.

Amanda's diary has nothing stated as fact. Until you hear it straight from the person, then believe all the junk you want.

Hey, I accept Damien's and Jaoby's mtDNA are eeily similar, which I do not like but is truth.

Nice, though I prefer this and you do know about this?
Hair Comparisons:

Items Q1-Q9 were examined and compared to the known samples submitted. Q1 and Q2 ocnsisted of two hairs with razor cut proximal ends. These hairs exhibit some simlarities to both the known hair of Echols (K4) and Dodson (K7). These hairs could have originated from one of these individuals or another individual whose hair exhibits similar microscopic characteristics.

[p. 10, Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences report]

Q10 consisted of one hair exhibiting microscopic characteristics consistent with the known hair of Echols (K4). This hair could have originated from Mr. Echols or another individual whose hair exhibits similar microscopic characteristics.

Anonymous said...

I have to wonder why it is that Joe BARTOUSH Didn't write that report. It's a common theme in this case. Ridge writes the reports for kids and they sign them, probably without even reading them, that is if they are able to read. What was Joe 13? I would think he could write by himself no? It's not like it is typed either, hmmm odd..

Statement of: Joe Houston Bartoush, Jr.
Route 2 Box 767 Lakeshore

DOB **-**-80 ***-****

This statement was written by Det. Ridge at my request.

This statement was completed at 2:07 PM on the 14 day of June 1993.
Witness: Det. B. Ridge
X Joe Bartoush(Signature of person giving voluntary statement)


Now let's talk hairs since someone above forgot to mention all of the results..

How is it that the hairs from Echols, Dodson,and Steve Branch Sr, all possessed the same characteristics as each other, as did Mark Byers and Christopher? None of these people are related. I hope you are not comparing the new dna testing to that crap they used in 1993, are you? Here is a summary of the hairs:


On January 20 the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory reported on the questioned hairs from the lower leg of Byers and those from Stevie Branch to hairs taken from family members. The hairs from Stevie Branch were also found similar to those from his biological father, Steve Branch, Sr. Although Alabama had hair samples from Steve Branch, Sr., they did not reach this conclusion.

Only one hair, that from an unspecified knife, was analyzed by HLA DQ alpha. The results came back with 1.1, 4 matching that of Chris and John Mark Byers. These results were only referred to in passing in the Echols/Baldwin trial with no follow-up by the prosecutor or by the defense. Prosecutor Fogleman questioning the head of Genetic Designs Lab, Michael DeGuglielmo:

Fogleman: But other than those things, nothing matched anybody?
DeGuglielmo: Up until the knife and the hair specimen -
Fogleman: Right.
DeGuglielmo: No sir, that's correct.
Fogleman: I don't have any further questions.

The findings from the hair analyses were not part of the prosecution's case. The reason may have been due to the multiple unexplained hairs that were not found similar to the suspects or else due to the fact that the ones that were found similar were also found similar to multiple sources. The Alabama and Arkansas laboratories had different conclusions. For the sample from Steve Branch, Arkansas found some of the questioned hairs similar to Echols, Dodson and Branch, Sr. and Alabama finding similarities only to Echols and Dodson.

I actually prefer reading dna testing that has improved since 1993, science has come along way, I suggest you follow along..

Doll

DNA evidence explanation by legal authority said...

The legal evidence and legal experts involved in the case show the 3 were guilty. The bloggers not involved in the case ignore this.

Assitant Attorney General Brent Standridge on March 7, 2010 from saline.com

I think the reason the new DNA evidence is not generating a new trial is because the legal standard as is set forth under Arkansas law is if the DNA evidence "if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense." Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201(a)(2). That is the burden that the defendant shoulders. So the standard would not be if there is a hint of doubt about the guilt of one or more of them--that wouldn't even be the standard at the jury trial where the legal standard is highest and provides a defendant with the most protection, that of beyond a reasonable doubt (and the State must prove that at trial--in the post-conviction DNA context the defendant shoulders the burden of proof), not beyond any and all doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And so the question remains: where is this DNA evidence that meets this standard? If there is no DNA evidence, if whatever DNA evidence there may be is inconclusive, or even if there is DNA evidence that potentially shows that someone else was involved, how does this absolve any of the WM3 of their own participation in the murders given the other proof of guilt which was unanimously found by the Arkansas Supreme Court to be legally sufficient to support each and every conviction? There are many people in prison for murder who: (1) had no DNA evidence involved in their cases; or (2) had cases where DNA testing occurred and it could not conclusively show that their DNA was on anything. And the inclusion of another actor by showing that their DNA was present would not exonerate the others involved.

Anonymous said...

Pat, are you aware that shortly after his arrest, one of the accused, Misskelley, (a teenage kid with the mind of a 5 year old) passed a police polygraph test claiming his innocence.
However, the prosecutors lied to him, telling him he had failed.
They followed this up by kidnapping him without legal or parental representation for 12 hours, leading and coercing him into a false confession, only recording a fraction of the "interview" on tape.

I think I would even confess under these conditions.

Afterwards, his own lawyer tricked him into confessing to a robbery that never occurred to test his mental condition.

As far as devil worshipping goes, he had never even heard of satan, even, asking who "satin" was when presented with a picture of him in a religious pamphlet.

You probably mean well Pat, but if you do your research, there are too many doubts in this case for there not to be a new trial, with a new judge, in another state, don't you think?

West Memphis 3 evidence of guilt said...

Excellent article - the legal evidence shows they were guilty. If anything the bloggers say was true, they would have been released long ago.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes the legal systems just gets it wrong.

Anonymous said...

I used to think the three men were guilty until I delved further into the facts. This case is all about cover ups and corruption. We hope and pray the truth will eventually be revealed and justice finally prevails. Heads will roll.

Pat Brown said...

I was asked about the time of death. This is a good question and very important in establishing when the crime occurred. Below is a discussion from my analysis of the Turvey profile on the issue.

James M. Moore – The lividity question. Turvey writes that the report state that “the lividity was present. It also states that the lividity WAS blanched with pressure.” Turvey goes on to explain that “lividity begins about thirty minutes after death has occurred. After 4 or 5 hours, dependent on environmental conditions, lividity fixes and will not blanche. It takes about 8 to 10 hours for lividity to become fixed. (This is a contradiction. Is Turvey saying lividity fixes in 5 hours or 10 hours?)

Let’s use a description of lividity (livor mortis) from Adelson’s The Pathology of Homicide. He states “In the early postmortem period, livor is usually not “fixed”, and its distribution can be altered by changing the decedent’s position. Thus, if a corpse which was supine for a brief interval after death is turned over so that it is prone, lividity which had been developing in the dorsal areas disappears slowly, and anterior lividity appears. Ordinarily, livor becomes fixed eight to ten hours postmortem and remains in its areas of development even thought the bodily position is changed and formerly lower sites are now no longer dependent. However, here as elsewhere in the area of postmortem chronology, there is no rigid time-table. Fixation of livor has been reported as early as one hour after death, and absence of fixation has been noted twelve hours postmortem.”

Okay, got that? What all that means is the only thing lividity with fixation can tell you is that the person has been dead at least an hour and possibly more than twelve hours. This means if the boy’s were killed at the last time they were seen, 6:30 PM and lividity rushed in within the hour, then fixation could have occurred by 7:30 PM. If lividity took four hours Turvey mentions on his first round, then they could have been killed at 6:30 PM and the lividity set in at 10:30pm. If we go with Turvey’s longest guess of ten hours, then a 6:30 murder would have lividity set in at 4:30 in the morning. But, once the lividity is set, it is set! So whether, lividity fixed at 7:30pm, 10:30pm, or 4:30am, it doesn’t tell you when the murder itself took place. The most important use of lividity is to note if the body has been moved and interesting marks show on the body depending on what the body was touching.

So Turvey goes on to state, “This COULD (emphasis mine) place the time of death (which can only be given as a range (WHAT RANGE?) of James Moore at sometime after daybreak (again time not given) on May 6th, 1993.” Since lividity can’t tell us any accurate time of death, why is Turvey trying to create a time of death at dawn? (Remember Byers only possible times available to commit the crimes).

Pat Brown said...

Time of Death (cont):


Turvey then discuss rigor mortis. He does a fairly decent job with this. Interestingly enough, though, he avoids discussing the time of death on this. Why? I believe he is avoiding the issue because he can’t place the time at daybreak. The report states in the autopsy of James M. Moore, according to Turvey, that “Rigor was present and fixed to an equal degree in al extremities. “ Turvey does admit that “Rigor reaches full even distribution within 12 to 24 hours after death.” Yes, indeed. Spitz and Fisher’s Medicolegal Investigation of Death states “In temperate climates, under average conditions, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, REMAINS for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours.” Also, “Hypothermia and cold environmental conditions (cold streams) slow the chemical reactions and the rigor process.

So, where does this leave the time of death? Well, since the body of Moore was in full rigor, he was likely dead AT LEAST twelve hours. Hmm…this means since the body was found at 1:45pm, this would mean Moore had to have been murdered at least by 1:45 am. Considering that rigor mortis doesn’t disappear for at least twelve more hours, he could conceivably been killed at 1:45 PM the day before! Add the cold water and the process could be retarded further. This would completely destroy any possibility of Moore being murdered at dawn. Could this be why Turvey won’t make a guesstimate here?

So, how DO we decide when the boys died? If as Turvey states, “by itself, the use of Rigor Mortis to determine a time of death, or a time range of death, is not advised. (Was it advised with lividity which is even more inaccurate?) Several biological indicators should be used.” I tend to agree with that, so let’s look at a realistic view of the time of murders. One of the most important points to focus on is the lack of deep furrows and abrasions left by the shoelace ligatures on the body of Moore. As Turvey states and I agree with him here, “This indicates the victim was not struggling when the ligatures were in place.” Yes, Moore had been quickly incapacitated by blows to the head and then tied up. He died however from drowning. So, let’s go back to our two time possibilities with Byers; right after the boys were last seen at 6:30pm and in those early hours before dawn. IF Byers did not kill the boys until dawn, where were they for those approximately twelve hours in between? Tied up I guess in some unknown location! For twelve hours! Are we to assume that the Moore child was so incapacitated during that time that he at no time regained enough consciousness to at any point struggle against his ligatures BUT he was not so badly injured that he didn’t die until he was dumped in the stream? Were the other two boys left tied up for some twelve hours alone except for when Byers had a moment to check up on them? Where were these three boys being kept? Let’s assume now that the three teenagers grab them and didn’t kill them until morning. This is equally unlikely. So we can pretty much put together the evidence of the time the boys were last seen, the lividity and rigor information, and a bit of logic and come up with the murders occurring in the immediate hours after the boys were last seen.

Pat Brown said...

And the mosquito bite question:

First, let's look at behavior and reality. The boys were seen going on their bikes into the wooded area. Their bikes were found there. We can conclude the boys were in that area in the evening. If there were lots of mosquitoes, the boys would have gotten bitten up regardless of whether a crime then occurred or did not. We also do not know exactly how bad any mosquitoes were at that location and at the time the boys went into the location. Now, to the discussion in Turvey's profile.

Turvey points out a lack of mosquito bites as proof that the injuries the victims sustained occurred in a location other than on the ditch bank or in the water. First of all, Turvey does not mention what the autopsy report states. Next, one must wonder if the photos would be of sufficient quality to glean this sort of information. ( Later on in this profile, Turvey complains that the autopsy photos are of such poor quality he cannot see the ”HUMAN bite marks” clearly enough to identify them as such). Let’s assume that there were indeed no mosquito bites on any of the victim. In order to make any absolute point about this issue, we must first ascertain what kind of mosquito activity is in the area. It is not enough to ‘assume’ that mosquitoes would be biting because there is a stream running through the woods. IF indeed there was a reasonable amount of mosquito activity, the next question would be “at what hour” do the mosquitoes tend to become a problem. If the boys were murdered before dusk, WOULD we see any evidence of mosquito bite marks on the bodies? Unfortunately, when Turvey makes his claims that the assaults could not have occurred outside., he offers us no substantial proof to back his argument.

Anonymous said...

Pat,
I don't understand why you are using anything Turvey said to come to any conclusions.. He hasn't been on the case for years. We know that the woods were infested with mosquitoes because Officer Meeks, tried to go into the woods around 8:30 to look for the children, and she left because according to her, she was breathing in mosquitoes and she didn't believe that the boys would be in the woods. Although I am not a big fan of Turvey, I do believe he did get some things right when it comes to Byers being the killer. Byers claims he was searching behind the Blue Beacon with his stepson Ryan, Ryan never backed this up. Byers said he was searching with Tony Hudson, there is no evidence this ever happened, as there are no statements, to this day from Tony Hudson. Mark Byers said he searched with Terry Hobbs, David Jacoby, and Jacki Hicks(Pam Hobbs father) the night of the murders,yet now he says he didn't and even Pams sister Jolynn says Mark Byers used her father for an alibi. Why did he need to use anyone as an alibi? Christopher Byers was hit with a belt on this day for not coming home from school. Christopher after being hit, left the house again, told a friend he was running away, and was never seen alive again. Steve Branch was said by the coroner to have marks on his eye consistant with belt buckle marks(the supposed bite marks) and another on his jaw.Christopher also had marks from a belt on him. If the new experts are correct and the other more serious wounds are from snapping turtles which have been proven to live in those woods, isn't it possible that Byers found the children when he had no alibi, or had a created alibi after midnight? Byers went to one of Christopher's friend's house, Posey, and when Posey told Byers Christopher was running away, Byers said he would have to whip Christopher again. Melissa Byers died mysteriously, Byers told his girlfriend at the time, dead people can't testify, when asked about his court date for robbery. Melissa and Ryan were with him for this robbery/arson. Ryan left that house to never return, after his mother died. The kershaw knife that Byers gave to hbo,which was tested for blood, had the same type as Byers and Christopher. The same results were concluded for the hair found in the hinge of that knife. When the tests were being done this time around, the knife was contaminated(supposedly) by a Bode worker, and now the defense along with Byers are accusing Hobbs. As for time of death, Peretti said in the Echols/Bladwin trial that they boys could have died between 1-5am. Officer Slater checked the woods around 6am, and never saw the boys, but more importantly, never saw the floating shoe, that the juvenile officer Steve Jones found when the police returned to the woods to look for the kids. There were only 2 footprints found at the scene. If Officer Slater and his partner were in the creek, how did their footprints get rubbed away?

Doll

Pat Brown said...

Snapping turtles - The defense really is working overtime to come up with an alternative to the original determinations. They are also now working from the photos Turvey said were not the greatest so how they could determine this is beyond my understanding; first bite marks from a human, now bite marks from turtles.

I would have to say I am not overly impressed by Peretti and I don't agree with his saying the time of death "could" be from 1-5 AM, but the most convincing point to me is that no offender, even a stupid one, would bring three victims TO the location of an ongoing police search. There is no reason for the offender to dump the boys there. If it were really Hobbs and his buddy who did this, they would have dumped the boys away from their home, hoping they would buy time to get rid of any evidence and for any evidence on the bodies to disappear. They would want the boys to appear as though they were abducted by strangers and taken away and sexually assaulted and killed. They wouldn't want them found down the street the next day. Anyone with a vehicle who abducted the boys would have dumped them elsewhere. The reason the boys were found in Robin Hood Hills is because they were killed IN Robin Hood Hills.

Pat Brown said...

One more thing about evidence; you would be surprised at how often a scene has way less evidence than you would think, especially outdoor scenes. As to Turvey's profile, the defense hung on that profile for years but now it is gone from the WM3 site when the Hobbs-as-suspect thing came to be. I am not using the profile as much as using the points in it to respond to.

The mosquito bit can change by the minute and by the location. One cannot take one interesting possibility as proof that something didn't happen when there is a lot of evidence proving that it did. It is the totality of evidence that makes a determination or a case.

I agree that the boys didn't have the best of home lives but a statement here or there or a disciplinary act here and there does not support the brutal murder of three boys including clothes removal and bondage.

One more important thing for all of us: if we are not on the inside of the investigation, we can actually only give our opinions based on what information we come across. I have found that when I am INSIDE the investigation with total access to all the files, other information may come to light that alters my outside analysis of the case. One of the reasons I did my analysis of the case FROM Turvey's profile is to give the defense the best chance. If they have access to everything and have done an investigation and this is their profiler, let me analyze the profile from their side. So without influence from the prosecutor or law enforcement, I found the defense argument lacking.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say one thing about Hobbs, I'm talking about Byers:)

I've seen the autopsy photos and they are clear as day. A knife in no way shape or form made that mark on Stevie's face. Christopher I am not so sure, but I will say that I have looked up *degloving* and animals can and do deglove. I am of the believe the murderer is a family member, the one I mentioned without an alibi. I'm not that big on Peretti either but he is really all anyone can go with,if you don't want to believe the new experts. I never said the murderer left the crime scene. If the boys ran away and were staying in the woods and the killer was part of the search party, the woods would be the easiest place to leave them. I said nothing about cars either,lol..

Byers has a violent past, he was a drug informer, drug addict, abused his first wife and real children,amoung other things. Please don;t do a profile from Turvey, go to Callahan's and read the documents, you would be surprised what you find out..

Doll

Anonymous said...

I forgot the mention, the police never responded to the woods to help search for the children until the next day. NO POLICE AT THE CRIME SCENE ALL NIGHT.. And *someone* had a police scanner.......

Doll

Anonymous said...

Re the mosquitoes: ...."at 9pm on May 5, the temperature was 73F, an inch of rain a few days before had already brought out the mosquitoes. The insects were a nuisance everywhere but they were especially thick in places that were moist and overgrown. The officer who'd taken the missing person reports on Christopher Byers and Michael Moore later reported that she'd ventured into the woods near the Mayfair Apartments to help look for the boys but the mosquitoes had driven her out."
If you haven't read Devil's Knob by Mara Leveritt I suggest you do Pat, it's an excellent source of reference.

Anonymous said...

PS: the above information is Climatological date for Memphis in May 1993 from the National Climatic Data Center.

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting link with facts about Mid South Justice and the West Memphis Police Department.

Quite chilling.

http://www.midsouthjustice.com/wmpd.htm

Anonymous said...

An example of falsification of the West Memphis Police logs:

The WMP logs show that they despatched their Officer Meeks to the Bojangles Restaurant at 8.40pm after a call from the manager about a bleeding, muddy, disoriented black man.

However, Marty King, the Manager of the restaurant swore at the Echol's trial that he made the call to police at approximately 9.30pm, half an hour before closing time.

Highly suspicious.

Further, the police subsequently conveniently lost every piece of evidence relating to so called "Mr Bojangles".

The case was botched from the start.

Attorney involved in case said...

The West Memphis 3 were guilty. The evidence shows this.

West Memphis 3 - MySaline.com 3/6/10

Reply by Brent Standridge - I have been following the WM3 cases for some time. As an Assistant Attorney General I represented the State's interests in the cases on appeal, handling the Misskelley case by myself before the Arkansas Supreme Court, and represented the State's interests in the Baldwin and Echols case by orally arguing that case before the Arkansas Supreme Court. I had the benefit of reading all of the transcripts of the proceedings and have read all of the appellate decisions regarding the cases. I never put much stock in the blogs or the Hollywood crowd who evidently have not read the materials regarding the cases, and have instead based their opinions on what others have said about them....

I saw no error in the trials of the cases and the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously affirmed their convictions and sentences (Echols also sought review of his case by the Supreme Court of the United States-that review was denied). Had Echols not received the death penalty I have serious doubts as to whether theses cases would have seen the light of day in the press, much less have received the nationwide publicity that they have received, the anti-death penalty crowd being the driving force behind much of this....

I totally reject the notion that those who were involved in the cases are corrupt persons whose interests in the cases were for purposes of political gain. Two of the attorneys I worked with on the cases at the Attorney General's Office are still there; I left there back in 1997 to work in the prosecutor's office in Saline County. I do not see how one can say everyone who dealt with the cases is "on the take" or has been vaulted to some lofty and lucrative gig as a result of being involved in these cases. Some would lead us to believe that the State's appellate attorneys, the trial judge, the prosecutor and his office, and the seven Justices of the Supreme Court of Arkansas who reviewed and unanimously affirmed the convictions and sentences are all crooked. That simply isn't the case--have a different opinion of the cases if you wish, but these conspiracy theories are getting a little bit old.

Anonymous said...

Oh my, you must bee very naive or ignorant then if you honestly think there was no corruption involved. The WMP Department were under investigation for corruption when the murder occurred. Please read the facts.

Anonymous said...

I have been following this murder case very closely for many years too and am close to certain professionals who have worked on the case.

Politics is a "dirty game" as we all know, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

There is a lot of information out there for anyone interested in finding more about the murder case.

For a start, if you go to www.callahan.8k.com you will find that this is where all the case documents straight from the evidence room have been stored.

There are hundreds and hundreds of documents, everything from statements to polygraph results to luminol photos are here.

I think some people in office who were involved in the case might be getting rather nervous as the true facts emerge and we get closer to a retrial.

Anonymous said...

If any prosecution office gets it wrong, it can cast an enormous shadow not only on the office of the Attorney General but on the entire US criminal justice system.

That is to be accepted.

The Prosecution is there to get it right and they clearly failed in this case.

There is no doubt there is politicization of the legal system and that is the problem.

Anonymous said...

Here's another prime example of police WMP corruption relating to this case:

James Sudbury, a West Memphis Police Officer from the Drug Task Force conducted many primary interrogations in this murder case.

He testified at the Misskelly and Echols/Baldwin trials.

In 2001, he along with two other officers, would later be fired for falsifying evidence and missing drugs from evidence lockers.

This is not corruption?

MW

Real legal evidence said...

The unsubstantiated "evidence" from anonymous bloggers proves nothing. The real legal evidence and trial documents and lost appeals show the 3 were guilty. The "corruption" comes from those spinning this case to make them look innocent.

Anonymous said...

This is not unsubstantiated evidence, it is real, legal evidence.

Visit www.callahan.8k.com or midsouthjustice.com and you will find many documents that raise serious questions and prove there was corruption involved.

"Anonymous bloggers", such as myself, are often too afraid to reveal their identities because of problems in the past with "stalkers" and the like.

Evidence they were guilty said...

I prefer real legal documents to blogs. The legal documents show they were guilty.

Anonymous said...

I prefer real legal documents too, which are for all to see on www.callahan.8k.com

I'm afraid your ignorance is showing. It's preferable to have an open mind rather than tunnel vision. Have a look and you'll see.

Real legal evidence said...

They lost every appeal. The trial transcripts show they were guilty.

Anonymous said...

The lost their appeals because it's the same judge, David Burnett who presided over their original case. He's presently running for senate. Smells of political corruption to me.

west memphis 3 evidence of guilt said...

No, the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously affirmed their convictions and sentences.

Echols also sought review of his case by the Supreme Court of the United States and the review was denied. There is no political corruption. The legal evidence shows they were guilty.

paradise lost said...

Pat Brown said:
The boys were overpowered by larger assailants and the crime was committed at the scene, most likely in the water during the waning daylight hours.

My responses
Where is your evidence to support the claim of TOD? The medical examiner testified in court to a TOD of 1 am to 5 am on the sixth.


Pat Brown said:
Now, who would be likely to live near the scene, not have a vehicle, have a posse big enough to handle three boys and be recognizable to the boys so they could lure them without them running away?

My response:

David Wren, Frankie Knight, Carlos Seals, Kent Lynn, Otto Bailey, Tim Cotton, Chris Morgan, Bobby Deangelo, LG Hollingsworth, Jason White, Billy Sanderson, Jerry Nearns, Robert Burch, Donald Warwick, to name a few youths in the area who fit this criteria, four were actually seen there by witnesses including the brother of a victim.
Care to explain the broken knife those four boys seen hanging around the woods at dusk, left in the woods? I guess your extensive research missed those statements and photos of the knife they broke and left in the woods.

Pat Brown said : Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence),
My response:
The medical examiner testified in court the children died between 1 am and 5 am on the sixth do you want a link to the trial transcripts ? where did you get your time from? can you show some proof of the rigor or livor evidence supporting your claims because the ME who performed the autopsies certainly did not say that.






Pat Brown said : The crime was planned (even if just minutes before, when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought; a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth.

My response:

so you are saying the lake knife the prosecution tried to pretend was the murder weapon was not actually there ?

As mentioned previously there were youths in the area but not the three accused let me know if you need a link to the actual evidence of this.




Pat Brown said :
Damien Echols is an evil, soulless creature. His two buddies aren't worth much either.

My response:
Evil? soulless?
This is surely not part of a professional profile! Sounds more like some religious zealot

Pat Brown said :
They aren't being discriminated against because they wore black or were a bit weird. They are in prison because sometimes teens kill.

My response:
And sometimes the justice system gets it wrong ask the innocence project they will happily provide you with statistics

So if you are so sure they are guilty why not have a new trial?

I am sorry if I sound a little under-whelmed by your alleged expertise, I am just disappointed because I think I expected an actual professionally researched opinion with facts included rather than this account of a soulless devil worshiper fairy story.

No offense but I used to think you worked for free out of altruism, not necessity.

you are welcome to come to our forum and discuss this case but if you are prepared to use actual evidence and discuss the case.

Anonymous said...

The report states in the autopsy of James M. Moore, according to Turvey, that “Rigor was present and fixed to an equal degree in al extremities. “


i have heard of bad maths but this takes the cake !

you are aware the autopsy was conducted on the 7th right? the full rigor comment was also made on the 7th and not at the crime scene. the autopsy probably started at 7 or 8 am on the 7th the body was taken from the water at 2.45 pm on the 6th.

full rigor was noted by the M.E. at autopsy, your time is incorrect by at least 15 hours.

did you say extensive research ?

now apply the maths formula above.

of course he was in full rigor by the following day after discovery.

Anonymous said...

hurry up and give them what they did to them 3 innocent little boys. you only need to look into thier eyes(west memphis 3) and see they are all guilty , you can see they have no soul, they are evil. pieces of crap who deserve to die slowly and painfully. it s crap how all these famous people get in on it. WAKE UP THEY ARE GUILTY. LOOK INTO THEIR EYES YOU WILL SEE NO SOUL NO FEELINGS JUST DARKNESS JUST BLACK IS ALL YOU L SEE,

Ira Mency said...

I'm suprised at how many people are evenly divided on this issue. The problem here is are they guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt?

I have reasonable doubt when other tips were called in but nothing followed up or through. If other people's forensic evidence, dna, fibers, hairs, or whatever you want to call it were found at the scene (sadly in a time where we didn't have the technology we had today) why werne't these people initial suspects?

I've never seen the movies and I don't want to. I can't help feeling a rush to judgement was entered with force and haste. I would certainly feel differently if the boys had been kept in custody but other investigations ensued such as the truck stop, the man covered in blood, etc.

I think many kids go though identity issues growing up, especially those in broken homes or with problems. Hey, I listened to death metal and read the satanic bible once. I drew crazy drawings and poems that were off the wall. I even collected a deer skull out of the woods because I thought it was cool, but that didn't make me a brutal sexual predator or killer, just a journalist who thinks these kids didn't do it.

I'm not alone in my thoughts, but this is the power of America, we can all tend to disagree and that's the beauty of it. I've seen and interviewed people who have been prey to police force and forced confessions and I wonder in a time before CSI technology existed, how many innocents died on death row and how many killers roamed free?

There is reasonable doubt, at least in MY MIND.

Bobbi said...

Wow! It amazes me how you are so arrogant as to portray what you think may have happened into saying that this is what happened. How do you know what really happened to any of these kids? How do you know what their thoughts were? How do you know what took place in which order? A lot of the things that you had to say about the WM3 case in particular have since been proven by EXPERTS to be incorrect. Where do you get off? This is a disguting rant from some person who thinks they know it all apparently. Get a life!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pat, I was extremely bothered by the documentaries on this case. It's become a popculture phenomenum. But the right people are behind bars and thankfully will not be getting out. DE is a classic psychopath, completely narcissistic, totally self obsessed and dangerously charismatic as shown by the devotion of his many charmed fans as shown above.

Zachary said...

This article is missing a lot of information that points to them being innocent and also has quite a bit of false information... Somewhat disgusting if intentional.

Anonymous said...

You have asked people to read the court transcripts and statements made, the "real proof". What should an educated adult think when the words read in those documents are proven to be INTENTIONAL LIES? A prime example would be Vicki Hutcheson and her (then eight year) son Aarons statements. I do want to point out that he was only doing and saying what he was TOLD to do and say at the time and should not be seen with the same level of disgust as Vicki. She knew she was lying, as did many, but her statements were shown as "proof" of guilt against Damien, Jesse and Jason. Do not pretend to have knowledge of how officials handled and mis-handled "evidence" based on what you read, regardless of where you read it. The sad fact is, with this case, you are still reading statements that may or may not be true, regardless of the source. I live in West Memphis and I believe that the WMPD has, then and now, good intentions. Believing in the guilt of the WM3 is not the problem, allowing fabricated evidence to build a stronger case, IS. Chosing not to look at other possible scenarios, no matter what you may personally believe actually happened, IS. I have a hard time believing in much of what I have read, for or against the defendants. I have seen, read and heard falsehoods from both sides. Believing something to be the most likely scenario or the truth does not make it fact. An innocent and honest person speaking does not ensure the truth is being spoken, just ask Aaron.

Anonymous said...

Michael (I won't call him with his chosen name of a horror movie character) Wayne Echols is a filthy, evil creature. He would have likely become a serial killer had he not been stopped after "only" a triple murder. All the early signs were there - arson, violence, broken home, delusions, killing animals...

But unlike some, I am fearful that this monster may actually be released. Cokehead cretins like John Depp (how creepy is it when an actor who pushes 50 insists on being called "Johnny") rail behind him, and let's not forget that some psychotic murderers have already been released thanks to people like that - people they consider useful idiots. Just look at failed boxer and successful murderer Ruben C. - there's even a movie about him. And he's free...

Anonymous said...

This "article" is beyond ridiculous. You obviously have NOT done the research. This type of blatant ignorance, and false reporting is exactly what led to three innocent people having their lives destroyed.
What happened to those three young boys was a horrible crime, and the person or persons responsible need to be brought to justice, and this type of outlook is one of the things that prevent the real murderers from being brought to light.
You printed lies and false information on this post for anyone to see. Please do your research.

Anonymous said...

The people who have posted here claiming the WM3 are guilty speak volumes about the type of person that can't see see the FACTS in front of their face.

"West Memphis 3" Follow-Up said...

Statement from Diana Moore, mother of murder victim Michael Moore:

In 1993, all I wanted was justice for Michael, Christopher, and Stevie, and closure for myself, and my family. 17 years later, still no justice, or closure.

Since the convictions, the media has made it a point to make this case all about the convicted. I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that three innocent 8 year old children were brutally murdered, and these three men were convicted on the evidence presented to 24 , (in total), juror members that voted unanimously to convict.

Not one of the celebrities interviewed in this program has ever bothered to personally read the case file at West Memphis PD, or speak to anyone involved in prosecuting this case.


My little boy died that day. I'm his mother, and wish to say that the public remains ignorant about what happened in court primarily as a result of the Paradise Lost films, and the writing of Mara Leveritt. My voice is small compared to theirs, but I believe more relevant. They weren't there during the trials, and they didn't lose anybody. I lost almost everything, and not a day goes by that I don't mourn for Michael. The public should think about that before casting their lot in with Eddie Vedder and Natalie Maines.

West Memphis 3: Stevie Branch's Father Upset with Johnny Depp said...

He felt compelled to speak out now because of recent publicity in the case. "I'm here for the three eight-year-old boys that were tortured and murdered, one of which was my son, Little Steve," he said.

Branch was convinced after the trials, and remains convinced today, that the right people are behind bars for the murders of Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

Part of his message Friday was meant specifically for the West Memphis Three. "Instead of begging them to let you out, you should be begging them to let you stay in there, because you don't want to come back out here," Branch said.

Branch was upset when he saw parts of a recent interview Johnny Depp did for an upcoming episode of 48 Hours Mystery . "To Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder and the rest of you celebrities trying to get in the spotlight by standing on my son's shoulders, stop it. You should be ashamed of yourselves," Branch said

Grahame C said...

Thank you Pat. This is one of the most frightening murders of all time, and it takes an extremely dangerous psychopath to not only commit it, but to entice two of his friends to join him! Thank god they were caught and put behind bars, and thank god that it where they will stay. Damien practically gloats about his crime at the end of Paradise Lost 1, and I believe he will continue to expose his own guilt, as his narcissism takes over his desire to be seen as innocent. Personally I don't believe that's what he wants, I think he wants full credit. Time will tell, but he's laughing at the supporters behind his hand.

All three boys have admitted guilt to different people here, Damien came very close to admitting his part to LE after conviction but stopped short and admitted he will only give details to his own doctor ...and remember he did tell his friends about the crime in the weeks afterwards, and he admitted he wanted to kill, and how he wanted to do it to L.G. Hollingsworth in the weeks leading up to the murders.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/audio/hollingsworth_lg_030894.mp3

Anonymous said...

Ma'am, please do your research. I have read all court transcripts, books, etc. Yes, I have seen the movies also. I am a molecular biologist by career, I should add. DNA is my JOB. A person of mediocre intelligence could deduce that the wm3 did not commit this crime. It's obvious that your mind is made up so I shall not attempt to confuse you with facts. However, I do hope that your son, brother, or husband is unjustly accused of murder. I hope your relative is then put on death row, and you spend all your waking hours trying to save his life. Then I hope some uneducated, misinformed hack writes a two bit article about the murder. Turnabout is fair play, bitch.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Jacoby stated that at about 5 p.m. on May 5, 1993, Terry Hobbs had come to Mr. Jacoby's nearby residence in West Memphis, Arkansas, with his daughter, Amanda; that Mr. Hobbs had left at about 6 or 6:30 p.m.; that he (Mr. Jacoby) could not recall whether Amanda had gone with Mr. Hobbs when he left at that time; and that Mr. Hobbs had returned to the Jacoby residence after about an hour, i.e., at about 7 or 7:30 p.m. Mr. Jacoby also stated that at this time, he accompanied Mr. Hobbs to search for Steven Branch, and that at one point they had walked to a bridge over the big bayou just south of the ten mile bayou and looked around. [Exhibit X. Declaration of Rachael Geiser.]



Terry Hobbs had time to commit this crime. Nobody really started looking for the children until it got dark. Remember at one point Terry was at David Jacoby's house with his daughter, but he left by himself for about an hour and came back to David's house. I don't know what made Terry snap, but something did that day. I can think of several things, but I believe Terry saw the boys playing by an abandoned house. He was furious at Stevie for disobeying him, because he probably had told Stevie to get home, and he didn't listen, so he killed Chris, Michael, and his own step-son Stevie in an abandoned house (that probably nobody really knew about except for the boys) close to Robin Hood Hills.
I believe Terry only meant to punish Stevie, but the other two saw what was going on, and he killed them also. He went back to David's house and told him what he did, and they left to clean up the site where the murders took place.
I also do believe that people have said that the Blue Beacon Truck stop was a place where transients and homeless people would frequent and wander alot. That man from Mr. Bojangles was a homeless man who could've been staying there temporarily, but ran into Terry and David that night; saw what had happened, or what was going on, and one of them stabbed him or fought with him, and thats how he wandered into the resteraunt, but instead of telling what he had just saw; he panicked,used the bathroom on himself, and walked away.
I believe the crime scene is an abandoned house where the kids were stabbed, and beaten unconscience, and then later stripped naked with their shoelaces tied from their wrist to their ankles. They were then put in a sheet with their belongings, and either carried or driven to the dump site. Footprints were covered up by dirt and mud, as Terry and David both stood in the stream and dumped the children's bodies and their belongings where they eventually drowned,and softly placed their bicycles by the pipe.
Maybe I'm completely in left field, but I think I'm somewhat correct. We see the news everyday, and parents kill their kids all the time for many reasons, but the way these three children were killed was senseless and maybe that's why I'm so into the case, but when someone is psycho and full of rage anything is possible.
My question is: How can teenage boys commit such a brutal act and leave not a trace of DNA, or anything? It's fuunny how only Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby's DNA is the only around.I believe in order to convict some one you must have solid proof and evidence, you can not go on how some one behaves, or how they look.

Jon Reiss said...

This article is the problem with the internet. I implore you to re-write this and pitch it to any kind of reputable magazine or newspaper. Your assertion that these cases are in any way linked is unsettling and your b-movie, night school writing class attempts at dramatizing a murder that I assume you did not witness make for a good waste of my time. I'd love to hear have a healthy debate with anyone that knows this case well and supports the defense. You're giving women in crime a bad name.

Anonymous said...

BS article! I hate that I wasted 4 minutes of my life. I want them back.

Anonymous said...

Pat, I typically appreciate your opinion but I'll take physical evidence over circumstantial any day.

On 5/5/93, Jason Baldwin stayed late school, preparing a submission to an art exhibit. He went home, substantiated by his brother and his mother's boyfriend. Had the police interviewed the neighbors, perhaps this could have been further substantiated. He walked with Damien, Domini, and Ken to his great-uncle's house, where he mowed the lawn, visable to all those neighbors, as well. He took the money he earned and went to the local Wal*Mart with his friend, Ken. Jason was a slight boy with long blond hair. If this Wal*Mart's video games are located in the same area as every one I have ever been in, this, too could have been further substantiated. He visited another friend, trading/buying a tape and selling him a necklace for $4. This friend's parents, neighbors, or other family members could have further substantiated his visit. He was in by his curfew, which even other kids will acknowledge he abided by. He had pets, was well regarded by teachers, made above average grades, cared for his younger brothers. He vandalized some old cars, not the property of someone he was angry with. He stole about $6 worth of candy. It was confirmed that he was at school all day and he accounted for his whereabouts for the rest of the day. WMPD didn't even acknowledge any of this.

Virtually the entire trailor park where Jessie lived confirmed that he was there during that evening. He babysat for neighbor's children.

Damien certainly had some serious psychological issues. However, so did the two abusive stepfathers. This isn't speculation. Christopher had multiple old scars to prove he was being abused. Multiple statements from family members of Stevie suggest that he was being sexually abused. Per his school counselor, Christopher's mother suspected he was being sexually abused.

WMPD never even interviewed Terry Hobbs, by his own admission, until 14 years later. His neighbors were not interviewed, either. I have no reason believe the neighbors providing sworn affidavits that he did see those boys that day are lying. What valid reason would he have to deny this? His own friend, who Terry used as a alibi, provided a sworn affidavit that refutes his timeline. It is him that has no alibi for the evening the boys disappeared, until he picked his wife up from work at 9:30. He never called her, even after groups had started scouring the neighborhood looking for the boys.

I am from Arkansas. I have never watched the Paradise Lost "documentaries" or read the book, Devil's Knot, as I am fully aware that these are biased. I've based my opinion on all the other information available, that one can draw their own conslusions from.

I am greatly relieved by the Supreme Court's decision, granting evidentiary hearing(s). I want a new trial, with an impartial judge and jury. I want to know the killer(s) of Stevie, Michael and Christopher are really off the street and not free among us.

Anonymous said...

Jason and Jessie did have alibis that could be substantiated by people other than their families or each other. Damien had some serious psychological issues but so did the two abusive stepfathers. There were physical signs of prior abuse. One on them really doesn't have an alibi and both have been caught in lies. The above analysis could just as easily apply to one of them. I am thankful that a new trial is likely. As an Arkansan, I want a fair trial and some genuine assurance that the actual killer(s) of these three little boys is in prison and not free among us. By the way, I have never watched the Paradise Lost movies or read Devil's Knot.

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no physical evidence pointing to the West Memphis Three and for the crime to have been committed as claimed by the prosecutors (violent beatings, castration, anal and oral raping, chasing, stabbing, etc)there would HAVE to be. And beyond the physical evidence pointing to Terry Hobbs (not just his own hair - that of a man he was with the evening the boys went missing) have you even watched his recent two day civil deposition and compared it with his '07 police testimony and Dimension films interview? He's demonstrably lying through his teeth and none of his versions match each other or other witnesses. Now why do you figure that is? And if you want to talk about violent psychopaths with no alibis - Hobbs is your man. The West Memphis Three will never be re-tried because the State has no case which it will be forced to admit it after the upcoming hearing. We only hope the real killer can still be investigated and prosecuted as he should have been 17 years ago.

In the meantime, please stop spreading disinformation. You are either ignorant of the facts or a totally dishonest person.

Anonymous said...

I also would like the 4 minutes of my life back. I cannot believe that you can dramatise events like this. I don't profess to know everything about this case but I do know enough to know that YOU were'nt there.

Anonymous said...

"I KIND OF ENJOY IT BECAUSE NOW EVEN AFTER I DIE,PEOPLE ARE GOING TO REMEMBER ME FOREVER.THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ME FOR YEARS.PEOPLE IN WEST MEMPHIS WILL TELL THEIR KIDS STORIES.IT WILL BE LIKE,SORT OF LIKE I'M THE WEST MEMPHIS BOOGEYMAN.LITTLE KIDS WILL BE LOOKING UNDER THEIR BEDS-DAMIEN ECHOLS. Now does this sound like a man who is innocent to you? Read the transcripts on www.callahan.8k.com How about Damien acting as if he never heard of Crowley but yet knew Crowley said that if you sacrifice young children that you get more power from their blood. How about when one of the parents seen their child's body with the eyes popped out of the sockets just like that Great Dane? The autopsy report says no rape but yet feces found all over one of the boys anus and the other boy mud up in the rectum? This proves only 2 of the boys were sodomized because Jessie Misskelley ran just as he said and refuse to rape the third victim. What animal who eat its victim in 2 feet of water you morons!
The tip of the penis was cut off so Damien Echols could suck the blood. Now hire Psychic Detective Nancy Myer and Psychic Detective Annette Martin and bet these women will tell all of you that the true killers are right where they deserve to be. These monsters will be set free because they have celebrities backing them up and dont think Echols and Baldwin wont do this again. Anybody who supports the West Memphis Three should get lethal injection.

Jessie said...

I don't actually think you did do any research. Otherwise you would know that the boys were not raped and that the strongest piece of evidence (a confession) contradicted the murder scene itself.

When I was 17-18 I was much scarier sounding than Damien Echols. I used to cut myself and flick blood at people, drink it and tell people I would kill them. None of it was real, it was the same facade Damien used and now I am married and healthy and happy.

If you think that the VERY circumstantial evidence is enough reason to take away three boys's life then you are not much of a writer, or much of a person.

Nightowl2548 said...

I don't think it is productive to try to force Terry Hobbs or Mark Beyers as the perps, we don't really know as the evidence is very, very circumstantial. However, the 3 boys were clearly railroaded by a incompotent police department. This "satanism" theory is retarded, I in high school just three years before the crime and know full well that the "scary" looking heavy metal kids and goth punks were really not what square old adults misinterpreted them as. Old people out of touch with adolescents, feuled by Geralo era tabloid nonsense of "Satanic Cults" simply misinterpreted what they saw. The fact is that the cops had a long history of trying to "get" Echols for every little crime in the area because they were "sure" there was a Satanic Cult active in West Memphis. They also threatened people accused of petty offences to make up bizarre acusations against Echols. Miskellie was also just an aquantiance of Echols and Baldwin, although I think the extent of him being the hapless simpleton the defense makes him out to be is exagerated, I doubt Echols would include the dummy in any crimes, nor does Baldwin seem anywhere near as crazy to commit such an act. Baldwin might have been acquitted had he been given a separate trial without the creepy Echols as a co-defendant.(Echols lawyer was clearly incompetant to have not done something about his clothes, hairdo, and smart ass demeanor.)

Anonymous said...

Ms Brown, Do you have a personal agenda with Brent Turvey? This article certainly reads as entirely reactionary against his views on this case and nothing more. Have you ever interviewed anybody directly involved in this case as John Douglas has? Do you have any empirical data to prove that Damien is indeed soul-less? When you say you have profiled the evidence from this case does that include the partial hand/thumb print, foot prints, identified and unidentified hairs, fingernail scrapings retieved from the crime scene? All of which do NOT belong to those wrongly in prison?

Anonymous said...

Damien Echols is a psychotic maniac who makes Charles Manson look sweet and Josef Fritzl fatherly.

The evil bastard should be executed this year. And if he takes scummy "celebrity" cretins like drug-sniffer Johnny D. with him, so much the better.

Anonymous said...

Robin Hood hills and Lakeshore are not as close as you may think.. That's a fair little walk for anyone, let alone a lazy teenager.. so NO, they didn't really live that close to the boys.. I should know, I have lived here my entire life. I wouldn't want to walk that far now, and I sure wouldn't have walked that far as a teenager..

Anonymous said...

Damien, Jason, and Jessie are three incredible men. What hack wrote this article? They are terribly misinformed. If I didn't know any better, I would say it was the Salem Witch Trials all over again. Lucky I know better! Funny how the FBI completed their investigation and found no evidence of any so called satanic murders, but some how you did. Is it possible that your better at investigating than they are? If I had to guess, I would say you have a vivid imagination. FREE THE THREE! JUSTICE FOR SIX!

Mike Ledford

Melissa said...

I came here to see if you made the same erroneous claim in your article as you did on Facebook about there being physical evidence connecting the WM3 to the murders. Instead, I found other inaccurate information that should be addressed. You state that the men had no alibis. This is incorrect. As you are probably aware, a number of men testified they wrestled with Jessie Misskelley on the night in question. The problem is that this information came out in trial. If you go online and try to find these men's statements you won't be able to...not because the police didn't talk to them, however, because in one of the trial transcripts one of the prosecutors actually references one of the statements. I'm curious as to your opinion about the missing documentation at the WMPD and Gitchell's testimony during his deposition during Hobbs v. Pasdar when he said that the WMPD got rid of documents they felt were "inconsequential".

Jason had an alibi. Adam Phillips saw Jason at a critical time during the evening of May 5th, but you won't find a document at the WMPD pertaining to him. Perhaps they felt anything he had to say was "inconsequential". See Matt Baldwin's interview for one of two references to him. Matt was also an alibi for Jason, but family probably doesn't count, right?

Damien would have had an alibi had the WMPD done their job and gotten phone records. You know, they might have done just that...perhaps those were "inconsequential" as well. We will never know. But what we do know is that there are multiple people who claimed to have spoken to Damien throughout the evening of May 5th, such as Jennifer Bearden.

So stating these men have no alibi is a false claim. If you would like to discuss this in greater detail I have extensive timelines on all three men, with supporting documentation that backs up every single claim I make. I would be more than happy to share these with you.

I also see you did not address the DNA evidence that does not match these three men. I'm curious as to how three teenagers murder three eight year old boys and leave none of their own DNA? Yes, they could clean up the scene I suppose...but then how do you explain them leaving DNA that points to other sources? You do know there was DNA in Michael Moore's ligature and also under his fingernails that does NOT match the WM3 right?

Did you know there was a hair in the ligature of Chris Byers that does not match the victims or the WM3?

These men are innocent. Perhaps the worst part of this is that three boys were murdered and 18 years have gone by and there has been no justice for them. None. And as long as you spread erroneous and incorrect information it only serves to further delay that justice. There has to be a part of you that wants the same thing I do - which is justice for those young boys. If so, take another look at this case. A close look. There's more than what you've seen on the surface.

Melissa

Anonymous said...

I am stunned by the ignorance of this article.
Where is the evidence that the boys were raped? In case you're unaware, that DOES leave physical evidence, of which, there is NONE. Which also shows more errors in Jessie's false confession.
You're no better than the foolish townsfolk who grab their torches and pitchforks, out to attack anything and everything you can't wrap your silly little mind around.
So tell me, how did three amateur teenage boys manage not to leave any physical evidence behind? Especially if there was rape involved as you claim. That's simply not possible, sweetie. You cannot go into the woods and unwrap a candy bar without leaving DNA, much less murder three kids.
Get your facts straight before you start confusing the general public who haven't thoroughly researched this case (like yourself).
Every shred of evidence points AWAY from the WM3. The minute you can legitimately connect those wrongly convicted men to the crime scene (with REAL evidence, not "pretend evidence" like the prosecution toyed with), let me know. Until then, please stop filling people's head with unfounded garbage.

-Gabriel Gray

Anonymous said...

Yeah, delete the comments you don't agree with. Just goes to show you can't handle the truth.
Don't post about controversial topics if you can't deal with the feedback.
Grow up.

Stacy Dittrich said...

Actually Anon, Blogger crashed on Wednesday and took many posts and comments with it. See the case of Holly Bobo. Blogger expects to have all comments/posts since Wed. restored in a few hours...If you read through our posts you will see we leave up all comments, including the nasty ones:-) The only comments we will delete immediately are those comments that consist solely of attacking one of our contributors personally.

Stacy Dittrich
WCI Administrator

Anonymous said...

Pat Brown, while you are entitled to you opinion, you should make certain that you say that your article is only that- YOUR opinion. I grew up in West Memphis and I know Jessie and Jason personally. These 3 boys are innocent! If Jessie had ever even seen anything as evil as this crime, he would have run home crying! You should have facts or at least ask someone who knows before you write your opinions on a blog. I dont give you any credibility anyway, since you have never even been to West Memphis.

Anonymous said...

WE ALREADY SET FREE CASEY ANTHONY,A BABY KILLER.WHY NOT FREE FREE THESE CHILD KILLERS ALSO.HOW COME NO OTHER PSYCHIC MEDIUM BUT JACKIE BARRETT, A PRACTIONER OF THE DARK ARTS IS FIGHTING THEM.I SEE NO OTHER PSYCHIC MEDIUMS LIKE ANNETTE MARTIN WHO IS A PSYCHIC DETECTIVE OR PSYCHIC DETECTIVE NANCY MYER FIGHTING TO SET THESE ANIMALS FREE.BURN IN HELL WEST MEMPHIS THREE.NOBODY BUT EVIL IS BACKING YOU UP.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (Aug. 9, 2011),
Really? Psychics? Over an experienced educated criminal profiler?

That being said I agree this is controversial and interesting and by the way... motive for a few defense lawyers who receive big payouts to keep this case in the spotlight.

Mosquito bites will only show up if a person is alive. When you're not alive, your skin will not have a reaction. It is a mute point but keeping focus on it will allow this circus to remain in their tent.

- (per above molecular biologist/ DNA job) - You are the 1st 'dna' expert I've ever seen resort to name calling because of a persons right to freedom of speech and opinion. I'm certain you're 'legit' though. :/

Jon Reiss said...

Well Don't you feel a bit dumb? If Damien Echols the Ark. courts had any substantial reason to believe Echols killed 3 8 year old boys, do you really think they would have let him walk off death row with time served?
UNPRECEDENTED.
Start drafting your apology post or instead, spend a few years coming up with some kind of write up that conceivably explains the courts actions if they thought the boys were guilty.

Pat Brown said...

Not a bit. I stand by my belief that they are guilty which is what they plead. In this day and age with the ability to get appeals based on DNA issues (even ones that prove nothing) and the Casey Anthony jury debacle, the State of Arkansas likely felt they could not afford to go through another trial. The defense has a massive amount of money, there is strong media backing and to get a jury that will understand a case based heavily on circumstantial evidence that took place almost two decades ago is a crap shoot. In the interests of not costing the taxpayers an incredible amount of money (and, yes, if a third jury finally found them innocent, the civil case would follow and the citizens would be paying). I don't like the plea because I feel the three should remain in prison and, of course, supporters don't like the plea because the three plead guilty instead of going for a new jury trial (obviously, in spite of all I just said that the prosecution had stacked against them, clearly, the WM3 DOES know there is enough evidence to possibly get them convicted yet again, so they smartly took the deal).

Cathy Scott said...

To see a different angle of the story, read my post on ForbesWoman.com following the WM3's release:
http://onforb.es/qVVzvF

Pat Brown said...

We will have to agree to disagree, Cathy! I also have to point out that no DNA test cleared the West Memphis Three as stated in your story. The DNA test simply excluded the WM3 from contributing that particular hair which belongs to Terry Hobbs. That hair does not prove Terry Hobbs committed the crime (as it could be transfer evidence from the house) and, therefore, unless Terry Hobbs is proven to be the guilty party, that finding of a hair not matching the WM3 does not prove they are not the killers.

Hence, there are not "partially exonerated" or "fully exonerated." They plead guilty in the Alford plea and confessed the prosecution had enough evidence for conviction. Of course, one can argue that they lied to get out of prison, but as far as the State goes, they have been convicted.

Only two things can exonerate the WM3: a trial could have proven them "not guilty" and which the West Memphis Three chose not take a chance on , and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else committed the crime.

Until then, whether you think the WM3 are innocent or guilty, they have been convicted of murdering the three little boys.

Anonymous said...

Can't wait to see you proved wrong, Pat Brown.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Pat. The cognitive dissonance involved in your claims is astounding. Please explain how 3 teenage killers could remove all traces of their own DNA from a crime scene and victims' bodies, yet leave DNA from other persons intact. I'd love to hear you take a stab at presenting any kind of reasonable explanation for that.

Pat Brown said...

This will be my final post on the WM3 unless there is breaking news on this issue.



I still believe the evidence points to the West Memphis Three's guilt. If you hold the opposite view, this is fine with me. I would hope that people in this country can disagree without constantly being rude or insulting. Many cases are complex and confusing which leads to differing views and this is one of them.



To answer a couple simple questions: No, I never had an issue with the West Memphis Three's clothes or taste in music. The majority of those who have alternative lifestyles are not killers any more than black guys with pants falling off their butts are all thugs or guys with shaved heads are all Neo-Nazis. I will never forget one young man I saw go into a panic when his little son got away from him in the grocery store. When he caught up with him, he hugged his little boy close and then gave him a stern lecture on staying with Daddy because they were bad men out there who might hurt him. Daddy had spiky hair, tats everywhere, and a large number of piercings in his nose, eyelids, and mouth. Anyone who is very familiar with me knows that I am not bent out of shape over people being different. However, there are those whose difference include a very psychopathic, angry, dark, and violent ideation and this is what brought the focus on the West Memphis Three. I know some of you will argue that they had none of this but I disagree.



As to the question above, this could be asked without the insults. Like, "I am confused as to how you believe three boys could have committed this crime and not left DNA yet there is DNA from other people there?" You could make the same point in a civil way.



My answer to that is this is not unusual in many crime scenes, especially outdoor crime scenes. Sometimes you find DNA from half the neighborhood and sometimes you find nothing depending on where the bodies are and how much water is involved as in streams and rain. Unknown DNA can be from the killer or killers or from anyone who spent time in the area including police and search teams. Known DNA can be the same. Some crime scenes have no DNA at all which is why circumstantial cases are so frequent in the court system.



This is reality. TV shows foster the CSI effect with perfect pieces of evidence that cleverly connects the killer and only the killer to the scene. The Innocence Project has on occasion released guilty people based on DNA that may has no bearing on the convicted man's guilt (like DNA from semen in a sexual homicide that is the result of some guy the woman had sex with before she got murdered and he is not about to run over to the police station and admit it). This is why ALL the evidence must be viewed in totality to make sure we are not singling out DNA as our only evidence that links someone to a crime UNLESS he has no business even being linked to that crime scene location in any way.


(cont. below)

Pat Brown said...

(cont. from above)

A simple example: if I am found murdered in my home and a hair is found that matches my ex-husband, did he murder me? Well, he used to live in my house even if it has been seven years now. Could a piece of his hair have been caught up somewhere and was found on or near me? It is possible. Is it also possible that my son went to visit his Dad and then transferred that hair to me? Possible as well. So, one would have to find out where my ex was that day, what his alibi is, etc. If it turns out he was at work or he was out and about but not one other piece of supporting evidence links him to the crime, well, then, the hair was probably just innocently there. IF on the other hand, my ex had been making terroristic threats toward me in recent weeks, had an unexplained absence from work, his van was seen racing down the street from the crime scene at around the time it went down and there are two fibers from the scene that match the sofa and rug in his new house, then maybe he did it.



The only DNA without corroborating evidence that can be absolute proof that someone is guilty is DNA from someone who has no business being at that location. IF DNA from a serial killer ends up at a scene who had no connection to the victim in any way (handyman, friend, etc) then you can be pretty darn sure he did it. IF any DNA from the WM3 case turns out to belong to some violent offender not connected to the three victims or the WM3 in any way, I would say the WM3 are not guilty. Right now, all we have is transfer evidence from people who have regular contact with the boys and without other strong supporting evidence, it is meaningless. And one must be careful not to add in stuff that is not proven or is gossip or unsubstantiated as "proof." There has been much complaining that this was done to the WM3, but some folks had no problems laying everything on Mark Byers and now this is happening with Terry Hobbs. For example, it doesn't matter if anyone had their teeth removed because there were NO bite marks on the boys; I have seen the photos and what was called bite marks by some expert are not bite marks at all. And, yes Mark Byers is a bit strange and so is Terry Hobbs. I can't say I am inviting either of them over for dinner but if you don't like the WM3 being looked at as suspects because of their behavior than you should apply the same rules to these men as well. Personally, I have no problem with any of either of these men being persons-of-interest but I apply that same rule to the WM3. What points me away from the family and toward the three boys is evidence, confessions, and crime scene behaviors(and I am not going to go over the confession issue again). When there is enough evidence to take another party to court, then and only then, will there be a way to prove the West Memphis Three are not guilty as charged, convicted, and confessed.



As I stated above, I will make no further comment on this case. As always, I have no issue with those who think the WM3 are innocent and I do not feel the need to attack you for your support of these men. We all need to have the right to discuss and even argue our points of view in this country or we will have no freedom of speech or thought. Let's keep the ability to speak freely an option; without it, supporters of the WM3 would not have achieved what they did in getting them released. I don't agree with the outcome but I agree with the right for the supporters to speak out and fight for their beliefs. Please have the decency to respect the right to an opinion of those who do not believe the WM3 are innocent in the same manner.



All the best, Pat

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Pat. Excellent, excellent writing. There will always be those who refuse to see the truth, because they do not WISH to see the truth. I only wish the media were as refreshing and honest regarding this case. It's sad to see one media outlet after the other portray these three as heroes, never even coming close to attempting to get to the truth. Thanks again, from those of us who know this case and agree with you wholeheartedly.

Anonymous said...

Pat - your writings are a breath of fresh air. The fact that so many gullible people have been fooled by the media spin on this case is beyond frustrating.

To the genius who wrote that it would be impossible to commit that crime and leave no dna, then why wouldn't the "real" killers dna be all over the damn place? And one of the victims father's (possible) hairs found that the scene means nothing. You'd find my dna in my kid's stuff too. Because they live with me.

The fact that so many have guzzled the koolaid on this is utterly astounding.

The WM3 murdered those 3 boys, and that's a fact, not opinion.

Shannon said...

I do not understand the people who say Damien passed his polygraph. It is clearly evidenced here http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/depoly.html that he did not (and neither did Jessie)

I also do not understand the people that keep insisting that Jessie was "kidnapped and interrogated for 12-14 hours" When he clearly was not. Jessie Sr WENT AND GOT Jessie when the police were looking for him AND signed for permission for Jessie to be polygraphed. Jessie also confessed in less than 4 hours of interrogation time, as evidenced here: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html

The Devil's Knot has never been a good source for this case, Mara took many "liberties" with factual information to twist it to fit.

It is no secret that back in the 90's I was a supporter, but I was convinced to look beyond two terribly slanted documentaries where the film makers spent all of part 2 trying to convince you Mark Byers did it, now part 3 is trying to convince you Terry Hobbs did it, and and a book full of 1/2 truths or down right lies. Once I did that, and looked through all the documents available, and see all the "supporter myths" dispelled, there is absolutely no way I can think these three are innocent.

Anonymous said...

Pat, too bad 0 DNA from Damien, Jason, and Jesse was found at or anywhere near the crime scene...And too bad for Terry Hobbs and David Jacoby, as their DNA was found AT THE CRIME SCENE. Their days are numbered, and will eventually be sent to prison for the murder of these 3 little boys. And his buddy, David Jacoby who happens to be black, is most likely the bloody black man who was in Bojangles.

Anonymous said...

are u sure u watched the movies cuz Jason definitely had an alibi

Anonymous said...

i'll but ur just some insane stereotypical christian lady who's anti-metal >:-[

Anonymous said...

God Bless Damien, Jason and Jesse all the days of their lives and may God always be near the parents of those murdered children. I pray the real killer be brought to justice.

Anonymous said...

Obviously Pat, in reading your posts, you have no idea what you are talking about...I have studied this over and over, even reading the forensic reports and other files...those boys were even last seen headed to Terry Hobbs house, while Terry stood there looking at them, telling them to get in the house...Terry the "Liar", another bit of interest that you apparently know nothing about...talk to Terry's ex-wife, Pamela...how you can go on like you do is amazing...thank god those boys, although not perfect, were finally let go for serving time for something they DID NOT DO...you will see...in the end, the real monster in this...may God protect those parents, and may Justice and Peace be a Reality...SOON

Anonymous said...

Great post...while I do not believe the murders of the three young boys was planned or premeditated, I think this was a crime of opportunity. I do not know what happened but I speculate that the Damian and Jason were perhaps in the woods drinking. Jessie joined as an opportunity as well, but after Damian and Jason were there. What ever the reason for the meeting in the woods, the three young boys appeared by a unlucky chance and things progressed. Perhaps the three young ones saw something the teens thought they should not and decided they better check it out. The young ones ran and they went after one of them, because their judgment was clouded by the drinking. Damian's mind suggested the young kids knew or saw something real or not and he could not let that happen, so he was going to punish them as a scare tactic. This got out of hand quickly and the murders happened as a result.
They got lucky that it was 1993...limited resources by the police, limited knowledge of DNA, the water and a muddy bank. Too many people watch shows such as CSI and think it is that simple to solve crimes and that all crimes have valuable DNA left. Too many people looking for the kids, hence damaging any evidence left and the time frame for testing any evidence.
Many have watched the PL documentaries and state they know they are innocent after watching them, even one of the directors or producers stated he knew Damian was innocent after talking with him for 5 minutes. Well I watched this documentary and now have many more questions and statements, not an unmitigated belief that they are innocent.
Damian acting all cocky and self serving during the 1st film. When asked how he picks how the jury will react, he says with his finger, laughs and says 60/40.....40 for him 60 against him. He states he was bored, daydreaming. Ummm...you are on trial for murder, you could face the death penalty and you act like this is a joke? Normal teen behavior? I think not.

Jason when asked what he would say to the families that lost their kids, himms and haws, smiles, swivels in his seat and says I don;t know. How about saying I didn;t kill them?

Damians books and statements about how hard his life is. Everything about him is me, me, me.

Since they were in jail, have other child murders taken place in West memphis?

The alford deal....why would his attorneys push for this if a trial they have so publicly stating suggested would exonerate them? The trial was just a few months away.

Anonymous said...

Let's turn the tables here. Let's just say that in 1993 / 1994 Terry Hobbs had been convicted of this crime. Then he loudly proclaims his innocence from death row. Fast forward to 2007 - his hair is found in the ligature of one of the boys not his son - confirmed by DNA. Arkansas would not have accepted the "transfer" theory so easily in that situation and Terry Hobbs would have been executed pretty soon after that. See our point PAT BROWN ???

Teresa said...

This is so hysterical (not hysterical as in funny, hysterical as in over the top and over exaggerated) and terribly written. Your ridiculous attempts to elicit horror just make you look like a nutcase and I couldn't even get past the first paragraph. It reads like a story written by a second grader who wants to be a writer when she grows up. You make people who believe in the WM3's guilt look bad.

william said...

occult911.wordpress.com

See Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders.

Anonymous said...

Pam you really are a mad twisted bitch

Anonymous said...

Several years ago, I agreed with your analysis of the McCann case. I still agree with it. You asked me to send you a private e-mail, probably since my bringing in Conversation analysis to the case intrigued you. I procrastinated. which turned out to be a good thing, since we cardinally disagreed on the presidential election. Now this turns out to be a more serious disagreement than I thought at the time. It seems that Republicans ALWAYS think the police it right and the "bleeding heart" liberals ALWAYS thinks that the police is wrong. Now, I am neither. I judge all cases on their merit. I still think that Maddie McCann died in her apartment, probably having waken up and climbing on the sofa. But in the case of the West Memphis Three, I rely on SO MANY cases of STEPfathers (not biological fathers0 hating and/or abusing their stepchildren and the very fact that the police are still reluctant to release information to the parents. I have studied the whole case as thoroughly as possible (as I said, much of the material is still "classified" for reasons that are at least suspicious. or difficult to fathom), and come to the conclusion that the West Memphis Three did not do it, after all.

Anonymous said...

Shannon:
Jessie's polygraph results were submitted to an independent expert who said he passed it with flying colours (except for one question: have you used drugs?) The opinions of the independent expert was not allowed in court BECAUSE POLYGRAPHS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN COURT! They are not considered reliable enough... So ironically, the so-called "failed polygraph" that so substantially influenced Jessie's false confession was not allowed into evidence.
The same independent expert gave as his opinion that DAMIEN had actually not failed but passed his polygraph. Again. not allowed into evidence since polygraphs are not reliable evidence (the irony of it all!)
Meanwhile, witnesses who testified to the "Hobbs family secret" also passed their polygraphs.
So if you really believe in polygraphs, Jessie PASSED his and Damien most likely passed his (the negative result came from the same person who declared Jessie had failed his), and a lot of witnesses against Terry Hobbs passed it.
This is not to say I personally have much confidence in polygraphs, but since they keep being flouted on forums, let's just set the record straight: Jessie and Damien actually passed their polygraphs (when judged by an independent expert not influenced by all this satanism hysteria in WM at that time). And witnesses who point AWAY from the WM3 and towards another person also passed it.

Magpie said...

Please tell me you've never gone into a courtroom and said, under oath, something so incredibly stupid as "[that guy]was and is a violent psychopath. All I had to do is watch his behavior and statements on film and in his own words to know this is true."

This is your "professional" opinion yes? Are you sure you don't want to get a second opinion from a graphologist? A phrenologist, maybe?

Strewth....

Anonymous said...

I live in Canada and I had no knowledge of who the WM3 were until I saw the Paradise Lost Trilogies. Upon seeing the films I was convinced they were innocent. Recently I picked up at my local bookstore Damien Echol's book "Life After Death". After reading his book I completely changed my mind on his innocence. I am not a psychiatrist but in my opinion he sounds like a narcissitic psychopath. His constant ranting about himself and loves to be with and seen with important people. No pics taken of him with his family. I think the authorities should keep their eyes focused on him.

Tanja Pawluczkowycz-O'Dell said...

You have said that Echols liked to read Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible, I am assuming that you have not. I also am assuming that you said this to make people think he is so evil. LaVey's book speaks against any kind of sacrifice, animal or human. The book is about being selfish and obtaining anything that you desire as long as you do not physically hurt anyone ( sort of the same practices of the republican party ). If Echols is such a satanic bible follower, he would not be participating in any human sacrifices.

Anonymous said...

"I have never seen a case where a parent becomes angry, decides to assault and kill the child AND take out a couple of friends as well, especially stripping them, hogtying them. Then leaving them close by where the bodies can be found along with any evidence?" Hi there, I am from Hngary and got interested in this terrible story. I am not saying that you are wrong, I know far too less about this case to say so, yet there was a murder in my country where the step mother plead guilty for killing a 12-year old boy in the woods. She paid two homeless man to assist her in this crime. Here is a link http://budapesttimes.hu/2012/11/09/boys-murder-too-horrific-to-describe/. It sems really similar to what you describe in the quoted part.

Daisy said...

Everyone is so into all of this yet many of you seem to only have watched the Paradise Lost trilogy or the other two films that I am aware of. If you read the actual transcripts and other information you will see alot of what you are preaching is incorrect. I am still on the fence, only becoming interested in recent times, never falling into all the hype there was for years. The killings of the three young boys was disgusting and terrible and alot of you seem more concerned with a fame hungry Echols' latest 'tweet' than the fact three children were brutally killed, possibly by Echols. I will remain on the fence until I feel I have read all the facts, of which there are many, and watched whatever footage I can.

Unknown said...

I was curious, so I read this and other articles that affirm the three convicted teens are in fact guilty. All I see here is an emotionally-laden piece of fantasy fiction written by someone whose maudlin skills would be better in tune with Stephanie Myers. You don't even have a single fact to support. Your understanding of human nature and knowledge of the psychopathic mind seem to be based solely in fantasy. Thank god there are real experts involved in the case, who actually grasp human nature and the psychology of killing. For you it's just a frame to paste garish details and show off your (ahem) 'skills' as a writer.

Anonymous said...

I just realized who Pat Brown reminds me of, as I read her colorful 'descriptions' of the murders, their emotions during the crime, and their victim's emotions.

Nancy Grace.

Enough said.

Anonymous said...

These 3 are all guilty as hell. Motive, opportunity, not one alibi that holds up, fairly accurate confessions. Boy did these "retards" pull the wool over some very smart peoples eyes! Shame on you Hollywood shits to get involved in something you yourselves cannot be certain of. GUILTY MISFITS are what these human trash are.

Anonymous said...

Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

Confusion is found in high profile peadophilia and occult slayings both have paranormal carosels. The boys were scouts and those knots were expert. I think the best thing is to release Steve,s mother. So many times the patsies are the delivery boys, sometimes having no memory or having a go at the spoils. Being psychic I did not enjoy the night of dreaming after viewing. Incidentally, there has to be an err on one of the boy's part, a contact, in our land bmx bike boys deliver small packages of drugs and money and try to drag their friends in on the deal, as so much fun. It's sad I wish Pam real ease from the torment and torture. Placement of weapons is easily done in occult slide. The crime will never be solved because it is not meant to hence the end of the spins.

Anonymous said...

Seriously? If you know as much as you claim then you know that any guilt needs to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Possible fiber evidence may just mean they all bought their clothing from KMart or another chain store being it was not an exact match. Eyewitness testimony is always unreliable. Please state any concrete evidence. The interview with the confession was not taped for hours. The entire investigative procedure was laughable. It only proves the theory that hick police departments have earned their repuatation. It was a witch hunt, and the police had an easy target. Give me some blood stained clothing, anything that is able to be proven. I need more than possible, rumor, innuendo, a preteen looking for some attention, or a jailbird drug addict. I will be willing to listen if there is a single solitary piece of definitive evidence. Speculation is cheap as are the police in Arkansas. Try this case where people have more education and it would have been laughed out of the courts.

Irritated said...

What shocked me the most about your article was that you said the boys were raped. Did you bother to read the autopsies? Obviously not because all 3 reports said not only was there no semen, but that there was no sign of trauma to any of the boy's anuses.

I don't know if the teenagers did it or if someone else did. What I do know is that there was a lot of police error when it came to handling this case and that you have no right to claim these poor children were raped when the medical examiner said there was no evidence of it whatsoever on any of the boys. As if the fact that they were brutally murdered wasn't enough.

Professional my ass. You didn't even bother to read the medical examiner's autopsy reports.

Rick said...

I recently found interest when I found out Damien moved to Salem mass the town over the bridge from me for anyone who hasn't been to Salem its a grungy congested little city with shops and a courthouse why was he there anyone's guess but he moved after folks found out ,so I've seen the first HBO doc back I. The day anyway I've been reading and have seen the other HBO specials and for me it was Misskellys confession in 1994 to his lawyer with his hand on a bible he wasn't under any pressure read that confession and you get a good idea of what happened they are guilty they are killers and now walk free

Anonymous said...

It must be frustrating to know that the actual evidence shows that you are absolutely, positively, and beyond any shadow of a doubt wrong about the WM3. I'm sorry that you are so bitter, but all the rhetoric in the world will not change the truth of this case.

Anonymous said...

Jesse DID have an alibi. People at the trailer park vouched that he was there at six o'clock and they didn't know him. Also, if Terry Hobbs was in a rage he would have hit stevie without thinking things through and may have killed the boys to cover it up. Considering that there would have been more blood if it was a kill site it's safe to assume it wasn't. Considering that Terry hobbs is a vicious dirtbag, and that Jessie also had wrestling each week at that time the prosecutor's excuses don't fly. Also it's hilarious to see you diss turvey when you LEARNED from him

Anonymous said...

Most damning of all is the fact that no the boys weren't raped and that it is possible to kill three boys if you are enraged enough. Hobbs wasn't weird. He was a fucking psychopath filled with cold blooded fury.

Anonymous said...

I really can't understand why Mr.Bojangles gets dismissed as a suspect so easily. He had been in the mud and was bleeding. He was in the area that night. He was allegedly panicking. Wasn't there an unidentified negro hair found at the scene. He's much more suspicious to me than any of the 3 scenarios in this article.

Anonymous said...

You idiots need to do your research and not just rely on a bunch of one-sided documentaries made by the defense. westmemphisthreefacts.com is a good start.