West Memphis three to be released

misterID

The thing that I dont get with your stance, and I really do respect your opinion, is that you're refusing to accept the experts opinions because they were hired by the defense. They've actually opened up several legitiment holes in the prosecutions case, even just recently, which spearheaded the WM3's release. Just because they hired a firm/expert does not mean their experts were lying, or making anything up for a paycheck. Prosecutors hire those same experts. And the defense had some of THE BEST. There have been innocent people cleared ONLY because of their defense hiring experts who proved their innocence when the states experts were less than helpful at getting THE TRUTH. And I absolutely stand by the fact that there was no fiber, blood, or any DNA evidence that conclusively ties the WM3 to the crimes. We cannot just believe the prosecutions witnesses (who actually hired an occult "expert" who ended up not actually being an occult expert) and take them as the end all be all, because they're the prosecutors. One red fiber being similar to a fiber found on the boys just doesn't cut it for me. The states expert witness in retrospect weren't that great. I think we can agree on that. And it's one of the reasons they didn't want a retrial.

And Misskelley's lawyer, the one Misskelley confessed to, says that Misskelley is INNOCENT. He actually has an interesting story about how he realized that Jesse was innocent when he was convinced he was guilty, including the fact Jesse had thought he was a cop for several months. He also told how a psychologist got Misskelley to admit and become convinced that he had robbed a store, a crime and a store that didn't exist.

And I do respect the time you put into your research. I did as well, a while back, never stayed as current with it as I should've. And I have no idea if it was Mark Byers, Mr. Bojangles, or whoever, who killed those poor kids... I just don't believe it was the WM3.

"The shadow comment, I think you are stretching again, the figure she saw first was as a shadow that she eventually made out to be Damien, she clearly wasn't saying a shadow transformed into Damien.
"

No, no, I meant that she clamed it was a just a dark figure at her window and her story eventually evolved that the figure was Damien.

I do know that they totally screwed up Damien's polygraph, and lied to Misskelley about his. I will say this, that this part has never meant much to me seeing how the courts are moving away from lie detector tests because of their unreliability and the fact that Mark Byers took the test, told at least 2 big lies during the test that it didn't pick up and cleared him as being honest. And I'm still not certain that Byers is a legit suspect. I just have a big problem with how all of the tests were conducted and handled. And the test in general.

And I do understand what a task it is to dive into those files, but I also know that they don't tell the whole story. And I do think it's important that the soft ball girls didn't have the same story on what Damien said, or who he said it to, or who was there, and that's pretty important when you're a witness in a murder case and someones life is on the line. And I know people hate hearing this, but they have to recognize that they were children who could have made something up, took something out of context, or even just take into account that the girl's mother now doubts her daughter's statement about Damien's confession. Not trying to to discount them because they are children, but I do take certain aspects into consideration here.

And the boys didn't want to plead guilty but did it to get Damien off death row. Sometimes you have to make horrible decisions to get out of a horrible situation. There was no guarantee they would be released on a retrial. Here was a way to get out of prison and still maintain their innocence. That would be a very hard deal to pass up.

And again, the prosecution HAD to put Narlene on the stand, because they didn't have a whole lot to go on and needed to put the boys at the crime scene. They really didn't want to. My opinion is that her credibility is a big fat zero. As is her son's, who contradicted his mother's testimony while trying to help it. And taking that into consideration, I do doubt her daughter. Especially when no one else in the car stated that it was Damien, but just 2 figures they breifly glimpsed walking down the road.

My apologies if I came off as condescending before.

IRISH OS1R1S

I could write a long ass rebuttal to your post but I'm too intoxicated and posting off an iPhone. Like I said no matter what I say I will never convince a supporter, no offence intended. If I was shown evidence of innocence I would reconsider my stance, but none has ever been presented.

I clearly showed the "Jessie is retarded" stance is just not true and could go on, but its pointless. I just wanted to let people know it's not as cut and dry as some would believe.

Don't worry I don't feel you were condescending, just passionate in your beliefs. I respect that and appreciate the opportunity to discuss my views, for that I thank you.

James

Apologies for only quoting one sentence from that long, thought out post of yours. I feel its a tad disrespectful in all cases to do that as the member(you in this case) obviously took the time to post a lengthy rebuttal and these long posts certainly bring the quality of the debate up many notches.

I obviously disagree with many of your points but I wanted to specifically address this....

In those 18 years with the best attorneys money could buy and huge amounts spent on testing, investigations etc, not one single piece of evidence was ever produced to show their innocence.

While I don't think ANY evidence was produced to show their guilt other than forced confessions and rumors from the citizens of Mayberry with questionable character, I do have a question for you and any other "those devil worshiping teens murdered those boys" people.....

If the three are guilty of these crimes, how come none of them knew ANYTHING about the murders except what investigators told them beforehand? They didn't even know when the murders occurred until the police told them during the interrogation. One of them had to be continually corrected as he kept getting the time wrong. Why was no DNA from the teens found at the crime scene? Not even a goddamn footprint was found, yet we're supposed to believe these three "killers" chased these boys all around that area until they killed all three of them? How do you brutally murder three children in that area without leaving shoe prints? Did these guys levitate during the murders?

Too bad the killer didn't kidnap the boys, leave a note, and transport them across state lines before killing them because those circumstances would have allowed the FBI to automatically take over the case from the local dipshits. John Douglas was still in the FBI at the time(I think), and his unrivaled ability to interrogate murder suspects, analyze crime scenes, and create an accurate profile of killer(s) would have led to these teens being cleared in three shakes of a lamb's tail. He may have died from a heart attack after clearing them as small town cops who don't know their elbows from their assholes rile him up.

EDIT: While I have read his books years ago, I didn't remember if he discussed this case or not. Just did a quick search. Well, he did discuss this case. Guess what he says? Douglas concluded after reading the case files, walking through the crime scene, and seeing the photos that the murders were NOT committed by a teenage satanic cult but was actually a "personal cause homicide" committed by one person. Also, while Douglas did believe something terrible happened at that creek, even he has referred to it before as a "dump site".

A few of his statements below where he discussed the case with some other experts. He also discussed this case in detail in his book Mindhunters and I read that like 15-16 years ago. Think its time to make my first trip to the library in a coon's age.

------------------

-The slayings of three West Memphis boys weren’t the work of three unsophisticated teenage killers, but that of a single person who set out to taunt and “punish” the victims, contends John Douglas, a former longtime FBI criminal profiler.

-That person would have known both the children and the area in which their bodies were found on May 6, 1993

-Douglas, the last to speak Thursday, said he has interviewed Hobbs twice. Knowing what he knows now, Douglas said he would have “put [Hobbs ] on the front burner back then.”

-West Memphis investigators approached the FBI shortly after the boys’ murders to ask whether satanism could have played a role in the crime, Douglas said. FBI agents advised police to avoid such allegations, he said. “We told them, ‘Better not use it.’”
-In the 1970 s and 1980 s — “back when cops were throwing around the word ‘ritual’ in association with satanism — we didn’t see one case of it,” Douglas added.
-He said he believes the killer knew the children and lived in the area. This person, Douglas said, set out to taunt and punish the boys. This, he said, is based on the fact that they were found naked and hogtied with their own shoelaces. Douglas said he believes things unexpectedly “went beyond teaching a lesson.”
-The biggest obstacle they face, he said, is a reluctance to consider the possibility that someone else killed the children.

-When defense attorneys for Arkansas death row inmate Damien Echols asked Douglas, now a private consultant, to analyze the 1993 murders of three 8-year-old West Memphis boys, he put them on notice. He would accept a consultation fee, but his opinion couldn't be bought. He would be blunt and unyielding -- even if he concluded that Echols and his co-defendants, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr., are appropriately behind bars.
Ultimately, Douglas became convinced of the innocence of the so-called West Memphis Three, all teenagers when convicted in 1994.
"What I do know is that there are three teens who are now in their 30s sitting in prison who don't belong there," Douglas said during a recent interview. "It really disturbs me."
He said he has several reasons for believing a lone killer has gotten away with murder.
In 2007, he trekked through the crime scene, examined police and autopsy reports and crime scene photos, and interviewed several people, including relatives of all three victims.
He had dreaded approaching the parents. As he drove across the bridge from Memphis toward West Memphis, he remembers thinking: "They're going to kick me in the pants and kick me off the porch."
One victim's parent, John Mark Byers, restricted Douglas to the porch for hours before trusting him enough to allow him inside. Byers now admits he didn't want to believe the real killer was still at large. Douglas went over all of the evidence and his findings, and now Byers, who once shouted for Echols to go to hell, is one of Echols' supporters.

-Douglas believes a lone killer -- someone the boys knew -- attacked them in a fit of rage.
He believes the murders were unplanned. His theory is that the killer didn't feel respected by his boss, his co-workers, his wife or his children, and then the victims didn't respond to his orders -- unleashing a mounting and powerful rage.
"I think the anger was from the kids not following instructions," Douglas said.

-"This is not a sexually motivated crime," Douglas said. "This was more of a punishment, a degrading act to teach a lesson."
He believes it would have been easy for an adult, a figure of authority, to control three kids. Once they were made to strip, they would be reluctant to run.
And once they were tied up, there would be no escape.
He believes the killer used the butt of a gun or end of a closed knife to strike the boys in the head.
"Perhaps one of the kids was struck too hard and would go home and tell," he said. "Now you've gotten to the point of no return."
Douglas thinks the killer has a violent history and likely feels no remorse. According to Douglas, he is a skilled liar, who has justified the killings in his own mind and would pass a lie detector test with ease.
Douglas has a suspect in mind whom he believes merits further investigation.

"I feel certain" that it isn't Echols, he said. "That's the easy part. The hard part is getting the perpetrator, getting the evidence and convicting them."

---------

When John Douglas says one person murdered those three boys....NEWSFLASH......one person murdered those three boys. I don't know if Douglas is well known on your side of the pond, but his resume is untouchable and he has solved many, MANY cases. If you don't know much about him, check out one of his books. In either his 2nd or 3rd book, he devotes a chapter to the OJ case and writes a minute by minute scenario on how OJ murdered his wife and her lover. Mind blowing shit. He also doesn't believe the Ramseys killed Jonbenet, and I agree on that case as well.

His initial claim to fame is solving those horrific Atlanta child serial killings in the early 80s. Mayberry said the killer was a member of the KKK and killing tons of black kids trying to ignite a race war. They requested his expertise, he reviewed the case, then told them the killer was a young, gay, black man that was unemployed. He was basically run out of town by those dipshits. The killings kept happening continuously so they asked him to come back and reassess the case. He told them the same damn thing but said to start staking out bridges and other dump sites at night to catch the guy. Like a day or two later, the serial killer was caught. To the shock of everyone but Douglas, the serial killer was young, gay, black, and also happened to be unemployed.

He has a natural gift at solving crimes that's not to be fucked with. Go against his recommendations, only thing accomplished is a higher body count.

This might burst a few bubbles, but when a killer doesn't know where he killed his victims or what time the murders occurred and has to be coached on something as simple as the time frame and simply parrots the location and time he was just told in a coerced confession, he isn't the fucking killer.

In one of the many confessions, one of them was asked(forgot which one) by investigators to imagine how the boys were murdered. Since they had told him about the creek a trillion times, he said they had drowned. Then when they brought up possible mutilations, he simply said, "yeah they were cut up." Then he had to be coached again and informed that only one of the boys had been mutilated.

While this farce was going on, Byers admitted to others that he had beat his stepson a couple hours before the murders took place. Falls in line with the Douglas theory above, yet Byers got a good ole pat on the back by Gomer and got to go home and obsess over the case and figure out when he should get all those teeth pulled out that likely still had DNA on them at the time.

How did Byers know his stepson had been mutilated MUCH worse than the other two boys when the cops discovered the bodies? Autopsies hadn't even been performed yet and neither had a thorough examination of the dump site which is referred to as the crime scene by Barney and Gomer.

edit: Just did a quick overview of the wiki page and I had completely forgot how Byers mom contacted her son's school to tell them she believed her son was being sexually abused, and she told them this info a couple weeks before the murders. Damn Gomer, why wasn't this considered a clue? Oh I know why, that teen wearing a Metallica shirt that knew NOTHING about the case was guilty! You should be commended for your work on the case as it was second to none.

Axlin16

Irish wrote:

Yes, because little punks like to stomp a dog to death and pour battery acid on it in order that he can take its skull as some sort of trinket

That makes him an anti-social. But I will admit that killing animals, especially keeping trophies, as a kid is a HUGE RED FLAG for a future serial killer.

However - is it really any different than hunters? Who hunt deer, wild hog, and other wild game and keep trophies?

The key difference is the torture murder-aspect of the animal.

But with that being said, dude I couldn't count on my fingers n' toes how many boys I knew growing up, that would catch birds, rodents, and snakes and slice them up "for fun" and keep the skulls and feet and shit.

Were all of them part-psychotic - WHOA YEAH. Did I get it? No, never liked it at all. Does that make them future murderers? No, none of them.

IRISH OS1R1S

You say he knew nothing of the crime or crimescene and was coerced. I would imagine if the police were to have coerced him his statement wouldn't have contained such obvious misinformation. Instead he says many things that just weren't true, guess what, lots of killers lie when giving statements. The reason for this is Jessie was not confessing in his first statement he was giving a witness account and trying to distance himself from the crime, but instead ended up implicating himself. In later confessions Jessie admits he lied and explains why.

Lets see what Jessie did get right though.....

That the victims were on bikes.
He said they laid them down at the entrance to Robin Hood. The bikes were found in the water by the entrance.
Jessie's admitted victim, Michael Moore, was found away from the others just as he described.
Luminol results describe blood on the path Jessie said Michael tried to escape down.
He knew about Chris' penis and groin wounds and was able to point to the correct picture.
He knew about Stevie's facial wounds and was able to point to the correct picture.
He knew the boys clothes had been removed.
He described the boys being beaten into unconsciousness, autopsies describe injuries consistent with such a beating.
His statement of Damien matches an eyewitness account of a muddy Damien on the Service road at 9:30.
Jessie describes punching Michael. Jessie is left-handed and the majority of the injuries to Michael's head were on his right side.
A broken bottle of the same brand of liquor he described drinking was found exactly where he described breaking it.

These details were given by Jessie without been led.

Again I will say Jessie confessed to his own attorney in private after he was convicted, you think his own attorney coerced him too?

In regards your satanic cult claim, well the prosecution never said it was a satanic killing. Here is Foglemans closing arguement about the satanic relevence.....

This satanic stuff--satanic picture in and of itself does that mean they're Satanists or anything like that? No. This mean in and of itself, Satanist? No. But, why present it? Why present this stuff? And by the way this doesn't have anything to do with Wicca, doesn't have anything to do with it. The reason to present it, is that to try to inflame you all and make you all so angry because it's something different--because it's something different and something we don't understand? Is that why we would present it? No, not at all. When you looked at those pictures of what was done to those three little boys, could you understand it? Could you have any reason to understand why someone would do that to three eight-year old boys? Well, you've got three eight-year-old boys done that way, and then you got the defendants looking like choirboys during the trial--during jury selection. In fact, think back to jury selection when the defense trying to say, well, as they sit here right now what do you think about them? And either you or your fellow juror--you heard a fellow juror say, I think they look like typical kids. Well, think how hard it would be for you to conceive of typical teens doing what was done to these three eight-year-old boys. And I think you'll understand why the need to put on this evidence. It's not something made up, it's not something dreamed up, it's not a figment of our imagination. And it doesn't matter whether I believe it, or the defense attorneys believe it, or you even believe in these concepts. The only thing that matters is what these defendants believe.

It was to show the jury that these were not the choirboys the defense tried to portray them as.

Pat Brown, criminal profiler and frequent guest on different HLN shows, wrote a piece about them.. she believes they're guilty, not that I put much into what profilers think, they are no more than fortune tellers, in my opinion of course.

In regards John Douglas......

Yes I am familiar with him, that would be the same man that was given a letter to examine in a serial killer investigation. The letter was said to be from the killer, but Douglas came to the conclusion it wasn't as it came from someone with a different "profile" thus ending the police looking further into it. Eventually the killer was caught after killing more victims and admitted he did indeed right the letter, that killer was the The Green River killer.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ … 130823.php

I find the quote at the end interesting.

"It never has been an established tool leading to a suspect but always an interesting retrospective comparison," Nault said. "To my knowledge, there is nothing in the art of profiling that would allow a profiler to say this is or is not a note from the killer, either way."

Heres another quote from Douglas in relation to his profiling of the WM3 case.

"The following analysis was based upon a thorough review of investigative materials provided to me by defense attorney, Dennis Riorden."
Ok John, I appreciate your opinion based off defense investigations.

Its also interesting, his theory of one killer, but lack of how he comes to that conclusion, you know with the three boys being tied with different knot types and the feasibility of one killer subduing and killing 3 boys, and you do know even the defense has since aknowledged the site to be the actual crime scene now and not a dump site.

After Douglas retired he was no more than a hired gun, strange how his profile matched exactly who the defense wanted to implicate as to raise doubt, it wasn't Byers it was Terry Hobbs.

We should probably just do away with trials and just get profilers to tell us if they did it or not.

I have said no matter what I say it will never convince a supporter, I just don't understand how they can be so sure of innocence without any doubt. Especially when talking about the facts of the case they present distorted facts or flat out lies, why feel the need to do that for three convicted murderers I will never know.

I appreciate the discussion, but realise its pointless. This will be my last post on the subject.

EDIT: I just read back through my post, I apologise if this post comes off as rude it was not my intention.

sandman

I read alot of case docs a few years back and read lots of opinions. I have always been close to 50-50, but leaning slighty towards them being guilty.

You guys present great info and i am still probably 55-45 leaning towards guilty.

One thing that i've been wondering....did miskelley mention the boys being tied with rope on his own??? Because this point is always used by wm3 supporters as evidence that he was lying. But i feel that if he knew they were tied up at all, that would be evidence that he was telling the truth. That is a very specific detail that you wouldnt expect anyone to guess. Even if he got the "tool" wrong (which a semi-slow person might do a few weeks later), to me, knowing that fact (that they were tied up) is huge.

Anyway, i dont understand how or why anyone with any kind of intelligence could be absolutely convinced of their innocence. There are some doubts, even if u call them minor doubts, that they r innocent. Their innocence just is not proven. It is far from a fact. And with that in mind, how can people support them and help with the release of individuals that MAY be guilty.

Part of me is just thinking "holy shit. Murderers may have just been set free." And if i had a hand in that (financially, for example), i would be feeling sick right now.

IRISH OS1R1S

I said I'm done on this subject, but since I'm here and can get the info you want easily I will oblige.

It was first asked by the investigator to be fair.

JESSIE: Yes, he run out there and I caught him and brought him back, and I took off.
RIDGE: Okay, and when you came back a little bit later, now are all three boys tied?
JESSIE: Yes

Jessie did give information before they started to record his statement that showed he had knowledge of the crime hence why they started to record it in the first place. We will never know what he originally brought up in that discussion. It can appear that the detective leads him in this question, it also can appear he is asking a question Jessie may already have given him knowledge of. Also notice the above quote is early in the statement and Jessie is already trying to lessen his involvement by saying he took off, he also does this throughout the statement all the while giving more and more details. He later admits to lying about details in order to throw the police off, a thing many killers attempt when under questioning.

RIDGE: You're up here on your own free will, you came up here to answer some questions, and basically we've found out some information during that questioning, is that correct?
JESSIE: Yes sir, I did
RIDGE: Okay, at the bottom of the form is a Waiver of Rights, it says that I've read this statement of my rights, and I understand what my rights are, I am willing to make a statement, and answer questions, I do not want a lawyer at this time, I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me, and no pressure or force has been used against me, is all of that correct?
JESSIE: Yes

James

sandman wrote:

One thing that i've been wondering....did miskelley mention the boys being tied with rope on his own???

Good question. Whether the answer is yes or no, the fact that the interrogation/interviews of the teens was mishandled so badly it calls into question the validity of all their statements. Look at IRISH response above. He believes they are guilty yet even states himself that they said false info at the start and once hitting confession #965378, starts getting some of the facts right. Yeah.....no shit. After constant bombardment of details on the case while being questioned, even Corky could write a 500 page thesis on what happened and give a decent confession.

Anyway, i dont understand how or why anyone with any kind of intelligence could be absolutely convinced of their innocence.

Nothing at the crime scene/dump site links them to the murders. They supposedly murdered three boys, mutilated one, yet none of their DNA was found at the scene. I could travel to the scene of the crime tomorrow, simply WALK through the area this occurred, and you'll find some of my DNA there(at least a hair). If I committed a massacre there, I'm sure you'd find even more. When doing DNA tests, the BEST they could come up with is that the hairs found were a bit similar to the suspects. Really? Someone should have told them that over a billion people have similar hair and it would have saved the state some money instead of retesting these same samples praying that its gonna match even though all previous tests did not. I'm shocked Echols wasn't bald by the time these tests were finished.

I could lick my girlfriend's face, pussy, and ass and you'd get a DNA match easily. Guilty as charged. One(or more) of these teens supposedly bit a boy's face, ass, and genitals repeatedly yet there's no DNA match, and all three teens were ordered to give bite mark impressions and.....drum roll please....NO MATCH. The slogan in the OJ case was "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit". Slogan for this one should have been "if the millionth DNA test doesn't prove they did it, you can bet your life the next one wont either". I mean come on...it reaches a point where they should have just arrested every US citizen and accused them of the crime.

So in my opinion, IF these three teens had ANY involvement whatsoever in the murders, they were observers and one or more other unknown killers did all the dirty work. Its the only plausible scenario that would place those three near the scene of the crime yet not have any DNA,bite marks,etc. linking them to the victims.

It's time for these guys to stop being crucified and time to do what should have been done 18 years ago......search for the real killer(s).

Communist China

Why the fuck would you decline a lawyer's presence in ANY questioning by the police? Much less a triple homicide of children... Pr

PaSnow

Communist China wrote:

Why the fuck would you decline a lawyer's presence in ANY questioning by the police? Much less a triple homicide of children... Pr

I didn't follow this nor know too much about it, but my guess is that's part of the appeal. The fact that a slow/mentally challenged kid was 'coerced' into not requesting a lawyer. Basically a police officer asks a leading question by asking "You can have a lawyer here if you want, but I'm just gonna ask you a few simple questions, is that ok? Ok, do you mind if I just ask you a few simple questions without us bringing in all kinds of lawyers & courtroom stuff??" Someone who's slow & unaware of the potential consequences could easily say "Yes sir, no problem". Especially kids like these who seems pretty anti-authority from the way they are described as devil worshipers. Not saying they are, but my guess is they hate authority, cops, lawyers, judges etc..

sandman wrote:

Anyway, i dont understand how or why anyone with any kind of intelligence could be absolutely convinced of their innocence. There are some doubts, even if u call them minor doubts, that they r innocent. Their innocence just is not proven. It is far from a fact. And with that in mind, how can people support them and help with the release of individuals that MAY be guilty.

I agree with you, but I think that's the basis of the appeal. Are they guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", and moreso, were they fairly tried years ago on the basis of "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". There is likely a presumption of guilt, but to what point. And with new evidence of DNA testing, it's a little surprising as to what James says there being no evidence of them there. To me, that may just be not enough evidence was searched for or known to preserve (saliva, swabs, blood) because back then it wasn't considered worth keeping all facets of a crime scene. Blood was just assumed to be the kids blood, and even if it was the suspects what use was that worth back then?! Wow, he's Type O positive, that narrows it down.

I agree with you that I don't try to get too caught up into things like this. A friend of mine went to a Pearl Jam show years ago & Eddie Vedder began speaking about some prisoners (could have been these threee come to think of it), and about their innocence. He said everyone in the crowd just erupted in applause & cheers. My friend, being in his mid-30s & one of the older half of people there, just quietly thought to himself "ya know, I have know idea who these convicted people are, or anything about the case or who the victims & families were. I'm not just going to randomly cheer for them". I found it funny, but yeah I guess sometimes you need to choose causes on your own merit.

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Re: West Memphis three to be released

Board footer