West Memphis Three

[RivkahChaya]

I just saw the film Devil's Knot, a fact-based drama about the trial of the West Memphis Three, told mostly from the perspective of Pam Hobbs (now Hicks, IIRC), the mother of one of the victims, and secondarily of the investigator hired by the WM3's lawyers.

I don't know where I was when this case first broke, but I've been interested in it since the book Devil's Knot was released in 2003. I didn't seen the HBO documentaries until maybe three years ago, when they were released for pick-up by other stations, because we don't get HBO. But while Devil's Knot piqued my interest, made me think, yeah, there was probably a miscarriage of justice, and left a pit in my stomach thinking that someone who killed three boys close to my son's age was free, I didn't get really fired up until I saw the films.

Now, I fully admit that having seen documentary film is not going to make a person an expert, and especially in this case, as these are unabashedly slanted, I have actually gone to the library and looked up some articles from the time. Mostly, I've had to rely on things that made the national newspapers, though.

I have to say, if I had been following this case from the beginning, I would think that the boys were being railroaded. I admit to being a skeptic in general, but I'm familiar with the Satanic Panic, and was a voice alone, even at a pretty young age, saying that what was coming from California was crazy-impossible, and something else other than child abuse was going on with the McMartin preschool. I was vindicated when Ray Buckey was found not guilty on all charges, and reporters who'd been condemning him were suddenly scrambling to say they'd known all along it was some sort of hoax. Sorry, we have you guys on tape. I also thought something funny was up with the Central Park Jogger case.

Now, I'm not psychic. I sure thought Gary Condit killed Chandra Levy, and after that case, I won't be shocked by anything, even if someone else other than OJ confesses to the Brown-Goldman murder.

But I really don't think that the WM3 killed those three boys. I think Damien Echols had psychiatric problems, and I believe that Jessie Misskelley confessed, but a confession from a borderline retarded teen doesn't mean a lot. False confessions happen a lot.

However, there are a lot of good and honest people who still think the WM3 are guilty, including a few former supporters. Here's one website for a sample: http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/. Now, I'm not saying the authors of this website have anything on anyone else. I'm not convinced after reading it. But this is one of many.

What do other people think? Is it possibly they are guilty?

I still think they did not get a fair trial, considering the jury misconduct, and a few other things, but guilty people can still get unfair trials-- albeit, if the guilt is so obvious, you do have to wonder why there needs to be a fix.

Anyway, I'm really curious what other people think.

I'm going to try to post a poll. You can read a basic overview of the case on Wikipedia, which I read, and has some good references, and seems pretty well-done. It's slightly slanted in favor of innocence.

Devil's Knot is streaming on Netflix (in the US). Peter Jackson's 2012 documentary that follows the release of the WM3 is available on Amazon.com (in the US) for instant viewing, as are the three HBO movies. The book Devil's Knot is available on Kindle, and is voice-ready, and you can also buy a cheap paperback of it. The same with Damien Echols' autobiography Life After Death (he was on death row for 18 years).

[Ally]

It's been a while since I studied the case, I think my interest pretty much dropped after the 3 did their Alfred plea and got out, but I had long thought it was an hysteria-induced frame and the real killer got off scott free.

[Ginger]

It's been years since I read anything substantive about the case, but as I recall, there was rather more substantial evidence pointing toward Miskelley than just his confession.

Guilt or innocence aside, though, I think it's undeniable that the three boys weren't given a fair trial.

[GUT]

It's been a while since I studied the case, I think my interest pretty much dropped after the 3 did their Alfred plea and got out, but I had long thought it was an hysteria-induced frame and the real killer got off scott free.

Sorry but what's an Alfred Plea?

[Ally]

A bad misspelling on my part. Apparently I was channeling Batman's butler. I meant an Alford plea. An Alford plea is a plea in the U.S where a defendant pleads technically guilty on the basis that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to convict them while still maintaining they are innocent. It's basically a case of, I'm innocent, but the evidence has framed me up good, so I am pleading guilty. The prosecution proposed it as a plea bargain when their case was going to be retried and proposed if they pled guilty by way of an Alford plea they would be sentenced to time served and be released.

I frankly found it to be a total cop out on the prosecutor's part. But I can totally understand why the 3 took it.

[GUT]

A bad misspelling on my part. Apparently I was channeling Batman's butler. I meant an Alford plea. An Alford plea is a plea in the U.S where a defendant pleads technically guilty on the basis that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to convict them while still maintaining they are innocent. It's basically a case of, I'm innocent, but the evidence has framed me up good, so I am pleading guilty. The prosecution proposed it as a plea bargain when their case was going to be retried and proposed if they pled guilty by way of an Alford plea they would be sentenced to time served and be released.

I frankly found it to be a total cop out on the prosecutor's part. But I can totally understand why the 3 took it.

Thanks. We don't have such a thing here. (Sounds pretty similar to what I've heard other Americans call a no contest plea).

We don't really have plea bargains here either, the Crown might agree to accept a lessor plea or even to seek a lesser penalty, but the judge can still go heavier.

[sdreid]

I used to think about this case when it was still up in the air and I was driving through West Memphis on I-55 on my way to visit a lady friend in Memphis proper. My surmise was that these guys were railroaded but I guess we'll never know for sure unless a proven killer turns up. I really didn't care for the movie too much but I suppose we have to take what we get.

[RivkahChaya]

Thanks. We don't have such a thing here. (Sounds pretty similar to what I've heard other Americans call a no contest plea).

We don't really have plea bargains here either, the Crown might agree to accept a lessor plea or even to seek a lesser penalty, but the judge can still go heavier.

A judge can reject a plea bargain here too, but judges can be voted out of office by referendum in some places, and are elected outright in others, so they tend not to reject pleas. Another reason, according to my cousin, who works for the prosecutor in Illinois, is that judges don't want prosecutors to make impossible-not-to-reject deals to get evidence, because they are counting on the judge to reject it. I can't vouch for that, though. Alex goes on a lot.

ETA: an Alford plea is a nolo contendere plea. It's a specific type. It's named for the first person to use it, some time back in the 1960s. When you plead guilty to a crime, to strike a plea bargain, you have to recite the details of the crime for the record. A person who wants to plead guilty because he will lose at trial, but cannot recite the details of the crime is at a disadvantage over someone who does not maintain actual innocence. The Alford plea fills the gap. You don't have to recite the details of the crime. Instead, you say something like "On the advice of my lawyer, it is to my advantage to accept a plea." You must be advised by a competent lawyer to take an Alford plea.

There are other types of nolo contendere; someone who maintains that the facts are correct, but not the conclusion, like someone whose self-defense plea is not accepted, might plead nolo.

[GUT]

A judge can reject a plea bargain here too, but judges can be voted out of office by referendum in some places, and are elected outright in others, so they tend not to reject pleas. Another reason, according to my cousin, who works for the prosecutor in Illinois, is that judges don't want prosecutors to make impossible-not-to-reject deals to get evidence, because they are counting on the judge to reject it. I can't vouch for that, though. Alex goes on a lot.

ETA: an Alford plea is a nolo contendere plea. It's a specific type. It's named for the first person to use it, some time back in the 1960s. When you plead guilty to a crime, to strike a plea bargain, you have to recite the details of the crime for the record. A person who wants to plead guilty because he will lose at trial, but cannot recite the details of the crime is at a disadvantage over someone who does not maintain actual innocence. The Alford plea fills the gap. You don't have to recite the details of the crime. Instead, you say something like "On the advice of my lawyer, it is to my advantage to accept a plea." You must be advised by a competent lawyer to take an Alford plea.

There are other types of nolo contendere; someone who maintains that the facts are correct, but not the conclusion, like someone whose self-defense plea is not accepted, might plead nolo.

Thanks Rivkah

When a Judge rejects a plea bargain does it then go to trial, or does he just impose a sentence, here in Aus once a plea of guilty is in you need leave to withdraw it.

I'm not a big fan of elected Judges, but by the same token I have some reservations about them being appointed by politicians as well.

You say you must be advised "By a component Lawyer" to take an Alford plea, who decides if your lawyer is competent (or do you simply need to have legal advice and if later want to overturn it prove incompetence).

Thanks for filling in the gaps.

[RivkahChaya]

Thanks Rivkah

When a Judge rejects a plea bargain does it then go to trial, or does he just impose a sentence, here in Aus once a plea of guilty is in you need leave to withdraw it.

I'm not a big fan of elected Judges, but by the same token I have some reservations about them being appointed by politicians as well.

You say you must be advised "By a component Lawyer" to take an Alford plea, who decides if your lawyer is competent (or do you simply need to have legal advice and if later want to overturn it prove incompetence).

Thanks for filling in the gaps.

When a judge rejects a plea bargain, the judge can adjust the sentence, but then the accused can withdraw the plea-- something that can be done during a trial as well, I think.

A "competent lawyer" probably just means someone who is a member of the bar, not your neighbor, who watches court TV, or your disbarred brother-in-law, and someone who specializes in criminal law, not your cousin, the personal injury lawyer. And no, you can't decide pro se to take an Alford plea when your lawyer wants you to plead straight guilty, or else go to trail, but stop insisting on taking the stand. In fact, just shut up. Seriously, there are probably pro se defendants who realize they are losing, and ask to take an Alford plea, and the answer is "First, accept a lawyer."

[jason_c]

THe WM3 are probably guilty. One of them admitted they were guilty over the best part of a year long period, doing so on multiple occasions to a variety of lawyers and investigators. Im willing to admit innocent people often confess to crimes, however fewer do so over such a sustained period of time. Misskelley btw was not retarded.

Not one of the 3 had a decent stable alibi. That's quite a coincidence for 3 different people on possibly the most infamous day of that community's history.

Echols was a seriously disturbed young man. He had been accused by his peers of sucking blood from a classmates cut arm, also killing & mutilating animals. He was suspended from school for setting fires to his classroom. He himself confessed to being schizophrenic, homocidal, depressed, sociopathic and suicidal. If even one of our Ripper suspects were known to have this type of mental instability he would instantly placed higher on the suspect list. Well, the same goes for Echols in this instance.

I am quite open to admitting there is a reasonable element of doubt in the guilt of the WM3. The proven legal guilt of the 3 is a different issue to whether or not they actually committed the murders. It's my personal opinion they probably did commit the physical act of murdering those boys. One of them admitted doing so; and doing so with the aid of two others, one of them a known seriously disturbed young man.

[RivkahChaya]

Misskelley btw was not retarded.

He is usually described as "borderline retarded," because on the most common IQ test given by US school systems, a score of 70 is where "mentally retarded" officially begins. Misskelley was given the test at least twice, and scored 69 in elementary school, and 72 later. He was in special ed. classes most of his school career, albeit, a score of 70 or below is not the only requirement for being in special ed.

Not one of the 3 had a decent stable alibi. That's quite a coincidence for 3 different people on possibly the most infamous day of that community's history.

The day is famous not for some big event, but for the three boys' murders. I'll bet a lot of people don't have alibis. It's not the same thing as not having an alibi for the time of the parade when the presidential car went through Dealey Plaza, when nearly everyone showed up to watch the motorcade. The day didn't even become famous until after the fact.

Echols was a seriously disturbed young man.

Yes, he was. But he had been under treatment, was seeing a counselor, and taking medication. He talked about suicide, and did talk about drinking blood, but aside from the fact that there is no evidence that this is what happened at the murder scene (the boys weren't killed in a way that would facilitate collecting blood). He was also being stalked by a youth probation officer who continually referred to him as a Satanist, even while Echols himself said he was a wiccan, worshiped a goddess, and did not believe in Satan.

If even one of our Ripper suspects were known to have this type of mental instability he would instantly placed higher on the suspect list. Well, the same goes for Echols in this instance.

But not every disturbed person in the East End automatically goes on the suspect list. Everyone on the list has some other reason for being there as well.

One of them admitted doing so; and doing so with the aid of two others....

This might hold water for me if it weren't for a famous case known as "The Central Park Jogger." We have videotapes of police actually planting the confession in the suspects' minds. Misskelley has said that he didn't think the police took his confession seriously-- that since they were lying, he assumed they knew he was lying, and it was some kind of game. Whether he fit the definition of retarded or not, he wasn't bright, and seems ripe for manipulation to me.

But beyond that, there was clear juror misconduct at the trial of Baldwin and Echols. Personally, this makes me burn like few things do, and at the very least, they should have had a new trial. The Alford plea was suggested instead of a new trial, and the men accepted-- it got them out of prison faster.

Personally, I don't like the fact that Peter Jackson's movie tries unabashedly to frame Terry Hobbs-- it seems like the film does to Hobbs what the community did to the teenagers. I think the police seriously screwed up in not following up on the Bojangles restaurant suspect. Of course, someone like that probably has killed someone else somewhere, so it's not a completely dead end. I wish someone would pay more attention to the bloody guy in the restaurant. That seems like this huge sore thumb everyone is ignoring.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi RC,

Amy Berg wrote and directed that movie aparrently. I've not seen it. But looking at her resume, then you telling me she blamed the murder on a white cracker, well hey, you could see that coming up Fifth Avenue in a big Yellow Cab. No I won't be watching it.

Bojangles Resturant was very near the murder site, but just on the other side of the road, so that the responding officer was not in the same district as the missing children incident. By the time detectives investigated the evidence had been washed away. West Memphis has police districts and lots and lots of crime. Crime was just picking up in 1993. Law enforcement in the south today is highly competent in crime solving, having had so incredible much experience.

Roy

[Errata]

With the book coming out, Damien Echolls' lawyer hired a bunch of experts to get the case reopened, and my boss was one of these men. I worked this case, and it was the last case I worked. I didn't sign on for dead kids. And it turns out that mutilated children is not good for my mental health, and not good in a pretty spectacular and embarrassing fashion. So I left.

But I worked on the "lifestyle" portion, so I did the religious stuff, the drugs, I seconded psychology. I didn't talk to others about it, I didn't ak questions, I didn't want to know. I had to talk to Misskelley, an I couldn't do it if I had any details or I would have either freaked out or throttled him. I don't know. I was consumed with my own problems at that point, so I'm not a reference, I'm not an expert. I only know what I researched.

There's a theory that we are all three circumstances away from murder, and I buy it hook, line and sinker. IF you were drunk and IF you'd had a bad day and IF some guy groped your wife then you would kill him. Three ifs, three circumstances, different for each person. The WM3 were more like two. So people who paint these guys as saints I have no patience for. They could have killed, they could have killed kids. Just not that way. It didn't even fit the occult theory the cops had, though I get why they had it.

I suppose the object lesson here is that if you are going to be strange and objectionable, be sure of your friends, and be sure they won't lie about you just to get on the local news. Or alternatively, do not say creepy **** to people and the expect to not get picked up for murder. A lot of things went wrong with that case. But these guys were targeted for a reason. Echolls is a tattoo artist now. I would rather my dentists give me a tattoo that that guy. And I think he is innocent.

[Shaggyrand]

West of Memphis was really mixed for me. Just went too hard into witch hunting Terry Hobbs, just like Paradise Lost 2 did with most of its runtime with Byers. While there's plenty in the case to look at again and question, I find the tendency of media about the case to try to scapegoat instead of actually doing a little investigation to be aggravating. Same with the parade of famous people where they all but say that their support is all the proof of innocence that should be needed.
Don't get me wrong, the case was all kinds of ****ed up and I think the three are innocent. Just would be nice to see the case presented in a more open and less lets lynch this guy instead kind of way.