West Memphis Three

[Errata]

I remember reading about the compass now, and there was some debate over whether that knife actually belonged to any of the teenagers. I don't remember the details, but I'm thinking it was something like the best the police could come up with was a replica of the knife.

As far as the serrated knife went, Jason Baldwin's mother swore under oath that that knife had been missing since well before the murders. Now, a mother might lie, even under oath, for her son, but apparently she'd taken the knife away from him and disposed of it because she didn't want him to have it, and this was pretty well-known, so the police looked where she'd disposed of it.

I lean toward thinking they didn't do it, just because the trial seems fixed, and you don't to fix a trial if people are guilty. But I won't be shocked if they turn out to be guilty-- well, shocked that they weren't treated better; usually, when the authorities are sure they have a good case, they do everything to ensure an error-free trial, and this trial was awful, from the juror misconduct to "experts" with mail-order degrees from fake universities. But guilty or not, I really won't be shocked either way. I guess what shocks me is when a trial has a circus atmosphere, though I suppose it shouldn't by now.

Honestly, I was shocked to my socks when it turned out that Gary Condit was not guilty, but since then, well, I was so sure he did it-- I think I won't even be shocked now if it turns out that serial killer killed Nicole Brown, and OJ really didn't do it. (No, I don't think the serial killer did it-- whole different MO, but I think it's possible he did burglarize her house. I'm just saying nothing shocks me anymore. OK: if Queen Victoria really was Jack the Ripper, I will be shocked, very shocked.)

Yeah, I think an ex girlfriend gave a statement about Echoll's having a knife like that, but it wasn't enough to bring it to trial.

I think that it's usually a good idea to separate the idea of legal guilt an actual guilt. OJ Simpson for instance. Legally not guilty. Really really guilty. People do commit crimes without leaving a bunch of damning evidence behind. Happens every day really. Everyone knows someone who was the victim of a crime where no suspect was even identified. Clearly the opposite is also true rather more often than we would wish.

So should the WM3 have been convicted based on that trial? Absolutely not. But the legal finding has nothing to do with actual guilt. One is based on what the suspects did or did not do. The other is based on what a lawyer can prove and 12 average Americans from the community in which the crime occurred. It's possible a nun would have been convicted if the prosecution could prove she was in town that day and had some speeding tickets.

[RivkahChaya]

The oval wounds were a match the knife found, that had a compass in the hilt that was removed or had fallen out. But the confirmation of that was made by a guy who did dental matches, so it was never presented.

And the scenario you describe, where there is post mortem mutilation of a heinous sort, but not a "Dahmer thing" usually suggests a show. Someone is putting on a show. Not disguising the motive or method, not reveling in it or needing to do it. It's a show. "Look what I can do thats so evil, but it's not for my benefit but for yours, so if you're impressed lets get out of here."

So maybe it really was all about proving yourself. A horrible kind of game of chicken.

I remember reading about the compass now, and there was some debate over whether that knife actually belonged to any of the teenagers. I don't remember the details, but I'm thinking it was something like the best the police could come up with was a replica of the knife.

As far as the serrated knife went, Jason Baldwin's mother swore under oath that that knife had been missing since well before the murders. Now, a mother might lie, even under oath, for her son, but apparently she'd taken the knife away from him and disposed of it because she didn't want him to have it, and this was pretty well-known, so the police looked where she'd disposed of it.

I lean toward thinking they didn't do it, just because the trial seems fixed, and you don't to fix a trial if people are guilty. But I won't be shocked if they turn out to be guilty-- well, shocked that they weren't treated better; usually, when the authorities are sure they have a good case, they do everything to ensure an error-free trial, and this trial was awful, from the juror misconduct to "experts" with mail-order degrees from fake universities. But guilty or not, I really won't be shocked either way. I guess what shocks me is when a trial has a circus atmosphere, though I suppose it shouldn't by now.

Honestly, I was shocked to my socks when it turned out that Gary Condit was not guilty, but since then, well, I was so sure he did it-- I think I won't even be shocked now if it turns out that serial killer killed Nicole Brown, and OJ really didn't do it. (No, I don't think the serial killer did it-- whole different MO, but I think it's possible he did burglarize her house. I'm just saying nothing shocks me anymore. OK: if Queen Victoria really was Jack the Ripper, I will be shocked, very shocked.)

[Errata]

Back to the movie West of Memphis: something that I did find convincing was the part about a lot of the post-mortem wounding, or scarring, the lines that were attributed to a serrated knife being dragged across the bodies, and the oval-shaped wounds that the police had formed some odd theory about a broken flashlight, or something like that, belonging to Echols, being used to make-- something they never found and produced in court, but were still allowed to talk about in theory to the jury-- all those wounds, that were post-mortem, so were not done to torture the victims, plus the "castrating" of Christopher Byers, were really animal predation. There's a scene with large snapping turtles going after the corpse of a pig, and they really attack it. They're fast in water, and vicious. I forget how vicious some turtles are, since I mostly see people pet box turtles. But after just 20 minutes or so, that pig looked awful. And the false bayou (it has "Bayou" in the name, but it's a manmade drainage ditch) the boys were found in is full of animals, particular snapping turtles.

All that suggests is that whoever killed the boys did not spend a lot of time playing with the dead bodies, so the goal was probably to kill them, and get the heck out of Dodge, not to procure dead bodies to play with (a la Jeffrey Dahmer, or JtR, for example).

That doesn't let the WM3 off the hook, but to me at any rate, it says that if they did it, it probably wasn't Satanic, or any kind of ritual, it was just a power trip.

FWIW, in Misskelley's confession, I don't recall him ever talking about Satan, or rituals. In fact, he isn't even familiar with the word "Satan" when he sees it written on one occasion-- he knows who "the devil" is, but he's not heard the character referred to as "Satan."

I can't help thinking that the Satanic panic thing, and it's focus on torturing and killing children smacks of the blood libel.

So, I guess I'm inclined to doubt the guilt of the three just because of the who Satanism accusation. If someone had just said "Here we have three teens with criminal backgrounds, no direction, and anti-social tendencies, one with diagnosed mental problems, who we believe would terrorize small children just to feel in control of someone, because their own lives were out of control, and they had cruel streaks, and it got out of hand, or they decided to kill the witnesses," with no mention of Satanism, I'd be more inclined to believe in their guilt.

The oval wounds were a match the knife found, that had a compass in the hilt that was removed or had fallen out. But the confirmation of that was made by a guy who did dental matches, so it was never presented.

And the scenario you describe, where there is post mortem mutilation of a heinous sort, but not a "Dahmer thing" usually suggests a show. Someone is putting on a show. Not disguising the motive or method, not reveling in it or needing to do it. It's a show. "Look what I can do thats so evil, but it's not for my benefit but for yours, so if you're impressed lets get out of here."

So maybe it really was all about proving yourself. A horrible kind of game of chicken.

[RivkahChaya]

Back to the movie West of Memphis: something that I did find convincing was the part about a lot of the post-mortem wounding, or scarring, the lines that were attributed to a serrated knife being dragged across the bodies, and the oval-shaped wounds that the police had formed some odd theory about a broken flashlight, or something like that, belonging to Echols, being used to make-- something they never found and produced in court, but were still allowed to talk about in theory to the jury-- all those wounds, that were post-mortem, so were not done to torture the victims, plus the "castrating" of Christopher Byers, were really animal predation. There's a scene with large snapping turtles going after the corpse of a pig, and they really attack it. They're fast in water, and vicious. I forget how vicious some turtles are, since I mostly see people pet box turtles. But after just 20 minutes or so, that pig looked awful. And the false bayou (it has "Bayou" in the name, but it's a manmade drainage ditch) the boys were found in is full of animals, particular snapping turtles.

All that suggests is that whoever killed the boys did not spend a lot of time playing with the dead bodies, so the goal was probably to kill them, and get the heck out of Dodge, not to procure dead bodies to play with (a la Jeffrey Dahmer, or JtR, for example).

That doesn't let the WM3 off the hook, but to me at any rate, it says that if they did it, it probably wasn't Satanic, or any kind of ritual, it was just a power trip.

FWIW, in Misskelley's confession, I don't recall him ever talking about Satan, or rituals. In fact, he isn't even familiar with the word "Satan" when he sees it written on one occasion-- he knows who "the devil" is, but he's not heard the character referred to as "Satan."

I can't help thinking that the Satanic panic thing, and it's focus on torturing and killing children smacks of the blood libel.

So, I guess I'm inclined to doubt the guilt of the three just because of the who Satanism accusation. If someone had just said "Here we have three teens with criminal backgrounds, no direction, and anti-social tendencies, one with diagnosed mental problems, who we believe would terrorize small children just to feel in control of someone, because their own lives were out of control, and they had cruel streaks, and it got out of hand, or they decided to kill the witnesses," with no mention of Satanism, I'd be more inclined to believe in their guilt.

[Ginger]

Whatever happened, I think it's fair to say that the police squandered a big opportunity when they didn't investigate this.

I'm not favourably impressed with the West Memphis Police in general.

[RivkahChaya]

Plus, the Bojangles man had a cast on one arm. This makes him even less likely as a single killer.

It's not my own theory, and I repeat it only half flippantly, but I wonder if a mentally unstable black man with a cast on his arm had a violent encounter with three drunk knife wielding teenagers earlier that evening?

Whatever happened, I think it's fair to say that the police squandered a big opportunity when they didn't investigate this.

[jason_c]

If it was a single killer, then he had to have had some sort of recognized authority over the boys that would lead them to obey him until it was too late. A parent would have that, as would a teacher, or a policeman. The Moore boy, who was considered the leader of the three, was apparently an avid Boy Scout, so possibly an older Scout or Scoutmaster might be a possibility.





Seriously. An agitated man covered in blood is the exact sort of thing that the police are supposed to show some curiousity about on general principle. It's absolutely appalling to me that they'd let that slide. That being said, I'm not convinced that there'd be that much blood on the murderer(s), considering that he (or they) obviously spent time in the creek hiding the bodies and clothes. That very calm, well-planned behaviour in carefully hiding the bodies and sweeping the creek bank makes me skeptical of Bojangles as a suspect - he's described as being more or less in a panic. If he was connected with the murders at all, I think it was as an accidental witness. The murderers may not even have known that he saw them.

Plus, the Bojangles man had a cast on one arm. This makes him even less likely as a single killer.

It's not my own theory, and I repeat it only half flippantly, but I wonder if a mentally unstable black man with a cast on his arm had a violent encounter with three drunk knife wielding teenagers earlier that evening?

[Errata]

If it was a single killer, then he had to have had some sort of recognized authority over the boys that would lead them to obey him until it was too late. A parent would have that, as would a teacher, or a policeman. The Moore boy, who was considered the leader of the three, was apparently an avid Boy Scout, so possibly an older Scout or Scoutmaster might be a possibility.

They were painfully bound before they died. Probably before anything else was done. No one person could control all three boys while binding them in that manner. Naked. The other two would see their friend in pain. No one has that authority over all three boys. Not even a cop. An abusive parent may be able to convince their victim to stay still after months or years of training, but not his victims two friends.

Even with a gun one would be expected to run. So no single person can expect to control three children like that. Not even a little. It has to be at least two.

[RivkahChaya]

Seriously. An agitated man covered in blood is the exact sort of thing that the police are supposed to show some curiousity about on general principle. It's absolutely appalling to me that they'd let that slide. That being said, I'm not convinced that there'd be that much blood on the murderer(s), considering that he (or they) obviously spent time in the creek hiding the bodies and clothes. That very calm, well-planned behaviour in carefully hiding the bodies and sweeping the creek bank makes me skeptical of Bojangles as a suspect - he's described as being more or less in a panic. If he was connected with the murders at all, I think it was as an accidental witness. The murderers may not even have known that he saw them.

I agree. It even occurred to me to wonder if he tried to rescue the boys afterwards, but they were already dead.

The black on white bothers me to. It's not typical, though it's not impossible, but I think a white person committed the crime. Still, the lack of curiosity on the part of the police is flabbergasting. The guy could have been a witness, an unwilling accomplice, or even another victim. Or he could have been hit by a car as someone sped away from the scene of the crime. We don't know, and we should know.

[Ginger]

Could any one person? I think this is one thing that lends a lot of credibility to the Terry Hobbs theory (not that I believe it, albeit, he comes across as a really unsavory person from the very first film, even when he isn't being put forth as a suspect): as a parent, one suspects the boys would have done what he said until it was too late, so he could have pulled off the thing on his own.

If it was a single killer, then he had to have had some sort of recognized authority over the boys that would lead them to obey him until it was too late. A parent would have that, as would a teacher, or a policeman. The Moore boy, who was considered the leader of the three, was apparently an avid Boy Scout, so possibly an older Scout or Scoutmaster might be a possibility.

The "Mr. Bojangles" thing is still really weird, and I suppose one adult with a weapon could have controlled three second graders. It kills me that the police never followed up on that at the time. Even if he was no one, at least we'd know that.

Seriously. An agitated man covered in blood is the exact sort of thing that the police are supposed to show some curiousity about on general principle. It's absolutely appalling to me that they'd let that slide. That being said, I'm not convinced that there'd be that much blood on the murderer(s), considering that he (or they) obviously spent time in the creek hiding the bodies and clothes. That very calm, well-planned behaviour in carefully hiding the bodies and sweeping the creek bank makes me skeptical of Bojangles as a suspect - he's described as being more or less in a panic. If he was connected with the murders at all, I think it was as an accidental witness. The murderers may not even have known that he saw them.

[RivkahChaya]

I don't really think that Miskelley could have controlled the three victims by himself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that just doesn't seem likely to me.

Could any one person? I think this is one thing that lends a lot of credibility to the Terry Hobbs theory (not that I believe it, albeit, he comes across as a really unsavory person from the very first film, even when he isn't being put forth as a suspect): as a parent, one suspects the boys would have done what he said until it was too late, so he could have pulled off the thing on his own.

The "Mr. Bojangles" thing is still really weird, and I suppose one adult with a weapon could have controlled three second graders. It kills me that the police never followed up on that at the time. Even if he was no one, at least we'd know that.

[Ginger]

Is it possible that Misskelley did the crime alone, and for whatever reasons of his own, implicated Echols and Baldwin?

I don't really think that Miskelley could have controlled the three victims by himself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that just doesn't seem likely to me.

[Steadmund Brand]

I am one of those folks who watched the documentaries and became an advocate for the free the WM3 movement...in doing so I dug deep into the case and started to do research....and after many years I am ashamed of myself for being misled to the point of action by a documentary....all the research I have done points to guilt for the 3....granted the trial was a joke.. but, sad but true, all signs point to guilt....funny whenever I discuss the case with people ( I never bring it up!) and I say I feel they are guilty things get so heated...they throw arguments in my face from Peter Jackson ( sorry his documentary was WAY OFF.. a totally self-serving twisting of facts) or from Paradise Lost etc or what Johnny Depp said... and when I ask... did they ever look into the "facts" they say.. I saw the films.... I try to explain that the films are trying to prove a point from one side only, they do not want to accept that, for some reason people don’t want to believe that they were duped... I think that’s why none of the "celebrities" will ever admit they changed their view.. which I am certain some must have after looking at all the facts.... or like most people they only see what they want to see.....

With all my heart I wanted them (and still hope) they are innocent of the crimes.. .but sad to say, I just can't see it that way.... anyway, I don't think you will ever see a documentary trying to prove their guilt.

Steadmund Brand

[jason_c]

No, but it might have been about proving someone's power in black magic. Sort of the way dumb frat boys kill themselves proving their alcohol tolerance is higher than everyone else's. It's about trying to make someone believe rather than do something in actual belief. It's about power. Temporal and in theory magical.

You'd be amazed at what some of these people do to promote someone else's belief in Satan or the Golden Dawn. Because if they believe, and they believe you can give them power that way, you have power. Worked for Crowley didn't it? He wasn't much of a believer in his own shtick. Nor was LeVay. A kid who studies those texts knows that.

Echols did have an interest in Satanism(or some form of Satanism). Im less sure if the other two had the same interest. Do you know? I very much doubt "Satanism" was the primary motivation for the killings if they were committed by the three. However, mental instability, plus satanism, plus drink, plus this macho group dynamic could all have played a part. We know that strong religous convictions can be found in people with real psychological problems. Im sure a morbid interest in Satanism can attract the very same kind of troubled people.

We all like to justify our own actions and beliefs. I would not be at all surprised if the homocidal tendencies within Echols attracted him to some form "Satanism" rather than Satanism attracting him to homocide. It's the old which came first conundrum, the chicken or the egg? In this case I would tend to believe that homocidal tendencies came first then latterly some form of interest in Satanism.

[Errata]

Also, clearly, this was not about Satanism. Even if the WM3 did it, it wasn't for a Satanic ritual.

No, but it might have been about proving someone's power in black magic. Sort of the way dumb frat boys kill themselves proving their alcohol tolerance is higher than everyone else's. It's about trying to make someone believe rather than do something in actual belief. It's about power. Temporal and in theory magical.

You'd be amazed at what some of these people do to promote someone else's belief in Satan or the Golden Dawn. Because if they believe, and they believe you can give them power that way, you have power. Worked for Crowley didn't it? He wasn't much of a believer in his own shtick. Nor was LeVay. A kid who studies those texts knows that.