West Memphis Three

[RivkahChaya]

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.

Misskelley came off a lot creepier to me than Echols in the documentaries, and he wasn't trying to be odd. It wasn't because he has a low IQ, either, because I dealt with high functioning MR people professionally (and low functioning, and autistic, and all kinds of mentally ill people) for 15 years as a social worker, and they are as normal to me as anyone, but there was something "off" about Misskelley that had nothing to do with his intellect. That doesn't make him a murderer-- not any more than the fact that John Mark Byers is probably bipolar makes him a murderer, either. It's just that I can see why the police, who were targeting weird teenagers, picked Misskelley along with Echols and Baldwin, even though the three were not apparently close friends.

I mean, personally, it pisses me off to know end when people come under suspicion for essentially not being, Christian, which is what it boils down to, but I've heard Echols admit in an interview (post-release) that he didn't do "anything to help himself" after he was arrested.

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 don't know if it's exactly three, but I think most people are closer to murder than a lot of us like to admit. I also think the threat of punishment, and fear of getting caught actually prevents quite a lot of crime, especially personal crime like murder. Maybe for some people, suddenly replacing the fear of getting caught, or the fear of punishment with some greater fear is what does 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.

And don't live in a place like West Memphis. I'm not being flippant. Damien Echols actually was living in Portland, OR, and made the conscious choice as an emancipated minor, very shortly before he turned 18, to return to West Memphis. He did it to get away from his parents, and because he missed Jason Baldwin, so I suppose I get it, but Wow. It's one of those big "What if" moments.

I would rather my dentists give me a tattoo that that guy. And I think he is innocent.

I think he is innocent too, but I don't think I'd let him babysit my eight-year-old.

However, I might let Baldwin babysit. Definitely not Misskelley. Go figure.

I think you are right that Echols would not have committed this murder. I think 18-year-old Damien Echols had no reason to be angry at children, but he was clearly very angry at a lot of adults (and with reason, in a few cases). That's who he would have killed. You would have found that youth probation officer who wouldn't leave him alone, or someone like that, tied up and beaten in a gully. Not a child.

[Errata]

I should say, that the "I think he's innocent" was left from a different statement I cut out. I didn't mean to say I that I think Echolls' is innocent. I don't know. I actually suspect they are guilty. But I don't know any more than anyone else.

Misskelley came off a lot creepier to me than Echols in the documentaries

He's why I think they did it. At first he was a scared kid. But then he starts denying telling cops details he didn't tell them. Which is usually a sign of guilt. And he is, as the kids say "creepy as ****". I also don't think he actually retarded. There is something clearly wrong with him, and he has legitimate issues, but I don't think it's information that's the problem so much as people. He can't read people for anything. He didn't understand sarcasm or irony well at all unless the tone of voice was exaggerated. And when talking about the murders he licked his lips. Which was about when I terminated the interview. I walked out there convinced he was a killer. When I thought about it later, and I thought about his problems with understanding, I thought maybe it was just that he had a serious problem with his affect. Which he does. But he was lying about some things. He couldn't keep his story straight.

I mean, personally, it pisses me off to know end when people come under suspicion for essentially not being, Christian, which is what it boils down to, but I've heard Echols admit in an interview (post-release) that he didn't do "anything to help himself" after he was arrested.

The Satanic Panic in this case really was just during the trial, not the investigation. Which isn't to say they weren't looking for it, but that's not what got them Nichols. Maybe to him. But there is a reason that crime was considered to have occult influences, and the cops weren't wrong. Intentionally or not, that crime scene looks like a ritual. That get's them looking for someone into other practices, that get them an interview with Echolls. His mental illness got him the rest of the way there.And his friendship with Misskelley. Which is colossally unfair. And in truth, even his delusions don't get him to those murders necessarily. But three people working together can change a mission. So it's possible that he led this because of his delusions. Which he still has by the way. That should be pointed out. He is a completely untreated schizophrenic, because he believes his "exoneration" which is nothing of the kind means he's not sick. He is very sick. He is serial killer sick. But whipping out Metallica t-shirts during the trial to prove Satanism? Bollocks. That was my area of research. They were not Satanists. They didn't know what they were, thought Thelemites was probably closest. They made it up as they went along. Which Echolls still does. Which is fine, whatever gets you there. But it does strongly point to the idea that he was probably doing the same back then.

And don't live in a place like West Memphis. I'm not being flippant. Damien Echols actually was living in Portland, OR, and made the conscious choice as an emancipated minor, very shortly before he turned 18, to return to West Memphis. He did it to get away from his parents, and because he missed Jason Baldwin, so I suppose I get it, but Wow. It's one of those big "What if" moments. I think he is innocent too, but I don't think I'd let him babysit my eight-year-old.

He missed his reputation with girls. In Oregon with the problems he had he was a weirdo. In West Memphis he was a sex symbol.

However, I might let Baldwin babysit. Definitely not Misskelley. Go figure.

Assuming he's not a killer, he's still such a beta personality that I don't think he can function without someone giving orders. I'm surprised he's not back in jail from missing it.

I think you are right that Echols would not have committed this murder. I think 18-year-old Damien Echols had no reason to be angry at children, but he was clearly very angry at a lot of adults (and with reason, in a few cases). That's who he would have killed. You would have found that youth probation officer who wouldn't leave him alone, or someone like that, tied up and beaten in a gully. Not a child.

Echols does not commit this crime for the reasons given by the prosecution without a lot of external help. Misskellley might be that help. Liquor might be that help. Macho bullshit to see who is the more "out there" guy might be that help. These murders aren't about anger. Or sex. They are about power and pain. Echols might not like grown ups, but he can't subdue one with any surety. And he is consumed with the idea of power.

And there's another thing. Byers genitals were not mutilated. Nor was he castrated. Convenient but inaccurate terms. His penis was removed, and his urethra pulled through. Which is AWFUL. But it was never found. Echols was consumed with blood play. It was part of his delusions. Cannibalism is a different thing, but it's not far off.

[jason_c]

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

I believe the latter test to be something of a fraud. In Paradise Lost his lawyer basically tells Misskelley to score low on the test to prove "retardation", that a lower IQ score would be better for him. Misskelley was never going to be a member of Mensa, but I believe he was not as mentally challenged as the WM3 supporters would have us believe.

The day became famous that very day. It should have been fairly easy to remember a stable alibi if they had one. Not having an alibi does not prove guilt, but what it does prove is they didnt have an alibi. The implication of this lack of alibi is, within reason, whatever you wish to interpret it as.

We dont know if Echols was always taking his medication. He would not be the first mentally ill person to stop taking medication, or, to take a violent moodswing whilst on medication. This moodswing would be more likely if he were taking alcohol. Misskelley admitted they had drank heavily that evening.

It is true that not every mentally disturbed person would automatically go on the suspect list. However, if that disturbed person had been seen by an eyewitnesss walking away from the murder sight that night, and had been accused by an accomplice, then he would go top of the suspect list immediately.

In the Central Park Jogger case I believe the suspects recanted their confessions within weeks. This was not the case here. Misskelley maintained his guilt for somewhere between 6 months and a year.

I agree, the finger pointing towards Hobbes and Byers were low points in the documentary.

[RivkahChaya]

I'm looking at West of Memphis right now. There was a brief still of Misskelley in prison, with long hair and a goatee. Cripes, but he looked like Charles Manson. Maybe that's why I find him so creepy.

Well, whoever killed those little boys, is free.

[Errata]

I'm looking at West of Memphis right now. There was a brief still of Misskelley in prison, with long hair and a goatee. Cripes, but he looked like Charles Manson. Maybe that's why I find him so creepy.

Well, whoever killed those little boys, is free.

I assure you he is also genuinely creepy, even without the resemblance. Which is significant.

It's such a serial crime, like the head, hands and feet of a child they found in Chicago you just feel is a serial crime. Something you don't expect someone to be satisfied with just the one time. It makes you wonder if the only reason it isn't a serial crime is because the killer couldn't do it again for whatever reason. Went to jail, died, had a kid which is a thing with women though less so with men. And a woman could have done this. Moved and it's happened elsewhere? That was always a weird part for me. Why weren't there more?

[RivkahChaya]

I suppose that is a pretty significant MO, the binding of the hands to the ankles, and if any other victims of unsolved murders had been bound that way, all the publicity over the WM3 would have turned them up.

Is it possible that Misskelley did the crime alone, and for whatever reasons of his own, implicated Echols and Baldwin? maybe because the police came to the interview already suspecting Echols, and Misskelley thought he could shift blame from himself to someone else by putting himself in a lesser role?

I just have trouble seeing Damien Echols managing to maintain his innocence for 18 years. I suppose it could have been because he had a woman in love with him who thought he was innocent.

I dunno. I just can't get past the fact that there was obvious jury misconduct, and the trial had some other real problems. I suppose guilty people do sometimes get convicted after unfair trials, but it still makes me mad. If the prosecutor really believed in their guilt, why couldn't he play fair?

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?