West Memphis Three

[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]

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'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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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."

[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. 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.

[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.