West Memphis Three

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

Don't mention nuns to my cousin Alex. The first, and still one of very few trials he's lost was a nun who ran a red light and killed a pedestrian in the crosswalk. He had eyewitnesses, forensics, and it should have been open and shut, but he lost a motion to prevent her from wearing her habit during the trial, and the jury voted not guilty. They didn't want any repercussions from the deity if they convicted a nun, apparently.

Personally, I don't think that even guilty people should be convicted in a trial that essentially amounts to the prosecution slandering them around the court, and not presenting any actual evidence.

[Errata]

Don't mention nuns to my cousin Alex. The first, and still one of very few trials he's lost was a nun who ran a red light and killed a pedestrian in the crosswalk. He had eyewitnesses, forensics, and it should have been open and shut, but he lost a motion to prevent her from wearing her habit during the trial, and the jury voted not guilty. They didn't want any repercussions from the deity if they convicted a nun, apparently.

Personally, I don't think that even guilty people should be convicted in a trial that essentially amounts to the prosecution slandering them around the court, and not presenting any actual evidence.

Yikes. And she didn't plead guilty? Bad nun.

I agree. I think it never should have gone to trial. But I separate legal guilt and actual guilt. They should not have been tried, they should not have been found guilty on THAT evidence. I just still think they did it.

We jail, even execute innocent people, we free guilty people, we free innocent people for the wrong reasons, we convict guilty people for the wrong reasons. Trials are based almost solely on human behavior and psychology. Not so much evidence as we would like. That's the system. So it fails. quite a bit. The system is not the truth. Usually it reflects the truth. But that's not the same thing. So I don't see it as the same thing.

[RivkahChaya]

The nun apparently fell asleep at the wheel, and wanted a plea bargain with no prison time, but the prosecutor insisted on a bottom count of vehicular manslaughter, or something with mandatory prison time. So they went to trial.

The Catholic church has since done something I didn't realize they could do, and removed support from the order, which continues to exist, but as an unchartered, or unacredited order, or something. It sounds like a cult to me. They make the nuns put in long hours in a bakery to support the order, which is how she happened to fall asleep behind the wheel in the first place.

[Ausgirl]

I've been following this case pretty closely for a long time now.

People relatively new to it will get a lot of mileage out of the following links:

Trial Transcripts:

http://callahan.8k.com/trial_transcripts.html

Case Documents:

http://callahan.8k.com/docs_index.html

Some interesting if not very flattering information about a drug squad, featuring prominent names from the murder case (apparently they handled homicides as well, or something)

http://www.jivepuppi.com/west_memphis_confidential.html

After much back and forth, and reading ALL the documents, and blahblahinterminableblah, I have concluded these things:

1. Jerry Driver (the driving force behind Echols and by extension, Baldwin & Misskelley being viewed as suspects) was a special sort of psycho. Who should probably never have been allowed to work with kids, in any position that gave him authority over them. Like, ever.

2. The WMPD royally mucked this entire case up -- from beginning to end. In almost every way that's possible to muck a case up. I'm not being unkind here, either. This is just fact. Included in this muck up is the interrogation/s and coercion that lef to Misskelley's ludicrously inaccurate confessions -- which (by magic? or not..) got increasingly more accurate, the longer he spent in the company of West Memphis police officers.

Do not even get me started on the whole Vicki Hutchison debacle.

3. Judge Barnett conducted a farce of a trial. From allowing the jury to be tainted, refusing qualified defense witnesses the stand, while allowing apparently any loony with 2c to spend to speak for the prosecution... his curmudgeonly and clearly biased ways continued in appeal refusal, after refusal.. If I could punt his bony old ass off a bridge, I believe I might be tempted to give it a college try.

Just disgusting, the lot of it. And I am no fan of Echols, here, I think he's a right creeper. And not because of the occult/metal stuff, hey, I was a fan of all that myself. I mean, just that he comes across as a pathological liar. Because of, you know... all the lies. Quite manipualtive, that one.

Misskelley was a bit of a playground thug, who was known to thump smaller kiddies if they smarted off to him. I could see him thumping Chris Byers, for a start, who was known to smart off to people pretty regularly. Yup, I could see Misskelley hurting a child badly, given his strength and temper.

Baldwin -- just, nuh. Nope, he didn't do it. The end. I see nothing, not one thing, at all, in his character or behaviour or habits to suggest he could have.

So what I'm saying is, these men were herded up, with a crap investigation, into a crap court with a crap judge, and the trial was crap.

But did they do it? Collectively, or individually?

I .. dunno. I think they're actually pretty weak suspects, compared to some that are far better suspects, for far more compelling reasons.

Like the latest bulls-eye, Terry Hobbs. Or hey, what about James Kenney Martin, the convicted child rapist who was screwing a cop's wife who lived near the victims, worked construction a 4-minute drive from the murder scene, had a history of domestic violence and molesting his own kids, and is on record describing his own crimes in brain-bleachworthy detail to the cops, clearly enjoying himself, as well as offering them tips & theories about how someone might do such a crime. Including describing laces (and not ropes, as Misskelley said) as useful binding material. Oh - and he's also on record boasting his rapes in chatrooms. Oh - and, he spent time hanging out at the crime scene, to help him think the crime through, he said.

I could go onnnnn. But I won't, that's a good summary of the type of suspect (and JKM is is not the only one, outside of the circle of pitchforks currently surrounding Hobbs) the WMPD passed by in favour of the WM3. Because fellow god-botherer Jerry Driver said so, and by golly, that was good enough.

[jason_c]

I've been following this case pretty closely for a long time now.

People relatively new to it will get a lot of mileage out of the following links:

Trial Transcripts:

http://callahan.8k.com/trial_transcripts.html

Case Documents:

http://callahan.8k.com/docs_index.html

Some interesting if not very flattering information about a drug squad, featuring prominent names from the murder case (apparently they handled homicides as well, or something)

http://www.jivepuppi.com/west_memphis_confidential.html

After much back and forth, and reading ALL the documents, and blahblahinterminableblah, I have concluded these things:

1. Jerry Driver (the driving force behind Echols and by extension, Baldwin & Misskelley being viewed as suspects) was a special sort of psycho. Who should probably never have been allowed to work with kids, in any position that gave him authority over them. Like, ever.

2. The WMPD royally mucked this entire case up -- from beginning to end. In almost every way that's possible to muck a case up. I'm not being unkind here, either. This is just fact. Included in this muck up is the interrogation/s and coercion that lef to Misskelley's ludicrously inaccurate confessions -- which (by magic? or not..) got increasingly more accurate, the longer he spent in the company of West Memphis police officers.

Do not even get me started on the whole Vicki Hutchison debacle.

3. Judge Barnett conducted a farce of a trial. From allowing the jury to be tainted, refusing qualified defense witnesses the stand, while allowing apparently any loony with 2c to spend to speak for the prosecution... his curmudgeonly and clearly biased ways continued in appeal refusal, after refusal.. If I could punt his bony old ass off a bridge, I believe I might be tempted to give it a college try.

Just disgusting, the lot of it. And I am no fan of Echols, here, I think he's a right creeper. And not because of the occult/metal stuff, hey, I was a fan of all that myself. I mean, just that he comes across as a pathological liar. Because of, you know... all the lies. Quite manipualtive, that one.

Misskelley was a bit of a playground thug, who was known to thump smaller kiddies if they smarted off to him. I could see him thumping Chris Byers, for a start, who was known to smart off to people pretty regularly. Yup, I could see Misskelley hurting a child badly, given his strength and temper.

Baldwin -- just, nuh. Nope, he didn't do it. The end. I see nothing, not one thing, at all, in his character or behaviour or habits to suggest he could have.

So what I'm saying is, these men were herded up, with a crap investigation, into a crap court with a crap judge, and the trial was crap.

But did they do it? Collectively, or individually?

I .. dunno. I think they're actually pretty weak suspects, compared to some that are far better suspects, for far more compelling reasons.

Like the latest bulls-eye, Terry Hobbs. Or hey, what about James Kenney Martin, the convicted child rapist who was screwing a cop's wife who lived near the victims, worked construction a 4-minute drive from the murder scene, had a history of domestic violence and molesting his own kids, and is on record describing his own crimes in brain-bleachworthy detail to the cops, clearly enjoying himself, as well as offering them tips & theories about how someone might do such a crime. Including describing laces (and not ropes, as Misskelley said) as useful binding material. Oh - and he's also on record boasting his rapes in chatrooms. Oh - and, he spent time hanging out at the crime scene, to help him think the crime through, he said.

I could go onnnnn. But I won't, that's a good summary of the type of suspect (and JKM is is not the only one, outside of the circle of pitchforks currently surrounding Hobbs) the WMPD passed by in favour of the WM3. Because fellow god-botherer Jerry Driver said so, and by golly, that was good enough.

An interesting post, thanks. I enjoyed reading even if I disagree with some of it.

I really am wary of armchair psychologists. We rarely know what any individual is truly capable of. Our knowledge of Baldwin is less than our knowledge of Echols or Misskelley. You can point to Baldwin as being less likely to commit murder, but I think it's completely wrong to rule him out when we know relatively little about him. I mean if Dylan Klebold was capable of Columbine then its almost impossible to rule out any individual as potentially committing such crimes . Remove some of Klebold's tapes and writings found afterwards and Klebold is not your typical mass murderer. If we were to inspect his life before Columbine there would be few tell tale signs. The same goes for Baldwin imo, particularly when we have a group dynamic going on.

[Errata]

Is the total **** show of trial evidence of innocence?

They were wrongfully convicted, even if they were the right guys.

So are we talking about the murders or the trial? Usually on here we talk about the case. The murders. Because there was no trial for the Ripper. But if we are talking about the trial, it seems like we all agree that was a travesty of justice. Our system isn't supposed to do that.

But if someone can come up with why they took the Alford when they were given the ability to be retried with new evidence, that is something I'd like to hear. Because that I don't know. It might be for a very good reason, I just haven't heard what that is.

[Steadmund Brand]

I find it funny that everyone wants to pint to Hobbs ,3 years ago there was that "story" that new evidence and witness were found proving his guilt.. yet.. nothing came of that.. so much for evidence... Look, I think Hobbs is a creep (or I should say appears to be one.. I have never met the man so I can not be sure)...
Like I said before, I was one of the Free the WM3 folks for a long time..but if you just look at the facts, so much points to them as being guilty, of course I can't be sure of that, only they know for sure, But like RivkahChaya put on the first post, sites like http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/ and http://wm3truth.com/ will show documents and evidence you won’t find in any of the documentaries and will even point out errors in those films...granted just as documentaries are one sided.. web sites are as well... so again, judge for yourself.. but after many years of research ( and no not just watching movies and reading the web) my mind points towards guilt....and them accepting the plea clinched it for me....and I know some will say " they had to accept the plea".. well.. no they really did not "have" too.. Jason Baldwin did not want to and was talked into it...because I am sure he was told, yeah we will probably get another trial but chances are you will be found guilty there as well....better take the plea.. again that is just my opinion


Steadmund Brand

[Ginger]

But if someone can come up with why they took the Alford when they were given the ability to be retried with new evidence, that is something I'd like to hear. Because that I don't know. It might be for a very good reason, I just haven't heard what that is.

Their previous experience with the justice system wasn't such as would be likely to give them confidence in its workings.

[Ginger]

I've been following this case pretty closely for a long time now.

People relatively new to it will get a lot of mileage out of the following links:

Trial Transcripts:

http://callahan.8k.com/trial_transcripts.html

Case Documents:

http://callahan.8k.com/docs_index.html

Some interesting if not very flattering information about a drug squad, featuring prominent names from the murder case (apparently they handled homicides as well, or something)

http://www.jivepuppi.com/west_memphis_confidential.html

Oh, my! Thanks for posting that!