How did the 3 teens know/meet the 3 little boys?

Yeah the title is not too great but that's the best I could come up with to sum up this discussion lol.

How did it come about that the WM3 could possibly even know the little boys?

*I know they weren't related.

*I know none of the older boys lived close by--in fact if memory serves correctly-wasn't Damien's house like 10 miles away?

*I know Damien didn't own a car or have a driver's license for that matter. Jason did not own a car. I need to look up whether or not Jessie did--and right this second I'm thinking he did.

*It's been stated Damien/Jason didn't hang out with Jessie.

So to go to the absolute very beginning-how is it that these three teenage boys-2 don't have a car and the 3rd doesn't hang out with them-come upon 3 little boys in a wooded area miles from home?
Then let's stop there for the time being............

According to Jessie's statement made after the trial they came across them by chance in the woods....the older boys were already there drinking, and the younger group of boys came in, the older boys hid except for Damien who lured them to him by making 'sounds' and then he hid too and when they approached he jumped one of them, when the other two little boys came to the aid of their friend the other two older boys emerged and they each grabbed one each.

All in Jessie's statement here http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html

laurensmom said:

Yeah the title is not too great but that's the best I could come up with to sum up this discussion lol.

How did it come about that the WM3 could possibly even know the little boys?

*I know they weren't related.

*I know none of the older boys lived close by--in fact if memory serves correctly-wasn't Damien's house like 10 miles away?

*I know Damien didn't own a car or have a driver's license for that matter. Jason did not own a car. I need to look up whether or not Jessie did--and right this second I'm thinking he did.

*It's been stated Damien/Jason didn't hang out with Jessie.

So to go to the absolute very beginning-how is it that these three teenage boys-2 don't have a car and the 3rd doesn't hang out with them-come upon 3 little boys in a wooded area miles from home?
Then let's stop there for the time being............

Click to expand...

to answer your question, the 3 older boys did not know and had never met the 3 younger boys.

Sorry if this is somewhere else or this is off topic for this particular thread. I am totally ignorant to this case and just watched LKL tonight and am interested.

Was there any history for any of the convicted for any kind of predatory behavior? Was only one boy sexually assualted? Did any of the convicted have a juvenile record and if so for what?

Brwnigirl said:

Sorry if this is somewhere else or this is off topic for this particular thread. I am totally ignorant to this case and just watched LKL tonight and am interested.

Was there any history for any of the convicted for any kind of predatory behavior? Was only one boy sexually assualted? Did any of the convicted have a juvenile record and if so for what?

Click to expand...

IIRC Baldwin and Misskelley had minor juvy records, shoplifting and vandalism. Echols broke into a trailer with his girlfriend. New opinions by experts suggest that none of the boys were sexually assaulted.

I am sure more knowledgable posters will respond. I am just rereading all of the transcripts as I haven't followed along too closely in the last while. Recent media attention has made me interested again. I have a lot of catching up to do.

Here is Damien's history from George W Woods who was hired by the defense to look into Damien's past which may have effected his competency to stand trial.

AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE W. WOODS, M.D. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html

....and here are some highlights from http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html which is his history from before the crime took place (but impossible to read, so here's a synopsis from another poster) Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 48 Hours and Paradise Lost; West Memphis Three

It's actually worth reading the 500 if you can though because the docs are in original form and puts his history into perspective I thought, its stunning really.

Mrs G Norris said:

Here is Damien's history from George W Woods who was hired by the defense to look into Damien's past which may have effected his competency to stand trial.

AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE W. WOODS, M.D. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html

....and here are some highlights from http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html which is his history from before the crime took place (but impossible to read, so here's a synopsis from another poster) Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 48 Hours and Paradise Lost; West Memphis Three

It's actually worth reading the 500 if you can though because the docs are in original form and puts his history into perspective I thought, its stunning really.

Click to expand...

Hmmn interesting..just skimming that affidavit. The psychosis actually makes some sense if you read the blogs on the West Memphis 3 website. I just looked at his recollections of his childhood home in his own words, I think it was a 2004 entry and it did sound a bit like he was having some very strange thoughts about the house.. idk..

Having said that he sounds quite articulate. But if he was psychotic I guess it would interfere with his ability to stand trial.

This issue has gone before the courts http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/competency.html

THE COURT: Mr. Davidson and Mr. Price, the Court wants to know -- and in your course of involvement with Mr. Echols which has been rather extensive over the period of the last eighteen months to two years -- is that correct --

MR. PRICE: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: -- About that long? Has anything developed in that association with him that would suggest or in any way open an avenue for a diminished capacity or insanity defense in his behalf? Anything at all?

MR. PRICE: No, your Honor.

MR. DAVIDSON: No, your Honor.

THE COURT. Are you both absolutely certain and convinced in that long association with him that he’s as competent as any client you have represented?

MR. PRICE: Yes, your Honor. Specifically, that’s based on my fourteen years of law practice and over sixty criminal jury trials and including -- I’ve had several of those trials in which I argued either diminished capacity or the insanity defense or argued that my client was not competent.

THE COURT: All right. This Court makes the following finding: that Damien Echols is competent and was competent during the course of his trial and that he’s voluntarily and knowingly and intelligently withdrawn his request to waive the punishment aspect of the previous trial -- which I might add was mandatory anyway. I’m not sure what the effect of a waiver of that would have been anyway. But the rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court are that all matters are to be pursued on a capital case. So I’m not even sure it could have been waived if he chose to do so.

MR. PRICE: That was our problem with it.

THE COURT. That finding is the only thing I can make at this point. I don’t see any reason why the appeal shouldn’t proceed immediately.
Anything else?

MR. DAVIS: Nothing further.

MR. PRICE: Nothing further.

THE COURT: The Court has made a determination that Mr. Echols is competent to make any rational decisions about the conduct of his appeal and is capable of rationally and intelligently discussing the facts and circumstances with his attorneys and to aid and assist them in the completion of the appeal of his case.
And you’ll need to fix an order that reflects that.

MR. PRICE: All right.

THE COURT: He’ll be remanded to the custody of the sheriff for transportation.

Obviously I need to review all the court documents to form any real opinion one way or another..I am interested but just not sure I have time.

I'm not on either side yet, however Mr. Price was counsel for the client, not a psychiatrist, is that right?

Yes, that's right.......George W Woods was the psychiatrist. I'm still reviewing too, it's v interesting, there are def parts of the trial that I am not happy about, specifically mention of the 'black t-shirts' and 'distinctive dress'. I mean honestly, that just makes my blood boil, and I believe it's prejudicial, but I think if they had left all of the inflammatory evidence right out of this, that there would have been a conviction based on real evidence, and we wouldn't be debating the validity of the verdict now.

They never knew the victims. Not one of the accused ever had any known contact with any of the boys.

Brwnigirl said:

Sorry if this is somewhere else or this is off topic for this particular thread. I am totally ignorant to this case and just watched LKL tonight and am interested.

Was there any history for any of the convicted for any kind of predatory behavior? Was only one boy sexually assualted? Did any of the convicted have a juvenile record and if so for what?

Click to expand...

Christopher Byers was not sexually assaulted (or was Stevie or Michael), it was later determined that Christopher was bitten by animal matter/bites (turtles) to the genital area.... JMO of course and court records!... Ann :twocents::waitasec:

Mrs G Norris said:

Yes, that's right.......George W Woods was the psychiatrist. I'm still reviewing too, it's v interesting, there are def parts of the trial that I am not happy about, specifically mention of the 'black t-shirts' and 'distinctive dress'. I mean honestly, that just makes my blood boil, and I believe it's prejudicial, but I think if they had left all of the inflammatory evidence right out of this, that there would have been a conviction based on real evidence, and we wouldn't be debating the validity of the verdict now.

Click to expand...

GO!!! Mrs G Norris, there are soooooo many parts of this trial that we need to take apart and analyze, because it was the true southern justice of a witch hunt!! There is no proof whatsoever (DNA, Blood, footprints, to name only a few, etc.) linking any of the WM3 to this case other than speculation, fear and innuendo to lead a jury to fear for their lives!!! This to me is a crime that speaks for real justice and truth no matter what the outcome may be !! I would prefer the real justice to be for 3 little babies that never got a chance to speak, Christopher, Stevie & Michael!! God Bless their Souls!!! They finally deserves some justice...... Take Care, Ann!!! JMOO.... :twocents::innocent::waitasec:

annkitty0630 said:

Christopher Byers was not sexually assaulted (or was Stevie or Michael), it was later determined that Christopher was bitten by animal matter/bites (turtles) to the genital area.... JMO of course and court records!... Ann :twocents::waitasec:

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be argumentative but there are no court records that states it was determined that it was animal predation. That is the defense's theory which has yet to be challenged by the state. It will only be challenged if the evidentiary hearing is held, and that is what the ASSC is deliberating on at this time. There is also no evidence that Christopher was not sexually assaulted.

Mrs G Norris said:

Yes, that's right.......George W Woods was the psychiatrist. I'm still reviewing too, it's v interesting, there are def parts of the trial that I am not happy about, specifically mention of the 'black t-shirts' and 'distinctive dress'. I mean honestly, that just makes my blood boil, and I believe it's prejudicial, but I think if they had left all of the inflammatory evidence right out of this, that there would have been a conviction based on real evidence, and we wouldn't be debating the validity of the verdict now.

Click to expand...

What is the "real evidence," in your opinion? I'm seriously asking because I can't find any, other than Misskelly's confession which I believe was coerced and I know wasn't admissible in Baldwin and Echol's trials.

(BTW, I intend no sarcasm by putting "real evidence" in quotes. I was just acknowledging the terminology you used.)

I meant the evidence presented which had nothing to do with the satanic evidence, like the witness testimony, the knife, etc. Basically I think that they should not have brought the so called satanic worship into trial, or focussed on it during the police investigation, because it was inflammatory and I don't believe it was necessary, and I don't believe it was true either, looking at the crime scene I don't know why anyone thought it was a crime influenced by satanic worship at all. I don't believe this crime was planned, or designed in any way, I believe these kids came across these teens by chance. You know one confession by Misskelley would not have been enough for me either...but 4, that's hard to get past.

Sunnyone said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative but there are no court records that states it was determined that it was animal predation. That is the defense's theory which has yet to be challenged by the state. It will only be challenged if the evidentiary hearing is held, and that is what the ASSC is deliberating on at this time. There is also no evidence that Christopher was not sexually assaulted.

Click to expand...

I really don't think animals would skin a penis like that, or leave deep stab wounds....no way were the wounds caused by animals. In the documentary Paradise Lost 2 they show some of the crime scene pics with the stab wounds and you can see how deep they were, I think the defense will have a very difficult time explaining those wounds away as animal predation.

And weird right? If their argument is that the WM3 didn't do the crime, I don't see their point in arguing against what the state found the wounds to be, or are they just chipping away all all the evidence until there is none left?

Now those three boys were stripped and hog tied, and that's sexual assault in my book, as far as rape itself goes, I hope they weren't but it stands to reason considering how they were found. :furious:

Mrs G Norris said:

I meant the evidence presented which had nothing to do with the satanic evidence, like the witness testimony, the knife, etc. Basically I think that they should not have brought the so called satanic worship into trial, or focussed on it during the police investigation, because it was inflammatory and I don't believe it was necessary, and I don't believe it was true either, looking at the crime scene I don't know why anyone thought it was a crime influenced by satanic worship at all. I don't believe this crime was planned, or designed in any way, I believe these kids came across these teens by chance. You know one confession by Misskelley would not have been enough for me either...but 4, that's hard to get past.

Click to expand...

To me, the knife is the most problematic piece of evidence of all! It was found submerged in a public lake behind Baldwin's home. Conveniently, it was found sticking in the lake bottom, with the handle sitting upright; but let's set aside the very real possibility that it was planted.

There is no certainty that the knife belonged to any of the defendants; many if not most experts even question whether it could be the knife used in the killings. The lake offered easy to access to anyone in the area and there was no way to tell when the knife had been placed there.

If ever there was a piece of evidence that should have been inadmissible, that was it. And yet, it was really the only piece of evidence admitted against Baldwin.

I agree with you about the Satanism, but the rest of the so-called evidence in this case isn't much better.

As for Misskelley's confessions, coerced confessions arise because the subject feels a need to please his interrogators. As long as that need remains (and let's remember Misskelley was being questioned by LE reps with enormous control over his life), I know of no principle that finds the number of confessions significant.

(ETA sorry if my response sounds argumentative. You've obviously put some time and thought into this and I appreciate your sharing your views.)

Hey its all good....opposing views make for a good argument and help us hone in on all the facts....let me tell you if this case was all tied up with a pretty little bow on top, I would not be as interested in it as I am! Have you read Misskelley's confession that he made after the sentencing here http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html? This is interesting I thought, and was made in front of his own lawyer....this one rings true to me, but others may feel differently - all good : )

Mrs G Norris said:

Hey its all good....opposing views make for a good argument and help us hone in on all the facts....let me tell you if this case was all tied up with a pretty little bow on top, I would not be as interested in it as I am! Have you read Misskelley's confession that he made after the sentencing here http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html? This is interesting I thought, and was made in front of his own lawyer....this one rings true to me, but others may feel differently - all good : )

Click to expand...

I have read it, but I'll review your link tomorrow. (It's 4:30 a.m. here in CA.) But IIRC there is some question as to whether Misskelley trusted his court-appointed lawyer or even understood the public defender was supposed to be on his side.

And now that I think of it, doesn't one lie usually lead to another? Most us (certainly including I) don't know anyone who has lied on such a scale, but my experience with people who tell lies is that their instinct when the lie is questioned is to grow more adamant or to further embellish the original fabrication. Few people come right out and say, "You got me. I lied about that."