My view has done a complete 180

gryncher said:

I watched the docs years ago and was completely engrossed. I was sure John Mark Byers was the killer.

The other day I found a site that is different than all of the other sites - they were professing the guilt of the WM3.

In this forum were tons of links to the actual court docs, testimony, etc. Damien's mental health records, the "500" doc, the great dane stuff, the THREE confessions - 2 post conviction from Misskelley (I read and listened). I re-watched the docs.

Baldwin's jailhouse confession and the fact that the witness still to this day insists it was true...there's much more.

It's overwhelmingly obvious to me that they are guilty.

I related to Damien as a black wearing, Metallica fanatic outcast - but he is much more than just that.

Damien's incriminating statements at trial - the writings with Damien's, his son's, Baldwins and Crowley's names (only) on it - and the fact that Crowley strongly professed: "It would be unwise to condemn as irrational the practice of devouring the heart and liver of an adversary while yet warm. For the highest spiritual working one must choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force; a male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory."

Echols clearly had a deep respect and belief in this guy.

Misskelley was calm and collected in all 3 of his confessions - the only thing that really changed was that his involvement seemed to grow with each confession (he was already convicted, so no point downplaying it any more). Nobody, not even a completely retarded person, would confess to a brutal crime they did not commit THREE times.

I see absolutely nothing, not one thing in all of the evidence that would convince me they are innocent.

If they are, it's a massive, MASSIVE conspiracy that countless people are in on.

Not a chance.

The right men are in prison.

It's hip to jump on the "free the WM3" bandwagon - it gives people a cause.

The WM3 are guilty as convicted.

Click to expand...

iluvmua said:

...I don't think people would be trying to conspire to keep 3 innocent people behind bars if in fact they are truly innocent....

Click to expand...

iluvmua said:

I don't think people would be trying to conspire to keep 3 innocent people behind bars if in fact they are truly innocent.

Click to expand...

Compassionate Reader said:

gryncher,

Have you seen the letter written to Jason in 1996 where the writer reports a conversation he had with Michael Carson in which Carson admitted he lied? Here's a link: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/johnny_preston_letter.html

What experience working with "retarded" people leads you to believe that someone of limited mental capacity would not try to extricate him/herself from a disagreeable situation by saying just what the authority figure confronting him/her wants to hear? I have 25 years of experience teaching students Jessie's age at the time of the crime, many of whom had IQ's like Jessie's and, based on my experience, I can tell you that people with below normal IQ's can and will say anything to "get out of" a fix. That's what Jessie was doing, IMO, based on what I know. The reason his involvement seemed to grow with each retelling was that he was saying what he thought the authorities wanted to hear.

Now, let's discuss Damien. Nothing in Exhibit 500 proves that he committed these murders. It may indicate that he had severe psychological problems, but that in and of itself does not mean that he is a murderer. Damien, at the time of the murders, was an alienated teenager, and I've dealt with many of that type, too. He was of above average intelligence, but he was trapped in poverty. With no real outlet for his frustration, and possibly exacerbated by his psychological problems, he "acted out" by saying shocking things. This is very typical teenage behavior for someone like Damien. Was it right to say and do the things he said and did during his trial? Of course not! However, teenagers, no matter how intelligent, often say and do very foolish things.

Now, let's discuss the murders. Any lawyer will tell you that to convict a murderer, you need three things: motive, opportunity and evidence of some kind. The three young men now in prison had none of these elements. The "Satanic ritual" motive has never been proved. The only person to testify about this as a motive was shown on cross-examination to possess a mail-order doctorate. He admitted on the stand that he never took one class to get his doctorate. Therefore, his "testimony" has no credibility. No other motive has been put forth in connection with the WM3 for these murders. As to opportunity, all three had alibis that accounted for their time. Unfortunately, much of the time they were with family members, and some people want to discount the alibis for this reason. However, if they were with family, then they were with family. There are a few other people that support Damien's alibi, but some of their statements were suppressed by Burnett at the trial. Due to poor counsel and/or misinformation from authorities, the phone records that would further support Damien's alibi were never requested from the phone company and are now probably lost forever. Jason and Jessie have likewise been alibied by family and friends. So, none of the three now in prison had the opportunity to commit these murders. As to evidence, the Misskelley "confessions" are not credible because the first one was most likely coerced and subsequent ones were his misguided attempt to make things better. More importantly, none of his statements agree with the evidence, even in 1993 and especially not now. The only physical evidence presented at trial was fiber evidence and a knife. The fibers, as attested to even by the prosecution's own witness, could have come from a multitude of sources. These fibers were not conclusively linked to the WM3, and the State (until recently) refused to have further, more sophisticated tests run that the defense requested and that might shed more light on the fibers. The knife was never linked to the crime. Fogleman tried to use a grapefruit to show how the wounds on Christopher could have been made by the knife, but no evidence was ever introduced from the knife that proves that it was used in these crimes. Since 1994, noted forensic experts have studied autopsy photos and reports and concluded that all of the woulds originally attributed to the knife were the result of post-mortem animal predation, including the degloving (not castration) of Chris Byers. So, for the WM3, we have no motive, no opportunity and no evidence.

You stated that you saw nothing in the trial documents to convince you that the WM3 are innocent. That's not how it works. The WM3 are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is nothing in those trial documents that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WM3 are guilty. They were convicted because they were poor and because the town needed to find the killers. If you don't believe that a "massive MASSIVE" conspiracy is possible, then you don't know much about small towns. This case has often been compared, with justification, to the Salem Witch Trials. The small-town mentality is evident in both. Hopefully, when the evidentiary hearings are held, you will thoughtfully examine the new evidence that will be presented and realize that your original feelings were correct. The WM3 are innocent.

Click to expand...

Compassionate Reader said:

Damien Echols has also said that there is additional evidence that will come out at the evidentiary hearing. There are only a handful of blood types in the world. Blood types can only prove innocence, not guilt. DNA is stronger than blood types, and there was DNA found with the bodies which doesn't match any of the three in prison.

Click to expand...

gryncher said:

I've read all the pro material and once was. I had never bothered to read the actual transcripts and facts. Then watching the docs again, I remember beinf creeped out by Damien and amazed at some of the things he said - but I put that aside. I see him differently now.

What do the pro WM3's have to say about Damien's failed lie detector test and the passing of Michael Carson's? They blow it off as not being credible.

However, if Damien had passed and Carson failed, they'd be singing it from the rooftops.

The facts speak for themselves.

Click to expand...

Compassionate Reader said:

IIRC, in true WMPD fashion, the actual tracings of Damien's polygraph were lost so they cannot be examined by another polygraph technician. As to Michael Carson passing a polygraph, as someone else said, often the results of a polygraph support the position of the authority by whom it was given. I believe that proficient liars can pass polygraphs much easier than those who are unaccustomed to such procedures. It's all about remaining calm under pressure. As to Damien, if you were being falsely accused of murder, wouldn't you be nervous, too? As Nova said, lie detectors are not admitted into evidence for a reason - they are highly unreliable. JMB also passed a polygraph. TH refuses to take one. Jessie, as was said above, passed his except when asked about drug use, but was told that he failed, thus eliciting his false confession. So, I believe that doubting the credibility of a polygraph is a very justified position.

Click to expand...

justthinkin said:

Most likely the "new evidence" will be blown all out of proportion just as TH and DJ's DNA was, in typical defense fashion, seeing as how the defense erroneously claimed it would release the WM3 from guilt. I would suspect those DNA tests were their best shot.

Click to expand...

Compassionate Reader said:

The conspiracy theory is not ridiculous. Just look at the Lister case in LA, and that was a big city. In a small town, things are much easier to sweep under the carpet. I was raised in a small town. I remember a few years after I married and moved away that my mother told me about a police officer who was stopping women who were alone in their cars and raping them. He went unpunished and undetected until the political winds blew another police chief into power. That's when the whole sordid story came out. And I have read court transcripts about this case. I have read books and various information on the web, on both sides. I am not blinded by celebrity. I knew that these three young men were innocent long before "celebrity" became an issue in this case. I did not simply watch the documentaries and base my opinion on them, as some people do. I have read extensively, and I have been studying this case since 1996 when the documentaries came out. And the fiber evidence? Even the prosecution admitted it was weak when speaking to the parents/grandparents between the trials. They stated that they really needed Jessie's testimony to seal the deal. Obviously, because of a jury foreman who made it a personal crusade to introduce evidence into the deliberation that was excluded even by Burnett (which was said confession), the jury falsely convicted Echols and Baldwin. The knife? It has not been linked to the crime, and I've seen some people saying that the police knew it was in the lake before the crime was committed. If proven true, that's a neat trick. Since then, forensic experts have opined that none of the wounds on the bodies were caused by the "lake" knife, in fact were not caused by a knife at all but by animal predation. Anyone who refuses to look at newly acquired testimony and expert opinions is blind IMO. I have looked at both sides, and I have concluded that the three in prison did not commit this crime. As I've stated repeatedly before, there is no way that three long-haired teens, possibly drunk, could have committed this crime in the dark without leaving any physical evidence at the discovery site. I just wish that the true crime scene could have been found. However, the WMPD, once convinced by JD and VH (who has since recanted her testimony) of the "Satanic" connection, failed to continue the search of the sewer systems that was begun early on in the investigation. If that search had been continued, I am confident that the crime scene would have been discovered and more evidence could have been found. I am not a Damien "groupie," and insinuating such is just further evidence to me of the weak nature of the case against the three falsely-imprisoned men.

Click to expand...