New West Memphis Three Website

With Factual Information: www.wm3truth.com

(not as informative as Callahan's, but great nonetheless).

It's very one-sided.

Did you ever wonder why the WMPD time log never entered the time of Jessie's arrest?

On the arrest paper work, they refer to the warrant issued by Judge Rainey, but the probable cause hearing that resulted in the issuance of that warrant began at approximately 9:15 pm while the time of arrest shown on Jessie's paper work was 2:44 pm. Did you ever question that?

Why doesn't the time log show the time when Gitchell drew the circle and asked Jessie if he wants to be inside the circle (with the bad guys) or outside the circle (with the good guys) after which Jessie says, "I want out?" Nons have tried to interpret this as an admission of guilt when all he was saying is that he wanted out of the "bad" circle and the bad situation in which he found himself.

Why doesn't the time log show the time when Gitchell showed Jessie horrific pictures of the crime scene (which he had never seen before) and played a disembodied voice (of a child) saying, "Nobody knows what happened but me?" Given Jessie's mental deficiency, I believe it was an effort to make Jessie believe that one of the victims was speaking from the grave. In actuality, it was Aaron Hutchison, Vickie's son, whose statements were so wild that they could not be used at the trial.

So, Jessie, in an effort to "get out" of the circle of bad guys and to stop the abusive tactics being employed by the WMPD officers and to get the reward money so he can buy his daddy a truck, tells a tale that is so convoluted that it had to be "corrected" before Judge Rainey would issue the arrest warrant (after, according to the paper work, the police had arrested Jessie). This log is one of the "factual" pieces of information on the site. The site says that the time log tells what "actually happened" on June 3, 1993. In actuality, the time log tells what the police chose to write down about the events of the day.

Shall I go on?

I agree. It is very one-sided. I just tell all my friends and family who are interested in this case to come here and read and then let me know what they think. They seem to think the boys got an unfair trial too and know if this happened today the outcome would be completely different.

iluvmua said:

With Factual Information: www.wm3truth.com

Click to expand...

Excellent website; factually based.

Anyone new to the case should read the trial transcript first, and then go to the above site.

Nope. Not factually based. See my post above.

Auburn said:

I agree. It is very one-sided. I just tell all my friends and family who are interested in this case to come here and read and then let me know what they think.

Click to expand...

You tell them to read a message board instead of the trial transcript?

Oh my.

I have been reading alot and I am still not sure what I believe .

CR ..How are you realted to this case? are any of these 3 boys a family member ?

Alot of the stuff I have read though does show that Damien was mentally ill and dangerous ..not just a goofy teen . He had very real problems that I think pro w3 ers ta ta too much .
Instead of saying yup he was real messed up but I dont think he murdered the children they come across as very LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY ! I am sorry CR but you come across VERY heavy in alot of these threads sometimes . I want to see the facts and then make up my OWN mind.

I am not related to anyone in the case. I am a retired teacher, and I taught in an inner city school in a very large city. I taught students like Damien, Jason and Jessie. Therefore, I understand very well the behaviors of teenagers.

My interest in this case started with seeing Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robinhood Hills on HBO. My son, who is one month younger than Damien and wore black T-shirts and listened to heavy metal music during high school, introduced me to the documentary. Because it seemed so adamant about the innocence of the WM3, I decided to investigate further.

I was still teaching at the time. So, my investigating was a little limited. I read some on the Internet, including the trial transcripts and pretrial hearing transcripts at callahan's. Then, I read Blood of the Innocents, a tabloid style account of the crimes, and Devil's Knot, a well-researched (although slightly outdated now) book about the crime. From my experiences with teenagers and my own reading, I formed the opinion that the WM3 were innocent.

At first, like many others, I suspected that Mark Byers was the guilty party. He certainly acted strangely during both documentaries. Also, it seems as if the filmmakers were pointing the finger of suspicion in his direction. Then, I realized that what I was doing was just like what the city of West Memphis did to the WM3 - basing my belief in guilt on actions rather than evidence.

When the DNA results were made public, I began to suspect that Terry Hobbs might be the guilty party. When the Pasdar lawyers investigated Terry Hobbs (since the WMPD wouldn't), I became even more sure that Terry Hobbs was the perpetrator of the crimes. Having read and/or seen his deposition in the Pasdar case and his interview with the WMPD, I am even more convinced of his guilt.

Since I have retired, I have continued reading whatever I could find online about the case. My opinion has not changed. I am still convinced that the young men in prison are innocent.

If I come across as "heavy," I'm sorry. I feel very passionately about this case. Of course, I want you to make up your own mind. Read on callahan's, but don't neglect the pretrial hearing transcripts and the Rule 37 abstracts if you want all the facts.

When there is a miscarriage of justice, as I feel is the case with the WM3, oftentimes the trial transcripts don't tell the whole story, especially if the judge was a State-leaning judge who ham stringed the defense. They will show why the unjustly-convicted were convicted, but they will not show all of the pertinent facts in the case, which is why justice wasn't served. Read it all. Form your own opinion. You'll see.

I don't have enough time to answer everything, CR, but you wrote: "On the arrest paper work, they refer to the warrant issued by Judge Rainey, but the probable cause hearing that resulted in the issuance of that warrant began at approximately 9:15 pm while the time of arrest shown on Jessie's paper work was 2:44 pm. Did you ever question that?"

I'm not sure why you are concerned about this. The arrest warrants had nothing to do with Jessie. The LEO's already had custody of him. The arrest warrants were to authorize the LEOs to pick up Echols and Baldwin.

Sorry. Maybe I didn't make my point clear. Yes, they had Jessie in custody from approximately 10:30 am on June 3, 1993. However, they needed a warrant to arrest him. The arrest paperwork on Jessie lists his time of arrest as 2:44 pm, the time at which the recording of his statement began, but the probable cause hearing which lead to Rainey issuing arrest warrants for all three began at approximately 9:15 pm June 3, 1993. Damien and Jason were arrested at 10:32 pm, IIRC. I'm only questioning why they recorded the time of Jessie's arrest as before the probable cause hearing.

As far as that goes, why did it take about six and a half hours from the time that they began recording Jessie's statement until the probable cause hearing? Part of that time was taken up when they took the original, error-filled statement to Rainey and he told them that he wouldn't issue a warrant on the statement. Then, they went back and got the "corrected" statement from Jessie, the one with all the leading questions, etc. That concluded at about 5 pm. So, from 5 pm until shortly after 9 pm, why was there no probable cause hearing? They had Jessie in custody, as you said, but Damien and Jason could have escaped. Could it have anything to do with them wanting to conduct a night time search of their homes?

Well I didn't know an arrest warrant was needed on someone LE already had under wraps. Since they had Jessie, the warrant for him was just a formality.

What they really needed to do was to pick up Echols and Baldwin. The timing seems to have more to do with that. Simple explanation, I say.

Then why does the record of his arrest, which records the time as 2:44 pm on May 5, 1993, state that he was "arrested on the authority of" a warrant issued by Judge Rainey? The WMPD time log shows that the probable cause hearing didn't begin until after 9 pm. To me, this is just further proof of the sloppiness of the investigation and the actions of the WMPD surrounding this case.

Jessie's record of arrest:
http://callahan.8k.com/images/jessiem/record_of_arrest.JPG

WMPD Time Log for June 3, 1993:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html

Mary456 said:

You tell them to read a message board instead of the trial transcript?

Oh my.

Click to expand...

Oh,my? LOL.

Anyway,I suggest that my friends/family come here to read up on many things/aspects about the case(ie false confessions,theories on this case,links to media coverage,etc)

AND

there are plenty of links here to factual information and trial transcripts..but I do agree with what CR had to say about trial transcripts(one of the above posts).

I ALSO suggest they read here because I know WS remains civil,for the most part.

Seems the best place to start with the case would be Callahan's. I would think it's best if people form their opinion from the actual case documents rather than people telling them what to think. But hey, what do I know.

Puffin said:

Seems the best place to start with the case would be Callahan's. I would think it's best if people form their opinion from the actual case documents rather than people telling them what to think. But hey, what do I know.

Click to expand...

haha had a long post all typed out about this but I lost it here is the short version, it's late and am getting tired I agree it is the best place to start. I was a supporter for a long time but being on the message boards and reading some of the things being posted had me questioning whether or not I was supporting the right people. When you have to start nit-picking at even the smallest things to try and prove their innocence, something is not right. I quit going to the boards and dug into Callahan's and I was amazed at the lies being told as fact. :liar:

I suggest to anyone just starting to delve into this case to stay away from boards and to read Callahan's first, it is an eye opener.

Just be sure to read the pretrial hearings as well as the trial transcripts. That way you see all of the truth, not just the part the prosecution wants you to see.

Compassionate Reader said:

Just be sure to read the pretrial hearings as well as the trial transcripts. That way you see all of the truth, not just the part the prosecution wants you to see.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I suggested that people only read the trial transcripts. I just suggested people get their facts surrounding the case from actual documents rather than message boards, documentaries and sites with obvious biases. I'm not afraid to allow people to form their opinions on their own. I'm not sure why anyone else would. I see so many people get their information the documentaries & Free the WM3 sites. Callahan's is extensive and very time consuming. I just hope people would take the time to learn the facts for themselves before they supported convicted child murderers. It's a disservice and insult to the memories of those 3 little eight-year old boys to do otherwise.

If a person takes the time to really research the case starting with the actual CASE DOCUMENTS and they still come away with the opinion that the WM3 is innocent, so be it. At least they used their head. If a person needs someone else to interpret and tell them what to think then their opinion means very little. Critical thinking is a very valuable skill. I suggest people attempt to use it more often.

As I think I have said many times before, I have read extensively on Callahan's. I do not allow other people to form my opinion for me. I have been obsessed with this case for years now, and I believe I am well informed on it. To imply, as I feel your post did, that anyone who reads at Callahan's and is still a supporter is doing a disservice to the little boys who are crying out for justice from Heaven is very mean-spirited, IMO. Believe me, as a retired mathematics teacher, there is nothing wrong with my critical thinking. The fact that different people can read the case documents and form different opinions just proves to me that something beyond the case documents is needed in order to have a well-informed opinion on this horrendous miscarriage of justice.

ETA: Here's a link that I hope will work for you: http://maraleveritt.com/2011/05/how...d-an-invaluable-online-archive-of-their-case/ . In case you can't access the information, I'll briefly tell you what I wanted you to discover. I'm not trying to tell you what to think or believe; I'm only offering some insight into a very prominent and respected personality in the case. If you don't subscribe to Mara Leveritt's website, I'm not sure if you can access the information.

This story is about Christian Hansen, the creator of the Callahan's site. When he originally began researching, he thought that the WM3 were guilty. However, "his quiet pursuit of case documents led him to believe otherwise." Like I said, two intelligent people can read the case documents and come to two differing opinions about the guilt or innocence of the WM3. So, my critical thinking skills lead me to surmise that more than case documents must be investigated in order to get the entire truth.