1466 users online (268 members and 1198 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    512

    Both??

    Forgive me in advance and humor me, please.

    It has recently occurred to me that just PERHAPS this case is convoluted not only because of everything leading up to this point so far as press, documentaries, accusations, etc...

    Is it possible that WM3 supporters AND nons could all be right to a certain degree?

    Perhaps LE was "on to something" but just didn't fit the pieces together appropriately, in the way they actually happened...

    Guess what I'm suggesting is this --

    Jason Baldwin TOTALLY innocent -- guilty by association as the close friend of Echols

    Misskelly -- an unwilling witness (and possible participant) in the crime -- something led LE to him -- how much of his GUIDED AND COERCED CONFESSION is true, we may never know - however, based on a combination of physical evidence alongside his "confession," it makes me wonder if he didn't know something.... Perhaps he did, in fact, chase down Moore -- perhaps he did this out of fear for his own life? (as family/friends stated he didn't like Echols, preferred not to be around him)

    Damien was mentally ill, clearly, as evidence shows -- does that make him guilty? No. Someone to be scrutinized? Yes.

    There is something that just doesn't smell right to me when it comes to the "all or nothing"... there's something that just doesn't sit right -- they might not all three be guilty, but just perhaps one or two of them are?

    jmo... thoughts???
    HOPING I CAN HELP
    but, what if .... ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,350
    I think most people have probably contemplated the idea that one or other of the wm3 might be guilty while another one, (or two), may be innocent at some stage. Anyone who hasn't thought of that hasn't thought about the case enough to be taking a position on either side IMO. So when you see people arguing firmly for the guilt or innocence of the wm3, you're mostly looking at people who have gone through the same thought process you're going through and either discarded the idea of Jason's innocence, (if they're a non), or discarded Jessie's confessions, (if they're a supporter).

    As to what led the police to Jessie, there's no mystery about that - it was Vicky Hutchinson, who is also the most likely source of the story about one child running away and being caught, (see the statements of Aaron Hutchinson which contains the same story).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    I don't rule anything out as a possibility. What do I think the likelihood? Well, I suppose the only way I know to say it is that I don't think that it is more likely than not that they were involved. That's somewhere less than 50% chance they were involved and a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If you take away a very questionable confession by JM, what evidence is left that directly points to any of the 3? There are items that one can make arguments about(DE's past mental history) but nothing that actually indicates they had a single thing to do with this crime.

    Hindsight is always 20/20 when it comes to LE investigations. But criticisms on how LE approached this investigation are warranted IMHO. And that is a damn shame for those 3 little boys first and foremost and for the WM3 in the aftermath.

    As you said, should DE have been scrutinized? Sure. But there is nothing that points towards him any more than any number of other people. That is, until the very questionable confession.

  4. #4
    Damien and Jason were each others' alibis. So, either they are both guilty or they are both innocent. I don't see Jason as guilty - at all. Damien was a troubled youth with some definite issues. I don't know if they were actually as bad as portrayed because I know that social workers and other personnel have been known to exaggerate these types of problems in a well-meaning attempt to help the person get SSI checks. I seriously doubt that Damien could have lasted over 18 years on Death Row if he were as "mentally ill" as Exhibit 500 would have one believe.

    As to Jessie, I guess it's possible that he witnessed the crimes, but I don't think so. He was in Dyess, Arkansas, at a wrestling practice when the murders most likely occurred. He was originally questioned to provide evidence against Damien (who Driver and Jones were convinced, with no evidence, was guilty). His "confession" is now used in law schools as an example of a false and / or coerced confession. So, I don't believe a word of it. The new affidavits point the finger toward Buddy Lucas, among others, who was one of Jessie's friends. So, it's possible that Buddy told Jessie what happened and that's the genesis of Jessie's story.

    The real problem here was the botched investigation by the wmpd. They didn't question one of the fathers until 2007. They probably contaminated much of the evidence at the scene. They did things backwards, first deciding who was guilty and why and then looking for evidence to support their theory when they should have collected evidence and discovered where the evidence led. I truly believe that there is evidence out there that will positively identify the real killer, and I long for the day when it is revealed to the public.

    I have studied this case since 1996, when I first saw the first documentary. I simply don't see any evidence that the three who were falsely convicted had anything to do with these murders, certainly not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, someone killed those little boys. I'm pretty sure I know who did it, and I hope and pray that he will some day (soon) be brought to justice.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    12,667
    I am pretty sure I am with Compassionate Reader with this.

    I do not believe these guys were involved at all. I do believe we know who the killer is when searching through the evidence and witness statements.

    I hope that one day there will be justice for these little boys. They must have been terrified watching each other die. I want the guilty one to be punished.
    Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person . . . until you consider things from his point of view.” To Kill A Mockingbird

    All my posts are my opinion only.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by ScarlettScarpetta View Post
    They must have been terrified watching each other die.
    That statement alone is one of the biggest reasons I want THe real killer to get his just deserves. I try so hard not to think about that exact scenario as it enrages me too much. Poor little fellas. RIP

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    What I am confident of is that if you have read all the documents on callahans, you have likely read the name(s) of those responsible.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
    What I am confident of is that if you have read all the documents on callahans, you have likely read the name(s) of those responsible.
    . . . and it is not Michael Wayne (Damien) Echols, Charles Jason Baldwin and / or Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. Sometimes I wonder if Jason Howard Baldwin was involved, but there's no evidence to support such an allegation. That doesn't stop me from wondering, however!

  9. #9
    SmoothOperator's Avatar
    SmoothOperator is offline Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that there's a victim@the heart of each
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,589
    I agree with Compassionate Reader on it being an all or nothing wrt Echols and Baldwin.. They are either BOTH innocent or BOTH guilty of killing Stevie, Michael, and Christopher.. And as many know my very strong opinion is that both Echols and Baldwin are guilty as charged and convicted..

    In regards to the OP of it being all or nothing I do understand where you're coming from and tho, I do personally believe that all 3 of these men are fully guilty of having killed those 3 beautiful little boys..however IMO it is Jessie that is the piece to this horrific puzzle that IMO stands out and/or doesn't "fit" into the puzzle, here.. Imo the reason he doesn't appear to fit is because he was not a part of the puzzle wrt Jason and Damien's life leading up to the murders.. He was not at all a close friend, like Jason and Damien were to each other.. It was a twosome, not a threesome and Jessie was in the very unfortunate position of being with these two that evening when their paths crossed with these 3 innocent young boys..

    IMO the horrific crime was not a plotted and planned murder, but rather a spur of the moment idea sparked in the warped minds of the twosome when the opportunity presented itself in these 3 young boys on their bikes.. IMO not only do Echols and Baldwin know that Jessie was an unfortunate factor of being at the wrong place, with the wrong people, at the wrong time.. But most importantly Echols and Baldwin realize that its also the most unfortunate factor for THEM AS WELL that they had Jessie along with them that evening..

    IMO that is what the twosome regrets, the fact they had Jessie with them..not the fact that they brutally killed 3 little boys, just the fact that they did so with Jessie in tow.

    IMO Jessie is the piece that doesn't fit because he honestly was not a part of the Echols and Baldwin puzzle.. He was the unfortunate happenstance that also was the weakest of weak links which led to his caving and confessing multiple times.. IMO he is just as guilty as the other two and fully participated in the killing of those three innocent boys, but where he greatly differs is the mindset, motivation, and his having signs of a burdened conscience for his part in killing those boys..

    IMO that is not so for the twosome.. Imo had Jessie not been with the twosome that evening those 3 young boys most certainly still would have been murdered, IMO...and the only difference would be in that twosome not having the weak link to worry about caving in and confessing all 3 of their involvement.. This entire case would have been so very, very different..would it have been different in the outcome of the twosome being found guilty of first degree murder?.. I don't know, maybe.. But IMO I am fully certain of one thing and that is that Stevie, Michael, and Christopher still would have been brutally murdered with both Echols and Baldwin at the helm..same as they were at the helm that May day in 1993, with Jessie the unfortunate happenstance factor that led to his involvement in the murders.

    Just to be clear my opinion regarding Jessie and his role in the murders does NOT in any way, shape, or form lessen his culpability in regards to this vicious crime.. No matter the circumstances that led up to his being with the twosome that evening, the fact remains that he did participate..there for in that regard is the same as Echols/Baldwin in being guilty as charged and convicted..

    All Jmo and am extremely comfortable in agreeing to disagree with my fellow WS members who view any/all/some of the aspects of this case differently than I..

    **Please forgive the limitations that come w/my posting via mobile ATM**
    The quickest way to become a fool is to argue with one..

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by SmoothOperator View Post
    I agree with Compassionate Reader on it being an all or nothing wrt Echols and Baldwin.. They are either BOTH innocent or BOTH guilty of killing Stevie, Michael, and Christopher.. And as many know my very strong opinion is that both Echols and Baldwin are guilty as charged and convicted..

    In regards to the OP of it being all or nothing I do understand where you're coming from and tho, I do personally believe that all 3 of these men are fully guilty of having killed those 3 beautiful little boys..however IMO it is Jessie that is the piece to this horrific puzzle that IMO stands out and/or doesn't "fit" into the puzzle, here.. Imo the reason he doesn't appear to fit is because he was not a part of the puzzle wrt Jason and Damien's life leading up to the murders.. He was not at all a close friend, like Jason and Damien were to each other.. It was a twosome, not a threesome and Jessie was in the very unfortunate position of being with these two that evening when their paths crossed with these 3 innocent young boys..

    IMO the horrific crime was not a plotted and planned murder, but rather a spur of the moment idea sparked in the warped minds of the twosome when the opportunity presented itself in these 3 young boys on their bikes.. IMO not only do Echols and Baldwin know that Jessie was an unfortunate factor of being at the wrong place, with the wrong people, at the wrong time.. But most importantly Echols and Baldwin realize that its also the most unfortunate factor for THEM AS WELL that they had Jessie along with them that evening..

    IMO that is what the twosome regrets, the fact they had Jessie with them..not the fact that they brutally killed 3 little boys, just the fact that they did so with Jessie in tow.

    IMO Jessie is the piece that doesn't fit because he honestly was not a part of the Echols and Baldwin puzzle.. He was the unfortunate happenstance that also was the weakest of weak links which led to his caving and confessing multiple times.. IMO he is just as guilty as the other two and fully participated in the killing of those three innocent boys, but where he greatly differs is the mindset, motivation, and his having signs of a burdened conscience for his part in killing those boys..

    IMO that is not so for the twosome.. Imo had Jessie not been with the twosome that evening those 3 young boys most certainly still would have been murdered, IMO...and the only difference would be in that twosome not having the weak link to worry about caving in and confessing all 3 of their involvement.. This entire case would have been so very, very different..would it have been different in the outcome of the twosome being found guilty of first degree murder?.. I don't know, maybe.. But IMO I am fully certain of one thing and that is that Stevie, Michael, and Christopher still would have been brutally murdered with both Echols and Baldwin at the helm..same as they were at the helm that May day in 1993, with Jessie the unfortunate happenstance factor that led to his involvement in the murders.

    Just to be clear my opinion regarding Jessie and his role in the murders does NOT in any way, shape, or form lessen his culpability in regards to this vicious crime.. No matter the circumstances that led up to his being with the twosome that evening, the fact remains that he did participate..there for in that regard is the same as Echols/Baldwin in being guilty as charged and convicted..

    All Jmo and am extremely comfortable in agreeing to disagree with my fellow WS members who view any/all/some of the aspects of this case differently than I..

    **Please forgive the limitations that come w/my posting via mobile ATM**
    Although I disagree with your overall conclusion (because IMO there is absolutely no evidence to support it), I respect your right to have a differing opinion. I would only ask that you reexamine the evidence, remembering that the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and reevaluate your conclusions. Jessie's "confessions" (yes, all of them) are fraught with errors, inconsistencies and half-truths. These problems simply cannot be explained away as Jessie's attempt to lessen his involvement. Jessie simply knew nothing about the murders and only wanted to get the reward money to buy his daddy a new truck. I agree that he was unwittingly caught up in this horrific event, but he was ensnared by police misconduct and unethical behavior, exacerbated by his limited intelligence, not by his participation in or observation of the events.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,495
    I do agree that Jessie just doesn't fit the puzzle. So how does it happen in your opinion smooth? Was Jessie just out there by himself and happened to bounce into the other 2? I certainly don't buy the whole telephone calls beforehand to set it up because, like you said, he's not part of that group. DE and JB would not call JM up out of the blue and say "Hey! We're going to go beat up some kids. Come with us." So how do you envision JM being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Hopefully none of that came off with attitude. Genuinely interested in your opinion.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    201
    And all whilst the wrong man was in the right place "searching"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassionate Reader View Post
    Damien and Jason were each others' alibis.
    How do you figure? Baldwin didn't even attempt to establish an alibi during trial, and when Echols' lawyer questioned him on the stand about his whereabouts on the evening of the murders there was no mention of Baldwin:

    Q: Focusing in now on May the 5th. Do you recall the events that took place say in the morning on that day - that Wednesday?

    A: I remember going up to the doctor's office because an ex stepsister was there.

    Q: An ex stepsister?

    A: mm-hmm [yes]

    Q: Who, how was - who would that be?

    A: Carol Ashmore. She's Jack Echols' daughter.

    Q: OK. Jack Echols. Alright. So she was up there also?

    A: mm-hmm [yes]

    Q: Do you know approximately what time that appointment was?

    A: No.

    Q: Some time mid-morning?

    A: I think it was kind of late morning.

    Q: Late morning? And you did - did you go to that appointment?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Do you recall after the appointment where you went?

    A: Not really.

    Q: Do you recall, um, your mom testified about being picked up at the laundromat.

    A: mm-hmm [yes]

    Q: Around 4 to 4:30 - somewhere in that period of time. Do you recall being with Domini and being picked up by your family?

    A: Yes.

    Q: OK. And do you recall the Sanders, there's been some testimony about the Sanders, are they pretty close friends with your parents?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Did you all, in fact, live with the Sanders in the past?

    A: mm-hmm [yes]

    Q: Do you - were there many times that you all would go over and see the Sanders?

    A: Sometimes three or four times a week.

    Q: Do you recall specifically right now of your own knowledge if on May the 5th that evening you went over to the Sanders'?

    A: I remember going over there, but I don't know what time it was or anything.

    Q: OK. Do you recall talking with Officer... Detective Bryn Ridge sometime in the middle part of May and do you remember telling him that you were over at the Sanders' between 3 to 5 PM?

    A: I might have told him 3 to 5, but I don't remember.

    Q: When you went over to the Sanders', do you recall who was over there? Or who wasn't over there?

    A: I remember the only person there was Jennifer.

    Q: And is she the eleven-year-old daughter?

    A: mm-hmm [yes]

    Q: Do you recall what she was doing?

    A: I think she was just laying there, watching TV.

    Q: Do you remember what show she was watching?

    A: Not really.

    Q: And who all went over to the Sanders' at that time?

    A: Me and my sister and my parents.

    Q: Do you recall approximately how long you stayed there?

    A: Just a few minutes. Not long.

    Q: Did you talk to anybody else there at the Sanders' house?

    A: Not that I remember.

    Q: Does anybody live across the street from the Sanders?

    A: mm-hmm [yes]

    Q: Who lives over there?

    A: I think their last name is McKay, but I'm not sure.

    Q: OK. Are the McKay's - is Miss McKay Susan Sanders' sister?

    A: I think so.

    Q: Is there some kind of relation there?

    A: I think so.

    Q: When you all left the Sanders' house, wait, let me just back up a little. Do you recall at some point during the day going and dropping off a prescription at the pharmacy?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Do you recall specifically what time you went over to the pharmacy?

    A: No.

    Q: Do you recall what time you all - if you picked up the prescription on the 5th or on the 6th?

    A: I don't remember.

    Q: Now, after you all left the Sanders, who all was together at that time?

    A: Just my family - my immediate family.

    Q: So that would be your mom and Joe and Michelle and yourself?

    A: Right.

    Q: And the four of you all left at that time?

    A: Right.

    Q: Do you recall where you all went?

    A: I think we went home.

    Q: Do you recall going anyplace else besides going home?

    A: I'm not sure if that's the day we picked up the medicine or not. So I think we just went home.

    Q: OK. Once you went home do you recall what you did the rest of the night?

    A: Most of the night I was on the phone.

    Q: Do you recall who all you talked to that night?

    A: I think so.

    Q: Who was that?

    A: Holly George, Jennifer Bearden, um, Domini Teer, uh, Heather Cliett, I think that's it.

    Q: Did you and Domini have some kind of an argument?

    A: I think so.

    Q: Were you all - were you all dating quite a bit during this time period?

    A: Yes.

    Q: How long had you all been dating?

    A: I think about a year or a year and a half.

    Q: Prior to dating Domini, did you date Deanna Holcomb?

    A: Yes, I did.

    Q: Do you recall what - during how long a time period or when you all broke up? Approximately.

    A: I think we were together about nine months. I don't know when that...

    Q: Was that the time period before you all moved and went to Oregon?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And besides talking on the telephone on May the 5th, do you remember leaving the house any more times that evening?

    A: No, I did not.

    Q: You did not?

    A: No.
    Also, n 2010 Echols stuck to his phone calls alibi in an interview with CNN:

    At the time the police say the murders took place I was actually on the phone with three different people. The problem was, my attorneys never called them to the stand.
    Granted, the actual problem was that all of girls Echols claimed to have been on the phone with that night had already given statements to the police which don't give Echols an alibi for around sunset, so Echols is either foolish or disingenuous in blaming his lawyers for that. Furthermore, Jennifer Bearden's statements to police contradicts Echols' claims to have been home on the phone:

    RIDGE: About what time was that call you made to Jason's?
    BEARDEN: Between, it had to be somewhere in between 4:15 and 5, something like that 5, 5:30
    RIDGE: Who answered the phone at Jason's?
    BEARDEN: Jason
    RIDGE: And did you talk to Damien?
    BEARDEN: Yeah I talked to Jason about 5 minutes and the (inaudible) with Damien and he wasn't talking because they were playing video games with his little brother Matt
    RIDGE: Okay, and after that conversation you had with him
    BEARDEN: He said him and Jason were going to go somewhere, him and Jason were going somewhere and that he, um, wanted me to call him later at his house around 8 and I said okay.
    RIDGE: Okay, did he say where he was going to go?
    BEARDEN: No.
    RIDGE: Okay, and when you called back about 8.
    BEARDEN: His Grandmother said he wasn't there, and I was suppose to call back around 9, and I called back around 9:20, 9:30 and I talk to him for a little bit, but then I had to get off the phone, because I wasn't suppose to be on the phone after 9:30.
    So Baldwin suggested Echols was out with Baldwin around the apparent time of the murders, but were have you gotten the notion that Baldwin and Echols claimed each other as alibis, and what do you believe they were doing together around sunset on the night of the murders?
    The Master said, "In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself." — Confucius, The Doctrine of the Mean, James Legge translation

    Failure is an opportunity. If you blame someone else, there is no end to the blame. Therefore the Master fulfills her own obligations and corrects her own mistakes. She does what she needs to do and demands nothing of others. — Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell translation

  14. #14
    I simply believe that Damien and Jason were still together when Bearden called around 8 pm, that Damien didn't want to talk to Bearden and asked his grandmother to say he wasn't home. Jason and Damien were best friends. I believe that they were together off and on between about 4:30 pm or 5:00 pm until about 11:00 pm or midnight on May 5, 1993, with the biggest chunk of time that they were apart being the time Damien and his family went to visit neighbors. That was probably when Jason ate supper. Then, I think that Damien and Jason got back together. I think that they were most probably listening to music or watching videos. They probably didn't remember it because they had no reason to commit their movements, etc. on May 5, 1993, to memory. Only someone who is guilty of a crime needs to concentrate on establishing a second by second alibi. I believe this scenario because I know teenaged boys very well. Also, those that live in poverty tend to make their own entertainment, and, IMO, that's what Damien and Jason did during the evening of May 5, 1993.

  15. #15
    SmoothOperator's Avatar
    SmoothOperator is offline Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that there's a victim@the heart of each
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,589
    Re: Jessie being the happenstance factor that I spoke of in previous post..

    Without my going into one of my ridiculously long, droning on posts(as unfortunately I'm known to do) what I mean is that as I believe most, if not all, will agree that Echols and Baldwin were tight friends.. IMO tight friends that naturally have much in common, but of more importance IMO is their both being of similar mindsets.. IMO troubled to say the least.. The main point for the purposes of this post is to say that Echols and Damien were close friends who shared a similar mindset..

    Then we have Jessie who would not by any means fall into the classification of close friend, or even friend, rather he would be an acquaintance.. Yes, known to both Echols and Baldwin, but by no means someone who regularly or consistently hung out with the two.. I'm not at all saying that he had never hung out with the twosome.. Just not with any consistency or regularity.. He, IMO is what one would definitely classify as an acquaintance of Echols/Baldwin..

    IMO with this NOT being a planned and plotted crime as in there NOT being specific prearranged discussion of targeting 3 young boys and killing them.. I believe the afternoon of the day in question was quite typical for all 3 guys in basically hanging out, bored, no set plans or agendas.. The fact that Jessie ended up hanging with Echols/Baldwin that day was of no particular plan by anyone.. Not by himself, or by Echols/Baldwin.. Just a simple happenstance in a life of 3 teenage guys with nothing but idle time on their hands, that on that particular day resulted in the 3 of them "hanging out" together..

    It is purely by happenstance, IMO.. Not saying that it was the very first time Jessie ever hung out with the two, nor was it a regular or consistent occurrence of Jessie hanging out with the two.. Just a happenstance occurrence fitting of what you would typically see with teens with someone they considered no more than acquaintance ..

    Regarding the actual crime and my opinion on how the horrific idea even came to be is different than most(in speaking of those who believe the 3 to be guilty) in I am not of the opinion that Damien Echols is the Evil Messiah who led the other two innocents astray..not at all do I believe it went down like that.. The seeming quiet, shy, small statured Baldwin is often seen as his fault was in being Damien's friend, and that it was the Evil Damien who led him so far astray and it was Damien's heavy influence that is to blame.. Diabolical, evil Damien seen as the master, ringleader of sorts and it all being Damien's idea, Damien's influence, Damien's fault.. I do not see it this way.

    IMO Jason Baldwin is equal to, if not even more of the reason for why those 3 boys were murdered.. Jason Baldwin did not become this lamb led astray by Damien. Jason Baldwin was extremely, darkly troubled long, long before Damien Echols ever came into his life. Jason Baldwin had just as dark of a mindset, if not even darker than the mindset of Echols. Jason Baldwin was equally, if not more so in control and at the helm of that horrific evening.. This horrific murder does not lie solely at the feet of Damien Echols as the vast majority believe it does... Most believing that be it NOT for Echols no such evil would have been lurking in West Memphis that evening.. IMO that's just not accurate due to the fact that Jason Baldwin at the very, very least was equally to blame.

    IMO Both of these young men were very disturbed and dark.. Individually each of them were disturbed, dark, and capable of harm.. Would either of them, alone and without the other, have acted on such impulsive depravity as was heaped upon those innocent children that night?.. I do not know, but together they created the perfect, dark, destructive storm and each fed off of the others darkness leading to a very dark and destructive end that culminated with the horrific murders of three innocent young boys.

    Yes, Jessie doesn't "fit" due to his entire presence, and participation was a factor of mere happenstance in being with the twosome at the point in time when their paths crossed with those 3 young boys.. Presenting an opportunity that Echols and Baldwin were not going to be deterred from merely due to Jessie's happening to be present.. I do not believe that when these two warped minds initially chose to cease the opportunity of these three young boys w/no adults in sight, IMO I do not necessarily believe that it was intent to kill.. I believe its 2 warped minds ceasing an opportunity to hurt, inflict pain, and exert power over a perfect opportunity that presented itself..

    IMO that's where their thought process started and stopped.. Not even thinking about how it would end, and least of all consequences.. Nope, IMO it was two warped, disturbed mindsets that did feed off one another with no long term thought process ever even entering either mind at the point when they acted on the opportunity..not even in the short term were they thinking as to what their acting on the impulse of beating on, inflicting pain, and exerting power over those 3 young boys would lead to, and definitely not thinking as far off as to how it all would end.. We are talking about impulsive thinking, here that was acted on and already in the process of..all before either of them thought of what it could/would lead to, how it would end, and certainly not of any consequences that would come from it.

    Of course this MOO.. I understand and respect that many of my fellow Websleuthers have a very different view and opinion of Jason, Damien, Jessie, and the entire case and circumstances as a whole.
    The quickest way to become a fool is to argue with one..

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast