Both??

[gheckso]

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)

Respectfully snipped...

JMO
I have said before that whilst I believe people can be misled or provoked into certain situations, I don't believe for a second that someone would be an unwilling witness or participant in a murder of three little boys, even if ones life was in danger. And I don't see Damien or Jason as dangerous in comparison to Jessie.

 

[Cappuccino]

I am very hesitant about saying this, but I honestly do have reasons why I have the opinion I do about Jason Baldwin being a very disturbed individual.

I knew him and my mother taught him.. I am not just assigning him as having been a darkly disturbed person to offer a different theory from the typical Evil Damien Ringleader theory.. its that I honestly believe that Jason was disturbed and capable of harm..

Again its jmo and I appreciate y'all respecting my having a very different opinion.. I just wanted to clarify that there is reason behind my opinion more so than just to offer up a different theory than the typical ALL DAMIEN'S FAULT theories.

So you're claiming to know for a fact that Jason Baldwin is, or was, a "very disturbed individual"? In that case, sorry, I have to drop my agree to differ stance and ask you for a citation. If you don't have evidence to back up that claim, then how do any of us know you didn't make it up on the spot? No offense, but anybody could say that. I could wander into any thread here and make vague, unsubstantiated claims to know this or that person and then pronounce him "disturbed", or even "harmless", how would anybody know if I was truthful, and even if I was, how would they know if I was accurate?

When and where did you know him? Where did your mother teach him? On what evidence do you, and your mother, judge him as a disturbed individual?

TIA.

 

[kyleb]

I have the opinion I do about Jason Baldwin being a very disturbed individual.

I figured the same given what Misskelley consistently described Baldwin doing to Christopher Byers throughout his many confessions, and what Carson testified to Baldwin telling him. Granted, a breif clip in West of Memphis shows Carson recanting, but a absent a thorough explanation from him for how he came to know about the castration if not from Baldwin along with how and and why he prejudged himself on the stand, I tend to believe Carson's sworn testimony over his Hollywood recantation. Also, Baldwin's grandmother apparently considered him very disturbed as well given he lack of surprise that he was arrested for the murders when she spoke to Commercial Appeal:

But in Sheridan, Ark., south of Little Rock, Baldwin's grandmother wasn't so sure of Jason Baldwin's innocence.

"I thought in my own mind when those boys were killed that my grandson is sorta superstitious about that devil stuff," said Jessie Mae Baldwin. "He was always catching lizards and snakes, I thought something was going on in that child's mind."

Baldwin, 76, said she and her husband, Purd Baldwin, 82, learned of their grandson's arrest from a television report Friday morning.

"We just looked at each other and I said, 'I don't know what that boy has on his mind, killing people like that,' " Mrs. Baldwin said. Jason Baldwin's father, Larry Baldwin, lives with his parents but was unavailable Friday.

"He's just heartbroke," said Mrs. Baldwin. "He's a mess."

Mrs. Baldwin said that, when she learned of the boys' deaths, she told people that whoever killed the children should be executed. Now that she knows her grandson could be convicted, she said her feelings haven't changed.

"Even though he's my grandson he should get the death penalty if he did it. Whoever done this should be caught and tortured like they done to those kids, and it don't matter if it's my husband, my boy or my grandson, whoever it might be."

Granted, interests in reptiles and devil stuff hardly proves someone capable of murder, but Baldwin's grandmother surely knew far more about him than what's mentioned in that brief quote. Anyway, if you'd be willing to elaborate on your personal experience with Baldwin I'd me much obliged.

If you don't have evidence to back up that claim, then how do any of us know you didn't make it up on the spot?

Given how you're happy to tell CR she's probably right in declaring Baldwin was at Echols' house on the night of the murders despite the utter lack evidence of Baldwin, Echols, or anyone else who has said they were at Echols' house that night ever even claiming as much, why not extend a similar courtesy to SO?

 

[reedus23]

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 .. QUOTE]

Thanks. That answered my question. I understand what you're saying and agree that JM didn't regularly "run" with DE and JB, that's why I was wondering what your thoughts were on how the 3 ended up together that day. Whether I agree or disagree with their involvement, I would agree that if you are working under the assumption that the 3 were involved, it would most likely have to be pure happenstance. Even trying to look at it from the perspective of the 3 were involved, I never bought the whole phone calls being made and we're going to go beat up some boys being arranged beforehand.

 

[reedus23]

That's an interesting point of view, Smooth Operator. Obviously I don't share it, because the case for the prosecution here looks about as believable as "the dog ate my homework."

However, I thanked you for it, because it is interesting to see that you seem to view it as some kind of Lord of the Flies scenario, instead of the usual pop psychology/conspiracy theories about evil Damien, yada yada.

We will probably never agree about the wm3, but I do find your point of view interesting, and will be equally interested to read your opinions about any other case from now on too.

I want to reiterate this sentiment. I can respect and "Thank" an opinion even if I ultimately disagree with it when that opinion is well thought out and set forth in a reasonable manner, such as you did Smooth. Thanks again.

 

[reedus23]

There's part of me that still wonders about him. I've never seen anything that showed me how he was eliminated as a suspect, (which he certainly should have been), but like you say there's no evidence to support an accusation either.

That was part of the problem with this case. There was rarely any follow up to eliminate people. A tip or evidence would be found suggesting a person be looked into, then nothing done in most instances. As I recall, in a majority of the cases, all that happened was LE sat down at their desk and in the span of 1 or 2 days(I think it was after the arrests), typed up a bunch of memos simply saying so and so is not considered a suspect at this time. No indication what led to that conclusion. No apparent action taken to get to that conclusion such as interviewing more witnesses. Just a simple memo to the file. And I found it odd that there were so many of them on 1 or 2 days. Almost like, they thought, uh oh, we have all these loose ends that we never looked into that a defense attorney could cross examine us about so we better do cya memos saying they are no longer suspects as opposed to saying they are no longer suspects because we looked thoroughly into the lead and found nothing to support it.

 

[LunaticFringe]

Respectfully snipped...

JMO
I have said before that whilst I believe people can be misled or provoked into certain situations, I don't believe for a second that someone would be an unwilling witness or participant in a murder of three little boys, even if ones life was in danger. And I don't see Damien or Jason as dangerous in comparison to Jessie.

Jessie is the one that raises the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.I'd like to know what Susie Brewer went through living with him.He's not the short bus rider that everyone thinks he is.I think there is a lot of rage inside of him, and has been for many many years.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Jessie is the one that raises the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.I'd like to know what Susie Brewer went through living with him.He's not the short bus rider that everyone thinks he is.I think there is a lot of rage inside of him, and has been for many many years.

Many of those with a limited intelligence react with anger, but most often it is self-directed. Remember that Jessie practically broke his hand punching a toilet shortly after his arrest. That's what usually happens, and that's what, IMO, Susie had to learn to handle. It could have been one of the reasons that the relationship didn't last.

In my experience, those with extremely low IQs (below 60) are much more passive than aggressive. Those with borderline IQs can react either way, but, again, those with low or borderline IQs are most often violent against themselves if they are violent, not others. There are many other factors beside IQ to consider when determining what makes a person become violent against others.

Granted, this is my experience, and I'm not saying that someone with a borderline or low IQ will never become violent against others. People with normal or even high IQs can do that as well, as countless cases (Ted Bundy comes to mind) have proved. It's just that a low IQ is no more an indication of a potential for violence than any other IQ range, at least in my experience.

 

[kyleb]

Well then CR, it seems you'd be surprised to learn that "Research has consistently found lower cognitive ability to be related to increased risk for violent and other antisocial behaviour", as noted in the abstract of this study and substantiated by the previous research cited in its introduction.

 

[SmoothOperator]

So you're claiming to know for a fact that Jason Baldwin is, or was, a "very disturbed individual"? In that case, sorry, I have to drop my agree to differ stance and ask you for a citation. If you don't have evidence to back up that claim, then how do any of us know you didn't make it up on the spot? No offense, but anybody could say that. I could wander into any thread here and make vague, unsubstantiated claims to know this or that person and then pronounce him "disturbed", or even "harmless", how would anybody know if I was truthful, and even if I was, how would they know if I was accurate?

When and where did you know him? Where did your mother teach him? On what evidence do you, and your mother, judge him as a disturbed individual?

TIA.

And that's certainly your right to drop your agreeing to a different stance, Cappuccino. In response to your above post I did not state anything as fact regarding what Jason Baldwin is and you will never ever see me claiming any opinion as fact.. My opinion is Jason Baldwin was a very darkly disturbed individual..and my opinion is that he was disturbed long before Damien Echols came into his life.

I am not here to attempt to sway, change, or convince anyone of anything.. And have zero to gain from discussing my opinion of Jason Baldwin, or any other person or issue that is in any way involved with this tragic case.. I am merely voicing my very own view and opinion and being straight forward with what my opinion is.

Regarding my wandering into this thread and pronouncing Jason Baldwin disturbed with vague, unsubstantiated evidence is not at all accurate.. Much different is it that I have not pronounced anyone disturbed, nor have I claimed that my mother, who taught him, pronounced or diagnosed him as disturbed.

My only point in stating the fact that I knew Jason Baldwin and that my mother did in fact teach him was that my theories laid out in posts upthread were not just a random, different, or unique theory from what is usually seen as the typical ALL DAMIEN'S FAULT theories just to bring up an alternate theory.. its what is honestly my very own opinion of what the dynamics possibly were in how this horrific crime came to be..

You'll not see me ever attempting to diagnose anyone in this case or any other, much different is that I clearly state what is my honest opinion and point of view..always extremely comfortable in understanding and respecting that some/many/all have a different opinion and point of view.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

SO,

As a classroom teacher (retired), I would be interested in what and when your mother taught Jason. You see, there's a big difference between teaching him in Sunday School (where I'm sure he came off as "disturbed") and in public school. Also, there's a big difference between teaching him as an elementary school student and a high school student. Finally, if your mother is / was a high school teacher, there's a big difference between teaching Algebra and Art. So, I respectfully repeat Cappuccino's question: what and when (specifically, at what age) did your mother teach Jason? I'm not meaning any disrespect here; I just want to understand.

 

[SmoothOperator]

That's just it, Compassionate Reader, I don't want to try to convince you that Jason Baldwin was disturbed, and I understand that you strongly feel very differently than I do.. My mom taught him in late elementary school at Northaven Elementary School, and we lived within 1 mile of each other during that time(near Meeman Shelby Forest)..

The only reason that I posted it was due to my simply explaining that my theory is not just an alternate theory for purposes of new topics for discussion, but rather that it is my very honest opinion about the dynamics of the case..

My apologies if it came off as being for some other motive on my part..that wasn't my intention, nor was it to in some way convince or sway anyone's opinion they have about the case..

I am not attempting to claim to anyone new facts, or trying to change minds wrt this case at all.

 

[hopingicanhelp]

I want to thank everyone for the depth of this discussion.

I've read so much over the years, and yes I have forgotten things only to be reminded later by all of you.

What sticks with me is this idea/attitude of taking sometimes illogical leaps. It has happened on both sides.

The prosecution most definitely made some unsubstantiated leaps IN ADDITION to corruption (leading/directing the confession of JM to evolve to the point needed; discovering the "murder weapon" that must have somehow been dredged out of the lake only to commit the murders then thrown back in). *** I'd forgotten about JM being at the wrestling event -- my only question would be timelines.

The corruption and assumptions made by the prosecution become scrutinized by the public.... supporters find reasons to exonerate one of the boys -- only to make the illogical leap that they must all be exonerated.

Supporters don't want the boys to be judged for their behaviors, interests, moods, etc ... we all know kids like that to a certain degree, right? Some of us were just like them. YET, we are quick to call the behavior of others into question and even quicker to point the accusing finger.

Sadly, this case has just as many rumors clouding it as it has fact. Some of the most very basic (yet most important elements) are debated regularly to this day. If we can't agree -- possibly can't know -- those basic elements, how can we argue either way? (For instance, it is still a major debate whether DE and JB were actually together that night -- and if so, during what timeframe.) We can't make assumptions -- that's how the boys came to be convicted in the first place.

Everyone has been so meticulous in examining all the evidence available -- but we can't get too excited and take one piece that points toward or away from one suspect and apply that same piece to all three. We owe it to ourselves to accept the closest truth we can find -- after all the hours and years studying the case.

Most of all, we owe it to Stevie, Michael, and Chris.

jmo... and willing to be straightened out, lol

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Well then CR, it seems you'd be surprised to learn that "Research has consistently found lower cognitive ability to be related to increased risk for violent and other antisocial behaviour", as noted in the abstract of this study and substantiated by the previous research cited in its introduction.

This study, as with most similar studies, looks at criminals and tries to make the erroneous connection between IQ and crime. That is tantamount to conducting a survey of people exiting from a football game and using the results to make some astonishing claim like, "Ninety-five percent of all people surveyed like football." The particular study you cited looks very narrowly at Swedish brothers and half-brothers in an effort, it seems, to discuss the "nature vs. nurture" issue as well. This "sampling" is not random at all, and is, therefore, flawed.

The basic flaw in this type of study is that persons with a lower IQ are much more likely to be apprehended for their crimes. So, the sampling isn't a true random sampling. In fact, using criminals as the base is skewed from the start. Also, in the study cited, the statistics relating to the population as a whole are sketchy, at best. The subjects were chosen from the "conscription" records, and many people were excluded. A truly random sample, necessary for a valid study, might be impossible for the reason I mentioned above - the more intelligent criminal is less likely to be apprehended.

My observations are based on a random sampling of students - those I taught. Based on my sample, my observations were quite different from the studies of criminals described in your link - and in numerous similar studies, all of which contribute to the false (IMO) assumption that a low IQ means that the individual is more likely to become a criminal. That was not my experience at all. Students who became violent were not any more likely to be of lower IQ than of normal IQ or even higher IQ. It appeared to me that violent students were pretty much distributed in a Bell curve across the intelligence spectrum and every other spectrum!

I am firmly convinced, based on my 25 years' teaching experience, that, were a truly random sampling of people guilty of violent crimes ever studied, the results would show that there is no one thing that causes the violence - except maybe a physio-neurological disorder. And, anyone, of any intelligence level or socioeconomic status, can have such a disorder. If I were to try to pinpoint a "cause" of violence, it would be a physio-neurological condition, not low intelligence or socioeconomic factors.

 

[kyleb]

discovering the "murder weapon" that must have somehow been dredged out of the lake only to commit the murders then thrown back in).

The prosocution didn't suggest the survival knife was "the murder weapon", but rather only that it was used to inflict some of the wounds in the course of the attacks. The murder weapon in the case of Stevie Branch and Michel Moore was water, and Christopher Byers apparently died from the mutilation inflicted by Baldwin with an approximately six inch long folding knife according to Misskelley's confession. That said, what makes you so certain the knife had been in the lake prior to the murders, and have you ever compared the survival knife to any of the autopsy photos which the prosecution did suggest were consistent with the knife? I took one such autopsy photo from West of Memphis and created short presentation to demonstrate its consistency with the saw edge on the survival knife:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnLXRJnVA9c"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnLXRJnVA9c[/ame]

Also, there's the wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead which supports tried to pass off as a human bite mark back when they were pointing their fingers at Mark Byers, and which the state pathologist figured was inflicted by a belt buckle, but the wounds are in fact consistent with the the saw edge and hilt of the survival knife. I've not found autopsy photos other wounds which the prosecution did suggest were consistent with the knife, at least not in clear enough detail so that I can evaluate them myself, but given the consistency between the knife those just those wounds presented above, and given where the knife was found along with Deanna Holcomb having identified Echols in possession of such a knife, the notion that those wounds were inflicted by something other than that knife strains credulity.

This study, as with most similar studies, looks at criminals and tries to make the erroneous connection between IQ and crime.

I cited that particular study because it's a peer reviewed journal articles and it cites multiple other studies on the matter that contracts your claim, most of which you didn't address. Of course you could nitpick the methodology of any research you prefer to disregard in favor of your opinion, but can you cite any research to corroborate it? Oh, and in regard to citations, I've also been meaning to ask if you can provide any to substantiate your claim that Misskelley's initial confession "is now used in law schools as an example of a false and / or coerced confession"?

 

[reedus23]

Many of those with a limited intelligence react with anger, but most often it is self-directed. Remember that Jessie practically broke his hand punching a toilet shortly after his arrest. That's what usually happens, and that's what, IMO, Susie had to learn to handle. It could have been one of the reasons that the relationship didn't last.

In my experience, those with extremely low IQs (below 60) are much more passive than aggressive. Those with borderline IQs can react either way, but, again, those with low or borderline IQs are most often violent against themselves if they are violent, not others. There are many other factors beside IQ to consider when determining what makes a person become violent against others.

Granted, this is my experience, and I'm not saying that someone with a borderline or low IQ will never become violent against others. People with normal or even high IQs can do that as well, as countless cases (Ted Bundy comes to mind) have proved. It's just that a low IQ is no more an indication of a potential for violence than any other IQ range, at least in my experience.

I will just add, getting in playground fights and mutilating 3 young boys are 2 very different things. Also, trying to use such things as IQ to establish one is more likely to have committed a certain crime is just faulty logic. Even if 100% of all murders were committed by people with low IQ's(which is an absurd assertion) it doesn't follow that a certain person with a low IQ committed a murder since not all individuals with low IQ's go on to commit such a crime. So in the end, having a low IQ establishes nothing.

 

[reedus23]

Jessie is the one that raises the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.I'd like to know what Susie Brewer went through living with him.He's not the short bus rider that everyone thinks he is.I think there is a lot of rage inside of him, and has been for many many years.

I wouldn't invite him over to watch my kids and he certainly got into his share of scraps growing up but there are tons of people in this world that raise the hair on the back of my neck. Before I can send them away to prison though or feel confident they in fact committed a particular crime, there has got to be credible evidence indicating as much. There's nothing wrong with being wary of a person, I would be too. But that is a different conversation than what evidence exists that says this particular person with rage committed this particular crime.

 

[reedus23]

SO,

As a classroom teacher (retired), I would be interested in what and when your mother taught Jason. You see, there's a big difference between teaching him in Sunday School (where I'm sure he came off as "disturbed") and in public school. Also, there's a big difference between teaching him as an elementary school student and a high school student. Finally, if your mother is / was a high school teacher, there's a big difference between teaching Algebra and Art. So, I respectfully repeat Cappuccino's question: what and when (specifically, at what age) did your mother teach Jason? I'm not meaning any disrespect here; I just want to understand.

Here's the thing for me. Ok, as a kid he was disturbed or off or however it was described. Now, so what? Even if he is all that (and I'm not saying I believe he was or was not), so what? Lot's of kids with disturbed or troubling histories don't commit murder and when they do, there has to be some credible evidence linking them to that particular crime.

For me, whether it's JB being disturbed, DE being into witchcraft or JM having a low IQ, my question is so what? Even if I were to assume each and every one of those things were true, what says they still committed this particular crime?

 

[reedus23]

I want to thank everyone for the depth of this discussion.

I've read so much over the years, and yes I have forgotten things only to be reminded later by all of you.

What sticks with me is this idea/attitude of taking sometimes illogical leaps. It has happened on both sides.

The prosecution most definitely made some unsubstantiated leaps IN ADDITION to corruption (leading/directing the confession of JM to evolve to the point needed; discovering the "murder weapon" that must have somehow been dredged out of the lake only to commit the murders then thrown back in). *** I'd forgotten about JM being at the wrestling event -- my only question would be timelines.

The corruption and assumptions made by the prosecution become scrutinized by the public.... supporters find reasons to exonerate one of the boys -- only to make the illogical leap that they must all be exonerated.

Supporters don't want the boys to be judged for their behaviors, interests, moods, etc ... we all know kids like that to a certain degree, right? Some of us were just like them. YET, we are quick to call the behavior of others into question and even quicker to point the accusing finger.

Sadly, this case has just as many rumors clouding it as it has fact. Some of the most very basic (yet most important elements) are debated regularly to this day. If we can't agree -- possibly can't know -- those basic elements, how can we argue either way? (For instance, it is still a major debate whether DE and JB were actually together that night -- and if so, during what timeframe.) We can't make assumptions -- that's how the boys came to be convicted in the first place.

Everyone has been so meticulous in examining all the evidence available -- but we can't get too excited and take one piece that points toward or away from one suspect and apply that same piece to all three. We owe it to ourselves to accept the closest truth we can find -- after all the hours and years studying the case.

Most of all, we owe it to Stevie, Michael, and Chris.

jmo... and willing to be straightened out, lol

I think your post and frankly this thread is a glaring example of why all 3 should have been tried separately in the first place.

 

[kyleb]

Also, trying to use such things as IQ to establish one is more likely to have committed a certain crime is just faulty logic.

Do you realize nobody made that argument here, but rather it was CR who was using Misskelley's IQ to claim he was less likely to have committed the murders?

For me, whether it's JB being disturbed, DE being into witchcraft or JM having a low IQ, my question is so what? Even if I were to assume each and every one of those things were true, what says they still committed this particular crime?

Oh come on, that's an absurd question. You're familiar with the evidence, you've just got excusea for ignoring every last piece of it.