New to this case and new to the forum

Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
34
Reaction score
37
Hi everyone,

I am very new to the case of the "West Memphis 3". I live in Scotland so I don't think the case is as well known here as it is in the USA. I have watched all 3 Paradise Lost Films and West of Memphis. I am currently making me way through all of the court transcripts.

At the moment, my gut instinct is telling me that they are guilty however, that does not mean that I am not open to hearing opinions from both sides. As I said, I am very new to the case so there may be some points and evidence I have not heard yet.

At the moment, I have 2 main queries and I would love to hear what everyone thinks :-

1. Jessie Misskelly gave a confession after he had been found guilty, this was a confession to the prosecutors as he apparently "wanted something done" what is everyone's opinion on this? (including supporters) why would he do this if he was so adamant that he was innocent?

2. Jessie Misskelly refused to testify against Damien and Jason in exchange for a reduced sentence. Does anyone have any information as to why he turned this down?

On a final note, I just want to say how deeply disturbed I am by the way in which poor Christopher, Michael and Stevie died. I hope they are now at peace and their families are somehow coping through this. Rest in Peace little ones.

I look forward to hearing from you all.

:
 
Hi everyone,

I am very new to the case of the "West Memphis 3". I live in Scotland so I don't think the case is as well known here as it is in the USA. I have watched all 3 Paradise Lost Films and West of Memphis. I am currently making me way through all of the court transcripts.

At the moment, my gut instinct is telling me that they are guilty however, that does not mean that I am not open to hearing opinions from both sides. As I said, I am very new to the case so there may be some points and evidence I have not heard yet.

At the moment, I have 2 main queries and I would love to hear what everyone thinks :-

1. Jessie Misskelly gave a confession after he had been found guilty, this was a confession to the prosecutors as he apparently "wanted something done" what is everyone's opinion on this? (including supporters) why would he do this if he was so adamant that he was innocent?

2. Jessie Misskelly refused to testify against Damien and Jason in exchange for a reduced sentence. Does anyone have any information as to why he turned this down?

On a final note, I just want to say how deeply disturbed I am by the way in which poor Christopher, Michael and Stevie died. I hope they are now at peace and their families are somehow coping through this. Rest in Peace little ones.

I look forward to hearing from you all.

:

Never mind anything Misskelly said. Almost every wrongful conviction case I come across has a mentally challenged individual confessing to crimes and bringing one or two others with him. It is ALWAYS a mentally challenged or drug addicted individual who is coerced into a false confession. It is a common tactic for LE to use when they need a confession. They find someone who is easily influenced and feed them details in unofficial, “off the record” pre-interrogation interviews.
 
Never mind anything Misskelly said. Almost every wrongful conviction case I come across has a mentally challenged individual confessing to crimes and bringing one or two others with him. It is ALWAYS a mentally challenged or drug addicted individual who is coerced into a false confession. It is a common tactic for LE to use when they need a confession. They find someone who is easily influenced and feed them details in unofficial, “off the record” pre-interrogation interviews.


I can believe that people can be forced into a false confession, but I still don't understand why he would confess after he was convicted, even his own attorneys seemed very surprised and upset over that
 
Hi everyone,

I am very new to the case of the "West Memphis 3". I live in Scotland so I don't think the case is as well known here as it is in the USA. I have watched all 3 Paradise Lost Films and West of Memphis. I am currently making me way through all of the court transcripts.

At the moment, my gut instinct is telling me that they are guilty however, that does not mean that I am not open to hearing opinions from both sides. As I said, I am very new to the case so there may be some points and evidence I have not heard yet.

At the moment, I have 2 main queries and I would love to hear what everyone thinks :-

1. Jessie Misskelly gave a confession after he had been found guilty, this was a confession to the prosecutors as he apparently "wanted something done" what is everyone's opinion on this? (including supporters) why would he do this if he was so adamant that he was innocent?

2. Jessie Misskelly refused to testify against Damien and Jason in exchange for a reduced sentence. Does anyone have any information as to why he turned this down?

On a final note, I just want to say how deeply disturbed I am by the way in which poor Christopher, Michael and Stevie died. I hope they are now at peace and their families are somehow coping through this. Rest in Peace little ones.

I look forward to hearing from you all.

:

Hi, welcome.

I think you have the right mind set. I'm glad you didn't completely buy into the movies, because they frame it a certain way; and I love that you're doing your own research about the case. You'll find that there a 3 groups: nons (those who think they're guilty), supporters (those who think they're innocent), and fencies (those who are "on the fence," myself being one of them; they can be on the fence about one, two, or all of them).

1. Depending on what you are, you're going to see this differently. Supporters will say that, JM was so mentally incompetent, that he couldn't tell the difference between his own attorney (Stidham), the prosecutors, and the police. He kept confessing and confessing, even after the murders, because his mental handicap "forced" him to automatically please and entertain all authority figures; and he somehow thought that, by confessing, he would magically get out of trouble/jail, even after being convicted.

1B. If you are a non, you're going to say that JM was straight up guilty and needed to clear his conscious. Even though he was mentally incompetent, his handicap would not have hindered him to tell the difference between authority figures; particularly, his own father and mother, who he had contact while the trial was going on and who would also be counseling him. His mother (I believe in Paradise Lost) even admits this, as she says that she advised him to tell the truth, and if he doesn't, she'll know he's lying (something to that effect). This isn't pure evidence that he would follow her instructions of course (as I believe she says this in the context of JM testifying against the other two), but is evidence against the notion that the only people in JM's ear were lawyers.

1C. If you are a fencie, you're going to say that, even in the very first confession JM gives, he gets things right: such as, the one facial injury with regard to the one specific victim (SB), and the one genital injury to the one specific victim (MM), his route to and from the crime scene, and some (but not all) of the crime scene itself (such as, where he was standing when the murders occurred, where the Blue Beacon is in relation, etc.). You also might say, as a fencie, that JM's subsequent confessions got better over time, not because he was able to memorize all those details verbatim during the trial (which would be hard for a mentally incompetent individual to do), but because the more detail came after he was convicted, and after he knew he had already been caught. He couldn't "play down" or try to diminish his involvement anymore, so he became more detailed.

JM's mental deficiency is exaggerated by both nons and supporters; just as it was between the defense and prosecutors during trial, where each side showed test results that differed (on one, JM tested higher, on another, he tested lower, etc.). Personally, I believe he wasn't as "handicapped" mentally as nons believe.

2. No one can definitively say why JM didn't testify against the other two, except JM. Supporters will say that he didn't testify because he knew he was lying and wanted to stop lying (even though, he had been supposedly lying this whole time while giving these "false" confessions anyway).

2B. Nons will say that he didn't testify because he was advised (if not by his attorney, by his parents/family) that it would kill any chance of appeals down the road for himself; and that the fact he didn't testify is proof that he did indeed understand the circumstances and predicament he was in, despite whatever level of mental handicap he possessed.

2C. Fencies are somewhere in between (unsurprisingly). They think it's convenient that JM "finally saw the light" (so to speak) to stop lying at the exact moment he should have. Oral confessions against the other two are one thing -- with regard to JM's own predicament -- but testifying in court against them, not only would have sealed their fate, but his own also. He knew this, and he didn't testify because of this, which was the smart move on his part. Was it just a coincidence that he was finally able to listen to his own attorneys/family at the exact time he should have? It's doubtful.
 
Last edited:
Hi, welcome.

I think you have the right mind set. I'm glad you didn't completely buy into the movies, because they frame it a certain way; and I love that you're doing your own research about the case. You'll find that there a 3 groups: nons (those who think they're guilty), supporters (those who think they're innocent), and fencies (those who are "on the fence," myself being one of them; they can be on the fence about one, two, or all of them).

1. Depending on what you are, you're going to see this differently. Supporters will say that, JM was so mentally incompetent, that he couldn't tell the difference between his own attorney (Stidham), the prosecutors, and the police. He kept confessing and confessing, even after the murders, because his mental handicap "forced" him to automatically please and entertain all authority figures; and he somehow thought that, by confessing, he would magically get out of trouble/jail, even after being convicted.

1B. If you are a non, you're going to say that JM was straight up guilty. Even though he was mentally incompetent, his handicap would not have hindered him to tell the difference between authority figures; particularly, his own father and mother, who he had contact while the trial was going on and who would also be counseling him. His mother (I believe in Paradise Lost) even admits this, as she says that she advised him to tell the truth, and if he doesn't, she'll know he's lying (something to that effect). This isn't pure evidence that he would follow her instructions of course, but is evidence against the notion that the only people in JM's ear were lawyers.

1C. If you are a fencie, you're going to say that, even in the very first confession JM gives, he gets things right: such as, the one facial injury with regard to the one specific victim (SB), and the one genital injury to the one specific victim (MM), his route to and from the crime scene, and some (but not all) of the crime scene itself (such as, where he was standing when the murders occurred, where the Blue Beacon is in relation, etc.). You also might say, as a fencie, that JM's subsequent confessions got better over time, not because he was able to memorize all those details verbatim during the trial (which would be hard for a mentally incompetent individual to do), but because the more detail came after he was convicted, and after he knew he had already been caught. He couldn't "play down" or try to diminish his involvement anymore, so he became more detailed.

JM's mental deficiency is exaggerated by both nons and supporters; just as it was between the defense and prosecutors during trial, where each side showed test results that differed (on one, JM tested higher, on another, he tested lower, etc.). Personally, I believe he wasn't as "handicapped" mentally as nons believe.

2. No one can definitively say why JM didn't testify against the other two, except JM. Supporters will say that he didn't testify because he knew he was lying and wanted to stop lying (even though, he had been supposedly lying this whole time while giving these "false" confessions anyway).

2B. Nons will say that he didn't testify because he was advised (if not by his attorney, by his parents/family) that it would kill any chance of appeals down the road for himself; and that the fact he didn't testify is proof that he did indeed understand the circumstances and predicament he was in, despite whatever level of mental handicap he possessed.

2C. Fencies are somewhere in between (unsurprisingly).


Thank you so much for your reply. It is really great to talk to others about this case. As I said, I still have a lot of research to do and although my first instinct is that they are guilty, I'm not going to overlook or discredit someone else's opinion. I'm looking forward to reading more into this case and coming to my own conclusion.

Thanks again
 
Never mind anything Misskelly said. Almost every wrongful conviction case I come across has a mentally challenged individual confessing to crimes and bringing one or two others with him. It is ALWAYS a mentally challenged or drug addicted individual who is coerced into a false confession. It is a common tactic for LE to use when they need a confession. They find someone who is easily influenced and feed them details in unofficial, “off the record” pre-interrogation interviews.

"Never mind anything Misskelly said."

That sums up the supporter mindset. "Ignore any and all evidence that points to their guilt, because that supports our narrative". That's a ludicrous statement.
 
Hi everyone,

I am very new to the case of the "West Memphis 3". I live in Scotland so I don't think the case is as well known here as it is in the USA. I have watched all 3 Paradise Lost Films and West of Memphis. I am currently making me way through all of the court transcripts.

At the moment, my gut instinct is telling me that they are guilty however, that does not mean that I am not open to hearing opinions from both sides. As I said, I am very new to the case so there may be some points and evidence I have not heard yet.

At the moment, I have 2 main queries and I would love to hear what everyone thinks :-

1. Jessie Misskelly gave a confession after he had been found guilty, this was a confession to the prosecutors as he apparently "wanted something done" what is everyone's opinion on this? (including supporters) why would he do this if he was so adamant that he was innocent?

2. Jessie Misskelly refused to testify against Damien and Jason in exchange for a reduced sentence. Does anyone have any information as to why he turned this down?

On a final note, I just want to say how deeply disturbed I am by the way in which poor Christopher, Michael and Stevie died. I hope they are now at peace and their families are somehow coping through this. Rest in Peace little ones.

I look forward to hearing from you all.

:

Your gut instinct is correct.

Supporters will insist that Misskelley was so mentally challenged that he was able to be coerced into confessing over and over and over again, both pre and post conviction, but all of a sudden, when it's in his best interest to be told what to do (i.e. to STOP confessing, by his own lawyer), he becomes resolute and no longer "tells people what they want to hear". According to supporters, his "mental disabilities" only come into play when they will ruin him, but when it's for his benefit, said "mental disabilities" evaporate. But of course, we all know that's not how things work.
 
Last edited:
Hi, welcome.

I think you have the right mind set. I'm glad you didn't completely buy into the movies, because they frame it a certain way; and I love that you're doing your own research about the case. You'll find that there a 3 groups: nons (those who think they're guilty), supporters (those who think they're innocent), and fencies (those who are "on the fence," myself being one of them; they can be on the fence about one, two, or all of them).

1. Depending on what you are, you're going to see this differently. Supporters will say that, JM was so mentally incompetent, that he couldn't tell the difference between his own attorney (Stidham), the prosecutors, and the police. He kept confessing and confessing, even after the murders, because his mental handicap "forced" him to automatically please and entertain all authority figures; and he somehow thought that, by confessing, he would magically get out of trouble/jail, even after being convicted.

1B. If you are a non, you're going to say that JM was straight up guilty and needed to clear his conscious. Even though he was mentally incompetent, his handicap would not have hindered him to tell the difference between authority figures; particularly, his own father and mother, who he had contact while the trial was going on and who would also be counseling him. His mother (I believe in Paradise Lost) even admits this, as she says that she advised him to tell the truth, and if he doesn't, she'll know he's lying (something to that effect). This isn't pure evidence that he would follow her instructions of course (as I believe she says this in the context of JM testifying against the other two), but is evidence against the notion that the only people in JM's ear were lawyers.

1C. If you are a fencie, you're going to say that, even in the very first confession JM gives, he gets things right: such as, the one facial injury with regard to the one specific victim (SB), and the one genital injury to the one specific victim (MM), his route to and from the crime scene, and some (but not all) of the crime scene itself (such as, where he was standing when the murders occurred, where the Blue Beacon is in relation, etc.). You also might say, as a fencie, that JM's subsequent confessions got better over time, not because he was able to memorize all those details verbatim during the trial (which would be hard for a mentally incompetent individual to do), but because the more detail came after he was convicted, and after he knew he had already been caught. He couldn't "play down" or try to diminish his involvement anymore, so he became more detailed.

JM's mental deficiency is exaggerated by both nons and supporters; just as it was between the defense and prosecutors during trial, where each side showed test results that differed (on one, JM tested higher, on another, he tested lower, etc.). Personally, I believe he wasn't as "handicapped" mentally as nons believe.

2. No one can definitively say why JM didn't testify against the other two, except JM. Supporters will say that he didn't testify because he knew he was lying and wanted to stop lying (even though, he had been supposedly lying this whole time while giving these "false" confessions anyway).

2B. Nons will say that he didn't testify because he was advised (if not by his attorney, by his parents/family) that it would kill any chance of appeals down the road for himself; and that the fact he didn't testify is proof that he did indeed understand the circumstances and predicament he was in, despite whatever level of mental handicap he possessed.

2C. Fencies are somewhere in between (unsurprisingly). They think it's convenient that JM "finally saw the light" (so to speak) to stop lying at the exact moment he should have. Oral confessions against the other two are one thing -- with regard to JM's own predicament -- but testifying in court against them, not only would have sealed their fate, but his own also. He knew this, and he didn't testify because of this, which was the smart move on his part. Was it just a coincidence that he was finally able to listen to his own attorneys/family at the exact time he should have? It's doubtful.
Excellent summary. I’ve been interested in this since it happened but not delved in discussion or research. Yet.
 
Excellent summary. I’ve been interested in this since it happened but not delved in discussion or research. Yet.

Thank you. Be careful: there is a lot of misinformation out there. Your best resources are the following websites: callahan.mysite.com and jivepuppi.com.

I would suggest you stay away from the Bob Ruff Truth and Justice podcast; he is ill-informed and is learning on the fly. He always has to make corrections after the fact, and he'll just confuse you.
 
thank you all for your replies, I have been making my way through Callahan, I am almost finished reading through the Misskelly court transcripts but I feel myself having to take a break every now and then for a few days as there is so much to take in and I can feel myself letting it take over my daily life which is not good!

Anyone know why there are some missing pages on of the court transcripts on Callahan?
 
thank you all for your replies, I have been making my way through Callahan, I am almost finished reading through the Misskelly court transcripts but I feel myself having to take a break every now and then for a few days as there is so much to take in and I can feel myself letting it take over my daily life which is not good!

Anyone know why there are some missing pages on of the court transcripts on Callahan?

Have you read Echols' psych reports from before the murders yet?
 
Hi there, no haven't read through them yet, I understand there is a lot ?

Yes, it's a robust document. How supporters can sweep this under the rug is really a testament to their denial and/or dishonesty. This was clearly a dangerous, psychotic individual. I'm sure someone will chime in with "he was just a typical troubled teen". I am Echols' age and was a long-haired Metallica freak outcast who wore black exclusively. I watched PL1 because of Metallica's involvement and because I thought I was going to see a story about kids just like me who were wrongly convicted. Pretty much from the start of the movie, I said to myself, "ummm....these guys are guilty...this is not right. I'm going to dig deeper." Of course with hardly scratching the surface of the truth, you can see that Berlinger and Sinofsky were utterly disingenuous and manipulative, omitting glaring facts that pointed to their guilt and being outright deceptive about the facts. I hung out with guys like me, that looked like Echols and Baldwin - I NEVER encountered anyone remotely close to the psychotic headcase that is Echols.

Here's a bit of a summary.

Source: Exhibit 500 http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html
Page numbers are in parentheses.


5/7/92. E. Arkansas Mental Health Center: Client admits to having been suspended seven times this past semester for initiating fights at school and starting fires. States in one fight he almost gouged out the victim’s eyes. (29)

6/1/92 - 6/25/92. Committed to Charter Hospital of Little Rock: Admits to a history of violence and attempting to scratch out the eyes of a classmate. There were major concerns that Damien was exhibiting disturbed thinking. He has a history of extreme physical aggression toward others. It was felt that he needed to be temporarily removed from his environment to provide protection for him and protection for others. ( 92, 188).

Damien states, “I burn myself with lighters. I have huffed gas and paint, used speed, marijuana, glue, and alcohol.” (232).

Psychosocial Assessment: Patient appeared to be sniffing the air around him as if he were responding to an external stimulus. He also cut his eyes in one direction or the other; may have been experiencing auditory hallucinations. (237).

Verbalized concern that there are surveillance cameras behind his mirror and under his desk. Quite paranoid, drawing symbols. Damien definitely bears watching. ( 281, 297).

Damien states, “If he (girlfriend’s father) had hit her, I would have blown him away. Next time I will eliminate that person.” (295). Damien also threatened to kill police officers. (366).

Mother concerned that son “not learning to deal with anger and rages.” Mother said Damien might be responding to outside stimulation, voiced fear that “son may be crazy.” (301).

Psychological Report: The behavior of this youngster is characterized by impulsive hostility...the desire to gain power and demean others springs from animosity and a wish to vindicate past grievances. This teenager believes that past degradations may be undone by provoking fear and intimidation in others. Cool and distant, this youth demonstrates little or no compassion for others. (212)

6/25/92: Discharged to mother with instructions for continuing care. Family moving to Oregon. (309)

9/2/92 - 9/4/92. Committed to St. Vincent’s Hospital in Oregon. Patient denies suicidal or homicidal ideation. However, in talking with family members, they state that he made it quite clear that he had thoughts of harming other people, i.e. was going to cut his mother’s throat and made verbal threats to his father in the emergency room. (104). Because of Damien’s threats, both parents do not want him to return to their home. They are frightened of him and what he can do, not only to them but to the two other children who reside in the home. Damien is to return to Arkansas by bus. (150).

9/14/92 - 9/28/92. Readmitted to Charter Hospital. While in Oregon, Damien made a plan to “slash my parents’ throats and eat them alive.” Damien believes that he is a vampire and does worship the devil. Has made several statements indicating that he has a desire to harm others. He admitted to sucking the blood out of a peer’s neck. (87, 374, 375).

Stated he had attempted suicide before and “wasn’t worried about trying again, because I know I can come back.” (377)

Discharged 9/28/92. Aftercare to be arranged by T. Deaton, Dr. Gallien/M. Wilson.
Diagnosis: 1. Psychotic Disorder NOS and 2. Dysthymia. (344, 439).

1/5/93. Mental Health Center reopens case: Reports self-mutilation, cutting self with knives. Will “trance out” since 5th grade - doesn’t have to deal with what’s going on. Says he thinks a lot about life after death-- “I want to go where the monsters go.” (41, 42).

He has tried to steal energy from someone else and influence others’ minds with witchcraft. Describes self as “pretty much hates the human race.” Relates that he feels people are in two classes--sheep and wolves (wolves eat the sheep). (42).

1/19/93: Reveals history of abuse as he talked of how he was treated as a child. States, “I just put it all inside.” Describes this as more than just anger - like rage. Sometimes he does “blow up.” Relates that when this happens, the only solution is to “hurt someone.” When questioned on his feelings he states, “I know I’m going to influence the world. People will remember me.” (50).

1/25/93: Speaks of rituals, drinking blood, more involved in demonology. Damien explained that he obtains his power by drinking blood of others. He typically drinks the blood of a sexual partner or of a ruling partner. This is achieved by biting or cutting. He states, “It makes me feel like a god.” He wants very much to be all powerful. He wants very much to be in total control. (52)

Damien relates that a spirit is now living with him. This is reportedly a spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband. In addition, he also reports conversations with demons and other spirits. This is achieved through rituals. (52)

2/5/93: Damien is noted to have cuts on his right arm and hand. Related feeling very angry yesterday when running into previous girlfriend. “I controlled it - I can do anything. “ (54)

The Social Security Administration determined that Echols was 100% disabled due to mental impairment and granted him full disability benefits. (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html 8.b)

5/5/93 A.M: At times he is impulsive and does things that may be harmful to him. He has impulses to do strange and harmful things. (61 and http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/jmoneypenny.html)

5/5/93 P.M.: Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore are murdered.
 
Supporters always attempt to disregard, deny or sweep under the rug each piece of evidence on its own, that glaringly shows their guilt - of course you can't do that - ignoring or denying these things doesn't make them untrue, and if you combine everything together, the 500, Misskelley's many, many, many confessions, the circumstantial and physical evidence, Echols' behavior at trial, the alibis being decimated or not even presented, Echols getting busted lying on the stand ....the totality of everything - if you're an honest person capable of even modest critical thinking...well, there you go. Echols testified because he is arrogant and thinks he's smarter than everyone else and untouchable - a true sociopath. He burned himself by doing that. Baldwin, a follower, and absolutely evil in his own right, wasn't arrogant enough to think he could outsmart the jury, so he shut the hell up. Misskelley (Mr. Confessions) is an entirely different story altogether.
 
Thank you. Be careful: there is a lot of misinformation out there. Your best resources are the following websites: callahan.mysite.com and jivepuppi.com.

I would suggest you stay away from the Bob Ruff Truth and Justice podcast; he is ill-informed and is learning on the fly. He always has to make corrections after the fact, and he'll just confuse you.
Wow, what a goldmine for documents. Thank you.
 
Yes, it's a robust document. How supporters can sweep this under the rug is really a testament to their denial and/or dishonesty. This was clearly a dangerous, psychotic individual. I'm sure someone will chime in with "he was just a typical troubled teen". I am Echols' age and was a long-haired Metallica freak outcast who wore black exclusively. I watched PL1 because of Metallica's involvement and because I thought I was going to see a story about kids just like me who were wrongly convicted. Pretty much from the start of the movie, I said to myself, "ummm....these guys are guilty...this is not right. I'm going to dig deeper." Of course with hardly scratching the surface of the truth, you can see that Berlinger and Sinofsky were utterly disingenuous and manipulative, omitting glaring facts that pointed to their guilt and being outright deceptive about the facts. I hung out with guys like me, that looked like Echols and Baldwin - I NEVER encountered anyone remotely close to the psychotic headcase that is Echols.

Here's a bit of a summary.

Source: Exhibit 500 http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html
Page numbers are in parentheses.


5/7/92. E. Arkansas Mental Health Center: Client admits to having been suspended seven times this past semester for initiating fights at school and starting fires. States in one fight he almost gouged out the victim’s eyes. (29)

6/1/92 - 6/25/92. Committed to Charter Hospital of Little Rock: Admits to a history of violence and attempting to scratch out the eyes of a classmate. There were major concerns that Damien was exhibiting disturbed thinking. He has a history of extreme physical aggression toward others. It was felt that he needed to be temporarily removed from his environment to provide protection for him and protection for others. ( 92, 188).

Damien states, “I burn myself with lighters. I have huffed gas and paint, used speed, marijuana, glue, and alcohol.” (232).

Psychosocial Assessment: Patient appeared to be sniffing the air around him as if he were responding to an external stimulus. He also cut his eyes in one direction or the other; may have been experiencing auditory hallucinations. (237).

Verbalized concern that there are surveillance cameras behind his mirror and under his desk. Quite paranoid, drawing symbols. Damien definitely bears watching. ( 281, 297).

Damien states, “If he (girlfriend’s father) had hit her, I would have blown him away. Next time I will eliminate that person.” (295). Damien also threatened to kill police officers. (366).

Mother concerned that son “not learning to deal with anger and rages.” Mother said Damien might be responding to outside stimulation, voiced fear that “son may be crazy.” (301).

Psychological Report: The behavior of this youngster is characterized by impulsive hostility...the desire to gain power and demean others springs from animosity and a wish to vindicate past grievances. This teenager believes that past degradations may be undone by provoking fear and intimidation in others. Cool and distant, this youth demonstrates little or no compassion for others. (212)

6/25/92: Discharged to mother with instructions for continuing care. Family moving to Oregon. (309)

9/2/92 - 9/4/92. Committed to St. Vincent’s Hospital in Oregon. Patient denies suicidal or homicidal ideation. However, in talking with family members, they state that he made it quite clear that he had thoughts of harming other people, i.e. was going to cut his mother’s throat and made verbal threats to his father in the emergency room. (104). Because of Damien’s threats, both parents do not want him to return to their home. They are frightened of him and what he can do, not only to them but to the two other children who reside in the home. Damien is to return to Arkansas by bus. (150).

9/14/92 - 9/28/92. Readmitted to Charter Hospital. While in Oregon, Damien made a plan to “slash my parents’ throats and eat them alive.” Damien believes that he is a vampire and does worship the devil. Has made several statements indicating that he has a desire to harm others. He admitted to sucking the blood out of a peer’s neck. (87, 374, 375).

Stated he had attempted suicide before and “wasn’t worried about trying again, because I know I can come back.” (377)

Discharged 9/28/92. Aftercare to be arranged by T. Deaton, Dr. Gallien/M. Wilson.
Diagnosis: 1. Psychotic Disorder NOS and 2. Dysthymia. (344, 439).

1/5/93. Mental Health Center reopens case: Reports self-mutilation, cutting self with knives. Will “trance out” since 5th grade - doesn’t have to deal with what’s going on. Says he thinks a lot about life after death-- “I want to go where the monsters go.” (41, 42).

He has tried to steal energy from someone else and influence others’ minds with witchcraft. Describes self as “pretty much hates the human race.” Relates that he feels people are in two classes--sheep and wolves (wolves eat the sheep). (42).

1/19/93: Reveals history of abuse as he talked of how he was treated as a child. States, “I just put it all inside.” Describes this as more than just anger - like rage. Sometimes he does “blow up.” Relates that when this happens, the only solution is to “hurt someone.” When questioned on his feelings he states, “I know I’m going to influence the world. People will remember me.” (50).

1/25/93: Speaks of rituals, drinking blood, more involved in demonology. Damien explained that he obtains his power by drinking blood of others. He typically drinks the blood of a sexual partner or of a ruling partner. This is achieved by biting or cutting. He states, “It makes me feel like a god.” He wants very much to be all powerful. He wants very much to be in total control. (52)

Damien relates that a spirit is now living with him. This is reportedly a spirit of a woman who was killed by her husband. In addition, he also reports conversations with demons and other spirits. This is achieved through rituals. (52)

2/5/93: Damien is noted to have cuts on his right arm and hand. Related feeling very angry yesterday when running into previous girlfriend. “I controlled it - I can do anything. “ (54)

The Social Security Administration determined that Echols was 100% disabled due to mental impairment and granted him full disability benefits. (http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html 8.b)

5/5/93 A.M: At times he is impulsive and does things that may be harmful to him. He has impulses to do strange and harmful things. (61 and http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/jmoneypenny.html)

5/5/93 P.M.: Christopher Byers, Stevie Branch, and Michael Moore are murdered.
Okay, I’m all in now. It’s gonna take awhile to study. I expect the unexpected as I begin to read.
 
I'm also new to this case, I've seen all 3 of the Paradise Lost documentaries, West of Memphis and Devil's Not. I'm currently reading Untying the Knot.
Has anyone noticed the similarlies of
this case and the murders of Abby and Libby in IN?
 
I'm also new to this case, I've seen all 3 of the Paradise Lost documentaries, West of Memphis and Devil's Not. I'm currently reading Untying the Knot.
Has anyone noticed the similarlies of
this case and the murders of Abby and Libby in IN?

Hmm, I don't really see any similarities, can you be more specific? That case was a while back so perhaps I am not remembering it well, but that was 2 girls and it was never released by police exactly how they were attacked and/or found. I guess they both occurred in wooded areas, but I don't see any other similarities; perhaps I'm just missing them.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
3,690
Total visitors
3,775

Forum statistics

Threads
592,493
Messages
17,969,831
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top