Question for supporters

What Innocent person blows kisses & licks his lips to the victims families?

also, Why brag not once but several times about killing 3 children if you really did not?

Is it true that Damien visited the crime scene over 200 times during a 2 year period?
 
What Innocent person blows kisses & licks his lips to the victims families?

Strange without a doubt...remember tho that Damien, Jessie, and Jason were being told by their attorneys and families what Byers and everyone else was saying about them. At the time none of them had a child-they couldn't possibly relate. If he is in fact innocent-I'm sure the little boys' families were just as monstrous to him as he was to them....He stated just a couple years later that he regretted his actions. I honestly never saw him do it in either pl movie and I've never read who stated he did those things.

also, Why brag not once but several times about killing 3 children if you really did not?

I only know of once Damien was accused of bragging about it-the softball field girls-and imo their testimony reeked.


Is it true that Damien visited the crime scene over 200 times during a 2 year period?

Never heard that one before. I'm assuming you mean before the murders b/c shortly after he was arrested. My guess would be a rumor....unless one or two people accompanied him every single time it's just heresay.
 
What Innocent person blows kisses & licks his lips to the victims families?

also, Why brag not once but several times about killing 3 children if you really did not?

Is it true that Damien visited the crime scene over 200 times during a 2 year period?

A guy who knew he was innocent and just wanted others to think he was a bad *advertiser censored*. Come on, really, would a guilty person be this disrespectful of the law. Damion was in his phase to make others think he was worse then he was. What kid who was an "outside" wouldn't want others to think he was "someone" badass and hardcore?

The fact still remains that NO physical evidence EVER conclusively linked him to these crimes. Unless you consider the sightings that people always "thought" was true.

As a mother of two children (1 now 21) the other 10, children ALWAYS embellish them in anything that would give them "cred" with their other peers.

Damion was a stupid, misguided kid who thought the more fear that his peers had of him, the less likely he would be screwed with in the long run.

He had a terribly missguide view of reality because his home life seemed to be different from those around him.

I am not expert, but I do understand human nature. I believe he was acting out what other people thought of him. He expected them to think the worst, knowing he hadn't done anything wrong.

Boy, (literally) was he wrong. They ALL believed his act.

Now he is on death row. And two of his "friends" are guilty by association.
 
Really well put, Roxye and CR.

Many murder defendants wear suits and act like angels. Do we believe that is evidence of their innocence? Of course not.

Why should we assume opposite behavior proves guilt?
 
I'm sorry this is an old thread, but I didn't feel that I had to start a new one.

I am "new" to this case. A few years ago I was really into it and watched the Documentaries and was decided that I was a supporter. I think I supported the WM3 because the documentaries are so biased and want you to support them.
A few days ago I came back to this case, and I am not at all surprised at the number of people who are still interested. When I was into the case a few years ago, JMB was still being accused by certain people.

Anyway right now I am on the fence. It's not that I don't know what to believe, it's that there is so many things that puzzle me.

If the boys weren't murdered at the discovery site, then where were they murdered? I'm assuming that whomever murdered them would have to clean up some kind of blood even if there wasn't much blood. They would have it on their clothes and skin. Obviously if they were murdered at another site, I'm sure someone would have seen a vehicle if they would have been transported that way....if they were in a vehicle, then there would be blood in that too probably, or some kind of evidence. If they were killed in a manhole like some people are suggesting then why wasn't one tested with the stuff that makes blood show up (I think I'm getting tired because I cannot think of what it's called...lol)? If there was blood at another site then there could be more evidence. For LE to say they think the bodies were dumped, why didn't they try to find the actual spot where the boys were murdered?

The boys were naked but yet there were no sexual assaults. Why would a killer take the time to strip the clothes off of someone unless to hide evidence? Why would it even matter if they took the clothes off because the boys were in water anyway? Also were any of the clothes missing?

Why wasn't the perineal hair ever tested? That is an odd spot to find a hair, especially on a prepubescent boy. That could be a key piece of evidence...if it was just tested...http://callahan.8k.com/images2/writ_exhibits/Exhibit_Q_09.jpg

I find it odd how people are trying to point fingers as well. Why has everyone moved on to TH? A few years ago everyone was so sure that JMB was a suspect....now he's a major activist in this case. That seems kind of odd too....to be totally certain that it was the WM3, to tell them you're going to spit on their grave, then turning around and saying that they're innocent and that the real killer needs to be found. Maybe JMB just realized that there are holes in the story and that the evidence wasn't handled correctly, but maybe he wants to have positive attention instead of all the negative attention that he got.

A thing about the shoelaces also......

I pretty much wear the same pair of shoes everyday. I never get any hair in my shoes, and if I do it doesn't stick. Since I heard the hair in the shoelace evidence, I have been checking my shoes everyday. I wonder if the hair was wrapped around the shoelace or if it was kind of weaved into the fabric? Anyway it seems like the hair would only be there if JH was at the discovery site...same with the Jacoby hair.

If the WM3 were really the killers, what links them to the actual crime scene?

I'm sorry if I'm rambling and I'm sorry if there are factual answers to my questions....I just started reading about this case again and there is a lot more information then I can take in in one sitting :)

I also want to add that Wicca and Satanism are two COMPLETELY different things.
 
missy g,

I will attempt to give you my opinion on some of your concerns. There is an ongoing discussion about the case at www.wm3blackboard.com. Many of your questions and concerns are discussed there in detail, including an explanation of the Manhole Theory.

1. I believe the boys were murdered or left to die in a manhole very near the discovery ditch. Since the manhole was covered, it offered concealment for the bodies until the killer could move them to the ditch. The bodies were moved because the killer believed that evidence might be found in the manhole. No vehicle would be necessary as the distance between the manhole and the discovery ditch was only about 100 feet, IIRC. The shoelaces were used to hog tie the bodies for transport like TH learned in a slaughterhouse. As to why LE never tested manholes for blood with Luminol, your guess is as good as mine. It's just another example of the ineptness of the WMPD.

2. The boys were stripped because Stevie was wearing red shorts, not jeans, when he was killed. Pam told LE that he was wearing jeans. TH claimed that he had not seen the boys at all on May 5th, so he felt that the shorts had to be changed to the jeans that Pam mentioned. When he tried to put the jeans on the body, he couldn't. Instead of leaving Stevie naked and the other boys clothed, he decided to strip all three (not wanting to call special attention to Stevie). He submerged the clothes, using a stick to make them stay down. IIRC, there was one pair of underwear missing.

3. Burnett and the prosecution tried to block a lot of the testing that the defense wanted to conduct after the convictions. I don't know if the perineal hair was not tested for this reason or for some other reason. IIRC, since the evidentiary hearing has been ordered, more items have been tested. Hopefully, the perineal hair is among them.

4. Why is so much attention being focused now on TH? Partially because his mtDNA was found at the discovery ditch and new testimony has called into question part of his alibi. JMB began to change his mind about the WM3 when the mtDNA was identified. At the time of the murders, he was heavily medicated and, as you noted, has since repented of his actions. Also, since the DNA was discovered, TH unsuccessfully sued Natalie Maines Pasdar and the Dixie Chicks for defamation of character. That allowed attorneys for Ms. Pasdar to do what the WMPD didn't but should have at the time of the crime - investigate TH. A lot of interesting things emerged during that investigation.

5. The TH beard hair was in the ligature of Michael Moore, but the Jacoby hair was laying on a tree stump. Jacoby has testified that he and TH were playing guitars between 5:15 pm and 6:15 pm on the night of May 5th. I believe that TH picked up the Jacoby hair then and left it at the discovery site later when he moved the bodies.

6. What evidence ties the WM3 to the discovery site? None. All three had long hair, but not one of their hairs was found at the discovery site. Every piece of biological evidence that has been tested has excluded the WM3 as its contributor. The only physical evidence that the prosecution presented in 1994 was fiber evidence that even their expert said could not be conclusively linked to the WM3 and a knife found in a lake about a month after the crime which new experts now say is not responsible for any of the wounds on the boys. The wounds formerly attributed to the knife are now believed by experts to be the result of post or peri mortem animal predation.

7. You're exactly right about Wicca being different from Satanism. At the time of the crimes, "Satanic panic" was so prevalent in the community that they just railroaded the WM3 and attempted to paint them with the brush of Satanism. I don't believe anyone believes that scenario any more.

I hope that this information helps you in some way. Again, let me invite you to www.wm3blackboard.com to have your questions answered. We have several attorneys and many other people well-versed in the case who will be happy to answer your questions.
 
Thank you CR, I knew all the answers to my questions it's just very frustrating.

I'm wondering what other type of evidence there is. In the latest interview (that I have seen) Damien says that there is more evidence he's just not allowed to talk about it. I'm so curious now.

I just registered for wm3blackboard I just haven't posted anything yet. There are still a lot of posts that I want to read. I have seriously been up since 9am this morning (it is 1:30am now) reading about this case. I can't help myself and I can't make myself stop...lol...There is still a ton more information that I need to read.

Even though it's outdated, I also ordered a used copy of The Devil's Knot on Amazon. I will probably already know everything that book says, but I figure it's worth a read, or even a skim...
 
Hi, Missy: You are also welcome to register at West Memphis Three Hoax, it is a Non supporter site but supporters and fence sitters are welcome to post any question, topic they may have about this case.

There are people on there who have REALLY done their research on the case.

If you have any questions they would be more than happy to answer them.

http://wm3hoax.downonthefarm.org/board/index.php
 
missy g,

As you said, Devil's Knot is a little outdated. However, Mara Leveritt did a lot of research, and the book is very well documented. For that reason, it's a good thing to read. Yes, we are all anxiously awaiting the hearings so the new evidence can come to light. However, I don't want anyone to rush the process and make a mistake. Remember, if the hearing doesn't grant a new trial, which it may not (it's being held in Arkansas, after all), then Damien will proceed to the Federal level with his appeals. One last thing, people at the blackboard have done their research, too, in case you couldn't tell. One word of caution: the language at the hoax board can get raunchy. Just sayin' ......
 
Thank you for inviting me to join the other boards. I really want to see both sides.

When I stumbled across the wm3hoax board I didn't even know it was a wm3 board because that particular post was very snarky and unprofessional I guess? It seemed like everyone was just saying they were guilty with no proof. That was the post I read but I am going to be reading more.

I plan on reading more opinions from both sides. It's really hard to get several opinions when most boards are full of supporters.
 
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. My opinion is based on years of working with students of Jessie's age with similar IQs, and to me, the mental capacity of a five year old in many ways, especially their succeptibility to manipulation, is a good comparison for Jessie's actions.

Again I'll ask you - how many of your "mentally challenged" students confessed to such a crime, confessed again, was convicted of murder, then confessed several more times, when his lawyer begged him not to?
 
None. That proves ... ?

As I explained to you in another thread, the situations that I encountered with my students were similar, not identical. The connection is the propensity for one of such a low IQ to be manipulated. Also, those with low IQ's are prone to try to "hide" their mental disability by saying what they think their questioner wants to hear, whether or not it's true. IMO, the WMPD, knowing that Jessie was mentally challenged, coerced a false statement, which just happened to implicate Jessie himself, so they could arrest Damien. The actions of the WMPD in this instance were, IMO, despicable.
 
Everytime someone says that people believe in their innocence then they must do it because celebrities thinks so or because of Paradise Lost docs and they are bandwagoners. Just saying.

I've followed this case since its birth. I lived 100 miles north of where the events occured and read about it daily until they were convicted and then, yes I later on I seen the Paradise Lost docs. But I didn't make up my mind.

Then in 2000 when I got the internet I followed this case again up until this very moment and still can't make up my mind. I've read every single thing available on this case. I'm deadlocked. I think I would make the worst juror in the history jurors.

But I've always had an opinion on whether one was guilty or innocent in all cases I've followed. Just not this one for some reason. I just don't know and maybe one day I will. But I don't think they will get out of prison even with new evidence involved. By the time that happens they will be old a gray or dead.
 
I, too, have followed this case for a long time. However, I am firmly convinced that the WM3 are innocent. I won't enumerate my reasons here as I have done so repeatedly. What I will suggest is that you follow the upcoming hearing in December (as I'm sure you will). I have every confidence that the defense will present information that will make the real killer evident.

The only question then will be if the WMPD have the intestinal fortitude to follow up on the information presented by the defense and investigate, try and convict the real killer of those three little boys. I'm afraid that they won't follow up. I believe that Judge Laser will order new trials, but I also believe that the State will not retry the WM3.

The WM3 will be freed, but the real killer will remain free because, for some reason unknown to me, the real killer is like the Teflon Don. Nothing seems to stick to him. We'll just have to wait and see. December should be interesting, to say the least!

ETA: BTW, my belief in the innocence of the WM3 has absolutely nothing to do with celebrities. I formed my own opinions from reading books, reading at callahan's and reading lots of information on the Internet - and not just supporter information. I realize that some people could be swayed by what celebrities think, but that's not the case for me or most of the supporters I know.

I base my opinions on the information and evidence about the case that I have read, but I don't believe blindly, as some do, that just because two juries judged them guilty, then they are guilty. IMO, that would be as narrow-minded as just reading one side or just reading the trial transcripts without reading the pretrial hearings and other legal proceedings available on other sites. To be truly informed, one must look at both sides. I have done this, and I am firmly convinced of the innocence of the WM3.
 
Let me clarify that what I meant was people get accused of supporting the WM3 because of celebrities and the paradise lost docs.

Anyway I'm looking forward to the hearing in December and I will continue to reading everything I can again as I have for a long time. There are alot of details that to me seemed as though everything was rushed just to convict somebody or anybody for that matter. They weren't really being rational. That's the conclusion I've been coming to in recent years.
 
Yes, JBounds, I also felt that there was a rush to judgement. They latched on to Damien early in the investigation and, instead of investigating properly (i.e., looking for information that would lead them to the killer) they looked for information that would prove their theory - that Damien Echols was involved and it was a cult killing. The people in the region (including those on the juries) were so frightened that they, too, latched on to the line the cops were feeding them. So, the WM3 were railroaded.

I believe that any rational person would agree that, at the very least, a new trial should be ordered. If the case against the WM3 is still as strong as Gitchell claimed back in 1994, then there should be no trouble convicting them again. If the information presented at the hearing reveals another more viable suspect, then they should drop the charges against the WM3 and pursue the investigation of that suspect. This is merely common sense and justice IMO.

One more thing. It's important to remember that we have an appeals process in this country for the simple reason that juries consist of fallible human beings who get the verdict wrong on occasion. As I said before, failure to consider that possibility is narrow-minded, to say the least.
 
Why?

What is it that prevents you from even considering the possibility that these convicts are guilty?

You demand Misskelley was coerced into a false confession without so much as an accusation from Misskelley himself in 15 years.

Your knee-jerk reaction to every single witness against the convicts is a blanket dismissal of every single one of them with no rational explaination what so ever.

What is it that makes you need to believe these convicts are innocent?

I'm pretty positive they are innocent, the most apparent reason is there is nothing and I mean nothing to connect them to this crime. Yes Misskelley did have a rather absurd confession against him in his trial and I can kind of understand how he was found guilty, but that confession was not used in the Echols and Baldwin trial, I'm at a loss as to how they were convicted. It was a witch hunt, plain and simple. I'm not just going off the Paradise Lost movies here, I've also read Devil's Knot, but most importantly I have extensively gone over the entire case over on Callahans.
On a side note, I'm not someone who thinks everyone is innocent, Assata Shakur: Guilty, Leonard Peltier: Guilty, Mumia Abu-Jamal: Guilty, Amanda Knox: Guilty, Casey Anthony: Guilty (you'd have to be brain dead to think different here), all IMO of course. Also I do not relate to the accused at all, I was a jock in H.S. and since have been in the military and law enforcement, so it isn't that. I just call it like I see it and to me these guys are innocent.
 
I Must Break You,

Have you read Lloyd Warford's affidavit? I believe it's on callahan's. He tells a compelling story about the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial, Kent Arnold, who was afraid that the case was weak against Damien and Jason and illegally introduced the Misskelley statement into the deliberations. Some jurors have since said that it was an important reason why they voted for conviction.

This blatant juror misconduct was over ruled by then-Judge Burnett on the grounds that it wasn't introduced in a timely manner. Lloyd Warford had at first made his statement as a sealed affidavit because at the time Kent Arnold told him, Warford was Arnold's attorney and thought that the communication was under attorney-client privelege. When the contents of the affidavit were made public, the defense immediately sought redress under juror misconduct issues. This affidavit is one of the documents that Judge Laser will be weighing in his decision in December.
 
I'm pretty positive they are innocent, the most apparent reason is there is nothing and I mean nothing to connect them to this crime. Yes Misskelley did have a rather absurd confession against him in his trial and I can kind of understand how he was found guilty, but that confession was not used in the Echols and Baldwin trial, I'm at a loss as to how they were convicted. It was a witch hunt, plain and simple. I'm not just going off the Paradise Lost movies here, I've also read Devil's Knot, but most importantly I have extensively gone over the entire case over on Callahans.
On a side note, I'm not someone who thinks everyone is innocent, Assata Shakur: Guilty, Leonard Peltier: Guilty, Mumia Abu-Jamal: Guilty, Amanda Knox: Guilty, Casey Anthony: Guilty (you'd have to be brain dead to think different here), all IMO of course. Also I do not relate to the accused at all, I was a jock in H.S. and since have been in the military and law enforcement, so it isn't that. I just call it like I see it and to me these guys are innocent.

Welcome, to WS! You are not alone in believing that a lot of people are guilty as charged.
 
I Must Break You,

Have you read Lloyd Warford's affidavit? I believe it's on callahan's. He tells a compelling story about the jury foreman in the Echols/Baldwin trial, Kent Arnold, who was afraid that the case was weak against Damien and Jason and illegally introduced the Misskelley statement into the deliberations. Some jurors have since said that it was an important reason why they voted for conviction.

This blatant juror misconduct was over ruled by then-Judge Burnett on the grounds that it wasn't introduced in a timely manner. Lloyd Warford had at first made his statement as a sealed affidavit because at the time Kent Arnold told him, Warford was Arnold's attorney and thought that the communication was under attorney-client privelege. When the contents of the affidavit were made public, the defense immediately sought redress under juror misconduct issues. This affidavit is one of the documents that Judge Laser will be weighing in his decision in December.

I simply don't understand how there can be a time limit on revealing juror misconduct in a CAPITAL case!
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
3,611
Total visitors
3,786

Forum statistics

Threads
592,513
Messages
17,970,145
Members
228,790
Latest member
MelonyAnn
Back
Top