Random things about this case...

The boys were not found in a stagnant puddle. Water, blood, and other evidence moved away from the crime scene. The boys were found submerged in a ditch/creek (yes, it is called a creek in many documents) that drained into a major rain-water runoff drainage canal and it had rained moderately two days before the murders.
http://www.worldnewsinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/West-Memphis-Three-crime-scene-photo.jpg

Around 1:45 p.m., Juvenile Parole Officer Steve Jones spotted a boy's black shoe floating in a muddy creek that led to a major drainage canal in Robin Hood Hills. A subsequent search of the ditch revealed the bodies of three boys. They were stripped naked and had been hogtied with their own shoelaces: their right ankles tied to their right wrists behind their backs, the same with their left arms and legs. Their clothing was found in the creek, some of it twisted around sticks that had been thrust into the muddy ditch bed.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three"]West Memphis Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
http://web.archive.org/web/20070623012549/http://www.wm3.org/live/caseintroduction/synopsis_burk.php
 
Asst. Chief of the West Memphis Police Department and was a sergeant in 1993. Allen testified that in the process of retrieving a tennis shoe that had been earlier spotted floating in the water, he fell in. He was knee- to thigh-deep in the water when he felt with his leg something in the water. When he lifted his leg, he discovered the first body, which had not been visible and “kind of floated to the top.” He testified that the water was not totally stagnant but was not moving very fast, that the bottom felt “kind of mucky,”. Detective Bryn Ridge searched downstream and located the two other children.
 
The boys were not found in a stagnant puddle.

Who said puddle? Quote me where I said that, or stop using the word.

It was a muddy, stagnant drainage ditch between 2 and 2 and a half foot deep. The children were pressed face down into the mud at the bottom of the ditch, and their clothes were wrapped around a stick which was pushed down into the mud.

I'm not getting into a game of semantics with you, and I'm certainly not playing semantics via Wikipedia. I've seen the crime scene many times, both photos of it, and crime scene footage, which includes men standing in the ditch and the water barely reaches their knees.

Btw, which prosecution witness, if any, do you believe about the TOD?
 
This is gross, but while we on the topic of where the boys were found, was there no bloating of the bodies that is associated with any length of time submerged in water? I've seen some photos of the boys, but mostly just close-ups of injuries. I can't tell if there was bloat.
 
Shortened for brevity.

Please cite a legitimate link that proves that Dr. Perretti did not pass his board certification exam. I have looked and cannot find evidence that he failed.

Dr. Peretti may have never taken his board certification exam. Many older doctors never took their board certifying exams because the exam is expensive, only offered in very specific locations (usually in the NE or Chicago) which requires money and time off work to reach the destination, it is NOT requirement to practice medicine, and it may not have increased their income if they did pass the expensive exam.

From the Rule 37 Abstract:

"I was not successful in passing the examination for board certification, and therefore am not board certified as a forensic pathologist."

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_peretti.html
 
Here's something that has always bugged me: O'Tinger testified that she saw the boys cut through her yard and head towards Goodwin Circle (close to RH Woods). Michael was on a bike, Stevie was walking, and they met up with Chris there, who was also on foot. This was shortly before 6 pm, because she was getting into her truck to go to dinner at her mother's house, and dinner was at 6:00. Bryan Woody claims to have seen 4 boys, one with spiked blond hair, entering RH Woods near the dead end of Goodwin St sometime around 6:30. In his account, there were 4 boys, 2 bikes, and one of the boys was carrying a skateboard. According to Mark Byers police statement Dana Moore told him that she'd been out walking the dog and had seen Stevie, Michael and Christopher around 6:15 or 6:30. According to what Byers says, Moore told him that Stevie and Michael were on their bikes, and Christopher was on the back of the bike with Stevie. Byers also says that Moore told him that Christopher's skateboard appeared to be laying in the street. Byers goes on to confirm that it was indeed Christopher's skateboard Moore saw in the street.

For all of these accounts to jibe, here's what had to have occurred (if we're going on the face value of the statements):

Some time between 6:00 and 6:30, Steve Branch would have had to return home to get his bike, and then returned to meet the other boys back at the entrance to the woods at the deadend at Goodwin, or all 3 boys would have had to go pick up Stevies bike and all 3 double back to where Woody saw them at 6:30. According to Woody, one of the boys he saw was carrying a skateboard. Dana Moore (according to Byers) saw Christopher's skate board in the street. Byers account doesn't state which street, but it does state that Moore was walking her dog around the block, and since both O'Tinger and Woody saw the boys at Goodwin, it's a fair assumption to say the skateboard was left on Goodwin. Now, since Byers confirms that the skateboard was indeed Christopher's, he had to have seen it in the street to confirm that, correct? If Moore sees the skateboard in the street between 6:15 and 6:30, and Woody sees the boys going into RH Woods around 6:30, and one of them is carrying a skateboard, Byers would have had to have seen the skateboard in the street sometime between 6:15 and 6:30. If he DID see the skateboard, and he must have, or else how could he confirm it belonged to Christopher, then he had to have simply left the board lying there in the street. If Woody is correct in what he states, then Christopher had to have come back and got the skateboard between 6:15 and 6:30.

Curiously enough, according to Byers, the beating Christopher got that day was over him riding his skateboard in the middle of the street.

So...did LE ever try to locate this skateboard? I would certainly think that that would be something they'd have alot of interest in...and yet, I've never heard a word about it.
 
Here's something that has always bugged me: O'Tinger testified that she saw the boys cut through her yard and head towards Goodwin Circle (close to RH Woods). Michael was on a bike, Stevie was walking, and they met up with Chris there, who was also on foot. This was shortly before 6 pm, because she was getting into her truck to go to dinner at her mother's house, and dinner was at 6:00. Bryan Woody claims to have seen 4 boys, one with spiked blond hair, entering RH Woods near the dead end of Goodwin St sometime around 6:30. In his account, there were 4 boys, 2 bikes, and one of the boys was carrying a skateboard. According to Mark Byers police statement Dana Moore told him that she'd been out walking the dog and had seen Stevie, Michael and Christopher around 6:15 or 6:30. According to what Byers says, Moore told him that Stevie and Michael were on their bikes, and Christopher was on the back of the bike with Stevie. Byers also says that Moore told him that Christopher's skateboard appeared to be laying in the street. Byers goes on to confirm that it was indeed Christopher's skateboard Moore saw in the street.

For all of these accounts to jibe, here's what had to have occurred (if we're going on the face value of the statements):

Some time between 6:00 and 6:30, Steve Branch would have had to return home to get his bike, and then returned to meet the other boys back at the entrance to the woods at the deadend at Goodwin, or all 3 boys would have had to go pick up Stevies bike and all 3 double back to where Woody saw them at 6:30. According to Woody, one of the boys he saw was carrying a skateboard. Dana Moore (according to Byers) saw Christopher's skate board in the street. Byers account doesn't state which street, but it does state that Moore was walking her dog around the block, and since both O'Tinger and Woody saw the boys at Goodwin, it's a fair assumption to say the skateboard was left on Goodwin. Now, since Byers confirms that the skateboard was indeed Christopher's, he had to have seen it in the street to confirm that, correct? If Moore sees the skateboard in the street between 6:15 and 6:30, and Woody sees the boys going into RH Woods around 6:30, and one of them is carrying a skateboard, Byers would have had to have seen the skateboard in the street sometime between 6:15 and 6:30. If he DID see the skateboard, and he must have, or else how could he confirm it belonged to Christopher, then he had to have simply left the board lying there in the street. If Woody is correct in what he states, then Christopher had to have come back and got the skateboard between 6:15 and 6:30.

Curiously enough, according to Byers, the beating Christopher got that day was over him riding his skateboard in the middle of the street.

So...did LE ever try to locate this skateboard? I would certainly think that that would be something they'd have alot of interest in...and yet, I've never heard a word about it.

For some reason, I was under the impression that when JMB and Christopher's brother got back from court, the brother went and got the skateboard out of the street. Perhaps a fourth boy was there and he was carrying a skateboard and two of the boys were on one bike. Wasn't there another little boy who claimed that he saw the boys get killed in the woods by Damien and the others, but then recanted his statement and said it was wasn't the WM3, but actually one of the boys' stepfathers?

I may be wrong on this, so I am asking if I am remembering this right, rather than stating a fact. If there were a lot of kids out there while the boys were out there, the fourth, if he was there, may have been on the other side of the street or something. I know that when my kids are all playing with their friends, they cross the street from time to time and play and I can never really keep track of how many boys are out there unless I keep going outside, around the back, to the boy across the street's house and yard, etc. If I do that, then I am not standing at my post, lol. Often, one that I thought went home was still there, just not where I could see him between the two yards at the time. When the kids friends come over, I try to keep an eye on all of them, but mine are my main concern and once they are accounted for, that's about all of the checking I do (but I notice which ones were there that I saw and when one has not been seen in a while, I assume they have gone home, since I stand post at the only spot they could be taken and anyone actually be able to leave with them without busting through one of their own backyards. As long as no one gets past me, they may be on their way home. KWIM?

ETA: Also, I find it more odd that people would have expected the neighbors to come forward and tell that they had seen TH calling to the boys that day than I find it odd that they didn't tell. If I saw the kids being called to a neighbor's house by a neighbor I would most certainly head straight to police with this information. But if one of the kids was missing on my street and the only place that I saw them was on their way home, specifically to a calling parent, I would probably just say that I last saw them heading to the house. I wouldn't think to say "Hey! Did you know they were with one of their parents" I would just naturally expect that they had seen them at some point during the day, either before or after school and certainly once home, because who doesn't look for their 8 year old when they get come from work just to touch base and know they are there. My kids are only 6 and 7, but I see no end in sight for our house being the place where everyone plays, because I don't let my kids go to friend's houses yet without me. I don't know when I will ever feel comfortable with that. And it is not my place to really tell other people how to parent. I feel like at least if they are coming to my house, I can keep the best eye I can on all of them and at least someone is watching them, and I doubt that the parents that let their kids jump on their bikes would watch my kids as well as I keep an eye on theirs, or would stand watch at the exit to the neighborhood the whole time they are out there.
 
For some reason, I was under the impression that when JMB and Christopher's brother got back from court, the brother went and got the skateboard out of the street. Perhaps a fourth boy was there and he was carrying a skateboard and two of the boys were on one bike. Wasn't there another little boy who claimed that he saw the boys get killed in the woods by Damien and the others, but then recanted his statement and said it was wasn't the WM3, but actually one of the boys' stepfathers?

I may be wrong on this, so I am asking if I am remembering this right, rather than stating a fact. If there were a lot of kids out there while the boys were out there, the fourth, if he was there, may have been on the other side of the street or something. I know that when my kids are all playing with their friends, they cross the street from time to time and play and I can never really keep track of how many boys are out there unless I keep going outside, around the back, to the boy across the street's house and yard, etc. If I do that, then I am not standing at my post, lol. Often, one that I thought went home was still there, just not where I could see him between the two yards at the time. When the kids friends come over, I try to keep an eye on all of them, but mine are my main concern and once they are accounted for, that's about all of the checking I do (but I notice which ones were there that I saw and when one has not been seen in a while, I assume they have gone home, since I stand post at the only spot they could be taken and anyone actually be able to leave with them without busting through one of their own backyards. As long as no one gets past me, they may be on their way home. KWIM?

ETA: Also, I find it more odd that people would have expected the neighbors to come forward and tell that they had seen TH calling to the boys that day than I find it odd that they didn't tell. If I saw the kids being called to a neighbor's house by a neighbor I would most certainly head straight to police with this information. But if one of the kids was missing on my street and the only place that I saw them was on their way home, specifically to a calling parent, I would probably just say that I last saw them heading to the house. I wouldn't think to say "Hey! Did you know they were with one of their parents" I would just naturally expect that they had seen them at some point during the day, either before or after school and certainly once home, because who doesn't look for their 8 year old when they get come from work just to touch base and know they are there. My kids are only 6 and 7, but I see no end in sight for our house being the place where everyone plays, because I don't let my kids go to friend's houses yet without me. I don't know when I will ever feel comfortable with that. And it is not my place to really tell other people how to parent. I feel like at least if they are coming to my house, I can keep the best eye I can on all of them and at least someone is watching them, and I doubt that the parents that let their kids jump on their bikes would watch my kids as well as I keep an eye on theirs, or would stand watch at the exit to the neighborhood the whole time they are out there.

Aaron Hutcheson claimed to have witnessed the murders, but there is absolutely no way any person with half a brain could give his account any weight, imo. Is it possible he was the 4th kid seen by Woody? It's possible. But he didn't witness the murders of these boys...his account is just FILLED with fantasy. In addition to that, as an adult, he now says he doesn't know whether he saw the murders or not. If I were 4 years old and witnessed the murder of 3 kids, I'm absolutely sure I'd never forget it. And Aaron wasn't a 4 year old.

As for the neighbor who came forward recently to say that she saw Terry Hobbs tell the boys to get home on the day of the murders, I find her reasoning for coming forward now to be very credible. She claims that she never knew TH had said he hadn't seen the boys that day, so she had no reason to recount the incident where she saw him talking to the boys. The problem with her statements, however, is that they came too late. Memories fade over time, things get mixed up, doubts are raised. If I were an attorney representing Terry Hobbs, believe me, I would have no problem shredding that testimony. And if I couldn't, heck, so what? Just cop to TH playing hookey from work that day and claim that he lied about seeing the boys because he didn't want Pam to know he didn't go to work. Without any other evidence...pfffft. Hair in a shoelace? So what? The boys played together at my clients house...hairs transfer. Pffft, pfffft, pffffft.

Don't get me wrong, I'd give anything is the killer/killers of these kids could be brought to justice, but because this investigation was so shoddy from the jump, I don't see any way that's ever going to happen. :banghead:
 
There is much merit in what you say, Mountain Kat. However, this part doesn't make any sense....

Just cop to TH playing hookey from work that day and claim that he lied about seeing the boys because he didn't want Pam to know he didn't go to work.

TH not going to work has no connection to him seeing the boys at between 6.30pm and 7 pm that evening. He finished work at 3.30 pm, so lying about not seeing the boys wouldn't have any relevance to him trying to hide playing hookey.
 
Aaron Hutcheson claimed to have witnessed the murders, but there is absolutely no way any person with half a brain could give his account any weight, imo. Is it possible he was the 4th kid seen by Woody? It's possible. But he didn't witness the murders of these boys...his account is just FILLED with fantasy. In addition to that, as an adult, he now says he doesn't know whether he saw the murders or not. If I were 4 years old and witnessed the murder of 3 kids, I'm absolutely sure I'd never forget it. And Aaron wasn't a 4 year old.

As for the neighbor who came forward recently to say that she saw Terry Hobbs tell the boys to get home on the day of the murders, I find her reasoning for coming forward now to be very credible. She claims that she never knew TH had said he hadn't seen the boys that day, so she had no reason to recount the incident where she saw him talking to the boys. The problem with her statements, however, is that they came too late. Memories fade over time, things get mixed up, doubts are raised. If I were an attorney representing Terry Hobbs, believe me, I would have no problem shredding that testimony. And if I couldn't, heck, so what? Just cop to TH playing hookey from work that day and claim that he lied about seeing the boys because he didn't want Pam to know he didn't go to work. Without any other evidence...pfffft. Hair in a shoelace? So what? The boys played together at my clients house...hairs transfer. Pffft, pfffft, pffffft.

Don't get me wrong, I'd give anything is the killer/killers of these kids could be brought to justice, but because this investigation was so shoddy from the jump, I don't see any way that's ever going to happen. :banghead:

Thanks! I haven't found the info on this other kid yet. I just remembered reading something about him existing and your post reminded me of that. Good to know. I can't see him not remembering either. If that were the case, he might come up with it years later after having blocked it out, but I don't see him blocking it out after discussing it and changing stories and that being valid. Thanks again!
 
For some reason, I was under the impression that when JMB and Christopher's brother got back from court, the brother went and got the skateboard out of the street. Perhaps a fourth boy was there and he was carrying a skateboard and two of the boys were on one bike. Wasn't there another little boy who claimed that he saw the boys get killed in the woods by Damien and the others, but then recanted his statement and said it was wasn't the WM3, but actually one of the boys' stepfathers?

I may be wrong on this, so I am asking if I am remembering this right, rather than stating a fact. If there were a lot of kids out there while the boys were out there, the fourth, if he was there, may have been on the other side of the street or something. I know that when my kids are all playing with their friends, they cross the street from time to time and play and I can never really keep track of how many boys are out there unless I keep going outside, around the back, to the boy across the street's house and yard, etc. If I do that, then I am not standing at my post, lol. Often, one that I thought went home was still there, just not where I could see him between the two yards at the time. When the kids friends come over, I try to keep an eye on all of them, but mine are my main concern and once they are accounted for, that's about all of the checking I do (but I notice which ones were there that I saw and when one has not been seen in a while, I assume they have gone home, since I stand post at the only spot they could be taken and anyone actually be able to leave with them without busting through one of their own backyards. As long as no one gets past me, they may be on their way home. KWIM?

ETA: Also, I find it more odd that people would have expected the neighbors to come forward and tell that they had seen TH calling to the boys that day than I find it odd that they didn't tell. If I saw the kids being called to a neighbor's house by a neighbor I would most certainly head straight to police with this information. But if one of the kids was missing on my street and the only place that I saw them was on their way home, specifically to a calling parent, I would probably just say that I last saw them heading to the house. I wouldn't think to say "Hey! Did you know they were with one of their parents" I would just naturally expect that they had seen them at some point during the day, either before or after school and certainly once home, because who doesn't look for their 8 year old when they get come from work just to touch base and know they are there. My kids are only 6 and 7, but I see no end in sight for our house being the place where everyone plays, because I don't let my kids go to friend's houses yet without me. I don't know when I will ever feel comfortable with that. And it is not my place to really tell other people how to parent. I feel like at least if they are coming to my house, I can keep the best eye I can on all of them and at least someone is watching them, and I doubt that the parents that let their kids jump on their bikes would watch my kids as well as I keep an eye on theirs, or would stand watch at the exit to the neighborhood the whole time they are out there.

BBM, I haven't read most of this thread but I just wanted to chime in on this because I just started re-reading Devil's Knot and just passed the part about the skateboard the other day, Mara Leveritt did say that this is what happened (Ryan getting the skateboard out of the street after being picked up from court). I don't have the book at hand right now but this was based on either Ryan or JMB's account of events (or both).

Leveritt also talks a lot about Aaron H. in Devil's Knot, well worth the read if you haven't yet.
 
BBM, I haven't read most of this thread but I just wanted to chime in on this because I just started re-reading Devil's Knot and just passed the part about the skateboard the other day, Mara Leveritt did say that this is what happened (Ryan getting the skateboard out of the street after being picked up from court). I don't have the book at hand right now but this was based on either Ryan or JMB's account of events (or both).

Leveritt also talks a lot about Aaron H. in Devil's Knot, well worth the read if you haven't yet.

I haven't read it, but thank you!! I wish that I could remember where I saw that about the skateboard too. For some reason, I am thinking that when I was reading that information it was from the perspective of JMB. Like he said to Ryan to go see if it was his and he ran down the street a bit and got it, but I can't remember where now. It was while I was looking for the info on the candle wax, so I am thinking that I had to have seen it in a statement on Callahan's because I was trying to stay away from other boards or blogs. That is going to drive me nuts. I will try to find it again in a bit.
 
I don't know if this has been posted before, but what about the information concerning Stevie Branch's stepfather Terry Hobbs? The info below comes from a WM3 support site, that claims Hobbs' DNA was found at the crime scene, but NO DNA from the defendants was found.

Has Mr. Hobbs ever taken a polygraph test? What would be the motive for Mr. Hobbs doing the killings if he did? Did he know "Mr. Bojangles" who was seen covered in dirt, blood, and vomit in a restroom, but police lost the evidence?

If Mr. Hobbs is guilty, I think he would have had to have an accomplice with him to participate in the murders? If Mr. Hobbs is not guilty, his DNA shows that he was still in the area, and acted suspiciously in the hours and days after the murders. It seems at lest that Terry Hobbs knows something, far more powerful than the guilt by association assumptions of the prosecution.

http://wm3.org/News/view/NEW-EYEWITNESSES

Satch

************************


New Eyewitnesses: 3 Boys Last Seen Alive With Terry Hobbs
October 12, 2009

Three eyewitnesses have come forward and provided sworn statements that they saw Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore with Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Steven Branch, at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 5, 1993, immediately before the time the boys disappeared. Hobbs was calling loudly at the children and ordering them to return to his house. The new evidence establishes that the last person who had custody of the three boys before they vanished and died was Terry Hobbs. Jamie Clark Ballard, who lived only three doors down from Terry and Pam Hobbs, has supplied a sworn affidavit, as have both her mother and her sister.

Based upon this new evidence, a motion on behalf of Damien Echols was delivered today to the Arkansas Supreme Court asking the court to order the matter to the Circuit Court to permit further factual development of Echols’s claims of actual innocence.

Ballard states in her sworn affidavit that, “Between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., I saw Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers playing in my backyard. I am absolutely, completely and totally positive that I saw Terry Hobbs hollering at Stevie, Michael and Christopher to get back down to the Hobbs house at approximately 6:30 pm. If Terry Hobbs said he did not see Stevie Branch, Michael Moore or Christopher Byers on May 5, 1993, he is not telling the truth. I know for a fact that Terry Hobbs saw, was with and spoke to Stevie, Michael or Christopher on May 5, 1993.”

Hobbs has repeatedly said that he never saw the three boys the day they were murdered. In fact, during a recent civil deposition of Terry Hobbs, dated July 21, 2009, Hobbs stated, for the first time under oath, that he never saw his stepson, Steven Branch, at any time on May 5, 1993. Under oath he was asked, “It’s your testimony that you did not see Stevie Branch at all the day of May 5th of 1993. Correct?” Hobbs answer: “Correct.” “Did you see Stevie at all that day, May 5th?” Answer: “No, I did not.” “Did you see any of the three boys that day?” Answer: “No, I did not. No I never seen Stevie that day.”

Police never questioned Terry Hobbs during the original investigation of the crimes, but after new evidence was revealed that his DNA was found at the crime scene in 2007, he was questioned by West Memphis Police Department on June 21, 2007. In that interview he stated numerous times to Detective Mitchell that he did not see the boys at any time that day. Officer Mitchell asked Terry Hobbs about what time he got home from work, and he responds roughly about 3-3:30 p.m. He was then asked if he saw Stevie anywhere. His answer: “I did not, he wasn’t there.”

According to the motion prepared by Dennis Riordan and Don Horgan, Echols attorneys, “It has previously been established that Hobbs was never questioned by police during the original investigation of the crimes, despite the fact that the lead detective in the investigation of the murders has conceded that when a child homicide occurs, police should always consider the parents of the child as potential suspects, and that it is “statistically proven that homicide victims are usually the result of family, close friends, [and] known acquaintances” DNA evidence submitted to the Circuit Court in the § 16‑112‑201 proceedings below links Hobbs to the ligature used to bind Michael Moore. A hair linked by DNA testing to David Jacoby, whom Hobbs had visited in the hour before the boys disappeared, was found at the crime scene. Hobbs, moreover, has been accused of assaultive conduct in the past. He has made bizarre and self-incriminating statements concerning his activities on the date the boys went missing. His whereabouts during a key early evening time period on May 5th have never been accounted for. Certain family members recalled that he had acted suspiciously on the date of the disappearance and the days that followed. His wife and other family members have voiced their belief that Hobbs was responsible for the killings.

“Considered in the context of all available evidence in these matters, the new revelations that Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Steven Branch, had Steven, Christopher, and Michael in his custody just before their disappearance and death, and that Hobbs has deliberately denied and concealed that critical fact, cannot reasonably be reconciled with the conclusion that appellants were responsible for the crimes of which they stand convicted.”

The eyewitnesses, who saw the boys in their backyard prior to returning to the Hobbs home, were never questioned by the police on the day of the murders. According to the affidavit of Jamie Clark Ballard, “Following the murders, the police never came to interview me or my family. In fact, after the murders, I do not recall ever seeing any police vehicles on my street or seeing any police interviewing any of the people in my neighborhood.”

Damien Echols case is currently under appeal in the Arkansas Supreme court seeking a new trial based upon new evidence. Dozens of pieces of evidence found at the crime scene conclusively show that no DNA from the murders matches Echols or the other two men. DNA testing, however, links Terry Hobbs, stepfather of one of the murdered children, to the crime scene, and other evidence has emerged implicating him in the crimes. In addition, scientific evidence from the nation’s leading forensics experts demonstrates that most of the wounds on the victims were caused by animals at the crime scene, after their deaths – not by knives used by the perpetrators, as the prosecution claimed and was the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case. Moreover, evidence presented that a knife recovered from a lake near one defendant’s home caused the wounds was completely discredited by the pathologists.

Echols’s also informed the Supreme Court that a prominent Arkansas attorney in a sworn affidavit has revealed improper conversations that the jury foreman held with the attorney while the original trial was in progress, clearly violating the law and the rights of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin to a fair and impartial trial. In those conversations, the jury foreman indicates that he had prejudged Echols’s guilt and was trying to convince other jurors to convict based upon news reports of the false confession of Jessie Misskelley, which was barred from admission at the Echols-Baldwin trial. During one conversation, the jury foreman told the attorney that the prosecution had presented a weak case, and that the prosecution had better present something powerful the next day (the end of the prosecution’s case) or it would be up to him to secure a conviction.
 
There is much merit in what you say, Mountain Kat. However, this part doesn't make any sense....



TH not going to work has no connection to him seeing the boys at between 6.30pm and 7 pm that evening. He finished work at 3.30 pm, so lying about not seeing the boys wouldn't have any relevance to him trying to hide playing hookey.

You got me there, Capp. I wasn't even thinking about the time the boys were seen. :doh: But I'm sure you understand where I was going with the thought. A good attorney could find a myriad of ways to explain away an inconsistency like that.
 
BBM, I haven't read most of this thread but I just wanted to chime in on this because I just started re-reading Devil's Knot and just passed the part about the skateboard the other day, Mara Leveritt did say that this is what happened (Ryan getting the skateboard out of the street after being picked up from court). I don't have the book at hand right now but this was based on either Ryan or JMB's account of events (or both).

Leveritt also talks a lot about Aaron H. in Devil's Knot, well worth the read if you haven't yet.

It's been a LONG time since I've read Mara's book. I didn't recall her covering the skateboard at all. Might be a good time to give that a quick re-read.

Thanks.
 
It's been a LONG time since I've read Mara's book. I didn't recall her covering the skateboard at all. Might be a good time to give that a quick re-read.

Thanks.

Here is something about the skateboard being found by Ryan...not what I was looking for, but something.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ryanclark.html

ETA: Found it! From JMB's statement (sorry for the caps, cut and paste from the transcription):

"SO, DANA SAID, DANA THEN TOLD ME, SHE SAID, WELL AROUND 6:15, 6:20, SHE SAID, I WAS WALKING OUR DOG AROUND THE BLOCK. AND SHE SAID, I SAW MICHAEL RIDING HIS BIKE. STEVIE WAS ON HIS BIKE AND CHRISTOPHER WAS ON THE BACK OF THE BIKE WITH STEVIE. AND DANA SAID, JUST ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE STREET HERE, LOOKS LIKE CHRISTOPHER'S SKATEBOARD. AND SURE ENOUGH, IT WAS HIS SKATEBOARD."

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmb1.html

...come to think of it, that isn't it either, because what I saw was hi saying Ryan went and got it but I'm workin on it. :)
 
You got me there, Capp. I wasn't even thinking about the time the boys were seen. :doh: But I'm sure you understand where I was going with the thought. A good attorney could find a myriad of ways to explain away an inconsistency like that.

Definitely agree, Hobbs lying might convict him in the court of public opinion, but its not enough for a real court.
 
JMB did say that he caught Chris riding on his stomach on his skateboard in the middle of the street. That's why he was punished. Ryan did identify a skateboard found in the street as Christopher's. Those things I remember from a discussion JMB had on the BB about whether or not Chris was running away. (JMB said he wasn't.)

I agree that TH not being at work on May 5, 1993, doesn't make him more than the liar we already knew him to be. As to his taking a polygraph, he has adamantly refused to take one. I understand why, and, as they are generally not admissible in court, it's really not important.

IMO, what will eventually convict TH is his tissue of lies. Not being at work on May 5, 1993 (which was revealed in a recent and very long article in the Commercial Appeal), is just one more lie. The physical evidence alone (mtDNA and footprints) can't convict, but, in tandem with the lies that he has told and the implications of some of them (primarily his alibi being questioned at two critical times), I believe that a case against him could be made.

Don't forget that the defense has implied that they have more evidence that would have been revealed at the evidentiary hearing in December. Once it all comes out, I have a feeling that the picture will be clear. I only hope and pray that all is soon revealed.
 
Aaron Hutcheson claimed to have witnessed the murders, but there is absolutely no way any person with half a brain could give his account any weight, imo. Is it possible he was the 4th kid seen by Woody? It's possible. But he didn't witness the murders of these boys...his account is just FILLED with fantasy. In addition to that, as an adult, he now says he doesn't know whether he saw the murders or not. If I were 4 years old and witnessed the murder of 3 kids, I'm absolutely sure I'd never forget it. And Aaron wasn't a 4 year old.

It's absolutely astonishing to me how this investigation was handled and how many "fantastic" statements from children and juveniles were made.
I hope you are wrong Mountain Kat and this case is not closed !
I also hope the LE administering these interrogations would be held accountable.
Aaron may very well have witnessed something that would matter in this case.
Maybe the Robin Hill Woods were a meeting spot for some sort of drug dealing or something along those lines.
He did not even know Jason and Damien and his description of Jessie is as a friend that's probably 12 years old.In his first account of events he does not implicate any of them.He talks about five men,one with a white shirt and a spider tattoo who drives a red convertible.I wonder if this person was ever found or looked for.

I keep thinking about the Buddy Lucas statement also.
The first one were he states Jessie gave him the tennis shoes in February because his were muddy when they went camping and his mom backs up his statement.
Then later LE drags him out of work,yells at him for 6 hours and all of a sudden he makes a statement that Jessie told him he was involved in the murders and gave him the shoes then.
Then he recants the statement.
It's just sick to me how the whole investigation was handled.
 
Aaron Hutcheson claimed to have witnessed the murders, but there is absolutely no way any person with half a brain could give his account any weight, imo. Is it possible he was the 4th kid seen by Woody? It's possible. But he didn't witness the murders of these boys...his account is just FILLED with fantasy. In addition to that, as an adult, he now says he doesn't know whether he saw the murders or not. If I were 4 years old and witnessed the murder of 3 kids, I'm absolutely sure I'd never forget it. And Aaron wasn't a 4 year old.

It's absolutely astonishing to me how this investigation was handled and how many "fantastic" statements from children and juveniles were made.
I hope you are wrong Mountain Kat and this case is not closed !
I also hope the LE administering these interrogations would be held accountable.
Aaron may very well have witnessed something that would matter in this case.
Maybe the Robin Hill Woods were a meeting spot for some sort of drug dealing or something along those lines.
He did not even know Jason and Damien and his description of Jessie is as a friend that's probably 12 years old.In his first account of events he does not implicate any of them.He talks about five men,one with a white shirt and a spider tattoo who drives a red convertible.I wonder if this person was ever found or looked for.

I keep thinking about the Buddy Lucas statement also.
The first one were he states Jessie gave him the tennis shoes in February because his were muddy when they went camping and his mom backs up his statement.
Then later LE drags him out of work,yells at him for 6 hours and all of a sudden he makes a statement that Jessie told him he was involved in the murders and gave him the shoes then.
Then he recants the statement.
It's just sick to me how the whole investigation was handled.

This case came to my attention prior to the 1st documentary. My father, had moved from California to AR several years before the murder occurred. The case was big there even before it went national. My father, a brilliant man by the way, initially believed the 3 were guilty. When I saw the documentary a few years later, I was floored. I called my Dad and said, "Hey, how come you never mentioned this or never mentioned that?". He had no clue what I was talking about. He'd read every news article about the case, had followed it very closely, and he'd never heard ANY of the issues with the case that I was asking him about. The news media presented what they wanted to present, the state cobbled together fantasy and bad evidence to create a "story", and people repeated half truths or outright lies as fact. That was what you had to go on with this case. Once my father saw the documentary, and did alot of digging into the facts, he did a complete 180. But if all he had to go on was the local media, the state, and local talk, he'd have died believing the Three were guilty.

My point in repeated all this is really just to say: I've come to find a place of patience with those who believe the WM3 are guilty. Unless you take the time to go over a mountain of evidence with a fine tooth comb, it's pretty easy to say hey, Jason Baldwin was found with a necklace that had one of the kids blood on it, or Jesse Misskelley had knowledge of the crime that no-one else had, or Damien confessed to several people, or so and so found a bloody stick in the closet of the trailer Echols used to live in. It's all hogwash, of course, but even hogwash will start to paint a picture if it all starts adding up and you never question any of it.

JMO (no offense intended towards those who are non-supporters)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
4,151
Total visitors
4,307

Forum statistics

Threads
593,628
Messages
17,990,031
Members
229,182
Latest member
nikkitafrombama
Back
Top