Questions and All Three HBO Specials Are On Demand Now!

[dogmatica]

Regarding JB not seeming like he could do this - I'll give you one glaring comparison. Jeffrey Dahmer. In every interview, he was meek, calm, soft spoken, and seemed very gentle and polite. Remind you of anyone? You absolutely CANNOT conclude that someone isn't capable of true evil simply by watching how they act.

If you're going to go by that line of thinking - then Echols is clearly an evil monster based on HIS behavior and words on camera.

You cannot have it both ways. Just like Misskelley being so profoundly stupid and malleable that he was "coerced" into confessing over and over and over again, but this stupidity and malleability evaporates when it comes to someone ON HIS SIDE trying to convince him of something. That is simply not how things work.

 

[reedus23]

To be honest,

I don't think we are ever going to know what happened here. What do you think ? Do you think that the WM3 are Guilty? Just maybe Damian? Or are they Innocent? Or we may never know?

Satch

I think the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that none were given a fair and impartial trial. Well, I guess the only other certainty is that the investigation worked with blinders on at best. Beyond that, they very well still might be guilty. Might very well be innocent. So of your options I'd say we may never know and anyone that is being reasonable would say the same thing. Even if you tend to believe in their guilt or their innocence, not a single one of us on this board (hopefully) KNOW what happened.

 

[reedus23]

They got a fair trial. And a fair verdict. And they made the right plea when they said "guilty your honor" in 2011.

Sorry if you already posted it, but I am still waiting on just one example of where prosecutors put convicted murderers on the street after having obtained guilty verdicts without their being some evidence of their innocence.

 

[reedus23]

People need to stop looking at this in the terms that the documentaries want you to look at it.

What the documentaries fail to divulge is the fact that many, many suspects were looked at, followed through on, and investigated before the WM3. This is a fact. Simpy visit Cally's.

It has been a while since I looked at Cally's or my notes, remind me, how soon after the murders did they officially interview Hobbs at the station? How long after the murders was JMB given a polygraph? How long after the murders before the first notes focusing in on Echols? I am completely going off the top of my head so correct me if I'm wrong, but I would suppose decades, years (if ever) and hours are the answers respectively.

 

[reedus23]

All true. Supporters "gotcha" that the WM3's DNA wasn't found isn't a gotcha at all.

3 adults had to have done this? Yeah, one adult and 2 almost adults did it. 3 guys in their late teens are more than capable of doing this to 3 8 year old children.

Why do you ignore all the evidence against them and work so hard to convince yourself they "railroaded" these guys?

I'm always baffled as to why supporters believe they are INNOCENT, not just "not guilty". What proof is there that they are INNOCENT? None.

Whoa! A lot have said that. Heck, I'm not even sure I'd go so far as to say they're "not guilty" because that would presume a fair and impartial trial was ever given in the first place.

Another question I have yet to see answered...Please point me to "all the evidence" that points to these 3 to the exclusion of others. I'll answer it. The confession(s). That's it. I already know, we will respectfully disagree whether that piece of evidence is even competent evidence much less whether it is sufficient in itself to convict.

 

[reedus23]

I also forget:

1.) Why wasn't JM allowed to have a lawyer during his 12 hour interrogation? That's just basic defendants rights that were ignored by LE.
2.) It is claimed that JM was interrogated for over 12 hours, but West Memphis, Arkansas PD only has 45 minutes of audio tape? Isn't there something illegal or at the very least unethical about that?
3.) Were these mentioned by defense either pre or post-trial? And if they were, why would the judge allow that evidence?


Satch

No. The confession never should have been allowed into evidence. There are multiple reasons it should not have been and I'm sure there is a thread here devoted to it. I don't like to say it was illegal because it makes it sound like a crime was committed but rights were definitely violated and yes very unethical.

 

[Satch]

I think the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that none were given a fair and impartial trial. Well, I guess the only other certainty is that the investigation worked with blinders on at best. Beyond that, they very well still might be guilty. Might very well be innocent. So of your options I'd say we may never know and anyone that is being reasonable would say the same thing. Even if you tend to believe in their guilt or their innocence, not a single one of us on this board (hopefully) KNOW what happened.

Not only a great post, but I believe the true nature of this case to this day! I also believe that because we may never know what happened, and because there is so much doubt and questionable evidence AND people in this case, that these three should not have been convicted. There are simply too many unknowns in this case for a conviction. Maybe they did it, but from my view it seems more likely that they did not do it. This belongs more on Unsolved Mysteries or a similar show than to have those kids in prison and one on Death Row until the Alford Plea was entered, when there is too much uncertainty if they did this or not.

Satch

 

[Userid]

It has been a while since I looked at Cally's or my notes, remind me, how soon after the murders did they officially interview Hobbs at the station? How long after the murders was JMB given a polygraph? How long after the murders before the first notes focusing in on Echols? I am completely going off the top of my head so correct me if I'm wrong, but I would suppose decades, years (if ever) and hours are the answers respectively.

JMB was investigated immediately. They took hair, blood, pubic hair (if I remember correctly). It was obvious he was the police's number one suspect initially. I don't remember if or when he was given a polygraph before the one PL2, or if he refused to take one initially while being investigated, but regardless, the police investigated him thoroughly -- JMB himself admits this.

TH argues that he did talk to police, but there is no record of it on Cally's. The only record of him talking to anyone is when he was deposed by the Dixie Chicks, and I believe he and PH sat down with someone (can't recall if it was police or film/TV people) in the early 2000's maybe, but I'm guessing. One thing to remember: no father -- biological or step -- was interviewed by police, other than JMB (if we go by what is on Cally's). There were a total of 5 fathers in this case. So either police did talk, at least to some extent, to all these fathers and simply didn't record it (i.e. street interviews, etc.); they didn't talk to these 5 at all (which is hard to believe); or they did record it, and it's not on Cally's.

DE's name appeared in police notes early -- sure (so did a lot of names: JKM, RB, etc.) -- but again, the police didn't "hone in" on him immediately. They honed in on JMB before they honed in on DE.

 

[Userid]

Whoa! A lot have said that. Heck, I'm not even sure I'd go so far as to say they're "not guilty" because that would presume a fair and impartial trial was ever given in the first place.

Another question I have yet to see answered...Please point me to "all the evidence" that points to these 3 to the exclusion of others. I'll answer it. The confession(s). That's it. I already know, we will respectfully disagree whether that piece of evidence is even competent evidence much less whether it is sufficient in itself to convict.

That's been gone over ad nauseum already, particularly on this board -- simply read some of the other threads here.

 

[Userid]

No. The confession never should have been allowed into evidence. There are multiple reasons it should not have been and I'm sure there is a thread here devoted to it. I don't like to say it was illegal because it makes it sound like a crime was committed but rights were definitely violated and yes very unethical.

This last sentence doesn't make sense. If "rights were violated," then the confession would be void ("illegal"). You are somewhat talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Again, there were no rights violated here. JM's father gave permission for his son to be interviewed by police without any representation; he was clearly read his rights by Bryn Ridge; and began confessing just two hours into questioning. What specific rights were violated?

 

[reedus23]

JMB was investigated immediately. They took hair, blood, pubic hair (if I remember correctly). It was obvious he was the police's number one suspect initially. I don't remember if or when he was given a polygraph before the one PL2, or if he refused to take one initially while being investigated, but regardless, the police investigated him thoroughly -- JMB himself admits this.

TH argues that he did talk to police, but there is no record of it on Cally's. The only record of him talking to anyone is when he was deposed by the Dixie Chicks, and I believe he and PH sat down with someone (can't recall if it was police or film/TV people) in the early 2000's maybe, but I'm guessing. One thing to remember: no father -- biological or step -- was interviewed by police, other than JMB (if we go by what is on Cally's). There were a total of 5 fathers in this case. So either police did talk, at least to some extent, to all these fathers and simply didn't record it (i.e. street interviews, etc.); they didn't talk to these 5 at all (which is hard to believe); or they did record it, and it's not on Cally's.

DE's name appeared in police notes early -- sure (so did a lot of names: JKM, RB, etc.) -- but again, the police didn't "hone in" on him immediately. They honed in on JMB before they honed in on DE.

You make a good point. Any point I make is based on the records available on Cally's. If there are other official reports, everything is subject to change based on what those would provide. I can only go by what is available from LE, the DA and the Court. I don't put much, if any, stock in the documentaries. They are designed to attract viewers and not necessarily get to the truth.

I will say that if there were interviews done that are not recorded by LE (what you call street interviews), then that is a major blunder in itself. Especially with any family members or people who were already close to the boys.

As to JMB and DE, you're going to make me pull out my notes from reviewing Cally's. I put literally every interview and every report in chronological order and my recollection is that the first record referencing DE out of thin air was within hours/days. I don't remember JMB being truly questioned (not just talking to police, but truly interrogated) until much much later.

 

[reedus23]

This last sentence doesn't make sense. If "rights were violated," then the confession would be void ("illegal"). You are somewhat talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Again, there were no rights violated here. JM's father gave permission for his son to be interviewed by police without any representation; he was clearly read his rights by Bryn Ridge; and began confessing just two hours into questioning. What specific rights were violated?

First, it would make it inadmissible, not void. Second, whether or not any confession is admissible is an evidentiary issue and not an issue of whether someone will go to jail for taking that confession. That is why I shy away from the term "illegal". In other words, "illegal" is a term that lay people often attribute to having violated some criminal statute or law. See the definition below. Since coercing a confession is not going to land anyone in jail but is simply going to make it inadmissible in trial, I shy away from that term.

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
adjective: illegal

1. 1.
   contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

As to what rights were violated, there is a whole thread, if not more devoted to it. If you like, and if I can, I saved the entire text of the confession when I read it for the very first time and notated it with every wrong move made by LE that leads me to believe that it was not a coerced confession. I have no problem posting it here if it can be done. It's a large Word document.

Mind you, this is before I knew anything about this case. I had read absolutely no posts, hadn't watched any TV shows and hadn't read any media accounts. I had always thought the West Memphis 3 was a rap group. When I found out it was a case that was hotly debated, I immediately started reading only the LE/DA/Court documents, including the confession. So any argument that I only think the way I do is because of some movies couldn't be more wrong.

 

[reedus23]

On the day after the bodies of the three boys were found I had a conversation with Steve Jones, a Juvenile Officer for Crittenden County, Arkansas. In our conversation I found that Steve and I shared the same opinion that the murders appeared to have overtones of a cult sacrifice.

During our conversation Steve mentioned that of all the people known by him to be involved in cult type activities one person stood out in his mind, that in his opinion, was capable of being involved in this type of crime. That person was Damien Echols. Steve stated that Damien lived at 2706 South Grove in Broadway Trailer park in West Memphis, Arkansas. On this day, the day after the bodies were found, I asked Steve if he would meet me at Damien's residence in order to interview Damien.

This is one of the earliest notes in this case. It was literally "solved" that fast as far as LE was concerned. Everything from this point forward was geared towards boot strapping the evidence to fit the theory, which is exactly the opposite of how an investigation is supposed to be conducted.

By the way, JMB was interviewed approximately two weeks later. Hobbs was about 14 years later.

 

[Userid]

First, it would make it inadmissible, not void. Second, whether or not any confession is admissible is an evidentiary issue and not an issue of whether someone will go to jail for taking that confession. That is why I shy away from the term "illegal". In other words, "illegal" is a term that lay people often attribute to having violated some criminal statute or law. See the definition below. Since coercing a confession is not going to land anyone in jail but is simply going to make it inadmissible in trial, I shy away from that term.

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
adjective: illegal

1. 1.
   contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

As to what rights were violated, there is a whole thread, if not more devoted to it. If you like, and if I can, I saved the entire text of the confession when I read it for the very first time and notated it with every wrong move made by LE that leads me to believe that it was not a coerced confession. I have no problem posting it here if it can be done. It's a large Word document.

Mind you, this is before I knew anything about this case. I had read absolutely no posts, hadn't watched any TV shows and hadn't read any media accounts. I had always thought the West Memphis 3 was a rap group. When I found out it was a case that was hotly debated, I immediately started reading only the LE/DA/Court documents, including the confession. So any argument that I only think the way I do is because of some movies couldn't be more wrong.

Ah, getting cute and splitting hairs with the word choice now, are we? Think you knew what I meant. "Void" and "inadmissible" are interchangeable in this particular arena, which is a message board (not a court room).

Second, I never said it was or wasn't an evidentiary issue; I said your claim that "rights were violated" during the confession was hogwash.

Lastly, there are no specific examples of specific rights being specifically "violated" in that thread. I've read/dissected the confession word-for-word as much as you, if not more.

 

[Userid]

This is one of the earliest notes in this case. It was literally "solved" that fast as far as LE was concerned. Everything from this point forward was geared towards boot strapping the evidence to fit the theory, which is exactly the opposite of how an investigation is supposed to be conducted.

By the way, JMB was interviewed approximately two weeks later. Hobbs was about 14 years later.

Right -- I admitted DE's name was mentioned early anyway, so why you feel the need to belabor the point is both pointless and confusing, but I digress. Anyways, even so, it wasn't "solved that fast," once his name was mentioned -- that's a supporter myth. Multiple suspects -- including DE, but nevertheless -- were investigated before the arrests were actually made. And again, JMB was investigated much more thoroughly before DE was. It was obvious they were gunning for JMB, before DE, in those two weeks after the murders.

Also: JMB's was on police's radar from the get-go, just like DE's. May 8th is the earliest date tips about him and his possible involvement appear on Cally's.

 

[reedus23]

Ah, getting cute and splitting hairs with the word choice now, are we? Think you knew what I meant. "Void" and "inadmissible" are interchangeable in this particular arena, which is a message board (not a court room).

Second, I never said it was or wasn't an evidentiary issue; I said your claim that "rights were violated" during the confession was hogwash.

Lastly, there are no specific examples of specific rights being specifically "violated" in that thread. I've read/dissected the confession word-for-word as much as you, if not more.

Words matter. Which is also why I choose not to say that the manner in which the confession was taken is illegal. Police can absolutely coerce a confession. It just can't then be used at trial because they are not reliable, much like giving a polygraph is not illegal but they are not admissible at trial because they are not reliable either.

Second, you are entitled to whatever opinion you wish to have about the confession. Instead of calling your opinion hogwash, I'll just say I disagree.

You may or may not have read the confession as much as me. No way of knowing either way and not sure of the point there. Frankly, it only took me reading a very small portion of the confession to know that it was coerced. That is why I stopped and started over to begin taking notes. Again, all before I had any opinion as to guilt or innocence, fair trial or not fair trial.

 

[reedus23]

Right -- I admitted DE's name was mentioned early anyway, so why you feel the need to belabor the point is both pointless and confusing, but I digress. Anyways, even so, it wasn't "solved that fast," once his name was mentioned -- that's a supporter myth. Multiple suspects -- including DE, but nevertheless -- were investigated before the arrests were actually made. And again, JMB was investigated much more thoroughly before DE was. It was obvious they were gunning for JMB, before DE, in those two weeks after the murders.

Also: JMB's was on police's radar from the get-go, just like DE's. May 8th is the earliest date tips about him and his possible involvement appear on Cally's.

I can certainly understand why some feel discussing that issue is belaboring the point and would rather move on. We will agree to disagree on who was investigated more thoroughly. JMB was interviewed on 5/19. Damien was interviewed on 5/8, twice on 5/9, asked to answer written questions on 5/10, underwent another interview with detectives on 5/10, was given a polygraph on 5/10, and then arrested what? Less than a month later?

 

[Userid]

Words matter. Which is also why I choose not to say that the manner in which the confession was taken is illegal. Police can absolutely coerce a confession. It just can't then be used at trial because they are not reliable, much like giving a polygraph is not illegal but they are not admissible at trial because they are not reliable either.

Second, you are entitled to whatever opinion you wish to have about the confession. Instead of calling your opinion hogwash, I'll just say I disagree.

You may or may not have read the confession as much as me. No way of knowing either way and not sure of the point there. Frankly, it only took me reading a very small portion of the confession to know that it was coerced. That is why I stopped and started over to begin taking notes. Again, all before I had any opinion as to guilt or innocence, fair trial or not fair trial.

Words do matter -- so for you to say the confession was taken "illegally" is completely false, because it wasn't.

The fact you say "it only took me reading a very small portion of the confession (to come to a conclusion)" speaks volumes.

 

[Userid]

I can certainly understand why some feel discussing that issue is belaboring the point and would rather move on. We will agree to disagree on who was investigated more thoroughly. JMB was interviewed on 5/19. Damien was interviewed on 5/8, twice on 5/9, asked to answer written questions on 5/10, underwent another interview with detectives on 5/10, was given a polygraph on 5/10, and then arrested what? Less than a month later?

And I can understand why certain people would want to laser-focus on that and not the fact that other suspects were investigated while DE was on the police's radar. JMB was thoroughly investigated. Simply because the police talked to DE (many of those instances you list were simply questioning him at home/street; not in an official capacity) a few times before they officially and thoroughly questioned/interviewed JMB is evident of nothing as far as police bias is concerned -- in all honesty, it only proves my point more. What I mean by that is, if DE (or any of the WM3) were investigated as thoroughly or more than JMB before 5/19, wouldn't that prove all the more that the WMPD were not biased? Why would they have bothered investigating JMB so thoroughly on 5/19?

What all of this shows, is this: the police weren't biased; they were investigating any and all leads, including the WM3, but not solely. That's really it in a nutshell.

 

[dogmatica]

Words matter. Which is also why I choose not to say that the manner in which the confession was taken is illegal. Police can absolutely coerce a confession. It just can't then be used at trial because they are not reliable, much like giving a polygraph is not illegal but they are not admissible at trial because they are not reliable either.

Second, you are entitled to whatever opinion you wish to have about the confession. Instead of calling your opinion hogwash, I'll just say I disagree.

You may or may not have read the confession as much as me. No way of knowing either way and not sure of the point there. Frankly, it only took me reading a very small portion of the confession to know that it was coerced. That is why I stopped and started over to begin taking notes. Again, all before I had any opinion as to guilt or innocence, fair trial or not fair trial.

"The confession"? Which one? The ones before his conviction? The ones post conviction? The one his lawyer begged him over and over not to give? There are so many, you'll have to be specific and perhaps assign numbers to all the confessions to keep it straight for us.

And please explain how the police are able to continue "coercing" confessions from Misskelley when they aren't even present? And AFTER he was already convicted? Telepathy?