New witness !!! Has this been discussed?

[claudicici]

http://wreg.com/2013/04/02/judge-denies-family-request-to-see-west-memphis-evidence/


This is the first I heard of the letter written by Bennie Guy and the new witness !!! Has this been discussed anywhere on the threads yet?

 

[iluvmua]

IMO, this is all just hearsay and until they have some HARD evidence against TH or whoever this case is closed in my book.

let the three boys rest in piece and all the others move on with their lives.

JMO

plus, BL and LG Hollingsworth were look at at the beginning of this case right?

(someone correct me if i'm wrong)

 

[kyleb]

It's not all hearsay, some is witness accounts. However, they're accounts of things which purportedly happened nearly two decades ago, with nothing to substantiate them, and which come from guys in prison on rape convictions. Put simply, hearsay from a person of notable character would be more credible than the stories these people are selling.

As for Buddy Lucas and L.G. Hollingsworth, one can find considerable information regarding both at the Callahan archives. There's also a video from the 10/14/93 police interview of Lucas on YouTube:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw65cozYetM"]buddy lucas 101493 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[sloane7777]

IMO, this is all just hearsay and until they have some HARD evidence against TH or whoever this case is closed in my book.

let the three boys rest in piece and all the others move on with their lives.

JMO

plus, BL and LG Hollingsworth were look at at the beginning of this case right?

(someone correct me if i'm wrong)

I don't think anyone was SERIOUSLY looked at other than WM3, and respectfully I would like to think that if it was someone else (which I think it was) they just don't get to walk away from murdering 3 children!!!!!

 

[kyleb]

Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland were seriously considered as suspects, as was John Mark Byers, and at least a few other people were looked into to lesser extents.

As for the notion that it was someone else: the evidence points towards multiple perpetrators, a single someone is rather unlikely. Specifically, the luminol testing suggests the attacks took place on the right on bank of the creek in which the bodies were found, an environment in which it would be rather difficult for any one person to subdue, hog-tie, mutilate, and drown three individuals, even small children. Then there the fact that different styles of knots were used to hog-tie the boys, suggesting at least two people took part in tying those knots.

The rest of the evidence points squarely towards the three who were convicted, or at least Echols and Misskelley. The evidence against Baldwin actually having taken part in the murders is isn't particularly strong, but it's enough to be reasonably certain that he at least knows a lot more than what he's let on. There's also a few witness statements which implicate Domini Teer too, but not nearly enough to make a case against her.

 

[Atomic]

Wow! this is HUGE.

The judge didn't allow the families in on this evidence in case it would be needed in a FUTURE TRIAL. Doesn't sound like hearsay to me.

I had been thoroughly convinced TH acted alone and was using DJ as an alibi, because the phone call between them on West on Memphis really made DJ sound innocent , like he had been used and set up by TH.

So apparently they have more on DJ now (than that possible hair) to consider him a suspect.

And the other two...I wonder what they have other than one of then being slow and confessing to someone (similar to Misskelley situation)

BUT if this evidence is strong enough to charge another party, the WM3 would have to first be exonerated, right? Or could they convict someone else with the WM3 Alford Plea in place?

I would like to believe they would not withhold this into from the parents, and not DO anything with it????

Guess we will see if PH goes on anymore 'family picnics' with TH now....:banghead:

 

[Atomic]

IMO, this is all just hearsay and until they have some HARD evidence against TH or whoever this case is closed in my book.

let the three boys rest in piece and all the others move on with their lives.

JMO

plus, BL and LG Hollingsworth were look at at the beginning of this case right?

(someone correct me if i'm wrong)

Let who move on with their lives? The families and victims still seek and deserve justice. It will never be 'closed in my book' until they get it.

 

[MadamReporter]

Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland were seriously considered as suspects, as was John Mark Byers, and at least a few other people were looked into to lesser extents.

As for the notion that it was someone else: the evidence points towards multiple perpetrators, a single someone is rather unlikely. Specifically, the luminol testing suggests the attacks took place on the right on bank of the creek in which the bodies were found, an environment in which it would be rather difficult for any one person to subdue, hog-tie, mutilate, and drown three individuals, even small children. Then there the fact that different styles of knots were used to hog-tie the boys, suggesting at least two people took part in tying those knots.

The rest of the evidence points squarely towards the three who were convicted, or at least Echols and Misskelley. The evidence against Baldwin actually having taken part in the murders is isn't particularly strong, but it's enough to be reasonably certain that he at least knows a lot more than what he's let on. There's also a few witness statements which implicate Domini Teer too, but not nearly enough to make a case against her.

What evidence pointed at the WM3? It's important to note that the "expert" on the occult that testified in the trial got his degree in the mail when he sent away for it a year or two prior. There's only one reason that TH's hair was in the actual knot used to hog tie one of the boys.

 

[kyleb]

The best summery of the evidence against the convicted I've found is the "The Case Against the WM3" section on WM3 Truth, the collection of pages linked under that heading in the navigation bar on the left side of each page. As for Dale Griffis, his testimony was absurdly underwhelming regardless of where he got his degrees from. As for the hair found in the shoe string, it isn't even necessarily Terry Hobb's, but rather is simply consistent with his DNA along with a few million other people, and there's a multitude of ways it could have wound up where it was found.

 

[reedus23]

Not new to WS but definitely new to this case. Someone had mentioned it in another thread and got me to reading. All I have read so far are all the documents on the callahan.8k.com website consisting of various reports, interviews, etc...Can any that have followed this case more in depth let me know if that is a fully complete set of documents that have been released (not looking for news articles, tv shows, news broadcasts or movies yet)? My next task is to get through the trial transcripts but before I do, I want to read all the investigatory reports.

A couple of observations of my own from just reading the investigatory reports. It certainly seemed LE had focused almost immediately on Damien. In fact, his name was discussed as being a likely perpetrator before ANY people were interviewed and before Damien himself was interviewed. It also seems that many of the reports focus on doing two things: 1. Developing any information that points at Damien; and 2. Discrediting any leads that point away from Damien. For example, 1. Individuals providing an alibi for Damien were ignored and/or discredited; while 2. When individuals who were supposed alibis for other potential suspects denied such suspect's claims, their statements were apparently ignored.

My take on Jessie's confession is that the initial confession was bogus. Everything "confessed" to was spoon fed by LE. LE's manipulation during the questioning was glaring. When provided with statements that clearly did not fit the known facts, LE should have thrown out false information about the crime scene to test the witness to see if they were fabricating their story by confirming such false information. In this instance, however, instead of testing the witnesses true knowledge, LE attempted on numerous occasions get the witness to correct those statements that didn't fit the known facts and when that failed, they went "off the record" only to come back "on the record" and immediately correct those statements to make them consistent with the known facts. It is pretty obvious what happened "off the record". On the flip side, the fact that Jessie regurgitates the same statements, even in interviews with his own attorneys, is pretty damning.

If anyone can let me know if there is a more exhaustive list of investigatory reports, it would be much appreciated. I also apologize if this isn't the best thread to ask this question, but I didn't want to read a lot of threads at this point to determine if there was a more apt thread to ask. Many thanks in advance.

 

[claudicici]

Thank you so much for your input reedus23.That's exactly how I feel reading the callahan documents and I just don't see how some people read the same thing and come to the conclusion the WM3 were guilty.I think it's so obvious they were railroaded.

Like Jason said this "new witness" statement does not sound anymore credible than the rest of statements that we already knew of.It just seems to me the only people in that town with a brain were Jason and Damian.
It also seems like pretty much half of the town was addicted to meth and that horrible crime has meth written all over it IMO

 

[kyleb]

It certainly seemed LE had focused almost immediately on Damien.

Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland were also focused on at first, as was John Mark Byers and at least a few others to lesser extents. As for the focus on Echols, given his criminal and psychological history LE would've been fools to do otherwise.

For example, 1. Individuals providing an alibi for Damien were ignored and/or discredited; while 2. When individuals who were supposed alibis for other potential suspects denied such suspect's claims, their statements were apparently ignored.

Any chance you'd cite an actual example for each?

As for more documents beyond what's at the Callahan archives, all I've found is a few autopsy photos which are easily located through a Google image search. Granted, I'm new to the case too, having only started looking into it about a month ago.

That's exactly how I feel reading the callahan documents and I just don't see how some people read the same thing and come to the conclusion the WM3 were guilty.

Have you ever read a thoroughly detailed argument from someone who's concluded that they are guilty? If so, what is the best argument you've seen, and why does it fall short for you? In the same regard, what do you consider the most thoroughly detailed argument for their innocence for me to consider?

 

[reedus23]

Christopher Morgan and Brian Holland[/URL] were also focused on at first, as was John Mark Byers and at least a few others to lesser extents. As for the focus on Echols, given his criminal and psychological history LE would've been fools to do otherwise.

I don't disagree with the fact that other people were also looked at, to varying degrees, at various stages DURING the investigation. What had jumped out at me was the conversation between Sudbury and Steve Jones BEFORE any interviews were even conducted where they were already mentioning Damien as a suspect before having even talked to him or anyone else. I can understand putting a list together of people you would want to talk to to rule them in or out, like sex offenders, those with a violent history etc...but his was the ONLY name mentioned.

Any chance you'd cite an actual example for each?

I will try to remember to do this this evening to actually link the documents when I have more time to go back and pull up the statements, but off the top of my head, the Sanders accounts were dismissed, the statements concerning the various telephone conversations were dismissed while the fact that I believe it was Buddy Lucas' alibi denies Buddy being with him was glossed over to some extent (I will double check the names tonight because I'm going off the top of my head and could have the wrong name in mind, but think the alibi was supposed to be Ricky Simpson and he said Buddy wasn't with him. I'll have to double check and will provide cites to the statements.)

As for more documents beyond what's at the Callahan archives, all I've found is a few autopsy photos which are easily located through a Google image search. Granted, I'm new to the case too, having only started looking into it about a month ago.

It had seemed pretty exhaustive as for the actual investigative reports. Enough to fill up 2 pads of paper while taking brief notes of each statement. Thanks. Not sure the pictures will provide more information than was already in the documents.

Have you ever read a thoroughly detailed argument from someone who's concluded that they are guilty? If so, what is the best argument you've seen, and why does it fall short for you? In the same regard, what do you consider the most thoroughly detailed argument for their innocence for me to consider?

I have purposefully NOT read any arguments for or against. I was more interested in first getting an understanding of what actually happened, as free as possible of other opinions or biases. Personally, I still don't have an opinion as to their guilt or innocence, those were just things that jumped out at me right off the bat from reading only the reports. Just because it stuck out to me that LE determined who did it before starting their investigation doesn't mean that that person ultimately wasn't guilty. LE could have just had a really good grasp on the pulse of the city. After I get through the trial transcripts, I will read more articles and eventually arguments for and against. Just starting out on this case though, I didn't want to be influenced early on by any arguments.

 

[kyleb]

From what I've seen, Jones mentioned Echols as his best guess, so Sudbury asked Jones to go interview him together. If you haven't read that profile page I linked because you are avoiding persuasive arguments before evaluating the evidence for yourself: I respect that, but I hope you will at least take the time to look at some the documents cited on that page. Specifically:

1. this page from a Charter admission report
2. this page from the aforementioned Charter admission report
3. this page from a Charter discharge report
4. this page from Echols' St. Vincent Hospital case file
5. this report from Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center
6. this page from a Social Security counseling session
7. this page from a Social Security disability report

Also note that last page is Echols own words, in his own handwriting, just a few months before the murders. Plenty more such information can be found in Exhibit 500 and elsewhere, and of course only bits and pieces were available to Sudbury when he named Echols as his best guess, but I it seems to me that even just the examples I listed above suggest Sudbury likely knew enough about Echols to reasonably justify that guess.

As for the Sanderses, Echols apparently never mentioned them when giving his first alibi, and the next day he said he was at the Sanders's from around 3:00 to 5:00 PM, but then two days later his mom said they they got to Sanders's around 6:00-6:30 PM and only stayed about one hour. Given that, what are you finding in the Sanderses accounts which to suggest they were wrongly disregarded? Also, what have you found to support Echols' claims of having been on the telephone during the hours in question?

Regarding autopsy photos, I've been looking for the ones which were argued at trial to show wounds consistent with the knife found in the lake behind Baldwin's home, and ones which purportedly show evidence of animal predation according to more recent defense experts, but have only come up with a few of mostly poor quality. That said, I recommend comparing the Lake Knife to these wounds on Stevie Branch's head.

Also, I'm looking forward to hearing more about what you are referring to regarding Buddy Lucas and Richard Simpson.

 

[Venom]

What evidence pointed at the WM3? It's important to note that the "expert" on the occult that testified in the trial got his degree in the mail when he sent away for it a year or two prior. There's only one reason that TH's hair was in the actual knot used to hog tie one of the boys.

But it's not proven that it is TH's hair.

 

[reedus23]

Also, I'm looking forward to hearing more about what you are referring to regarding Buddy Lucas and Richard Simpson.

Thanks. I will take a look at those documents as well. At this point, I'm still trying to limit myself to what was relied upon and/or used to bring the charges in the first place and obtain the convictions. Do you happen to know if the documents you listed were used or relied upon by LE in bringing the charges or during trial? If so, I'd be interested in reading them now. If not, I will read them, but would prefer to do so after getting through what was actually used and relied upon by LE at the time. As an aside, while I made note of the documents, I really haven't read the documents that were filed subsequently by the defendants either. I suppose, in trying to keep it straight in my head, I'm trying to walk through it somewhat chronologically, if that makes sense.

Regarding the Sanders confirming Damien's alibi, at least for a portion of the night, the simple fact that charges were brought against Damien demonstrates that their statements were disregarded. Maybe not believable to LE is more suitable terminology.

I did, in fact, mispeak when bringing up Lucas/Simpson. I knew I should have waited until I had gotten home before responding. It was LG Hollingsworth, Jr. who claimed he was with Richard Simpson that evening. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/lghreport.html

Riichard Simpson, however, when interviewed, stated LG Hollingworth was not with him at all that evening. http://callahan.8k.com/images2/r_simpson/r_simpson_statement.JPG

In my mind, when someone claims another as an alibi but that alibi denies it, it would throw up red flags as opposed to someone who claims an alibi and the alibi also confirms that person's presence.

As another example that struck me as odd as far as LE's responses to various statements are concerned is when Jessie claimed to have been working with Ricky Deese for at least part of the evening on 5/5. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmin.html Despite hearing this in June, LE never questioned Mr. Deese until 7 1/2 months later, and on the eve of trial, in January 1994, to determine the validity of this partial alibi. http://callahan.8k.com/images2/r_deese_report.jpg In my very humble opinion, that indicated to me that LE was more interested in only those facts that would lead to an arrest and conviction and less interested in determining the truth of the matter and disregarded any potential facts that would threaten their theory.

Again, that doesn't make LE wrong as to who was ultimately responsible, but it does make me question whether they took the facts as they were and developed a theory that fits the facts or did they develop their theory first and then found or molded the facts to fit their theory.

On a side note, I am going to have to learn how to post links as cleanly as you do.

 

[kyleb]

To hotlink, on the reply page and right above the text window is a bunch of buttons including this one:

. Select the text you want to turn into a hotlink and click that button, then a window will pop up for you to paste the link, and when you hit OK the code will be added to your reply. Of course you can enter the code manually too, but using the interface is more efficient.

As for the list of documents I linked, they were collected by the defense before the trial, but weren't released to the prosecution until the post trial hearings. However, they discuss Echols' criminal acts and psychological state in the year leading up to the murders which which LE had to know about then to some extent, so you won't rightly be able to comprehend why Jones guessed Echols until you read such information in those documents.

Regarding L.G. Hollingworth, he was a dubious character in many ways. His alibi falling through is just the tip of the iceberg, but I've yet to find anything to suggest he actually took part in the murders.

As for Misskelley saying he worked until around 5:00 PM, there was never any point in chasing that down as it wouldn't have provided him an alibi anyway as the victims' whereabouts were accounted for until around 6:00 PM. Besides, Misskelley wound up confessing to having taken part in the murders a couple hours later, making investigating his alibi irreverent until he finally attempted to present one a trial, one which fell on its face.

Anyway, I'm still wondering, what are you finding in the Sanderses accounts to prompt you to take issues with them being disregarded? Also, have you found anything to support Echols' claim of having been on the telephone during the hours in question, or why did you bother bring it up?

 

[reedus23]

Anyway, I'm still wondering, what are you finding in the Sanderses accounts to prompt you to take issues with them being disregarded? Also, have you found anything to support Echols' claim of having been on the telephone during the hours in question, or why did you bother bring it up?

Mind you, all I have reviewed are the investigatory notes, statements and interviews, but if you are to take them at their word, you have the following:

Around 3:30, there is a three way telephone conversation between Jennifer Bearden, Hollie George and Damien according to Holly George's 9/10/93 statement and Jennifer Bearden's statement of 9/10/93.

Jennifer Bearden calls Damien back about 30 minutes later at Jason's and talks to Damien for about 5 minutes, at which time Damien and Jason have to leave according to Jennifer Bearden's 9/10/93 statement.

At around 4:00 or shortly before that, Joe Hutchison, Pam Hutchison and Michelle Echols pick up Damien and Domini at the laundromat according to their statements taken on 9/10/93, along with Domini Teer's statement of the same date.

At about 5:00, Pam, Joe, Michelle and Damien arrive home after dropping off Domini and stopping by the pharmacy according to the same statements (less Domini's obviously).

Around 6:30, Pam, Joe, Michelle and Damien go to the Sanders according to those same statements. This is also confirmed by Jennifer Sanders in her 9/2/93 statement, Stacy Sanders in her statement of 9/2/93 and by Meredith McKay in her statement of 9/3/93.

By 8:00, Pam, Joe, Michelle and Damien arrive home according to each of their statements.

Some time after 7:30, Jennifer Rearden tried to call Damien but he wasn't home (which would be consistent with them being on the way home from the Sanders).

At approximately 9:20 or 9:30, Jennifer Rearden calls again and speaks to Damien according to her statement of 9/10/93. This is consistent with Joe and Pam's statements of 9/10/93 indicating Damien spoke on the phone until past 10:30.

If one were to accept these statements as true, Damien's whereabouts are accounted for from the time the children were last seen until approximately 10:30. So my only point regarding both the Sander's visit and the telephone calls is that you would have to disregard those statements or not believe them in order to believe Damien was involved. Now, they may very well be lying. I'm in no place to judge that right now but in order for him to be involved, all or some combination of those individuals have to be lying.

If you accept these statements as true, are you suggesting that there is still a window of opportunity for Damien to be involved and each of these people to be telling the truth? Or are you saying there is other information I am missing, or possibly misinterpreting the statements?

 

[kyleb]

Well first off, you've skipped over the 5/9 interview of Echols, Baldwin and Teer which makes no mention of the Echols' mom, his sister, nor any trip to the Sander's home at all, but rather simply says "They said they were picked up at 6:00PM and Damien's father took Jason and Dominic home and Damien went home." Then there's the 5/10 interview with Echols which reports he "stated that he called his mother to pick him up" and that "his mother picked him up along with domini teer", not his father as the interview notes from the day before say. It also says he claimed he went Sanderses' home with his parents and sister, but "from 3:00 until about 5:00 PM", far earlier than the times given in the 9/10 statements you've referred to. There's also the 5/10 interview with Teer which reports:

Domini and Damien went to the laundry where they called for Damien's mother to pick them up. Domini stated that the time was about dark or just before it got dark.

Note that sunset on 5/5/93 in West Memphis was around 7:50 PM, which puts her story far later than Echols' statement of the same day where he has them being picked up in time to drop Teer off at her home and then show up at the Sanderses' home at 3:00 PM, being picked up by Echols' mom now rather than his dad like it says in the interview notes from the day before, and there's no mention of Michelle Echols in any of those early interview notes.

So, before getting into the details of the statements from months later which you've alluded to: are you suggesting that one should simply ignore the inconsistencies in what I've quoted above?

 

[reedus23]

So, before getting into the details of the statements from months later which you've alluded to: are you suggesting that one should simply ignore the inconsistencies in what I've quoted above?

You are pretty much saying exactly what I said. You are saying they are not to be believed because of inconsistencies. I think I said in order to believe Damien was involved requires you to disbelieve the statements I pointed out. I don't believe I ever said the statements should or should not be believed. My initial observation was that it seemed to me that LE did not follow up with individuals who gave alibis that did not pan out with the same zeal as they did for individuals who had alibis that contained alibis. That is different than saying a statement should or should not be believed.

Also, I am sure you are aware that every single person who ever gives more than one statement concerning a single event is going to have inconsistencies. The question for each individual is to then judge for themselves the impact those inconsistencies have on the credibility of the statement. I take it from your comments that you choose to believe that any inconsistencies were sufficient for you to disbelieve the statements and that's fine. I've made no personal determination either way.