The Most Logical Suspect

[Cappuccino]

Let's start from the crime scene, and work from there.

Who is the most logical suspect? Means, motive, opportunity, and please explain why.

 

[kyleb]

There was no most logical suspect going from the scene of the murders itself, which is why the WMPD wound up investigating so many people, including far creeper people with much darker histories than Echols.

 

[Cappuccino]

Yes, there was. Three children under 12, there are a whole host of logical suspects. Parents, step parents, other adults that were in the childrens' lives.

For example, Terry Hobbs - what was his alibi for the night of May 5th? And please bear in mind that a hair at the crime scene is consistent with the mtDNA of David Jacoby, who is Terry Hobbs' main alibi witness.

 

[reedus23]

Let's start from the crime scene, and work from there.

Who is the most logical suspect? Means, motive, opportunity, and please explain why.

I would start off by saying someone nearby, familiar with the woods. Parents and step-parents would be obvious considerations. I would want to look into others that lived in that portion of West Memphis. If I were to put myself in the shoes of the WMPD at the time, not knowing anything that was learned subsequently, I would have been concerned about residents at Mayfair Apts. Just seemed to attract transient type of residents.

 

[kyleb]

Yes, there was. Three children under 12, there are a whole host of logical suspects.

Do you not compherend the difference between the singular "the most logical suspect" you first asked for and the plural "whole host of logical suspects" you've switched to now? I agree with the latter, and said as much in my previous post.

I would have been concerned about residents at Mayfair Apts.

Did you know that Echols had lived in Mayfair apartments a couple years prior to the murders? He mentioned it himself in Almost Home.

 

[reedus23]

Did you know that Echols had lived in Mayfair apartments a couple years prior to the murders? He mentioned it himself in Almost Home.

I did recall reading that.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Did you know that Echols had lived in Mayfair apartments a couple years prior to the murders? He mentioned it himself in Almost Home.

If you would go back just one more page in Almost Home, I believe that you will discover that the time Damien is remembering is when he first started to school. That would make him about 6 or 7. So, instead of it being "a couple of years," it was ten years (or more) before, and it was when he was a small child, about the age of Christopher, Michael and Steven.

 

[Hez]

If you would go back just one more page in Almost Home, I believe that you will discover that the time Damien is remembering is when he first started to school. That would make him about 6 or 7. So, instead of it being "a couple of years," it was ten years (or more) before, and it was when he was a small child, about the age of Christopher, Michael and Steven.

Thank you for the additional and more accurate details. Another red herring that does nothing to support guilt, imo.

 

[kyleb]

If you would go back just one more page in Almost Home, I believe that you will discover that the time Damien is remembering is when he first started to school. That would make him about 6 or 7. So, instead of it being "a couple of years," it was ten years (or more) before, and it was when he was a small child, about the age of Christopher, Michael and Steven.

Huh, I'd taken comments from you on in our previous discussion regarding Echols living at Mayfair apartments to suggest it had been a couple years prior to the murders, but in reading further in Almost Home I see that suggests otherwise. I did some digging around in hopes of finding actual documentation for the dates for when moved too and from there, but have come up empty, so I retract the "a couple of years" portion of my question there.

Thank you for the additional and more accurate details. Another red herring that does nothing to support guilt, imo.

The fact that he lived in Mayfair apartments doesn't prove guilt by any stretch, but it does disprove Echols' claims that he was unfamiliar with the area such as the ones he made here.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Huh, I'd taken comments from you on in our previous discussion regarding Echols living at Mayfair apartments to suggest it had been a couple years prior to the murders, but in reading further in Almost Home I see that suggests otherwise. I did some digging around in hopes of finding actual documentation for the dates for when moved too and from there, but have come up empty, so I retract the "a couple of years" portion of my question there.

Thank you.

The fact that he lived in Mayfair apartments doesn't prove guilt by any stretch, but it does disprove Echols' claims that he was unfamiliar with the area such as the ones he made here.

How well does a small child (6 - 10 years old) really know the area where he lives, especially a "bookish" one who, by his own admission, wasn't "into" sports and other outdoor activities, preferring to read?

ETA: Reading just a little further in Almost Home provides the information that Damien's mother married Jack Echols when Damien was in the third grade (about 8 or 9). So, he lived in the Mayfair Apartments for, at most, three years, from ages 5 (kindergarten) through 8 (second grade). I'm not sure that it was even that long because they lived with his grandmother after she remarried right before his mom married Jack Echols. I simply don't think his awareness of his surroundings, given his "bookish" nature, would amount to much for that time frame.

 

[reedus23]

Thank you for the additional and more accurate details. Another red herring that does nothing to support guilt, imo.

You're right about that. That's why it didn't bother me in the least to discuss Mayfair Apts. It has nothing to do with guilt. It has to do with where would I start asking questions if I were going door to door.

 

[Pisces Cloud]

If it's true that a ME said they died between 1am - 7am then the culprit/s could be someone who hasn't been mentioned. Perhaps they were taken somewhere else first and that also accounts for any missing clothing.

 

[Alyssa2013]

Let's start from the crime scene, and work from there.

Who is the most logical suspect? Means, motive, opportunity, and please explain why.

As others have mentioned above, the most logical suspect is either somebody that the boys knew and trusted or somebody who was familiar with the area. I think Terry Hobbs had the strongest means and opportunity. I say this because he has a history of violence. According to Pam Hobbs he physically abused Stevie on numerous occasions. He previously worked as a butcher. In other uncertain words, he wasn't afraid of hurting his son. Yes, that doesn't necessarily label him as a killer, but it definitely puts him a step above other suspects. In the case of a stranger killing, I think that motive would either be a thrill killing or a cover-up of some kind, as in maybe the boys saw something that they shouldn't have. Many people have alleged that the boys were murdered because of sexual deviancy, and I think it's a possibility, but not a strong one. I say this because it just seems too obvious. The boys were naked, hogtied, thrown into the river; upon first seeing the scene it looks like the boys were sexually abused and then to cover it up they were murdered. However, in my opinion, it seems like a staged scene. According to the autopsy results none of the boys contained any evidence of sexual abuse. This makes me think that it was somebody that the boys knew. Another thing that I noticed about the scene was that whoever murdered the boys seemed to want to humiliate them. Of course it's just speculation but that's what the scene looks like to me.

 

[missy_g]

I think as with any case where a child is killed, the parents should be investigated first.

I would also investigate who was familiar with the area. I'm not quite sure how big WM is, but I grew up in a very small town (about 230 acres and less than 1000 people) that is wooded in areas and I know there are people who weren't familiar with a lot of the areas within the town. I think investigating and ruling out people would have helped tremendously.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I think as with any case where a child is killed, the parents should be investigated first.

I would also investigate who was familiar with the area. I'm not quite sure how big WM is, but I grew up in a very small town (about 230 acres and less than 1000 people) that is wooded in areas and I know there are people who weren't familiar with a lot of the areas within the town. I think investigating and ruling out people would have helped tremendously.

FYI, at the time of the murders, the population of West Memphis, Arkansas was 28, 016. It is a typical dormitory community of a much larger city. (source)

 

[missy_g]

I figured it was a larger town (larger than the one I grew up in) so I'm sure there are many many people who knew nothing about certain areas, especially an area like Robin Hood Hills that could get marshy and infested with mosquitoes during certain times of the year. People typically avoid those types of areas.

 

[sloane7777]

I figured it was a larger town (larger than the one I grew up in) so I'm sure there are many many people who knew nothing about certain areas, especially an area like Robin Hood Hills that could get marshy and infested with mosquitoes during certain times of the year. People typically avoid those types of areas.

Also at the time of the murders, (my inlaws live about two blocks away) you had to have been or lived there to understand WM LE mentality, the goth, emo,whatever look was not at all popular there, it is a very BACKWARDS place! I really IMO and from things heard from my in laws who are literally down the street , believe TH is the most likely and most probable! it was an angry personal crime JMHO!

 

[Ausgirl]

The fact that he lived in Mayfair apartments doesn't prove guilt by any stretch, but it does disprove Echols' claims that he was unfamiliar with the area such as the ones he made here.

I have yet to watch that part of the doco again, so reserving comment on that for now.

Just a comment, however, on Part 1 of the doco - right at the beginning of pt1, where there's questions regarding Aleister Crowley...

I find it a bit sad that the prosecution could raise this issue without doing any but cursory homework on the subject. Crowley was not, in fact, promoting child sacrifice and never did -- there's a mention in Magick in Theory and Practice, regarding the sacrifice of a "perfect male child" BUT it ought to be noted that Crowley often phrased his works in ways that would deliberately inflame the uninformed, and it is a well documented fact that he was in that passage referring to his own sperm, and the act of masturbation as part of the practise of sex magick.

Just FYI.

 

[kyleb]

I find it a bit sad that the prosecution could raise this issue without doing any but cursory homework on the subject.

Reserving comment on on you claims of fact regarding Crowley for now, what do you make of the many who raise issue with Echols' murder conviction without even doing enough cursory homework on the subject realize Echols lived in West Memphis around the time of the murders, and what is your take on Echols' and others denials of that fact?

 

[Ausgirl]

Reserving comment on on you claims of fact regarding Crowley for now, what do you make of the many who raise issue with Echols' murder conviction without even doing enough cursory homework on the subject realize Echols lived in West Memphis around the time of the murders, and what is your take on Echols' and others denials of that fact?

I'm not 'claiming' anything. I'm stating a fact, re Crowley.

As to the various quibbles people have had in the past -- a/ I'm not here to join or disparage anyone's pet camp, and b/ I think it's all but moot now the WM3 have been released from prison.. I'm more interested in gaining further understanding of what actually happened, both to the WM3 and the murdered boys, and nothing more as nothing I have to say or do can possibly make a difference to either case. That said..

My understanding is that Echols lived in apartments close to the crime scene when he was a small child. I can kind of get why he might not think to include that in his present reality -- lots of places I lived as a small child (we moved a lot) aren't familiar me to now and weren't even when I lived there, really.. The reality of little children is not that of a teenager. Memory is unreliable, the further one gets from it, especially when dealing with younger kids.

As for familiarity later on, if indeed Echols was lying about that, there's two major reasons I can think of that he might do so:

1. He was guilty.

2. He was innocent, but knew admitting knowledge of the area would be fuel to those accusing him.

Seeing that the WM3 are no longer in prison, and have gained support even among the victim's parents now, I am inclined to look at that second possibility more closely than if this was not so.

Echols, like many kids growing up in homes described as 'dysfunctional', and like many kids with low self-esteem, was an out and out liar as a teenager - and isn't allergic to telling a few porky pies even now, I believe.

Lying about such things while at trial for a triple murder isn't smart, and isn't right. But it is, for a kid like the teenaged Echols, understandable.

Especially if he had the sense that all three of them were being railroaded. Which, if they are innocent, they most certainly were.