SpeakForTheDead
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 29
Back in 1995 I set off to attend a university in Arkansas. I was from New Jersey, but I had a strong, fundamentalist Christian belief and wanted to become a pastor of a church. As a result, I set off to get my education in Arkansas and attain my goal. To make a long story short, I learned that many folks in Arkansas would speak of their belief in Christianity, but would behave in ways that would be considered immoral from the perspective of even an atheist. In other words actions differed greatly from words. An example in this case would be the highly religious Mark Byers who more then likely did some serious meth. I lost my faith in Christianity and became an agnostic, and left Arkansas with a huge chip on my shoulder. To this day I still dislike the South, and am very inclined to see hypocrisy in statements made by fundamentalist Christians.
So when I first viewed the Lost in Paradise documentaries in 1996 it was obvious to me the Memphis Three were the victims of an ineffective, superstitious police force. Besides, logic would dictate an average lower IQ, lower educational requirements, and a mixed gene pool which would statistically make it more likely there would be an ineffective police investigation and subsequent trial. I took Lost in Paradise as a fundamental confirmation of my belief: that the South is mainly corrupt, crime ridden, superstitious, and ineffectual.
When I recently heard there were two more Lost in Paradise documentaries, I decided to watch them, not only to enjoy further evidence of my feelings towards the South, but also in hopes they'd provide light into who could possibly be the killer(s) of these innocent boys. The fact is, while the documentaries were a confirmation of my beliefs in the South, they were also a doorway to a loss of innocence for me. Seeing the initial footage of the murders boys, nude, helpless, and motionless, brought chills to my skin. I was breathless, and somehow could not get over the vulnerability and innocence of these children. In short, the footage and the entire documentary were seared in my brain, and confirmation that evil did exist, whether there was a devil or even a God.
After watching the second of the documentaries, I was left with the possibility that Mark Byers might be the killer. I thought it was a possibility but wasn't convinced. The third documentary had me pretty convinced Terry Hobbs was the murderer. Mind you the fact that the previous documentary where Byers was confused had me thinking that perhaps the folks doing the documentary weren't exactly brain surgeons, but I figured new evidence came to light so they were mistaken in the second film, perhaps. But finding a hair from Terry Hobbs in a lace that was used to tie one of the boy's, that certainly got my attention.
Over the next couple of weeks, I just couldn't get the thought of this case out of my mind. I started reading up on the case and when I saw the explanation by Terry Hobb's ex-wife about the kids witnessing Terry taking jobs along with his friend and two teens, I thought the case was closer then ever to being solved. I thought this was the best explanation yet! But I proved to be naive because I assumed I was provided all of the key information about the case in the documentaries.
When I read about multiple confessions by Misskelly I immediately thought, "Now wait a minute, that can't be right. The documentary only mentioned the one confession. They wouldn't leave such important information out." I was led to the actual case files and sure enough, Misskelley had confessed multiple times to the killing, one time against the advice of his own lawyer. As a read the documents, I began to realize there was a growing mountain of evidence against the Memphis Three that made them the probable killers.
So let me be clear about some things to start with. I believe the initial trials, especially the ones provided to Echols and Baldwin, were poorly handled, and ultimately should have resulted in a retrial. It's clear in the Echols/Baldwin case the foreman knew of the police confession of Miskelley, brought it up to the rest of the jurors, and it was considered as evidence to convict Baldwin and Echols. It's also clear Echols and Baldwin should have been tried separately as most of the evidence was against Echols, and the evidence against Baldwin would have been more difficult to prove. By keeping the try linked with the two, Baldwin was able to be convicted due to his association against Echols.
Also, the police investigation, when it came to how the forensic evidence was handled, was inept to put it kindly. It was obvious from the beginning they should have at least had assistance from the state, and more preferably from the FBI. The WMPD was out of their element, and it was very obvious. I'm sure the WMPD could have stopped speeders on the road and wrote out speeding tickets as well as any redneck police force, but that's the level of competency I'd garner them.
I'm not here to discuss the legal aspects of the case, or how the police could have done things differently. What has happened has happened. However, based on what I'd read, and based on the past and current actions of Damien Echols, I believe three murders have been freed, and the crime they committed was beyond redemption. I'm here because I can't believe those who'd read the documents provided could come to any other conclusion.
Just off the top of my head, when interviewed by the police on May 10th, 1993, how did Echols know the boys had likely drowned? How did he know that one of the boys was more cut up then the rest? Why would he make statements about the killing likely being a thrill kill? How would he even know what a thrill kill was, given this wasn't widely known about in 1993? Why would he state the killer was likely pleased with himself, and feel empowered? And if somebody where to take this one single interview and explain it away point by point, please realize there is so much more! I can understand explaining away a *reasonable* amount of evidence since it's all mostly circumstantial, but all of the eye witness accounts of cat skulls and violence against animals and actual eyewitness accounts of Damien admitting to the crime, it all mounts up and indicates his involvement. Why did he also fail the lie detector test? And frankly, I don't care if he wore rainbow colored shirts with peace signs and listened to the Beatles, his psych evaluations pointed to somebody who was extremely disturbed, even in the context of a mental hospital.
Also, it's been said that these folks were arrested due to fear of Satanism/Witchcraft, but I find it ironic that Damien would agree with the townsfolk that the police should look for evidence of witchcraft such as crystals, burned candle wax, etc. Look, I understand that the police were asking him direct questions about possible evidence of witchcraft to look for at the crime scene. They were basically patronizing him, allowing him to assist in a police investigation as so many serial killers enjoy doing. Even in that context, Damien could have said, "Man, I don't know who did these murders, but they must be crazy freaks, and I'd never do anything like that! I hope you get them, and I hope they burn in Hell!" Instead this guy smiled and blew kisses at the victims' parents, lied about his alibi, make statements that fell barely short of incriminating himself, and appeared to enjoy the spotlight.
Why would somebody exhibit all of the signs of being a psychopath and yet not be one?
So when I first viewed the Lost in Paradise documentaries in 1996 it was obvious to me the Memphis Three were the victims of an ineffective, superstitious police force. Besides, logic would dictate an average lower IQ, lower educational requirements, and a mixed gene pool which would statistically make it more likely there would be an ineffective police investigation and subsequent trial. I took Lost in Paradise as a fundamental confirmation of my belief: that the South is mainly corrupt, crime ridden, superstitious, and ineffectual.
When I recently heard there were two more Lost in Paradise documentaries, I decided to watch them, not only to enjoy further evidence of my feelings towards the South, but also in hopes they'd provide light into who could possibly be the killer(s) of these innocent boys. The fact is, while the documentaries were a confirmation of my beliefs in the South, they were also a doorway to a loss of innocence for me. Seeing the initial footage of the murders boys, nude, helpless, and motionless, brought chills to my skin. I was breathless, and somehow could not get over the vulnerability and innocence of these children. In short, the footage and the entire documentary were seared in my brain, and confirmation that evil did exist, whether there was a devil or even a God.
After watching the second of the documentaries, I was left with the possibility that Mark Byers might be the killer. I thought it was a possibility but wasn't convinced. The third documentary had me pretty convinced Terry Hobbs was the murderer. Mind you the fact that the previous documentary where Byers was confused had me thinking that perhaps the folks doing the documentary weren't exactly brain surgeons, but I figured new evidence came to light so they were mistaken in the second film, perhaps. But finding a hair from Terry Hobbs in a lace that was used to tie one of the boy's, that certainly got my attention.
Over the next couple of weeks, I just couldn't get the thought of this case out of my mind. I started reading up on the case and when I saw the explanation by Terry Hobb's ex-wife about the kids witnessing Terry taking jobs along with his friend and two teens, I thought the case was closer then ever to being solved. I thought this was the best explanation yet! But I proved to be naive because I assumed I was provided all of the key information about the case in the documentaries.
When I read about multiple confessions by Misskelly I immediately thought, "Now wait a minute, that can't be right. The documentary only mentioned the one confession. They wouldn't leave such important information out." I was led to the actual case files and sure enough, Misskelley had confessed multiple times to the killing, one time against the advice of his own lawyer. As a read the documents, I began to realize there was a growing mountain of evidence against the Memphis Three that made them the probable killers.
So let me be clear about some things to start with. I believe the initial trials, especially the ones provided to Echols and Baldwin, were poorly handled, and ultimately should have resulted in a retrial. It's clear in the Echols/Baldwin case the foreman knew of the police confession of Miskelley, brought it up to the rest of the jurors, and it was considered as evidence to convict Baldwin and Echols. It's also clear Echols and Baldwin should have been tried separately as most of the evidence was against Echols, and the evidence against Baldwin would have been more difficult to prove. By keeping the try linked with the two, Baldwin was able to be convicted due to his association against Echols.
Also, the police investigation, when it came to how the forensic evidence was handled, was inept to put it kindly. It was obvious from the beginning they should have at least had assistance from the state, and more preferably from the FBI. The WMPD was out of their element, and it was very obvious. I'm sure the WMPD could have stopped speeders on the road and wrote out speeding tickets as well as any redneck police force, but that's the level of competency I'd garner them.
I'm not here to discuss the legal aspects of the case, or how the police could have done things differently. What has happened has happened. However, based on what I'd read, and based on the past and current actions of Damien Echols, I believe three murders have been freed, and the crime they committed was beyond redemption. I'm here because I can't believe those who'd read the documents provided could come to any other conclusion.
Just off the top of my head, when interviewed by the police on May 10th, 1993, how did Echols know the boys had likely drowned? How did he know that one of the boys was more cut up then the rest? Why would he make statements about the killing likely being a thrill kill? How would he even know what a thrill kill was, given this wasn't widely known about in 1993? Why would he state the killer was likely pleased with himself, and feel empowered? And if somebody where to take this one single interview and explain it away point by point, please realize there is so much more! I can understand explaining away a *reasonable* amount of evidence since it's all mostly circumstantial, but all of the eye witness accounts of cat skulls and violence against animals and actual eyewitness accounts of Damien admitting to the crime, it all mounts up and indicates his involvement. Why did he also fail the lie detector test? And frankly, I don't care if he wore rainbow colored shirts with peace signs and listened to the Beatles, his psych evaluations pointed to somebody who was extremely disturbed, even in the context of a mental hospital.
Also, it's been said that these folks were arrested due to fear of Satanism/Witchcraft, but I find it ironic that Damien would agree with the townsfolk that the police should look for evidence of witchcraft such as crystals, burned candle wax, etc. Look, I understand that the police were asking him direct questions about possible evidence of witchcraft to look for at the crime scene. They were basically patronizing him, allowing him to assist in a police investigation as so many serial killers enjoy doing. Even in that context, Damien could have said, "Man, I don't know who did these murders, but they must be crazy freaks, and I'd never do anything like that! I hope you get them, and I hope they burn in Hell!" Instead this guy smiled and blew kisses at the victims' parents, lied about his alibi, make statements that fell barely short of incriminating himself, and appeared to enjoy the spotlight.
Why would somebody exhibit all of the signs of being a psychopath and yet not be one?