New to this case and new to the forum

Discussion in 'West Memphis III' started by Alyssa Edwards, Jul 17, 2018.

  1. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You clearly know absolutely nothing about the facts of this case. Either you've done zero actual research beyond watching those "documentaries", or you have no understanding of what you've read.
     


  2. Fire Fox 2

    Fire Fox 2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Excuse me? I have done my research. Read every book, evidence, trial records, movies, etc. we are all entitled to our opinion. Clearly there is a division on opinion. IMO I have reasonable doubt so the WM3 should not have been convicted. That’s my opinion. Thanks.
     
  3. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Opinions are not facts. Your opinions are proven wrong by the facts.
     
  4. MorbidGateway

    MorbidGateway Active Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    43
  5. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    asyousay, AllyBeeUK and MorbidGateway like this.
  6. AllyBeeUK

    AllyBeeUK Former Member

    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    3,485
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I am new to this forum and have just come across this thread so sorry if their are any errors in my post. I first became interested in this case when I watched West of Memphis about 3 years ago. I went on to watch PL1 and 2 and was just incredulous at the "miscarriage of justice". I've spent a lot of time over the last 3 years reading all of the documents and articles from both sides of the fence and am now 100% convinced that The WM3 are guilty of these murders.

    The main problem I have with this case though, is Scott Ellington. Why did he accept the Alford Plea? I've seen it explained that he didn't want the expense of a retrial but, considering that the WM3 did not, and still do not have, any excpulatory evidence he was never under any obligation to grant one. He should have left them in prison where they belong.

    I believe that Jessie Miskelley is the only one involved with any conscience and I believe he regrets the part he played in the murders. He has confessed numerous times (I do not believe these confessions were coerced) and I believe he will do so again.

    Finally, my condolences to the families of Stevie, Christopher and Michael. I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child in such horrific circumstances, but to see the perpetrators of that crime building themselves the lives of celebrities, is beyond words.

    Interested to hear your thoughts on the above...
     
  7. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hi Ally, since you're new to the case, the following websites are a treasure trove of information on the case: jivepuppi.com and callahan.mysite.com, in case you're interested in really diving deep.

    Good question about Ellington. I like how you are aware that it was the defense who presented Ellington the Alford; and not the other way around. Ellington has stated on record that he was preparing to go to trial -- and this would have been completely illuminating. We would have learned so much more than we already know, but now that the Alford plea was accepted, this case is all but lost in limbo. I was upset that Ellington accepted their Alford pleas, but his reasoning was because he didn't want to question witnesses with 20 year old memories. He also thought he would be at a disadvantage because some witnesses had died and he only had 20 year old evidence to work with, etc. He figured that, instead of risking that the WM3 get off scott-free, that any sort of guilty plea was -- in essence -- better than nothing, in that if they commit any other sort of crime, they are right back in jail.

    If you watch JM during the Alford Plea video beginning around the 10 minute mark, when one of those attorneys says that the WM3 know nothing about what happened at the bayou, watch JM at about the 10:10 mark look down and shake his head, as if his conscious was getting to him.
     
    AllyBeeUK likes this.
  8. AllyBeeUK

    AllyBeeUK Former Member

    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    3,485
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Thanks so much for your reply, you seem well versed in this case. I have been reading for about 2 and a half years on and off but still feel I have so much to learn. It's amazing that you have picked up on JM body language in that clip, it's very telling and was actually one of the first things that bothered me, even when I believed them! He looks repulsed by the whole thing. I don't believe JM was an innocent bystander and I am not giving him a pass but I do believe he is the only one with any redeeming qualities and if I ever had the chance to speak with him I would implore him to do the right thing. It wouldn't change anything now but the more people that know the truth, the more peacefully the children can rest.

    My anger at SE may well be misplaced but I feel it all the same. The behaviours of DE(in particular) and JB since their release has been a desecration of their victims' memories and I feel that SE is responsible for that. As far as I can see, there is no reason for them to have been offered a retrial, nothing had changed and SE had no reason to engage them. I suppose he felt pressured by the rich and powerful supporters and caved in, I just wish he had had more backbone.

    I believed the propaganda machine and even followed DE and JB on social media for some time. The more reading I did the more niggles I had and eventually I just couldn't ignore them.
     
    Userid and dogmatica like this.
  9. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nice to see someone look at this objectively and not just buy into the Hollywood Hype Machine. You are 100% correct in believing they are guilty.
     
    Keine Engel and AllyBeeUK like this.
  10. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks Ally -- I know you're just starting, but you also seem very well-versed. I was exactly like you: I was a supporter, until I actually started researching the case for myself. I'm glad you decided to research it; newer researchers are the best at noticing things that longtime researchers had overlooked.

    I don't blame your anger at SE. I am still extremely disappointed that the trial didn't go forward; we would have learned so much more than we know now, I firmly believe -- but it will never happen now.

    Yes, JM has always exhibited remorse, even before the confessions. His stepmom had said he woke up in the middle of the night crying hysterically after the murders. He brought his shoes to his best friend BL and gave them to him because those were the ones he was wearing that day, and he couldn't bear to look at them anymore, since they reminded him of the murders. Even today, when people try to talk to him about the murders, he literally turns and runs away; he can't even talk about it.

    If you haven't yet, research BL (I'm hesitant to use real names here, for legal reasons). His taped interview where he admits that JM confessed to him and gave him the shoes is pretty much what sealed JM's guilt for me. Of course, BL is never mentioned at all in any of the movies -- which is absurd, considering he all but corroborates JM's confessions.
     
    AllyBeeUK likes this.
  11. AllyBeeUK

    AllyBeeUK Former Member

    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    3,485
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I can't blame those who are taken in by the documentaries, they are very convincing. I am glad that I did My own research, once you have seen the evidence in its entirety, it is impossible to deny.


    I have read about the trainers but I haven't heard that interview, I am going to have a listen to it now.

    I don't think that JM knew what he was going to participate in, I think the others took him along for the ride and perhaps he thought they were just going to bully them. I can't forgive him for the part he did play but I do think he is deeply ashamed which is why he stays away from the limelight.
     
    dogmatica and Userid like this.
  12. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I was unconvinced the first time I saw PL1 back when it came out. I remember renting it, being ready to be outraged by 3 innocent Metallica loving outcasts being wrongly convicted. I was a huge Metallica fan and that's how I heard about it. During and after watching it, I remember thinking "umm, these guys did this. They're not even really trying to hide it". Huge red flags everywhere - not least of which was Echols' own words and behaviors. I remember thinking "yeah, Misskelley isn't a genius by any stretch, but he's not "mentally retarded" as the spin was making him out to be. Echols' alibi being torn to shreds on the stand, all the lies he was caught in, his interviews...after I finished watching it I felt compelled to dig deeper as I was convinced they were guilty. At every turn, the evidence I was uncovering was cementing their guilt. There was never anything I read or saw that gave me any reasonable doubt whatsoever.
     
    Keine Engel and AllyBeeUK like this.
  13. AllyBeeUK

    AllyBeeUK Former Member

    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    3,485
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Funnily enough, I've been looking at a few old threads and have come across your comments from a number of years ago. I can see that you have never wavered, you are very perceptive. I can't say I was ever a passionate supporter, just a casual onlooker who took everything at face value. I think WOM was more convincing for me, they left a lot of the most incriminating things out and i didn't realise that DE was involved with it when I first came across it. I definitely had more doubts after watching PL which is why I started to do some reading on it. Looking back now, it is so glaringly obvious.

    You might see me dip in an out of the WM3 threads, I can only read about it for a couple of days at a time before i need a break. It's heartbreaking.
     
    dogmatica likes this.
  14. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl ...

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "The urine mystery" is one among several compelling reasons that I have always suspected a conspiracy between Jones/Driver and Sudbury/ possibly Gitchell (who at the time were all religious fundamentalists extremely obsessed with 'satanic' activity in WM) to stitch Echolls up for these murders, from the moment the bodies were discovered .

    - Jones and Driver had been conducting a very weird 'investigation' into satanic activity in WM prior to the murders, and were clearly targetting Echols as their 'suspect'.
    - Jones found the shoe that led to discovery of the bodies
    - Jones mentioned Echols as a suspect at time of discovery of the bodies

    Sudbury:
    James Sudbury Report


    On May 10:
    DAMIEN STATED THAT STEVE JONES FROM THE JUVENILE AUTHORITY HAD BEEN BY TO SEE HIM A DAY OR TWO BEFORE AND THAT STEVE HAD TOLD HIM ABOUT HOW THE BOYS TESTICLES HAD BEEN CUT OFF AND THAT SOMEONE HAD URINATED IN THEIR MOUTHS. HE STATED THAT STEVE STATED THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE REASON THAT THE BODIES WERE PLACED IN THE WATER SO THAT THE URINE COULD HAVE BEEN WASHED OUT.

    On May 26, Gitchell tells Kermit Channel that there was urine in the victims' stomachs:
    -"Urine was found in the stomachs of two of the boys. See Appendix B(Letter from Inspector Gary Gitchell to Kermit Channel at Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, dated **5-26-93**; item (9) "Dr. Peretti mentioned finding urine in the stomach of two boys").

    --- Yet urine in the stomachs is mentioned -- NOWHERE-- in Peretti's autopsy reports. Such a bizarre and significant finding could not possibly be left out, if factual. I cannot imagine Peretti making this claim without good evidence. If Peretti even suspected, then the boys' stomach contents would have been ordered to be analysed for urine-- and they were, as far as I can recall, not tested for urine.

    Yet here's Gitchell claiming what he claims above -- which makes me wonder, did Gitchell get this urine information second-hand? And if so, from whom?

    Even if there -was- urine in the victims' stomachs (which there obviously was not) -- how would Peretti have even known, without evidence of it in results of tests of stomach contents (which he did not have at that time)? I cannot imagine Peretti making this claim based on NO evidence, to anyone at all.

    And I believe he did not.

    Devilish questions

    Weird, huh?

    As far as I can see, the --origin-- of the urine story appears to be Jones and possibly Sudbury, who first FED that 'information' to Echols during the interview on the 7th. And I have to wonder--- why?

    (They also --fed-- him info on wounds, the knowledge of which was later, on the 9th, viewed as incriminating evidence).




     
    Haze likes this.
  15. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In all honesty, I don't find anything necessarily suspicious in any of that, really. Yes, Jones and a couple others thought initially that this could have been a satanic sacrifice -- but this was just one of many "initial" theories that many people close to the case had. Another was that a Vietnam veteran did it (by the way the boys were tied). Another was that a sex offender did it (enter JKM, who was interviewed thoroughly). All of these theories were looked into and followed up on; not just the satanic theory, but all of them.

    This is how an investigation works. People offer initial theories, but they still do an investigation, which the WMPD did. They investigated many, many suspects and interviewed many people; they followed many leads, based on initial theories. Simply because Jones and Sudbury posed an initial theory in no way is direct evidence that the investigation was tainted from said initial theory, because again, there were multiple initial theories.

    Gitchell inquiring about the urine was, again, an initial theory based on the following: a yellow stain found on the one sock recoverd, and a second yellow stain found on one of the shoes (the one that held the sock, if I remember right: CB's shoe). Liquid may have been found in the initial stages of the autopsy, which may have been thought to have been urine, before it was sent to the lab and properly tested. Like you said, Peretti documents no urine in his final AR, and the issue was never brought up again after the autopsy reports were complete, neither in private nor in trial. The only time you see it, is when Gitchell inquires about it once, before he receives the Peretti's final, written AR. It's never brought up again by Gitchell, because Peretti all but disproved it. What's so nefarious about that? Nothing. (the source of the stains on the shoe and sock were never positively identified; too small a sample I believe to definitively confirm what they were, unfortunately)

    DE says Jones and Sudbury provided him that information. Jones and Sudbury, I'm sure, would say they didn't. Of course, we have no way of knowing one way or the other.
     
    AllyBeeUK and dogmatica like this.
  16. dogmatica

    dogmatica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    63
    None of this supports the WM3's innocence, at all. You've convinced yourself with this, but ignore actual facts that prove their guilt. Weird, huh?
     
    AllyBeeUK likes this.
  17. Givemhell

    Givemhell New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Last night I watched "Paradise Lost" and fell headlong into this fascinating case. After watching the three HBO specials I was convinced that these kids weren't guilty. Jason just seemed like a normal kid, Damien seemed intelligent and like many kids that I had known growing up, troubled but not unusual. They sounded believable. Even today, Jason and Damien seem so normal...

    However, after researching the case for just a short while after watching the documentaries I quickly learned that there was so much information that either wasn't included or that I had missed. Now I think that they are guilty.

    What turned me around on this case is the fact that there wasn't simply one confession from Jesse but many, many confessions, not only to the police after several hours of pressure but in many other instances as well. My impression of the original confession was that the police were indeed leading him but that he also knew some things about the crime that really provided good explanations as to what happened there. Why was one of the children found separately from the others for example.

    Still, I'm very much fascinated by the personalities of Damien and Jason. I suspect that when Damien identified himself as a sociopath; that he was correct. He seems to have had issues with lighting fires and hurting animals, two of the three traits of the "dark triad" of psychopathy and a difficult childhood which also seems to be a factor. I'm not sure if he was a bedwetter, the other trait of the triad. His caretakers perceived him in this way as well, as lacking sympathy for other humans, as a potential murderer and he definitely had the history of criminal behavior that is common with sociopaths as did Jason. I think that disorganized would also describe him. I'm not an expert at all but from the little that I know, this sounds like sociopathy. The whole thing about Aleister Crowley, moving to Salem, drinking blood, magick, having a demon all make me think back to other psychopaths and I can't help but feel like Damien probably thinks very highly of himself, like he has tricked the world, gotten one over on everyone. The connection to Salem is fascinating to me because from my perspective, I don't think that magic is real and so the witches that were killed at salem were innocent women. But I wonder if Damien doesn't think that the witches of salem really were true witches since he believes that magic is real and so for him the concept of a "witch trial" is probably something different.

    What I don't understand and what is troubling me is who Jason is and his character. Is Jason also a psychopath who is doing a good job at pretending to be a non-disabled person? He is very convincing. Does anyone have any thoughts? I heard that Jason also had "Evil" tattooed on his hand like Damien did so perhaps he just preferred to "tone down" his predilections and had less interest in the theatrics? Maybe he was just less superstitious than Damien?
     
    Userid likes this.
  18. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good observations. I was the same way, watched the docs and was convinced they were innocent, then did my own (decades worth now) of research and I feel like they are the best suspects in the case, by far. I won't go so far as to say they are 100% guilty, because I simply don't know, but I certainly believe that at least one, if not all, could be involved.

    Like you say, JM hits on a lot of details that simply were not known publicly, even in his first confession, which was riddled with inaccuracies -- in which he explained later that he purposefully lied about certain details of the case to throw off investigators. JM had a history of fighting kids -- he was a pure hothead. He was quick to fight because he was compensating for his intelligence, which was low, but not to the extent that his defense suggests. And we all know DE's history. To imply he was (and still is, to this day) some "goth kid who wore black" is completely inaccurate; his interests were and still are way beyond that. This doesn't necessarily prove he's a killer of course, but it does display the obvious attempt by the film makers to mislead their audience.

    And this narrative that these 3 kids were "targeted" by police from the get-go is also completely false. JMB was targeted before anyone, and the police investigated many leads/people before arresting the WM3. Like I said, I still don't know if they're guilty, but a lot of the narratives that are floating out there (from the movies) are just ridiculous; and this wasn't some sinister grand scheme to frame 3 goth kids who liked metal. They were arrested for good reason, albeit one that mostly consisted of circumstantial evidence -- yet still, in my opinion, they are still the strongest suspects. JM's multiple confessions and BL's confession, in addition to DE's knowledge of the area, make them the strongest suspects.

    Lastly, an interesting thing about JM was that, if memory serves, he was initially trying to pin the murders on two other boys, before he finally admitted the real perpetrators (supposedly). I also believe that he and another boy called in a tip and said that a man they saw walking on a train track asked them to come drink with him in the woods. I'm fuzzy on the details because I haven't researched the case in depth in a very long time.
     
  19. herb4

    herb4 New Member

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Agree that the bodies were transported (a short distance) to the discovery site. I think the shoelaces were cut with Stevie's pocket knife and were used not for restraint but to ease transportation over two trips. That would explain the slightly different knots as well as Michael Moore being placed a little further away (2nd trip)
     
  20. DHT1339

    DHT1339 Active Member

    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    43
    JM went to the police because he was going to provide a tip about someone who he thought may have been involved. fast forward to later that day and he's under arrest and considered a suspect. always found that interesting

    JMB was rightfully looked at first because he was a parent of one of the victims. and with crimes like this involving kids, the parents are where you look first. which is why it's still puzzling they didn't even bat an eyelash at hobbs. JMB also had a shady past so another reason to look into him. DE had a troubled past and a reputation as well, but he had zero connection to the victims. jerry driver is the one who got the WMPD completely focused on echols because he had had it out for him for a long time and the murders finally gave him a reason to do whatever he could to put him away
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice