The West Memphis Three Series Part I: Set Free Or Where They Should Be?

West Memphis, Arkansas- On Wednesday May 5, 1993 three eight your old cub scouts and best buds Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Chris Byers ventured into the RobinHood Hill Woods after 6:30 PM.

While their worried parents made numerous calls to police and actively looked for them in the area into the late evening, there was no sign of them in spite of neighbors going door to door.  Unfortunately there was a shift change at the West Memphis Police Department, and no detectives were called in until the following morning.

That critical error by the WMPD is the start of a voluminous list of mishaps and negligence that would plague this case from the onset, and quite possibly earn Damien “Icky” Wayne Echols (a/k/a Michael Wayne Hutchison) Charles Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr, a new trial.

I was asked to review this case and present my findings to a colleague who had been privately retained in this case, with the agreement that I would publish my investigative report regardless of the conclusions I reached

In the interest of disclosure, I am admittedly a big fan of Johnny Depp and Eddie Vedder and I wanted nothing more than to let them know they could count me in as the newest advocate for “free west Memphis 3”.

First, The Good News?

At the onset of my research, I thought it was pretty clear that there absolutely was juror misconduct in the Echols/Baldwin trial, which has yet to be ruled on for the defense team, and I agree that the same judge who heard the instant case should not have heard the appeal, especially in a capital case.

As a practical matter, lawyers, specifically defense attorneys, are charged with extracting the “guilt or innocence fact” as it relates to the crime and zealously defending their clients rights and presumption of innocence.

Conversely, the prosecution is charged with presenting a case they believe will result in a conviction of the indictment as presented, while adhering to the rules of criminal procedure under the Arkansas supreme court.

I think it is a fair statement to say that in both trials, neither endeavor was accomplished and we should all be uncomfortable with how it could threaten our collective rights under our constitution should it go unaddressed in general, and  not just in this case with these defendants.

The larger issue at hand, is changes to DNA statutes and the states plain language misapplication of the “actual claim of innocence” under rule 37.

Simply put, it means that the new evidence, testing, the evidence of any jury misconduct, when evaluated with all other evidence both inculpating and exculpatory whether or not it was presented at trial, is a second bite of the apple- FOR BOTH SIDES.

The burden, however, is on the defense to argue that a new jury would likely acquit all three based on the totality of that evidence today. It should be noted that the Supreme Court will rule on this hearing as to whether or not a new trial is warranted giving EQUAL weight to direct, physical and circumstantial evidence, which is also the charge to a jury.

I support the hearings to begin December 5, 20011,  with cameras present because I believe in transparency and the law is clear that it provides for “higher burdens” in capital cases.

I purposely studied trial transcripts pleadings and filings in advance of all actual evidence and exhibits because I did not want any basis I had for procedural errors to influence my opinion.

My advance apologies for those reading that are new to the facts of this case for leading with the caboose,  there is a method to my engineering.

To an extent, I can bifurcate the issues of guilt or innocence vs. our rights under the constitution to due process.

I am less open to it given the recent verdict in the murder trial of Casey Anthony, where the similar problem but different verdict of no direct physical evidence tied to the accused resulted in her jury acquittal, but that is not the only topical comparison one can make between these two cases, more on that in the final installment of this series.

Brief Background: West Memphis Three Support

Courtesy Sundance

The HBO Series Paradise Lost, a documentary filmed by Joe Berlinger & Bruce Sinofsky’s company Creative Thinking International with the full participation of both the prosecution and the defense, paid for a portion of the defense of Echols and Baldwin directly to their lawyers and to them by way of a  trust in the name of their attorneys.  Once the victim’s families learned of this, each of the victim’s families was paid an undisclosed honorarium for their participation in 1994, prior to its airing in 1996.

Although Baldwin and Echols benefited financially from the arrangement,  they sued their attorneys Dan Stidham and Val Price for ineffectiveness of counsel and conflict of interest.

Loosely translated, they have accused them of not hiring defense expert witnesses and well, ineffectiveness.

It is due to that ruling we are sort of “where we are now.

That said, the funding for expert witnesses for these proceedings have been and continue to be paid in part by Arkansas Take Action (ATA), founded by Lorri Davis,  Echols wife.

courtesy Ark

The major celebrity fundraisers and contributors to West Memphis Three via ATA cite “Paradise Lost” as the impetus for their personal advocacy and sponsorship.

I can’t say that I would have blamed them then, as it was not until the series aired, and the “slant” of innocence of the accused by the producers became known to the prosecution and the families, and all but one family member of one of the victim’s declined participation in its sequel.  Naturally my first reaction to various organizations, including ATA post conviction fund raising for the defense of 3 convicted murders was a violation of the son of Sam law.

Not in Arkansas. A convict can use funds raised on its behalf for its defense. Let’s hope recently elected Senator David Burnett, the former judge on this case has amending that law on his action item list this year.

Playing to The CSI Effect- Excellent Strategy

Last November, In response to a united appeal decision by the Arkansas supreme court, previously denied by the circuit court in 2007 and argued by famed attorney Dennis Riordon on behalf of Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley, the west Memphis three were granted a new evidentiary hearing to take place on December 5, 2011 based on further DNA, fiber and hair analysis.

It is the goal of the defense team to use the hearing to win a new trial.

Last month, the case status update reports new DNA findings exclude all three suspects.  There are 2 spots on a victim’s shoe that are the profile of a common unidentified male, and another spot with a different male profile.

It is the defense’s position that this exonerates Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley, because it does not belong to them, which was stated similarly in just about every news article as well.

It does nothing of the kind, as there were over a dozen WMPD personnel on scene who could absolutely be the origin of the DNA.

The defense claims it is “not their job as a defense team” to establish whose DNA it is.

While that is true, presenting that evidence as exculpatory has already been addressed by the court on it’s own merit. Consideration by the court of this evidence, and all other evidence whether presented at trial or not is in effect, giving the state the power to decide guilt or innocence and makes the rule 37 “ruling” moot.

This is a very wide berth for both sides, and in this author’s opinion, a “be careful what you wish for situation” for at least one defendant, if not all three, ultimately.

Ditched In A Ditch

Because of the snafu that no detectives were notified until early morning on May 6th, detectives were trudging through the crime scene they did not yet know was a crime scene; until Detective Mike Allen saw the unmistakable yellow cub scout hat and a child’s sneaker floating in the stream.

While Mike Allen attempted to retrieve the items by leaning over the creek with his hands on a tree on the opposite side, he lost his footing on the muddy bank and slid into the murky aquatic coffin of the missing boys.

Allen’s foot slid underneath the first victim, and caused the naked, hogtied  and badly bruised body of Michael Moore to float to the surface at approximately 1 PM.

Chris Byers and Steve Branch were found by Detective Bryn Ridge approximately one hour and 45 minutes later 25 feet downstream, face down, and fully submerged and were located by the apparent purposeful placement of sticks jammed into the mud. The sticks had items of the boys clothing wrapped around the bottom ends.

Byers and Branch were also naked, hog-tied and badly beaten; Stevie sustained significant gouging wounds to the left of his face and Chris was emasculated.  Despite the fact that the coroner was 2 hours away, all 3 victims were removed from the ditch and placed on the banks, all three were still bleeding from their wounds and  covered by black plastic while WMPD continued to collect evidence from the scene.  County workers were enlisted to pump out the stream to collect evidence.

Also at the scene, was Crittenden County juvenile probation officer Steve Jones who suggested detectives speak to Damien Echols.  Lt James Sudbury and Steve Jones paid Echols a visit the next day.

Satanic Panic No Manic Yes

Satanic Panic. Throw that phrase into any equation and I already do not believe it.  This crime was in no way connected to a cult or an offering of sacrifice of any kind.

In December 2008 I had an opportunity to consult with retired 35 year FBI Behavioral Science Unit  chief, Special Agent Ken Lanning, in a different case that showed elements of “Satanism”.

If he says there is no ritual activity associated with this crime, there is no better authority, and he does.

It should be noted prior to the prosecution phase of the murders, the FBI advised John Fogleman not to proceed with that angle as the motive.

I respect that on the surface some believe that Echols was singled out because he had jet black long hair, wore all black, carved a pentagram into his chest, etc. That is until the 500 pages of his medical reports and prior criminal record were released.

However, what I do NOT respect, is that at no time was Echols singled out for any other reason than his OWN WORDS and his OWN ACTIONS.

In a recent episode of True Crime By Aphrodite Jones, Misskelley’s former attorney Dan Stidham, now working pro bono assisting  Dennis Riordan et al, calls the west Memphis three “throwaway kids”.

He goes on to say that they were arrested because they were dirt poor with family problems and WMPD was under terrific pressure to make an arrest.

Mara Leveritt, a reporter for the Arkansas Times who wrote a book on the case called Devils Knot and who also participated in the HBO series, has continued to be very outspoken that the police and prosecution railroaded these kids.

Leveritt helped start the west Memphis 3 innocence project in 2008 when Lorri Davis refused to open the books of Arkansas Take Action, but has since joined the ATA movement,  which is said to have raised well over a million dollars and actively seeking donations today.

There is no dispute whatsoever that Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley lived in squalor with broken families and all three lines of parentage were wrought with mental issues and extreme poverty.

There is much dispute however that prior to their arrests, although several locals pointed the finger directly at Echols and through association Baldwin, that WMPD focused only on them.

In fact, the first time Jason Baldwin’s name came up in connection with the murders was from Damien Echols himself.  That’s right, in his questionnaire answer he gave during an interview at WMPD on May 9, 1993; he suggested Jason Baldwin and L.G. Hollingsworth could be responsible. (insert image)

There were well over 100 witness interviews, dozens of warrants for hair and blood samples from various individuals, local sex offenders, out of state relocation’s and the like being scratched off the list as the investigation progressed, as well as witnesses passing polygraphs, thus eliminating them.

The indisputable truth is that these teenagers had a long criminal and violent history in this tiny community.

They all had the same probation officer that knew all of them for years, spent enough time in the community and received updated mental health progress reports to suspect Echols initially, absolutely.

Thus the concept of “supervised probation”.

Taking The Myth out of Mythunderstood

Damien Echols

Damien Echols is the son of Pam and Eddie Hutchison.  Pam was plagued with psychological issues her entire life which included nobody knowing where she was adopted from, and Eddie left the family after he got his first and only moderate paying job.

Jack Echols,  Pam’s next husband, adopted Damien and his sister Constance Michelle.  According to medical and social records, Jack Echols sexually abused Michelle and was verbally and physically abusive to all.  Pam left Jack and resumed her relationship with Hutchison in the months before the murders.  Their rented trailer had one working door and no bedroom for Damien.

There are no elementary records for Damien, and by both parents accounts, he lived his early childhood in a shack in the middle of a field with no water or electricity.

In the 18 months prior to the murders, Damien Echols was arrested for trespassing, sexual misconduct and committed to a psychiatric hospital for the second last time.

He was suspended from school seven times the year before, once for lighting a fire in the back of class, the last time because he clawed the face of Shane Divilbiss, a romantic rival for the affections of Deanna Holcomb, who was arrested with Damien a few months later.

Damien’s last commitment, while living with the recently relocated family in Aloha Oregon was caused by Echols threatening to slit his mother’s throat and drink her blood, and subsequently eat his father.

Pam and Eddie Hutchison were so concerned about Damien’s behavior and his threats to them, they refused to allow him back into the home and sent him on a bus back to Arkansas.

The Hutchison’s moved back to West Memphis 6 weeks before the murders and Damien moved back in.  Damien is suspected to have burned down his Father Andy Jack Echols garage and part of his trailer according to his friend Chris Littrell.  Pam Echols Hutchison Metcalf is currently on disability for depression.

According to Damien’s OWN application for Social Security disability benefits, he was suffering from homicidal, sociopathic and suicidal ideations, manic depression and schizophrenia:

The exhibit known as the “500”, as in 500 pages of medical records tells the story the prosecution could not, due to the exclusion of “prior bad acts”.   There was great concern about Damien’s escalating propensity for violence, so much so his probation officer removed the dog and cat skulls from his bedroom and expressed and great concern for acts against others.  He felt the natural evolution of his violence was going to be humans 18 months prior to the murders.

Damien was told at the hospital that he could be the next Ted Bundy, he replied I always knew

In her first police interview, Pam tells WNPD Hutchison that packed up and left her the night before the boys were missing, and took everything to his Mother’s by 9PM.

Pam described Damien as upset and crying over the incident.

In her subsequent deposition in September 1993, now represented by Damien’s attorneys, Val Price and Scott Davison she recants this happened on this evening.  Echols told detectives Damien was normal, and that he had no problems. It was not until detectives prompted her that they knew of his hospitalizations through his probation officer that she even admitted he was on medication.   I have dubbed her the Cindy Anthony of West Memphis.

HUTCHISON: I THINK HE’S A PRETTY DECENT YOUNG MAN, I’VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH HIM.

HUTCHISON: NO, HE WASN’T FAIRLY NORMAL, HE WAS, HE WAS MUCH BETTER THAN NORMAL.

SUDBURY: SO AS FOR AS DISCIPLINED?

HUTCHISON: HE WAS NEVER DISCIPLINED PROBLEM, NO

The Echols lived mostly on and off with Randy and Susan Sanders, Randy is a convicted sex offender and felon.

He was arrested for public masturbation 3 months before the murders.

Charles Jason Baldwin

Jason is the son of Larry Baldwin and Angela Baldwin Grinnell, his divorced parents who are also second cousins.  Three months before the murders, Jason’s mom was involuntarily hospitalized for paranoid delusions after Jason found her bleeding from self-inflicted injuries and called 911.

Angela’s  second husband and Jason’s step-dad, Terry Grinnell went to live at his Mom’s.  Five years before the murders, in Shelby County, it is believed Jason started a fire in the bedroom of the family home.  Baldwin was on probation since he was 13 for criminal mischief and most recently for shoplifting  in May 1993.  Since Echols return from Oregon, Baldwin’s grades were on the down slide and he was warned that if he missed school it would violate his probation.

On May 5, 1993, Angela and her live-in boyfriend Dink Dent had an altercation and she kicked him out the following day, after  public announcement the boys had been murdered.

Jason was responsible for looking after his younger brother Matt, and step-brother Terry Jr. now that his parents had separated.  The night Jason was arrested, his step-dad was again living with the family, and Angela returned home from work to find WMPD searching their home.

She became hysterical and began screaming at Terry, accusing him of turning Jason in for the reward money.  Jason was at Damien’s house the evening of their arrest on June 3, 1993; they turned the lights out and hid under the bed when WMPD came to place them into custody.

Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr.

Jesse and his brother with special needs were abandoned by their Mother when they were toddlers.  Jessie’s’ older brother was eventually institutionalized a few years later.

Jesse was on and off probation since he was 11 years old.  Most recently, one month before the murders, he was convicted of beating up a 13 year old girl.

In the weeks following the murders, Lee Rush, the live-in girlfriend of Jessie’s father, was awakened on more than one occasion by loud sobbing in the middle of the night coming from Jessie’s room.

When she asked him what was wrong, he simply told her that he was upset his girlfriend was moving away.

As detectives were waiting in the living room of the Misskelley trailer for the CST team to arrive to exact the search following Jessie’s arrest, Lee told them that story three times. She claimed she “knew something was wrong”.

Mr. Misskelley stated that Jessie might have been there, but he did not murder those kids.

Buddy Lucas, a friend of Jessie’s, would tell investigators after his arrest that Miskelley confessed to him the day after the murders that he was there, and asked him to take the blue and white adidas shoes he had been wearing.

Preponderance  Or  Propaganda

I have watched countless interviews, and opinions where an “expert” believes the west Memphis three are wrongly accused, it is usually followed by- ” ..there is no physical evidence to tie them to the crime..”  For starters, that is inaccurate.  There is voluminous amounts of physical and trace evidence, albeit circumstantial.

They were not wrongly accused, there was a confession by someone involved trying to make it look like he was not, by skewing facts so he could get the reward money for turning in Baldwin and Echols and buy his dad a truck.

That does not sound like a mentally challenged minor, it sounds to me like he told his Dad he was there, but did not do anything could he tell the cops the truth with his permission?  I am referring to the first confession, subsequent two others with the corrected facts and his admission FOLLOWING his conviction against his attorneys advice.  I will analyze both his statements as they relate to the evidence in Part 3.

Since when does a DNA sample, found on items handled by multiple people, which does not match a suspect, exclude them? Most specifically, when there are partial profiles available from serology that do not EXCLUDE them?

NEW PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TIED TO ECHOLS AND BALDWIN

Exclusively on www.blinkoncrime.com, during the course of our investigation of the case file, new and additional evidence has been uncovered linking Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin to the murders.

The INFAMOUS BR1

A plastic bag with the Road Runner Petro logo found at the scene containing inter alia a black thermal t shirt size Medium, a khaki short sleeve button down shirt size L, men’s size 33-34 Jordache jeans, a pair of white socks recovered from the pipe near the scene.  A red fiber found on Michael Moore ‘s boyscout shirt, which was microscopically similar to a red and white pullover shirt of Echols, was also found in this bag.

Although the fiber matched one from the victim,  and one belonging to Echols, investigators could never tie-in the bag to one of the suspects.

When Echols was interviewed on May 9,  he told Gary Gitchell that he was a roofer and worked for Alderson roofing. This is also confirmed by some of his medical records.

In the only deposition Eddie Hutchison gave, he told detectives he worked at Petro.

Although he purposely never referred to it as Road Runner Petro,  www.blinkoncrime.com was able to trace the names of his supervisors back to the Memphis, TN Road Runner Petro.

Alderson Roofing & Metal shares a parking lot with Road Runner Petro.

I submit, either connection ties “Icky” to the Road Runner bag.  To date, no personnel from either Road Runner or Alderson roofing has been interviewed.  No responses to our requests for interviews have been received by this articles publication.

Possible Weapon?

One thing that most experts have agreed on, with a few exceptions to be discussed later is that the injuries to the boys did not come from a knife.   The defense strongly believes that the knife found in the lake behind Baldwin’s trailer was not used and I agree that the “grapefruit is not just for breakfast anymore” stunt by John Fogleman was ridiculous and should never have been allowed, and stricken at a minimum.   However, I do think Jason Baldwin was the owner of the primary weapon used in the assault and murders of Chris, Stevie, and Michael on May 5, 1993.

The day before the murders, Tuesday May 4, 1993, Jason Baldwin traded 3 t shirts for a curved “throwing” knife, and a mountain climbing ice pick.  On Friday May 8, 1993  Jason had his little brother Matthew return those items, he had kept hidden under his bed for the last few days, claiming “somebody was going to accuse him of using them.”

On May 11, 1993 Billy and Kenny Newell turned the weapons over to WMPD.

5-11-93

Statement of Kenny Newell
Lakeshore Drive

Jason was over at our house and Billy wanted to
trade something for some shirts. And the only thing
Billy has good enough to trade is the weapons. Billy
picked the shirts he wanted and they traded. And 3
or 4 days later Jason’s little brother brong the pick
and the nife back and got the shirts but we didn’t
find the testement shirt so he still has it.

Jason Baldwin and his brother Mathew Baldwin
lives west from our house at the street right before
the last one by the fild 3 or 4 trailers down on the left.

Billy Newell is my brother. The first trade took place at the early part of last week. The second trade took place
at the last part of the same week.

This statement was completed at 6:28PM on the 5-11-93

The Newell brothers were never called as witnesses, and the ice axe seems to have been put on the shelf after there were no latents detected.

Based on visual analysis of the crime, autopsy macros and photos I have reviewed, 14 experts reports,  trial testimony and witness statements to the fact that Jason Baldwin’s post offense behavior had him get rid of it through a peripheral party PRIOR to any LE interaction indicating he was a suspect, it is my personal opinion this weapon was used in the commission of these murders.  Please see similar axe image close ups:

I do not profess to have any earthly idea why this ice axe was not previously compared to the wounds in this case as a possible murder weapon, but our analysis finds this instrument is consistent with the wounds sustained by the victims in this crime, encompassing ante-mortem, perimortem and postmortem inflictions of all three boys.

WARNING GRAPHIC  WARNING    GRAPHIC  WARNING  GRAPHIC  WARNING  GRAPHIC

Complete Autopsy Files on each victim can be found here. Viewing autopsy images of a graphic nature is highly upsetting to most people, if you are one of those, I would encourage you to leave the site as I am making an extended entry here so one must click the next page to view as an opt in permission following the warning.

WARNING GRAPHIC  WARNING    GRAPHIC  WARNING  GRAPHIC  WARNING  GRAPHIC

Complete Autopsy Files on each victim can be found here. Viewing autopsy images of a graphic nature is highly upsetting to most people, if you are one of those, I would encourage you to leave the site.

The following information is not intended to take the place of the full and complete autopsy reports available , it is for demonstrative purposes of support as to the possibility that the mountain climbing pick, subsequently referred to as ice pick, is a possible murder weapon.  I refer to relevant injuries only, and in some cases I have cropped images to illustrate only those and protect the privacy of the victims.

Michael Moore:

Situated on the left parietal scalp was a dove-tail type laceration measuring 3/4 by 1/8 inch. At the inferior margin of the wound was an extension patterned contusion in the form of an upside down “L”; the vertical portion measured 1/2 inch and the horizontal portion measured 1/4 inch.  Moore’s left side surfaced when it was “dislodged” by Mike Allen’s foot.

Stevie Branch:

Stevie had large gouging wounds to the left side of his face, they are believed to be perimortem as they have sections of skin torn from the inside of the cheek and described as “interrupted” cuts.   Byers gouging wounds are referred to as similar in Dr. Peretti’s report.

*Image too graphic refer to description only*

Q.  Okay. And using that if you could explain to the Court 15 your biggest concern regarding this not being a bite mark. 16 A.  My biggest concern of it not being a bite mark — if you 17 look at this one with this curve and this curve and this curve 18 and this curve (INDICATING) — there are curved lines all over 19 this poor victim and even deep gashes which also have a similar 20 curvature which show up better on the side view — the left 21 side of the face. 22 Q.  Doctor, could you refer to that exhibit number on that? 23 A.  Exhibit Thirteen M is the blow-up, and that’s the blow-up 24 of the original Ten M.

Chris Byers:

The only one of the three that does not have a cause of death related to drowning,  bled to death from a gouging wound to his penis and scrotum.  In original trial testimony, Dr. Peretti testified it could have been caused by the “Baldwin” serrated knife, other knives, or a piece of broken and jagged glass.

*Image Too graphic* Refer to description

In subsequent hearings,  Expert following expert has testified that this was NOT a cutting wound, but a wound that was “tearing” in nature.  What several experts also testified to, was that the victims were covered with “curved wounds.”

To be continued : Part 2 A continuation of the evidence in the case against the West Memphis Three .

Related Posts:

238 Comments

  1. Ragdoll says:

    …..oh yeah…heart u too!!!!

  2. nemesis says:

    What is the schedule for posting part 2 in the wm3 series, Blink? Trying to maintain my patience ;) ! Thank you much.

    Upside tomorrow- thanks for the patience, we had an earthquake and now a zombie invasion.

    Kidding, editing was offline for the balance of the day, and we have more work to do on crime scene photos.
    B

  3. nemesis says:

    Sorry about the quake and associated difficulties. No worries about the delay, i just want to know that I haven’t missed it! Have a good night, K

  4. Rose says:

    Gee, zombies, an improvement over the usual VA/DC/Md NE personages….
    No wonder an awe-ful quake….
    Ready for an equally awesome Part II

  5. nemesis says:

    Oh dear. Still no part II, Blink? I’m guessing you’re battening down the hatches in preparation for the hurricane headed your way, post-earthquake! On top of that, I gleaned from the podcast of Dana’s show that you are not feeling well (who can blame you, what with all the earth-quaking and hurri-caning?) Stay safe and feel better, and then post Part II of wm3! I know it’ll be worth the wait. ;)

    lol, I am typing with one eye today, lol, I have a sinus infection and because I have a disdain for antibiotics for nearly any reason not ending in death, it progressed to nasty. Sigh.

    I am working, come hell or hurticane, I publish tomorrow.
    B

  6. Ragdoll says:

    Blinkalicious,

    Just thought you’d want to know this piece comes up under Caylee’s link. I wish I could make it easier for your group with just a simple click and drag to WM3 file.

    Hope you’re feeling better today! <3

    yes, there are references to her case in it.
    B

  7. nemesis says:

    Blink, As a lifelong sinusitis sufferer myself, I know firsthand what put the “hurt” in “hurticane” in your post above! LOL, (although it’s no laughing matter, really)..:( ouch!

    While I admire you for the grit one-eyed typing takes, please don’t overspend on your fair share of the expense of our entertainment here at BOC by sacrificing your health concerns. Part II can dang well wait, and I don’t care how long! Just look after you and yours, please. And, thanks for everything! Have a restful night of transformative sleep, K.

    Thank you ever so kindly. Pass the frozen peas.

    Off to google.. transformative sleep images and impose myself .

    :)
    B

  8. I hope you release part 2 of this series. I have followed this case for a long time and never connected the dots on the Road Runner bag. That is a great find. You can tell that bag had not been there long, and the Road Runner is nowhere near the crime scene. That is one hell of a coincidence that a bag originating next to where Damien worked and at the exact location his dad worked would find its way to the crime scene in the same time period that the crime took place. Add the similar fibers to the equation and it is even more likely that Damien brought it there.

    Another telling circumstantial nugget can be gleaned from Paradise Lost. When Damien’s attorneys ask if he wants some beer if he is found not guilty, Damien laughs and says “no more beer.” This implies something went wrong the last time he had beer, and Jessie said in his confession that Damien was drinking beer prior to the murders.

    I commit to producing the 2nd piece by the end of this week, I promise.
    B

  9. Also – another thing tying Damien to the crime scene is that it is directly behind the Mayfair Apartments. Damien mentioned in his book, Almost Home, that he lived at the Mayfair Apartments as a kid. (Also, Damien’s father left the family the day before the murders occured, so that may have had something to do with why he was drinking within eye sight of his childhood home.)

  10. skeptic says:

    This is interesting information that I have never heard or read before. Can you please tell us what resources were used to obtain your information?

    Is that a real question? My resources are all hyperlinked. Click on anything in bold.
    B

  11. ElwoodMillington says:

    This is an excellent expose’ on this case. I look forward to the remaining parts. I live and work in Northeast Arkansas and knew all of the original lawyers in the case. I have followed the case since its inception and have long been convinced of the three’s guilt. Most people who say they believe in their innocence have never bothered to read the ENTIRE case file. Most of it is on wm3.org (the supporters website. They have strategically left out some documents). There is more on wm3truth.com. The supporters have long tried to pass these three off as innocent teenagers wrongfully accused. The fact is that they were already on the wrong side of the law and likely prison bound for something else later in life. They have passed Jessie Misskelley off as a stupid inbecile. While he is of lower intelligence he is not stupid and unable to remember facts. I dare say not many of them have ever LISTENED to his confessions. He doesn’t stumble along in them like an idiot would. Yes, he misstated some facts in the first one, but cleared those up in his post-trial confession. He even admitted that he was trying to throw the police off with some wrong facts in the first case. He was smart enough to come up with that explanation. I look forward to the later parts. This is the best unbiased account you will find.

  12. MP77 says:

    Blink you are doing an amazing job of exposing the truth, thank you so much. I have read that you said that John Grisham is interested in the case. Is he interested in exposing all the lies or just the illegal release of Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley? I just ask because celebs like Vedder, Maines, Depp & Jackson speak for the WM3 but nobody speaks for the families of Chris, Stevie & Michael.

  13. MP77 says:

    If you would like to send me an e-mail rather than an open answer that would be cool.

  14. Blink says:

    Mp I would not be able to comment on that.

  15. MP77 says:

    Okay I fully understand. Really looking forward to parts 2+3 of your article.

  16. [...] Part I of our series, we touched briefly on the development of new evidence and possible murder weapon, [...]

  17. illway says:

    Where can we view the rest of the photos?

    If you are referring to the autopsy photos or any variations of same my team created, they are not available to the public.
    B

  18. Primepeem says:

    If the first photo of ice pick is the evidence photo of Baldwin’s actual ice pick then the police department sure made some low quality pics. And if the second photo is just a random climbers ice pick (with guard and strap) then I notice some differences. I found a pic of a climbers ice pick that is more similar to Baldwin’s as far as I can tell. I just don’t get how that ice pick made that impression. I may be the only one who cannot see how it fits on the wound. Doesn’t seem to me the pick portion has enough curve and how is it a circle with a wound inside? I would appreciate it if someone could guide me to see it in my mind. On the website Superstock.com I found there’s a pick similar to Baldwins imo. This is the item number. Royalty-free : 1647R-45220

  19. CINDY ROOK says:

    GOOD WORK! GOOD INFORMATION! I PERSONALLY HAVE LIVED INWET MEMPHIS 35 YEARS, NEVER THOUGHT THEY WERE GUILTY!

  20. Tammy says:

    there needs to be (yet) another documentary done Blink to expose these guilty perps. Including actually facts, evidence, and knowledge of the third confession. They can’t get away with this, they are fooling too many fools. I am in NZ and only had to read the transcripts and view the evidence to see they were guilty – what were the likes of Peter Jackson and Johnny Depp thinking!! What does Johnny depp think after your research? Is he going public with a retraction of his support?

  21. Phil Hudson says:

    It’s pretty clear the icepick was the weapon. I’m shocked also that the clothes were not introduced – clear path straight back to Echols.

  22. claudia says:

    “In fact, the first time Jason Baldwin’s name came up in connection with the murders was from Damien Echols himself. That’s right, in his questionnaire answer he gave during an interview at WMPD on May 9, 1993; he suggested Jason Baldwin and L.G. Hollingsworth could be responsible. (insert image)”
    You do know he was obviously talking about Jason Baldwin not Charles jason Baldwin

  23. Shaun Wheeler says:

    I am commenting by request. If there are any objections I’ll be glad to leave and comment here no more.

    You write with a stentorian tone but do not understand or overstate the limits of the facts. I’m not a supporter, I am not a ‘non’. I am, however, well studied on the facts of this case and many of the documents on which you rely came from my efforts scanning them.

    With regard to prosecutors burden being to prove the charge in an indictment – None of the three murderers were charged by indictment. They were charged by “criminal information”. Arkansas does not use the grand jury system.

    “Although Baldwin and Echols benefited financially from the arrangement, they sued their attorneys Dan Stidham and Val Price for ineffectiveness of counsel and conflict of interest.

    Loosely translated, they have accused them of not hiring defense expert witnesses and well, ineffectiveness.”

    Last time I checked Dan Stidham didn’t represent Baldwin or Echols, he represented Jessie Misskelley, Jr.

    Val Price retained noted medical examiner, Dr. Kris Sperry who was then Deputy Chief Medical Examiner for Fulton County, Georgia. Owing to his close personal ties to Milton Nix, he was later hired as the Chief Medical Examiner for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Unfortunately, Kris’ analysis wasn’t really favorable to his client. Sometimes those are the breaks.

    Val also retained Dr. Moneypenny, Robert Hicks, and with counsel for Baldwin, shared the benefits of the services of a jury consultant named James Ranscoe who also consulted on the Mike Tyson sexual assault trial.

    http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/rule37/may5.html

    Start on page 174.

    Mr. Wheeler, dissenting opinions stated respectfully are welcome here, so no need to post and duck, so to speak, lol.

    However, wrt to Arkansas not using the grand jury system, that information is false. While I agree that the charges against the 3 were brought by criminal information and not an indictment by a grand jury, and I have never stated otherwise, it was the state’s choice. It is my belief, we will see a re-surge in both investigative subpoenas, and grand jury use in the immediate future in most states.

    In fact, here is a case that used the grand jury to indict West Memphis LE and Crittenden County LE for fake stops for cash.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/air_marshals/pirani_indictment2_021016.pdf

    Wrt the “ineffectiveness of counsel” statement ( and I am taking you at your word that is a quote from the piece, as it is customary to snip and link when quoting so it can be seen in context) You may wish to read your own scans, Stidham absolutely was part of the Rule 37 hearings, which were heard with Baldwin’s.

    Misskelley’s former attorney, now judge Dan Stidham was back on the stand Wednesday for cross examination by the prosecution.

    Stidham said at the time of the trial he had never served as the leading lawyer in a capital murder trial. He said at the time of this case back in 1993 he thought it would plea out. He said never expected it go to trial so he didn’t think his amount of experience would be a problem.

    http://www.kait8.com/story/9382449/misskelley-baldwin-back-in-court-for-rule-37-hearings?redirected=true

    I guess if one is to be picky, my sentence structure could have used a tweak, but as you can see, they all sued their former counsel, which was the point.

    As far as the stentorian tone, I don’t think that applies to anything written, and I do not understand the rest of your criticism in that sentence.

    If you are saying.. You act like you are an authority on this case but your not, if your referring to the erroneous “corrections” you just listed, it would seem scanning is not investigating objectively.

    I will say thanks for scanning the case docs so the public can best research the case.

    B

  24. Shaun Wheeler says:

    Blink,

    “However, wrt to Arkansas not using the grand jury system, that information is false. While I agree that the charges against the 3 were brought by criminal information and not an indictment by a grand jury, and I have never stated otherwise,”

    From 1991 until now, I know of exactly two instances in which a grand jury was impaneled by a prosecuting attorney. In any event you made the statement in your article that the prosecutor’s burden was to prove the charge in the indictment. They were not indicted, not much to add to that other than I commented on it exactly the way you wrote it.

    “It is my belief, we will see a re-surge in both investigative subpoenas, and grand jury use in the immediate future in most states.”

    I am at a loss to conceive of how that would be done. The Federal government lacks authority and the States are already overwhelmed with existing cases. It’s hard for me to imagine any legislator so intent on forcing a change without the money to pay for it.

    “In fact, here is a case that used the grand jury to indict West Memphis LE and Crittenden County LE for fake stops for cash.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/air_marshals/pirani_indictment2_021016.pdf

    Federal indictment. Has nothing to do with State rules of criminal procedure.

    Yo-

    I am not going to play the pee up a rope game, I am without proper equipment.

    Read the indictment, it says DISTRICT COURT, it is NOT a FEDERAL INDICTMENT, and regardless of what grands were impaneled, your comment was that the state of Arkansas does not use a grand jury system, and that is incorrect, as I mentioned. Furthermore, how offensive are you to think I would not know the difference because you read one article from July? Seriously.

    What is it with the Fonzi syndrom with you people?

    B

    B

  25. Shaun Wheeler says:

    “I guess if one is to be picky, my sentence structure could have used a tweak, but as you can see, they all sued their former counsel, which was the point.”

    If this was your point, you are still incorrect.

    There is no record of any lawsuit filed by any of the three defendants against their lawyers.

    Ever. If you know of one feel free to cite it.

    I said they sued for ineffectiveness of counsel, rule 37 hearings, hello?

    Ergo, they are a party to the suit, and/or filing.

    And thank you for only taking up 2 posts to make your intention known, and your more than welcome for me correcting you on such an easily researched point as a grand jury, sheesh.

    B

  26. Lisa O'Brien says:

    Excuse me, Blink, but the heading on the indictment says “United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.” That is a federal court, not a state court.

    You’re also incorrect regarding the allegation that Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley sued their attorneys for ineffective assistance. None of the attorneys was a party to the Rule 37 actions, as demonstrated by the caption of those pleadings:

    Echols: http://www.callahan.8k.com/pdf/Order_06_17_1999__Rule_37.pdf (Petition not available)

    Baldwin: http://callahan.8k.com/pdf/jb_rule37_1997.pdf

    Miskelley: http://callahan.8k.com/images/jessiem/rule37/jm_amendedrule37_01.jpg (initial Petition not available)

    The only parties to the Rule 37 actions were Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley as the Petitioner in each of their respective actions and the State of Arkansas as the Respondent. The attorneys were not individually named, were not served with process, did not respond to the allegations and no relief was sought from any of them. All of those conditions would be required for there to have been a lawsuit against the attorneys. In fact, there is no cause of action for a criminal defendant to sue an attorney for “ineffective assistance.” That is a constitutional claim made in post-conviction actions in which the respondent is the state in which the conviction occurred.

    Ok, I stand corrected, I re-read my response, and omitted an entire paragraph, that is my fault, mea culpa.

    I have no problem owning my error, ever.

    The indictment in that case was FEDERAL, what I omitted is that 5 of the 6 charges were dismissed and the final outcome was remanded to the state, final disposition unknown.

    Here’s the facts, Mr. Wheeler said the state of Arkansas does not have a grand jury system, that is false. Infrequent use is not the same as not having one, the end.

    I believe we are getting into semantics, and that’s fine, but to say that the attorneys were not a party to the proceeding and were never serviced is laughable. How did they get there? Did someone just say, if your not doing anything, would you mind showing up? Of course not, they were served subpoenas. They testified as sworn witnesses, how can you say they are not a party? They were not petitioners, that would be correct.

    While we are at it, how about discussing the affidavits from the attorneys that said that (para) had they KNOWN about Damien’s “SSA determination of disability” at the time of their representation, they would have questioned their clients competence ( note the judge ordered a competency hearing following these).

    So are you also of the opinion, members of the bar, filing affidavits in support of aforementioned action, are not parties to it? I guess I should have focused more stringently on the monies paid for representation of indigent and disabled folks that were clearly double dipping. Love to see those trust account ledgers, no?

    B

  27. Shaun Wheeler says:

    US District Courts are Federal courts.

    http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/FederalCourtBasics/CourtStructure/UnderstandingFederalAndStateCourts.aspx

    A Rule 37 proceedings is not ‘suing’ their lawyers.

    “Ergo, they are a party to the suit, and/or filing.”

    Not really, no. For starters the Bar would never stand for it. A lawyer cannot realistically file a petition on behalf of a client in a due process claim in which the lawyer is alleging his own incompetence or ineffectiveness.

    In any case none of them, Val, Robin, Dan or Paul….appear as a named party in the Rule 37 petitions. They were witnesses to material fact, nothing more.

    Are you suggesting that the testimony of that proceeding cannot be used in a bar complaint or in a malpractice suit if appropriate? The object of ineffectiveness is not a party to a proceeding?

    Who suggested that the allegations of ineffectiveness, which btw, are only one aspect of the good faith basis for the filing were self-filed? That’s plain silly.

    I get it, you want to be right. Picture me waving my magic wand saying.. you can be right, your not, but I can see how this could go on forever and I have neither the time or inclination.

    Are you seriously asking me to educate you on the difference between Federal and State charges, and the differences in their grand jury processes? The link I provided was clearly a State indictment, and either you did not bother to read it, or you have wave more time than I.

    Jack Dobson, feel free, lol

    B

    Three eight your old boys were brutally murdered, three men pled guilty to their murder, have you any pearls of wisdom to offer on the central issues of this case, or do you prefer to pick through the file closet?

  28. Lisa O'Brien says:

    Blink, the US District Court is a FEDERAL court, not a state court. Another clue is that the United States is a party, not the State of Arkansas. Therefore, the Pirani indictment is a federal indictment, not a state court indictment.

    It appears that you’re wrong about this issue, but can’t admit it.

    You should check comments, I just posted in response to you. It was absolutely my error.

    Again, the issue I was responding to, was the assertion that Arkansas does not have a grand jury system at the state level, which is false. I agree they have used it infrequently, but it was certainly available to them, and remains so.

    If one is going to correct my facts, I have no issue with that, I am all about learning, but then those that are bringing it, should be equally as willing, no?

    B

  29. Lisa O'Brien says:

    Blink, Shaun is correct that in this particular case the three were charged not in an indictment by grand jury. That was correct, as they were charged by bill of information. It may seem like semantics to you, but indictment by grand jury and bill of information employ different processes, your article should reflect the correct process that was employed by the State of Arkansas to charge these three with capital murder.

    Shaun also acknowledged that the grand jury system was available, but stated that it was infrequently used. As I recall, he said twice to his knowledge. You could have and should have taken his comments a little less defensively, which would’ve saved you from making the error you did on the Pirani indictment.

    You are also incorrect in your assertion that the attorneys, as witnesses, were parties to the Rule 37 actions. To be a party to the action, the attorneys would have to have been specifically named as parties to the action (either as Respondents or third-parties), they would have to have been served with a Summons to appear before the court as well as a copy of the Petition with the allegations against them and they would have to have filed answers to those allegations within a specific time frame of 20 or 30 days. Additionally, had they been parties, they would have been represented at the hearing by their own counsel and would have had the right to question witnesses. Finally, they would have the right to file briefs post-hearing to argue their cases.

    You’re assertion that a witness being served with a subpoena to appear and give testimony ipso facto makes them a party to the lawsuit in which they’re requested to appear is totally incorrect. Execution of an affidavit by a witness also does not make that witness a party. If that were true, then every one of Echols, Baldwin and Miskelley’s experts and witnesses who executed declarations and/or affidavits on their behalves in their various post-conviction actions would have also become parties. That is not the case and would never happen in any case.

    Again, it may seem like semantics to you, but it’s not. It’s a demonstration of a lack of understanding of the legal system in general and the procedural history of this case specifically.

    I never said that they were indicted, not once, I specified the charter of the prosecutor, which is correct, indictment can be via a true bill, or criminal information accusation.

    Repeat, I never said they were indicted because they were not. I note you continue to ignore that Mr. Wheeler was incorrect- which indisputably he was. You are referencing only his response to me pointing that out, from his initial post, not his first comment and I quote:

    Arkansas does not use the grand jury system.

    Note the difference, I erred, and said so, it happens with adults that are actually here to progress an intelligent dialogue about the case, not nanny nanny pooh pooh.

    If you took the time to review my work outside of this issue, it would be clear I am versed in the processes of jurisprudence, and in any area I may not be, I seek the opinion of an attorney and quote them, or they post here plainly. You stated they were not served, which as you also know, is not accurate.

    Is that how this works, y’all get to move around and I have to stand still during dodgeball game?

    I do not know what your resources are but should you have access to LexisNexis, WestLaw or Pacer , I can assure you if you run a party search to ANY suit, or proceeding, anyone served on the record is considered a party.

    You want to talk about the 1″ barnacle on the titanic next to the gaping hole that sunk it, I get it.

    B

  30. Lisa O'Brien says:

    First of all, as you’ve done with Mr. Wheeler, you’re mischaracterizing what I said regarding the attorneys. Becoming a party to an action involves more than just service of something from the court. In my first post, I did refer to “process” in general, but in my second, I referred to the specific documents which must be served on a party to an action, the Summons and Petition/Complaint. The defense attorneys were not served with Summonses or Petitions/Complaints. Therefore, they were not parties.

    Second, service of a subpoena on a party does not make the witness a party to the action. Your claim that the witnesses are added to the docket as parties is also equally ridiculous. The dockets would become unmanageable if every witness became a party, especially in civil cases, where both sides issue subpoenas duces tecum to records custodians for records and issue subpoenas to witnesses to testify by deposition during discovery and then re-issue subpoenas duces tecum to records custodians and subpoenas to witnesses to appear and testify at trial.

    I do have resources, Blink. I also worked in law offices that handled civil cases in state and federal courts for 19 years, prior to returning to New Orleans to care for my elderly father. Since 2005/2006 one of my jobs was electronic filing of pleadings in the federal court ECF systems in Tennessee and Mississippi, including subpoena returns for witnesses for deposition or trial. Not once did I ever list a witness as a party to an action, nor was I ever instructed to do so by any court clerks, who review the electronic filings and reject them if there is a deficiency.

    Just for sh*ts and giggles, I checked Pacer to ensure that my memory was accurate. Witnesses served with subpoenas are not listed as parties in a case. There are instances where a named party must be served with a subpoena, such as when a former employee is named as a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit against the former employer.

    Below, I have copied a docket from Pacer in which two subpoenas were served to witnesses (Volz and Reynolds) who do not appear as parties to the action.

    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-00005-WAP

    Carlisle v. BL Development Corporation
    Assigned to: W. Allen Pepper
    Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
    Date Filed: 01/09/2009
    Date Terminated: 08/24/2011
    Jury Demand: Plaintiff
    Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other
    Jurisdiction: Diversity
    Plaintiff
    Edgar Carlisle represented by Christopher Ethan Kittell
    MERKEL & COCKE
    P. O. Box 1388
    Clarksdale, MS 38614-1388
    (662) 627-9641
    Email: ckittell@merkel-cocke.com
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    V.
    Defendant
    BL Development Corporation
    doing business as
    Grand Casino represented by J. Cal Mayo , Jr.
    [redacted]
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Robert L. Moore
    [redacted]
    TERMINATED: 06/23/2010
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Kenneth H. Coghlan
    [redacted]
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Paul Bowie Watkins , Jr.
    [redacted]
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Pope S. Mallette
    [redacted]
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    Neither Mr. Volz, nor Mr. Reynolds appear on the docket of the above case as parties, even though each was served with a subpoena for their appearance at trial.

    I then ran a party search for Mr. Reynolds, who was subpoenaed as a witness in the above case to check your assertion that witnesses are listed as parties, even if they don’t appear on the docket I posted above. Below are the results:

    1 Reynolds, Tommy(dft) mssdce 2:2003-cv-00216
    2 Reynolds, Tommy (dft) mssdce 3:2005-cv-00097

    The Tommy Reynolds listed above is an official of the State of Mississippi and was a named defendant in the above actions.

  31. [...] old victims murdered on May 3, 1993 along with Chris Byers and Stevie Branch.  Within days of an exclusive series on the murders appearing on http://www.blinkoncrime.com which included the discovery of potential new [...]

  32. Mary Nee says:

    I have been waiting for the rest of the series ??? Also — you note that Echols brought up Jason Baldwin in the first place — however, it is my understanding that Echols meant a different young man named Jason Baldwin (a hulking brute ) — not the young man who was his friend at the time. Jason Baldwin was on Jerry Driver’s “list of names” but no one is sure which Jason Baldwin he was referring to because Driver apparently had interaction with them both.

  33. Sean King says:

    I saw your Graphic Warning Disclaimer but you only have 4 or 5 Pictures. There is no Link to go to another page!
    Can you tell me what to do? This is an interesting case.
    Thanks.
    Sean

  34. Jeannie Thomas says:

    FINALLY, somebody out there finds some things about the WM3 fishy as regards whether they are innocent or not! Every time I tend to be swayed in their favor, I keep going back to Jessie’s confession. Come on, please!! He simply gave too many details for a “retarded” teenager to have come up with out of the clear blue. I.E., I chased Michael Moore and held him. Where in the world did that come from? As far as his being “confused” as Gitchell put it on so many details, he was admittedly drunk on that cheap whiskey for Pete’s sake. When he told where he through the empty bottle, the detectives went and found it later exactly where he said. Why has that and so many other things not been brought to the forefront of the investigation? I know Terry Hobbs looks REALLY GUILTY, and he may be, but I find it extremely hard to believe he could restrain all 3 boys at his home, kill them there, clean up the mess later (although he was noted to do some and strange cleaning afterward)and transport them and their bikes to the woods single handedly. Doesn’t quite wash. I see D, J and J being able to do it after, as Jessie himself put it, the boys accidently came up on them in the woods. I think Damien and even sweet-seeming Jason had a huge, and I mean huge, amount of anger and hate bubbling under the surface of their hidden unhappiness. So much in life was going against them and their hands were tied against any kind of rebuttal against a society that was badly mistreating them. And in this short while, that rage was turned on these 3 young boys who probably looked to them to be well-cared for and loved (the Boy Scout outfit could have triggered feelings of neglect in and of itself). Jessie I think did not have the heart for the kill.

  35. Andy Diamond says:

    Windbag at work. Can you make a point without injecting yourself into the story?

    lol, if I am the windbag in the scenario-prolly not.
    B

  36. Mr Scott says:

    When it comes to Jessie’s ‘confessions’, I am surprised at people that just pick and choose what to believe. I don’t believe any of it, because he wasn’t there. He plead innocent and never testified against Damien and Jason because he refused to get on the stand and lie on them, even if it meant a very drastically reduced sentence.
    If there’s 3 boys, even someone as slow as Jessie may deduct that one would try to run if the other two in his story were being assaulted. Jessie thought he was getting a new truck and going home. The WMPD badgered other witnesses in this case into also making false statements. They let Vicki Hutcheson totally off the hook for her lies.

    Except his most telling and accurate confessions occurs in the presence of his own attorney after his conviction and have no noticed that they have distanced themselves completely from Jesse?

    He got more right than he got wrong and you can’t have the “low iq” argument both ways.

    Btw, there is zero proof he was slow, and btw, nobody uses that clinically.
    B

  37. alx says:

    I think by the time Misskelly was 11 He had only gotten as far as the third grade. he also had to repeat Kindergarten, so he was definitely slow. all of his confessions had mistakes in them too. In cases involving more than one defendant, you always have people turning on each other and trying to save themselves by testifying/plea-bargaining, you see this in everything from the Manson family trial to cases involving organized crime. but I’m supposed to believe these three teenage dopers refused to go down that route for 18 years? why not?? I also think you haven’t published a part 3 because you realize that your pick-ax theory is nonsense, and you are trying to save face LOL

    What would I need to save face for, they are all convicted- hello?

    And it was not a pick axe, it was an ice axe, thanks for reading LOL

    B

  38. Chris says:

    I have seen all 3 HBO documentaries as well as Devils Knot and West of Memphis and Read Blink Part 1.

    My opinions are as follows:

    1. The murder weapon is the Ice Axe

    2. Terry Hobbs was present during the crime

    3. The WM3 were also present during the crime

    4. Damien Echols participated in the Murder, Baldwin participated under the instruction of Echols in post Murder Activites and MissKelly’s only direct action was to hold down the one victim who attempted to run away and to deal with the adidas Shoes post crime.

    5. Terry Hobbs assisted with the cover up of evidence and was also the main person in the Crime. Meaning he did most of it and then Damien Joined in and then further encouraged the others.

    This is my personal opinion and assessment. I am not a professional but my personal interests extend to Criminology and the study of Serial Killers.

    Is your thinking Hobbs was involved because of the hair?
    B

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment