The West Memphis Series Part II: Guilty By Plea And Have Been Set Free
Jonesboro, AR- In a shocking development, four days following the first installment of the West Memphis Three on www.blinkoncrime.com, on August 19, 2011 Damien Echols, Charles Jason Baldwin and Jessie Miskelley, through an Alford plea, were convicted of three counts of first degree murder following an agreement made by Prosecutor Scott Ellington and their respective defense attorneys for the murders of eight year old boys James Michael Moore, Christopher Byers ( Murray) and Stevie Branch.
Judge David N. Laser agreed to and imposed suspended sentences for time served to Echols, Miskelley and Baldwin; all were released and immediately declared their innocence during the ensuing press conference.
In Part I of our series, we touched briefly on the development of new evidence and possible murder weapon, the blue handled- mountain ice axe, which inexplicably was never presented at trial. It had been admitted into evidence after being retrieved from its owner, following it’s return by Jason Baldwin’s, younger brother Mathew.
Requests to confirm whether or not the ice axe was maintained in evidence at West Memphis Police Department were non-responsive at the time of this publication. Part II continues first with what the jury never heard. A podcast of my interview on the case following the release of the WM3 can be found here.
Premature Illumination
One of the larger points of contention in the murders was the lack of blood evidence at the scene. The lack of blood or blood spatter at the scene with such gruesome injuries spawned the defense theory the ditch was a dump site or secondary crime scene. This was largely due to the fact that the jury would never hear about the results of luminol tests; it was suppressed by motion of the defense In both trials.
Luminol enhanced chemiluminesence (LCL) technology in 1993 was geared toward examining items of evidence in a lab under black light for optimum photographic results, or its secondary application for use in an enclosed environment which can be manually darkened and a portable black light ( we now call this an alternative light source or ALS) brought to the scene.
LCL when sprayed onto a surface containing remnants of blood, or more specifically the iron in blood, will create a glowing reaction when iron, invisible to the naked eye, is present.
In 1993 under Arkansas law, Luminol testing was considered new, novel, and not accepted as scientific evidence.
While the methods for collection, testing and controls have advanced significantly since 1993 and LCL testing is widely used in criminal case work, analysis of the findings in the instant case flatly dispute the notion that there was no blood associated with the crime scene along the ditch bank of Robin Hood Hills.
Contrary to the misconception that there was no evidence of blood at the scene, the results of two consecutive days of luminol tests at the scene were enlightening.
As Kermit Channell and Donald Smith, from the Arkansas crime lab could not bring the “outside in” they were forced to set up shop in the woods along the banks of the ditch. Also present for testing both days were WMPD Detectives Mike Allen, Tony Anderson and Bryn Ridge.
Donald Smith’s report below in it’s entirety below, The other reports can be found here.
STATE CRIME LABORATORY
P.O. Box 5274
Number 3 Natural Resources Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72215
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Investigating Officer / Agency / Address
Sgt. Mike Allen
West Memphis Police Department
100 Court Street
West Memphis, AR 72301
Laboratory Case Number: 93-05717
Date Received in Lab: 05/07/93
How Evidence Received: M E / Matthew Elliott
Agency Case Number:
Suspect (s):
Victim (s):
Steve Edward Branch
Date of Report; 06/10/93
FIELD INVESTIGATION. WEST MEMPHIS TRIPLE HOMICIDE. MAY 12 and
MAY 13. 1993 LUMINOL:
This analyst and Kermit Channell, Serologist responded to request to perform luminol on
a potential crime scene area on May 12, 1993. We left that afternoon, arriving in West
Memphis at approximately 6:30 P.M., proceeding to the Police Department.
Officers Tony Anderson, Brian Ridge, and Mike Allen accompanied Kermit and myself
to a swampy area in the northern edge of West Memphis where the victims were found.
A general survey of the area in the daylight hours was conducted. Approaching darkness
fresh solutions of luminol reagent were prepared. When the area became dark, using
flashlights for light support, the part returned to the area and proceeded to spray and
locate areas of luminol light emission activity, a presumptive test for the presence of
trace quantities of blood. The following observations were noted:
(1) At a trail along a stream bed an approximately 11 foot high bluff overlooking the
stream positive reactions were noted on either side of a tree with more reaction noted to
the right side of the tree, facing the stream bed.
(2) An Area with used plastic sheeting west of the trail and the bluff gave more positive
reactions were noted.
(3) At the west bank of the stream bed, to the right of some trees, an area gave positive
reaction. It was explained by the Police Department that this was where two of the
victims were placed when they were recovered from the stream bed.
(4) In the stream bed, below the described (at one time) water line, positive luminol tests
indicated where one of the victims was found in the water as related by the West
Memphis Police Department.
(5) On the east bank of the stream bed were a pile of sticks and a depression in the soil
where luminol tests showed a concentrated area of positive reaction.
[PAGE 2]
(6) North of this point luminol tests gave positive reaction to a large area of
concentration (described by West Memphis Police Department where the third victims
was placed upon recovery from the water).
(7) North of the point #6 near some tree roots, another large area of concentration of the
luminol reaction was noted.
(8) Trace amounts of positive luminol reaction was noted on the slope west of the area
where two of the victims were recovered and placed. (reference area #3). The areas north
and south of where the third victims had been placed (5) and (6) were unaccountable
known activity by the Memphis Police Department or rescue / recovery operations.
From these areas of noted luminol reactions for the presumptive presence of trace
amounts of blood the following opinion is rendered:
The traces of presumed blood detected along the trail (2), and at the bluff (1), and one the
slope (8) appear to be transfer of blood by the rescue and recovery teams.
Reaction in the areas where the recovered victims were placed is the apparent result of
trace blood transfer from the victims (3) and (6).
The area below the water level on the west side of the stream was accounted as where
trace amounts of the victimís blood diffused into the mud in the stream bed.
The areas (5) and (7) indicate activity prior to recovery of the victims and relate to
activity to the victims when perhaps they were being attacked.
It should be noted that the luminol testing was performed some days after the discovery
of the victims and at least one rainfall had occurred. There were no visible signs or
indication of blood at any of the locations that we investigated.
[PAGE 3]
Upon the group returning that night to the police headquarters Inspector Gitchell and his
staff were advised of our findings. It is our opinion the crime had taken place where the
bodies of the victims were recovered. Inspector Gitchell was further advised of the
inability to document the luminol reaction of the evening because of the light leaks from
stars and the back scattered light from West Memphis. To document the luminescence
Inspector Gitchell was advised that we would have to place tenting over the areas of
interest and to block out all stray light possible.
The luminescence requires near total darkness to document luminol reactions in the open
field.
It was decided that Kermit and I should stay over the next day perform the tests again
and photograph them.
The morning of May 13, Inspector Gitchell provided us with equipment, supplies and
manpower needed to document the areas of positive luminol reaction. A test with plastic
covering over the canvas was erected and photographs were taken of the positive areas
noted of the previous evening again with fresh luminol application.
Because of the limitations due to some light leakage, physical activity in the area
destroying some of the reaction, the weather conditions of some light rain the night
before and the originally low concentration levels in the areas on the bluff (area #1), along
the trail (area #2), where the victims were placed (area #3), and the area in the stream bed
where the body was recovered (area #4) and the area above the recovery area (area #8)
we were not able to document photography as we observed these areas the evening of
May 12.
The tented area over the areas where the victim’s body was placed (#6) and the
questioned area (#5), subdued the light to a degree that a less than perfect photograph
could be obtained. These photographs still documented the areas of interest, showing
luminol reaction in respective areas. These photographs were without the benefit of flash
painting application to reference the areas photographed. A still photo of the questioned
area from the original camera tripod location does reference the questioned area. The
photographs were processed revealing the luminol reaction at areas where the victim was
place (#6) and the questioned area (#5)
[PAGE 4]
The tent was moved and photographs were taken of the questioned area by the tree root (#7). Photographs of the areas (#4, #5 and #6) with surveyor flags mounted were taken to reference those areas tested and photographed. All photographs were left with Inspector Gitchell.
[signed] Donald E. Smith, Criminalist
Soil samples were submitted on May 14, 1993, but for unknown reasons not tested until 4 months later, and did not react to the luminol.
The result was considered inconclusive as it was not likely to detect blood from a four month old soil sample in the first place.
Although the luminol reaction results were not admissible in the trials, for analysis purposes, it tells an irrefutable story. The obvious counter-argument could only be that investigators were new to the technique, some of the initial testing was unable to be photographed, or to any conspiracies, that detectives simply made up results for some purpose.
However, as none of the investigators present had the autopsy results prior to the testing, and most certainly did not have Jessie Miskelley’s “account” to draw from, outside of the known injuries and other more circumstantial evidence in this case, these findings certainly further support there were multiple perpetrators in this crime- and that it all went down right there.
In 1998, Damien Echols filed a Rule 37 hearing for causes of incompetent counsel and due to his “actual innocence.” Jessie Miskelley lost his appeal to overturn his conviction also in 1998, but It was not until 2008 that Baldwin and Miskelley filed their Rule 37 petitions. For purposes of evaluation, I am including affidavits , exhibits and testimony excerpts from some of the expert witnesses at all three hearings and subsequent related appearance spanning from 1998- 2008.
Brent Turvey, of Knowledge Solutions, LLC trained under renowned blood spatter expert Dr. Henry Lee, did not consider any of the luminal reports when hired by Dan Stidham in 1998 for his expert opinion in his representation of Jessie Miskelley requesting a new trial. Turvey’s report found (here) was largely the impetus for future defense experts for all three defendants to “weigh in”.
While Turvey’s work was largely unsupported once his infamous “bitemark” was debunked and he bought into the “Baldwin knife” which has since been abandoned by all subsequent defense experts, as the first guy up at bat so to speak, his testimony demonstrated the burgeoning direction to the CSI Effect the West Memphis Three would take toward their ultimate freedom.
I explore Turvey’s initial observations taken directly from his report, in the beginning of each unique victim’s autopsy segment, followed by updated relevant expert information and my subsequent analysis.
Autopsy By Coroner- Autopsy By Proxy
In the interest of brevity, I intend to focus on the dissenting views of the experts, and I stipulate that in no report that I have reviewed, was there evidence of sodomy or object penetration of any of the boys.
While I believe Dr. Perretti’s prior experience with cases that involved same did form his opinion on the possibility as it relates to some of the injuries, I do not believe that such testimony should have been permitted at trial, nor would it be permitted today.
Memphis Triple Homicide May 5, 1993
James M. Moore #ME-329-93
Steve E. Branch #ME-330-93
Chris M. Byers #ME-331-93
LOCATION: On May 6th, 1993, all three victims were found, bound wrist to ankle with shoe laces, in the water of a drainage ditch, in a heavily wooded area called the Robin Hood hills, behind the Blue Beacon Truck Wash in West Memphis, Arkansas. An equivocal forensic examination of all available crime scene and autopsy photos, crime scene video, investigator’s reports, witness statements, family statements, autopsy reports and numerous other sources to be listed as referenced in the endnote section of this report. The purpose of this preliminary examination was to competently assess the nature of the interactions between the victims and their environments as it contributed to their deaths as indicated by available forensic evidence, and the documentation regarding that evidence.
James M. Moore
James Michael Moore autopsy found here.
The following forensic information is taken directly from the official autopsy report filed by Dr. Frank J. Peretti of the Arkansas State Crime Lab, Medical Examiner Division, dated 5-7-93, Case No. ME-329-93 and/ or from The official coroner’s report filed by Kent Hale, Crittenden County Coroner, dated 5-6-97.
The purpose of this section is not to present an all inclusive, detailed account and explanation of every piece of information in these reports, but rather to explore these reports, with the corresponding photos, for consistency, possible omissions, and to review injuries or patterns that this examiner deemed to be significant to the case.
Wound Pattern Analysis
This victim received more traumatic head injuries than any of the other victims in this case. Dr. Peretti states that defense wounds were present on the victim’s hands. These wounds were very few, indicating that victim was incapacitated quickly after the attack began. So the nature of these head injuries, and the limited defensive type wounds, combine to indicate sudden, forceful, and repeated blows that resulted in abraded contusions, multiple lacerations, and multiple skull fractures.
There is an unexplained directional pattern abrasion just below the victim’s right anterior shoulder area.
This unexplained injury does not correspond with any of the physical evidence collected at the location that victim was discovered. It is furthermore inconsistent with any of the naturally occurring elements that exist in that environment. The best conclusion that this examiner can reach is that this pattern abrasion was created by forceful, directional contact with something that was not found at that crime scene, whether it be a weapon, a surface or something else capable of creating that pattern.
The shoelace ligatures used to restrain this victim did not leave deep furrows, and also did not leave abrasions. This indicates that the victim was not struggling while the ligatures were in place. This indicates further that the victim was very much unconscious when the ligatures were affixed to his wrists and ankles.
We know that the victim drowned, that is to say that hemorrhagic edema fluid was present in the victim’s lungs, indicating that the victim was breathing when he was placed into the 2ft of water in the drainage ditch at Robin Hood Hills.
Together, these facts suggest that the purpose of the ligatures in this victim’s case was to keep the victim from moving around or being able to swim should he regain consciousness once he had been thrown into the water. It is this examiners opinion that the assailant in this case demonstrated all manner of awareness and cognizance at this location. The assailant knew that this victim was not dead when they threw this victim into the water, and that the ligatures would assist to complete the act of deliberate homicide should the victim become conscious.
Lack Of Injuries
When compared to the other two victims in this case, who were found at the same location, bound nude with shoelace ligatures in the same fashion, the most striking discrepancy is the lack of injuries suffered by this victim. In the crime scene and autopsy photos made available to this examiner, there were no readily discernible bite marks visible, the genitals have not been visibly disturbed or molested, and there are no discernible stab wounds. This lack of attention is very telling, and will be discussed in the Offender Characteristics section of this report. There is also, again, a lack of mosquito bites to this victim, which, as mentioned earlier, suggests that he received his injuries elsewhere first. This because the injuries took time to inflict, time during which many mosquito bites would have been received, even after death.
Analysis: I find the statement that he had the least amount of injuries, yet the most severe head injuries in dire conflict, as he died from multiple injuries, and drowning. The fractures to his head and lacerations to his left and front right skull were enough to cause his death within minutes on their own, and there can be no doubt that he received them while he was already unconscious because of the lack of injury at the ligature sites. There is very little hemorrhage involvement with the open lacerations, and all lacerations were abraded; one with a dovetail and upside down L producing an ovid fracture. In Jesse Miskelley’s confessions, he says one of them was moving as he was put in the water while he was leaving. I believe the reason he never mentioned that Michael Moore was beat about the head with an instrument of some kind is because he never saw that. Michael was located in the ditch just below the oak with the exposed root that had the luminol result “shaped like a V”, which would be consistent with him struggling to get out of that water, on that bank, with a cast off or blood spatter pattern consistent with someone beating him toward the bank and in front of that tree.
Mosquito bites: Only females take a blood meal, so that potentially reduces the population by 50%, and at no time will they bite a deceased person. They are attracted mostly by carbon dioxide, released from a breathing person. Both Dr. Haskell and Dr. Goff agreed to this ultimately.
What is further curious to me, is that while Turvey was hired by Miskelley, who confessed at least three times by the date of the generation of this report, does he not note the obvious discrepancy for the placement of Mike Moore upstream, or that he was found on his right side with the left side surfacing when in effect dislodged by Det. Mike Allen. Moore was also hogtied differently, with different knots than the other 2 victims, with ONE black shoelace. There is a reason that Turvey was not given Miskelley’s updated confession following his conviction, and instructed to disprove it; he would not have been able to.
Steven Edward Branch
Stevie Branch autopsy found here.
Wound Pattern Analysis
There are numerous violent, traumatic injuries to this victim’s face and head, as well as numerous superficial scratches, abrasions, and contusions noted throughout the rest of his body. Dr. Peretti, however, does not note the presence of extensive defensive wounds.
This indicates a violent, overpowering attack on this victim that he was unable to put up resistance against. The constellation of wounds are very similar to those inflicted on James Moore, however they are much more intense and include the victim’s face.
This level of attention paid to the victim’s face, in terms of depersonalization and rage, is indicative of familiarity and that will be explored later on in this report.
Furthermore, there is the existence of patterned injuries all over this victim’s face that could be bite marks. Since the ME may have missed this crucial evidence, other areas of his body may show bite mark evidence as well. The autopsy photos of this victim supplied to this examiner were not of sufficient quality to make an absolute determination of any kind, and would require a thorough examination by a qualified forensic odontologist for an informed, conclusive analysis. [note: Dr. Thomas David, board certified forensic odontologist, has confirmed the wound as a human adult bitemark and excluded Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley as the offender using bite impressions obtained from the men in prison] Bite mark evidence is very important in any criminal case because it demonstrates behavior and lends itself to individuation. It can reveal to an examiner who committed the act, because bite marks can be as unique as fingerprints. And, once established, it also reveals the act itself; biting.
Another unidentified pattern compression abrasion can be found on the back of Steve Branch’s head. The source of this injury caused a 3? inch fracture at the base of the skull with multiple extension fractures that terminate in the foramen magnum (that’s the hole at the base of the skull where the spinal cord connects to the brain). Upon close examination, this pattern injury is consistent with compression made from footwear. Again, without better photos supplied to the examiner showing a variety of angles, it’s very difficult to make a positive identification of any kind. But the pattern is consistent with a footwear impression, and would require a footwear impression expert to analyze and make an informed, competent determination.
The shoelace ligatures used to restrain this victim did leave deep furrows, and also did leave patterned abrasions on both the wrists and ankles. This indicates that the victim was struggling while the ligatures were in place. This indicates further that the victim was very much conscious before or after the ligatures were affixed to his wrists and ankles. We know that the victim drowned, that is to say that hemorrhagic edema fluid was present in the victim’s lungs, as well as in the victim’s mouth, indicating that the victim was breathing when he was placed into the 2ft of water in the drainage ditch at Robin Hood Hills.
Together, these facts, again, suggest that the purpose of the ligatures in this victim’s case was to keep the victim from moving around or being able to swim should he regain consciousness once he had been thrown into the water. It is this examiner’s opinion that the assailant in this case demonstrated all manner of awareness and cognizance at this location. The assailant knew that this victim was not dead when they threw this victim into the water, and that the ligatures would assist to complete the act of deliberate homicide should the victim become conscious.
Lack Of Injuries
There is again a lack of evidence to support any sort of strangulation. Dr. Peretti states that his examination of the neck of this victim revealed no injuries, and the photos that this examiner has seen support that conclusion.
Analysis: He missed the wound to Stevie Branch’s penis entirely. While not contained in his formal autopsy report, it was proven during the trial that Dr. Peretti’s colleague was called into evaluate what Turvey was calling “bite marks” and was ruled out. The fact that bite impressions did not match Echols, Baldwin or Miskelley was in no way exculpatory, and I will save you the bite by some animal with a rough tounge report nonsense I had to read .
The 3” fracture at the base of the skull, which “spiderwebbed” into subsequent fractures, also very likely severed his spinal cord, so one must assume this injury was also quite perimortem.
Steve ‘s left face was found to be abraded on the entire left side, and is consistent with someone either stomping on right side of his neck and fracturing it, with an obvious boot print, if the left side of the face was on the ground.
The gouging wounds- likely had to be inflicted following the fracture due to the lack of hemorrhage in comparison to the severity of the wound, and all experts agreed the injury was likely perimortem. So the question becomes- why?
Seems like a very important question, second only to what caused the trauma, based on the constellation of terminal injuries already inflicted on him. Wouldn’t the only thing left to do at that point be to submerge him?
It is my theory- therein lies the problem. Byers was put in the ditch first, and we know he was already deceased, therefore, he sinks. Stevie Branch is placed in the water next to him, and he either begins moving or floats and the suspects thinks he is still alive, and uses an implement to force him into the ditch bottom until he succumbs and stays submerged. I will leave out the specifics of the gouging wound as to why I think that resulted in the usage of the other end of the ice axe on Michael Moore. The luminol result, found in the ditch bed itself, after it was drained, slightly downstream from Byers and Branch, but still upstream from Moore could also support this theory. We know that Byers had already bled out, but Branch was still alive when he was put into the water and the only significant bleeding wound on his person capable of leaving blood evidence in the bottom of the ditch to survive it simply being washed away in the creek, there is a high degree of probability he bled directly into the dirt. He was found face down.
Christopher Byers
Christopher Byers autopsy found here.
It should be noted that this victim’s injuries were the most extensive, most violent, and most overtly sexual of the all the victims in this case. The nature and extent of this victim’s wounds indicate that the assailant spent the most time with this victim.
Additionally, this victim’s toxicology report revealed non-therapeutic levels of carbamazepine in the blood. All of these differences are very important, and will be explored in the later sections of this report.
Wound Pattern Analysis
There are numerous violent, traumatic injuries to this victim’s head, specifically to the base of the skull. There was also evidence of the violent emasculation of the victim’s sex organs, extensive lacerations and bruising to the victim’s buttocks, as well as numerous superficial scratches, abrasions, and contusions noted throughout the rest of his body. Dr. Peretti also noted that there were numerous healed injuries of varying nature on this victim. Dr. Peretti, however, did not note the presence of defensive wounds.
Again, this indicates a violent, overpowering attack on this victim that he was unable to put up resistance against. The general constellation of wounds to this victim is more advanced, more extensive, more overtly sexually oriented and includes the use of a knife.
This knife was used not only to inflict multiple stabbing and cutting injuries to the victim’s inner thighs and genital area, it was used in the emasculation process. There is, unmentioned in either the ME’s or Coroner’s reports, what appears to be a clear impression of the knife handle on the right side of the large gaping defect left behind after the removal of the victims penis, scrotal sac, and testes. This was impression was created when the knife was thrust full length into the victim by the assailant, during the process of emasculation. This indicates forceful, violent thrusts. The nature of this emasculation, as indicated by these wounds, is neither skilled nor practiced. It was a rageful, careless, but purposeful act carried out in anger.
It is the opinion of this examiner that this injury would have resulted in massive, uncontrollable blood-loss, from which the victim could not have survived without immediate medical attention.
It should also be pointed out that the nature of the stab wounds inflicted on the victim’s genital area, separate from those received during the emasculation process, show marked irregular configuration and pulling of the skin. This indicates that either the knife was being twisted as the assailant stabbed the victim, or that the victim was moving as the blade was withdrawn.
The second set of injuries is described as five superficial cutting wounds on the left buttock (pictured on the left in this photo at the right). It should be noted that these injuries are actually lacerations, as indicated by the bridging between the open tissue, and the irregular edges. Both indicators are apparent upon close examination of the photographs. It is the opinion of this examiner that this set of injuries is most consistent with the parental whipping given to Chris Byers by Mark Byers. It is further the opinion of this examiner that after having received this set of injuries, which tore open the skin and would have resulted in some severe bleeding, the victim would have been unable to walk or ride a bicycle without incredible pain and discomfort.
The third set of injuries is the multiple linear superficial interrupted cuts on the right buttock region (pictured in the photo above on the right). These injuries are not consistent with having been made by a belt as they are cuts. The edges are not irregular, and the cuts are interrupted, again indicating movement by the victim or the assailant during the attack.
Furthermore, there is the existence of bruised ovoid compression injuries all over this victim’s inner thigh that could be suction type bite marks. Since the ME may have missed this crucial evidence, other areas of his body may show bite mark evidence as well. The autopsy photos of this victim supplied to this examiner were not of sufficient quality to make an absolute determination of any kind, and would require a thorough examination by a qualified forensic odontologist for an informed, conclusive analysis.
Bite mark evidence is very important in any criminal case because it demonstrates behavior and lends itself to individuation. It can reveal to an examiner who committed the act, because bite marks can be as unique as fingerprints and positively identify a suspect. And, once established, it also reveals the act itself; biting. The shoelace ligatures used to restrain this victim did leave deep furrows, and also did leave patterned abrasions on both the wrists and ankles. This indicates that the victim was struggling while the ligatures were in place. This indicates further that the victim was very much conscious before or after the ligatures were affixed to his wrists and ankles.
We know that this victim did not drown, that is to say that no hemorrhagic edema fluid was present in the victim’s lungs, or well in the victim’s mouth. This indicates that the victim was already dead when he was placed into the 2? ft of water in the drainage ditch at Robin Hood Hills. This is, again, very different from the other two victims in this case.
Dr. Richard Souviron forensic odontologist: all mutilation is peri and post mortem, no knife was used.
On a final note, Mr. Hale states in his supplemental report on Chris Byers that there is a stab wound on his head. This is actually incorrect, and rectified by Dr. Peretti who states in his autopsy report of Chris Byers that the same injury is a 1¼-inch laceration to the left parietal scalp.
There is also, again, a lack of mosquito bites to this victim, which, as mentioned earlier, suggests that he received his injuries elsewhere first. This because the injuries took time to inflict, time during which many mosquito bites would have been received, even after death.
Additionally, unlike Steve Branch, there is no overkill present in this victim’s face. That is to say that this is another of the marked differences between the killings of Steve Branch and Chris Byers which is very important to note, and which will be explored more thoroughly in this report.
Recommendations
It is apparent from the physical evidence in this case that Chris M. Byers was attacked with sudden, violent force from which he defended himself in only a limited fashion. It appears as though this attack took place, at least in part, while his cloths were off and while the shoelace ligatures restrained him. He was sexually assaulted (an assault of a sexual nature, to areas of the body considered to be sexual, that does not include sexual penetration), and associated stab wounds indicate that he may have been conscious during several phases of the attack.
Analysis: How does he miss that the dosage of (car) was sub therapeutic, meaning below the level at which he was described and confuse it as non-therapeutic, in his estimation, as a possible means to subdue him. He completely missed the fact that it is likely that the level, found in his blood, was greatly reduced because there was very little blood volume left in his body. AND, it was a prescribed medication. Turvey does not mention the other factors that support Byers died first, and he died quickly and violently. While he did have stomach contents, he did not have any urine in his blatter and there was substantative evidence his bowels had evacuated at the scene, commonly a result of an immediate violent death.
Consensus or Conundrum- Depends Who You Ask
Regardless of which expert one believes, within the confines of each report, is the absence of the belief with any certainty that the “Baldwin” serrated knife was used. What they all agree on, is that the gouging injuries to Branch and Byers were very similar. They all agree that there was evidence of blunt force trauma, significant curvilinear fractures, what is commonly referred to in Forensic Pathology today as “chop wounds”, other sharp force trauma.
Thoughts onPost Mortem Animal Predation
I agree it is possible that snapping turtles could have caused what looks to be possible claw marks and at least one possible bite mark. I am emphasizing possible because I don’t think one can rule out animal predation 100%
Bryn Ridge himself testified he has seen snapping turtles in that area, some time ago. That said, there was not so much as a crawfish found in that creek as it was being pumped out, and that included a screen.
Dr. Spitz went as far as to suggest that somehow a carnivore of some kind was the cause of the animal predation although all oter evidence suggests that the boys were completely submerged, as well as their clothing, and there was obviously no animal tracks or other artifacts at the scene that would make that theory sound anything remotely believable. Thankfully, he stopped short of suggesting that a new breed of homicidal carnivores with a cleaner crew who could walk upright was responsible.
Fortunately I Dressed For Bushwhacking
Starting with one of the most important parts of the autopsy evidence, is the very fact that detectives knew VERY LITTLE about it outside of the cause of death, until late May at the earliest. So little in fact, that Gary Gitchell, Lead Investigator, wrote a list of follow up questions to the crime lab on May 26. (need link here)
Frank J. Peretti, MD preformed all three autopsies on May 7, 1993, and filed reports on May 10th for cause of death only. Those causes of death btw, were all listed as homicide by multiple injuries, period. Nobody knew that two boys died from drowning, and not all three. This is particularly concerning because the first conversation that Steve Jones and Det Sudbury had with Damien Echols was on May 7th prior to autopsy and in his subsequent interview with Det Bryn Ridge on May 10, when asked by Ridge how he knew about that, Echols told Ridge that Jones told HIM that whoever did this “urinated” in the mouths of the boys.
Urine was found in the stomachs of 2 of the victims, but that information was given by phone only to Gitchell, and not before May 16th, 1993. There is no possible way Damien Echols could have had case- specific information unless he was there or knew someone that was that told him what occurred, as the detective interviewing him at the time was clueless to that fact during the interview.
There are certainly many statements by both Echols and Miskelley prior to arrest that indicate they had prior knowledge of the murders, but I have been able to ride the see saw on those for the most part, like many.
The fact that Echols knew that there was urine in the stomachs of two victims, when it was intentionally ommitted from the report can only mean he was there, or knew someone who was, and in my opinion, both.
To be continued, West Memphis Three Part III
Sources:
Crime lab Index: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/crimelab.html
Chris Byers autopsy:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autcb.html
Michael Moore:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autmm.html
Stevie Branch:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/autsb.html
Turvey Report: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/b_turvey_profile.html
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,388 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Oops! Forgot to include this in my last post:
http://www.katv.com/story/15658174/west-memphis-three-travel-to-film-screening
I’m sure you’re already aware. A judge is letting WM3 be together at the NY Film Festival for the screening of Paradise Lost 3.
“Misskelley was initially barred from associating with felons except for his immediate family. Echols and Baldwin were prohibited from associating with felons except for each other.
They’re now allowed to appear together for certain events.”
http://news.yahoo.com/west-memphis-three-travel-film-screening-175509940.html
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/ArkansasBlog/
Circuit Judge David Laser of Jonesboro last week amended his order releasing defendants in the West Memphis 3 case so that all three of them may appear together.
The change was needed for the three to be together tonight in New York for the debut of “Paradise Lost: Purgatory” at the New York Film Festival. It’s the third in a series of documentaries about the case.
Under original terms of the plea agreement, which released them after guilty pleas to reduced charges for the 1994 slayings of three West Memphis children, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin agreed not to associate with any other felons except each other. This allowed them to leave together that day. The third defendant, Jessie Misskelley, agreed not to associate with any felons except family members who might have a felony record. Though the men pleaded guilty in return for release, they were allowed to continue to assert their innocence under a rarely used legal procedure.
Blink, I feel as if I know you; I visit EVERYday and have for YEARS… (I went to school in VA and Morgan’s story brought me here…)I’m a Jersey-girl, born and bred, and I was a true-crime junkie, but have turned advocate, and I thank you for this place… I so enjoy the intelligence displayed by the posters and the ‘feeling’ I get when I see someone’s post (mom3, grace, atg, morgan, SO MANY depending on the topic), I KNOW them from their style of writing… you have QUITE an impressive site and do amazing respected work, for that, I thank you. I probably will not post again, but HAD TO get this to you, as I feel like I’m gonna SCREAM… where can we find out more about WHAT was said and WHY/how Jessie ‘had to leave’…
http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2011/10/10/8256166-echols-without-paradise-lost-we-would-have-sunk-into-obscurity
Thanks for the kind words, I do not have to ruminate for 10 seconds, I had a producer friend in the fray.
Jessie Misskelley will not sit there and blame anyone, he will not lie. Having a concsious is not a handicap nor is it a sign of a low IQ. I have been “screaming” the right PR person should be talking to Jessie, not the other two. Respectfully, “raw deal” my ass, and could someone who knows something about this case ask a damn meaningful question already.
B
jane banks
Thanks for the link to the paradise lost discussion on the clicker today.
In regards to your question about why would Jessie have to leave the room when the discussion reached the point of who they thought may have commited the crime.
We don’t know how the interview section was set up. There may have been certain restrictions on what could be discussed and the type of answers that would be acceptable. The actual spectulation of who did it may not have been allowed.
My gut feeling as to why Jessie left the room at this point is he full well knows who did the crime. Therefore, he left the room in order not to break the rules of the interview. I also believe that Jessie knows he has been more or less left out of the mix in making the films and getting the financal help as have the other two.
Remember what happened when Dan Rather broke the rules in an interview with President Bush 41. I am thinking that you are old enough to have seen the interview on TV.
I think I would be willing to give up my few remaining real teeth in order to give Blink an opportunity to get Jessie in front of a video camera and ask her questions. IMO we are not going to see anything close to a search for the truth by those promoting the films. They are still in money making mode.
LOL. I will never take your teeth my dear ATG.
B
Anyone else feel duped?
A few years ago i watched with shock and horror, HBO’s paradise lost. I was outraged. How could 3 teens be railroaded so badly in a modern society? Why were all of these incompetent, banjo playing, hillbillies in charge? and who put them there? How could their innocence not be seen and them set free and vindicated? Finally and most importantly there are still child killers on the loose GET THEM!!!!
***fast forward a few years and welcome the wonderful world wide web***
I am admittedly fascinated with true crime and all the details that intersect serving as the perfect catalyst for the unimaginable. One time killers who do so because of the perfect storm or one time killers who do so because their narcissistic personalities allow them to be void of a conscience are my preferred type of crimes. The devil is in the details ‘so to speak’ and therein lies my interest.
After completing a lengthy dive into the C. Anthony case (narcissist void of conscience)I some how came across callahans 8k. What an amazing collection!! Surely now that i can read all the trials i can see how it all went wrong, right? The tragic tale of 6 kids, 3 murdered and 3 wrongfully convicted, which will eventually be righted, 3 innocent people will be freed and a new investigation into the real perpetrators will be ignited. I am admittedly, a glass half full kinda girl and if HBO can see the obvious miscarriage of justice during those trials then i most certainly could too and eventually a court of law would have to address it. I was eager to read the trials and learn 1st hand all the details and missteps that lead to the 2nd “tragedy”.
The facts in my eyes are follows (i wont get to detailed because it can all be seen at callahans 8k.com and i wont include the mountains of circumstantial evidence available. instead ill focus on what i see as the cold hard glaring facts)
-N. Hollingsworth (also her husband and daughter) seen D. Ehols and D. Teer (D. Teer and J. Baldwin are both tall skinny read heads with long hair) walking along the service road by Robin Hood Hills at 9:40pm
-Not 1 of the 3 has an alibi (seriously what are the chances of that?)
-Fibers recovered from M. Moore are a match to a shirt found at D, Echols home
-Fiber found on C. Byers matches a robe found at J, Baldwins home
-3 hairs found on 2 of the victims matched D. Echols. furthermore one hair was exclusively similar to his.
-J. Misskelley’s numerous confessions including one after he was convicted which was made to the prosecution against his lawyers clear and repeated advice not to. (People can spout off all day long about his developmental delay but the facts are is he is within normal IQ range and he was found to be malingering whilst this was being tested. His confessions are full of falsehoods, why? obviously they serve to down play his own involvement).
-J. Baldwins confession to an inmate … an inmate which passed a poly!
These facts speak to direct involvement on all 3 of their parts, before someone has an aneurism over my including J. Misskelley’s confessions ill further explain my change of heart. It simply came down to answering this question for me, how can someone who is publicly presumed to be touting a false confession point police in a direction they can investigate effectively? answer is someone couldn’t!
HBO’s paradise lost documentary borrows from the truth and then spins it to accomplish their own self-serving endeavour (sound like anyone else? J. Misskelley) which was to create a conspiracy of injustice where none exists and make millions. I no longer believe the investigation was incompetent and full of the stereo types i mentioned above. They followed all logical paths and came to this very logical conclusion based on the totality of the evidence supporting it.
Upon their release from jail i was sickened, they should be behind bars for the rest of their natural lives and subject daily to the horrors that reside within. The ONLY measure of justice that was obtained by their release was that they finally admitted to the murders in a court of law and now must live as convicted child killers unable to profit off their evil deed. Good luck eking out a living and finding meaningful employment with that in your repertoire of skills.
My questions for Blink regarding this case are
1 Will the remaining evidence be forensically examined if the convicted choose not to pursue it further? (i ask because i believe they will not pursue it further as they know any viable DNA profile will undoubtedly lead back to themselves)
2 Does double jeopardy now apply to the current reduced charges? does it still apply to original charges?
3 This is an odd question for which their may be no answer, was M. Moores gold sheriffs badge ever recovered? (admittedly i stopped reading about the case when they plead guilty so if the answer is in there i hadn’t come across it by that time)
Thank you for you time and creating a place where like minded people can discuss this kind of stuff, i had no idea it existed
i look forward to your answers …. and i ask everyone if they know of anymore interesting and thoroughly documented cases available online?
1. This has not been confirmed, but I am under the impression that Ellington has closed this case, and that he specifically stated all evidence is to be sent to the defense team, if you can believe that. In my entire 42 years, I have never heard a prosecutor proclaim evidence in a criminal case be sent to the defense team of three men just convicted of the crime itself. In fact, it is derelict and would likely get him disbarred.
2. Double jeopardy applies, yes. These 3, unless they violate the terms of their parole, which seems unlikely because all they need to do is get Judge Laser to write them a hall pass at will, they are not subject to any criminal charges in this case. To my knowledge, there is no offense that occurred here that rises to the level of Federal statute.
3. Yes, Michael’s badge was recovered, and it did not contain any forensic value.
Thank you and welcome, I am quite proud these folks let me hang out, indeed.
B
ATG
these were my feelings as well, but I am still trying to understand how the other 2 would even agree to appear with him if they felt he was going to say ‘my confession stands’ if questioned (and YES B, Where is that 1 PR person who GOES after JM?? It HAS to happen!)
I hear you about ‘rules’ of the interview being unknown to us, but I have a hard time wrapping my bubble around WHY we have not heard of an independent interviewer going straight to JM in WestMem..
he wants out & to stay out, but CAN he actually stay silent forever?? I have a feeling $$ is going to talk at some point bc he doesn’t have any!
canadian Grl: same boat! I was a hard core believer in their innocence BC of the films and Mara’s book . When I had to take my first maternity leave, hubby introduced me to the internet and FORUMS & that was it… I couldn’t believe what I didn’t know and what the films did not represent. I felt like an idiot. Oh, and JMs confession… wasn’t he WASTED on Evans? Little dude, drunk like that, I’d be inconsistent as things came back or not as well!
BLINK, you replied to my 1st post… I feel privileged (seriously!) Thanks again!
‘…and where the HELL is baby Lisa?’
Blink~ Sorry, I didn’t mean to “put words in your mouth”. I have gone back and re-read older posts, and your comments. The word “accused”
was much to strong….Again, I am sorry….my bad.
Much appreciated Xara, thank you, it’s all good.
B
Blink, thank for taking the time to answer my questions. I am left to ponder now ‘how many other murderers of children only do 18yrs for it before they are released back into Arkansas communities’
One can only hope there is an efficient mechanisms in place in Arkansas that will review the pleas/proceedings for errors and insure the remaining evidence is preserved for any future testing, the children, their parents and family members deserve at least that!
Do you know of any procedures that would allow for the above?
(especially since turning over the remaining evidence to the defense could be seen as derelict and result in disbarment, which i didn’t know (till you so graciously answered my questions) could still apply after a case is deemed resolved.)
Hi Blink- Im sorry for the confusion- the descriptors- violent and deranged- which I chose to use, were mine, not yours- I wasnt quoting you., or Grace…. I was merely giving my thoughts on the J- journal –
I addressed the post to both of you, because you both wished to see JJ and did not have the link handy- it was more HEY YOU GUYS- I Found the journal link/heres my thoughts FWTW….. again sorry for the confusion.
BTW, Blink- you asked Grace if in retrospect, seeing the journal ect would it be a red flag- If I may jump in with my 2 cents, – No I dont think so, as it was one entry discussing his anger and his relationship with his brother/choking his brother,- and the drawings are just doodles- I wouldnt think there is enough there to accurately predict anything you know?
The reason I want to jump in here is, as an educator- I feel the need to say nothing here- would jump out as- HSmokes, this kid is violent and deranged! Get the principal! Get his parents on the phone!- Im sure teachers have read worse in journals, in 1993 that is…
But rest assured in 2011, because of Columbine, and other tragedies, teachers are now trained to be on red alert constantly- and this doodling and ect in Jasons journal- would warrant at the least, to start with, a parent/teacher conference- and probably trips to the counselor.
PS
Blink- I did see that weapon which the abortion DR, had, and that IS a loaded question LOL- MY Answer: WITW, that weapon- why it resembles an ice ax…
AJMO
Yep, lol.
B
Hello TGF- I am so glad to see you, I was starting to wonder where you had gotten off to- nice to have you back.
Re- your October 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm post:
you wrote in part:
You have laid out a very good case regarding the confessions of Jessie. In looking beyond the actual words and trying to find the motive behind them. Good thinking and writing as usual.
In regards to the Great Dane dog, that is total fabrication IMO.
As you point out, great danes are huge dogs weighing up to 250 lbs. or more. To attack an animal of that size is insanity unless the dog is already so ill it is down.
–Thanks TGF- I really appreciate you weighing in with your thoughts- I was hoping you would especially on the Great Dane- as I know you are very wise in such areas, thanks.
I also appreciate you taking the time to read through my expansive thoughts on Jess’es confessions. It means alot that you have deemed them- worthy of consideration. I so agree with you on your stance that JM is playing the whole case with his – confessions and with his lack of intelligence as an excuse- as well as his drinking ect…
I also agree, Some people who do not want to be held responsible for their acts, will tell tall tales and outright lies to escape responsibility…..
I must admit that I too, have began to wonder whether or not JM is a sociopath, hiding under the cloak of poor intelligence…IDK
Add to that I am also wondering whether or not he may know something about the crimes because he was aware of who did it- and it might not be JM or DE or JB but someoneelse that JM feared or liked more than JB DE or the police- or prison ect…IDK-
But again, because there are so many scenarios and so many questions and so much doubt IMO, brought on by JM’s lying rambling confessions- it is only another reason to discount them altogether as evidence.
Who can say what truth is in them, or where Jesse acquired that information? I surely cant- and I dont think LE could either-
Whose to say LG and JM didnt commit these crimes? AS Narlene at first, gave an alibi for both LG and Jesse- then changed her remembrances.. With this case and these “witnesses” IMO anything is possible.
AJMO
I know I am not quite caught up- again I apologize I have not forgotten anyone,I am still thinking and working on my responses. I will be back ASAP
Too bad for Misskelley the Judge wrote a hall pass to see the other 2. Better he was protected from their post-release pressure. I won’t read into arkansas today the days of an often bent bench in my Texas of the 50s, or the 60s/70s where good ol boy favors ruled. But maybe a cameo for a Judge is down the road in the next film. Somebody somewhere is askin’ favors a short time after the release agreement, for a shallow reason. And, have any Bar complaints on the evidence release been filed? Seems to me the 3 boys families could do it.
jane banks
We can only speculate as to why all three were included in the interview. It could be that the group putting together the interview would not do it unless all were present.
One thing I didn’t mention in my reply to you was the difference in appearance the photos showed. All are now in their thirties, but Jessie is the only one that appears to be mature. The others have not shown that level of physical maturity. They look like young men in their early twenties. I did notice that none of them were wearing a shirt collar that really fit. Too much observation of dress on my part, I suppose.
I think baby Lisa’s mother knows exactly where she is. This is a tough one. Today they were looking in a well under the deck of a house about a half mile away. This must be an old hand dug well since they were discussing getting a fireman down in it.
RE:
Scott H says:
-October 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Hello Scott sorry it took so long- I tried my best- JFTR- I want to start by saying there is a reason why I will never include these confessions as part of the truth– whether I jump the fence to “non” or not- too many lies and inaccuracies ect… Too much doubt and too many reasonable theories as to the whys and what fors… JMO
Thanks again for asking for my opinions-
Your questions- then ** my responses
Mom, your comments are avoiding my base question, something supporters (not calling you a supporter) ALWAYS do. No person has ever come up with a reasonable explanation why he would make this bible confession, why is Misskelley constantly correcting Stidham about minute details when explaining the route taken to the crime scene?
**Scott, I first feel the need to point out that I think no matter what reasonable explanation, I or others come up with, in truth NONE of us can know the whys – as I am not sure JM is even aware of them- and no matter the explanation, it will never be deemed reasonable or worthy by you. So I am fighting a losing battle LOL
* you asked: Why does JM constantly correct Stidman?- well I would think it is because he is none to happy with him, and he is trying to gain the upper-hand, and he is trying to make it seem like he is telling the truth and he is trying to detract from his inability to recall specific events, details and the correct layout of the woods.
*Who knows? It could be for many reasons. Just like JM could have made this “confession” and all his confessions for many reasons:
*Because he was mad at his lawyer for failing in getting him off-
*Or/and
JM gave this confession because he had nothing more to lose- and he wanted to sit in a room for hours so he could put off the trip to prison-
And /or
*He wished he could go back and call a “do over” and make sure he included details ie more lies to insure that he wasnt the only one that had to go to prison
And /or
*He wanted the police to be nice to him again- and hang on his every word- he wanted hamburgers and cokes and for a brief minute to be “the hero” of the case again, instead of the kid that was now a convicted murderer.
*My point is that these confessions are so full of lies and make believe that NO ONE can be certain of any truth –sure it could be true that that JM was there and participated- but even so, these confessions do not mean that JM was truthful about who was involved-
*JM could have just supplied LE with JB and DE as the accomplices because they were the easiest bad guys to name- afterall rumors were rampant and LE had already visited DE by that time JM and the rest of the town were already talking about these murders and all the rest-
*It could also be true that JM told the truth when he first denied having been there, or having any knowledge
*It is a fact that JM wanted the reward, so maybe he hoped to LIE his way to the reward- the truth is, no matter why he lied, JM clearly thought he could fool the police- whether it was a lie to gain the reward (with the first confession)or whether it was a lie of convenience( to include JB and DE) or a lie to please LE or whether it was to play the hero one last time, and get LE’s ear, and hamburgers and cokes or perhaps a lie to punish his lawyer after the verdict or to ensure DE and JB were punished so he wouldnt be alone in the verdict….IDK
*Just for a second, think of the movie “A Christmas Story”…have you seen it?
There is a scene where the boy, Ralphie, is helping his dad change a tire and he accidentally, loses the lug nuts- he reacts by saying the mother of all bad words- the F triple dash word-
*Ralphie is in trouble, he has mouth washed out w/soap- his mother then comes and asks him where he heard this horrible word, even though if she used logic, she could deduce the answer was Ralphie learned it from dear old dad’s propensity to cuss- as dad says it a million times a day- but little Ralphie chooses not to tell the truth,- and his mom chooses not to realize the truth, and dear old dad chooses not to realize he is somewhat responsible,
*So Ralphie lies, and is not called on his lie, and besides, its no fun being punished all by yourself- so instead he “gives up” his best friend, “Schwartz”- Ralphies mom then phones the Schwartz’s, and tells the mom what happened- she asks: Do you know where he got this word from?- and Schwartz’s mom replies, matter of factly: Probably from his father, to which Ralphies mom defensively says- NO, from YOUR Son-
* Schwartz’s mom goes ballistic- screaming and smacking Schwartz, even though she at first, deduces the truth, and voices the truth, She suddenly believes the lie, next, you hear the boy saying ow! What did I do mom what did i do?!
* Ralphie is then sent to bed, and smiles as he thinks happily about his best friend Schwartz “getting his” and then happily fantasizes about his parents being punished with his going Blind from soap poisoning, while cont to fantasize about playing the hero and getting the bad guys…and saving his parents.
*As we know kids and adults lie for a myriad of reasons and they often times can not or will not acknowledge it as lies even when they know the truth- and no one wants to face the piper alone…no matter if innocent or guilty- and we all want to be the hero…
cont part 2
Part2
Hello Scott you went on to write:
Why would someone fabricating a story need to do this? “no we didn’t go that far down” “I carried the evan williams bottle in a bag in front of my pants” he describes the Master of Puppets shirt Baldwin wore, “headstones shaped like crosses” I fail to understand how a person can read that confession and still think Misskelley is making it up. It just defies logic, just what is it that Misskelley is attempting to gain here? He claims he can’t judge the distance from the bodies to the pipe bridge, why not just lie about it if thats what he’s doing? Why is he filling in details that only he could know unprompted if the story isn’t true? What is Misskelley’s motivation for lying here? Is he thinking his sentence is going to be reduced? The confession is with Stidham only, Jesse is already convicted and serving a life sentence, he says point blank that he ” doesn’t know” if he would testify against DE and JB, so thats not motivation here.
** Scott, a person fabricating a story does not need to do anything and has no qualms aboutincorporating further details or answering defiantly or matter of factly- the point is, it is a fabrication and anything said is done in an effort to be believed.. all the rest is just fringe benefits whether he though it would reduce his sentence or whether or not he just wanted special treatment …IDK
**IRT The Master of Puppets shirt- these were poor kids, they had few clothes/shirts and they had their favorites- just because JM picked a shirt that was easily describable does not mean that JB wore it that night and it certainly does not mean he wore it to the murders..
*I agree with Lucy- and grace- I do not know what he is attempting to gain if anything-
I think it defies logic to rely on anything in these confessions as truth this most definitely goes for the Head honcho briefcase carrying drug supplying, “boss”, who provided a pic of the soon to be victims.
**Scott- he is lying and he already tried to fill in the details with “and stuff” or the wrong times, the wrong water depth, the wrong bindings- in THIS confession he has to do better, he is playing like He KNOWS- so why would he admit to NOT knowing?
**Scott it is a fact, that JM concedes that he is basing certain details on events and places from different days- as illustrated by his tree house remembrance which he says “Oh yeah I remember where I got that” it was from up on the island ect ect- So, could it be that he carried liquor in his pants on other days and that he was using real life details to bolster his lies?
Thanks again Scott, I appreciate you asking for my thoughts and I appreciate your willingness to share yours- who knows maybe we will figure something out that has been overlooked..
AJMO same as the previous post
Cont part 3
Voice Of Reason-
I am not posting that as is. You are welcome to present a dissenting opinion with respect. You can address the post, but you may not personally condescend to or insult a poster at any time.
If that is your intent, you may wish to change your hat as well, there are 100 posters on here easily that have better researched posts than yours, and a few of them support WM3.
Jus sayin’
B
Part 3 the end-
Scott you wrote in part:
this bible confession is different, it’s his most detailed confession, he’s been convicted, his guard is down, hence the constant corrections of Stidham, Jesse is finally giving it all up, albeit 9 months later so there are things he can’t recall exactly.
** Scott- the Bible confession is different- he has already been convicted and it is the most detailed confession could it be because:
1> he now knows more details from having heard them, and from participating in the trial.
2> he is including more graphic details ONLY about JB and DE becuase he wants to ensure that he is not alone in prison, like little Ralphies friend, Schwartz, JB and DE will be” getting thier’s” and that provides comfort to Jesse, it matters not that it is a lie, only that he is not alone?
** Scott, JM doesnt have his guard down, it is now up and his hackles are raised against his lawyer- and JM is not finally “giving everything up” afterall, he still only wants to remember what JB and DE supposedly did, only further including himself only when he HAS TO- inorder to share a detail regarding JB and DE’s actions…- you, yourself, admit he “cant remember everything” well he sure remembers a great deal, although, WRONGLY and he remembers little details that are of no help- could it be that he is just lying?
**And as for not remembering- yes if I participated and saw what JM supposedly saw and did, I could recall everything in detail –9 mnths later, or 18 years later…and the truth would never change- infact each and every time I closed my eyes, I would be able to see every last detail in gruesome technicolor- and I would never be able to escape the truth.
Scott you wrote:
The story about the meetings sound like drinking parties, “we drank and listened to music”. Does anyone doubt Echols could have shot his mouth off about Satan or whatever pseudo occult bs he thought he was involved in during these parties? He seemed to be quite familiar with Alleister Crowley during his testimony.
**Scott- whether or not DE was feeding into the lies of cult activity or not- does not go toward proving there was a cult. And as for the drinking parties, does anyone doubt that if these parties were going on with DE in attendance and spouting off occult knowledge, myriads of other teens would have been more than happy to share all the gruesome details of this shindig??? –
**In fact Scott, it may or may not surprise you to know – JM supposedly did go to drinking parties at Stonehenge- but these parties did not have DE in attendance, but there was a whole lot of talk about his supposed devil worshiping “powers”
**Scott, every metal head whether serious or not,is familiar with Crowley- its almost a prerequisite- as Black Sabbath is credited with the birth of metal- and Ozzy, its frontman wrote the song “Mr. Crowley”.
Scott you wrote:
If Jesse was lying about the “occult guy”, why? Why not make up his name?
**He was very vague about his name only recalling that it started with an “M” isnt this more believable than calling him Lucifer or Beelzebub or Joe Smoe? -
You asked What is Jesse gaining by talking about this person or the picture/briefcase?
** Well, Considering at the time of every confession given, LE and the prosecution were touting these murders as either Satanic Ritualistic “cult” murders or misguided Wiccan /dabbling devil worship murders, is it so hard to believe that JM simply supplied the details that LE wanted/needed to hear?
You wrote in part:
Just to clarify, I have never thought this case was occult driven, I think it was clearly a case of horrible bullying escalating into a teenage thrill kill,
**Scott- may be so- it certainly could be- but who is to say it was these three teens that perpetrated this? The town was full of teens that didnt have alibis- or had alibis that could only be collaborated by friends and family- perhaps they did it..
You wrote:
Depending on who you talk to, Jesse swings from having the mind of a five year old one minute, to Keyser Sose the criminal mastermind the next.
**Scott, the truth is I can not say what Jesse’s capabilities are, nor can you- But even if he is developmentally disabled it does not preclude him from such a murder nor does it preclude him from being a coldblooded liar hiding behind excuses of one sort or another..
You wrote in part:
As far as the crying fits Jesse was said to have, here are some examples
if he turned out to be guilty (Jessie Sr. said yes, Lee Rush said no).
**I would expect nothing less from a loving parent- the bible teaches as much, with the story of the Prodigal Son- as for Lee- I can see where she is coming from too- it is hard to “support” a child when they have failed in the worst way- but no matter what you love them- and you dont want them to suffer
You wrote:
On the night of June 3, 1993, after Jessie Misskelley’s confession and arrest, three police officers went to the Misskelley home, secured the scene and waited for a search team to arrive. While they waited, the officers sat and talked with Jessie Misskelley Sr. and Lee Rush. All three officers testified that Lee Rush described recent crying fits by Jessie Jr.
Detective Charlie Dabbs wrote (mistakenly referring to Lee Rush as “Mrs. Misskelley”):
While sitting in their living room for approximately two hours, and during conversation Mr. and Mrs. Misskelley talked about different incidents. During the conversation, Mrs. Misskelley got to talking about how Jessie Jr. was waking her up at night crying and having nightmares.
**Scott- this doesnt mean much of anything- Jesse could have been scaring himself silly worrying about the devil talk and what happend to Aarons friends- I am sure many people were having horrible nightmares and woke up crying
You wrote:
Every time she went into his room he would be crying hysterically and he would tell her it was because his girlfriend was moving away. (not surprisingly, he didn’t just claim ” I helped kill 3 kids”) She told us it happened a number of times, and that she could not believe his girlfriends’ moving would cause that kind of hysterical behavior, but that little Jessie had been acting strange.
**Scott- it seems to me that this story could be an exaggeration- Why? B ecause this woman has no problem washing her hands of Jesse if he is guilty, but supposedly recognizes he is not “all there” enough to go in and comfort him like a child, from his nightmares?-
** AND if JM was so overwhelmed with grief, and later had no qualms in confessing- wouldnt Jesse have spilled his guts right then and there to clear his conscience? AND Lee says Jesse told her it was from worrying about his GF move-
Well is it true she was moving? If so, he could have been crying about the worries of breaking up/moving… WE CANT KNOW- also- again even if JM was there- and participated his confessing to lies- and JB and DE involvement does not mean that is true-
You wrote:
Detective Tony Anderson similarly wrote:
During the course of this conversation Mrs. Misskelley made the statement, “I knew that something was wrong, a few nights ago little Jessie was in his room crying so loud and sobbing so hard that it woke me up, I went in and asked him what was wrong?, his reply was that his girl friend was moving to Florida.”
**Again- kids process things differently- perhaps he was having horrible nightmares because Vicki was desperately trying to get him to “help her” and filling JM’s head full of devil stories of witch meetings and briefcases “and stuff” and perhaps he was scared becuase of the murders just like everyone else.
My point is Scott, that many things could have made Jesse behave this way- not limited to his guilt or his participation in the murders.
I look forward to your posts Scott- you always keep me thinking- thanks again
AJMO
RE: Lisa Allen says:
October 9, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Hello Lisa –
First let me say I do not take offense to anything you wrote- and I appreciated you sharing your agreement with Morgans responses.
You added some more thoughts to her points, so if I may, I will try my best to give you a different perspective-
BTW, just for the record, I am not driving myself crazy coming up with different scenarios and theories-LOL
I am just doing my best to get to the truth by looking at all angles- Could it be that I am driving YOU crazy with all my theories, and hard work? LOL
Even though they may not be the simplest thoughts, they just might be the truth off the matter, right? Afterall, sometimes nothing is as simple as it seems, and we often times fool ourselves into believing a crime has been solved, with the most convenient of suspects caught only later to find out – an innocent person has taken the rap for some other guilty perp.
You wrote;
but DE made a Freudian slip in the Paradise Lost documentary (the 1st one, I believe). His attorney or someone asked him if he was going to go out and get a beer after this whole thing was over, and he says “no more beer for me” which sounds like he’s saying drinking beer contributed to these muders. Jessie did say they were drinking beer.
-
Lisa, I did not see this clip, and so I am not sure what was the context- or even if it was edited out ect- but- it is a fact that DE was an 18 year old kid-with a pregnant 16 year old girlfriend right? Could it be that he was refering back to his one night drunken no raincoat wearing stuper?- IDK. just a thought, afterall he wouldnt be the first soon -to -be- father, thinking much along the same lines…
Lisa, you wrote:
What about when DE was being questioned on the stand and he was asked what the murderer was thinking. He replied that they probably thought it was funny and enjoyed hearing them scream. So, if I’m innocent and I’m asked what I thought the murderer was thinking, I’d be like I have no idea what the murderer was thinking, how could I? How could DE possibly speculate on what a murderer was thinking unless he was indeed the murderer? To me, these details just scream guilt
-
Lisa, all of us here are speculating on what the murders(whomever we believe them to be) thought and felt. That does not make us murderers and DE was asked this question on the stand- he was told to tell the truth- is it so hard to believe that he told the truth- and he was thinking, much like us- that this was a “thrill kill” which the 3 little victims suffered through greatly and that the perps enjoyed immensely?
I understand that this screams guilt to you, and you could be right, but DE’s thoughts, to me, do not scream guilt- if he was guilty- wouldnt he lie and answer with something that would be assured not to be so awful a thought??
You went on to write:
I think people who are on the fence (no offense to anyone), are driving themselves crazy analyzing and coming up with different scenarios and conspiracy theories, but sometimes the simple uncomplicated truth is right in your face and you miss it (again, no offense to anyone).
==
Lisa- the definition of a conspiracy is
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
It seems to me that there was a great deal of conspirators in this case- after all we have JM and Vicki conspiring on the lie of the witch meetings, and we have JM and Vicki and LE conspiring to get DE over to Vickies and taping it…
We have JD and SJ conspiring to uncover cult activity in the area- and going out every night to find the witches meetings ect.
We have Narlene and LG conspiring ect ect
I could go on, but I am sure you get my point- there is nothing outlandish to recognizing there was alot of conspiring in this case- the facts prove it out in all regards and from all sides.
As for people missing he truth that is right in front of their faces, I totally agree, but I think that fence you were talking about, it has a gate, which swings in many directions, reaching all sides, and it seems to be able to blind even the most alert persons to the truth…
AJMO
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Lisa- and I do hope you are back to liking Johnny Depp.
Hello again Al- thanks for your response-
You wrote:
Al says:
October 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Again, appearing on a talk show to discuss something usually is for the purpose of clearing the air. A talk show is not a court of law. If a person has a past the could lead people to believe him capable of certain actions, he should certainly refuse to show up on a talk show if he expected that past to be off limits. If the talk show host isn’t willing to ask the questions necessary to clear up questions of both guilt and innocence, I submit the show is a charade with a one sided agenda. All these hosts promise hard questions in order to get viewers then fail miserably on keeping their promise.
-
Al- I really like you you are a funny guy- you said; appearing on a talk show to discuss something usually is for the purpose of clearing the air.
Al me thinks we have been watching different talk shows LOL IMO I talk show setting has never been a place where audience or guests or hosts go to “clear the air”
I totally agree a talk show is NOT a court of law, so why would we, the audience ever expect the questioning of a lywer or the answering of a person on the stand?
Al you wrote:
If a person has a past the could lead people to believe him capable of certain actions, he should certainly refuse to show up on a talk show if he expected that past to be off limits.
Al- if a person has a questionable past, one in which he says he was wrongly convicted of a crime, why would he refuse to go on any show, wouldnt that scream guilt? Al what makes you think he thought this past was to be off limits?
Al you wrote;
f the talk show host isn’t willing to ask the questions necessary to clear up questions of both guilt and innocence, I submit the show is a charade with a one sided agenda. All these hosts promise hard questions in order to get viewers then fail miserably on keeping their promise.
Al, I agree- this show was sorely lacking and it may have been onesided, but it seems to me PM’s performance hurt the WM3 almost as much as it helped- no matter if one is a non or a supporter everyone thinks PM did not do a thorough job.
AJMO
Jane Banks, I didnt want to rush off to bed without saying thank you for your post and welcome to BOC-
I look forward to getting to know you through your posting style too. and I am happy to hear you have been reading on Caylees threads as well as Morgans-
I look forward to more posts and congrats on Blinks response to you the first time out of the gate-
Goodnight all- I will try to finish catching up tomorrow.
AJMO
Mom3.0 says:
September 30, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Oh but to be three years old again and prance around in multicolored, sparkly, high tops! I purchased a pair for one of my daughters over the weekend and she loves them so much that she refused to take them off to take a bath, that first day. Saturday. It was hard work convincing her that Dora bubbles would wash of her sparklies! IMO shoestrings are so much cuter than Velcro closures, though it means that I am forever having to retie her shoes. Double knots are just a pain, imo.
Sitting here now, reading your comment it occurred to me it could be that Terry Hobbs laced up the shoe from which that particular shoe lace came, right out of the box brand new or not, and over the course of time, and no matter how much time it was that passed, that hair became further affixed with the remnants of a little boy’s many adventures. That is, of course, if it truly is TH’s hair.
@Mom3.0
I have been keeping up with reading all of the posts here, but I have not had time to comment. I wanted to let you know that I agree with everything you say.
You said: “just because JM picked a shirt that was easily describable does not mean that JB wore it that night and it certainly does not mean he wore it to the murders..”
My thoughts, exactly. I agree that Jessie just picked out a shirt that he remembered JB wearing before. Just like in his confession when he described Jason showing him the knife. I think Jason did show him a knife at one time, but not at the murder scene. Jessie also changed the description of clothing in his confessions, including his own clothing. I believe Jessie is taking things he remembered from the past and incorporating them into his story.
I also wanted to point out that it appears that Damien and Jason were not really friends with Jessie. From what I have read in accounts by friends/acquaintances, they did not even like Jessie.
One of the young girls mentioned that Jessie had stolen something at the rink and tried to blame it on Damien, and because of this, Damien and Jason did not want to have anything to do with him. It also seems that people who knew Damien and Jason didn’t really know Jessie, and people who knew Jessie well didn’t really know Damien and Jason.
In one of Domini’s statements, she said that Jessie hadn’t been around for a long time (I think she said about a year), and then he just suddenly came by one day to get Damien to go with him to return movies or something. (I’m assuming this is when he was introducing Damien to Vicky, Aaron’s mom, who was trying to trick Damien into saying something incriminating on tape for police – which, he never did).
If you look at Damien’s interview with LE, and they ask him who he thinks would commit such a crime, Damien says that he thinks whoever did this would have acted alone, for fear that if someone else was there, they might tell.
If this is the way Damien thought, why would he commit a horrible murder like this with Jessie; somebody he did not like and did not trust?
I also want to thank you for pointing out Mark Byers’ statement. Amanda is actually Stevie’s little sister; Terry Hobbs’ daughter.
When Mark says that Chris told him on the Sunday or Monday before that Wednesday, it really hit me.
MARK- WELL THIS IS GOING TO BE KIND OF FUNNY SOUNDING. HE TOLD US LIKE ON SUNDAY OR MONDAY NIGHT BEFORE THAT WEDNESDAY. HE WAS GETTING READY TO GO TO BED AND HE TOLD US, HIS MOM AND I, HE SAID, I GOT A GIRLFRIEND. AND I SAID, WELL, WHO’S YOUR GIRLFRIEND. HE SAID AMANDA. I SAID, WELL, HOW OLD IS AMANDA. HE SAID 4. I SAID, AWW, I SAID WHO IS AMANDA. HE SAID STEVIE’S LITTLE SISTER.
For me, this was a huge clue. It directly supports my own personal theory, and I believe it is a possible motive for these murders.
Blink, pardon my multiple posts, please; I’m trying to catch up, again.
CanadianGirl says:
October 11, 2011 at 5:37 am
-3 hairs found on 2 of the victims matched D. Echols. furthermore one hair was exclusively similar to his.
_____________
This is but one of the reasons I’m not all that concerned about a hair tangled up in a shoe string. It’s diversionary, imo.
jane banks says:
October 10, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Please don’t just read! Comment, too!
______________
A note about Misskelly and his confession. Has Shelby Misskelly said anything recently about the release of the three? Is she still in the picture? Is she still alive? She seemed especially fond of Jesse and spoke much about his troubled youth. She also said, prior to trial, that she told him to tell the truth during the trial(something like that) and that she would be watching and would know if he was lying. Considering how he has always maintained the guilt of the three, has she ever said that she thought he was lying when it comes to the confession, and if so, has she ever given a reason as to why she thought he would lie about something so serious as this?
She knew him well and cared about him deeply and so I wonder if she’s ever said anything regarding the confession.
Blink,
The rumor mill is really going wild on different boards and saying you aren’t going to publish your last piece on this case. Please, for the sake of the REAL victims and Mr. and Mrs. Moore, publish it. There is so much hype to the killers in the case that the victims have gotten lost in the shuffle. Sure there are little articles here and there online, but this is something that a lot of us nons really need even if we only use it for reference—ya know? Please don’t disappoint us.
IIWII
I give my word I will finish my work in this case, and you need to know I backed off Part 3 not just for other casework, but for timing. Secondly, don’t listen to rumors about what I will do, listen to me.
B
@Scott
if you have the time, could you please briefly comment on the question I raised in my previous post here (on the Bible confession and the alleged briefcase with photos?)I frequently see supporters comment on it, often using it as a reason to discard the whole confession. But, as a non, I’d really like to hear what nons have to say about it.
(I’d even ask the question at the downonthefarm message board, but I’ve heard they don’t let new members register for some reason)
@Scott H. Were you the one who posted that you felt this was a thrill kill and not satanic related? I think it was you. Anyway, I totally agree this was a thrill kill, which was augmented by the mental problems and anger of Damien. To me, those 8 year old boys represented the happy childhood that Damien never had. Additionally, Damien’s dad (biological father) left the family the previous night. Also, the Robin Hood Hills woods was right next to the Mayfair apartments where Damien spent some of his childhood. You put all these things together and you have a perfect storm. I agree that they wanted to bully them around and it escalated out of control as anger and rage took over. Just a theory.
@Mom 3.0, thanks for responding. I do understand your analogy of the gate that swings different directions relating to the many possible scenarios of this crime. It’s truly mind-boggling to say the least. I guess I do see it more simply than you. I’m curious about who you think did commit these murders. Just wish I had been a fly in the woods that day…because it seems to me, absent an eye-witness, we may never know what really happened that fateful day.
mom 3.0,i have been reading ,and have wanted to really do a point by point answer.but i feel its moot , occam .grasping at straws. if jessie hasn’t commented, yet,an exoneration of d.e & j.b.if he leaves before the Q & A ,if he renigs at some later time. just would not be able to make any sense of it all. god bless jessie and his family.if any of the scenarios ,premises, theories,you present are true ,god bless us all.for this would way more evil,lies ,collusion,moral corruption,family ritual habitual dysfunction,political corruption,vanity.then some displaced hormonal bullying abused dysfunctional family ,peer pressured,wanna be powerful youth cult,over influenced by villian art,bad boys gone way wrong. but maybe your right,i hope not.i finally found my logic and reasoning course text book,brushin up. but with the whole movie people involved /i cant care anymore,smoke?mirrors?stagecraft/chris angel? i’ll stick with occam.and umm jd is doing alot of pr,hasnt been a shout out ,has there? jd & jm ,heroes in the rough.
Hey- could someone PLEASE post a link to Ellington’s quote about forwarding new evidence to the defense? I think he said that at the town hallish event but I car find it. I want to post it on Facebook here in ARkansas and ruffle some feathers. Doubt anyone round here caught that he said that
It was in the video at the Clinton School, at the end, during Q&A, if I recall correctly. I cannot link at the moment but if anyone can, I would appreciate it
B
O resident of Trollsylvania- you are apparently lost.
This is the A D U L T pool.
You’re looking for the kiddie pool where the other baby trolls jump off the pencils stuck up their ass all day and wade in each others urine in the hopes that their collective misfit dysphoria can develop a new and improved insult or slam that is not tired, or just plain hack. Good luck with that, by the way. Off ya go.
Oh, and tell all your little rainbow colored, wirey-haired friends any imbecile that can read the first lines of a google search knows my name, and very soon, your going to hear it often, so you should probably get busy with all that bullshit backalley keyboard drama y’all favor “in secret”, lol, so suck it.
B
RE CanadianGirl says:
October 11, 2011 at 5:37 am
Hello Canadian Girl, thanks for sharing your thoughts-
I was wondering if you or someone, could link me to the evidence showing the two hairs found which were said to match DE? TIA
I also would like to comment further on your post if I may.
you wrote in part:
“His confessions are full of falsehoods, why? obviously they serve to down play his own involvement).”
Respectfully Canadian girl- nothing is OBVIOUS in this case, we are all speculating on the reasons why JM would lie- we all agree he lied- but we all can not be sure of the whys, can we?
You wrote:
“-J. Baldwins confession to an inmate … an inmate which passed a poly!”
CG- just because this kid passed a poly doesnt mean he was telling the truth- there is a reason why polys are not allowed in as evidence they are notoriously faulty and as I pointed out- whether or not he passed the poly it is a FACT that he had MAJOR details wrong- he claimed that all the victims were dismembered and that all the penis/scrotums were cut off, and he claimed JB had all the them all in his mouth.Which the evidence clearly does not support.
You asked:
“how can someone who is publicly presumed to be touting a false confession point police in a direction they can investigate effectively? answer is someone couldn’t!”
Respectfully, CG, Jesse did not point LE in any direction, they were already going in the direction of DE, as shown through SJ’s statements- The fact is, LE was already investigating DE (as well as others) and I could debate you all day long over whether or not LE’s investigation was “effective” and whether or not it was the “right direction” As for LE basing their case on a false confession an uncovering evidence that would seem to support it, IT HAPPENS
You wrote:
“HBO’s paradise lost documentary borrows from the truth and then spins it to accomplish their own self-serving endeavour (sound like anyone else? J. Misskelley)“… which was to create a conspiracy of injustice where none exists and make millions.”
I havent watched it, although I agree they made millions and if I may be so bold to point out, that EVERYONE, including you and I, are borrowing from the facts and we are all “spinning them” to fit any given theory…
You can believe there wasnt a conspiracy of injustice CG, but it is a fact, many people in this case- provided false testimony and rumor driven “facts” and conspire to do so-Vicki and others-
You wrote:
“ I no longer believe the investigation was incompetent and full of the stereo types i mentioned above. They followed all logical paths and came to this very logical conclusion based on the totality of the evidence supporting it.”
I am sorry CG, you are again entitled to your opinion, but to say that LE wasnt incompetent is bogus IMO they lost evidence, and didnt follow up with witnesses and logically ask follow up questions of witnesses and persons of interest ect.
How can you say they arrived at there presented case through logic CG? They presented a case in which devil worshiping/ misguided Wiccans perpetrated this crime, because they had “no soul” –
They stated the totality of the evidence as the clothing, the music, the reading, the code of Crowley, the drawings, the lyrics/poems as encompassing the motive for these murders- they presented a lake knife that WAS NOT the murder weapon- they presented testimony of that occult guy- they presented the testimony of Vicki and of Narlene and of the soft ball girls and their mother-
A strong case, even one based on circumstantial evidence, does THIS not make-
In fact all the evidence they presented could easily be used to prove at least 1 % of the population of WM did it-
Again I am not saying these 3 didnt do it they may have, but this evidence IMO is reasonable doubtful.
AJMO
Thanks for posting Canadian Girl- hope to read more from you in the future-
If its alright, I would like to discuss Narlene Hollingsworth in Part 2 To be cont-
Lisa Allen says:
October 9, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I had mentioned this before in an earlier comment, but DE made a Freudian slip in the Paradise Lost documentary (the 1st one, I believe). His attorney or someone asked him if he was going to go out and get a beer after this whole thing was over, and he says “no more beer for me” which sounds like he’s saying drinking beer contributed to these muders. Jessie did say they were drinking beer.
@Lisa, please know that I am not picking on you. I found your post quite interesting and thought I would share my thoughts.
I believe the only person who can tell us if that was an actual ‘Freudian slip’ of the tongue would be the person who said it, DE. For us to claim it is a slip is pure speculation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa says, “What about when DE was being questioned on the stand and he was asked what the murderer was thinking. He replied that they probably thought it was funny and enjoyed hearing them scream. So, if I’m innocent and I’m asked what I thought the murderer was thinking, I’d be like I have no idea what the murderer was thinking, how could I? How could DE possibly speculate on what a murderer was thinking unless he was indeed the murderer? To me, these details just scream guilt.
@Lisa, we all speculate at one time or another. DE speculated because he, and other potential suspects, were asked by LE to speculate in an questionnaire that was designed by LE with some help from the FBI, iirc. This was an investigative tool that was used in this case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa says, “I think people who are on the fence (no offense to anyone), are driving themselves crazy analyzing and coming up with different scenarios and conspiracy theories, but sometimes the simple uncomplicated truth is right in your face and you miss it (again, no offense to anyone).
@Lisa, I cannot speak for any other fence sitters, and I wouldn’t really refer to myself as one, anyway. Like so many others, I just want to know who killed these little boys. I was initially drawn to this case because of all the controversy regarding the the defendants, the multiple confessions, trials, and verdicts.
I try to use Occam’s razor and dispassionate logic when I review a case, and let the evidence lead me. I have several colleagues from different disciplines who also like to review cases, and share their opinions with me. We are all sticklers for detail, and, thus far, have not yet been driven crazy while looking over a case.
We have had some very interesting conversations about this case, to say the least.
I would agree with you that sometimes people refuse to see the truth. No doubt about that. But, there are also those people who develop a single theory early on, and hold fast to it no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. We also know that people can look at facts and project their own biases onto them. These biases can sometimes distort the facts. This is one reason why voir dire of the jurors is such an important phase of any trial.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa says, “A good website I found is findadeath.com. Go to the WM3 forum, and go to comment #465 by joS3ph and then follow his comments through the whole thread. This guy has done an amazing job of condensing and summarizing information on this case. Apparently, he has followed the case from the beginning. It’s excellent reading that I think fence-sitters should read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa, I have read these posts. He clearly has a longstanding interest in this case. Some of his thoughts seem quite sound, but the manner in which he lays out some of the “evidence” suggests, IMO, some bias as well. A few of his postings have (perhaps inadvertently) misrepresented some of the scientific evidence, IMO. But, here’s my bottom line, Lisa: If I allowed another person to research and then feed me select portions of the information available on this case, any opinion I would come up with would not truly be my own–it would be based on his or her understanding of the case. This is why I go through the available evidence myself. Yes, it takes a LONG time, but, to me, it is worth it.
Hi again Canadian Girl,
You wrote:
The facts in my eyes are follows (i wont get to detailed because it can all be seen at callahans 8k.com and i wont include the mountains of circumstantial evidence available. instead ill focus on what i see as the cold hard glaring facts)
N. Hollingsworth (also her husband and daughter) seen D. Ehols and D. Teer (D. Teer and J. Baldwin are both tall skinny read heads with long hair) walking along the service road by Robin Hood Hills at 9:40pm
—
Canadian girl, I would like to delve deeper into what Narlene Hollingsworth said- this is lengthy, so please all- stick with me-
Narlene Hollingsworths statements are forever changing. Each statement given is different.
She claims to remember that day vividly – yet she clearly cant, or she is making it up as she goes along.
Lets take a look at the evidence- IRT Narlene-
http://callahan.8k.com/images/narlene/nhollingsworthnotesundated.jpg
The above is a link to notes by LE documenting information obtained from Narlene- no date given-
It reads that she and her family saw Damien and Domini wearing black on the night of may 5th at 10:30pm- where? Somewhere near HIS home
This note further details that Narlene and her family were driving BACK from Floyds market it goes on to document that RICHARD was driving.
The next note is dated as May 5 /93
http://callahan.8k.com/images/narlene/n_hollingsworth_notes.jpg
In the above link Narlene’s call into police is documented-
The information is as follows:
1> Narlene makes the claim that she encountered a group of boys on bikes at 4:45- I would assume she is describing her account of seeing the victims and almost hitting them with her car-while LG was in the car.
2> In this statement she claims to have seen both DE and Dominique at 9:45 pm- (much different then 10:30 pm) she says they were dirty, and were walking up blue beacon going towards Lakeshore estates-
3> According to Narlene Damien Echols is “mean” and “evil”
4> Narlene shares some info regarding her nephew LG- which includes his being seen at the laundromat around 9:30 pm
—
http://callahan.8k.com/images/narlene/n_hollingsworth_statement.jpg
The above link is to a written statement given by Narlene on May 10th
Be sure to click on it-
Notice how devoid of details it is- notice no mention of the boys, no mention of her family- no mention of where she says she saw DE and Dominique- she does not mention the clothing as black, but now, we have the added detail of dirty AND muddy- she does not mention being sick , nor does she mention the time she supposedly encountered these two….. and even though she is writing down supposedly in chronological order, and supposedly word for word conversations- “she said” “I said” there is no mention of talking with her husband- or with her children yet-
In this statement, she claims to have gone to the laundromat AFTER seeing them on the road- She recalls the convo with Dixie, and she says she left around 9:30, so it has to be be later than 9:30 that she arrives as LG was said to be there then, and she claimed to have seen Damien and Domini AFTER. at 9:40, KIM in previous recallings she stated near 10:30 pm which would be definitely after…YET she has this conversation with Dixie and mentions already seeing D&D on the way to pick up Dixie and in this conversation she learns LG was at the laundromat at 9:30pm….. But wait previously she claims she was on the BACK from Floyds…. confused?
Dixie got off at 10pm Narlene claims to have a conversation with her stating she saw D&D Dixie supposedly said LG JUST left- but that was over an hour prior at 9:30- the sighting of D&D later morphs into around 10:30 confusing aint it?.
Also KIM in this statement there is No mention of thinking—HMMM maybe I should give them a ride, I mean who can blame her right.. according to her, DE was “mean and evil” why offer him a ride to Lakeshore- no way… Why would Narlene want to give a ride to D&D when she still had to pick up Dixie and the car was already full,and she thinks DE is evil?
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/narleneh_statement.html
The above link is to Narlenes transcribed verbal statement given on May 10 1993
She begins by sharing her morning, which consisted of helping her nephew, LG, find a job and drive him to and fro-
Narlene says she left her home to give LG a ride home at 20 minutes to 4- she goes on to say that this is when she saw the boys on bikes-
She cant descine the boys correctly although she seems to be trying to describe Stevie, mike and Chris- she says one is “heavy set- describes them all as wearing shorts- the heavy set boy- has darker hair- and is wearing green shorts with black details and white and black tennis shoes- in fact she says they are all wearing shorts
She describes their bikes like this:
Well one of them had black on it and the other one had some light green in it…. and she adds the detail of actually talking with these boys-
“I told them little boys you ought to go home and that little boy said, no we are going to play for a little while. So, they were headed, what is the street”
Narlene goes on to say that after talking to neighbor, “Sheila”, “the lady that live in the apartments” she now knows the boys were heading away from their homes…
Cont-
Next Narlene describes a convo she had with Dixie:
“I went straight to my house and cooked a do what I always do when, okay, what happened was Dixie Hollingsworth had asked me to pick her up at where she works at a laundry mat, she said, will you pick me up, I get off at 10, I said, yes I will.”
Next Narlene tells us who was in the car with her, and she also tells us she is CERTAIN of the time, and of who she saw and that they were dirty, perhaps not muddy, but dirty…. and now she describes the clothing as dark, but not black…Notice there is no mention of holes in the knees or of a flower pattern either on Dominis jeans…
NARLENE: Okay, I got ready to go, and my husband went with me and my children were too. And, on our way, coming do[wn] like you�re going to Love�s, I saw Dominic and Damia[n] coming down the street.
DABBS: What time was this?
NARLENE: This was exactly 20minutes til 10, exactly, cause w[e] had our watches and we knew what time it was. Okay they had dark clothing on and they were not cleaned.
DABBS: You said at one time that they were muddy all over.
NARLENE: They did have dirt on them, yes they did, now
—
Narlene now recalls EXACTLY where she saw the two, next to the yellow marker- it is no longer “somewhere” near Damien’s home- and no longer somewhere on BB road but definitely near the yellow marker:
NARLENE: They was coming back towards Lakeshore, this way.
DABBS: Okay, they were headed back uh, west, as you were goi[ng]
east on the Service Road (South)
NARLENE:Right
DABBS: They were walking back west and you said that they were by a yellow marker?
NARLENE: They were, it was a yellow uh, sign thing up in, so[me] stick standing up and then they were just before th[ey] [or that] got to there, where they was.
DABBS[IMAGE STATES DABBS BUT SHOULD BE NARLENE]: Okay, as we were driving by, she pointed the stick [over] [or out] to us, and it�s right there on the off ramp, where [?] Street as you go east down the interstate, the off ramp off to the South Service Road, is where the yellow stick or marker was.
HESTER: And they would have been on the south side.
DABBS: And they were on the south side of the South Service Road headed west, against the traffic, okay.
NARLENE: Okay, from then I dont know.
—
AS always AJMO even if I forget-
Cont
—cont-
Narlene now recalls EXACTLY where she saw the two, next to the yellow marker- it is no longer “somewhere” near Damien’s home- and no longer somewhere on BB road but definitely near the yellow marker:
NARLENE: They was coming back towards Lakeshore, this way.
DABBS: Okay, they were headed back uh, west, as you were goi[ng]
east on the Service Road (South)
NARLENE:Right
DABBS: They were walking back west and you said that they were by a yellow marker?
NARLENE: They were, it was a yellow uh, sign thing up in, so[me] stick standing up and then they were just before th[ey] [or that] got to there, where they was.
DABBS[IMAGE STATES DABBS BUT SHOULD BE NARLENE]: Okay, as we were driving by, she pointed the stick [over] [or out] to us, and it�s right there on the off ramp, where [?] Street as you go east down the interstate, the off ramp off to the South Service Road, is where the yellow stick or marker was.
HESTER: And they would have been on the south side.
DABBS: And they were on the south side of the South Service Road headed west, against the traffic, okay.
NARLENE: Okay, from then I dont know.
—
Next Narlene is again asked who was with her, she states:
NARLENE: Tabitha Hollingsworth, Ricky Hollingsworth, and uh, I believe Mary Hollingsworth and Little Ricky Hollingsworth was in the car too. I think all of us was in that car together that night.
HESTER: Are these all your children?
NARLENE: They sure is, my whole family.
DABBS: Your husband and your children?
NARLENE: Right
–
Next Narlene is asked who was driving, SHE was- IT wasnt Richard-and she is asked to recall a detail or two and Narlene sure does seem to be certain of that night and who she saw, cuz she turned on her brights and got a real good look dont cha know, These statements ofcourse differ from her other statements:
DABBS: Didnt you say that you also uh, saw, had your, were you driving?
NARLENE: Uh, yeah
DABBS: And you said that you turned your bright lights on wh[en]
PAGE 5
you saw them, so that you could definitely see them?
NARLENE: So, that I could get a good look at them, to see who they were, yes I did. And I said, thats Dominic and Damian, no dont look like, it is and I got a good close look and said, it sure is.
Notice too, that Narlene doesnot include who she is conversing with nor does she playback the convo in a she said he said way- like before with I says and then my husband said and then ny daughter says….
–
Next, Narlene describes how she was so certain it was DE and Domini she knows them, ofcourse, she is sure to say she doesnt really know DE though :
HESTER: How long have you known them?
NARLENE: Well, I dont really know Damian, cause I dont go around him from all the bad things that I hear about him, but therefore, I dont let my children go around him
–My thoughts- but wait she doesnt let her kids around him and she doesnt go around him but she wants them to get into hre car with thier dirty filthy clothes and evilness?
NARLENE: and Dominic, Ive known her all of her life. Cause I use to hold her on my hip when she was six months old baby.
DABBS: You did advise that she lives behind trailer there?
NARLENE: Yes, she does
DABBS: At his time?
NARLENE: She lives in my sisters trailer, Pamela Hollingsworth
–
Next Narlene tells us more about why she was concerned:
NARLENE: Well, I was upset about it, for them being out that late and around that area, but you know I was wondering what theywere doing out at that time of the night.
My husband told me to quit worrying about it, cause they are out all the time. He said that he sees them all the time. So, he told me to quit worrying about it.
So, then when I talked to Dixie Hollingsworth, *I got to the laundry mat, she said that L. G. Hollingsworth had just left from there in some car. And, I said uh, thats funny, she said that it i[s] and she never did say why, and I thought it was funny, but I thought that he had just left from there and they were coming down the street. *
*So, then when I talked to Dixie about it, I told Dixie what I had seen and she
said, yeah that is kinda odd. I said, yeah it is,*
I said Dixie, those little children and later on they found out that they were dead, I said Dixie thats kinda odd for them to be out that time of night and those little kids were dead, dont you think, she said yes I do, yes I do.
I said, let me ask you something, I said since you know Damian better than me, do you think that hes capable of anything like that and she said, yes, I do. She said because hes in with the devil.
**My thoughts**Well it sure is a good thing that it wasnt odd for LG to be out late at night, and sure is a good thing it wasnt odd for a mother to drag her whole family out to pick up Dixie, and it sure is a good thing that it isnt odd for Narlene to be such a helpful woman who happens to be everywhere, seeing everything that night- and ofcourse its a good thing that she is SO CERTAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING- that is unless you look closer at all her statements…
AJMO cont-
Cont-
Lets continue shall we?
Next Narlene describes what happened the next day- & how she came to find out about the murders, she says she and LG were driving and saw all the police cars in that area – she then goes on to describe LG’s stinky box, and she is talking to her children and they are all talking about the murders too,and she and Tabitha get funny feelings around a certain family? IDK this exchange isnt clear and some parts seem to be redacted,– I am lost-
BUT THEN here is a REALLY interesting exchange- Narlene goes on to say she doesnt know what LG is capable of, nor does she know what her family is capable of, but she can tell when they are lying-
She goes on to describe LG asking her to tell LE that he wasnt at the laundry mat that night May 5th
DABBS: Is there anything else you need to tell us while we are writing all of this?
NARLENE: Well, only one thing, the day I run into L. G. the day at the police department, he begged me to go in there and sit down with his mother and I said, I cant do that. He said that I wasnt aint no laundry mat Wednesday night,
***** I said, yes you was,**** he said, no I wasnt, go and there and tell them that I wasnt,
**** I said, no I wont, I said, cause you was up there at that laundry mat****, he said, naw I wasnt,
**** I said, yes you was, cause RICKY HOLLINGSWORTH SAID that I had just missed you.*******
*** I said, you better stop lying or they are going to get you for murdering these children, and they are going to want toknohy[to know why] you lie,**** hes said, alright, I was there, I said, I know you was. And I dont know why****
_My thoughts—
HUH?! SAY WHAT?! She knows he was there because RICKY told her, waitt a minute- wasnt she at the laundromat that night?and didnt she learn this info from Dixie? And if it was hearsay from Dixie or from RICKY she couldnt attest to the truth of it could she?
I want to know if Narlene knows the truth and if she would share any of it if she did….
BUT WAIT it gets even more interesting and EVEN MORE confusing:
Narlene says that while she was paying off her husbands DUI- LG was at the police station, she didnt drive him there and he couldnt find his mom, and she wouldnt go with him to talk w/LE – Narlene says he came running out to beg her to say SHE was his “Mommy” and that she was certain that he wasnt in the area that day…
Narlene supposedly tells him No, I cant do that, but just answer their questions and dont lie- you was at the laundromat- he says no she says yes he says okay-
BUT THEN here is the KICKER-
Narlene says:
NARLENE: He said, if you start saying that about Damian, youre going to get in trouble, I said, well, the mommy is up there saying stating that he was, Damian was with her all the time. I said, well the mommy is a liar aint she. He said, you seen him coming down the street, I said, yes L. G. and I am not lying for him. I am not scared of that boy. He said, well dont you put yourself in that kind of trouble well, Im going to take care of L. G.
__ My Thoughts- Why is she discussing DE and his mom and DE’s alibi? And why does she say LG says- “if you start saying that about Damian, youre going to get in trouble” asif he is referring to in trouble with the law- not cursed by DE?
And why does she go on to say LG said HE SAID you seen him? & questioned if she REALLY saw DE on the road? And why does she say I wont lie “for that boy- I am not afraid of him- but then say LG said dont put yourself in that kind of trouble, as if he is saying dont lie for me auntie, to which she replies: “ Im going to take care of L. G.”
ATTENTION:
Please read this interesting exchange:
NARLENE: The thing that is bothering me is them coming down the street with that box, they claim L. G. had and they didnt want to open it,
My thoughts-WHAT? IS Narlene claiming that Damien and Domini and LG were together that night- and she saw D&D coming down the road with the “stinky box” that her children later claim LG had in the car? If so, Help! IDK She certainly drops this tidbit of info from her later testimony ……
DABBS: But you said smelled horrible?
NARLENE: The kid did, the
DABBS: And what day was that on?
NARLENE: It was real late Thursday, it was late cause it was after the school kids had already got out of school.
DABBS: Okay
NARLENE: And he had to be in court Friday, cause he had to get rid of that car to get it back to the person that owned it, finally the person walked into the court room and he said, Im getting my car,
DABBS: What did he look like?
NARLENE: He was short, heavy and dark hair
DABBS: He was short
NARLENE: Yes
DABBS: About what age was he?
NARLENE: Oh, he may have been around 45 or 50 years old.
–What? now she claims that her kids saw the box and that it was in some dudes car that happened to be in court that day- and that LG gave the car and “the stinky box” back to him…
I am confused and Narlene again changes her recall often and I havent ven began on her actual court testimony….
Sorry for the length, i hope everyone can make their way through all this…
AJMO
oooh, shannon, i must have stricken a nerve. honest criticism can do that to people like you. blunt feedback can make you lose whatever ounce of professionalism you have and resort to cursing and name-calling. this fits perfectly with my assessment of your personality thusfar and your reputation throughout the blogsphere. countless misspellings and grammatical errors (you should really learn the difference between your and you’re,) hightlight a desperate attempt at depicting an undeducated gossip queen (yourself) as a legitimate journalist. you would be taken more seriously if you could present a more firm command of the native language and it’s grammatical rules.
so, once again, can you please allow my original objective reply to canadian-girl or are you afraid your sheep followers will see truth in my statements?
i await your professional response.
And I await your usage of capital letters , really?
Lol, um, your killing me, I am the one with the spelling and grammar issue? LOL.
Is that what you think, you get politely asked to follow MY RULES, and you make a bigger fool of yourself?
We both know if I was such an uneducated dolt you would not care what I had to say, nor would you feel compelled to call me one so get over your 3rd grade, picked last for dodgeball whining already.
Let me be clear, you are welcome to post a dissenting opinion, but you will need to provide source links, and you will need to do so respectfully. As you seem to be resistant to grasping that concept (calling me a Nazi in your first post, oh yeah, I should be the one worried about being taken seriously) that means do not add your rude and condescending commentary or it will not get posted, period.
Those are my rules, along with not calling me by my first name, as you do not know me, we are not friendly and I am sorry about your upbringing that you were never taught appropriate manners when you are at someone else’s home or office.
Last warning.
B
Hello Morgan you wrote:
RE-Morgan says:
October 12, 2011 at 7:00 am
Great comparison on the shoes and shoe laces vis a vis your little girl- (What a cute story) and I would tend to agree
EXCEPT for the FACT that these shoe laces were not just submerged, nor were they in the bindings of Stevies- but in MM bindings -AND these shoelaces- were removed during the crime- which if Jesse M is to believed, these little kids were subjected to the forcible removal of their clothes, so I would tend to think this would also apply to the laces-
BTW why would a killer, whether it was DE and JB or another, nicely take his time to casually remove the laces? i wonder if the wax was attached to the ends- if not removal of the laces would have been even more hard….And given the fact that whatever the case may have been, these laces HAD to be pulled through each eyelet- I have a hard time seeing a stray secondary transfer hair surviving all of these factors.
AJMO
Susanm- Hi. I am sorry you feel it is moot to share all of your thoughts- just for the record I do NOT know what the truth is, and I am only giving different plausible theories and scenarios to illustrate that there ar many ways one can interpret this “evidence” and it all doesnt always add up to the guilt of the 3.
Lisa- thanks for seeing my points and I do also see yours-
The truth is Lisa I do not know who committed these murders- to me, so far, I have not been able to deny reasonable doubt.
The evidence just isnt there….it doesnt even begin to meet the threshold of proof beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt. IMO
I must say I am eagerly awaiting Blinks part 3- I hope she will be able to help me.
BTW Blink, it is amazing to me that your “fan club” inexhaustibly always “attacks” your grammatical mistakes, as if that is what makes or breaks your work-
Dont go changing Blinky “youres” is the best site around LOL
AJMO
Blink I am missing some posts again, and I am not sure if it is due to your glitch or mine-
Can you please check out back?
They are ratherlengthy posts and I would hate to take up so much room on the board,resubmitting them, if they are retrievable.
Here are the time stamps ect-
Mom 3.0 says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 12, 2011 at 2:02 pm
RE CanadianGirl says:
October 11, 2011 at 5:37 am
and
Mom 3.0 says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Hi again Canadian Girl,
and
Mom 3.0 says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Next Narlene describes a convo she had with Dixie:
—
Some of them do contain several links so that could add to the glitch factor-
Thanks for your help Blink
I believe you are all up ma’am, do tell me if I am standing on one or somepin’
B
mjh, hello So happy you came back to comment.
Thank you so much for reading my posts and for your support.
I agree with each of your thoughts and i also think there MAY be something to the whole scenario involving anger over Chris’s crush…IDK- this whole case is full of sad stories and may be suspects-
mjh, I hope you get some extra time, i do enjoy your posts.
Phew I think I have finally caught up. if i missed someone please let me know-
Thanks again to everyone for sharing your perspectives and for adding so much to the conversation.
AJMO
*@ Mom3.0 says:
October 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm
You are the LAST person who should ever apologize. Everyone who knows you on BOC knows you ain’t no skipper.
God bless you and your perseverance to find the truth!!!!!
@ Morgan says:
October 8, 2011 at 8:37 am
Heart you missy. More than I could possibly express in words!!! <3
@ Mom3.0 says:
October 8, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I could never think less of you, regardless of your opinions. I could never think of you less than a friend.
I admire what you bring to BOC, whether I agree or not. Your contributions are invaluable. I heart you to life! XOXOXOXOXO
I’m not sure how i fit into the exchange above. I can only assume it has to do with my question “Do you know of any procedures that would allow for the above?”. This question was in-regard to oversight of concluded criminal proceedings and disposal of evidence upon this conclusion. I asked because Canada’s system is different from the US. I did some research, which i should have done in the 1st place instead of being lazy and expecting Blink to be my legal dictionary, my apologies.
My limited reading on it gave me a vague understanding of it. At the successful conclusion of a criminal case the procedure is to destroy the evidence unless a motion for it’s preservation is filed. As far as i can discern the evidence will be destroyed unless the motion is filed by the defendants.
In an effort to understand oversight re: trials and pleas, i had less luck putting together an adequate answer. My understanding is that no such thing is done routinely, rather it is done when/if probable dysfunction is successfully presented.
The issue reads like this for me
Blink says:
October 12, 2011 at 12:07 am
Voice Of Reason-
I am not posting that as is. You are welcome to present a dissenting opinion with respect. You can address the post, but you may not personally condescend to or insult a poster at any time.
VoiceOfReason says:
October 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm
so, once again, can you please allow my original objective reply to canadian-girl or are you afraid your sheep followers will see truth in my statements?
****************************************
@ VoiceOfReason: As the ‘original’ objective was to have my question answered, then goal achieved. You’re welcome. Being that this objective in it’s original form was based on getting an answer to my question. I can only assume i was the person which u intended to ‘personally condescend’ and ‘insult’. I welcome any logical response or debate in relation to my posts and insults delivered in a condescending manner, which have no basis do not bother me. That being said i am up always for some passionate debate
@ Blink: Thank you for the moderation of this topic and your diligence in keeping it relevant rather then a tool for the personal bashing of other posters.
Canadian Girl, there are exceptions to that “end” regarding destruction of the evidence, it can also be preserved by motion for a civil case, hint hint
B
Yep they are up Blink thanks- sorry for making you moderate all that
I was just rereading my Narlene posts and I figured out some of my questions-
LG is the one who said he would handle Damien and Narlene was saying HE, meaning LG said – You saw Damien on the service road?
Narlenes accounts are very hard to follow…. and dare I say LE should have asked follow up questions and clarified what the facts were and got it all on tape before Narlene went on the stand and changed her remembrances once again….
AJMO
Ragdoll, thank you so much for your kindness my friend- I always look forward to your posts as they contain such kindness and thoughtfulness as well as humor and wisdom
B- do you have the link somewhere in your stash or do I need to do a little search/dig. Not sure how I’d be able to find a transcript. Would I need to watch the video & quote it from that? I’m asking Santa for Lexus nexus for Xmas
http://clintonschoolblog.com/cblog/?p=4336
Yes, you have to watch the video or listen to it for the quote, I do not know that it has been transcribed.
B
We have all questioned the ability of those convicted of the crime and those in the town who contributed to the investigation to remember something accurately.
While some of us have developed very good memories and remember things even from childhood, many do not. When your brain has been affected by alcohol in copious amounts and drugs of one type or another, accurate recollection of events in a chronological order is very unlikely.
Many of the people involved in this case fit the profile of a drug user or an alcoholic or both. It would take a lot of time to verify what is truth and what is fiction. We are mostly handicapped by not being a part of that society.
What do we find in examination of statements by people who are regarded as sociopaths? There is always some pieces of truth woven into their stories. This is the thing that makes it difficult to understand all the versions of Jessie’s confessions.
I have an advantage that most do not in waiting for Blink’s part III in this case and that is patience developed over a long time. This sort of reminds me of traveling with children in a car over a distance of several hundred miles. The question was always “are we there yet”? No we are not there yet and when the driver (Blink) gets us there we will see it.
Lol.
When our children ask us how much longer, we answer the time it takes to get there plus the 5 minutes I am going to drive around the block once we get there because you asked us that.
Thanks for the patience everyone.
B
@Graceinthehills, thanks for your comments. I understand your constructive criticism on each of my points and they are completely fair. @mom3.0, thanks for your response as well. @voice of reason, WTF? Chill!
6. CanadianGirl says:
October 11, 2011 at 5:37 am
The facts in my eyes are follows (i wont get to detailed because it can all be seen at callahans 8k.com and i wont include the mountains of circumstantial evidence available. instead ill focus on what i see as the cold hard glaring facts)
CanadianGirl says,
-Fibers recovered from M. Moore are a match to a shirt found at D, Echols home
-Fiber found on C. Byers matches a robe found at J, Baldwins home
-3 hairs found on 2 of the victims matched D. Echols. furthermore one hair was exclusively similar to his.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Canadian girl, I definitely share your interest in true crime cases, so I look forward to hearing more from you and sharing our ideas regarding this case.
Did you get a chance to review the cross examination of Lisa Sakevicius, the criminologist for the state, during the Echols Baldwin trial? The transcript can be found at the Callahan site and is an interesting read. I have pulled some parts that focus on the limits of fiber and hair testimony when the expert is doing comparison testing (not DNA testing):
Price: Ok, but as far as um – that book recommends that on hair analysis, the limits of hair analysis should be explained to the jury. Would the same concept apply with fiber evidence?
Sakevicius: I would think so.
Price: Alright. You may continue.
Sakevicius: (reading) Even though the questioned hairs may be similar in all respects to a person’s hair, and dissimilar to most other hair, the forensic examiner can never say with certainty that there might not be another individual who possesses similar hair.
Price: Alright. Now essentially the – although this specific paragraph deals with hair, the same uh – the same general information applies to fiber evidence as well?
Sakevicius: That’s correct.
snipped> And, later in the cross-exam:
Ford: And you’re definately not telling this jury that you found a fiber on this shirt that came from this robe?
Sakevicius: I’m not saying that.
Ford: Pass the witness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CanadianGirl, If you re-read Ms. Sakevicius’s testimony, there is a difference in the “matches” you claim were there, and what she as the State’s expert opined about the fibers and hairs. As you say, the devil is indeed in the details. Ms. Sakevicius could only opine that these fibers were microscopically similar. She was UNABLE to conclude that the red fiber found on the victim’s shirt matched or actually came from the red robe found in JB’s home. It is the same for the others fibers, and for the microscopic comparisons of hair.
Btw, I have yet to come across these mountains of circumstantial evidence many have mentioned.
Lisa Allen says:
October 12, 2011 at 10:44 pm
@Graceinthehills, thanks for your comments. I understand your constructive criticism on each of my points and they are completely fair. @mom3.0, thanks for your response as well. @voice of reason, WTF? Chill!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Lisa! I really enjoy reading all the different points of view here at BOC. Even if I don’t always agree with what a poster is saying, I feel I can still learn something. I am looking forward to hearing more of your ideas.
And ‘voice of reason’, for goodness’ sake, I would like to hear your opinion, too, but you must remember this is Blink’s house and she makes the rules. I have always found her to be very fair, and I LUV her writing style. Her wit is razor sharp (a sure-fire sign of intelligence, I can assure you) and her work—impeccable. So, just stop the snortin’, stompin’ and insultin’, and state your case respectfully. By the way, you must not have read my (and others’) posts. No sheep here.
Nite Blink and Blinksters! Pleasant dreams.