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
jack, Hi Im sorry I should have been clearer when speaking of the softball girls.
I dont think they lied. I think they exaggerated and I think the rumors and the talk became part of their remembrances-
The testimony and the statements of ALL these girls does not add up- it couldnt have happened they way they said it did.
I wrote a huge post on this, so I dont want to take up your time explaining all of my reasoning again- but I think it was a case of little girls scaring themselves to death, when they learned of the weird boy, Damiens arrest-
If they actually were frightened that day by DEs teasing (which this is what I think it was) no one acted like it, they all seemed to be giddy in the car speaking of the goings on of the day- and as we know, one girl claimed DE threatened to bite her breasts off- yet the police were never called- never- only after the arrest did the mom go to the director/manager…
Yes he testified he never bragged- because IMO he didnt “brag” he made a very poor and tasteless joke at the expense of 3 murdered children one that was designed to scare the bothersome girls away…
He is a pig and he wasnt forthcoming on the stand, perhaps because he was scared that with everything else this joke would just be another nail in the coffin…IDK
I understand your thoughts on Carson ,Jack- and I can agree up to a point- Carson did have alot to gain- he first told this story to his dad, who urged him to come forward…and who wouldnt let it rest…he continued to urge his son to come forward- so if he hadnt come forward he risked his father losing what little faith he had in him…and what was wrong with a little white lie- according to the police they were certain they had the bad guys so what harm would it do in nudging the already strong case?..
True about Misskelly Jack- but what difference does a confession make if it continues to be full of lies and wrong details and make-believe?
How can we be certain a liar is telling the truth? Which part is based on first hand knowledge and which part is based upon gained info over time and rumors ect?
I will agree that Echols and Misskellys and Jasons lack of definite alibis are troublesome-
Yes Jack, I am pouring through callahans but it is slow going, so if ever you think I have missed an important fact/detail please do not hesitate to point me toward it-
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful posts Jack- I appreciate it.
AJMO
Just wanted to post a link to a discussion on Carson that I happened upon- I found it to be very interesting:
http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/8107
grace glad you are back.
Jack, I too would be interested in reading the recanting by the counselor- I missed it Thanks
@Mom:
Williams originally told the defense he had provided specific details of the crime to Carson. When he gave his sworn statement to Davis under oath, his memory wouldn’t support this claim. “Recant” probably is too strong of a term, but here is how it went down on Williams’ strongest allegation:
“Williams: (con’t) believe was initiated um, we were talking about detention, and the kind of kids that were in detention, and uh, we got to talking about the West Memphis case, and I told Michael either that, I don’t remember if I told him that this allegedly happened in this case or in a lot of satanic related killings that um, the scrotum or testicles are cut the victim, that blood is used in the significance, um that sometime they use the scrotum to drink blood from their victims and I don’t remember, I think I remember something about um, the victims might have been allegedly their skin removed, um, other than that I’m not
“Davis: Okay
“Williams: Real sure
“Williams: I couldn’t be sure of that we were talking about both together like you know, um, in my mind the statement was, was made or close statement I said something like, you know I don’t know these kids are accused of it but, in a lot of cases or a scenario is this, or a scenario is that uh, but, as far as saying this happened in the West Memphis case I couldn’t, I don’t remember.”
So under oath, Williams couldn’t remember. The correct term is “crawfished” rather than “recanted” as I read through this again. Given the discrepancy between his original claims and what he ultimately said under oath, I think the defense was very wise not to call Williams.
I’ll continue after I read your link.
@Mom:
The link you provided is illustrative of a larger point. To believe in actual innocence (I’m not talking about a fair trial), a supporter has to disregard or explain away a lot of evidence. This isn’t to say it should not be disregarded but it has to be done to believe in actual innocence. I’m more prone to apply the razor. This doesn’t always lead to the truth but is more likely to do so.
As to the main point of the thread you provided, perhaps paternal pressure did force Carson to come forward. I don’t know. There is a motive for everything we do in life unless we are insane or sleepwalking, and even then there is an irrational reason.
What I do know is that Carson was consistent. Williams made a major allegation but under oath crawfished, which is the term I should have used in place of “recanted.” Given this inconsistency, it is understandable that the defense found him more of a liability than an asset. What was William’s motives in either regard? Again, I don’t know and the theories put forth make little or no sense to me.
I find the “softball girls” credible. Could they have exaggerated? Maybe. Then again, the razor comes in handy. Some supporters falsely claim the girls recanted in 2007. Even Scott Ellington has repeated this outright lie. In truth, Ms. Medford provided the defense with an affidavit in which she explained that at the time she though Echols was joking. Remember, this came from her and not the witnesses. What wasn’t mentioned was something else in the affidavit: Ms. Medford had her daughter go to the authorities after she learned about the horrific nature of the crime. The softball girls told a consistent story. Echols testified under oath he did not make those boasts. Many years later he admitted he probably did so. Which should be believed?
You seem well-versed on the facts so I doubt I possess the case knowledge to catch an error. I also was away from this case for more than a decade and had to get back up to speed on it. That’s not to say I will agree with your opinions or conclusions but that, of course, is subjective on my part.
@Grace:
That first post I made above should have been more directed to you than to Mom. Sorry for the error.
I feel people fall into one of two camps regarding this case: You either think there was a satanic angle to these killings or you don’t.
I don’t.
There is no physical evidence at all that points to a satanic killing. The crime scene and timelines seem to indicate that the kids entered the woods and happened upon the wrong people. Any other theory involves lots of speculation. Do you think someone lit a candle at any point during the killings? I don’t.
Do you think the three little kids crossed paths with three drunk idiots with no moral direction; OR, do you think they were trapped by satanist who wanted to perform a ritual under the full moon (even tho it was still daylight for another few 90 minutes).
How would anyone possibly know or arrange for the three victims to meet them in the woods of Robin Hood Hills?
Michael Carson’s fantasy testimony supports Satanism, but is highly unbelievable. Does anyone really think that Jason or any child-killer would ever admit such crazy details to another human being in a prison. What would he gain by saying he put bloody testicles in his mouth, etc, other than the potential of being beaten to death by other inmates?
The only real evidence regarding the guilt and satanism is Jessie’s confession, which is pretty muddy. Stepping past the trial version and knowing what we know about Jessie’s other confessions. let’s look at his bible confession for example.
During the Bible confession Jessie denies/clarifies the entire prosecution Satanism angle regarding the Esbat, eating dogs legs, driving with Vicki Hutchenson, etc. None of it happened. Jessie’s new timeline seems to fit, as opposed to the version that was presented at trial.
Yet he does admit that he went to a few “occult meetings” but not in a serious cult manner, mostly to drink and listen to music. He’s an idiot who does dumb stuff. But to make it more confusing, he adds the whole bit about the photograph of the kids.
Why would he deny the specific cult events that were presented at trial, but still say that he saw the kids photo prior to the murders? I ask that with the assumption that this is a false confession where details were fed to him by the police. Why would he come clean about everything, but still keep one foot in the fantasy “picture in the briefcase” theory?
Is there any real evidence that a photograph exists or was taken? Since the prosecution clearly put several key people on the stand who lied (Michael Carson, Vicki Hutchenson), I’m asking for any links to support evidence of a photo. Thanks!
The only evidence of a photo, which is circumstantial, is the testimony of Dina Moore, that Michael ran in the house stating a man dressed in all black (going from memory only here, anyone feel free to provide link or correct me, ok with that). IIRC, it made the testimony of Jessie’s trial, but was suppressed as hearsay in the Echols/Baldwin trial.
B
I think that the investigation by DE into the 12th & 13th century relegious beliefs was more of a teenage quest for information than anything else. His notebooks of lyrics of songs and other snipits from books were just things he thought were interesting. Some of the lyrics posted by Mom3.0 make little musical sense in regard to later forms. Is this an actual quote from his notebook or is it the actual lyrics to the song?
How his brain was working during this time cannot be determined. Many teenagers are attracted to things of olden times because of their mystry.
A person who was known to have mental issues and was on meds could behave in all sorts of strange manners if the meds became unbalanced. This may be the reason that the family became alarmed and took his weapons away.
I think it was a major mistake for the prosecution to go down this road to try and prove their case. IMO it just adds confusion.
jack dobson says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:00 am
@jack: Thanks, Jack. I agree with you about the ‘crawfishing.’ What I find most interesting about Williams is the fact that he came forward at all, given his relationship with the witness (therapist-client). I suspect there was something in his interactions with Carson beyond their conversations about this crime that led Williams to believe that Carson was going to commit perjury. He finishes his statement with the following words:
DAVIS: OKAY, UM, BEFORE I CONCLUDE THIS STATEMENT LET ME ASK YOU DANNY UH, I KNOW YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO ME HERE AND TO GET NOTIFIED TO COME HERE BUT UH, HAVE I DONE ANYTHING TO MISTREAT YOU OR COERCED OR TO UH
WILLIAMS: ABSOLUTELY NOT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH BEING HERE TALKING WITH YOU AT ALL, MY, MY CONCERN WAS THAT I FEEL LIKE I WAS WRONG BY TELLING A KID SOMETHING WHO TURNED AROUND AND USED THAT IN WRONG WAY, UM, I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH COMING HERE AND TALKING TO YOU AT ALL, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF YOU WOULD CALL ME AGAIN AND SAID HEY WILL YOU COME IN AND TALK, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE, BUT AS FAR AS COMING HERE TALKING, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHAT SO EVER.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Irt the softball girls and what they heard DE say:
From everything I have read about him, including his medical records, DE clearly had a knack for incendiary rhetoric. I believe his words were chosen for the effect they would likely have on his audience–the young girls who were looking at him as they passed by. I do not believe he was confessing to murder.
From the DE/JB trial transcript:
Fogleman: Alright. Tell the jury uh – first – well, tell the jury first what you heard.
Medford: Um – I heard Damien Echols say that he killed the three little boys and before he turned himself in, that he was gonna kill 2 more and he already had one of ‘em picked out.
@Grace:
You are most welcome.
I have read a number of theories advanced about Williams’ crawfishing. One in fact pertains to the therapist/patient privilege, that Williams violated it when he approached the defense and subsequently tried to mitigate the damage. It doesn’t fly for too many reasons to list. I think this was a garden variety case of a witness who trims promising testimony once placed under oath. It happens all the time.
No doubt Echols made those statements to shock the girls. That certainly doesn’t mean they weren’t true.
Obviously I think the three are at least factually guilty. But if I believed otherwise and happened to meet Echols, I would tell him he carried a great deal of responsibility for his conviction. I personally would have been pushed from acquittal to possible conviction after his cross-examination. The admission he lied when he claimed to have acquired knowledge of the boys’ wounds from newspaper accounts was utterly devastating.
TGF- Hello I am sorry if I confused you the lyrics were from the actual songs the links to documents were DE writings with snippets of these songs.
My point in posting both was to illustrate that LE had mistook alot of Heavy Metal “trappings” as that of occult “trappings” and some of these writings were mistakenly attributed as poetry of DE and it clearly was not it was song lyrics some written in their entirety others never completed.
This does not speak to his mind TGF IMO it speaks to his boredom and his laziness…and his love of music -
And this love of heavy metal influenced his art, his poetry, his decor, his reading ect ect-
What worries me about this is that LE could not distinguish between the two…
There is a HUGE difference between heavy metal influence and “occult/satanic” influence-
These are the items LE was to look for in the searches:
Please note that cult or satanic materials are listed- and KIM the lyrics and the shirts and the drawings and the album covers ect were all confiscated-
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/search/de_exhibit_C.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/j_baldwin/jb_exhibit_c_02.jpg
AJMO
Grace great posts
No longer on the fence- interesting post, thank you for sharing your thoughts -well done.
Jack thanks for the reply I will respond asap-
Kathy- hey I hope you are doing okay and will be back to give more of your thoughts I enjoy your conversation… I will have to put off my candle wax post for a little while as it contains lots of links and its taking me awhile to form my thoughts and questions ect.
Morgan and xara and mjh and Loni ect hope you will be back to rejoin the conversation soon
AKMO
Blink, it was Melissa Byers who testified that her son, Chris, told her that he was once photographed by a man wearing black clothing and shoes who drove up in a green car. Chris did not identify this man.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/melb2.html
The photo that JM referred to allegedly had all three boys in it, iirc. If so, IMO, there was no proof whatsover of a photo depicting all three victims, aside from JM’s wacky claims.
good lord, your exactly right, my bad, dunno how I screwed that up- thank you.
Agreed there was no evidence a photo existed.
B
Not exactly the best way to end my night, but I am thinking about the crime scene. Another little detail that has stuck in my craw is the two pair of underwear that are missing. IDK. I find it hard to believe that three drunk and out of control teenagers who just impulsively murdered three little boys would bother to take the underwear with them. Why not just sink them with the other clothing? And what happened to the skin of the penis and scrotum, and the testicles of CB? I read that this was never found. These details suggest to me that there *may* have been a different type of offender/offenders in the woods that night who were intent on taking souvenirs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My grandmother and my mom were amused by her antics; the nuns and priest were not. She eventually abandoned her Wiccan beliefs and later became a tax attorney.
A Texas Grandfather says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I think that the investigation by DE into the 12th & 13th century relegious beliefs was more of a teenage quest for information than anything else. His notebooks of lyrics of songs and other snipits from books were just things he thought were interesting. Some of the lyrics posted by Mom3.0 make little musical sense in regard to later forms. Is this an actual quote from his notebook or is it the actual lyrics to the song?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ATG, I agree. You reminded of the time that one of young relatives, who was raised in the Roman Catholic faith, suddenly became fascinated with Wicca practices as a teenager. She amassed all types of books on withcraft and managed to read most of them. She paraded around our small town dressed quite dramatically, and referred to herself as a white witch. She even offered to teach me how to cast a spell that would snag a cute thirteen year old boy in my class on whom I had a crush.
I think the point we are both making, ATG, is that almost every teenager on earth struggles with his/her identity at one time or another. I do think that DE’s struggles were intense at times, but he did receive appropriate treatment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ATG says:
A person who was known to have mental issues and was on meds could behave in all sorts of strange manners if the meds became unbalanced. This may be the reason that the family became alarmed and took his weapons away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ATG, The family may have been told by hospital staff to remove the weapons because DE had recently been hospitalized for suicidal ideation. When a patient is depressed and has expressed thoughts of harming himself, it is SOP in most psychiatric hospitals to ask the family to take all the weapons out the home before the patient is discharged.
A quick point about the medication:
DE was being treated with imipramine for major depression, not for psychosis or mania, so I would not expect him to manifest bizarre or disorganized behavior if he missed any doses. Missing doses of imipramine would NOT have resulted in him losing contact with reality, but it could have led to a worsening of his depression and a return of his suicidal thoughts.
Mom3.0, thank you. It feels so good to be back home. I am looking forward to your post about the candle wax.
Oops, sorry for the typos above. Time for bed.
Blink, thank you so much for covering this case, and for being such a strong advocate for victims. When you first posted about the WM3 and Michael, Chris, and Stevie, I hesitated before finally deciding to join in on the discussions. I had an inkling that it would be a very emotionally draining experience. My hunch was correct. I can only imagine how difficult it was for you and your crew during all your research.
Hi Mom 3.0, Just wanted you to know that I am still here and will try to reply soon. You have given me much to ponder……
Grace
Thanks for the clarification about the meds. I have some experience with people who fit DE’s conditions. I have withnessed them going from normal to abnormal behavior in less than a minute.
Glad to see your back in Texas. The day you posted about the temperature and your trip to Salem, we had within five degrees of the early morning temp. of Boston. Broke the heat wave and began our
fall season.
Mom3.0
The music of the times has changed considerably since I was a teenager. We were all into big band and swing music of the thirties and forties, classical and the better country bands. Today we see kids who listen to heavy metal, rock and roll, rhythm and blues and country. A lot of them attempt to play guitar without any training. The sounds are terrible and only their mothers would appreciate the effort.
Why do they do this? Music is a universal language. It is soothing to the soul to most. Even the loud rock and roll and other amplified music, which makes me crazy. I love good classical guitar music played by someone who knows the right way to produce it. The early country bands were good too. Sons of the Pioneers and Gene Autry to name two.
I think DE and his friends were deep into heavy metal and the lyrics as a way to express themselves and to have something to talk about.
Did this music enter into the possible reason for the actions for which they were convicted? I doubt it.
Thank you, Grace, for thinking about me! I will be back to comment once I catch up to you all, again.
<3
If you believer that Jessie Misskelley is actually guilty it would follow that you believe this because of Jessie’s confessions. Specifically, his February 8th, 1994 Bible Confession to his own attorney Dan Stidham.
If you believe the most damaging parts of that statement that point to guilt and best serve the prosecution, you need to also believe the odd parts and inconsistent events that serve the defense.
In Jessie’s own words he says he talked with a cop responding to a call in the trailer park on 05/05/93: Jessie pins the time at around 5:00pm.
http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_2_8_94_statement/jm_2_8_94_statement_005.jpg
At around 6:00pm Jessie claims that he met at Vicki Hutchinson’s house and she bought him liquor.
http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_2_8_94_statement/jm_2_8_94_statement_008.jpg
Specifically, she bought him a fifth of Evan Williams whiskey.
http://callahan.8k.com/images3/jm_2_8_94_statement/jm_2_8_94_statement_009.jpg
And, finally, Jessie also sticks to his story of going wrestling that night. It seems that they left for wrestling close to 8:00 pm that night. Keep in mind that a bunch of people took the stand and testified under oath to claim that they either saw Jessie in the trailer park close to 6:00PM (still consistent with confession) or that they went wrestling with him after 8:00pm / “dark when they left” (also still consistent with confession)
Jessie’s statement gives himself about two hours to drink a fifth of whiskey while hanging / meeting / walking with Damien and Jason, witness (and assist) the murders, and make it back to the trailer park to get ready for wrestling. He claims he smashed the bottle in anger under an overpass — the bottle still had whiskey in it (how much, who knows?)
Not saying it didn’t happen, just reminding everyone how insane this whole case is from start to finish! The best dramatic TV writers couldn’t make up a story as compelling as the “Bible Confession / Evan Williams Bottle” saga.
@ Shannon says:
October 17, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Again, another supporter who didn’t go by the evidence but a ‘feeling’ they were innocent.
Wow. He doesn’t seem to offer anything insightful or factual to base his opinion. This is dangerous. Celebrities are taking a stance on causes they don’t familiarize themselves with. I know I’ve said this before. They have fans who follow and believe any horse shite that comes out of their mouths.
So Mr. Depp relates to the chastising of being different. That’s his reason for standing up for these child killers?
I’m not a fan of Angelina Jolie, for obvious reasons, but you can sit down, talk to her about third world issues…and from interviews I’ve watched, she offers facts, statistics, proven information along with her personal reasons for taking on UN causes. Her reasons make sense. Her decision to further the causes she believes in were not madde in haste. She educated herself. She still does. She shares her journey and experiences.
That’s why I would listen to her then a band wagon full of Depps, Maines-Pasdars and Vedders any day of the week. It’s not like Mr. Depp is a stupid man. I get the feeling he’s feeding old wounds where the WM3 are concerned.
NoLongerOnTheFence
Your links to the transcripts of JM regarding the amount and means of his acquiring the whiskey are interesting. LE suggested the size of the bottle and JM agreed.
Later JM talks about putting the bottle in his jeans pocket and leaving the scene. Based on the fact that few jeans pockets would have accomodated a fith sized bottle, I had discounted the size of the bottle thinking more like a pint bottle which is usually a flat sided bottle of about one inch thickness.
Do we know if the bottle LE found under the bridge was an actual fifth sized bottle?
@TG:
A broken Evan Williams bottle was found where Misskelley said it would be: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html. Scroll down to`0001299. This might be a coincidence, of course, but it was the only bottle found there. I find the reaction of his attorney interesting here.
@TG:
I realize this didn’t answer your exact question as to size. I’ll dig some more and then post. Sorry.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/movies/news/article.cfm?c_id=200&objectid=10761687
Hi Blink, Damien is in NZ – Sir Peter pulled some strings. I’m not wanting to interrupt the discussion so am just sending to you as an fyi, cheers, Cindy
Yep.
B
Hello all-
Jack sorry it took me so long- real life, sheesh…
I am still trying to get my thoughts together to post the candle wax comments, sorry kathy, grace and all, I look forward to your thoughts kathy, thanks for the heads up.
Jack, you wrote in part:
As to the main point of the thread you provided, perhaps paternal pressure did force Carson to come forward. I don’t know. There is a motive for everything we do in life unless we are insane or sleepwalking, and even then there is an irrational reason.
What I do know is that Carson was consistent.
I do agree with you on motivation IRT everyone… but it does seem to me, Poppa Carson provided alot of motivation for his son to come forward, as we already went over MC said his dad urged him to help- and even pointed to the victims families on tv and said (pp) If you told police what you know those are the people youd be helping…well it seems in fact, Poppa called Brett Davis, the prosecuting attorney and BD set up a private meeting at his home… so it seems Poppa made a call for his son, as most parents would, but can we be sure it wasnt PCarsons’s way of lighting a fire under his sons butt- and MAKING him come forward?
I would have to disagree with you on Michael Carson remaining consistent- First we cant know if he remained consistent from his first interview at Brent Davis’ home- it wasnt taped and no notes were taken… as for a comparison of Carsons statementS and his testimony- they are inconsistent- from paragraph to paragraph, detail to detail IMO— as I compared all of his statements back to back
Ill start here:
From carson interview: typed up feb 2nd 1994
I was in jail in at CCDetention Center in early August of September 1993. I was there about a week to a week and a half. Jason was already in jail.
I was rooming with another boy by the name of Jason LNU (Last name Unknown) We were playing cards. Jason LUN, myself, Beddle, and Baldwin. T he other Jason was my partner and Beddle and Baldwin were partners we were playing spades mainly I was learning how to play spades I came right out and ask Baldwin did you do it and he said”no” The next day, they had just called us to go into our cells for lunch.
I said, just between you and me did you do it? Baldwins answer was “yes I did it”
We had about two minutes to talk. Baldwin told me that ”we sucked blood from a penis” He never used the word scrotum. He told me “ we played with the balls after they were out of skin” Baldwin told me that Damien did this along with him.
Page 2
Baldwin said, when we get all of this over with he is going to kick Miskelly’s ass. Baldwin told me he put the balls in his mouth and sucked the blood out of the penis.
Actually it wasnt until 2 or 3 days later that Baldwin told me the gory details about the balls and the penis. Baldwin told me, Im going to walk straight out of here. They dont have the evidence on me. My parents are going to throw a party for me.
Baldwin sounded like they only cut one dick off.
The first person I have ever told was my dad, I was watching tv and he was on the couch. I told my dad what Baldwin had admitted to me. He ask me would I take lie detector test and talk to the cops.
At first I told my dad I didnt want to get involved with this. Yesterday my dad called the prosecuting attorney. I went to his house and talked to him. (Brent Davis)
I told Brent Davis that Baldwin looked me straight in the eye and told me he did it. A black guy that was in jail for murder may have heard the same thing I did. The only thing I know him by is his first name Leonard Im not asking anything in return I dont want anything. I would refuse anything in return. I am telling this because it is the truth. Me and Baldwin never got into it over anything
Interview was concluded at app 1:30 pm.
http://callahan.8k.com/images/mcnotes2.jpg
*My Thoughts- Carson didnt come forward exactly, his father called the p attorney—-again, I wonder if Daddy Carson kindof forced MC hand by making that call-
Brett davis- Carson went to HIS HOME for the initial interview- which no notes or tape recordings were made- gee, that seems rather risky and unprofessional- I wonder what was said in that initial call made by the dad- why wasnt he interviewed to see what MC had told him- we cant be sure there werent inconsistances there either can we?
Also, I cant help but wonder what was said by Brett in that initial interview with MC– did he accidentally let some info slip or perhaps he made sure to tell Carson to mention not wanting anything in return for his statement/testimony…or maybe he brought up a nice job as an informant for LE so MC could continue to right his wrongs…as we all know WMP were big on informants..? …and what did MC say in that nice chat in the home of Brett Davis? its a shame we will never know…perhaps MC changed his “remembrances” quite a bit….IDK
I also noticed something odd in this interview…it seems Baldwin when describing what “Baldwin” did, used the word “penis” it is a direct quote…well that seems rather gentlemanly of a 16 year old murderer who was in jail “bragging” or “confessing” to the horrors of sucking blood from the “penis”…oh wait, he did use the word “balls” when talking about the scrotum/testicles… so I guess he isnt too gentlemanly…after all he did threaten to “kick his ass” WRT “Misskelley” so JB was hardcore in his description
Know what else struck me as weird? It was MCarson’s total lack of recall about the name of his roommate “Jason” LNU- when I first read it, I thought it was an actual last name…nope- it seems that MC can recall first names of people he cant quite remember…but it seems he prefers to call them by their last name unless they are “Damien” and fellow inmates that might be able to collaborate his story…
Speaking of collaboration..did LE ever research exactly when MC was incarcerated and for how long..and who his roommate was…and did they talk to Beddle and the others… and did they interview the Juvie personnel?
In addition, I couldnt help but notice MC’s belief that “Baldwin” was speaking of cutting off “only one dick” it seems that is quite different from the other interview where MC starts off referring to penis’s and scrotums and balls plural- not just one set… also, I couldnt help but notice the difference between in that statement
which stated Baldwin never mentioned Damien and Misskelly doing anything…and then this one, which includes Damian as an active participant…
Seems Michael Carsons statements may be inconsistent- or am I just reading this all wrong, it wouldnt be the first time I got “lost”?
Cont Part 2
Part 2
Hello all-
Are these more of carsons inconsistent statements, or am I again misreading?
Snipped:
Well I was sitting there watching tv and huh Jason and I forget a couple black people they started to play spades and I was sitting there watching tv and they needed another partner cuase nobodyy else wanted to play and they ask me if I wanted to play and I told them I dint know how so they told said they would teach.
Okay at the table is yourself and the other Jason that you dont know his last name, and Jason Baldwin, and some guy you know as Beddle is that
000– Huh? “Jason and I forget a couple black people they started to play spades and I was sitting there watching tv and they needed another partner cuase nobodyy else wanted to play”
—Which “Jason “ is MC talking about here? He later refers to JB as Baldwin so it would seem that he might be referring to his roommatte LNU- if so that would mean they wouldnt have needed another “partner”- as there would have been “a couple of black giys” and “Jason” and the other Jason would have been 4….
KIM in the previous post it was stated:
“We were playing cards Jason LUN, myself, Beddkle, and Baldwin the other Jason was my partner and Beddle and Baldwin were partners we were playing spades”
If you think that is weird, wait- suddenly MC recalls who was playing…with the help of Beall-
Beall- okay, at the table is yourself, and the other Jason, that you dont know his last name,and Jason Baldwin, and some guy you know by the name of beddle, is that…
MC-Beedle or Bettle… *say what????? Now the couple of black guys morph into Jason , MC’s roomate, and some guy Beetle?
Gee, how can someone forget their roommate, and a guy named beetle..and wouldnt MC have said oh I forget his full name , but it was my roommate, Jason and this other guy…not it was “Jason” and a “couple of black guys?
Then wait theres more, in the other statement- it was a few days later when MC says Baldwin came out with the gory details- but in this statement it is the next day … which seems to kindof confuse Beall who precedes to ask the same basic question at least 3 x- (pp)
How long after the first conversation…. MC: the next day…it was the next day? MC answers :yeah-
Next we get into the gory details:
He was like saying like okay he dismembered THEM, and sucking the blood out of THIER scrotums, and playing with THERE balls in his mouth and stuff like that.
*Okay here we clearly have MC saying that someone, “he”- whoever that is, I assume he means Baldwin- not He, Jason- his roommate, is telling him the gory details- “he” did this and that to “their “and “them” group meaning plural not one … so it seems even MC was mistaken when he said that Baldwin made it sound like only one boy’s part was cut off….and Beall even clarifies this point by asking “Did he say how many of the how many balls or scrotums or whatever or penis’s that “they” played with?
Gee isnt convenient that Beall suppled “they”{ but MC wasnt quick enough to catch on just yet- as he answered with a “NO” and also please note that Beall must have known the definition of scrotums as Beall tried to convey this info to MC as well when he said scrotums or balls…which apparently Baldwin and MC did not know-
scrotum: (also referred to as the cod or scrot) is a dual-chambered protuberance of skin and muscle containing the testicles
So exactly how would someone suck the blood from the scratul skin? And when did this morph into the penis blood was sucked?
And excuse me, but why the heck didnt Beall ask for clarification on what “and stuff” meant precisely…as that would seem to be a very important thing to do, as MC added in the previous statement- that he played with the balls “out” of the skin…
Then Beall asks for carson to tell him what was said again
And MC answers this time getting part of it right :
I, its been awhile , so all I pretty much remember is scrotum , playing the penis, and putting thier kids balls in his mouth. Except didnt the last statement read that Baldwin never said the word scrotum? So what did he say? And how many did he say?
Then Carson says after this, he laid his hands on the table and jumped back, and went back to his cell.
Then Beall asks:
Okay did he mention anything about huh the other two, damien or Miskelly or anything along that line/
notice- Beall just gave MC the names of the other two and then asks if anything was mentioned about them, to which MC replies:
NO, he said the thing he said really about Misskelly is that he said he was going to kick his ass when he got out. When all this is over. How he messed everything up.
Then Beall asks MC to go over what Jason said again exactly- saying tell me about “the penis” and the balls”… so he did ask for some clarification, as he was giving some too IMO
MC replies wishy washy again not “exactly”:
He said how he kindly, I dont remember the exact words he used, but he DISMEMBERED THEM, that he played with THEIR penises, sucked the blood out of THEIR SCROTUM, and put the balls in his mouth.
Beall then asks again:
Did he say whether or not anyoneelse waas involved in this same activity that he was involved in?
MC: I dont remember it.
— Now here is where Beall decides to get to the truth of the matter—(pp) if you are lying tell us now ….nothing will happen to you …and then clarifies again-
That JB told MC while they were in jail that he put the balls of “at least one kid” in his mouth” and what did he do to the penis
MC: he played with it
Bealll (pp) and did he do anythingelse to the penis?
MC: He said he” sucked the blood out of it”
Ta da!! finally, good thing Beall asked MC to tell the truth…because NOW we have JB saying the blood was from the penis….
But wait Beall is on a roll now, so he asks again:
And he didnt mention anything anybody else did?
MC:Not really
Still Beall is not ready to give up on the “truth”
Did he mention anything about Damien, anything he might have done? You know, just think hard. If it comes to you fine if it doesnt fine
MC :not that i can remember
Theres more but i’ll stop as you can all read and compare for yourselves:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/carson.html
thanks for reading- sorry for the length and any typos ect.
AJMO same as previous post
I’m hesitant to re-enter this…but people are making some statements based on their opinions, and what they seem to want to be true.
I moved to the West Memphis area several years ago. Through church and other activities, I’ve met a number of the “players” in this saga…from LE to witnesses to friends of the principals. I’m not claiming to be an “insider.” My relationships with most of these people are casual and I don’t press them about their involvement in the case or how it affected them. Sometimes, it has come up in casual conversation…especially since the release.
That said, I have gotten to know one of the “softball girls” pretty well. She still has difficulty talking about how this case impacted her life. She NEVER asked to hear what she heard…but she remembers that evening in specific detail…what she and her friends were wearing; how DE & the group around him were dressed; etc.
It’s interesting how some, behind the safety of the net, will try to impugn people because they don’t fit what they WANT to be true.
If you want to know the truth, come to West Memphis and talk to people whose LIVES were DIRECTLY impacted by the murders of 3 innocent children…but for goodness sake, STOP making up your own version of what happened or just parroting what Hollywood wants you to believe is true.
My opinion changed when I started thinking for myself, listening to those who were THERE, and those who have lived in constant fear since those three CONVICTED MURDERERS were released.
Seriously, COME to West Memphis. I’ll introduce you to people who would LOVE to tell their side of the story…the side Hollywood doesn’t want told.
I’m going back to lurking now…patiently waiting for Part III.
Thanks, again Blink…for all you do. You make a difference, whether you see it or not.
Cont part 3
Clarification right off- Okay it seems BD home wasnt really his home but a renovated house that was his office, more on this later…
I hope everyone could understand my last post my apologies on all the errors.
Is Michael Carson consistent?
Yes and no-
He consistently remembers and forgets and adds and deletes information,,,although he is consistent on JB telling him the gory details while cleaning up cards….
He leaves the reader,(me) confused….
Lets look at his testimony-
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/mcarson.html
–MC tells the court that he was in jail for “about a week” He says for 2 of the days he was in lockdown
–MC can suddenly remember some of his fellow inmates names and BTW Beetle is a nickname, not a real name, and Jason- his roommate no longer seems to be his roommate, but rather just “Jason” the inmate with burns up and down his arm…hmm well that tidbit would have been helpful to LE in tracking down this Jason LNU, if they ever decided to…too bad they didnt decide to TMK..
snipped:
Q: who was in there with you?
MC: Another guy named Jason and he had burns all up and down his arm, and there’s this guy named Beetle — I mean it was his nickname — and a couple of black people in there, Leonar, Xavier and some other little kid. I don’t know his name.-
–Well that would mean there were 3 black kids one he doesnt know the name, and 2 that he suddenly recalled the names
So 3+ 1 “Jason” his roommate aka the boy with burns up and down his arm + 1 Jason Baldwin thats 5 and dont forget + 1 Beetle….so MC would have made it 7- well thats too many one wouldnt have a partner…. why ask for a seventh, that makes no sense?……except MC did say it was Jason and a“couple of black guys…and they needed him for a partner…
–Then the next day right before lunch he and JB were picking up cards
Q: You said he went into more detail. What did he tell you?
A: He told me how he dismembered the kids, or I don’t exactly how many kids. He just said he dismembered them. He sucked the blood from the penis and scrotum and put the balls in his mouth.
–Hmmm MC is consistent with the dismembering and he says outright he doesnt know how many, but then he says there was one penis and one scrotum and the balls… and now its definitely the blood from the penis AND the scrotum…
Next he is asked about coming forward:
Q: When was it that you came forward with this information?
A: I’m not really sure. I believe it was a couple months later. I was walking from my room into the living room — I was in my room listening to the radio — I was walking into the living room. My dad was watching something on the case on TV. They showed Jason’s face and I told him that was who I was in there with, and I told him about it, about the stuff I knew. He goes, you need to tell somebody.
–Gee his memory comes and goes doesnt it? Like when it was August and Sept he was incarcerated, then now its August and for a week but on cross examination it is 5 days…and now MC was listening to the radio in his room before telling his dad but no mention of a phone conversation…. and he wasnt watching tv with his dad on the couch, he just happened to walk through … and now his dad doesnt say anything IRT a lie detector nor does he say talk to LE he says “you need to tell someone”….
AJMO
cont part 4
Part 4
Testimony continues:
Davis: And it was in — at the beginning of the previous trail that you first made contact with law enforcement officers, right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And in fact the first night of the last trial you called me, did you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What caused you to come forward at that point in time? Why did Michael Carson no longer want to stay uninvolved? Why did you come forward and testify?
A: Because I saw the family on TV and saw how broken hearted they were about their children being missing. And I have got a soft heart. I couldn’t take it.
–Huh? He called LE at the beginning of the last trial? He called Mr Brent Davis that first night? No mention of his dad calling? Well isnt that a bit disingenuous, especially since Mr BD is setting up for the answer of why this kid is doing the right thing and becoming involved “for the families”
–And then we find out that Carson went to “Bill” Davis’s house at least twice- but its okay, cuz his office is a renovated house…well I guess all the money went to renovations and not for a tape recorder or a note pad…gee a house for an office? I should have became a prosecuting attorney:
Testimony cont-
cross-
Ford: Ok. Has he, how many times have you visited him?
Carson: I believe, at least twice at his home.
Ford: At least twice at his home, ok. And um–
Davis: Your Honor, this is for clarification purposes. My office is a renovated house and I wanted to be certain that was clarified.
Ford:…Now, how many days were you in jail?
Carson: I believe up to a week.
Ford: You believe up to a week? I’m trying to be a little more exact than “I believe up to a week.” How many days were you in jail?
Carson: At least five.
Ford: At least five. What’s the most days you were in jail?
Carson: Five.
Cont Test- questions regarding “the next day”
Ford: Did I read, did I read this statement inaccurately? Or was I reading it the way it was typed?
Carson: You are probably reading it the way it was typed but when he asked me the question if uh–he asked me the next day, I thought at that time he was asking the next day after the first time he denied it. The next day after he denied it was the day he told me that he did it and the day he admitted everything.
Ford: Ok, all right. Now, so you misunderstood his question that day?
Carson: Most likely, yes, sir.
Ford: Most likely, ok.
Fogleman: Your Honor, I’ve got to enter an objection. If the entire statement is taken into context — and we would be glad for the jury to have the entire statement — but, your Honor, the questions he’s asking — what the witness said in his statement is exactly what he testified to here today when the entire statement is taken into context.
–Well gee Beall asked that question over and over and asked for clarification, so how could Carson have misunderstood? Especially since in one of the statements he said it was at least 2 days later… IDK I know Im confused.
Carson testimony cont-
Ford: Now, I’m gonna show you–ask you to read that paragraph–
Davis: What page?
Ford: On page two, right there, read that paragraph.
Carson: “Actually it wasn’t until two or three days later that Baldwin told me the gory details about the balls and the penis. Baldwin told me I’m going to walk straight out of here. They don’t have the evidence on me. My parents are going to throw a party for me. Baldwin sounded like they only cut one dick off.”
Ford: There, Michael, there it says two or three days later that you made – that he gave you the details.
Davis: Your Honor, for clarification purposes — well, I guess I’m going to make an objection. Because what he is, I guess it’s appropriate –
The Court: Yeah, that’s the way to start.
cont part 5
AJMO
Part 5 cont-
Davis: Objection, your Honor. He is cross-examining on a report generated by Officer Beall, Officer Beall took. And he has a transcript of the recorded statement given by Michael and he also has a paraphrased report and that report is not proper cross examination for this witness. He can cross-examine him based on the statement, the transcript of the statement –
The Court: Was the paragraph that was just read a part of Mr. Beall’s report?
Ford: Yes, sir. I can ask him is Mr. Beall was mistaken when he wrote that down. Did you tell him that. Because that, I’m asking him if that statement of Mr. Beall is correct. Cause that statement says –
The Court: Mr. Beall is not the witness. You can ask the witness — you can cross-examine him and impeach him from his prior statements.
Ford: This is his statement, your Honor.
The Court: If you are using his statement, then that’s a different matter. If the question you asked him to read was question and answer in narrative, that’s fine. If it’s from a paraphrased report by the officer, then that’s not appropriate to impeach him by.
Ford: Did you tell Charlie Beall that it was two or three days later when he gave you the details? Did you tell him that?
Carson: Yes, sir, cause it was two or three days later before I got to talk to him from after I first showed up in jail.
Ford: Ok. So, Wednesday you first ask him and he says no. Thursday he asks you and he says yes and two or three days later he tells you the details. Is that right?
Carson: No, sir.
Ford: So this is wrong?
Carson: The day he told me he did it is the day he told me the details, at that exact moment.
Ford: And this is when y’all were cleaning up the cards ready to go in for lunch?
Carson: That’s right.
Ford: Ok. And, how long was this conversation?
Carson: I’m not certain. Probably about two or three minutes.
Ford: Two or three minutes. And he had known you for one day?
Carson: Yes, sir.
Ford: And then, you remained silent from August til February?
Carson: That’s right, cause I did not wanna get involved…..
Snipped-
Carson: “Well, we was just sitting there playing spades and then the officer comes over the intercom and tells us to get in our cells because she’s fixing to bring lunch in and so me and Jason was sitting there scraping up some cards and I turned to him and said, ‘Between me and you did you really do it?’ And he said, ‘Yes, I did do it, I and he started giving me the gory details.”
Davis: And then Officer Beall asked you, “Okay, are you saying he didn’t get into any gory details or he did?”
Carson: “He did.”
Davis: And Officer Beall’s next question was, “Okay, and this is the next day?” (TR 1973)
Carson: “Yeah.”
Davis: Now Michael, when you, when he said “Okay, and this is the next day” did you think he was referring to the next day –
Ford: Your Honor that’s–I object to the leading question
The Court: I’ll sustain the objection.
Davis: Ok. Michael, when he asked you, “Okay, and this is the next day” what did you think he was referring to?
Carson: I thought he was talking about the next day after I asked him the very first time when he denied it.
–But gee, it seems MC is easily confused or maybe its me…– was it August or Sept? Was it 5 days or a week?… was it 2 to 3 days later or was it the next day? And again Beall asked for clarification several times, and not just on page 2 of that statement… MC seemed pretty clear on “the next day”- and he seemed pretty clear about the other times too along with “Jason” his roommate, aka the burned guy and Beetle and the couple of Black guys that seem to be more than 4 players 2 partners and dont forget the little kid…. Carson still cant name
cont part 6
AJMO
Part 6
Testimony cont-
Ford: And Michael, the truth is that you meet Jason Baldwin for the first time on Wednesday, correct?
Carson: I believe so, yes sir.
Ford: Have a conversation with him while playing spades. Correct?
Carson: Yes, sir.
Ford: And then the statement that you just read there with Mr. Davis. “After you played spades and he told you no, you didn’t have a conversation at all until the next day.” Correct?
Carson: Yes, sir.
Ford: And in the second conversation you’ve ever had with this young man in his entire life, he tells you all this stuff?
Carson: Yes, sir.
Ford: After he’s had one conversation with you?
Carson: Aww, we talked plenty of times before I asked him that the first time.
Ford: You talked plenty of times now? The first two days you’re locked down, and the third day he says no, and then the next time you have a conversation is day four. So where are all these plenty of other times that you’re talking to him?
Carson: Every time we was sitting at the table we was talking about something.
Ford: Well you just told, you just read this question where you said the next time I had a conversation with him it was the next day, is that what you said?
Carson: Yes sir, I did say that.
And it continues:
Ford: Ok. Now, let me ask you just a little bit about the jail procedure. Tell me, how long did this conversation between you and Jason where he relates all these things to you, how long did that last?
Davis: Your Honor, I object. That’s been asked and answered.
Ford: I don’t remember his answer, your Honor.
The Court: It’s been asked and answered. So avoid repetition. I’m going to allow him to answer one more time.
Ford: Ok I don’t remember your Honor. How long did it take?
Carson: Pretty close to five minutes.
Ford: Pretty close to five minutes. And this conversation happened after the jailer announces over the intercom, go to your cells. It’s time for lunch –
Carson: Yeah–
Ford: Is that right?
Carson: –she said go to your cells it’s time, yes, sir, it is right.
Ford: Ok. And, so what you’re saying is for a period of five minutes after you were directed to go to your cells for lunch, you and Jason Baldwin sit at a table and have this conversation?
Carson: No, sir.
Ford: Well–
Carson: We did have the conversation.
Ford: And it took five minutes–
Carson: When she tells you, she didn’t say those exact words, pretty much like, “get ready” or something like that, I know it says that in there
Ford: But you’re statements here are wrong?
Fogleman: What page are you on?
Carson: No, sir, they’re not wrong.
Ford: On page three.
Carson: I just misworded it.
Ford: You misworded it?
Carson: I misworded it–if you can look at this, I misworded a lot of words off in here.
Davis: Your Honor, I got to enter an objection. Mr. Ford keeps holding up a document and saying your statements in here are wrong, and that’s not proper cross-examination, if he wants to refer to specific statements –
The Court: Sustained
Davis: –and notify the witness –
Ford: Turn to page three. We’ve already read this just once. You said, “Well, we were sitting there playing cards and then the officer comes over the intercom and tells us to get into our cells because she’s fixing to bring lunch in so me and Jason was just sitting there scraping up some cards, and I turned to him and said, ‘Just between you and me did you really do it?’ And he said, ‘Yes, I did,’ and he started giving me the gory details.” And that’s the five minute conversation that took place after the jailer says go to your cells, is that right?
Carson: I said it was pretty close to five minutes.
Ford: Pretty close to five minutes. And so for five, you’re allowed in jail that much leeway when they say go to your cell, you can sit there and continue your conversation for five minutes?
Carson: Everybody’s out of their cell during that time.
Ford: That’s not my question. Can you sit there for five minutes and have a conversation or when they tell you to go to your cell, do you have to go to your cell?
Carson: Yes, sir, you do have to.
Ford: Ok. But if that period, when you’re supposed to go to your cell you just sit there for another five minutes and have this conversation, right?–
Carson: Yes, sir.
Ford: –is that what you want these people to believe.
Carson: Yes, sir.
– well thats the problem Carson is “miswording” it… well what wasnt “misworded” was the confession? and if it is the truth, why does so much change the people playing the reasons and circumstances of taking to his dad, and coming forward, the # of boys involved,and who was dismembered and who wasnt and who was castrated and who wasnt and all the rest… the days in jail on & on and on… whether DE was involved or not, ect ect…
cont
Part 7
AJMO
Part 7 The End-
Can/Does anyone collaborate M Carsons remembrances? The people in jail other inmates, the jail personnel- well not from what I could find/read-
What do some of the people at the jail say?
According to JB rule 37 hearing Joyce Cureton’s testimony along with other inmates affidavits obtained, along with notes on the movements of the inmates ie- records/log sheets, from CC juvenile facility…. no one collaborates Mr. M Carsons testimony, heck it seems Mr. Carson couldnt even vouch for his own remembrances….
September 30 2008
When I walked in, a woman in a purple suit and white shirt was speaking from the witness stand-it was Joyce Cureton, the director of the juvenile detention center where Jason was held leading up to and during the trial.
When Cureton spoke, it was with authority. Her answers were forceful-”No, sir,” with the inflection on “no.” She spoke sweetly about Jason, saying things like, “You couldn’t ask for a better kid,” and described him as “all together different” from the typical delinquent housed at her facility. She said that she asked Jason several times “if he did it.” She testified that Jason repeatedly answered that his lawyer had told him not to speak to anybody about his case, but that he did say-”Miss Joyce, I am not guilty.”
When asked if she remembered Michael Carson, she immediately said, “Oh, yeah,” later sheepishly describing him as a “smartass” who was in-and-out of the detention center. Jason and Carson were both held in her facility from September 1st through the 7th in 1993. Carson was in lock-down the first three days, and Cureton was very clear that it was impossible that the two played spades together during the three days that they could have had contact with each other-there were notes on the movements of each of the inmates-records, logs, the works…
Joyce testified that Jason mainly stayed in his cell and read; his cell was located directly across from her station so that she could keep an eye on him-he was, after all, accused of a triple homicide. Carson, at the time, said that Jason befriended him because he was being threatened by some black kids held in the facility. Cureton said that actually Jason only ever talked to the black kids, and after hearing what Carson testified to in court, said that they were looking forward to kicking Carson’s ass when he gets back to juvy.
Ford came to the facility once with HBO. He brought Jason clothes, but never asked Cureton to testify during the trial on Jason’s behalf regarding his character, which she said she would have. Joyce said that the then-sheriff Hendrickson told her to get out of the county, and that he’d call her when the trial was over. She did as she was told… But, she was present during the sentencing phase, standing outside the courtroom waiting to be called to speak on Jason’s behalf…….
In J Baldwins 3/30/08 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and motion for new trial , a juvenile worker,Ann Tate – gives an opinion and assesses Carson’s personality page 74 162
She viewed Carson as someone who liked to draw attention to himself, and who would have made it a point to tell other detainees if he had ever heard Petitioner talking about the crimes charged against him and making any damaging admissions (Tate affidavit at pp5-7) Ann Tate also set Jason positively apart from others page 74 162 By contrast she describes Petitioner as quiet, and a person who did not call attention to himself or talk about the case.
Sue Weaver another detention worker also set Jason in a positive light page 71 159 Based on her observations of Petitioner, and personal experiences with him over several months of supervising him as a detainee, Sue Weaver indicates that she “…did not think that he could have participated in killing anyone, and especially killing three boys in what was reported to be a brutal way.” (Weaver affidavit, Exhibit 35 at p.8)
See here:
http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php/topic,865.msg9261.html#msg9261
http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/8107/Michael-Carson?page=3
and also according to an article in the Gazette, Carson went on to be an informant for LE a guess he didnt worry about three strikes and youre out anymore… or so it would seem, and it seems he was in jail for seven days…hmmm bet you are all as confused as I am right about now… especially since according to records Carson and JB were together only once for any length of time…
http://rugsville.yuku.com/sreply/2801/t/Arkansas-Democrat-Gazette.html
snipped:
Thursday’s filing also questions the reliability of prosecution witness Michael Carson, housed with Baldwin in the Juvenile Detention Center for seven days before the trial. Carson testified that Baldwin told him he had dismembered the boys and sucked the blood from their genitals.
Since Baldwin’s conviction, however, defense attorneys have learned that Carson continued to act as an informant after leaving Arkansas. Even while living in California, he often sought advice and assistance from Arkansas authorities, the defense says.
The defense has since located all the staff and detainees who would have been at the juvenile center with Baldwin and Carson. No one else heard Baldwin say anything about the boys’ deaths, attorneys say. Records indicate that Carson and Baldwin were together only once for any length of time. A staff member present on that occasion has signed an affidavit saying nothing was said about the murders.
Another staff member told defense investigators that law enforcement officers instructed her to take a leave of absence around the time she might be called as a defense witness.
AJMO
@Mom:
Excellent take down.
I will comment at length when time allows but on one point: my quick gut take is that Carson interchanged the singular with the plural as to the genital mutiliation inadvertently. I’ll read again to see if that opinion holds.
This is much too abbreviated given the time you took. I will be back and read through your posts again and respond.
@Mom:
I’ll have to do this in snippets to cover your main points. As to Part 2:
The police interrogation is terrible, no question about it. Does this mean that what Carson said was untrue? It doesn’t. As a matter of fact, those parts where it strongly seems Beall wants to plant answers, Carson doesn’t embellish: Did Baldwin say anything about the other two killers? “No.” About Damien in particular? “No.” These answers tend to show a reluctance to embellish, and in fact make Carson more credible IMO. The police interrogation was done so badly and with the apparent intention to produce specific results it really is hard to affix blame outside of Beall.
As to how the admission or alleged admission transpired at the card game, prominent death penalty opponent Billy Sinclair has written that it struck him as highly credible from Carson’s description of the detention environment. I don’t really think there is such a thing as a prison environment expert, but Sinclair certainly knows more about it more than I do.
Obviously Carson’s descriptions of the players are inconsistent, as you point out, and only becomes harmonious after Beall leads Carson to do so.
My primary problem with the interview in this segment is with the police questioning. It was pathetic. OTOH, Carson refused to take the bait to make this a larger admission than it was or purportedly was. This makes Carson come across as credible, but he could have other motives such as personal animus toward Baldwin or friendships with Echols and Misskelley about which we are unaware. I have no doubt about Carson’s claim that Baldwin wanted to kick Misskelley’s given the post-release interaction among these three.
Finally, if we knew what if anything Danny Williams precisely told to Carson about the crime, we could give his statements a more accurate analysis. Alas.
As an aside, Baldwin would have been better-served with you handling the cross-examination than Ford, but I will take that up when I get around to the other segments, Mom.
@Mom:
As to parts 3 or 4:
Nothing here really moves the needle. Yes, he testified “about a week” when it was five days. This isn’t significant. What is significant is the August and September conflation, and the inability to recall who was at the card game and/or names.
In part 4, you do get inconsistencies. However, on the primary point, which is whether one or all penises, dicks, balls, scrotums, whatever were mutilated, the most telling line is Baldwin “made it sound like one dick.” Which, of course, was true. The attorney’s office in a renovated home is quite common in small towns and doesn’t strike me as significant one way or another unless I missed your point there.
I can’t over-emphasize how much Beall’s leading and suggestions may have muddied beyond recognition what comes across as at least a plausible account. I also have to wonder that if Williams in fact described generalized ritual atrocities Carson had a hard time squaring what Baldwin told him with what he heard from his counselor. This might account for the “one dick” vs. the plural or seeming plural. Ford should have flushed this out more, but there may have been a solid reason he didn’t want to do it: this might have prompted Danny Williams to be called by the State on rebuttal.
Your strongest points come in the next segments. I’ll address those more completely when time permits. I apologize for the abberviated comments thus far but this isn’t where the rubber hits the road IMO; that’s coming up.
JM is reported to have consumed a fifth of whiskey in a little over two hours. Did he share some of it with others? Possibily, but there is no record of it.
A fifth bottle is almost 26 fl. oz.. If Jessie did not share the alcohol with anyone, he would have consumed enough to make him unable to walk or even be conscious.
The interviews by LE are all poorley done. IMO they did not have a clue of how (proceedure or language) to conduct a proper one. It would be interesting to do a real good background check on all the players ( LE and attorneys) involved in the state side of the case.
@TG:
I haven’t been able find a link yet to the size of the whiskey bottle Stidham and company found. From memory it was indeed a fifth, but if anyone else has a link to the exact size please post it. I’ll continue to look.
@Mom:
Re: Pages five, six.
I have covered this already, but I don’t find “about a week” and “five days” that variant. The inability to give the precise day when Baldwin made the admission is highly problemmatic, along with who exactly was at the card game.
Again, police ineptitude if not outright misconduct may have been the root of these discrepancies. On the other hand, Carson took and passed a polygraph administered by the Arkansas State Police, an agency hardly as lacking as the West Memphis Police Department.
The results are here: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/mcpoly.html
Carson passed.
Now for full disclosure, I don’t think polygraphs are worth a damn for anything other than rattling a witness. I would go further but that would be a little too biographical.
I will next address Part 7. It is here where you, if you had been the foreman and I a juror, probably would have moved me to disregard the Carson testimony (I think I would have moved you on the softball girls, too, but that’s an aside).
Julio says:
October 26, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Hello again Julio, First I would like to say thanks for stepping out of lurking to give us your thoughts. I appreciate you taking a stand for your friend. I am glad she has a friend like you.
You wrote:
I’m hesitant to re-enter this…but people are making some statements based on their opinions, and what they seem to want to be true.
Julio,
I assume that you are suggesting that someone here on BOC wants the WM# to be innocent?
Why would anyone want to believe the West Memphis 3 are innocent?
That would mean 3 little boys were abducted and beaten, hogtied and drowned by a sick twisted murderer/s who remained free while 3 innocent people were found guilty.
That would mean that the families of the victims spent a great part of their life believing three innocent people killed their children, and that it was done for the devil, and as they sat each day wishing for the 3′s death and punishment, the guilty party was amongst them and basking in their freedom….
That would mean that a sixteen year old innocent kid went to prison for 18 years of his life
That would mean that a young father- to- be, went to prison for 18 years and was innocent sitting on death row
That would mean that a 17 year old kid confessed to something he did not do and that his”accomplices” did not do- and he sat in prison for 18 years, every day innocent but yet proven guilty….
That would mean that all of the witnesses while trying to help justice, instead inadvertently helped only to obscure the hidden real killers
That would mean LE was totally wrong on every piece of evidence and every theory and opinion.
That would be horrible, who would want that?
Noone is saying that the softball girls wanted to hear what they heard- noone is saying it wasnt scary for them to come forward and testify or to realize that a boy who talked to them and said those things ended up being accused, arrested, tried and convicted of the murders.
As I said before, I think it took courage for the girls to testify.
I am sure none of these girls or their parents wanted to be in this situation.
I am not saying that DE didnt say those things- all I am saying is that I do not believe it was a confession–
They were just kids and certainly would not want to come to a realization that a misunderstanding of what they heard, may have led to their testimony or statements- but based on the statements/testimony ect I think it is at least possible that this is exactly what happened.
I would not want to be in their place then, or now.
In fact, the truth is- I do not think the prosecution should have ever subjected these kids to testifying at all-
If the case wasnt strong enough without these girls testimony – then LE should have looked harder and longer for some stronger evidence-
I think LE failed to do what was best for these girls and for the town.
I do hope that they received help in dealing with the aftermath of the trial and their nightmares of what they heard. As well as help with dealing with the 3′s release-
I do not blame anyone for being afraid- then or now. I blame LE for trumping up the fear with lies of devilworship, esbats, and human sacrifice.
Again, I do not know if these 3 were innocent or guilty- IMO there is reasonable doubt – and that is not these little girls fault- that is LE and the prosecution and the defenses fault.
I can understand your feelings Julio, you are obviously a kind and thoughtful person who is concerned for your friend.
IMO LE failed these girls, and they failed the town, and they failed the victims and their families.
If not for the seriously faulty investigation/case no one would be doubting the validity of the case, and the 3 would have never been set free.
Peace and Thank you AJMO
Jack, thanks for giving my posts your thoughtful consideration, I await your part 7- before giving my thoughts okay?
TGF, thanks for giving me your thoughts on the music and the influences- I agree with your assessment.
TGF and Jack- interesting conversation on the liquor- much to ponder…Didnt one of Miskellys friends also get a bottle? and didnt JM say he drank some of his? not sure…why wasnt the friend or Vickie asked about this?
AJMO
@Mom:
Before I get to part 7, and soon will start, I couldn’t disagree with you more here:
“In fact, the truth is- I do not think the prosecution should have ever subjected these kids to testifying at all-
“If the case wasnt strong enough without these girls testimony – then LE should have looked harder and longer for some stronger evidence-”
The raw truth is that many people are in jail or prison, the vast majority correctly so, primarily because of boasts such as Echols made about the murders. It requires the person to whom the person made the brag to testify, minor or not. This is the raw reality of the courtroom.
Julio was exactly right. I imagine we would be appalled to learn what some WM3 supporters have done to these then-children, now women. It likely would make any of the police misconduct seem quite slight in contrast.
Thank you, Julio, and tell your friend thanks because she served the cause of justice. It ultimately failed her.
@Mom:
Part 7:
First let’s look at Mrs. Cureton’s entire testimony. It can be found here:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/bm_rule37/bm_rule37_cureton.html
Much of it can be disregarded for the following reasons:
“I was eventually fired by the Sheriff for taking a county car out of the county.”
Remember this in conjunction with this extraordinary claim among others:
“It was the Sheriff who asked me to leave the county after Paul Ford had asked me to be available to testify at the sentencing hearing. (BMHR 663).”
Now what did Mr. Ford think about how helpful Ms. Cureton would have been at trial?
From her own testimony at the Rule 37 hearing:
“I did not testify in the trial of the case. I was outside of court when Michael Carson testified. I have no independent recollection of whether Carson, Baldwin, a kid named Biddle and another juvenile named Jason played cards together.
“Ford called me at home one Friday night, but that was after the trial. (BMHR 641). Baldwin’s lawyers did not contact me about Michael Carson. (BMHR 641-642). Ford’s contact after the trial was to ask me what kind of a kid Baldwin had been while he was incarcerated there. But the contact was not about Carson or allegations made by Carson. Nor was I asked if I had any records or if my staff
had any records that could be useful to address the Michael Carson allegations. To my knowledge, the Baldwin defense team never tried to identify any of the kids who were involved in the alleged card game with Carson. Nor did any of the black inmates who were in the facility get interviewed by the Baldwin defense lawyers. (BMHR 643-644).”
So Mr. Ford, who had subpoeana power and could have forced Mrs. Cureton to testify despite the big, bad sheriff who fired her, chose not to do so.
You are probably thinking to yourself now, Mom, based on a previous post, how would this guy have been swayed by me if we had been on the jury together?
It is here. You wrote:
“According to JB rule 37 hearing Joyce Cureton’s testimony along with other inmates affidavits obtained, along with notes on the movements of the inmates ie- records/log sheets, from CC juvenile facility…. no one collaborates Mr. M Carsons testimony, heck it seems Mr. Carson couldnt even vouch for his own remembrances….
“The defense has since located all the staff and detainees who would have been at the juvenile center with Baldwin and Carson. No one else heard Baldwin say anything about the boys’ deaths, attorneys say. Records indicate that Carson and Baldwin were together only once for any length of time. A staff member present on that occasion has signed an affidavit saying nothing was said about the murders.”
Bingo. The State could have easily obtained these witnesses and records to corroborate Carson’s story. It has the burden. It did not attempt to corroborate. The defense’s neglect to do the same has to be put aside.
So Carson’s testimony–which very well may be true–could have been discounted by me because of the State’s failure to produce a witness or custodian of documents to corroborate his claims. Add in the leading questions from police and inconsistencies as to the exact times and persons present and it can be disregarded.
So I will throw out the testimony of Carson, even though I do believe Baldwin, who like Echols was a world class punk, said something in the form of an admission to Carson.
What I still have is the completely credible softball girls. Would there have been reasonable doubt? Yes, easily, until Echols testified. Nonetheless, even after Echols was devastated in cross-examination there would/could have been reasonable doubt as to Baldwin because the Carson testimony was crucial to his conviction.
The trial court’s mistake was not granting a severance of the Baldwin and Echols trial and putting the latter in the dock first. This would have squeezed the Baldwin defense team into a possible plea.
Again, your take down is excellent and made me reconsider much I either knew or had known and forgotten. The only area where I strongly disagree with you really was in the response to Julio, which has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
Great work and you make a great advocate for your position.
Just a note to say that although I am embroiled in the never ending caseload- you two are hellfire debaters and I could not be more impressed.
B
Since this case hinges on Jessie’s confessions, it’s obviously important to establish whether or not those confessions were legit.
You really NEED to watch this amazing episode of FRONTLINE from last year (LINK BELOW). It’s called Confessions. It deals with a very bizarre case that you will not believe. I promise you won’t regret it.
WATCH: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/
After you watch it, let’s see how this show relates to Jessie’s confessions.
I was on deadline all day, if anyone else has a chance to comment on this link, would be swell.
B
Blink- Hi, just wanted to warn you that some posts are coming which contain lots of links
Thanks.
Where was this candle wax found?
I have read that it was on the cub scout shirt? Which would be MM shirt-
but then according to LISA SAKEVICIUS testimony it was found on the
” polka dot“ shirt – there is a gray or tan shirt with geometric shapes that has a stain on it, and a small section could be bluish paint or wax…
Is this the candle wax shirt?
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/clothing/clothing_243.JPG
Whose shirt is this?
PS- if it is the shirt- it looks awfully clean- free of dirt and mud and debris- compare it to little MM shirt- was this shirt also found in the creek? Perhaps it is dirty on the inside, as I believe that the shirt was found inside out, if so, was the shirt photographed then? If so I am unable to find the photos of this…
And why would candle wax be on the rightside of the shirt? As according to JM it was still light out when the undressing happened…wouldnt the candle wax be on the wrongside of the shirt- considering they would have been beating them- and why is there no blood if the beating began when they were dressed…
Heres part of LS testimony:
Q: Yesterday after you left, some mention came up about whether or not there was any evidence of candles at the scene. Did you find any evidence of candle wax in your examinations?
A: On the item, my E-2 item, which was a shirt, I did find a blue wax.
Q: Item E-2, which is state’s exhibit 44, the white polka dot shirt, correct?
A: That’s correct.
Q: What did you find on this shirt?
A: Blue wax.
Q: Is that blue wax consistant with candle wax?
A: Yes.
–Then she goes on to want to testify to paintings of jasons that we altered to become “gruesome” I believe this is the posters to which Blink referred to in her early response to kathy-
This evidence was not seized it was something that she is merely recalling…
–
The testimony continues:
Bench conference:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/fbibench.htmlhttp://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/fbibench.html
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we’d also request a copy of the report of Lisa Sakevicius — if there is one — regarding any candle wax.
FOGLEMAN: I don’t know if there is one. She said that what she puts in her report is when there are matches. She claimed that didn’t match anything.
THE COURT: Is it in the report that you have?
PRICE: No sir.
DAVIDSON: No, we’ve never heard that until it came out today.
THE COURT: No, I remember something about her testimony from uh, in Corning, where she started to say something about she found something else and it was interrupted and prevented from saying what it was, or didn’t say, but I think she attempted to before.
PRICE: I think that was about the poster that was found in Mr. Baldwin’s –
THE COURT: Is that what it was?
PRICE: Yes sir. I went through her transcript.
(MUMBLING IN BACKGROUND)
THE COURT: What’s that?
DAVIS: …two day continuance, nobody would know. We could just keep the jury in the back room. It would all seem the same to them.
THE COURT: Heh.
PRICE: Judge, while they’re looking for that, there’s one other oral motion I’d like to make at this time.
THE COURT: Okay.
Why was there a two day continuance to find “something” what was this something the blue candle wax? Was it ever found?
AJMO
Part 2
Heres the thing I can not find any reports that this shirt was sent to the lab in order to test for candle wax – I can not find anywhere that it was determined to be blue candle wax on the shirt. Or even to be “consistant with” blue candle wax….
Also can someone point me to the findings on the candle wax from the book?
Is this supposed to be the candle wax on the book?
http://callahan.8k.com/images/damiene/book_cotton_mather/front.JPG
A blue candle was found in Domini’s room-
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/search/domini/dt_search_03.JPG
and one was found in Damiens room/sisters room-
Although I cant find the pics for this candle…I would appreciate anyone pointing me toward this, and also and lab findings on the comparisons—
The trace evidence report from June 29 has the polka dot shirt/E-2 included also the other shirts too.
http://callahan.8k.com/images/ascl/ASCL_Trace_0629_01.JPG
The book is listed with “candle wax”/E-84 :
http://callahan.8k.com/images/ascl/ASCL_Trace_0629_06.JPG
If LE or the CSI thought any shirt had candle wax of any color wouldnt it have also been noted?
cont part 3
AJMO
part 3
Question? Did the prosecution show Lisa the shirt at trial how do we know it was candle wax since no notes were made “unless a match was made” can we assume that there was no match?
If so, then how can it be said that there was candle wax (blue) on a victims shirt and then how can it be further said this candle wax matched or was made at all to DEs & DTs candles and the also to the book?
From the P closing statements:
snipped:
Also, remember Damien saying–and I think this is a real, real coincidence, and y’all can play a little detective on your own when you go back here. Remember this book that just comes from the library? See all this stain on the back of it? You all go back there and look a that and kindly tilt it in the light and look and it, and see if that isn’t blue wax to you. See if that doesn’t look like some blue wax to you. Now you run your fingers on it and it reflects, it got kind of a shiny surface to it. You remember ol Damien telling us that one of those–I mean, whoever was doing this would–probably if it was satanic involved, would probably have some candles out there. Well, we got one of the boys’ shirts that had that blue wax on his shirt and–oh, Damien will tell you, well those red marks in his book, you know–they must have been in the library before I got it.
But is this just gonna be another one of those coincidences? You know, Damien’s out there at nine-thirty, Damien tells two people who don’t know him from Adam–they overhear him say he committed the murder, their mother comes into court and testifies under oath that’s what her daughter said. Narlene and Anthony tell you that. And is this just another coincidence that we’ve got blue candle wax on the shirt of one of the victims. And we’ve got blue candle wax on this book involving, dealing with the occult.
You go back there and play–play your own little examination with that. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/ebtrial/closedavis.html
—
No mention of whose shirt precisely, just a victims shirt and the jury is not told to play detective when looking at the victims shirt… nor are they told to play detective when looking at the candles from D&D….
They are told that these things are related that it cant be a coincidence, that a library book an old library book, (dealing with the “occult) which was in circulation for a long time- has what looks to be blue candle wax on it… but yet I can not find where LS definitively found a match or even that it was determined to be in fact candle wax whether found on shirt or book…
Help!
We know the book was given to the jury, were the candles also supplied to the jury?
Was the “white polka dot shirt” supplied to the jury? Was the scrapings of the candle wax via the shirt, or the candles supplied to them for comparison? What about reports and testing done(if it was done)were they supplied to the jury?
Damien was asked about the candle wax-
Q – Why do you think there was candle wax on that little victim’s shirt?
A – It could have been whoever killed him did it. He could have got it before he left home. I don’t know.
next-
Since it was written on the jury charts that the blue candle wax found on E-1 and it factored in as a very important point & this jury used this info to convict DE, should we now conclude that the evidence used to convict DE was not tested?- or was NEVER consistent or a match?? IDK
Help!
Cont part 4
Part 4
What were LE looking for in their searches and why?
We can determine the fibers were to compare to those found on the victims and at the scene- but what of the paint and the red and blue waxy substances? What did they come from?
In JM trial this was said:
Q: Exhibit C, page two of two, it makes reference to blue green, red, black, purple fibers. Number two makes reference to blue, yellow, read, paint or plastic residue, red waxy type substance. In any of the Affidavits that you presented to Judge Rainey to seek the seizure of these items, what Affidavit did you use to support a request to the municipal judge to seek seizure of these fibers?
A: Just that evidence was collected at the crime scene and we were looking for evidence that matched that evidence at the crime scene.
Q: You had no reason to believe that any of this stuff was at the crime scene, did you, when you made application for the Search Warrant?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: What was that based upon?
A: The information received by me from Inspector Gitchell.
Q: Did you receive this information from the Crime Lab?
A: He did.
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/sephearing.html
Here are the links to what LS and LE/Sudbury were looking for in the searches:
Jason
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/j_baldwin/jb_exhibit_c_01.jpg
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/j_baldwin/jb_exhibit_c_02.jpg
DE- although I am unable to find page 2
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/search/de_exhibit_C.jpg
and JM I couldnt locate page 1
http://callahan.8k.com/images/warrants/search_warrant_C_02.jpg
Why were LE looking for red and blue waxy substances during the searches- why were LE looking for red and blue waxy substances during the searches- what had red waxy substances/ that were connected to the crimescene? I can not find anything to point LE toward this search except for possibly SJ and Sudburys early visit to DE and perhaps picking up the old library book….I can not find anything to point LE toward this search except for possibly SJ and Sudburys early visit to DE and perhaps picking up the old library book….and possibly to the wax on the shirt but again it was never mentioned as part of the findings like the book was
Such as noted:
book w/candle wax….
I can assume the paint was because of the bikes maybe…they were said to be black and red and green …but what of yellow ect that were connected to the crimescene? I can not find anything to point LE toward this search except for possibly SJ and Sudburys early visit to DE and perhaps picking up the old library book….
Cont part 5
AJMO same as always
oops sorry i dont now why there was double sentences in my last post….
Cont part 5
The end
Did they or didnt LS find candle wax on a victims shirt. if so where are the lab reports conclusively staing these findings?
Did she or didnt she test this? Did she compare the blue wax from the shirt to the book and the candles and did they come back as a match, and if so where are the lab reports?
Satanic murders and motivation and Lisa S…
It is a fact that LS first search was done in this case, she had never went on a search of suspects homes before…
What did she see, what were her impressions of Jasons posters and decor? Would this have played into her thoughts on what may or may not have been found?
Considering LEs confiscating poetry and drawings, and albums why werent these satanic like posters seized? why werent they photographed?
Snipped testimony:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. FOGLEMAN:
8 Q. I failed to ask you a question. When you were here in West
9 Memphis participating in the execution of the search warrants,
10 did you go in the trailer of Jason Baldwin?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Describe for the jury the defendant’s room, what you
13 observed there?
14 MR. STIDHAM: Your Honor, we object. May we
15 approach the bench?
16 (THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH
17 OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY)
18 MR. STIDHAM: What relevance could that possibly
19 have?
20 THE COURT: I don’t know.
21 MR. FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, it goes to that cult
22 stuff. He had all kinds of paintings on the wall.
23 Things of skulls and daggers and –
24 THE COURT: In thinking about the cult stuff I
25 might have restricted the State too much because they
1528
1 can prove motivation, and all of those things go to
2 motivation. And all the facts and circumstances of
3 the other event might have been admissible to
4 establish motive and to the extent that — what detail
5 are you going to go in letting her describe this?
6 MR. DAVIS: She described there were paintings
7 and pictures in the room of dragons and it gave her a
8 very uneasy feeling about the entire way — the room
9 was full of pictures and magazines she interpreted to
10 be satanic type.
11 MR. CROW: Judge –
12 MR. FOGLEMAN: She’s not going to make an
13 interpretation.
14 MR. CROW: Okay.
15 MR. STIDHAM: It may be relevant against Jason,
16 but it is certainly not relevant against Mr.
17 Misskelley.
18 MR. CROW: We object to, for one thing, showing
19 anything about Mr. Misskelley going to some kind of
20 cult activity.
21 THE COURT: The cult activities in my opinion are
22 admissible going to possible motivation, intent.
23 MR. CROW: Nothing in the statement says anything
24 about –
25 MR. STIDHAM: No relevancy.
1529
1 THE COURT: If it is Jessie Misskelley’s
2 apartment, I’m going to let her describe it. If it is
3 the other two boys, let’s let it go.
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/j_baldwin/evidence_seized_photos/jb_seized_photo_06.jpg
and
http://callahan.8k.com/images2/j_baldwin/evidence_seized_photos/jb_seized_photo_12.jpg
ps I cant not find a photo of Jasons entire room, or of damiens room in its entirety before shots, before anything was moved/disturbed- also I can not find the pics of the redrobe or the seat cover or the little boys shirt in DES closet ect-
Can someone point me to them? TIA
So in closing where is the candle wax was it candle wax? and where are the lab findings ect ect ect
AJMO
@Mom:
I relied on memory on one point and it was in error. Danny Williams’ testimony ultimately was disallowed by the Court on the grounds of privilege. It was not an election by Mr. Ford not to call him.
I’m sorry for this error so strike that about rebuttal above.
@Blink:
That is quite a compliment coming from you.
Thanks.