The West Memphis Three HBO Paradise Lost Purgatory: Victims Parents Plea For No Oscar, Call Film Cruel Hoax
Beverly Hills, CA- Following an announcement that The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is considering the HBO documentary Paradise Lost III : Purgatory, as one of 15 submissions being considered for an Oscar in the documentary category branch of AMPAS, chaired by Rob Epstein- Todd and Diana Moore took action.
The Moores are the parents of James Michael Moore, one of three eight your old victims murdered on May 3, 1993 along with Chris Byers and Stevie Branch. Within days of an exclusive series on the murders appearing on www.blinkoncrime.com which included the discovery of potential new evidence; the nearly 18 year old case that resulted in 9 previous convictions of three suspects took a radical turn.
On August 19th Jessie Misskelley, Damien Echols and Charles Jason Baldwin pled guilty to the murders of all 3 children via an Alford plea and were immediately released from jail as convicted murders on parole.
Paradise Lost III produced by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky follows it’s predecessors I and II, released in 1996 after the initial convictions of the West Memphis 3.
Berlinger is a member of AMPAS, and has produced several unreleased documentaries of Hollywood A- listers including Charlize Theron, Hugh Jackman, Oprah Winfrey and Cameron Diaz.
Click below to read impassioned and unedited letter sent to Chairman Epstein.
The following is the unedited letter sent to Chairman Epstein by Todd and Diana Moore:
TODD MOORE
DIANA MOORE
PO Box 721
2004 Main St.
Hughes, AR 72348
November 22, 2011
Chairman Robert P. Epstein
AMPAS
Awards Office
8949 Wilshire Blvd
Beverly Hills CA 90211
Re: Paradise Lost III: Purgatory
Dear Chairman Epstein and members of the Documentary Branch of the Academy:
We are Todd Moore and Dana Moore.
Our cherished eight-year-old son, Michael, was brutally murdered on May 5, 1993 by Jessie Misskelley, Damien Echols, and Jason Baldwin. Misskelley was tried and convicted in 1994. Baldwin and Echols were convicted by a separate jury later that year. All three entered Alford pleas to our son’s murder August 19, 2011. They are now, as they have been for the past 17 years, guilty as a matter of law. They have been guilty as a matter of fact since the moment water flooded Michael’s lungs after he was beaten, stripped, hogtied, and then discarded into a stream to drown.
Michael was the joy of our lives. In addition to our son, his murderers also tortured and slaughtered two other children, Christopher Byers and Stevie Branch. These three precious victims were classmates and friends, and their loss was a tragedy felt throughout the entire community.
We are horrified to learn that a documentary that glorifies Michael’s killers, Paradise Lost III: Purgatory, is among 15 documentaries being considered for an Academy Award. Because of public pressure that exploded due to gross misrepresentations of fact in two previous documentaries, Michael’s killers were unjustly able to enter into a plea agreement, were released from prison, and now pose additional threats to society. This third documentary further insulted the families of these three boys and may lead to further injustice. We implore the Academy not to reward our child’s killers and the directors who have profited from one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated under the guise of a “documentary film.”
We realize that documentaries have a point of view and advocate a position to some degree or another. As with the two before it, this film crossed the line into a cruel hoax that had real-life consequences larger than even those of us who still mourn our horrific losses. It is not art. This film is cynical and exploitative deception that compounds our pain needlessly and rewards those who inflicted it. It and the two films that preceded it are simply tasteless tabloid entertainment presented as social commentary.
We are private individuals. The directors, Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger, are aware of this because we refused to participate in their last two films. We appeared solely in the first film because the directors lied and told us their purpose would be to “protect children.” You can imagine our shock and disgust when the first film opened with gruesome and gratuitous images of the crime scene and remained exploitative and salacious until the credits rolled. It did nothing to promote child welfare. It did everything to support child killers and to benefit monetarily from a ghastly crime.
We were hardly the only people Sinofsky and Berlinger misled or manipulated.
Consider what happened to John Mark Byers. He was Christopher Byers’ adoptive father. Confrontations between Mr. Byers and Echols’ supporters at hearings were staged. Of course, Berlinger and Sinofsky were there to film these episodes. Berlinger and Sinofsky would transport Mr. Byers to the hearings and wire him for sound beforehand. Furthermore, Berlinger and Sinofsky maneuvered Mr. Byers and Echols’ supporters in order to film the anticipated confrontations. Later, after the cameras were packed away, Mr. Byers acted like a different person. Instead of being belligerent, he was affable. When asked about his change in demeanor, Mr. Byers stated that he was supposed to act that way when the cameras were present. Mr. Byers was quoted as saying he received $500 per hour for “exclusive interviews.”
These contrived “confrontations” and other distortions caused many viewers to believe Mark was the “real killer.” It had a terrible impact on his life. We brought this to the attention of HBO. Our complaint was ignored because these falsehoods proved lucrative.
The complete list of distortions would be a long one. The above example is illustrative of the manipulation and distortions that are prevalent throughout the entire Paradise Lost franchise. The films are bereft of ethics, principles, or factual accuracy and basis.
Publicity from the first two films did generate millions of dollars in donations. Much of that money went toward the defense’s investigation of the case. Not a single piece of exculpatory evidence was produced. In other words, between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000 has been collected, although no one knows the exact amount collected or how it was spent. In eighteen years, nothing was found to clear the names of the actual killers. Late last year, the windfall that went toward the legal defense resulted in the granting of an evidentiary hearing which was set to be held a few weeks from now. Instead, the murderers opted to initiate a plea negotiation with the State. As a result, they remain convicted of the deaths of three children.
We have to note that this situation is similar to the one that confronted the Academy when Capturing the Friedmans was nominated for Best Documentary Film of 2003. Two of the Friedmans’ sexual abuse victims presented another Open Letter to the Academy. Capturing the Friedmans had much more artistic merit and integrity than Paradise Lost III: Purgatory, yet it did not receive the award. The Academy made the right decision then, and we pray it does so this time as well.
Sincerely,
Todd Moore Diana Moore
cc: (via eMail)
Commercial Appeal
Jonesboro Sun
LA Times
Variety
Hollywood Reporter
People Magazine
Associated Press
United Press International
Reuters
Related Posts
Related Posts:
557 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
@ Blink
I understand. I never thought of being ‘hypothetical’ as I’m a ‘wear my heart on my sleeve’ girl….as I know YOU know. The egg shells many walk on around me must find it terribly daunting.
I respect your decision and thank you for guarding my best interests, as well as yours AND our wee cubs. I also apologize for my tunnel vision and not taking into consideration the REAL purpose for this site. I sincerely hoped my experiences could shed some light on certain issues. Cherry bomb!
I so wish I was blessed with discernment and rationale, hence, I leap then look. I’m humbled to witness the good Lord putting people in my life who graciously look out for me.
Also, thank you for the overly generous compliment. I know that is far from the truth but how sweet are you!
Angel hugs with infinite ‘I’m so sorry’!!!! XO
Hello Blink-
Let me begin this by stating my post was more of a catch all and not a direct response to you, as I was trying to address matts thoughts as well as some of yours-.
Next let me say my dear friend You know that I respect you and I heart you bigger than the world. I value your perspectives and all of your hard work.
Here is where I think we are in agreement. I think given Jasons moms history she should have been treated and her children should have been treated, and I believe She obviously was unwell at the time of her breakdown-
At that time appropriate treatment should have taken place with long term management and appropriate care including- cont support and continued watching etc.
But even though Jasons mom was suffering from mental health issues does not mean that she was forever more unfit to be a mother or was a continued threat to herself or others- and it certainly should not mean that her children should have been taken from her- (after her treatment and release) nor does her mental health issues mean that Jason became a child murderer..
I wrote and you responded:
Besides this, I do not know of anything that would point to Jasons mother being unfit…. She went to work she was trying her best. Jason was attending school and completing his assignments- as well as finding a summer job, in addition to this, he also shared in the responsibility for the care and well-being of his younger siblings.
“Besides this? With much respect and admiration- I double checked this was you when I saw this statement.
Casey Anthony did her best. Josh Powell did his best. Chris Coleman did his best. Andrea Yates did her best. Darlie Routier did her best. Or perhaps the most substantially similar comparison- the case of Rachelle Grimmer. She had a history of mental illness could not get food stamps so she killed her children and herself in a seven hour standoff last December.”
- Blink, there are many parents, who have had breakdowns and who may have had drug abuse issues and may have attempted suicide or may have suffered from previously undiagnosed schizophrenia or other such disorders.
But each case and each parent and each family must be looked at as a separate issue- we can not and should not determine a parents “fitness” by any other case.
If we were to take every child away from every parent that ever suffered from these afflictions and received treatment, then we would be dooming many a child to a life devoid of their parents loving care- opting for foster care which in many cases breaks up the siblings… If given the chance and proper treatment these parents can go on to be the best parent they can be and the family remains intact and can even thrive.
Blink, Casey Anthony never did her best. It is a fact that she at every available opportunity pawned Caylee off onto her mother and father and babysitters — all in a guise of a hard working mother who had to work and leave her baby to others care…She lied.
When Caylee was in her care, 90% of the time Casey was dragging her to and fro from one house/friend to another, or to one boyfriend or another. Casey went where there was fun for Casey to be had -
Caylee was merely an afterthought on these outings and never the center of Caseys world and attention.
She may have brought a backpack with a book or two and some cheerios and a change of clothes and a doll but all this was packed by her grandma- not Casey- Little Caylee never had a birthday that was all hers- she celebrated the way her mother wanted her too- with her mothers friends not at a park, not with a clown, not at Disney World but in a house filled with her mothers friends… – She never got the chance to fulfill her serenader’s promise….”Girl youll be a woman soon…” Her funeral and memorial service was not even her own as she again had to share this with her “mother”
So please lets not even pretend to even entertain the thought that Casey Anthony did her best, Cindy may have did her best, and George may have done their best- but Casey certainly did not.
I do not know if Josh Powell ever did his best to be a good father- I do not know if he in the beginning did his best to be a good and decent husband- perhaps he did,r…I can not say.
But what I do know is Susan certainly did her best to be a good wife and mother- yet she was unable to protect herself and her children from a man she had come to know as abusive and tyrannical and possibly as an abuser of their children.
Is she at fault for this, was she an unfit mother because she stayed, because she did not alert authorities- because she was most likely suffering from mental health issues brought on by her horrible predicament? Might she have been depressed and might she have contemplated suicide….who knows- but if she had this does not mean she was unfit.
To use that brush to paint widely would mean splashing the paint on some parents who may not deserve it.
I do not see how we can compare these parents who were accused and or convicted of killing their children and or spouses to Jasons mother….
I think I get what point you are trying to make Blink about red flags and hindsight-
Chris Coleman- killed his children and his wife inorder to be with his girlfriend. He was a Marine, which you know – means alot- marines have to pass stringent mental health tests. He may have tried his best, when it suited him to be a husband and father, but he clearly stopped when he decided to strangle his wife and boys to death.
Andrea Yates– did do her best- as did the childrens father- Sadly Andrea Yates was not getting appropriate care or meds or treatment- Had she, she would have proven herself to be a caring loving and fit parent who would have never harmed her children -would you not agree?
Darlie Routier….well I can not say if Darlie did her best, she may have. I didnt recall this case so I looked it up and refreshed my memory. Darlie was the mother who stood trial for killing her son one of her sons although both were murdered in 1997. She is the mother who was shown laughing and smiling happily at her 7 year olds grave – All to celebrate his birthday 8 days after he was buried- with Silly string and all…
I never really researhed this case as I admit after seeing that clip I knew she did it- and was happy she did it–I was young and hadnt learned to delve deeper….
Did she do it? Well a jury convicted her, but there are some questions concerning LEs handling ans well as other issues that have me at least considering the notion she may have been innocent- as LE hid evidence like finger prints and contaminated evidence like the bloody clothes..and compromised the crime scene… and used grocery bags to collect the evidence and moved evidence etc etc etc… and never showed all of the photos documenting all of darlies injuries….
Is it possible there was an “intruder” yes- and its possible he did everything she said they did- and still it is possible she was working with him/them…and its possible she is innocent-
Oh and that grave site celebration- LE only showed the jury the parts where everyone was happy and celebrating a birthday- they never showed the hours before with the grief stricken parents, and never divulged that the little guys friends were there, and the family were trying to help them be strong and happy ….and this tape in its entirety could never be shown during court- why not? Because LE F- up and secretly taped this- which is against the law- and resulted in LE having to plead the fifth to cover their butts- and the entire tape was subsequently never seen by order of the judge think Caylees case and the infamous tape from the searcher… which LDB etc could never listen to, lest they break the law themselves…..
See here:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/
Blink how is the Rachelle Grimmer the best comparison? Besides the motherinlaw saying her daughter in law suffered from mental issues I could not find any documentation of this “dfact” and Ofcourse rachelle needed help and was unwell mentally…. certainly at the point where she decided her only option was to get a gun and go to the food stamp office and then after failed negotiations – then decided to kill her daughter and son-
She clearly needed help but she clearly WAS trying her best.
She was found to be not neglectful and not a bad mother- just really poor and in desperate need- She was getting child support- she used this money to pay rent for the trailer she lived in with her children- do you realize that she was not asking for “welfare” or medicaid she was asking for food stamps- and she was denied food stamps because she failed to fill out the form and list income which would have included the childsupport which the state would have deducted from the amount of aid she and her children would receive…
Somethings wrong with our system if we deny food stamps to anyone let alone a mom- with two kids who had recently been living in a tent… my goodness- what happened to emergency food stamps? What happened to directing the mom to the nearest food banks and churches-
She clearly needed help but how does this compare to Jasons mom?
See here:
AJMO
Cont part 2
Im sorry I forgot to add the link.
Here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/10/rachelle-grimmer_n_1140631.html
Blink I agree sometimes hindsight is 20/20 but if we use other cases to decide any given parents fitness or every persons prior histories as a catch all- then we would be wrong- JMO
Blink I was not trying to put words in your mouth I would never- if I quote you then and only then okay?
I know we disagree on Jms confessions where you see a kid trying to remember and telling the best truth…or a version of the truth i see a kid who is still just lying.
Cindy Anthony is in a class by herself Blink- and I was not addressing your thoughts when I spoke of anyone lying or covering I was speaking to matts assertions- my bad-
I’m sorry but perhaps I am unaware of when Jasons mother lied inorder to provide a false alibi? I admit I am still learning about this case and I may have missed this fact.
IRT jasons alibi— although it is true that Jasons wherebouts could not be veried to a tee- they were partially verified Blink and in this case it is possible to partially collaborate – as witnesses gave statements then were told they were wrong and they amended them or they didnt have exact times and NOONE followed up in verifying anything-
and LE even did this to their own witnesses like NH and her mistaken sighting of DT for Jb….
No one got the tapes from Walmart etc etc- Its a fact that jasons brother and one of jasons friends both gave approximately the same accounting for JB times-
I realize we wont agree on this issue either and thats okay as I do not see JB lack of alibi as a definite sign of guilt I see it as a common occurrence for any teen not to have an exact accounting for any given day…
Thanks for responding to my post Blink I appreciate your insights and opinions and I look forward to more —most certainly your Part 3
AJMO
Hugs
Jason’s alibi was so weak that his defense lawyers did not even present one at his trial. Jason claimed he mowed his uncle’s lawn from 4:30 to 6:30 PM, then went to Walmart with Ken Watkins and then they walked home.
But Ken Watkins told a different story in his 9/16 interview. Watkins said that he, Damien, Domini and Jason walked from Jason’s house to Walmart around 4:00 PM that day, and that he (Watkins) walked back home alone around 5:30 PM to babysit. After his polygraph, Watkins added a detail to his earlier story: when he left Walmart at 5:30 that day, “They said they was going to the bowling alley.”
In his first recorded statement on 9/16, Watkins said he met up again with Damien, Domini and Jason around 7:00 PM on 5/5/93 at Jason’s house.
Watkins then said in his second recorded statement that he went over to Jason’s around 6.45pm. Jason wasn’t there so Watkins stayed there watching tv for 2 hours and finally went home. He even listed the shows he watched that night.
What this means is that Damien could not have been with his parents continuously from 3.45pm at their home and then the Sanders house as he claimed. It also means Jason could not have been mowing his uncles lawn from 4.30-6.30pm. Jason was not home by his 8pm curfew and nobody actually seen him come home that night since his mother was working and his step father was staying in his mothers. Jason’s brother Matthew claimed he come home at 7.30 with Ken Watkins but this was not true as can be seen by Watkins very own statement.
It leaves a nice little window for them to commit the crime don’t ya think?
Matt says-
“Jason’s alibi was so weak that his defense lawyers did not even present one at his trial. ”
Matt, Seriously? His defense lawyers did not attempt to provide ANY witnesses for Jason— not alibi witnesses— not character witnesses not expert witnesses—-NO WITNESSES —not even those that could undoubtedly paint the prosecutions STAR witnesses as liars (MC)
I think this is not indicative of Jasons guilt or any weakness in his alibis but IS in fact evidence of A VERY POOR DEFENSE- definitely not a very zealous defense-certainly not a well prepared defense-
CONT part 2
PArt 2-
Although it is true that noone could provide Jason with a definite alibi for all times throughout the night of May 5th- it is ALSO true that many witnesses collaborated jasons whereabouts for a great deal of the time- even if not on exact times the witnesses accounts backed up certain details
Jesse was still in his OWN NEIGHBORHOOD at 6:45-
Jesse said he had to wait on Vicki getting him and his friend the EW- he stood around and drank some of his friends EW- he then claimed he went and met up with Jason and Damien in an already predestined place although uncertain time “to get some girls” Jesse al;so said DE and JB and he sat in the “park” He also said they drank a twelver and he the whiskey and smoked 2 joints-
He then claimed that they made their way to the RHW and were theere by 6:30….He said that JB and DE were frolicking in the water, and then changed this to the littkle boys came up or were called over and DE jumped on the one- and a scuffle insued to which JB and JM ended by pulling the other two boys off of Damien- He then claimed they beat and tortured the boys and then undressed them, then took the shoesstrings (rope) and tied them and DE and JB molested them or raped them or tried to- he claims MM ran away and was brought back- he claims to have been there to watch as the boy drowned wiggliing like a worm…then the bikes had to be disposed of- the area wiped clean- the beer cans cleaned up- the asticks wiped off the clothing concealed….
then DE and JB had to be seen in the area by NH first by 9:00 then as late as 10:45
Where is this nice little window you are so confident about, that allowed for all the needed time to meet up and walk to the woods and wait for the boys and smoke 2 joints and drink the alchohol- and beat them up and cut them terribly, and undress them- and molest them, and chase them, and castrate them, and bind them and get the bikes hidden and all the other evidence cleaned up?
When was this window? That allowed for the phone calls from the girls and for the trip to walmart and for the mowing of the lawn- and the buying of the 4$ tape from Adam Phillips…
The boys were last seen at 6:45- Their family friends and LE were looking for them soon after- their were people/witnesses in the area of RHW- –
When did this “window” occur? Which allowed for 3 drunk and stoned teenagers to taunt torture- molest- maim – bind- kill and hide 3 little boys, their bikes, their clothes and clean up the area and themselves so thoroughly?
When?
IDK-
AJMO
Jason’s defense lawyers did not present any witnesses because the prosecutors would have ripped them to shreds. If Jason had a consistent and honest alibi then there would have been no problem.
Jason never cut the lawn that day.
He came home from school at 3.30pm
Jason, Damien, Domini and Ken went to Walmart at 4pm (Damien claimed he was at home at 3.45pm)
Ken left them at 5.30pm
Ken called to Jason’s at around 6.45pm
Jason was not there
Ken said he waited until 8.45pm for Jason to come home (Jason said he got home at 7.30pm)
Nobody knows what time Jason got home at
The window for the murder is from around 6.50pm-7.30pm. Now if Jason was with Ken Watkins like he said he was then he has nothing to worry about. But Ken stated that the last time he seen Jason that day was at 5.30pm.
Damien said he was on the phone between 5.30pm-11.00pm but not one of the girls that he said he was talking to can verify this.
Now in regards to the girls that Damien claimed he was on the phone with all night, none of them actually back up this claim. Jennifer Bearden said she rang at 8pm and Damien’s grandmother told her he wasn’t home. Heather Cliett and Holly George were trying to get through to Damien from 9.00pm until 10.30pm when he finally answered, he claimed that he was just out walking around.
Mom3.0 says:
February 28, 2012 at 1:19 am
Mom3.0 says, “I realize that Jasons mother had some sort of a nervous breakdown and from everything I have read – she tried to commit suicide and Jason was the one that found her….
Besides this, I do not know of anything that would point to Jasons mother being unfit…. She went to work she was trying her best. Jason was attending school and completing his assignments- as well as finding a summer job, in addition to this, he also shared in the responsibility for the care and well-being of his younger siblings.”
Blink says, “Besides this? With much respect and admiration- I double checked this was you when I saw this statement.
Casey Anthony did her best. Josh Powell did his best. Chris Coleman did his best. Andrea Yates did her best. Darlie Routier did her best. Or perhaps the most substantially similar comparison- the case of Rachelle Grimmer. She had a history of mental illness could not get food stamps so she killed her children and herself in a seven hour standoff last December.”
@Blink, with the deepest respect, I just don’t see the connection. How is Rachel Grimmer most similar? All the individuals you mentioned killed their children; Ms. Grinnell did not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blink says, “The comment I made, was that Ms. Grinnell’s children should have been removed from her care following SEVERAL episodes of extreme mental illness resulting in a failed suicide attempt where she slit her own throat, KNOWING her young child would be the one to find her. If memory serves she was involuntarily committed 3x. For any medical facility contacted by a LEA to legally do that she had to have been judged a danger to herself or others. I find that an emphatic descriptor synonym to “unwell”.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Blink, In addition to advocating for those who are victims of crimes, I am a staunch advocate for the mentally ill who all too often are also victims in our society. So permit me to climb on my soapbox for a bit of reasoned advocacy.
It is my understanding that Ms. Grinnell battled depression and at one point attempted suicide, but I have come across no evidence she was a danger to her children. It appears she was treated, and recovered.
Here is my opinion: If we start removing children from mothers who battle depression, even those who have made a suicide attempt and have been treated, then we need start lining up mothers with seizure disorders who have a seizure when alone with their children and mothers with cardiac arrythmias who have syncopal episodes and fall unconscious when they are minding their children. And, what about moms who valiantly struggle with autoimmune diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis? Add to that list those mothers who are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. ALL of these diseases and their treatments can interfere with a mother’s judgment which can lead to shoddy child care, but do we take those mother’s children away?
Those who have suffered from mental illness have been stigmatized since the beginning of time. Mental illness is disease of the brain just as an irregular heartbeat or a heart attack is a disease of the heart. Diseases of the brain that fall under the umbrella term of “mental illness”, are not an indication of weakness, irresponsibility or deliberate indifference, yet some continue to paint it with those brushstrokes.
Okay, now I am officially off my soapbox. Best wishes and continued good mental health to all. No one is immune.
5. Matt says:
February 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Jason’s defense lawyers did not present any witnesses because the prosecutors would have ripped them to shreds. If Jason had a consistent and honest alibi then there would have been no problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matt, have you read the Rule 37 hearing transcipts or other documents? If so, you would know that some of the witnesses the defense could have called were some of the employees and other detainees at the detention center who directly observed JB’s demeanor and behavior during his confinement, and their testimony didn’t support Carson’s. Each of them would have likely testified that JB had refused to talk with them about the crime; in other words, JB had taken the advice of his attorney not to talk. The defense also could have called JB’s teachers who observed his demeanor and behavior when he attended school the day after the murders. I seriously doubt the defense would have “ripped them to shreds.”
As for the teens who could have been called as alibi witnesses for JB: it is not surprising to me that they may have gotten their dates wrong, or didn’t perfectly recall who was with whom and exactly when. I doubt these guys had a clue their friend/acquaintance was going to be arrested for murder 30 days later, and that they should burn those memories into their minds somehow so they could perfectly recall them for LE. Also, teens and even some adults can be quite intimidated by LE and may have been hesitant to get involved.
Finally, with all due respect, Matt, I don’t understand how you can make the claim that the alibi (or any other) witnesses would have been “ripped to shreds.” ANY attorney will tell you that one can NEVER predict how a witness will do during testimony. I can assure you that many attorneys who have been initially concerned about calling certain witnesses have been pleasantly surprised when those witnesses’ testified. Witnesses an attorney thinks may be weak and prone to being rattled on the stand sometimes can be quite effective.
But, I’m not sure it would have made any difference how many witnesses the defense called. This trial was steeped in Satanic worship at a time when people actually believed Satanic cults were killing and drinking the blood of their victims.
GraceintheHills says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:37 am
But, I’m not sure it would have made any difference how many witnesses the defense called.
Grace, I don’t think it matters how many witnesses the defense did or did not, or could have called. One fact about the trials is that the defense could not produce even ONE witness who could vouch for them and withstand cross examination by the prosecution. Jessie Misskelley’s alibi was “ripped to shreds” as Matt puts it. Damien Echols admitted on the stand to lying and changing his facts according to the situation. Jason Baldwin didn’t even bother.
I understand most people want to write their behavior off as typical teenage angst. No structure in their lives is another term I see alot. How can they be asked to remember times and provide proof of their activities and whereabouts on any given day? This clearly was not “any given day”. From his own words Damien Echols says, “Nothing ever happens in West Memphis, Arkansas.” This particular day on May 5, 1993 three boys were found bound, beaten, and brutally murdered. To expect Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley to provide corroborable information on this particular day is not asking too much. The fact that they could not speaks volumes.
I have alot of catching up to do.
First let me say Thank you to Grace for your February 29, 2012 at 11:40 pm post.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions with us. As you know, I am in agreement with you. I felt your concerns regarding mothers who suffer from other ailments such as heart disease and cancer were very insightful.
I understand wanting to protect the children at any cost- and I respect and share many of Blinks fears yet I also share your concerns over using the paint brush too liberally.
Matt, thank you for your response to my inquiry IRT the window. I found it to be very thought-provoking, and as soon as I am able I will post my thoughts, it will take me some time to organise my response.
Grace, thank you for addressing matts post-
I found your thoughts to be my thoughts…LOL
I truly think that Jason Baldwins lawyers were never up to the job-
Besides, wanting to get the trials separated I am hard- pressed to find much of any “defense”… Its almost as if they just gave up and figured it was a lost cause regardless of JB’s actual guilt or innocence…..after being denied a separate trial they resigned their case and Jasons freedom to whether or not DE was “guilty” or “innocent”
You wrote:
ANY attorney will tell you that one can NEVER predict how a witness will do during testimony. I can assure you that many attorneys who have been initially concerned about calling certain witnesses have been pleasantly surprised when those witnesses’ testified. Witnesses an attorney thinks may be weak and prone to being rattled on the stand sometimes can be quite effective.
—
Grace- if I may, I would like to expand on your thoughts— I think and EXPERIENCED or GOOD attorney will tell you that one can NEVER predict how a witness will do during testimony.
Paul Ford on the otherhand had this to say:
Paul Ford, who represented Jason Baldwin at his 1994 trial, said that while Baldwin’s mother and an uncle could have provided an alibi for Baldwin, they would not have made good witnesses.
and Matt it seems I was wrong -Ford did call a witness, ONE witness, who opined about the “similarities” of the fiber which was said to have come from Jasons moms robe….then Ford rested his case, ofcourse not before delivering this very helpful closing thought:
“Guilt by association is a terrible thing”
Which I believe is one of the very reasons the jury came back with a guilty verdict for his client-as this statement gave the jury a nudge in the direction of a guilty verdict…
With this one statement, it seems seem Ford was conceding the “fact” that DE was guilty, thereby patting the prosecution on the back for a job well done, thereby bolstering the jurys confidence in LE and the Prosecution having done their jobs… perhaps they thought if LE and the State were right about DE then what would make them wrong about Jason?
AJMO
With much respect Mom 3.0- his Mother and Uncle did not make good witnesses because an attorney may not suborn perjury. He runs the risk of such an allegation if he KNOWS they are lying, or has knowledge that they intend to willfully commit perjury. Although he certainly would not compel them to do this, it is not a stretch if he had knowledge.
It is true if that was his belief they would not have made good witnesses, so I am not seeing that as predictive as much as it was good faith bases on what he knew, but obviously could not say.
B
I’m actually getting fed up now. The girls remembered because there was a 3 way call that day at 3.30pm between 2 of them and Damien. Damien told them to ring him back later. Later on that night the 2 girls could not reach him which was unusual. Both the girls were in contact all night wondering where he was. This is why they remembered because it was so unusual.
But it’s the same old bull from supporters when evidence is presented to show that Damien LIED about being on the phone from 5.30pm until 11pm, the girls got their dates wrong. No they didn’t. Not all 4 of them anyway. The alibi is the key and it does not match up. All 3 of the child killers lied about their alibis and an innocent man does not lie about his alibi.
Matt says-
“Jason’s defense lawyers did not present any witnesses because the prosecutors would have ripped them to shreds.”
– Matt, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is only your opinion… in MY opinion, Jasons lawyers did not present wirnesses because they did not do their duty in providing a zealous defense for their client.-
At best- they were hoping the LACK of evidence against Jason Baldwin would be enough to convince the jury that he was innocent of all charges.
However, seeing how these lawyers seemed to believe Damien Echols was guilty, and seeing how Ford made that horrendous statement Regarding Guilt By association- they NEEDED to provide the jury for reasons why their client was NOT guilty of the murders-
Ford made it clear to the jury that he thought DE was guilty and that the jury should come back with a guilty verdict for Damien by uttering that statement—
Which again made it easy for the jury to trust in the Prosecutions case and skills and in the evidence presented…yet Ford and team gave this jury no reason No proof that Jason Baldwin wasnt guilty of the murders although he was in fact guilty by association…
They made it clear they felt JB was guilty by his mere association with DE—although Ford did add that it was a terrible thing….
They were not so clear on how they felt IRT Jasons innocence in the killings.
They merely kept stating that there was no evidence presented to show he was the killer, but they never providing the evidence to show his innocence.
They provided no character witnesses no alibi witnesses – they did not put Jason on the stand to even explain away his “guilt by association” they set their client up for a sentence of life in prison based solely on the fact that Jason could be seen as “guilty” by merely being associated with…or worse yet by being best friends with the killer….
Matt says:
“If Jason had a consistent and honest alibi then there would have been no problem.”
Matt, the problem wasnt that Jason Baldwin did not have a consistent or honest alibi-
The problem with Jason and his friends and familys inconsistencies have nothing to do with “honesty”
The inconsistencies could be due to the fact that these were a bunch of kids most of whom, were asked to provide a detailed accounting of their recollections regarding a day which took place MONTHS prior- and even when asked near the time of the murders, these kids still were not very detailed in their accounts and recollections-
In fact even the adults such as JBs uncle were not detailed in their accounting- however his inconsistencies could also be chalked up to his perceptions and poor recall.
It was LE’s duty to follow -up and collaborate these witnesses all witnesses claims- yet they didnt
Take for instance, Domini Teer- who was present the day, May 10th when LE questioned Damien and Jason AND her in the front of Jasons house.
So again- Here are 2 underage kids, alone, without parent or counsel- along with DE an 18yr, alone without counsel- being questioned and photographed and according to Domini “badgered” by LE days after the murders-…
On May 10th Domini claimed that She and Damien and Jason went with Ken to mow Jasons uncles yard.
Yet LE did not bring in Ken for questioning until September-
Although it is true that there are many inconsistencies in each alibi witnesses accounting for that day it is also true that many details were backed up and consistent—
Despite the amount of time past, there was agreement in several regards which at first glance these discrepancies would seem to negate any alibi -but when one takes a closer look, these discrepancies seem to point towards the discrepancies being only matter of perception bad recall.
Cont Part 2
AJMO
Okay I am going to have to break up my thoughts.
I do hope that everyone will take the time to read it though as I think it will help to illustrate why so many including myself jave reasonable doubt-and why others are so unconvinced of these mens guilt.
As Grace opined and I agree:
“As for the teens who could have been called as alibi witnesses for JB: it is not surprising to me that they may have gotten their dates wrong, or didn’t perfectly recall who was with whom and exactly when. I doubt these guys had a clue their friend/acquaintance was going to be arrested for murder 30 days later, and that they should burn those memories into their minds somehow so they could perfectly recall them for LE. Also, teens and even some adults can be quite intimidated by LE and may have been hesitant to get involved.”
— I would also add that this is also true for adults- in truth how many adults can recall specific details times etc MONTHS later?
As I wrote earlier, I do believe all of the witnesses collaborated the others accounts- where there were discrepancies, I believe this occurred due to poor recollection and also due to the persons own perceptions.
I will attempt to illustrate exactly what i mean in my next posts-
AJMO
Matt you wrote:
Matt says:
February 29, 2012 at 4:57 am
“Jason claimed he mowed his uncle’s lawn from 4:30 to 6:30 PM, then went to Walmart with Ken Watkins and then they walked home.”
This is correct- Jason Baldwin did say this and Ken Watkins did back up Jasons trip to Walmart although He said that he left before Jason and the others because he needed to be home to babysit from 6- 6:30
Ken watkins did not back up Jasons recollection of having mowed Huberts lawn that day-
Although his best recollection is that this event occurred over the weekend- but he did add the added detail of it happening right before the fair.
snipped- WM Facts:
In 1992, Marion began the tradition of hosting an annual event known as the Esperanza Bonanza. The festival portion of the event is normally scheduled to take place the first full weekend of May every year.
Billy Newell stated that he worked at the carnival that coincides with the festival. The carnival takes place for four full days – Wednesday through Saturday, in May. Billy worked at the carnival from Wednesday the 5th through Friday the 7th in 1993. Since the carnival begins before the festival and the two events overlap this means that the festival took place that weekend.
—Cont Part 2
AJMO
Matt I just read your post about being fed up- and I would assume you were referring to both I and Grace as supporters-
We have told you time and time again, we are NOT supporters- we are however, very thorough in our analysis and research.
I am not claiming that these men are NOT the murderers- they could be-
Obviously all of the claims of times and places in the alibis can not be factual- but couldnt the discrepancies be due to poor recall and perceptions?
If you will take the time to read through my posts I WILL walk you through how this could be in fact the truth of the matter.
Matt, you clearly believe these men murdered the children, but some of the info you have based your assertions on is wrong-
For instance , your assertion that none can vouch for Jason being home at/around 7:00 pm because his stepfather was “at his mothers”
Matt, the Stepfather you are referring to is Mr Gitchell NOT Dink-
Dink was home for most of the night, except for his trips to Walmart and Krogers…
If you read my posts you will learn more.
AJMO
Just a brief but-in here my friend because I believe you meant Mr. Grinnell, not Det Gitchell.
Carry on, pardon the interruption
B
Matt you wrote in Part:
“Watkins then said in his second recorded statement that he went over to Jason’s around 6.45pm. Jason wasn’t there so Watkins stayed there watching tv for 2 hours and finally went home. He even listed the shows he watched that night.”
Matt it is true that Ken Watkins stated that he went to Jason around 6:45 -7:00 and they werent there yet.( But you are wrong in your assertions regarding his staying there and watching tv for 2 hours, he actually went home for app- 30 min- and then returned- after returning, he left for the night at about 9 as he went home to watch Bonanza and goof on the couch- just as Jason little brother said)
Watkins also said that when he first came by Dink was there- and that he went home for 30 or so minutes and returned to find Domini, Damien and Jason there playing nintendo-
According to Dink- Ken did come by around then.
RIDGE: Okay, when you got home, how long was it before Ken showed up, and asked for this tape?
DENNIS: Ken showed up probably, I would say about 7 o’clock, maybe 6 o’clock. I would say more like 6 o’clock, 6:30 or 7 o’clock maybe.
RIDGE: Somewhere in that range, okay
FOGLEMAN: Who was there when he showed up there this time?
DENNIS: I was there by myself
RIDGE: Then what time does Matthew come in?
DENNIS: Matthew had come in probably right, about the time Ken came up, maybe a little after.
RIDGE: So, we are getting somewhere around 7 o’clock?
DENT: 7 o’clock or 7:30, somewhere like that.
RIDGE: Okay, so where was Terry, had he come home yet?
DENNIS: Terry was home by then.
RIDGE: Okay, now the next time you see Jason, about what time is it?
DENNIS: Uh, probably about 8 o’clock, 8:30, because uh
RIDGE: Okay, did you receive a phone call from Angela somewhere between 8 and 9, somewhere in that range and she was asking about, where the kids were?
DENNIS: Yes sir
RIDGE: Well, when she called, the best estimate, about what time was it when she called?
DENNIS: The best estimate that she called was probably about 9, 9:30 the time she usually takes her break.
RIDGE: Okay, and when she said that you told her that Jason wasn’t home yet. Okay, he must have come home just right after that, right?
DENNIS: Well, he come home once and left for a short time to go return the tape. Then he came back okay, that had to be around 9 o’clock then.
AJMO
Cont part 3
Matt you went on to opine-
“What this means is that Damien could not have been with his parents continuously from 3.45pm at their home and then the Sanders house as he claimed.”
–I agree with this opinion- if Domini, Matt, Jason, Hubert, Dink and Ken are correct in their recollections (despite any inconsistencies ) regarding the mowing of the lawn, and in going to Walmart, and in playing nintendo, and IRT the tape, then Damien obviously could not have been with his parents CONTINUOUSLY-
matt cont-
“It also means Jason could not have been mowing his uncles lawn from 4.30-6.30pm. ”
No Matt, I believe your statement regarding the mowing the yard not taking place is wrong, as it seems although Hubert didnt remember Domini or Damien and Ken being there, he did say the mowing did occur, and later even amended his statement to possibly include DT etc-
His NOT seeing, or not remembering seeing the others, does not mean they were not present, it just means he didnt recall seeing them- as again Domini said way back on May the 10th that She Damien, Jason, and Ken went to mow Huberts lawn.
Dink also backed up this being the day that Jason went to mow his uncles yard-
snipped:
DENNIS Uh, this man came over to the house at approximately 3:30, maybe 4 o’clock, to look at the lamps. He looked at it, he bought the lamps, he gave me \$10.00. Jason uh, by that time, had mentioned that he was going to go and cut his uncle’s grass, Uncle Hubert, and uh, which was uh, already agreed upon because he was to suppose to have cut it the day before and uh, and it had rained or something. His Uncle Hubert had called him and told him to come and cut the grass. So, uh after uh, about 4:30, I took off to Wal-Mart Store, to uh, purchase some flowers for a Mother’s Day gift……
AJMO
Cont Part 4
Again Due to the time past and each persons recollection/perceptions it is possibly that each inconsistent detail is simply due to innocent lapses in recall or due to each witnesses remembrances or forgetfulness IRT specific times and details.
Matt recalled Ken being with jason each time ken claimed to have been at the trailer(other than his tape trip) Dink recalls kens tape trip-
Since ken stated he left the group at Walmart inorder to babysit during 6-6:30 it is possible that he did not leave the walmart until 5:45 or later as both Matt and Dink stated that the walk to walmart took approximately 10 min to 15 min- -
Matt stated he did not remember seeing Domini or Damien that night- although he sates it is possible, this could have been because he was in his room and they may have walked up after ken and jason-
Dink did say after school when he was selling the lamp that jason and matts friends were all running in and out- and the buyer actually commented on the vast # of kids he had.
Dink and Matt placed the time of Jasons departure from the home at around 4:00 Hubert said jason mowed his lawn from 4:30 to six thirty-
Ken said that when he and Domini and Damien arrived at jasons, Dink was sitting on the car out front- this would seem to be when he was waiting on the buyer to arrive-
Between 3:30 and 4:00 Jennifer Bearden stated she had a three-way conversation with Damien and Holly George, lasting about five minutes.
Holly confirms this call took place at around 3:30pm.
Jenifer recalls Damien asked her to call him at jasons in 30 min- she called there at about 4:15 and jason answered the phone and she talked to Damien who told her he was going somewhere with jason and to call him at home later that night.
=
Ken stated that Damien arrived at Dominis after school around 3:30…
Domini recalls it was around 1pm and DE’s Mom recalls dropping Damien off at Dominis shortly after 1pm
It seems the phone calls would collaborate Kens recollections here on app times, as well as Dinks statements and Matts- perhaps Pams and Dominis times were simply off.
Ken did not recall the mowing of the lawn having occurred that day , he did however recall it was before the fair… Why recall the mowing of the lawn at all? IF it did not occur on that day? Why did Domini say Ken was there if he wasnt going to say he was there?
Domini recalled the mowing of the lawn as that day although Hubert says the mowing of the lawn (with others occurred later)
But Domini already stated that ken and she and DE went to mow the lawn that day.
How could she already have been mistaken about a lawn mowing which hadnt occurred yet, and how could she have known to include Ken in her recollections?
Heather Cliett stated that during a phone conversation with Jason on Saturday, May 8th, she inquired as to where he was the previous Wednesday. He told her “that he was at his uncle’s house mowing his yard”.
Ken stated that when he had finished babysitting at around 6:30pm, he went over to Jason’s house and upon finding nobody there, returned home “for about 15 or 20 minutes, then I went back over there, and they were home”.
Dennis Dent stated that Ken arrived at Jason’s at “ 7 o’clock or 7:30, somewhere like that”.
Matthew stated Jason came home “around 7:30”. Ken Watkins stated he came back over to Jason’s at 7:00pm and played Nintendo. Jason’s mother, Gail, stated “I think he got home about 7:30”
Matthew stated Jason went over to Adam Phillips home at “around 8, 8 about 8:20 or 8:30” where he “brought a tape from him for $4.00 dollars and he came home”.
Dennis stated that Jason went to get the tape around 8:30 and came back around 9pm
jasons mom called about 8:30 Dink says about 9
Jason, Matthew and Dennis stayed at home. Gail arrived from work at around 11:00pm.
Ken says he left around 9
Domini recalls a phone conversation with Damien around 10 that night
AJMO
Cont part 5
The End
The accounts although inconsistent on exact times exact details do seem to back each other up when one takes into consideration the amount of time past and simple innocent errors due to the witnesses faulty remembrances based upon their own perceptions…
Matt- You wrote in part:
“The girls remembered because there was a 3 way call that day at 3.30pm between 2 of them and Damien. Damien told them to ring him back later.”
This is true, the girls said it was around 3:30- and Damien told Jennifer to call him in 30 min at jasons she did call and Jason did answer and she did talk to Damien who told her he was going somewhere with Jason and to call later around 8:00
You wrote:
“Later on that night the 2 girls could not reach him which was unusual.”
Unusual by whose standards?
You:
“Both the girls were in contact all night wondering where he was. This is why they remembered because it was so unusual.”
HMM only two, what about the 3rd, was she not remembering because it was so “unusual” and was she not concerned, probably not, as it seems she talked to DE and JB…The pther two girls may have been wondering where he was and they may have thought it was strange that he wasnt home yet 8pm—this wouldnt be unusual if he was still at jasons as ken said.
You:
“Jennifer Bearden said she rang at 8pm and Damien’s grandmother told her he wasn’t home.”
Yep Damien probably wasnt home yet- and he may have believed he was home all evening- especially since his Mom and sister and the rest were so sure he was with them …
You-
“Heather Cliett and Holly George were trying to get through to Damien from 9.00pm until 10.30pm when he finally answered, he claimed that he was just out walking around.”
Well it seems jennifer had no problem getting a hold of Damien around 9- because this is when she called back, and they talked until she had to go because of her 9:30 curfew…did she get off before her 9:30 curfew?? IDK- but most teens need to be reminded and prompted more than once to heed the curfew…so she may have not ended her call until after 9:30
and again, Domini stated she received a phone call from him at 10 pm that night.
Since Holly and Heather said they finally got a hold of him at 10:30 it would seem Dominis phone call lasted 30 min- seems likely….
The accounts although inconsistent on exact times/ exact details do seem to back each other up when one decides to take a step back and actually looks at each account without any preconceived notions
It seems there is no window which would allow for JM claims to be true- and there seems to be no nice little window between 6.50pm-7.30pm which would allow for them to commit the crime….
Dont cha think?
AJMO
Hello Blink, LOL thanks for correcting my poor recall- it was Mr. Grinnel and NOT Mr. Gitchell….OOOPS
Blink
You wrote:
With much respect Mom 3.0- his Mother and Uncle did not make good witnesses because an attorney may not suborn perjury. He runs the risk of such an allegation if he KNOWS they are lying, or has knowledge that they intend to willfully commit perjury. Although he certainly would not compel them to do this, it is not a stretch if he had knowledge.
It is true if that was his belief they would not have made good witnesses, so I am not seeing that as predictive as much as it was good faith bases on what he knew, but obviously could not say.
B
—
With the utmost respect and kindness,
Blink I agree that a lawyer may not put a person on the stand that they know will lie- hmmm why put Narlene Hollingsworth or MC or Vicki on the stand…
But as to your thoughts, What makes you think that Ford thought jasons mom and uncle wouldnt make good witnesses because they would lie?
How can you or anyone be so sure they were lying and how did Ford know they were lying?
I have just illustrated how it could be that they were possibly telling the truth.
So please point me to where I need to be inorder to see any alibi witness as a “liar”, because IMO all of the accounts, even those of De’s family could be based on poor recollections although…and any inconsistancies in Kens statements or Dinks or Matts or jasons or Huberts etc could be simply due to poor recall and perception
AJMO
Peace
Just my opinion after reading a few thousand pages of testimony, records and watching the series. No lawyer who wants to keep his license (unless practicing in Fl- you can do and say anything there without reprisal) is going to discuss work product publicly.
It should be noted that Val Price, Echols original defense atty, when asked following his release if he thought he was guilty he responded ” its hard to say.” Amongst the fanfair one would think the original guy would have an “I told you so” or 50. Nope.
He actually became a juvenile prosecutor.
There is a reason that today, no lawyer that represented these 3 men originally could take the case on their own would be permitted to as they would not be “death penalty rated.”
B
skimming the recent. Jason was obviously under severe distress in his family setting with unreasonable pressures for inappropriate early adulthood. A parental child if you will. expected to care for sibs, get a job, and go to school? Someone should have taken him to their village.
Luca had obvious critical throwaway goadings whose intent was revealed only in their totality & progression.
10. Lethalstorm says:
March 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Damien Echols admitted on the stand to lying and changing his facts according to the situation. Jason Baldwin didn’t even bother.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Lethalstorm, Did you see that moment in the the trial scene of PL when that question was asked of Echols? As I watched, I noted that when DE initially took the stand, his hands were shaking and he appeared nervous. But, the longer he testified, the more distracted he seemed to be. Afterward, in PL, one of his attorneys is seen sarcastically scolding him for that particular reply when he tells them (parphrasing here) that he wasn’t paying attention to the question when he gave that answer. That comment from him rang true, imo, and is an EXCELLENT example of why defendants should think long and hard before taking the stand. In all of the instances I have witnessed, it has been a no win situation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lethal storm says, “I understand most people want to write their behavior off as typical teenage angst. No structure in their lives is another term I see alot. How can they be asked to remember times and provide proof of their activities and whereabouts on any given day?
This clearly was not “any given day”. From his own words Damien Echols says, “Nothing ever happens in West Memphis, Arkansas.” This particular day on May 5, 1993 three boys were found bound, beaten, and brutally murdered. To expect Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley to provide corroborable information on this particular day is not asking too much. The fact that they could not speaks volumes.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The boys were found on May 6th. Funny how memory works. But, to answer your question, I think it may have been asking a lot, given how complex human memory registration, encoding and recall is. Had the murders happened to one of their friends or family members, *perhaps* the memory of what each was doing the night BEFORE would have been precisely encoded and amenable to fairly accurate recall, but it is more likely they would most accurately remember exactly what they were doing when they heard the NEWS of the deaths.
Or, here’s another perspective: DE, JB, and JM would have have had no no particular stimulus (i.e. heightened emotion) that would cause them to encode memory from that precise time if, in fact, they didn’t commit the murders. If that were the case, it could have been quite a struggle to recall accuately enough to put forth viable AND consistent alibis.
The same could be said for their parents’ and friends’ memories.
So, no, this does not “speak volumes” to me. But, I will tell you what would have: circumstantial evidence that would enable me, in good conscience, to infer their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As Mom3.0 said, Matt, she and I are not “supporters.” I have never been a fan of labels and I find the use of the terms “nons” and “supporters” a bit juvenile (or probably just concrete). And, no, I am not accusing you of being juvenile and concrete – I just abhor those labels. Three children are dead and I want to be conviced beyond a reasonable doubt that the actual perpetrator(s) have been convicted. I am looking at the totality of ALL the circumstantial evidence and, at this point, still have reasonable doubt.
I have said this repeatedly, but will say it again: Having reasonable doubt about their guilt does not necessarily mean I think the three are factually innocent. There is a difference, you know.
As I try to go through all this testimony analysis, I have to ask why?
Society has a settled result.
They were found guilty by a trial of peers.
They pleaded guilty,
All Blink did was provide good PHYSICAL evidence in addition
to evidence already sufficing for their jury trials.
It’s not like the trials were corrupt. The judicial system on appeal always gives great deference to the triers of fact, whether by judge or jury.
Has anyone ever done a comprehensive timeline of May 5th and May 6th? I would love to see a complete breakdown of the movements of everybody involved. It would go something like,
3.30pm
Chris Byers ……….
Michael Moore ……………
Stevie Branch ……………..
Jason gets home from school
Gail Grinnell at work
Damien at the Sanders (initial statement 3-5pm at the sanders)
Jessie babysitting at Stephanie Dollar’s
Terry Hobbs …………..
Mark Byers ………………
Well this is a real shocker….look who just jumped into the race for Congress. B- Im sure you’ve already heard about this.
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/199039/0/Prosecutor-Scott-Ellington-joins-1st-Congressional-District-race
I wonder whose backhandedly financing this campaign? Ah, the Arkansas Democratic Party at its’ best!
SIDE NOTE:
—————————
B- I tried to keep up with all of the comments, but I seriously have not had time or the attention span..haha. So I am about to re-ask you a couple of questions (well, questions I think I’ve asked you before) Sorry if redundant. I know you hate redundancy and having to repeat yourself. I’m sorry! I’ll be pleased with short answer!
My Q’s:
If they were going to get a new hearing to introduce “new” dna evidence, why did they jumped for the Alford Plea? Was it because the new evidence wasnt enough to grant them a new trial or to ensure acquittal?
Or did the A Plea suddenly become the plan right after they read your article? (ice pick)
Did Ellington know about &/or reading your article prior to signing the deal?
Yes Dr. Pepper, I am aware. A few months back I told folks I was holding the final installment of my series on the case because of some legal things going on, and a preferred timing issue.
Mr. Ellington’s filing notification is one of the major reasons why.
I invite those interested in this case to review Mr. Ellington’s comments about the potential of him running for office being a consideration in his decisions to agree to the Alford pleas and subsequent release of the WM3.
Your questions are excellent, and I will be covering the issues you raise with specificity in the future.
B
Still processing the ‘Dink’ handle. I know…nick name…but still?!
Anyhoo….great posts y’all. I know those wee cubs are your inspiration and motivation to hashing this out. Your ‘why’ is honourable.
@ Lethalstorm says:
March 1, 2012 at 6:00 pm
THANK YOU for another angle to consider re: defense witnesses. How true….how very true!
B, I’ll try again, theoretical being my verb. Hope it sticks
RE: Baldwin’s mother…..
She failed in not being more involved with whom her son was ‘hanging’ with. JB had a chance but whatever his issues were, they were inflated by Echols influences. His juvie record seemed harmless but his mischevious hooligan flags weren’t the right shade of red for momma bear? She needed to step in and cut off Jason’s friendship with Damien. It could have changed everything. Being oblivious to who our children hang out with is inexcusable. The hardest thing in the world as a parent is facing our failures or mistakes. We’re supposed to screw up, other wise, we’d have no terms of reference. These mistakes become opportunities to grow and learn from as a parent..AS A HUMAN BEING. From these experiences, we can offer direction and wisdom to our children. It takes courage, though, AND putting your child’s needs before your pride or excuses is essential. Ignoring what our children do and with whom, turning the other way; calling it a phase and/or minimizing the destruction it can lead to are ways some parents cope when demands of life become overwhelming (bills, work, exhaustion, etc). However, throw in mental illness (of a parent) and you got a potentially volatile situation affecting the entire family.
Was she ever treated for her condition? Medicating? Sought therapy?(I don’t recall seeing these paritcular details). It’s such a complicated, complex issue but the worst mistake is underestimating how mental illness affects effective parenting. Guidance from outsite sources is mandatory. Unfit may not be the proper word but whatever you call it, it needs to be addressed. You cannot help your children if you cannot help yourself. When there’s no faith, no convictions, no direction, it’s inevitable trouble is around the corner. JB AND Echols are poster children as are many from broken, truly dysfunctional families.
Was she a bad mother? She certainly came across as loving her son and ready to support him. Her support took on an enabling element, covering for him rather than determining his involvement or lack of. Consciously or not, it was also a means of covering her lack of involvement in her son’s life. I see a woman who panicked and did her darndest to divert attention away from her son. If her son was truly not capable of this in her mind, there would be no need to be anything but cooperative (reminiscent of cword as B brought up). However, she didn’t know her son well enough to be certain. How scary is that for her?
This is truly just my humble opinion. Human behaviour in unique situations needs to be dissected thoroughly. We just aren’t getting it and it breaks my heart.
So yeah, Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley’s past behaviours and records very much make them potentially culpable AND suspect. It would be irresponsible not to consider these factors, especially since each of them showed no signs of progressing or improvement in their social academic or home environments.
Just my silly opinion.
Hold on, is Ellington’s campaign going to be funded by some of the mega rich supporters of the WM3?
Grace, I agree with your thoughts IRT human beings, especially teens, not committing exact details/times to memory- even when a death occurs of a friend they do not remember the entire day-
–
Blink, thanks for sharing your opinion
Respectfully Blink, what does Damiens lawyer saying its hard to say, or even possibly believing in his guilt have to do with whether or not these kids were in fact the killers, or whether or not they believed a particular witness or not?
Without facts any belief the lawyers held were merely opinions and opinions without evidence are just feelings..
If Ford or Price believed their clients were guilty and they felt this so stongly they could not put up a defense- meaning not calling Hubert or Gail – or any alibi witnesses- no character witnesses etc- then by God they should have stepped down as these young mens counsel- and let someone actually do right by these accused just as our justice system allows.
It was a circumstantial evidence case plagued with mistakes- nothing is certain here.
Honestly, I do not care whether or not he became a juvenile prosecutor or not- his opinions and career have little to nothing to do with wether or not he did his due dilegence in providing tha zealous and appropriate defense….also if he did believe that his client was guilty, then he suborned the jury by allowing him to testify, did he not? AJMO
–
Rose, I appreciate you trying to make your way through my analysis- but it is not “testimony” analysis- all these accounts were taken from statements given to LE-
Adam Phillips, the friend with the tape, was never even interviewed by LE….
Ken Watkins never testified and so on.
As to your question of Why? I can only answer for myself- I continue to analyze and research and ask questions because there is so much not known- if there wasnt then “nons” themselves would agree on every detail and they/you dont-
You wrote:
” Society has a settled result”….. No it doesnt… None of us would still be questioning so much if there was a settled result. Society, us, them, we -have not settled anything and the families have not settled anything.
And LE may have THOUGHT they had settled everything, but they clearly did not- they left much left unasked and unknown, or lost to mishandling, ineptitude, and time… The prosecution did not settle anything because the case they presented was clearly WRONG-
The motive was wrong, the murder weapon was wrong- etc etc..
The jury did not settle anything because they clearly did not listen to the instructions and included JMs confession into their deliberations, they were clearly watching trial coverage, etc- based on the fact that the lake knife and the satanic crap and the confession alone came in, its enough to realize their verdict could not be just- as they were basing their thoughts on WRONG “evidence”
Rose they did plead guilty to lesser charges- while MAINTAINING their innocence- Settled smettled
You wrote:
“All Blink did was provide good PHYSICAL evidence in addition
to evidence already sufficing for their jury trials.”
With Respect to Blink, Blink did not provide physical evidence, she presented a theory based on her analysis of a very poor polaroid photograph of an ice ax – and no matter how diligent her work- it is still based upon a poor photo with no measuremnts provided…although there is a possibility her anaylysis is spot on, we will sadly never know-
and excuse me for pointing out the obvious Rose, but why would you not question her work or her ability to analyize an already “settled” result. perhaps you only welcome opinions and information that support your own opinion of guilt- everything less is meaningless and unneeded analysis?
There may have been enough evidence to “suffice” in their jury trials- but that does not mean it was true evidence leading to a just verdict.
I disagree that it wasnt corrupt- as again much of the “evidence” that was supplied was circumstantial and *wrong*-
Jesse misskeellys first confession (the only one brought forth in the trials was clearly WRONG- and clearly should have never been used as “evidence” and Jason and Damien should never have been tried together-
Corrupt /ed /ing:
Containing errors or alterations
Archaic Tainted; putrid.
To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
To ruin morally; pervert.
To taint; contaminate.
To cause to become rotten; spoil.
To change the original form of
I could go on, but you get my point- The trials were not just- and even if they are in fact the killers, my opinion of these facts would not change. and many nons share my thoughts on the trials and thought they should have been afforded a second bite of the apple…as rotten as it might have been..
Because there was no retrial nothing will ever be settled-
AJMO
Peace
Matt says:
March 3, 2012 at 4:45 am
Has anyone ever done a comprehensive timeline of May 5th and May 6th? I would love to see a complete breakdown of the movements of everybody involved. It would go something like,
3.30pm
Chris Byers ……….
Michael Moore ……………
Stevie Branch ……………..
Jason gets home from school
Gail Grinnell at work
Damien at the Sanders (initial statement 3-5pm at the sanders)
Jessie babysitting at Stephanie Dollar’s
Terry Hobbs …………..
Mark Byers ………………
Matt- many comprehensive timelines have been done-
But here you go:
School let out at 3;00
Chris was in school that day
At 3:30 Pam Hobbs states that Chris came over to her house to ask for Stevie- He stayed at her home until 4pm watching Muppet babies with Stevies little sister.
Mike Byers arrived home from a doctors appointment at app 3:10 Chris was not home. Ryan his brother arrived home at about 3:38 Chris was not home and was supposed to wait there for his brother-
Chris was in trouble– Mark brought Ryan to the courthouse he then saw evidence that led him to believe Chris had tried to enter the kitchen window- he went to pick up Melissa from work and spotted Chris on the skateboard while returning home…he brought him home and whipped him, told him to clean the carport – the last time Melissa saw him was about 5:45 pm. Mark had left to pick up Ryan.
When they arrived home approximately 6:30 Chris had left and they then began their search- even talking to an LEO who told them till wait until 8 to make a formal missing persons report. They cont to search on their own.
5:45pm?-6:00pm – Kim Williams is seen in the same location as Stevie and Michael until she is called in by her father. Claims she last saw the two boys heading into Robin Hood woods by way of the Goodwin entrance.
5:45pm – Melissa states she looked out the window and saw Chris under the carport. This is the last time she sees him.
6:00pm – Ben Crafton confirms that Kim was with Stevie and Michael until being called in by her father
5:45-6pm – Debra O’Tinger says the boys meet up in her yard and eventually go into the woods via Goodwin.
6:00pm- Dana Moore sees Michael, Steve and Christopher riding bicycles north on 14th street. Michael is riding his bicycle. Chris and Steve are on the other… she sends Mikes sister to fetch Mike- Dawn follows them, losing sight as they round a corner she then encounters some other boys exiting the woods…
6-6:30pm – All three boys are seen by Cindy Rico. She said she saw them by “the drainage ditch down past Blue Beacon down by the bridge.
—
Michael Moore-
School let at 3:00
3:00pm – Michael gets out of school
3:00pm-3:10pm – Michael Moore arrives at Stevie’s on his bike
approx 3:15pm – Stevie and Michael leave the house to ride their bikes. Stevie is told to be back by 4:30pm. The boys leave, go west on South McAuley, then north on 14th.
3:10pm – Dana Moore sees Stevie and Michael riding down 14th Street. She did not give a specific time at the Misskelley trial, except to say it happened soon after he got out of school. At the Echols/Baldwin trial she gives the time as 3:10pm.
4-4:15pm – Gregory Quirt reports seeing Stevie and Michael with a bunch of other boys. He says they told him they were going “riding
APP 5:45pm – The Baileys report seeing Stevie and Michael on WE Catt, wearing green backpacks, riding bikes. Michael told Otto Bailey that he was in a hurry and needed to leave. The boys are going toward Mayfair.
5:50pm-6:00pm – Kim Williams is seen in the same location as Stevie and Michael until she is called in by her father. Claims she last saw the two boys heading into Robin Hood woods by way of the Goodwin entrance.
5:45pm – Melissa states she looked out the window and saw Chris under the carport. This is the last time she sees him.
5:45?-6pm – Debra O’Tinger says the boys meet up in her yard and eventually go into the woods via Goodwin.
6:00pm – Ben Crafton confirms that Kim was with Stevie and Michael until being called in by her father
APP 6:00pm – Dana Moore saw Chris, Michael, and Stevie on two bikes on N 14th. (heading North from the Moore home? Echols/Baldwin trial).
Sends Dawn after them…
6-6:30pm – All three boys are seen by Cindy Rico. She said she saw them by “the drainage ditch down past Blue Beacon down by the bridge.
–
Stevie Branch-
At 2:48 Pam Hobbs walks home with her son Stevie and his little sister
they arrive home at 3:00pm
3:00pm-3:15pm (approx.) – Michael Moore arrives at Stevie’s on his bike
3:15pm (approx.) – Stevie and Michael leave the house to ride their bikes. Stevie is told to be back by 4:30pm. The boys leave, go west on South McAuley, then north on 14th.
4-4:15pm – Gregory Quirt reports seeing Stevie and Michael with a bunch of other boys. He says they told him they were going “riding”
5:45pm – The Baileys report seeing Stevie and Michael on WE Catt, wearing green backpacks, riding bikes. Michael told Otto Bailey that he was in a hurry and needed to leave. The boys are going toward Mayfair.
5:45pm?-6:00pm – Kim Williams is seen in the same location as Stevie and Michael until she is called in by her father. Claims she last saw the two boys heading into Robin Hood woods by way of the Goodwin entrance.
5:45pm – Melissa states she looked out the window and saw Chris under the carport. This is the last time she sees him.
6:00pm – Ben Crafton confirms that Kim was with Stevie and Michael until being called in by her father
5:45-6pm – Debra O’Tinger says the boys meet up in her yard and eventually go into the woods via Goodwin.
6:00pm- Dana Moore sees Michael, Steve and Christopher riding bicycles north on 14th street. Michael is riding his bicycle. Chris and Steve are on the other… she sends Mikes sister to fetch Mike- Dawn follows them, losing sight as they round a corner she then encounters some other boys exiting the woods…
6-6:30pm – All three boys are seen by Cindy Rico. She said she saw them by “the drainage ditch down past Blue Beacon down by the bridge.
–
Jason Baldwin got home around 3:30-3:40 his Mom left for work at 2:30pm- Damien Ken and Domini arrive shortly after JB gets there
Dink Matt and terry are home- jason and Damien speak to jennifer Bearden on phone- at 4:15
leave around 420 to mow uncles lawn
matt goes to walmart to play video games Dink sells lamps then heads to walmart-
he Sees Matt– matt see him matt follows Dink to Kroger- probably there at walmart until 5:15 playing games until they leave
Jason Domini Ken and Damien mow lawn – Domini and Damien say they called for ride at laundromat… say Ken stays with Jason- Ken remembers mowing happening later- but the fair would place day as correct may 5th… recalls DE and DT being present at Walmart
JB Mows lawn until 6-630 then walks to Walmart
Ken says Domini and Damien and JB were there at walmart, he leaves in time to make it home to babysit from 6-6:30 others still there playing
Ken says he dropped by JB around 6:45 asks for JB- Dink says not home yet- leaves for app 15-30 minutes when he returns Domini Jason Damien at jbs-
Matt recalls Ken there but doesnot remember the other two. Says JB went to get tape- Dink confirms this- ken says he went with JB to Adam Phillips for tape-
Dink says when they were tape getting – Gail called …shortly there after JB and Ken come back…(Gail says she called app 8:00 8:30- Dink says this then places it closer to 9…
upon returning to trailer Jb and Ken play Nintendo until 9pm when Bonanza was on
Ken does not say when Domini and Damien left- before or after him
Damiens grandma says DE is not home for 8pm phone call but he is there at 9pm phonecall- and is said to have talked until app 9:30 then calls Domini at 10pm- then receives 1030 call from Holly or Heather or both…
DE did initially on may10th state he was mowing the lawn with Jason same as Domini- could he have been innocently mistaken about the Sanders- Possibly IDK
Jesse Misskelley was babysitting at 3:30 and he was still in his own neighborhood at 6:30-6:45- as the LE report shows and didnt head off until at least 6:45 and then still needed to meet up with JB and DE to get drunk and stoned…and then was said to have left the woods after the murders just as it was getting dark…7:48 was the time…. he left for home leaving the other 2 still there…
Mark Byers home by 3:10 At 3:50PM, Mark Byers drove Ryan to the courthouse for a 4:00PM appointment.. See above for further detail
Terry Hobbs was at work until app 4:15 he asked where Stevie was… riding his new bile…took pam to work at 4:45
APPr 5;00pm arrives back home-
appro 5pm goes to Jacoby’s house.
Terry Hobbs says he was looking for stevie at 6;00 to 630 in those woods jacoby says at About 6:45 pm..terry checked with him to see if Stevie had come by. Jacoby volunteers to help look for Stevie. Terry takes Jacoby to search around the immediate neighborhood.10 15 min
About 7:00 pm terry takes Jacoby back home and drops him off. He tells Jacoby that he wants to check some other places where Stevie might be.
At app 7:50 terry returns to Jacobys home for help They search the same areas that they had searched earlier, and when a little girl tells them that she saw some boys on bikes near the woods…Terry takes Jacoby back home to get flashlights
8:10 pm- Dana Moore stops by Hobbs’ house looking for Stevie. Hobbs follows Moore to her house.
8:08-8:15 pm- Officer meek takes Chris’ MPR at the Byers’ house.
8:13 pm-Dana sees Officer Meek’s patrol car in the Byers’ driveway. She knocks on the door and both sets of parents make reports
Terry goes to get Pam calls from her work to make missing persons report
The search continues on, well into the night, ending sadly at 2;30 pm the next day when the last boy was found.
- This info gathered from Callahans and many other sights such as but not limited to Facts, yuku, blackboard,hoax etc.
Sorry for length, and any typos errors due to oversight-
AJMO
Ragdoll,
hello and thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinions
Here are mine for what their worth-
You wrote:
Baldwin’s mother…..
“She failed in not being more involved with whom her son was ‘hanging’ with. ”
Ragdoll, DE was not the devil incarnate. he was not ted bundy. he was not some huge druggie
he was not some huge Bully
He was not some devil worshipper
He was not a dropout without an education- he had his GED
He was an 18 year old kid who had a record which stemmed from his running away to be with his first love-
He had mental health issues- which were private- unknown and clearly did not show him to be a homicidal maniac .
He was a father to be-
He was a misfit- he was a metal head he had a record and a history he was on meds he had therapy he did not break the law since his runin with police-the first time-(unless you consider his parole violation from his move)
What should Jason s mother have done? We all know as parents that our kids will often times do the exact opposite of what we warn against…
Besides- We teach our kids to not ostracize other kids, we teach them to be kind and considerate and all inclusive. We teach them NOT to go with the crowd when the crowd is mean and hateful and wrong….
Why would we want Damien Echols to be ostracized? Why is a bad thing that Jasons mom, someone who obviously understood suicidal thoughts, did not forbid her son from befriending Damien Echols?
Why would we condemn Jason Baldwin for befriending Damien? He clearly could emphasize with DE from dealing with his own Mamma- he could separate the one time act and thoughts from the person as a whole.
I think he was rather courageous to be friends with Damien Echols-
I know you and others believe without a doubt that these 2 with JM killed these boys but I and others have reasonable doubt-
To me. To say JB should have stayed away from DE or to say his mom should have kept him from DE is basically buying into the whole “guilt by association” crapola- which clearly is NOT evidence that either of these kids killed Stevie Mike and Chris.
You wrote:
JB had a chance but whatever his issues were, they were inflated by Echols influences. His juvie record seemed harmless but his mischevious hooligan flags weren’t the right shade of red for momma bear? She needed to step in and cut off Jason’s friendship with Damien. It could have changed everything. Being oblivious to who our children hang out with is inexcusable.
Ragdoll, according to Jesses confessions it was Jason who did most of the horrendous deeds, so given this fact along with reasonable doubt, I do not think we can say who influenced who. To me again JB seems to be a kind considerate caring young man who befriended DE.
His juvenile record was harmless in the sense that it wasnt violent- and if there were any red flags to be seen from this record it would be to watch that JB did not become a thief certainly none were flying for him to become a murderer….
I disagree,I do not think that Jasons mom needed to step in and stop Jasons friendship with Damien. I think had more parents encouraged their kids to befriend these kids they would have been no room for them to ever be accused of this crime- as most of the accusations came from those who clearly were buying into all of the devil crap- JM and Vicki, and even Buddy Lucas Narlene Hollingsworth, and the rest- had they know and liked these kids they may have not seen them as capable of committing the murders.
I do not think Jasons Mom was oblivious to who Jason was hanging out with, I think she just like she said in her statement trusted in her sons character and judgment he was a good boy with a good heart who could never kill anyone….
Ragdoll Parents do make mistakes and must own up to them, and learn from them , and use them as deterrents for their children.
You know who else is human and can make mistakes? LE and prosecutors, and jury members-
Many mistakes were made in this case, whose to say that anyones thoughts are correct and not just merely opinions which stemmed from bad information?
Not me for sure…
Jasons mom was treated and released and honestly Ragdoll I do not think anyone is underestimating the effects of mental illness on a parent or child.
But to say she was unfit or should have had her children removed from her care long ago is wrong IMO.
How did Jasons moms support take on an enabling attitude? She was right in her belief that LE had it wrong Jason was in school, so any belief she maintained after that was clearly justifiable given the mistakes.
Ragdoll when did she cover for him, besides obtaining the records from the school, and by telling LE to talk to Dink and Matt and teachers and friends, and Hubert and Ken?
She was trying to figure out his involvement, and she did tracj down the timeline…you and others may think it is bogus but I clearly showed how it could be infact the truth of the matter, so given the fact that she was JB’s mom, and was privy to the same timeline… I think her giving her son the benefit of the doubt is justifiable, not enabling.
I think it is unfair to question whether or not Jasons mom was involved in her Jasons lofe, clearly she was a working mom, and even told police that she wished she didnt have to be…so I think it wrong to say that, especially since JB by most accounts was a caring smart, kind, talented, respectful, responsible, loving kid-
I do not think jason Baldwins mom was putting her childrens needs behind her pride…. Jason baldwin had faith he went to church he was a god fearing kid- he had convictions and directions he had a summer job, he applied himself and won many art awards and wanted to become an artist and go to college. Jesse Misskelly was a God fearing Kid he loved his family same as JB He had direction Zhe worked and went wrestling and had friends, and wanted to grow up and marry Susy and have kids
DE may not have liked his family but he too had faith, or was searching for the answers in all faith- and He was a father to be, and had his GED and applied for SSI and wanted to be a Horror Novelist.
You wrote in part IRT Gail-
Isee a woman who panicked and did her darndest to divert attention away from her son.
—Any parent would panic in this situation and I dont think she was trying to divert attention away jason as much as she was trying to help police realize that he couldnt have done it given the timeline and her opinion as his momma….
You wrote:
If her son was truly not capable of this in her mind, there would be no need to be anything but cooperative
Come On Ragdoll, her not wanting police to interrogate and polygraph and hound her son, is not a wrong stance- given This police dept handling of other witnesses and testimony although I do understand how you and others who believe he is guilty could compare this to Cindy Anthonys denials…but again Cindy Anthony urged her daughter to talk to LE and Caasey did- until they both started to understand the truth….
You wrote;
However, she didn’t know her son well enough to be certain. How scary is that for her?
Ragdoll, this is just your opinion, you can not say this with any real conviction She obviously knew him well enough to have no fear in letting him watch over his younger siblings…afterall he did save her life too…
You wrote in part:
This is truly just my humble opinion. Human behaviour in unique situations needs to be dissected thoroughly.
I agree, and that is what I am trying to do too-
You:
It would be irresponsible not to consider these factors, especially since each of them showed no signs of progressing or improvement in their social academic or home environments.
I agree it would be irresponsible not to consider everything…but I disagree that these young men were not improving socially or otherwise.
just my silly opinion my friend, and again thanks for sharing yours, as I respect it and you tremendously.
AJMO
Peace
Matt-
I did NOT say that as FACT. However, it is very reasonable to suspect that may be the case.
Mom, thank you for your post and acknowledgement. I do have responses, but I don’t have the inner strength to give ‘er like you do. One post and I’m pure verklemption.
Just for the record…..I wasn’t addressing LE or the state in my post. My point was about parenting, dysfuction and red flags some parents choose to ignore. Throw in mental illness….and well….. She covered for JB because she should have sought counseling…for herself, for JB and her family. She should have attacked the problems AND insisted DE was not an influence in her son’s life. I don’t believe for 1 minute they were improving socially. Graffiti, sneaking out, stealing, meeting in dark places, knives….not healthy behaviour.
I’ve never given LE a pass, ever. I’m quite aware they were inexperienced and made mistakes in this case. I was simply addressing 1 issues out of a gaggle, if you will. I keep thinking if parents were more involved, considered their children observe more than they listen..etc, we’d have more stand up citizens leading the next generation.
Nuffin but wuv, Mom!
PS…I don’t care if DE wore white with wings and a halo. He had serious problems and minimizing them is just plain irresponsible. His disability claims….homicidal, suicidal… Are these not serious issues for someone to say….WHOA! He’s a blip on the radar, for sure!
All these boys were text book examples of potential offenders for esculating behaviour and social problems. Look at Hugely, Miss Love’s murderer. I don’t think it’s any surprise, coming from an enabled, priviledged life, drinking, possible drug and roid use which lead him to become a killer. If we went by how a person dressed, we’d miss the mark every single time. SIGNS SIGNS, EVERYWHERE WERE SIGNS.
Yeah….my son would not be hanging with a dudes like these.
….and Mom….I meant to say this in my previous post, but the tremendous respect goes both ways. You debate fairly and that, my friend, is a rarity. I could never mistake your passion for arrogance or the need to be right. You’re the real deal. I love you and your heart….and I am one of your biggest fans.
I need you to know in case there comes a time when I don’t have the oppty to express this to you. That goes for all BOC advocates (Grace, ATG, Sister, Matt, so so many of you here and on other threads), B and her team.
And so, I leave you all with a big hug for now….because…my cat is demanding her kibble….right meeeeow. It’s always kibble:30 around here.
Mom3.0 says:
March 2, 2012 at 3:10 am
Blink says, “It should be noted that Val Price, Echols original defense atty, when asked following his release if he thought he was guilty he responded ” its hard to say.” Amongst the fanfair one would think the original guy would have an “I told you so” or 50. Nope.
He actually became a juvenile prosecutor.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, here’s my two cents worth about that, Blink, after hanging out with defense attorneys and prosecutors for over 20 years. It doesn’t surprise me at at all that a former defense attorney who is now a juvenile *prosecutor* would hem and haw a bit when asked that question in public. He’s on the other side of the aisle now. JMO.
Thanks for your response Ragdoll. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Its been a really busy week. I know you understand with your cat and everything…”MEow” so funny.
Ragdoll, I know we are porbably never going to agree on very much in this case, and that is okay.
I realize you were not addressing LE or The State in your post, but without doing so- I do not think anyone can get a complete picture of what happened.
I do however agree with you IRT red flags and being ever vigilant as parents. I know you know this, as I have always been very vocal in my warnings to parents regarding teens and any obsessive behaviors etc.
In fact ragdoll, I agree with you when we are speaking in generalities…where the disagreement arises is when you or others propose to know exactly what was going on in this particular case.
I realize you have a right to form your own opinions and to base them on anything you see fit….Whether or not they are fact based or just feelings…
For instance, many including you have stated, matter of factly that these parents lied and covered for these kids. I have asked for proof of this assumption, especially given the fact that I have illustrated how the parents and the accused may have been telling the truth, and any discrepancies could have been due to poor recall or perceptions.
If we were all to follow the logic of most peoples thoughts IRT to these alibis, then that would place many people in the same “possible” perpetrator category as these three young men.
We have LG who could not supply a consistant alibi and who according to Narlene, asked her to lie for him…
We have Narlene and her family who were inconsistent in their own remembrances of the day and night… who was there, who was driving, who they saw, what they were wearing, what time it was… each who gave differing accounts for that day and evening Narlene herself, even once supplying an alibi fior Jesse…
We have Ken Watkins who by his own accounts states that he was with Damian and Jason and Domini and LG…and so on
You wrote Ragdoll:
She covered for JB because she should have sought counseling…for herself, for JB and her family.
–
Ragdoll, Im sorry- but I do not understand the logic of this statement. Gail covered for Jason because she did not seek counseling for herself and her family? What? First, I can not say whether or not she did or did not seek counseling for herself and her children…I do not know if she did and you cant possibly know that either.
She may have saught counseling and being as poor as she was, perhaps she was unable to get it, or perhaps her insurance or medicaid would not cover it, seeing how she was treated and released, perhaps the county left it at that…IDK and neither do you. And Ragdoll what does her obtaining counseling or not, have to do with your belief that she was “covering” for her son?
Ragdoll you went on to write:
She should have attacked the problems AND insisted DE was not an influence in her son’s life
I don’t believe for 1 minute they were improving socially. Graffiti, sneaking out, stealing, meeting in dark places, knives….not healthy behavior.
==
Again- my friend, How do you know she did not address or “attack” the problems? Again JB was said to be kind considerate, shy, responsible and incapable of these murders…
What makes you so sure that Damien Echols was a bad influence on Jason Baldwin? They were friends for years and again neither one had any more runins with the law. You dont believe they were improving socially or otherwise? JB was doing well in school, he had just landed a summer job, he had dreams and goals of going to college, he was helping out his uncle and his mom frequently, Jesse helped his neighbors and family too, he had dreams of becoming a husband and a father. Damien E was obtaining help and counseling and meds, He had friends, and a baby on the way. He was seeking SSI.. He had no further committals or violent outbreaks with family members…
They were meeting in Dark places? What are you talking about? They went to the Roller rink, they went to football games and softball games and hung out at one anothers houses, and watched movies and played video games…
If you are speaking solely about Stonehenge, and the graffiti… first, you can not say when that graffiti was placed there, in the light of day or in the dark of night- and besides if this behavior is a red flag for potential triple child murderers, then you need to extend your disgust and suspicion towards half the kids in the town- including Kim Floresca and others…
In a lower income areas Ragdoll, graffiti is common and is not seen as such a horrible crime, especially when the area that is defaced is not a viable business or home… Is it right or lawful? No, but it certainly isnt a precursor to triple child homicide…
As for the sneaking out, First let me say, it is not an uncommon occurrence and does not necessarily mean that the kid is bad or that the parents are derelict in their duties. Hell many see it as a right of passage. Besides Ragdoll, where is the evidence, AnyWhere that any of these 3 snuck out? Especially that night?
Stealing? Well Jesse was said to have stolen a bike from a friend, but this same friend also lied about a knife supposedly hidden in the school given to him by JB- so was the bike stolen? IDK and then we have an 11yearold jesse taking flags…
Damien…well his “stealing” seemed to be directly related to his own and only prior-at 16 the running away incident and the aftermath- He took items from the parents home for the “trek”
Jason Baldwin and his stealing… well it seems by all accounts when he was younger he either stole a bag of chips or some candy…
Clearly not the work of master thieves or kleptomaniacs…
Knives?
Everyone had knives or a knife Ragdoll- Stevie, probably Chris and Michael too – lots of teens had many knives- adults too and collected them and traded them and lost them and found them and inherited them…many parents had knives and collected them, like Terry Hobbs and Mark Byers So what?
Ragdoll, I know you have never given LE a “pass” but LE in this case did much more than simply make a few mistakes, their actions and inactions may have led to justice never happening for Stevie Mike and Chris. And thease law enforcement officers later went on to sevearal “problems” with the law of their own…
Ragdoll- I do not see Damien Echols as an angel, nor do I see him as a devil- the truth may be despite having a history and a record he may be innocent of these murders…IDK- the “evidence” I have reviewed so far does not make me confident in these 3 guilt.
His self claim of being homicidal perhaps was merely a ploy to get SSI- as again nowhere in the 500 does it show Damien Echols to be homicidal- Did he make threats ? Yes- was he suffering from suicidal ideation ? Yes…
I am not minimalizing anything Ragdoll- I simply do not see this history in terms of black and white- There is a gray area Ragdoll Damien Echols was being treated, he was seeking help, he was on medication- and he was progressing- So again I do not think my I am being irresponsible in my thoughts or attitudes towards this.
Should Damien Echols have been a blip on the radar? Yes perhaps so- but certainly there were quite a few others who would have made far more of a “blip” and perhaps LE would have questioned and cleared these others such as Terry Hobbs if Steve Jones and Driver hadnt been Hell bent on running Damiens name as a potential suspect in every crime that came across their radar…For Petes sake they sent his drawings and writing to the occult guy a YEAR prior to these murders….
As for these boys being “text book” examples of “potential offenders” —-I disagree- although IRT “esculating behaviour” perhaps- but this “esculation” if it were “textbook” would have had DE attempting or succeeding in suicide- possibly becoming an addict or alcoholic and POSSIBLY harming a family member- NOT 3 little innocent children whom he did not know… JB possibly becoming an addict or alcoholic, with a potential as a petty thief and Jesse as being in trouble with drinking and barroom brawls- and POSSIBLY a thief… Nothing shows up as “red flags” for these kids having committed these murders…
You opined problems including social problems. – Sure I agree-
You went on to write:
Look at Hugely, Miss Love’s murderer. I don’t think it’s any surprise, coming from an enabled, priviledged life, drinking, possible drug and roid use which lead him to become a killer. If we went by how a person dressed, we’d miss the mark every single time. SIGNS SIGNS, EVERYWHERE WERE SIGNS.
Ragdoll What does George hugely have to do with this case? THERE WERE undeniable signs in hugelys case- And there were undeniable signs that until recently before her murder Ms Love was suffering from the classic behaviors and mindset of a victim of domestic abuse- it IS a viscous cycle- and one in which both the abuser and the victim must get counseling inorder to break the cycle-
These signs you claim to see in this case- are simply your own opinions viewed from your own perspective of undoubtable guilt- I as a fence sitter do NOT and can NOT say with any degree of certainty that there were Signs signs everywhere.. .
PS great song and one I think is quite apropos to this case…and I might add- it underscores my point–just because there is a “sign” posted or just because someone otherwise interpreted something as a “sign” does not make it “right” or true-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklM1AiZX0s&feature=player_embedded
You wrote:
Yeah….my son would not be hanging with a dudes like these.-
Ragdoll, I have no doubt that you are a great parent- I strive to be too- I just disagree with you and clearly dont think ostracizing these young men any further would have had a positive outcome.
AJMO
Peace to you as Always Ragdoll and I appreciate you hearing me out-
Hugs
Dr. pepper you wrote:
Dr. Pepper says:
March 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Well this is a real shocker….look who just jumped into the race for Congress. B- Im sure you’ve already heard about this.
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/199039/0/Prosecutor-Scott-Ellington-joins-1st-Congressional-District-race
I wonder whose backhandedly financing this campaign? Ah, the Arkansas Democratic Party at its’ best!
SIDE NOTE:
—————————
B- I tried to keep up with all of the comments, but I seriously have not had time or the attention span..haha. So I am about to re-ask you a couple of questions (well, questions I think I’ve asked you before) Sorry if redundant. I know you hate redundancy and having to repeat yourself. I’m sorry! I’ll be pleased with short answer!
My Q’s:
If they were going to get a new hearing to introduce “new” dna evidence, why did they jumped for the Alford Plea? Was it because the new evidence wasnt enough to grant them a new trial or to ensure acquittal?
Or did the A Plea suddenly become the plan right after they read your article? (ice pick)
Did Ellington know about &/or reading your article prior to signing the deal?
–
Well it seems that this news is not good for those who d not share your thoughts on guilt-
because without Ellington, there is noone in the office to ensure all of the DNA evidence is tested nor is there any assurance that Ellingtons successor would uphold his promise to look at any new evidence or tips etc.
See below.
As to your thoughts on the democratic party…well it seems Judge Burnet had no problem in flying the coop as it were to run and secure his seat on the Senate, thereby making room for Judge L. to come in and rule as he did IRT the Alford pleas and on his thoughts IRT ruling in favor of the evidentiary hearings…and then possibly for new trials which some would say contributed to the Alford pleas….
(just to clarify, those were not my comments)
And what makes you think anyone is “backhandedly financing Ellingtons campaign, and that it would be a supporter? as again it seems they would lose much more without Ellington in his current digs…
As to your questions, I am looking forward to Blinks addressing this in her next piece- in great detail
Ellington closed this case, period. He said so publicly and directed any and all leads and evidence to the defense team of 3 men convicted of their murder. The WM3 legal team is the only folks that have maintained their will be further DNA testing to “clear their name”. I have yet to see any of that work revealed publicly but I could see how that might interfere with the Oscar parties and junketts.
In short, Ellington being in office or not has no bearing on this case’s status with the exception that if one of the WM3 would violate their conditions of release.
ihope she will be assuring us that they couldnt have possibly have been innocent and made these Alford pleas to ensure they could be free men, and decided they were tired of being at the mercy of the courts and a jury of their “peers”… and I hope Blink will be sharing her screen shots of their faces as they read her piece and all the rest as i am sure i would very much appreciate everything coming to light.
Dearest Mom 3.0- as I have stated repeatedly, and you know this, without having the benefit of additional testing (possibly),or a video of the crime I cannot assure anyone of anything, nor would I try.
I offer my analysis only, which I completely agree is interpretable, an example would be the defense’s own experts did not even agree with each other on many points.
Very similarly I would offer that neither you, nor the defense in this case has provided a reasonable alternate scenario for these murders to have been committed by anyone else although they admit spending $10 Million attempting to.
I do not possess screenshots of anyone’s faces reading the ice axe piece, I have no idea where that came from screenshots, yes.
PS Dr Pepper, you answered matts post regarding rich supporters funding Ellingtons endeavor as likely so– perhaps you are right- but again they lose a “supporter” without Ellington in his current job…I was wondering what you thought about marbors post concerning the 100000 dollar reward for any new info-?
“THE REWARD”-
Billboards and radio advertising will promote the reward and encourage those with credible information to contact the confidential tip line as soon as possible. Attorneys for Damien Echols will review all calls and verify the information provided. All credible evidence will be turned over to Scott Ellington, Craighead County prosecutor, who has said that he will review evidence presented to him from Echols’s defense team.
Really? So how does that work? What if someone comes forward with new evidence of guilt of their own clients? There is no way they can be charged or tried again as the double jeopardy statute would apply and they are NOT required to turn over anything incriminating against their clients so who are they kidding? I sound like a broken record.
Perhaps one way nons could aid in proving their guilt would be to “up” the ante- the more money offered the more incentive and with millions and no tips it would seem that could go a long way into giving the “nons” “I told you so rights?” Right?
A thought for a savvy Arkansinian- John Fogleman and Brett Davis made some errors, no doubt.
AJMO
Mom 3.0, me in bold
B
Sorry for any and all typos and errors in my previous posts-
Grace, thank you for weighing in with your thoughts on Price- I have to say I did not think of that and I have to agree that may have been a factor in his himming and hawing IRT his thoughts on guilt.
AJMO
Hello Blink- thanks for weighing in with your thoughts and opinions- just so you know many of your comments did not show up in bold…
You wrote:
“Ellington closed this case, period. He said so publicly and directed any and all leads and evidence to the defense team of 3 men convicted of their murder. ”
–yes Blink Ellington did say the case is closed. He did also state that anything further should be given to the defense.
This is not a good thing for any “side” and certainly not for anyone wishing to find justice and the complete truth…If innocent, this situation only makes it harder for the defense to prove their innocence and clear their names…I mean How can any tip or information/evidence be helpful to any case going forward if so much evidence was never collected and the evidence that was maintained- has since been returned to the families?
Mom 3.0, the states position is clear. This is a closed case. No further burden on their part and they believe, and have stated same, the WM3 committed these murders. Your point however, is correct and I agree. Their is absolutely no usefulness to an award. In the eyes of the law, the convictions of three stand and the state is not seeking any other accessories or investigating any other crimes in association. No, as I have wailed (lol) was not a good decision for either side, if one is seeking the best truth from the evidence available.
You wrote-
“The WM3 legal team is the only folks that have maintained their will be further DNA testing to “clear their name”.”
No Blinky, this is not correct, as shown by this quote:
Responding to the reward announcement, prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington repeated a vow he made last fall to “look at all credible evidence” presented by the defense. **”We’re honoring that commitment as we speak,” **he said, **indicating the state crime lab is cooperating with ongoing DNA testing.”**
(ok, it’s you, or you know I would be “LINK PLEASE” lol)
Cooperating, as in facilitating whatever needs the defense has of them to preform their own testing, period. The state is not testing anything, that is fact. I can state as an absolute, having spoken to them directly, no evidence is being maintained by the state for testing or otherwise.
You wrote:
“I have yet to see any of that work revealed publicly but I could see how that might interfere with the Oscar parties and junketts.”
–Blink, I have not seen any of the DNA results either, but as Ellington said there is “ongoing” testing, perhaps that is the major reason and not because as you opined it would possibly interfere with junkettes and Oscar parties…
That is not what he said, they are cooperating, they would have absolutely no standing to even know what any results were. The state has no dog in this fight anymore except as monitors of the supervised parole of Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin. You have made solid arguments wrt reasonable doubt in this case, but with much respect, their is no gray area in terms of the legal standing of either party here, none.
These men have been convicted for the murders of Chris Byers, Stevie Branch and J. Michael Moore.
Blink I realize you strongly believe these three brutally murdered Stevie Mike and Chris- but for an instant do you think you could possibly entertain the thought that they might be innocent?- and in that brief instant can you possibly see your way to understand if innocent How hard it would be for them to “clear their name” and to prove their innocence?
You wrote:
“In short, Ellington being in office or not has no bearing on this case’s status with the exception that if one of the WM3 would violate their conditions of release.”
–Not understanding your thoughts here, as clearly I just illustrated how Ellington made a commitment to review all credible evidence etc- and I do not follow- what would it mean to the 3 IRT violating the conditions of their release if someoneelse was in Ellingtons place? TIA
There is no intended nexus on my part wrt to any new evidence and attachment to parole, I appolly if I did not make my thoughts clear on that.
Blink You went on to write:
“Dearest Mom 3.0- as I have stated repeatedly, and you know this, without having the benefit of additional testing (possibly),or a video of the crime I cannot assure anyone of anything, nor would I try.”
“I offer my analysis only, which I completely agree is interpretable, an example would be the defense’s own experts did not even agree with each other on many points.”
–Fair enough Dearest Blink, there isnt much agreement in this case, an many experts have stated their opinions only to change them later, and still others have been proven to be anything BUT experts…. and I would only say respectfully, that if you yourself can not be 100% certain, couldnt your FBI friend and others be right, and you be wrong in your analysis of this case and these 3 mens guilt? Are you even allowing for any movement in your thoughts and opinions?
Hmmf. Outstanding Question. It deserves a better answer than what I am willing to give at the moment, based on pending projects related to this case. Won’t be soon, but you know I can respect a differing opinion and a call out better than most- and one from you is like a double espresso to my conscious.
I have been very clear that I could not say that on a jury ( which is moot btw as I could obviously never sit one on this case) in 1994 I could convict as this case was presented.
That said, I am very able to distinguish between legal and moral convictions.
I have more than a few colleagues I trust more than I trust my own experience.
Since you asked, I will share something I have not yet. One of them, is absolutely unequivocally the contrarian to almost every point of view I ever have. I mean, it pisses me off sometimes as much as I know it is good investigative strategy and protocol. Sometimes, after weeks of research, review, interviews, status meetings, blah blah, I just want to be right. Right? Is that so wrong?
For the first time in years and hundreds of cases- 100% concurrence.
Did that have weight for me? No way. This case blows. I hate it ( duh already). In fact, true to form, it made me doubt myself, go back over everything. I re-presented.
I presented the opposing arguments for every major inculpatory and exculpatory position to make sure I knew the findings well enough.
Who could really think someone in my capacity would not be desperate to consider the potential of innocence and the possible INJUSTICE in these brutal and sadistic homicides? It is what I do.
I did not find it here, and I am completely convinced that these children were murdered in cold blood by Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin. I believe what started out as an act of bullying went very wrong and there was no turning back.
I think I have earned a reputation for uber thoroughness and fairness.
That in no way makes me irreproachable or infallible.
It does bear great weight for me, and part of that weight is to be open to alternatives when the ultimate goal is truth and justice.
If I tried hard- I do not have the ability to think I know better than anyone, so by that virtue alone, I am a sponge for the alternative.
To date, I have not heard a single opinion or factoid that has made my initial findings worth a second look for us. I have heard many dissenting arguments that are worthy of review and consideration- and I have done just that. Still perched on my cheese- not to mitigate the seriousness here.
You wrote:
“Very similarly I would offer that neither you, nor the defense in this case has provided a reasonable alternate scenario for these murders to have been committed by anyone else although they admit spending $10 Million attempting to.”
Blink with the utmost respect and with the utmost care– I ask How much did the State and the Prosecution spend in their initial investigation, pick-up, trials, sentencing, hearings, denial of appeals, and jailing of these three? Despite all this money spent, they IMO did not prove their case beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt-
as to your thoughts on noone providing a “reasonable” alternate scenario for these murders to have been committed by anyone other than these 3 young men…
Respectfully Blink, first I must say that this line of thinking has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence as was clearly illustrated in the Caylee Anthony case- she and her team came up with many alternate perps starting with the Nanny Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez…then on to the the claims of zannys sister accomplice…and then to unknown perps in Puerto Rico, and those dubious unknown characters associated with Fusian Nightclub and then on to Roy Kronk and finally laying the blame for everything at the feet of her father Caylees grandfather-
Clearly you and I know these alternate suspects were a bunch of hoohaw…but the jury found at least the Kronk and Grandpa lies “reasonable” and least enough so to supply reasonable doubt…
This is an actual standard under Arkansas law for jury consideration of circumstantial evidence to be reviewed in totality and the conclusions drawn from same, so it absolutely had everything to do with forming a verdict- whether we like that or not.
Second Blink, In my mind Mr Bojangles is a reasonable alternate suspect…mostly because LE lost or never collected any of this evidence related to this unknown man- and for those that say he was wearing an arm sling/cast and was bleeding etc- therefore couldnt be a viable suspect- BS as I have already gone into great detail how this man could have been the perp or involved to some degree, and just a little reminder, Ted Bundy used a cast in his kidnapping ploys and he was infact a serial killer…
If he was bleeding all over a bathroom he would have been bleeding all over the crime scene away from it, imo, and no evidence of that was found. That said, his viability is only tied to the fact that samples of his blood were lost by a detective and the entire incident was poorly investigated (again).
Next, Blink there is little to NO evidence pointing to JB’s guilt in these murders- and all evidence pointing toward Damien echols is circumstantial at best and based on lies and rumors at worst- and Jesses confessions are riddled with lies and wrong facts and details-
Therefore it is REASONABLE for any person to entertain the thought that Jesse could have been involved in these murders but DE and JB were not- and Jesse just supplied the names of the most convenient of scapegoats- and it also reasonable to entertain the thought that all three of these young men are innocent and some as yet unknown perp/s committed these murders.
Finally Blink, just because the 3 and their defense have not supplied another alternate perp which you and others would see as reasonable does not equate to them being in fact the killers of these boys-
Again Blink, as I have already opined- it is a disgusting shame that anyone that claims to be innocent must supply an alternate perp inorder to supply reasonable doubt- our system was not built on this thought process but it has sadly become a matter of Kronking someone- whether or not this new suspect- did it or not matters not- just so that we the “audience”, the jury, the community, can walk away feeling satisfied that the bad guy has been named…
Many child abductions and murders are never solved Blink, does this mean we should try the next most reasonable culprit, and they should point the finger at another and they should kronk another and so on until each “proves” their innocence by providing a different reasonable culprit? I think not
The truth is *IF these men were/are innocent we may never find out who actually murdered Cris mike and Stevie- but not knowing who the culprit is, and these men not providing a reasonable alternate perp/scenario- has next to nothing to do with whether or not they were in fact innocent of these murders for which they were tried sentenced and released…
You went on to write Blink-
“I do not possess screenshots of anyone’s faces reading the ice axe piece, I have no idea where that came from screenshots, yes. ”
Im sorry as it was my understanding that you did…regardless I hope to see the screenshots you do have as well as your analysis in the near future Blink- I am hoping it will aid me in my determinations on guilt or innocence.
Screenshots confirming who read my piece and when are not going to have any impact in your determinations- how would they?
Blink you wrote:
“THE REWARD”-
Billboards and radio advertising will promote the reward and encourage those with credible information to contact the confidential tip line as soon as possible. Attorneys for Damien Echols will review all calls and verify the information provided. All credible evidence will be turned over to Scott Ellington, Craighead County prosecutor, who has said that he will review evidence presented to him from Echols’s defense team.
Really? So how does that work? What if someone comes forward with new evidence of guilt of their own clients? There is no way they can be charged or tried again as the double jeopardy statute would apply and they are NOT required to turn over anything incriminating against their clients so who are they kidding? I sound like a broken record. –
It doesnt work very well does it, but again this does not mean they are not trying they are merely doing what they can the best that they can- again How does an innocent person especially one already convicted of the crime go about proving their innocence and clearing their names? I would think it was a next to impossible challenge- but *IF* they are innocent at least they are trying-
and for those who would say- well they should have tried from the inside of their cells and should have never taken the Alford Pleas- I say- well Bravo to you- as you are a stronger person then I- for if I were innocent and wrongly convicted and if I had spent most of my life in prison- I would do anything to be free- but hey thats just me….
Thanks again Blink, I respect your thoughts and for the record I am not claiming my thoughts are right and others are wrong- I certainly am not claiming these three are innocent- IDK if they are.. all I am saying is sitting on the fence allows me to see all sides from every angle-
Thank you for allowing to share my perspectives as a fence-sitter.
Peace AJMO
Sorry for the length.
Mom 3.0- me in bold, hopefully I got that right this time around
B
1.Mom3.0 says:
March 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Mom3.0 says to Blink:
You wrote: “Ellington closed this case, period. He said so publicly and directed any and all leads and evidence to the defense team of 3 men convicted of their murder. ”
Mom3.0 says–yes Blink Ellington did say the case is closed. He did also state that anything further should be given to the defense.
This is not a good thing for any “side” and certainly not for anyone wishing to find justice and the complete truth…If innocent, this situation only makes it harder for the defense to prove their innocence and clear their names…I mean How can any tip or information/evidence be helpful to any case going forward if so much evidence was never collected and the evidence that was maintained- has since been returned to the families?
Blink says, “Mom 3.0, the states position is clear. This is a closed case. No further burden on their part and they believe, and have stated same, the WM3 committed these murders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Blink, I would just add: The case is closed as long as there is no credible evidence to the contrary. Should such evidence emerge the case would, in all likelihood, be reopened.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blink wrote to Mom3.0:
“Very similarly I would offer that neither you, nor the defense in this case has provided a reasonable alternate scenario for these murders to have been committed by anyone else although they admit spending $10 Million attempting to.”
@Blink, I know you realize this, but for the sake of making it clear for anyone who may not know: The defense has no duty or burden whatsoever to present an alternate suspect during trial. I would have offered an award at a certain point, but certainly would not have wasted money on trying to find an alternative suspect. JMO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blink says, “This is an actual standard under Arkansas law for jury consideration of circumstantial evidence to be reviewed in totality and the conclusions drawn from same, so it absolutely had everything to do with forming a verdict- whether we like that or not.”
@All: Evidence is evidence. I cannot think of a single state in the Union that holds a substantially different view on circumstantial evidence. Many prosecutors will tell you they prefer a *strong* circumstantial evidence case (as a majority of criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence). Imo, the circumstantial evidence in this case was some of the weakest I have come across. Even the prosecutors implied as much in PL-I. I bet they still regret having that particular segment filmed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mom3.0 wrote: Again Blink, as I have already opined- it is a disgusting shame that anyone that claims to be innocent must supply an alternate perp in order to supply reasonable doubt- our system was not built on this thought process but it has sadly become a matter of Kronking someone- whether or not this new suspect- did it or not matters not- just so that we the “audience”, the jury, the community, can walk away feeling satisfied that the bad guy has been named…”
@Mom3.0, great post (as always!), but I am of the opinion that trying to divert attention during trial to another possible perp is not only unnecessary, but, in cases I have observed, it has failed. Imo, what is most effective is calling witnesses that support the defense’s case, and vigorously cross examining those that don’t. Both of these methods, imho, were virtually absent in the two trials. Imo, the defense attorneys appeared to have no idea how to effectively cross examine the scientific experts. But, I am not placing the blame solely on the attorneys.
Imo, the trajectory of this case started long before the boys were killed. The perp was identified even before the crime occurred. A theory was advanced, and evidence was presented that appeared to fit that theory. It was, imo, clearly detectable during Peretti’s testimony as evidenced by his speculation. It is always inappropriate for a medical expert to speculate.
This is not the first time errors of this magnitude have happened in a case, nor will it be the last.
Again, if anyone can show me the evidence and I’ll have no problem hopping right down off my perch on this fence.
But, this is not going to happen since the three accepted Alford pleas and they will not be retried. We will not hear any further evidence introduced unless someone else is arrested, charged, and tried for these crimes.
Hope everyone is having an enjoyable weekend!
Hiya Blink- yes you are back entirely in bold- glad to see it.
Thanks for continuing the conversation with me.
before I reply to your very much appreciated comments I need to clarify something- I offered an opposing opinion toward Dr. Pepper and matts thoughts IRT Ellingtons Congressional race being “backhandedly” funded by a supporter.
My thoughts were geared specifically to Ellington, not the state, as it was my feeling that supporters may not see his leaving the Prosecutors office as a good thing.
-
The reason I bring this up Blink, is because I agree with your stance regarding “The State” and its position-
you wrote:
“the states position is clear. This is a closed case. No further burden on their part and they believe, and have stated same, the WM3 committed these murders….
“In the eyes of the law, the convictions of three stand and the state is not seeking any other accessories or investigating any other crimes in association.”
Where I disagree is when we are discussing Ellington specifically he did make a commitment to review all credible evidence and according to the Commercial Appeal article, went even further:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/feb/28/reward-seeks-to-flush-out-murderer/?print=1
(sorry for not including a link previously)
Responding to the reward announcement, prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington repeated a vow he made last fall to “look at all credible evidence” presented by the defense.
*”We’re honoring that commitment as we speak,” he said, indicating the state crime lab is cooperating with ongoing DNA testing.*
Blink, I believe you have spoken to others who say there is no testing going on, but according to Ellingtons comment, the State crime lab is working with the defense team IRT “ongoing testing”
Perhaps there is truth in both statements- as you wrote-
“no evidence is being maintained by the state for testing or otherwise. ”
Perhaps what is being discussed by Ellington is not evidence that was “maintained ” by the state- perhaps it is being “maintained” by the defense… this could be the case as you earlier made comment about some of the childrens belongings being returned to the parents…perhaps some of the evidence was left in the defenses hands or perhaps Ellington is referring to other items which were not part of the initial case??
Blink I understand that according to the law and to the State this case is closed and noone else killed these boys – no further investigation period- In their eyes these 3 men are the killers, I get it-
BUT- if these 3 men are not the killers despite having been found guilty in 1994 and the later Alford Please which despite pleading guilty allowed them to maintain their innocence-
If innocent, then that would mean the killer or killers is still out there and who is continuing to ask questions and offer a reward for info and tips, who is still looking- sadly only the defense- despite the parents of Stevie and Chris, Pam Hicks and Mark Byers- calling for justice..
I realize you and most feel that they are the killers- But these parents dont think so- & others have serious concerns and reasonable doubt and still others feel they are innocent-
If they are wrong- what will happen? Nothing- they will still be free via the Alford Pleas- The Moores and Steve Branchs dad and Terry Hobbs will still know what they know, and still feel justice wasnt served….the reward will never be given, the killers never found, the actual killers would have served 18 years for the murders and they would have pulled the wool over “supporters” eyes with this “reward”
But What if you are all wrong in your belief in guilt? What if the State is wrong, just like they were about the motives and the timeline and the murder weapon and Vickie and Narlene’s honesty, and so much more-
What if these men are innocent? What if they are legitimately trying to clear their names, and find the actual killers? IF they are innocent then where and how can they begin?
Perhaps By offering a reward inorder to help?
Again if they are in fact the killers then what does it matter that a reward has been offered, and what does it matter that continue to pull the wool over “supporters” eyes?
You and others keep saying despite having paid 10 million dollars no other alternate suspect has been found… perhaps the reward is an answer to your conundrum as well…
The reward only matters if they are innocent- and if they are innocent then it is not only they who would benefit from any new tips and information- but it would benefit justice and 3 little murdered boys and their families, even those who believe in their guilt…
For if viable information is obtained which points to “a reasonable alternate” killer/s then perhaps with further investigation there will be no doubt who killed these children and The State and the Prosecution will get it right this time -and noone will be concerned about double jeopardy rules, or saving their own asses, or their political careers or “sides” for we all be satisfied with the resolution because their will be no room for doubt.
Perhaps the initial case didnt meet the threshold beyond a reasonable doubt because they did not do it?
I of course do not know and can not say- but I am willing to offer a different perspective in the hopes it can help –
Noone can know with 100% certainty, who killed these innocent little boys, so again what can the offer of a reward hurt- it can only help
At least thats the way I am looking at it….
AJMO Peace
Cont Part 2
Part 2
Continuing our coversation-
Blink, I was not trying to “call you out” I was simply trying to have you step back and entertain the thought that these 3 might be innocent, and in doing so ,for one second you may be able to see how hard it would be for innocent yet proven guilty yet released exconvicts to Prove their innocence…
I was not questioning your integrety or your hard work I was simply asking if you have left room for your opinions and thoughts to change…which I gueess you could interpet as a “calling out” if you took it as my accusing you of becoming a prisoner to yourposition…
I have been here a long while and I have watched you formulate many theories and positions and with further info I have seen you change your position and thoughts…take for instance, The Morgan harrington case-
I know how hard it has been for you and I know how much flack you have taken for rethinking your thoughts, many times over, and I know how hard it was for you to ask part of your team to resign, as it were , from the case for refusing to budge regardless of new info and evidence…
I know you are capable of making the hard decisions and for putting your ego in check and for always putting the case, the victims and their families above all else.
You wrote that this is the first time each of your team as been in total agreement, well Blink my friend – respectfully, perhaps in this instance that is not a good thing?
I followed your coverage of the Amanda Knox case, and much of your analysis in that case could have applied to this case as well-yet your belief in guilt is different…
You once wrote that PP Amanda Knox was railroaded and a victim of Satanic panic and is a good student a good kid from a good family who learned to speak many languages, one in jail…I see how you can empathize better with Amanda Knox…perhaps you can not do the same in this case because you do not empathize or even LIKE any of these kids-
Blink, again I am not calling you out, I am trying to be that one person on your team who is offering an opposing opinion-
All I am asking is if you are allowing room for your thoughts and opinions to change- if you are able to consider that you may be wrong -
and You have answered that you are and that is good enough for me- so I will continue to offer my differing perspectives inorder to keep you thinking…LOL
You asked what seeing their faces reading your iceax article would do…well IDK alot I would think- just like I think seeing Casey Anthonys face looking at a certain bit of evidence would be very telling…
Blink you commented on the bleeding Bojangles, well the victims were bleeding, and MM was chased down and bleeding, despite this DE JB and JM left the area virtually blood free, except for a necklace and a shirt that had blood so…I guess anythings possible-
Love You Blink
Respectfully submitted
AJMO
@ Mom….
You asked me what Hugely had to do with my opinion? I was simply demonstrating that how one dresses does not define them as a killer. I’m not letting Hugely off, nor the WM3 for their ‘style’. Hugely has that baby face. I bet there are women all over who believe he is soooo incapable. PFFFFFTTTTT. How the WM3 dress doesn’t make them killers either. Killing 3 wee cubs makes them killers.
Also, did I ever profess to be a perfect mother? I ‘think’ you insinuated as much, but I hope I’m wrong with that assessment. I stated what an involved mother WOULD do (and I’m sure you would be one of these mothers) if they learned their child/ren were hanging with questionable characters…ones you’ve never met or spoke to. If you heard rumours of satanic rituals in your community, would you honestly dismiss them so easily…especially when that community is populated with a lot of children (your children!) and teens. That’s a chance I wouldn’t take. Sure as heck I’d be on the phone to the police if I got wind of such rumours. I’d be talking to neighbours, inquiring if they’ve heard anything. That’s not being supermom. That’s just plain responsible! Holy cow!
Additionally, the fact that JB’s mother had mental health issues could have complicated matters in her abilities to parent. This is why I asked….was she treated? Medicated? Counseled? Parenting…..Lord have mercy….is the hardest job but I am no MOTY. When a parent is inflicted with an illness, it can affect their judgement and parental compass like nobody’s business. If JB’s momma (sorry…name escapes me) was NOT treated, then chances are terribly favourable that she did not have the ability to understand or know what kind of shit her son was getting into. Was she withdrawn? Reclusive? Sleeping a lot? Unable to prepare meals? Promiscuous? Self medicating? Was she employable? How can she know her son if she doesn’t know his friends or where he was (graffitti, stealing….are not ‘boys will be boys’ issues, btw. They admitted they, at times (understatement), were up to no good. They’re signs of disrespect, for starters. YES…..she was protective of JB. I get that. Parents are responsible for their children. I’m so tired of stagnant parents getting a pass for their children’s shenanigans. It’s more common than we think, unfortunately. It takes a village? BS! I would LOVE for witnesses to come forward and reveal what they know about her during this evil time in WM. This was a community ridden with drugs, crime, domestic abuse, transients….and inexperienced LE. Is it possible there were drugs in the house? Weapons, unregistered or otherwise? These could also explain her protective reactions. I sure hope it was to protect her son and ensure his best interests were first and foremost. Otherwise, I can also perceive her protectiveness as self serving, BECAUSE someone who is mentally ill doesn’t have the stamina, the tenacity, the strength or energy to effectively parent, especially single parents inflicted with a mental disorder. She very well could have been questioned herself, that same day she intervened on behalf of Jason, on what she knew. Nobody wants it to be common knowledge, especially back then, that you were suffering from depression. This woman was carrying a wet Persian rug on her back, with rocks on its tail, through a molasses swamp in winter…each and every step. Can you imagine doing that everyday? Can you imagine her sense of guilt (which by the way, comes free with the illness). At some point, the illness overtakes a person and hands are thrown up in the air. ‘I give’. I feel for this lady but we gotta ask ourselves….how much did it effect the outcome of this tragedy? Not just Baldwin’s family, but Echols and Missk, too. It always starts as a root….and grows like a weed. Weeds, as we know, don’t need tending to as they grow with vengence and smother anything good that’s in its path of destruction.
So come on Ragdoll?
…and I cannot understand how you can confidently challenge me that these boys were progressing socially or academically….. Wasn’t JB just at his local Wally World a short time after the murders, (before being questioned by LE???) In fact, I ‘think’ that’s why he was brought in, initially. STEALING?????? WTF? DE has NOT been getting the help he needed in terms of therapy and meds (which, when hospitalized, responded positively to.) No meaningful parental guidance to give him direction or accountability. No structure. Mud covered on the night of the murders. Yeah, that doesn’t look good but what do I know? Homicidal and suicidal thoughts determined his eligibility to receive SS disability cheques. THAT’S PROGRESSION????? What about their schooling? Average students? Was one a drop out, 2? Pardon my lack of memory…it is related to medication but that does not make me weak, ignorant or less of contributor. Generally speaking, these were not stand up boys. DUH. (does it make them killers…..why not?)
Mom, I don’t have the gifted skills of memory, maintaining details, timelines, who what where…..that’s your schtick and I’m in awe of it. I also don’t have the energy. Emotionally, I can only handle so much of this and I need to step back. I also don’t have the time to investigate and challenge on BOC regularly. Yes, that does affect the value or lack thereof, of my posts on BOC. BOC LOVES the expert opinions who can weigh in and lend credibility with their backgrounds and experience in forensics, LE, law, etc. MOST EXCELLENT….and much needed on the net. I’m no expert, therefore limited to how or what I can contribute….but I do contribute with all my heart. I have a great interest in psychology and human behaviour. I have no degree. I have life experience. I read a lot, follow up on studies. I LOVE learning about the human mind in various states and conditions. This is where I believe I have something to offer.
Finally, some of these cases, you read information, you develop a hunch, read some more (including slanted material), change teams….. I won’t lie….I’ve been back and forth. I’ve prayed for clarity to see the truth. I want to know soundly and convincingly, like everyone else, if these boys are killers. I come out with a deep sense of….damn straight they were. I’m ok with you or anyone else believing I’m wrong. I think I’ve delved deep enough into this case to own some rights to post my opinions.
Every instinct in me tells me these boys are killers and it is NOT unreasonable to come to that opinion w/o putting 1000 of hours into this case. There is evidence that supports they did this.
That’s all I got. I probably won’t respond for a while since this took everything out of me. Consider yourselves lucky I guess since I won’t be taking up valuable posting space.
Mom, I gotta say….this is the first time I questioned your sincerity about ‘who Ragdoll is and what she contributes’. I think we all need to be mindful of humility b/c at the end of the day, it will always be about Chris, Stevie and Michael. I do believe the truth will come out and even if these creeps cannot be tried again, they will carry a cross of guilt that everyone in the world can see for themselves. They can hide and lie all they want but I know there will be a reckoning. I’d bet my life on it.
Apollies on editting.
GraceintheHills,
Hello my fellow fence sitter. Thankyou for adding your thoughts and opinions to the conversation.
You made some very good points in your March 11, 2012 at 3:43 pm post.
I know it is no surprise to you, but I found myself agreeing
you wrote:
“Imo, the circumstantial evidence in this case was some of the weakest I have come across. Even the prosecutors implied as much in PL-I. I bet they still regret having that particular segment filmed.”
Grace, the more I research and read the more I am seriously doubtful of the evidence and the case brought against these 3 young men.
I have been unable to see the mountains of “circumstantial” evidence which so many claim is present in this case. I agree with you, it seems to be one of the weakest circumstantial cases I have ever researched.
Grace you wrote:
” Imo, what is most effective is calling witnesses that support the defense’s case, and vigorously cross examining those that don’t. Both of these methods, imho, were virtually absent in the two trials. Imo, the defense attorneys appeared to have no idea how to effectively cross examine the scientific experts. But, I am not placing the blame solely on the attorneys.”
I agree with you and I would only add that the Judge seemed to make some very poor judicial rulings as well…
You went on to write:
“Imo, the trajectory of this case started long before the boys were killed. The perp was identified even before the crime occurred.”
Agreed- I believe it is apparent that Jones and Driver were determined to “catch” Damien in his Devil worshiping deeds…and I think it is apparent that Griffis was determined to finally “authenticate” the first satanic ritualistic murder, thereby bolstering all previous work in that “field”
I can not understand how and why Jones was even on the scene. And it seems that LE was having the same problem as they seemed to cover-up the fact that it was He who found the tennis shoe NOT Allen … although according to “Blood of Innocents” Jones says he found the cap NOT the tennis shoe… although Allen seemed confused in his recollections on the stand about this…
Whats really strange is Jones was never called to testify despite being such a pivotal part of the investigation, and he never gave a detailed accounting of his whereabouts and actions for May 5th and 6th…which becomes even more strange when one reviews the call logs as Jones made a call in between 9:30 and 10 but it was disregarded…..
I can not understand How this juvenile probation officer seemed to be leading this case from nearly the beginning- seriously, he is the first person that advanced “the theory” of a Satanic ritual crime and one in which Damien Echols “finally” killed someone…
as you wrote:
“The perp was identified even before the crime occurred. A theory was advanced”
Yes this clearly seems to be the foundation of the “case”
But the sad thing is, in the beginning not everyone had “agreed” to this theory which Jones and Driver advanced although they had not “ruled it out…
May 11, 1993
West Memphis Evening Times
http://callahan.8k.com/images/eveningtimes/west_memphis_evening_times_may_11_1993_page_02_ex_a.jpg
Snipped:** by me
Authorities aren’t ruling out anything in their investigation, Gitchell said, including the possibility of gang or cult activity, **though he said he saw no evidence of either.**
Now Gitchell was at the scene, He was there, long past the time when Jones had left…(after the first body was haphazardly removed from the ditch), yet He unlike Jones stated early on that He saw No signs of gang or cult activity…
Keep in mind that on May 7th, James Sudbury talked with Steve Jones and JS ended up concurring with his thoughts that the murders had overtones of a satanic ritual sacrifice…
and the race was on…
but wait, why was Sudbury even on this investigation? Wasnt he assigned to the drug task force or narcotics? IDk perhaps I am mistaken..
snipped callahans-
“On the day after the bodies of the three boys were found I had a conversation with Steve Jones, a Juvenile Officer for Crittenden County, Arkansas. In our conversation I found that Steve and I shared the same opinion that the murders appeared to have overtones of a cult sacrifice.” Jones informed him that he believed Echols was involved in cult activities and that he stood out in the probation officer’s mind as someone who was capable of such a crime.
–
Sudbury then went with Jones to interview Damien at his home on May 7th… yet this was not taped and detailed notes and records were not taken…
Later on May 10th, Sudbury was there during the questioning of Damien at the station he seemed to already have the questions prepared and geared toward Satanic or cult or ritualistic crimes why when there were no signs?
WHY? Why were Jones and Sudbury allowed to run with this “theory” Why was everything molded to fit this theory? What had changed for Gitchell and the rest of the LE officers to abandon their belief that there was “no signs” where was the evidence?
Something is very wrong with all of this-
Cont Part 2
AJMO
Cont Part 2
Despite having seen and I quote-”NO EVIDENCE” of cult activity etc, Inspector Gitchell later was quoted ( PL film) as saying that he found himself (pp) scared of Damien and often pictured him at night, standing at the foot of his bed….
and people question why Damien Echols had the audacity to make the “boogy man” statement. This was clearly a town, a community, a police force which was a prisoner to fear and this fear seemed to fan the fires of rumurs and WRONG facts which is clearly shown in Jesse’s confessions – and Vickis statements and Aarons statements and Lucass statments and many more sttements Buddy claimed that Damien levated him with just a look for petes sake Jesse claimed to boil dogs and have orgy’s and all the rest, Vicki claimed to go to the esbat where many teens painted their faces and bodies in black paint and have orgies and all the rest…poor Aaron claimed to hear a group of men talking “spanish” and to being forced to say he hated God or loved the devil….
rumors…lies…. fear driven thoughts and theories… where is the evidence?
Grace you went on to write:
” and evidence was presented that appeared to fit that theory.”
Yes it was, and all evidence and thoughts that did not fit that theory seemed to be disregarded..take for instance this very informative article which clearly shows that LE was searching dilegently for the killers and it also shows that they were VERY vocal about the case- even before these fears took hold-
( is it so hard to believe some of this info was leaked in the town?)
This article has specific details of the murders AND in the beginning LE was not going under the assumption that the boys injuries were part of a Satanic ritual nor were they even suggesting any evidence of a serrated lake knife attack, in fact at that time they were rather open to the possibility that the injuries were the result of animal predation specifically turtles…
snipped:
Copyright SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY May 11, 1993
There seems to be no link between the brutal killing of three 8-year-old boys in Arkansas last week and the slaying of two South Bay schoolboys in March, police said yesterday.
San Diego homicide Lt. Greg Clark, who is investigating the strangling deaths of 9-year-old Jonathan Sellers and his best friend, Charles Keever, said he has spoken with detectives in West Memphis, Ark., where the 8-year-olds were slain.
“They’re probably not linked, but I can’t say 100 percent because neither of us know who our suspect is,” Clark said. “There are some similarities, but we doubt they’re connected.”
The bodies of Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Steve Edward Branch were found Thursday in a watery drainage ditch in West Memphis with their hands and feet tied. They apparently had been beaten to death. A computer message that West Memphis police sent to other law enforcement agencies Thursday night said the victims’ “genitals had been removed with a sharp instrument.”
Sellers and Keever were not mutilated in any way, Clark said. The only similarities are that both crimes involved young boys found in a wooded area with bike paths, both involved molestation and in both cases the victims’ bikes were found near their bodies.
Clark said the detectives in Arkansas told him they were unsure whether the three boys had been mutilated or if animals, perhaps turtles from the canal, were responsible for damaging the bodies.
The Arkansas boys were found in a ditch about a mile from their homes.The South Bay boys were found beside the Otay River at the end of Saturn Boulevard, near Palm Avenue and Interstate 5.
–
Grace you went on to write;
” It was, imo, clearly detectable during Peretti’s testimony as evidenced by his speculation. It is always inappropriate for a medical expert to speculate.”
Total agreement Grace- why later in the rule 37 hearings did Perriti seem to back track on his backing of possible rape of these children- why did he go along with a opinion which he clearly did not hold himself?
Clearly all this factored into the juries thoughts and to the judges sentencing yet Perriti did not agree to this “evidence”
and what of Perriti being declared a turtle expert? What? I am not an expert, but I know for a fact that turtles feed under water… and again it was his “expert” opinions which the judge based his findings upon…
Grace like you, I do not know who killed these children, but I am waiting for someone to show me the evidence which will allow me to get off this fence.
AJMO
Peace
Ragdoll says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:48 pm
@ Mom….
If you heard rumours of satanic rituals in your community, would you honestly dismiss them so easily…especially when that community is populated with a lot of children (your children!) and teens. That’s a chance I wouldn’t take. Sure as heck I’d be on the phone to the police if I got wind of such rumours. I’d be talking to neighbours, inquiring if they’ve heard anything. That’s not being supermom. That’s just plain responsible! Holy cow!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ragdoll, I am NOT trying to pick on you (I hope you know that), but I just want to tell you my perspective as someone who lived in the southern U.S. during that time period. People ALL over the South were talking about this nonsense during the late 80′s and 90′s. It is pretty clear from the Arkansas interviews and newspaper articles from that time, that churches and “neighbors” were irrationally fearful of such activities. No need to call LE, they were irrationally fearful as well. And, what would LE do if she did call? There was never any evidence of ritualistic satanic human sacrifices, per an extensive FBI investigation. Satanic panic was so very, very odd.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ragdoll says, “Additionally, the fact that JB’s mother had mental health issues could have complicated matters in her abilities to parent. This is why I asked….was she treated? Medicated? Counseled? Parenting…..Lord have mercy….is the hardest job but I am no MOTY. When a parent is inflicted with an illness, it can affect their judgement and parental compass like nobody’s business. If JB’s momma (sorry…name escapes me) was NOT treated, then chances are terribly favourable that she did not have the ability to understand or know what kind of shit her son was getting into.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Ragdoll, It has been written that she was treated. I am a little perplexed at why we are suddenly so focused on Mrs. Grinnell and her perceived failings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ragdoll writes, “Was she withdrawn? Reclusive? Sleeping a lot? Unable to prepare meals? Promiscuous? Self medicating? Was she employable?
@Ragdoll, she was employed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ragdoll writes, “How can she know her son if she doesn’t know his friends or where he was (graffitti, stealing….are not ‘boys will be boys’ issues, btw. They admitted they, at times (understatement), were up to no good. They’re signs of disrespect, for starters.
@Ragdoll, I have a friend who once made a pipe bomb and set it off in his neighbor’s mailbox as a teenager. He has been a very well respected CPA for the past 25 years, and owns his own firm. For goodness sakes, there ARE times when even the most intelligent and better behaved teens slip up and do really, really stupid things. Shenanigans and even juvenile criminal misconduct does NOT directly lead to murder. No teenager is perfect; in fact, many are far from it and hide it from their parents. I know I did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ragdoll says, “YES…..she was protective of JB. I get that. Parents are responsible for their children. I’m so tired of stagnant parents getting a pass for their children’s shenanigans. It’s more common than we think, unfortunately. It takes a village? BS!”
@Ragdoll, When you said Mrs. Grinnell should have had JB in counseling and had him monitored more closely, you were, in effect, suggesting it does indeed take a village. Maybe a therapeutic one, but a “village” nonetheless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ragdoll says, “I would LOVE for witnesses to come forward and reveal what they know about her during this evil time in WM.
@Ragdoll, why invade HER privacy in this manner? She did not commit a crime, and I think she has suffered enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ragdoll says, This was a community ridden with drugs, crime, domestic abuse, transients….and inexperienced LE. Is it possible there were drugs in the house? Weapons, unregistered or otherwise? These could also explain her protective reactions. I sure hope it was to protect her son and ensure his best interests were first and foremost. Otherwise, I can also perceive her protectiveness as self serving, BECAUSE someone who is mentally ill doesn’t have the stamina, the tenacity, the strength or energy to effectively parent, especially single parents inflicted with a mental disorder. She very well could have been questioned herself, that same day she intervened on behalf of Jason, on what she knew. Nobody wants it to be common knowledge, especially back then, that you were suffering from depression. This woman was carrying a wet Persian rug on her back, with rocks on its tail, through a molasses swamp in winter…each and every step. Can you imagine doing that everyday? Can you imagine her sense of guilt (which by the way, comes free with the illness). At some point, the illness overtakes a person and hands are thrown up in the air. ‘I give’. I feel for this lady but we gotta ask ourselves….how much did it effect the outcome of this tragedy? Not just Baldwin’s family, but Echols and Missk, too. It always starts as a root….and grows like a weed. Weeds, as we know, don’t need tending to as they grow with vengence and smother anything good that’s in its path of destruction.
@Ragdoll, my friend, you know I respect your right to your opinions. But when someone paints individuals with mental illness (or ANY illness) with such a broad brushstrokes, I am concerned as I feel it can actually further stigmatize those with these illnesses. I know you have a very good heart and do NOT mean to do so. But, it is my opinion that when we do NOT know the circumstances of someone’s living circumstances or mental condition, we do ourselves and those who suffer with mental illness an injustice by speculating.
And–With all due respect, each person’s experience with mental illness is unique. Not everyone experiences depression (or psychosis, for that matter) in the same way. I think we all have to be very careful not to project our own experiences onto another person, and then judge that person for not doing what we would have done.
Again, Ms. Grinnell did not commit a crime. She has a right to her privacy, imo. Furthermore, protected medical information (PMI) is protected by federal law.
Thanks for hearing me out, Ragdoll. I really enjoy reading your posts here at BOC, and would be VERY disappointed if you didn’t continue to post your thoughts. I also really appreciate what you have chosen to share with us. For that, you deserve everyone’s respect, imo. Despite our differences on this subject, I heart you very much. Seriously.
Respectfully Grace, if your friend had harmed or killed anyone with that pipe bomb, he would have gone to jail and likely had a very different outcome. If a kid did that today, he would be charged by the ATF in Federal court. If we have not advanced in imparting the understanding to our youth that they CAN be making a life-altering decision based on “shenanigans” I have no business in this work.
The fact is there are more precursors in the behavior of the three men in this case then we see in the profiles of folks committing less violent crimes, that is just the reality.
I am just not understanding the position that through some miraculous intervention in the mess of the home lives they had- they would have grown up to be Mr. Rogers et al . So why should CPS ever intervene if kids should just be allowed to sew their oats while physically maming people ( Echols) knocking little girls off of bikes with a rock to the head (Misskelley) or stealing booze and breaking up somebody’s home (Baldwin)?
As far as Ms. Grinnell is concerned, I stand by my opinion no child should ever be put in a position to find their parent covered in their own blood after multiple commitments. Do I have compassion for her?
Absolutely. I have to say though, wrong or right, my advocacy is always going to lean to the protection of a child first, till a parents recovery can be proven it will not harm the child.
Ms. Grinnell made the choice to reveal her mental health issues through an affidavit, they are now public domain.
It is my personal opinion that we are all mentally compromised at one time or another, with very little exceptions. No shame in that whatsoever. The shame would be in not getting help.
That said, I am in complete agreement that the various issues displayed in this environment, has root cause (weeds) from here to the ozone.
In fairness to Ragdoll, she wrote a very personal post at one point addressing the issues of mental illness and parenting and I did not post it because I felt it had the potential of compromising her in some way. I promise you, she gets it, she has standing for her opinion and you would probably be seeing that more succinctly had I not opted to withhold it.
Hearting you with minimal disagreement respectfully submitted
B
Blink my part1 seems to be lost-
Do you see it or should I repost? TIA
I think I just got it a few minutes ago, checking again now, sorry
B
Ragdoll,
hello
I have to say that I am very saddened by your post. You seem to have misunderstood me and the entire tone of my response.
I would never and have never questioned your right to post here on BOC nor have I questioned your right to your opinions, nor have I ever devalued your life experiences that helped you to formulate those opinions.
Ragdoll, I never questioned the value and worth of your posts and I certainly never placed a lesser value on them because they are not “expert opinions”
I have never placed more value in my own opinions or thoughts and research then I have on yours or anyone elses for that matter…
From reading your post, I can only assume that something I wrote hurt you and if so I am sorry, as that, My friend, was never my intention. I can also only assume from reading you post, that something I wrote offended you personally, or made you to feel slighted, again, if so, I apologize as that was never my intention.
We disagree Ragdoll, and that is okay. We dont need to agree, inorder to respect one another or even to like one another. I hope you realize this and also know that I do respect you and I value your contributions- perhaps even more, when you do disagree with me, as a contrary opinion challenges me to investigate and research more, and pushes me to constantly think and rethink each opinion or fact.
Having said that Ragdoll, I must also say- Just as you have a right to your opinions and the right to share those opinions, so do I. Ragdoll, I cant apologize for having and voicing a different opinion than you, and I wont hold back a differing opinion just because we are BOC buddies, I hope you wouldn’t want me too, as real friends often disagree but learn from one another.
I hope you feel better for having written that post and for sharing all of your differing opinions- each point gave me much to think about and I hope you will allow me to respond to each thought in my next post.So we may all continue to learn from one anothers differing opinions etc.
As you so nicely said in an earlier post its not about being right or wrong or about changing one anothers thoughts and opinions…its about our shared advocacy for Stevie Mike and Chris.
Peace Ragdoll,
Sincerely
Mom3
AJMO Cont Part2