i really want to believe in their innocence but... - West of Memphis (2012) Discussion

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Maverick410 11 years ago

I'm tired of being attacked by Damien's minions for simply suggesting that they look into the case files. Yes, I saw the "documentaries". Care to explain Jesse's MULTIPLE CONFESSIONS (after the verdict, in private to his lawyer, against his lawyer's advice, with his hand to the bible to "make it official"), the complete and total lack of alibis, Damien's taunting the victim's families during trial (supporters love this one), or the complete lack of any other credible suspects (the west memphis pd did exhaustive research of any known transients or truck divers in the area at the time, and LOL at the Terry Hobbs hair thing)? Yes, I saw your documentaries.

reply

[–] El_Guapo_Caballo 11 years ago

But please explain why the <<LOL at the Terry Hobbs hair thing>>
It was precisely that piece of evidence that made me wonder if Terry couldn't be the killer, or is it simply, as he claimed, that it would be perfectly normal for one of his hairs to be on the fabric since he was around the kid on a daily basis?

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] El_Guapo_Caballo 11 years ago

Last night I read quite a bit of the records at callahans, I read all 4 boards about the docs here on imdb, and watched several videos on youtube about what wasn't shown, what was edited out, and now I lean more into believing they were guilty, not without reasonable doubt, but definitely they are the most likely suspects. What do you think about the whole Great Dane testimony?

reply

[–] Maverick410 11 years ago

Glad to see that there is somebody else out there who is genuinely interested in the case enough to go to Callahan's. For people new to the case (btw watching the "documentaries" doesn't mean you know anything about the case), the best supporter website is jivepuppi.com, the best non supporter website is http://wm3truth.com/

Look at both sides, then go to Callahan's, read the whole thing, then give your opinion. I was a supporter for a long time, but after doing all of those steps, at least 9 people out of 10 believe that they are guilty and I agree with them.

Glad to see people with an interest in the case, a real interest. Imo, this is the most fascinating murder case in American history.

reply

[–] oxdinaxo-652-328330 10 years ago

I would love to see the edited out footage, can you tell me what you learned and where you found it...thanks!

reply

[–] Maverick410 10 years ago

I wouldn't say that there is edited out footage, it's more that they make their case by simply omitting the prosecution's case. If you only hear one side of the story, you will probably lean that way.

btw I do think that reasonable doubt exists, but also think that they are guilty.

reply

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Are you talking about the deleted Dale Griffis footage? If you believe ANYTHING he says, I have a bridge for sale that I will let go cheap.

reply

[–] jakewill78 10 years ago

1) So can you explain (and I got this all on callahans) why David Jacoby's hair was at the scene? The kids weren't at his house everyday. I guess maybe it could have fallen off Hobbs and been picked up inadvertently somehow, but that's a reach.

2) Why did Hobbs keep and hide Stevie's pocket knife? Pretty strange behavior if you ask me. And if you say, "well he said he was keeping it safe for him", well his mom said he carried that knife everyday, so now you're claiming Stevie's stepfather knew his habits more than his own mother.

3) What explains Hobbs' strange behavior while picking up Pam Hicks? Doesn't say a word to her about her missing son, and goes straight to the payphone to call authorities to report him missing... kind of weird. Plus, he didn't even call her all night to let her know her son was missing... why? He didn't know what to say? He was in a weird place? Uncomfortable? What? Please explain...

4) Explain Hobbs' whereabouts on the night of the murder? I don't mean during the timeline when people think the murders took place, I mean later that night. Apparently, he went out around 10:30 and didn't tell Pam Hicks where he was going. He returned a little over an hour later. What did he do? Go looking for Stevie? Then why not tell Pam Hicks?

5) Why did Hobbs hide part of his dentures in a lockbox until Pam Hicks found them in 2004? Kind of strange considering that there were "bite" marks on the victims.

Please explains these to me. And "odd behavior" or "just being weird" are very weak answers.

To say this guy was hiding something is an understatement. I don't know if he did it, but a lot of his behavior is a suspicious to say the least.

reply

[–] Maverick410 10 years ago

So jakewill, I take it you are part of the "terry hobbs did it" bandwagon. Is this correct?

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

I wouldn't say that the fact that Pam still socializes with Terry exonerates him. Pam should have left Terry back when he was abusing Stevie and her daughter, and right after she found out that Terry sexually abused an older woman next door. Oh, and let's not forget that Pam stayed with Terry after he shot her brother in the stomach, which eventually led to his death. I think Pam is a scumbag. I am sure she loved Stevie, but not enough to save him. She should have kicked Terry to the curb a long time ago.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

what is " Callahans" everyone keeps referring to? is it a website? please explain

Callahan's is a website that has almost all of the documentation on this case. It's a LARGE site with a lot to read, but both groups (supporters and nons) agree that it's one of the only factual sites out there when it comes to the WM3.

http://callahan.8k.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sabar-1 10 years ago

And don't forget the church going neighbors who saw Hobbs with the kids when he told the cops he hadn't seen his stepson all day.

What does it for me is all the evidence of his violent temper and his treatment of his stepson. This is exactly the kind of SOB who murders women and children every day.

🐈 Rachel

reply

[–] AnneOnymous 10 years ago

1. David Jacoby's hair was not found at the scene of the crime. A hair was found that matched 4.5% of the general population's, including his, so it could have been his, could have been someone else's, but it wasn't definitively his.

2. OMG concerned step-parent removes knife from an 8 year old's possession. How irresponsible and suspicious! He must be guilty of murder. No indication of when he took it.

3. I didn't know that, but let's say, he was hoping they'd find the boys safe and he didn't want to worry her.

4. I didn't know about what he did re: Pam, but reporting a kid missing is not odd behaviour (it would be more so if he was guilty), and nor is going out looking for them.

5. The 'bite marks' were not proven to be bite marks. They don't even look like bite marks. There is a cross in the middle that looks like the end of a screw, so it might have been an implement with sharp edges and a screw in the middle.

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Hmmmmm...........
http://www.amazon.com/Abomination-Worship-Deception-Memphis-Murders/dp /1479216631/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414117959&sr=1 -4&keywords=the+abomination

Frightening ignorance distilled into a poorly written book
By D. Davis on July 8, 2013
Format: Paperback
The book quotes the Callhan website, an archive of thousands of documents related to the case. It fails to note that, after years of proclaiming neutrality as to the issue of whether there is a sufficient basis to believe that Damien, Jessie, and Jason are guilty, the website author announced himself as a supporter.

I'm simply astounded that there are still people out there who believe there is a sufficient basis of fact to claim they're guilty.

They cite Jessie's statements. Take the time and READ THEM. They are ridiculous at best - [...] . Only someone with an IQ lower than Jessie's could possibly cite these as a basis to believe in guilt. They're internally inconsistent and don't align with ANY of the physical evidence - not one piece. Every claim he makes (even in his post-conviction statements where he is trying to cut a deal with the State to lower his sentence) is wrong - wrong kind of knife, wrong placement of the boy's bodies, wrong time of day, wrong kind of wounds inflicted. Anyone who cites them as evidence of guilt simply hasn't read them (or can't understand the import of what he says and doesn't say).

People like the author cite Damien's psych issues, as if this substituted for evidence.

There was not a single hair, fingerprint, footprint, drop of blood, or strand of DNA that linked back to the WM3. In spite of Damien having shoulder length black hair and always wearing Army boots (which leave a somewhat distinctive print), there was nothing. Not a speck from Jessie, Jason, or Damien. Not possible. In its closing arguments, the prosecutor addressed this by suddenly claiming that he believed that maybe Damien was carrying around a large piece of plastic or Visqueen. Utter nonsensical nonsense.

Asserting that the WM3 are guilty does nothing more than make one look foolish or completely inexperienced.

Even the victims' families (with the exception of the Moores, who refused to meet with the investigators in 2007) have seen the truth.

Bottom line: The WM3 aren't guilty. Hobbs most probably is.

reply

[–] conejo22 10 years ago

Yes - by god, there's no way you could watch and understand this whole documentary and still think they are guilty - I mean where are the fundamentals of any murder: motive, connection to the victim(s), physical evidence and pattern of violence? They also have alibis provided by witnesses in the documentary. Substituting all of this by saying "devil worshippers" is ridiculous to say the least.

reply

[–] AnneOnymous 10 years ago

There was a pattern of violence, though. Echols and Miskelley were violent. Echols was interested in controlling and harming other people.

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Terry Hobbs' hair being wound up in the shoelace to tie up one of the victims is absolutely nothing to LOL over. I know you didn't LOL, I'm just responding to what you said to the former poster. Damien, Jason, and Jesse left ZERO DNA of themselves at the scene and they are just teenagers? Would anyone think these three teenagers were criminal masterminds? I know I sure as hell wouldn't. Terry Hobbs tries to play off the hair as nothing, but it's on something used to kill those three little boys. And his friend's hair contains his friend's DNA and it was found on a tree stump at the crime scene. Not saying his friend did it. But his friend said Terry was at his house for an hour playing the guitar on the night Terry was supposed to be looking for Stephen. Terry admits this, and I'm sure if Terry sat in a chair to play guitar at his friend's house, Terry could have transferred that hair to the crime scene when he went back to check it again.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JimmyPSX 10 years ago

dude you can't convict someone on body language or courtroom behavior...if he was guilty wouldn't he be trying to "act" innocent? He even said it himself in one of the Paradise Lost docs that he didn't take it seriously because he thought they couldn't convict you if you hadn't done anything...he was a dumb punk kid

reply

[–] Maverick410 10 years ago

In this instance I don't think there was much "acting" at all. Let's say, god forbid, somebody murdered your wife/child/parents, whatever. The accused blew kisses at you and stuck his tongue out at you. Would you personally take that as a sign of innocence based on how a guilty person "should" act?

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

I remember when the clips came out on the news. This one woman yelled at Damien: *beep* A damned *beep* that's what you are!" Damien then stuck his tongue out at her. A very immature response from him, granted, but how old was he? The woman who yelled it was obviously hurting a lot and trying to hurt him back the best way she knew how. I don't think that means that Damien was guilty, though.

reply

[–] sabar-1 10 years ago

Have you ever seen someone laugh at a funeral? Some people have psychological reactions to stressful situations or bad news that cause them to act inappropriately.

🐈 Rachel

reply

[–] simonwilliams555 10 years ago

i don't necessarily think there was enough hard evidence to convict him, that's not the point i'm making
the point i'm making is this, an innocent man does not act like this in court , watch the video below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sXBENg-TJ4

an innocent man doesn't blow kisses at parents who's children have just been brutally murdered, you just would not do that, unless of course you are guilty.

now i was a "dumb punk kid" when i was a teenager but if you put me in a court room and tried to sentence me to death for the murder of three children that i had no connection to , the last thing i would do is take it as a joke.

also read Damien's psychological reports online, they are not fabricated and are entirely true assessments of his mental state just before the murders, he comes across as a very very disturbed individual.

you can't take what the documentaries say as gospel, when watching them you have to remember that a lot of information was left out of them because it hurt their biased agenda to say that the WM3 were innocent, just as you shouldn't read books like The Abomination comes from the point of view of someone who has entire certainty of their guilt.

you have to read all the evidence for yourself before forming any opinion on this case , it's all this site
http://callahan.8k.com -Court Transcripts and Crime Lab Info

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/exh500.html Damiens Psychological Assessments

...sadly i think you'll find like i have, although there wasn't enough hard evidence to convict Damien he was probably guilty of the crimes he was sentenced for.

reply

[–] 28renton 10 years ago

You can't project how you believe an innocent person would or wouldn't behave onto another person.

Game theory has proven time and again in real-world situations that people do not always act rationally in their best interest.

reply

[–] simonwilliams555 10 years ago

don't try and intellectualise it just look at it as it is, it's pretty black and white, do you really think anyone would be laughing during a trial about the murder of three children, or preening themselves narcissistically in a hand held mirror seemingly oblivious to what is going on around them, or smirking when claiming that they didn't drink blood, they licked it, ...or would blow kisses at the parents of the deceased, especially when you know that your behaviour will directly effect the proceedings either in your favour or against you.

i imagine your argument will be something along the lines of , he was an angry teenager, he reacted this way because he felt angry and single'd out, and that the parents were making death threats in his direction, that is still not enough to warrant that kind of behaviour...especially towards the parents of murdered children, what this kind of behaviour displays to me is a complete lack of empathy, and an extremely self centred thought process, what from watching his behaviour on trial would make you say he is innocent?

also you chose to ignore the fact of his disturbing psychological profile that was assessed when he was in a mental hospital, threatening to kill and eat his parents, describing himself as homicidal and suicidal, etc etc.

it's all online, not to argue with you because i think at the same time regarding his behaviour you may have a point there you cannot completely understand how a person would react in such extreme circumstances however you must surely agree that his behaviour in that trial made him appear very very guilty.

i suggest if you haven't already to ignore the documentaries as they leave a great deal of information out and just read the evidence such as his psychological assessments etc...personally i think with all the information you might change your view, or perhaps like myself you have read all this already and just have a different perspective if so i'd really interested to hear your take on things some more.

as i said originally i really want to believe in his innocence because it is far more frightening to believe that a guilty man was set free , then it is to believe an innocent one was imprisoned.

reply

[–] climbingfish 10 years ago

The grooming in the mirror, in such an arena of hatred and vilification, shows a serious lack of empathy associated with Narcissistic and psychopathic tendencies. Also the small acknowledgement near the end of Paradise Lost 1, where he was , what seemed to be a proud ownership, of the reputation as a childkiller. Being remembered for something.

I have also read his psychological files used for profiling in the first trial under the name "Exhibit 500". Now, I personally don't believe he committed these crimes, but, i can see why the police came to him first, considering his history.

I would add something new, he may have been involved with those who did it.

He also, glosses over his past in his book "Life after Death", not really telling the full force of his psychosis, and rather mentioning it, as a time of misconception and teenage angst.

The book really does show an eloquence and insight of a very astute and intelligent mind, but when the date of the murders come around may 5th 1993. It was once again lacking in the detail, of what, would seem the most polarising moment of his life. No real depth, no real insight. The whole day is washed over in the kind of way a person, who was told to recite an uninsightful story they had been forced to remember.

Now i am always wanting to root for the underdog and the wrongly accused, but the more I see of this case, and the more I see Damien Echols, the more it doesn't add up.

Also, i would not rule out the police's involvement. There were massive discrepancies in the way it was handled, and the crime scene tampered with, which asks further questions of the local authorities. But All the same, i know a thing or two about Bill Clintons Arkansas, that something like this would never surprise me.

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

http://www.amazon.com/Abomination-Worship-Deception-Memphis-Murders/dp /1479216631/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414117959&sr=1 -4&keywords=the+abomination

William Ramsay?
By Warren P on March 30, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition
No not the Scottish chemist and Noble laureate William Ramsay (1852-1916).
No not the classical scholar and Professor of humanity (1806-1865), not the Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar (1851-1939 and not the American jazz saxophonist.

No this William Ramsay is the one featured in a NOPC Radio network show Knucklebones that was titled The Rude Awakenings.

Sadly for America this interview is clear evidence and an example of why it has the lowest literacy level in the western world. The host (some knucklehead called Larry) barely literate himself rambled away in some disjointed diatribe and spoke ninety percent of the time before I got tired of listening.
Check it out if you don't believe me!

The fact that this so called author could take part in it says something in itself.
Is it only this low intelligence mindset that will give him air time?

That same mindset is what got Damien Echols charged and convicted in the first place.
Having read Damien Echols Life after Death book it is clear he is far more articulate and intelligent than any of the morons that were screaming for his conviction or the two participants in this stupid radio interview.
Much is made of his interest in Wicca etc. Simply because of this it's assumed he's a Satanist. Read his book and you find he takes interest in many things and ideologies.

The author here makes much of Damien spending time in mental institutions. Damien didn't have much say in those decisions until he reached a certain age. Just to add. He also said that the food and accommodation was much better there than the other alternatives on offer. Claims of violent and angry behaviour? Damien always appeared stoic during his trial without the slightest hint of an aggressive personality.

The community that Damien grew up in was full of dysfunction and the people in it are the same as those willing to go on Jerry Springer and humiliate themselves just to be on television.
So Damien goes Goth gets into skateboarding and heavy metal music and dares to be different to escape the insanity that surrounds him. Just being different can make you a target when you live among ignorance.

More is made of the mentally challenged Jessie and his so called confessions.
If the authors arguments of guilt are so compelling why are a couple of the young victims parents now no longer convinced.
Bottom line is that Mr Ramsay sees a guilty mindset market for his book.
I notice that the author is very sensitive to any critical reviews so he isn't going to like this one either.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ttebow15 10 years ago

I have just started looking into the case..I've watched the 3 paradise documentaries, the Devils Knot, West of Memphis and I've started on the Callahan docs so I'm trying to withhold final judgment but what I don't understand is why on earth did Jason and Damien seem to be absolutely fine with Jesse once they were released? I would be less than willing to act chummy and go to a party with someone that was responsible for my spending 18 years in jail..I've iced people out of my life for far less grievous offenses! Their behavior from the start of this thing until now just doesn't make any sense.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ttebow15 10 years ago

When I watched the first paradise lost (just this week) I actually looked at my cat and said "why would he pick 2 guys he doesn't know very well? why those 2?" My cat had no answer .. But it is odd that he would just happen to pick a guy that has been talking to people (psychiatrists, counselors) about the occult, drinking blood.. witchcraft. If Jesse is as handicapped as we are supposed to believe he wouldn't be aware of Damien's current mental status and think .. oh he would make a good scapegoat, Ill tell the cops he did it

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ttebow15 10 years ago

this case reminds me of the Ronald Keith Coleman case. He had such strong supporters, he was on tv, he was even on Time magazine with the headline that an innocent man was about to be executed. He was executed and years later due to DNA advances his supporters demanded testing to prove West Virginia killed an innocent man, parties were planned to celebrate the victory and then the lab called .. he was 100% guilty

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Probably because Jesse had the mind of a 5 year old. It's hard to be mad at a little kid who told a big fairy tale about you because the police made him do it. I mean, just listen to the tapes. Jesse starts off saying they captured the kids at about 12 noon. The kids were in school then. So the cops keep pushing him to say it was later and later. They spoon fed everything to Jessie to get him to say it happened the way they believed it did. The interrogation should never have been accepted in court the way it was. This confession of Jessie's is in Paradise Lost and West of Memphis, and can also be found in the book, Devil's Knot. Also, Jesse could have made a plea to get out of prison and say Damien and Jason did this, but by that time, he knew the cops were full of crap and not his friends at all.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

/Because he has the mind of a 5 year old?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] disinter 10 years ago

All Jessie had to do was take the stand and tell the jury that he was tricked, coerced, etc. and very likely, at least 1 or 2 jurors would've believed him. So why didn't he?

That jury would have convicted him no matter what. He was convicted in the court of public opinion before the trial even started. Seriously though if you were a juror and he got up there and said "No, that confession wasn't true" would that sway you in any way?

As we've been through many times, no lawyer would ever let his client take the stand unless he insisted in which case the lawyer couldn't stop him.

At no point has Jesse had the mind of a 5 year old since he was 5

I agree, there is no way Jessie had the mind of a 5 year old but he certainly was mentally challenged. Even after all these years, he was a full grown man and yet when he entered his Alford Plea, he could barely read it. One can only imagine what kind of a mind he had back then.

reply

[–] peco_777 10 years ago

Here's a snippet of an interview with him talking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7zmMz02Cs

He sounds rather competent. The whole borderline "retarded" is *beep*

reply

[–] disinter 10 years ago

He sounds rather competent. The whole borderline "retarded" is *beep*

If you think that 27 second clip makes him sound anything other than ignorant, white trash, you've shot yourself in the foot. Here is a guy with a clock tattooed on his bald head and saying "The clock on my head, it ain't got no hands on it for a reason". Yeah he sounds like Mensa material.

reply

[–] peco_777 10 years ago

Having a clock tattooed on his head that speaks metaphorically doesn't sound like someone who is borderline retarded would have the cognitive skills to incorporate onto himself.

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

I disagree. Jesse just looked down at the table in front of him JUST because his lawyer told him to. This really damaged his case, because the jury thought that meant he didn't care. Jesse was very open to suggestion. A competent person would sit up straight and face the jury, despite what their lawyer said.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

😈

I see you're still at.

I only wonder why there are so many fans of a nutcase clearly responsible for the murder of three children.

There's no reasonable doubt here - never was. Why all the support? We can only guess.

The release of Damien's medical records prior to his sentencing is something his most knowledgeable supporter can't explain. Coincidence? Telling a doctor about drinking a child's blood for power, etc. prior to doing it.

Did the doctor lie?

reply

[–] disinter 10 years ago

There's no reasonable doubt here - never was. Why all the support?

Because we believe there was nothing but reasonable doubt. There was no hard evidence, only speculation and a confession that was 1. Questionable at best and 2. Wasn't even allowed in the trial.

This is the kind of irrational mindset that believes Judas Priest or Ozzy puts subliminal messages in their music to kill their fans.

Look up "satanic panic". This trial happened in that era and was the perfect example of it.

reply

[–] sabar-1 10 years ago

So every teen experiencing episodes of mental illness - and more of them do than people know (I'm a medical professional) - is a murderer?

🐈 Rachel

reply

[–] disinter 10 years ago

I learned in jr. high (ironically about the same time this happened) that when Edgar Allan Poe wrote his thriller stories, it got the public up in arms. They insisted that anyone who could write such things were also capable of doing them. Here we are 165 years later and the mindset still remains.

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

"So every teen experiencing episodes of mental illness...- is a murderer?"

No! What did I write that remotely gave you that impression?

All the evidence we KNOW about should make anybody with a little common sense realize he's a murderer.

Besides all that evidence, AFTER the trial and his conviction, his lawyer (in an attempt to save his life) introduced his mental records.

Are you suggesting it's just a coincidence Damien mentioned the murdering of a child and drinking his blood for power? Wow! What are the odds?

You spoke to teenagers who talked about murdering children and drinking their blood?

You're aware of what he said and wrote prior to the murders - right?

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

There is plenty of reasonable doubt considering that Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the boys, left DNA at the crime scene and so did his best friend. There was no DNA of the 3 teenagers there. How likely is it that 3 teenagers could pull off a horrific murder and not leave any DNA at the crime scene? Reasonable doubt.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] elisabethstaum-1 10 years ago

Hi!
I agree to all your points, I am just wondering; why do you WANT TO believe they are innocent? After reading about the case online I think it is absolutely most likely they are guilty, and then at least the murderers have done some time. If they were innocent it would be awful, because it would mean the murderer(s) are still on the loose. ;)

reply

[–] simonwilliams555 10 years ago

Hi Elisabeth, i personally would want to believe in their innocence, because however scary and disturbing it may be to believe that there is still a killer out there that has not been brought to justice, it is far more disturbing to believe that three convicted child murderers were set free due to the mass support they have been given by good decent albeit gullible people around the world, and that Damien Echols is basically laughing at this, it is far more disturbing to me to believe that we have potentially taken child murdering psychopaths and put them on television talk shows and made them essentially celebrities to some degree and in doing so we have fulfilled their desire for attention, it terrifies me to think we have taken someone like that and turned them into a hero.

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

Hi Simon, I doubt if Damien is laughing. Maybe he changed now that he's wealthy.

I certainly question WHY those filmmakers and Hollywood supporters rally around people like Damien and Polanski. If they believe there was injustice, fine, understandable. But completely disregarding KNOWN facts and making fraudulent clams, even pointing their fingers at completely innocent victims, is unforgivable.

People on this board probably don't know any better and perhaps are gullible. They refuse, or can't, discuss the evidence honestly with an open mind.

But those filmmakers and lawyers know better. Why unite in favor of a child murderer and a child rapist?

I can't find one single thing suggesting he's innocent. Everything points one way - toward his guilt. Even insignificant things like his commenting (and chuckling) about not getting that drunk again. I guess some here might think the brutal murder of 3 eight year-old boys is okay to joke about.

reply

[–] simonwilliams555 10 years ago

I think in this case , as to why people rally'd around the three...Damien in particular is that essentially it is a very believable story, if your sole source of evidence is paradise lost, and then once you have supported the three in the way say peter jackson has it's very hard to then go back on that decision, regardless of evidence, i imagine once you're personally involved it's quite different.

i don't see why you'd say you doubt that Damien is laughing at those who are supporting him ? , a psychopath prides themselves on being intellectually superior to others, they thrive off feeling dominant and yearn for attention/recognition , and he has achieved that on a mass scale, he has almost become a martyr in many people's eyes, i would certainly think it would please him.

i don't believe the documentarians know better , nor do i necessarily believe the lawyers know better, as i said i think when you're personally involved in a case like this for such a long time, and you really want to believe something enough it becomes the truth to you , regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

reply

[–] sabar-1 10 years ago

I think you need to turn this around and ask yourself these questions. Some of the lawyers involved are top notch uber educated and experienced. Think you know more than them?

🐈 Rachel

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

😈

Do you think all of OJ's lawyers believe he was innocent? At least 1 said he believed OJ was innocent.

If YOU believed the following was 100% true, (you're not agreeing it is) would YOU think Damien was probably guilty?

Before the bodies were found, Misskelley gave his sneakers to a friend to hide, cried and said he did a terrible thing last night to 3 little boys.

Damien, drunk, told a pal he sodomized one of the boys before killing him and drinking his blood.

Damien told his doctor prior to the murder drinking a child's blood will give him power.

Misskelley, without any coaching from the police whatsoever, said Damien cut off one of the boy's penis and drank his blood. And one of the boy's penis was cut off.

reply

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Before the bodies were found, Misskelley gave his sneakers to a friend to hide, cried and said he did a terrible thing last night to 3 little boys.

False. He traded the sneakers to a friend, the friend in turn gave them to the police as evidence. The police were/are in possession of said sneakers. There was nothing to imply that they were used during the crime, which is why they were not used as evidence during the trial. Much like Jason and the ice axe.

Damien, drunk, told a pal he sodomized one of the boys before killing him and drinking his blood.

He did? Cite a source please.

Damien told his doctor prior to the murder drinking a child's blood will give him power.

He said drinking blood gave power. Not blood from a child.

Misskelley, without any coaching from the police whatsoever, said Damien cut off one of the boy's penis and drank his blood. And one of the boy's penis was cut off.

The police showed him graphic photo's before and during the interrogation. Also, it was fairly common knowledge about the castration as soon as the bodies were discovered. It wasn't a secret by any means.

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

Hi putter, it's been awhile.

You know where I got all the information. We've been over it before.

You believe what you want to believe - that's okay. It just amazes me why so many - like yourself - are so much in favor of one of the sickest fiends I've ever read about. Amazing!

That nutcase is responsible for the brutal murders of 3 little boys. Shame on you, putter!

Why would I make up stuff? Ya doubt I didn't read it from the web sites we both knew about a year ago? Those sites appeared to be reliable.

And I did read transcripts and watched a lot of what went on in the courtroom and Damien in the backroom with his attorney.

I'm not a violent person, but I would enjoy ending that guy's life - in a heartbeat. We read about lynchings in the past - I always thought that was the wrong thing to do - now, I'm not too sure.

I know, like most topics, you can't discuss anything with closed minded people with agendas. Why the support? I just wonder why some go to bat for an unremorseful child murderer when there isn't one thing that remotely suggests he didn't do it. NOT ONE THING!

Lie about the facts. Fine! Convince yourself!

reply

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Hi putter, it's been awhile.

You know where I got all the information. We've been over it before.

Yes, some heavy fisted non site is where you are getting your information. Then claiming it as fact. I just shredded your last post, which was riddled with bs and opinions. Want the real story? Go to Callahans, simple as that.

You believe what you want to believe - that's okay. It just amazes me why so many - like yourself - are so much in favor of one of the sickest fiends I've ever read about. Amazing!

Because the evidence against them is so flimsy, it amazes us that so many people like YOU would consider them guilty.

That nutcase is responsible for the brutal murders of 3 little boys. Shame on you, putter!

Evidence kiddo. Where is the evidence?

Why would I make up stuff? Ya doubt I didn't read it from the web sites we both knew about a year ago? Those sites appeared to be reliable.

I am not saying you made it up. I am saying that you believe stuff others made up and are parroting it off as factual.

And I did read transcripts and watched a lot of what went on in the courtroom and Damien in the backroom with his attorney.

Wow, good for you. Guess that makes you an expert.

I'm not a violent person, but I would enjoy ending that guy's life - in a heartbeat. We read about lynchings in the past - I always thought that was the wrong thing to do - now, I'm not too sure.

Talking about pot calling the kettle black. In one sentence you are claiming you are a non-violent person, the next you are talking about killing Damien violently. But HE is the one with problems.

I know, like most topics, you can't discuss anything with closed minded people with agendas. Why the support? I just wonder why some go to bat for an unremorseful child murderer when there isn't one thing that remotely suggests he didn't do it. NOT ONE THING!

Because of the way he looked back then, right?

Lie about the facts. Fine! Convince yourself!

No, you are doing well enough for the both of us.

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

A jury convicted Misskelley, A different jury convicted the other two after hearing the evidence.

24 jurors after hearing the evidence in a courtroom believed they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor and the judge believed they did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You know more than all those people?

What is YOUR reasonable doubt?

Write ONE thing that points toward their innocence.

Even if the dad beat his wife and children every day has nothing to do with their innocence.

I'm not going to do a lot of research going over all the evidence again. Just state ONE thing that you consider a reasonable doubt.

Yes, if Misskelley was at a school sporting event, that would clearly be reasonable doubt. But we know he wasn't - right?

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

The fact that two people who testified against Damien have confessed to perjury in his trial, for one.
Also the facts that Terry Hobbs hated his stepson, Stevie Branch and didn't bother to even notify Stevie's mother that he was missing until after her work shift was finished hours later, molested his own daughter, committed sexual battery on an old lady that lived next door to him, and shot his brother in law, which resulted in the death of the brother in law years later. Murder. No conscience. Sexual pervert. Plus, his DNA was left at the crime scene. Add to that the fact that Terry Hobbs' own nephew stated on TV that he heard Terry Hobbs confessing to his father that he did it. I don't understand why you would defend a man like Terry Hobbs.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] sabar-1 10 years ago

OJs lawyers were working at the actual trial - it was their job. All of these other high powered people worked to free the three apparently because they believed in the cause.

Also, were the boys actually raped? I thought that was one of the sticking points - that the singing canary of the three mentioned it but they weren't.

For me, the whole thing hangs on two things: the neighbors going to church who said they saw the stepfather in the yard and the boys biking over to it - they even yelled out the window that they were being looked for. The second is the stepfather's history of violence and hatred of the kid - I think the kid was not home when he was supposed to be, the stepfather was livid with rage, accidentally killed the kid and then had to kill the other two to cover it up.

🐈 Rachel

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

I recall at least two people saying OJ's pal killed the people. No evidence whatsoever.

Here, one of the smoke screens worked. First it was a black guy covered in blood seen in a women's toilet. Then Beyers, dad #1 did it in movie #1, a victim, actually. Then Hobbs, dad #2 in movie #3.

Ya really have to ignore all the facts we DO know. First you're suggesting he found the 3 boys by that tree near the water and somehow managed to remove their clothes, tie them up. The 3 of them? Ya know any kid who wouldn't run away? So, let's add his friend, to make it slightly plausibly but highly unlikely. Think about what happened to those 3 boys. Two grown men with no known mental problems or 3 drunks, one a nutcase who told his doctor you get power from drinking human blood, more power if it's a child's blood. HE SAID IT! It was introduced in court by his attorney in an attempt to save his life AFTER his conviction. DON'T disregard the indisputable truth.

After what, 12 years, they managed to get a new trial mainly on a hair, possible jury misconduct and a new judge. The blood matching one of the boys on Damien's cross was more conclusive than the DNA of a hair supposedly found under a shoelace submerged in water. We had NO under oath discussions by attorneys about that hair. Ya find out if something is relevant or not ONLY after both sides argue the evidence. Something putter wouldn't understand.

I think it's a damn shame when documentaries deliberately lie about the facts of a case and point the accusing finger at the victims' family members. Shameful!

Because the case was over 12 years old. The movies. Among other things. The representatives of the state decided not to have another costly trial. The murderers did admit they were guilty and could NOT sue because of their admitted guilt.

Justice was not served. The people hanging Damien from the nearest tree would have been a great ending to this saga. Perhaps that would have happened fifty years ago. Killing and cutting off a child's penis in order to drink his blood was a major NO NO back then. Now - so what! Hollywood wants him free - don't know why - lets free him and distort the facts about the case.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Here, one of the smoke screens worked. First it was a black guy covered in blood seen in a women's toilet. Then Beyers, dad #1 did it in movie #1, a victim, actually. Then Hobbs, dad #2 in movie #3.

What do Mr. Bojangles, Terry Hobbs and Mark Byers all have in common? They all are more suspicious looking then the WM3 and as a bonus answer, I would have accepted "Not a one was followed up with the WMPD".

Ya really have to ignore all the facts we DO know. First you're suggesting he found the 3 boys by that tree near the water and somehow managed to remove their clothes, tie them up. The 3 of them? Ya know any kid who wouldn't run away? So, let's add his friend, to make it slightly plausibly but highly unlikely. Think about what happened to those 3 boys. Two grown men with no known mental problems or 3 drunks, one a nutcase who told his doctor you get power from drinking human blood, more power if it's a child's blood. HE SAID IT! It was introduced in court by his attorney in an attempt to save his life AFTER his conviction. DON'T disregard the indisputable truth.

Terry Hobbs is a violent person with possibly mental disorders. He sexually assaulted an elderly neighbor woman, beat Pam, physically (possibly sexually) abused Stevie & Amanda, shot an unarmed man, etc.

But you are correct. A kid telling a shrink that he thought blood = power is worse.

Also, for the record, I do not think Terry Hobbs did this crime.

After what, 12 years, they managed to get a new trial mainly on a hair, possible jury misconduct and a new judge. The blood matching one of the boys on Damien's cross was more conclusive than the DNA of a hair supposedly found under a shoelace submerged in water. We had NO under oath discussions by attorneys about that hair. Ya find out if something is relevant or not ONLY after both sides argue the evidence. Something putter wouldn't understand.

I do not even know where to start on this one, you are wrong countless times throughout the entire paragraph...

1. There was no new trial.
2. There is strong allegations of jury misconduct.
3. The hair is strong evidence considering it was IN THE KNOT of one of the boys tied up.
4. The blood matched one of the boys, but it also matched Damien & Jason (who both wore said pendant). Also, the small trace amount of blood on it makes it unlikely that it was involved in a brutal slaying.
5. There was nothing under oath about the hair, because it wasn't introduced during the trial, also it did NOT match any of the WM3.
6. You completely ignore evidence instead thinking that people will believe your insane ramblings. Everything you constantly are saying is wrong and the proof of such is at Callahans.

I think it's a damn shame when documentaries deliberately lie about the facts of a case and point the accusing finger at the victims' family members. Shameful!

Lol. Jesus. Then why are you here and not on the Paradise Lost boards?

Because the case was over 12 years old. The movies. Among other things. The representatives of the state decided not to have another costly trial. The murderers did admit they were guilty and could NOT sue because of their admitted guilt.

The case was almost 20 years (you are so stupid you can't even get the number of years they were in jail right!) old. The movies helped bring the case to light, along with the support of numerous celebrities. And if you honestly believe that the biggest reason the state freed them was to avoid paying for another trial, you are even crazier then I initially thought.

Also, an Alford Plea is NOT a Guilty Plea, yet another item to add to the long list of things you were wrong on. If the WM3 took the case to trial, they would have won and the state would have been out millions of dollars in restitution. The Alford Plea was a win-win for everyone.

Justice was not served. The people hanging Damien from the nearest tree would have been a great ending to this saga. Perhaps that would have happened fifty years ago. Killing and cutting off a child's penis in order to drink his blood was a major NO NO back then. Now - so what! Hollywood wants him free - don't know why - lets free him and distort the facts about the case.

It amazes me that someone so hell bent on facts, constantly lies and gives miss-truths. Maybe the supporter movement is similar to myself, where I have read all the books, read everything at Callahans, gone to non/supporter boards (even the Farm) and came to my own conclusion that the 3 were innocent. I suggest you do the same.

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

Putter, Putter, I hope somebody from Hollywood is paying you (for whatever reason).

Nobody wrote there was a new trial. Didn't a new judge order a new trial?

You don't want to discuss any evidence honestly. I don't know why.

I'm not going to respond to any of your bull any more. I wrote that over a year ago.

This guy Saber might be a person with an open mind not familiar with all the facts of this case.

Like many others, I watched several HBO movies thinking they were somewhat honest. What a mistake that was. I'm embarrassed.

One movie had me believing an innocent man was hung for raping and murdering a young factory worker.

Another had me believing Polanski didn't know his victim was 13 and it was consensual sex.

A little research showed beyond all doubt they were lying. I can only guess - why?

reply

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Putter, Putter, I hope somebody from Hollywood is paying you (for whatever reason).

No, I just come here to tell idiots how wrong they are, when they use opinions and non sites as facts.

Nobody wrote there was a new trial. Didn't a new judge order a new trial?

After what, 12 years, they managed to get a new trial mainly on a hair, possible jury misconduct and a new judge. The blood matching one of the boys on Damien's cross was more conclusive than the DNA of a hair supposedly found under a shoelace submerged in water. We had NO under oath discussions by attorneys about that hair. Ya find out if something is relevant or not ONLY after both sides argue the evidence. Something putter wouldn't understand.

You did. I just posted it where you said there was a new trial! And no, there was no new trial.

You don't want to discuss any evidence honestly. I don't know why.

What evidence? You haven't discussed anything even close to evidence. The two things you mentioned (shoes/necklace) are not evidence. The shoes were retrieved by the police (not used in any trials) and the blood type on the necklace matched both Jason and Damien (along with 1 of the victims). What other evidence are you talking about?

I'm not going to respond to any of your bull any more. I wrote that over a year ago.

I would really like to believe you...

This guy Saber might be a person with an open mind not familiar with all the facts of this case.

Good, maybe someone can explain them to you then.

Like many others, I watched several HBO movies thinking they were somewhat honest. What a mistake that was. I'm embarrassed.

Oh God, my head is about to hurt.

One movie had me believing an innocent man was hung for raping and murdering a young factory worker.

Yup... Here comes the headache...

Another had me believing Polanski didn't know his victim was 13 and it was consensual sex.

Oh, it's a bad one. Complete with eyes throbbing and now my back hurts.

A little research showed beyond all doubt they were lying. I can only guess - why?

There, took some aspirin. So because there were documentaries that were BS, you shun all documentaries now? Makes sense...

A jury convicted Misskelley, A different jury convicted the other two after hearing the evidence.

You mean Jessie's laughable first confession (which was used during the trial, before he confessed the 2nd/3rd/4th time), Michael Carson perjuring himself, Vickie Hutcheson's (recanted) testimony, the hilariousness of Dale Griffis, etc... Yes, if you call that carnival or idiots "evidence' then, yes, I guess you are right.

24 jurors after hearing the evidence in a courtroom believed they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, liars, coerced fake confessions, jury misconduct, a judge looking for someone to pay the price, shoddy police work, etc...

The prosecutor and the judge believed they did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, would they now with the new evidence.

You know more than all those people?

Yes.

What is YOUR reasonable doubt?

That they did not do it.

Write ONE thing that points toward their innocence.

Complete lack of evidence. No DNA, no blood, no witnesses, no motive, etc...

Even if the dad beat his wife and children every day has nothing to do with their innocence.

It shows motive, you also left out sexually assaulting an elderly woman and shooting an unarmed man, along with Amanda's (his daughter) allegations of being raped by him when she was a child. But you are right, Damien talking to a shrink about a few mental thoughts shows MUCH more malice then anything Hobbs has ever done.

I'm not going to do a lot of research going over all the evidence again. Just state ONE thing that you consider a reasonable doubt.

You haven't done any research, which everyone can tell by now. I already answered the second part above, you know, complete lack of evidence (DNA, Blood, Witnesses, Motive).

Yes, if Misskelley was at a school sporting event, that would clearly be reasonable doubt. But we know he wasn't - right?

We do? Well multiple witnesses say he WAS at a wrestling event (not a school sporting event). But they all must be mistaken, right?

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rongan 10 years ago

"She doesn't have the ability to have a civil conversation with anyone and she then backs her arguments with made up "facts.."

Yeah, you're right. Her "Well multiple witnesses say he WAS at a wrestling event (not a school sporting event)." proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.

reply

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

"She doesn't have the ability to have a civil conversation with anyone and she then backs her arguments with made up "facts.."

Yeah, you're right. Her "Well multiple witnesses say he WAS at a wrestling event (not a school sporting event)." proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.

The last person you want to side with is Jenkens. If you haven't realized it yet, he is a troll on these boards. The guy knows that I am a man, but constantly attempts to change my sex to fit his desires. I had to block him after he kept stalking me, starting threads about me on these boards and sending me sexually graphic messages here.

Also, are you now saying that all the people who claim they were with Jessie at the wrestling event were wrong? Or are you saying that there were no witnesses claiming such?

reply

[–] rongan 10 years ago

Not realizing 'wrestling' is a sport is a tell about you.

Of course plenty of witnesses saw Misskelley at the wrestling event, but it WASN'T on the night of the murders.

I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea why the date of the wrestling event matters.

You're not Misskelley - right?

reply

[–] putter_b 10 years ago

Not realizing 'wrestling' is a sport is a tell about you.

I never said it wasn't a sport. YOU claimed it was a "school sporting event" a few posts up, or right here...

Yes, if Misskelley was at a school sporting event, that would clearly be reasonable doubt. But we know he wasn't - right?

See, there is a difference. If it was a school event, there would be several more witnesses coming forward then the 10 or so who did.

Of course plenty of witnesses saw Misskelley at the wrestling event, but it WASN'T on the night of the murders.

The Non's cling to the "sign in" log, claiming that everyone was confused and that it was a week before hand. The witnesses who were there, say different. Who is to be believed?

I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea why the date of the wrestling event matters.

Lol, ok kiddo. I'm afraid you have absolutely never seen this documentary with the witness statements.

You're not Misskelley - right?

Not even worth answering.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

I agree. I blocked Jenkims a long time ago. He also makes up other names to harass people with, once he realizes he is blocked.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Nobody wrote there was a new trial. Didn't a new judge order a new trial?

Yes you did. You said, "After what, 12 years, they managed to get a new trial mainly on a hair"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] Ttebow15 10 years ago

My personal opinion is still up in the air on this case however I have spent quite a lot of time studying the Moors murders and Myra Hindley had a lot of prominent supporters championing her release as well. Even after Ian Bradys hints that she was involved with more undiscovered victims forced her to confess , her supporters hid her writings and photos until after her death so they could claim they had been duped. It doesnt matter if you are Lord Longford or Peter Jackson you dont want to admit you were taken in.

reply

[–] armintirichtc 10 years ago

I think the discussion on this thread is amazing to say the least. Kinda funny when rogers or whatever doesn't care about evidence and facts but just rambles on about what he/she thinks and basically tries to use his/hers opinion as a fact. Also he/she becomes aggressive when he/she is faced with facts that goes against his/hers beliefs. That putter dude is also hilarious in many ways, just responding to everything in a good way with great points about why rogers dude/girl are incorrect. Still, maybe a little to harsh sometimes.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that i don't know what i believe. Innocent or not, it was a great documentary. To be honest, it was a little long but at least it was educational. I haven't read anything on callahans and I don't plan to. Just came here to say that, in this discussion you guys are having, there should be more sources backing up each and every claim from everyone writing "facts" on this thread.

Thanks for the 10 minute amusement.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] armintirichtc 10 years ago

Do I need to read the facts there? Since everyone here are making pretty good points in a detailed way not matter what they believe. Therefore sources would be perfect to have to read upon what they are claiming.

And just because I have actually only seen this particular documentary, I have no opinion in this matter because I don't know what to think. So I wasn't in fact lied to and deceived because I don't believe anything quite frankly.

My point was that the thread was amusing and that both sides bring up good points in a otherwise weird, funny, childish and informative discussion.

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Feigning amused tolerance does not become you.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] michaelradny 10 years ago

I just watched the documentary knowing nothing about the original case as I am not from the US, but at the end I believed what the documentary was telling me and believed in their innocence. However, after thinking about it for a while, I was curious to know if the documentary was bias to the fact that they were innocent. We may only get one side of the story in the documentary, but you have opened me up to the possibility that they may not be innocent and that was not transposed through the documentary. Thanks.

reply

[–] rightokulee 10 years ago

So one of your ‘theories’ is that his behavior from an 18 year old punk kid
has changed into one of an adult? And that somehow signifies guilt? Lol.
I’d like to meet a person in their late thirties who still acts like they did at 18.
Look, I know it’s a controversial case with a ton of questions. Probably one of the most controversial murder cases in American history - hence the documentaries, story appeal. But if you do believe that the WM3 committed the crimes then you either have to do two things: 1) buy that they were actually involved in some kind of Satanic ritualistic behaviors -- which is really just stupid. Or 2) that Damien Echols, at least, ring-lead the other two boys into a night of thrill-killing.

reply

[–] screenscreams 10 years ago

Damien Echols was Wiccan, which is not Satanic. Jason and Jessie were not Wiccan or Satanic.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]