Many people believe the WM3 were not innocent but guilty as charged and that they were the ones that committed the crime. They were found guilty by a unanimous jury the first time. They plead guilty instead of waiting for a trial the second time.

Misskelley confessed three separate times, once with his lawyer present. Misskelley also told two other people about the crime before he was arrested. Baldwin told someone else he committed the crimes. Echols was seen in muddy clothes near the crime scene. Echols is reported to have either told or bragged about the crime to four people before he was arrested.

Echols also had a history of psychiatric treatment. His reported actions included brutally killing a dog, starting fires at his school, threatening to kill his teachers and parents and stating he liked to drink blood

The DNA found at the scene of the crime of the three murdered boys that supposedly from the step father was from a hair that could have come from simple contact with one of the victims. The hair could have belonged to 1.5 percent of the population (or several million people).

report 8 likes, 36 dislikes   like  dislike

(I'll spare Gold the trouble — here's the reply he left to your message over at Nashville Cream:)

Not exactly, M S.

And I’m not even going to try and pretend I don’t have a subjective opinion here. First of all, one of the biggest puzzle pieces that invalidated the 1994 Echols/Baldwin trial was proven, physical evidence that the jury foreman broke the law in bringing the Misskelley confession to the attention of his fellow jurors. The confession was inadmissible in court because defendants have a right to confront their accusers, and Misskelley refused to testify against Echols and Baldwin in spite of prosecutors offering him a reduced sentenced to do so. So, yes, Misskelley -- a 17 year old with an IQ of 72 -- confessed under duress after hours of interrogation, and repeated said confession to attorneys at a later date shortly thereafter, telling them what he thought they wanted to hear ... just like someone with a 5 year old's cogitative ability would do.

This indiscretion on the part of the jury foreman alone is enough to declare a mistrial, not to mention wholly invalidate the Echols/Baldwin verdicts.

Misskelley's confession is also laughably inaccurate. Even more so NOW than it was at the time he made it, because the detectives guiding him through it had an understanding of the actual crime scene and conjectures as to how the murders were committed that are now known to be completely counterfactual and physically impossible. At least that's what Dr. Werner Spitz and Dr. Michael Baden -- superstars in the world of forensic pathology -- have observed. And I think they probably know a little bit more about crime scenes than the podunk West Memphis PD did, or you do.

The Misskelley confession has absolutely no validity and every criminology and pathology expert involved in this case -- including former FBI profiler John Douglas (the inspiration for Jack Crawford in “Silence of the Lambs”) -- knows that. If Misskelley had something true to confess, he probably would have done it in court when it would have saved his hide. So, there goes your confession argument.

Moving on. If you’d watched the trailer posted up top, you would have noticed the “someone else” who testified that Baldwin confessed is shown RECANTING his statement on camera. So you can forget that argument as well. Same goes for Vicki Hutcheson -- the woman who testified that she heard Echols brag about committing the crime. She recanted as well … on camera. She also claimed that policed coerced her into making such statements.

In regards to your comments about Echols’ history of psychiatric treatment: this is not evidentiary of him being a murderer. Lots of teenagers are treated for psychiatric issues, both legitimate and illegitimate. And not only does your stated belief that Echols is a professed vampire ignore that vampirism and Satanism aren’t the same thing, but suggests that you actually believe in satanic cult murders. The FBI has long found that belief in rampant satanic cult killings is for gullible types who believe tall tales and childish, salacious nonsense. Welcome to the witch hunt, M S.

How is anything you bring up in this paragraph about Echols evidence that he committed this crime? You’re saying that where there’s smoke, there’s fire – either because you’re grasping at straws or because you’re an idiot. Let’s hope it’s the former.

Now, in regards to your grand finale about the hair found at the crime scene. Congratulations, you don’t rush to condemn Terry Hobbs, who the DNA potentially implicates. Ask yourself: If that same hair implicated Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley in that same 1.5%, would you extend them the same courtesy of such reasonable doubt? Or would you hold it up as circumstantial evidence of their guilt the way you do with third-hand claims that Echols drank blood or reports of him wearing muddy clothes on a muggy Summer day in Arkansas?

What’s even more significant about the hair and the DNA testing done on it, is that it is not a match for any one of the West Memphis Three. Indeed, it could belong to several million people, none of whom are Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin or Jessie Misskelley, Jr. In fact, there isn’t a single piece of physical evidence that demonstrates that any of the three accused ever came into physical contact with the three victims while they were alive, dying or dead.

That is why prosecutors offered the Three an Alford plea. Because the state knew that if the case went to trial again, it would almost certainly lose. If prosecutors thought they’d win, if they thought they had a case, they would’ve presented it to a jury. Instead, they cut their loses and came up with the best way to protect the state from a lawsuit and from having to hold its nose in acquitting the WM3 and admitting what an absolute travesty – whether the WM3 did it or not -- the 1994 trial was. The current prosecutor even admitted this. It’s well documented. It’s also unfathomable to expect people to believe that the state of Arkansas would just let the WM3 plead guilty and then immediately walk when the state believed they were Satanic child killers and had the evidence to prove it.

Why did the WM3 take the deal instead of waiting out a retrial then? That’s not a bad question. They probably would’ve won, explaining why Baldwin didn’t want to take the deal. But, remote a possibility as may have been, they might have lost. And for Damien Echols, losing meant almost certainly going to face a lethal injection. I certainly have never been in such a position to gamble, even on good odds, with my own life and I'm guessing you haven’t either. Same goes for being subjected to a modern day witch trial when you’re a teenager -- you know, the kind of thing that wouldn’t exactly instill a whole lot of faith in the prevailing nature of the U.S. justice system.

So who are you to make such an assumption? I suppose that if you’d really like to know the answer to that question, you can try and go to this screening and ask Damien Echols yourself. He’ll be FREE to answer you or not. And if you manage to find the smoking gun that unquestionably links the WM3 to these murders and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it, don’t hesitate to step up and present it. Millions of people around the world would be curious to see it.

report 49 likes, 7 dislikes   like  dislike

Ya know ive seen all 3 of the paradise lost movies, and its plain and simple the justice system, our justice system, railroaded these 3 boys, like the head investigator said we were 30 days into the case when an arrest was made, there was a great weight lifted off of there shoulders, they had to blame somebody, i wore black, hung out with the alternate crowd,, those were the best friends of my life, these 3 men were innocent then, and after 18 years in a PRISON, they pled guilty under the north carolina vs alford law that, they insist that they are innocent, but just tell the judge that they are guilty, then they let them go, wtf just happened!!!! they should have let them go long ago!!! there was NO evidence. very little at that,so how can they convict someone when they have no evidence? that jugde had his mind made up!!! thank god, that when the new dna evidence trial began, that f'ing judge wasnt there, like jason said , justice is lost, they told the truth at the trial , they sent them to jail for the rest of their lives, and damien was sentenced to death!!! to death, all without reason, facts, evidence, that is sooooo messed up , i hope all 3 of u live a great life, as it is worth living!!! and justice is lost, thats the truth its supposed to be INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY, BUT IN THEIR CASE IT WAS UNLAWFULLY, GUILTY UNTILL PROVEN INNOCENT, AND THATS BULL SHIT!!!! GOOD LUCK DAMIEN, JASON, AND JESSIE.

report 2 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

For logical-minded people who have actually followed the details of this case -- who know the evidence, who have seen the films, who have read "Devil's Knot" -- it's very difficult to put your mind around the idea that there still are some who believe these three wronged men committed this crime.

It isn't beyond a reasonable doubt that they did so; it's beyond just about any doubt. That isn't bias any more than arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 is taking a slanted or prejudicial position.

But what's most alarming to me is the weight that many in the public -- and in this case even on the jury -- continue to give confessions no matter how they are obained. (It's clear the jury knew about the Misskelley confession even thought it should not have).

Those with common sense note that Misskelley had a low IQ, making him more vulnerable to a false confession after consistent and aggressive pressure from authorities.

But keep in mind that a low IQ isn't necessary for false confessions to take place. Amanda Knox did not have a low IQ. Nor did four innocent men who confessed to a brutal crime in Norfolk, Virginia. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/th…. There are many other such cases that apply.

The reality is that some people who find themselves isolated and terrified have breaking points, and there are all kinds of psychological pressures that can be applied to reach those breaking points. The false confessions listed above including Misskelley's came after hours of grilling by authorities who were not after the truth but after admissions of guilt with minds already made up.

In other words, there are commonalities in how such confessions are obtained.

As a society, we don't seem to learn. In this 21st century culture of talk radio, we know everything. We can't imagine confessing to such a brutal crime if we didn't commit it...but maybe, just maybe, we really have no idea what that horrifying experience is really like.

We see so many of these appalling cases, one after another, where a jury or a public listen to a confession and apply all the weight in the world to it -- even more than physicial evidence or a lack thereof found at the crime scene. DNA even seems to take a back seat in some of these cases.

It's time as an informed public to understand that confessions on their face have to be regarded, not as smoking guns, but as potential pieces of evidence that need exploration in terms of how they were obtained and in what context.

With no physicial evidence tying these "suspects" to the crime scene, with only a small portion of the interrogation recorded, with no parent or lawyer present with Misskelley during the "interviews," and with a reasoable allibi that checked out, this one stunk to high heaven from day one.

report 5 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

typo alert: Last post should have read: It isn't beyond a reasonable doubt that they did NOT do this; it's beyond just about any doubt.

report 1 like, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

There was no 12-hour interrogation. Misskelley first confessed at 2:20 pm, roughly 4½ hours after Sgt. Allen picked him up at his father’s workplace. That 4½ hour period included maybe 3 hours of actual interrogation. Misskelley’s lawyer and WM3 defenders often make the similar claim that Misskelley functions at a five-year-old level. There’s no evidence for this claim. He was 17 at the time of the crime and confession, and he functioned at the level of a street-smart but low-IQ 17-year-old.
http://wm3truth.com/jessie-misskelleys-con…

Echols had a long history of violence and psychotic behavior and IMO the potential to commit the crimes he was convicted of. People who considered Echols dangerous, violent and potentially homicidal in 1993 had very good reasons for doing so. http://wm3truth.com/damien-echols-profile/

The FBI never studied "satanic cult killings." One member did, who never formerly interviewed any of the victims. His writings are his own opinion and ignores the evidence and criminal convictions.

The lack of DNA evidence from the 3 convicted is not surprising considering the conditions (the bodies were found in water) and the length of time it took to find the bodies.

Police took a necklace from Echols when he was arrested. An outside crime lab later found blood from two distinct DNA sources on the necklace. One source was consistent with Echols himself. The second source was consistent with both victim Steven Branch and co-defendant Jason Baldwin.

Paradise Lost III: Purgatory glosses over the irrefutable fact that the defendants themselves requested the Alford Plea and chose instead to portray the situation as if the defendants were forced to plead guilty. The truth is that the defendants were given the opportunity to present their case for innocence, but four months prior to the evidentiary hearing, they requested that the Court allow them the opportunity to plead guilty instead. After 18 years proclaiming their alleged innocence, these men were given the chance to prove that they did not kill our children, and they declined. Perhaps this was because their attorneys knew that sufficient exculpatory evidence does not exist.
http://wm3truth.com/2012/01/letter-to-ampa…

report 3 likes, 6 dislikes   like  dislike

@ MS I have read the letter from the grieving parents to the Academy and the Facebook information devoted to the notion that the documentary films are misleading and the real killers were caught. They are overwhelmingly unconvincing despite that I feel terrible for those who have lost their children.

Once again, I point out a plethora of cases where false confessions have been obtained regardless of the person's IQ or education. The idea that Miskelley admitted the three's guilt in multiple places is simply unproven and not likely by the evidence that has come out.

We can argue about the amount of time he was interrogated for, but you seem not to be bothered at all that authorities recorded only a small portion of the encounter they had with MisKelley. Yet, defenders of the verdict are up in arms that the Paradise Lost series only includes SOME of the trial footage, as if the filmmakers should have made a 22-hour movie out of fairness.

The parents' letter and the Facebook page use the term "irrefutable" quite often and charge that the public knows only some of the evidence. And yet, like the West Memphis authorities that make similar charges, they offer no new evidence that we have not seen or read.

Much of what they say is quite refutable and simply saying otherwise doesn't make 2+2=5.

The parents accuse the filmmakers of being biased and it's true that the PL series seems to take a stronger position as it goes along. The filmmakers though didn't lie to the parents as claimed; they believed going in the defendants were guilty until they considered the evidence and came to a different conclusion.

This doesn't make their case less convincing; in fact, the other way around. The author of "Devil's Knot" covered the case from day one and does a better job than the film in documenting how the court case proceeded. Like the filmmkers, she comes to a conclusion based on evidence or the lack of it.

That two juries found these men guilty seems to be all that's necessary as proof for the verdict defenders. And yet, if you look at the judge's rulings on a myriad of important points, as can be found online and in "Devil's Knot," there are huge and infuriating questions that emerge regarding impartiality.

That the jury also likely and illegally had information about Miskelley's confession also raises mammoth concerns.

Once again, defending the verdict by saying -- "The jury said so" -- and not presenting any evidence to support the contention is alarming illogic.

The case is now being made that the Alford pleas were the idea of the West Memphis Three. This seems more than unlikely and I keep looking for evidence to that effect. There is none. But even assuming this is correct, can you possibly provide an answer as to why the state would allow three men convicted of brutal murders to go free if it felt the evidence was "irrefutable?"

I get that it's highly offensive to parents who still think these three are guilty to see them go free and promote a new documentary on the case (which also presents evidence of their innocence) and "hob nob" with celebrities. But more outlandish logic is presented in the letter implying that they should be out looking for the real killers if they are innocent.

That's the job of the authorities in Arkansas. I'm not suggesting that there is enough evidence for me or anyone else to declare someone guilty of these horrible crimes. What I am suggesting is there is enough evidence to warrant that the case be opened again and an investigation conducted.

None of this long response is going to change your mind, these parents' minds or advocates of the Facebook page. I know that.

But I ask you this: If you grant me that it's possible to obtain false confessions from scared suspects, is there really evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that these men committed the crime? If so, I'm still waiting to hear about it.

report 7 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Everything I said is documented.

For information on what Paradise Lost left out, see the video at
http://wm3truth.com/2012/01/youtube-video-…

Paradise Lost was made with an agenda from the start.

While we were grieving for our children, the HBO film crew assured us that they only chronicled the events as they unfolded, and that they believed the defendants to be guilty. They earned our trust, and then they violated it. Director Joe Berlinger aptly referred to himself as a “storyteller first, a journalist second…” an accurate description given the fable he has conjured.

Berlinger decided within “five minutes” of meeting Damien Echols that he was innocent and immediately set out upon a mission to prove it, truth and facts be damned.

The fabricated innocence of the defendants made for a better “documentary” than the truth that these three teenagers killed our children for nothing more than a sick thrill.
http://wm3truth.com/2012/01/letter-to-ampa…


"can you possibly provide an answer as to why the state would allow three men convicted of brutal murders to go free if it felt the evidence was "irrefutable?"

Yes, the state realized it would be going up against a well funded OJ type defense. It would cost them a lot of money if they won and if they lost, it would cost them even more money.

"defenders of the verdict are up in arms that the Paradise Lost series only includes SOME of the trial footage, as if the filmmakers should have made a 22-hour movie out of fairness."

What they are upset about is how the documentaries picked out certain information and left out evidence of the 3's guilt.

While it can be argued that virtually all documentaries are biased in some way or another, Paradise Lost III: Purgatory blatantly misrepresented the truth, staged scenes, contrived confrontations, distorted the facts, and lied by omission. '
http://wm3truth.com/2012/01/letter-to-ampa…


It is very unlikely that it is possible to obtain three false confessions from one suspect (one time in front of his own lawyer), plus all of the other confessions and bragging the 3 did to others admitting they committed the crimes.


Supporters are not going to change their minds about this. But this comment section, unlike the movies, presents both sides of the story for readers to make their own decisions about the guilt of the 3.

report 1 like, 5 dislikes   like  dislike

Part of the problem I have with this debate is in your first sentence: "Everything I said is documented."

Simply because you link to a video containing rumors, falsehoods and twisted conclusions does not mean this is documented. Most of this is well-trotted territory and reminds me of advocates who insist that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

There are all kinds of unsubstantiated rumors flying around this case. The confessions and lie detector tests are among the most prevalent of them along with the sordid history of Damien Echols.

What can be said about Echols is that there was evidence that he was a disturbed and depressed teenager who quite likely needed help. The specifics in this video of his past behavior are not adequately documented and there is no way to determine what is truth and what is fabricated or embellished.

Nor is it particularly important to do so. The degree of just how disturbed Echols was does not tie him to a crime scene. Physicial evidence does and there is and was none.


The allibi information here is not accurate or misleading or both. Documented interviews corroborate that three witnesses vouched for Echols' allibi. Where is the documentation about Echols changing his story repeatedly or his allibi breaking down?

I can ask that about a number of the points presented here.


Miskelley provided confessions that were the heart of the first trial. How many confessions he gave has been in dispute and has seemed to escalate over the years based on rummor, innuendo and a small group with an agenda.

What we do know for FACT is that only a small portion of his interrogation was recorded, that he had no lawyer or other adult present during lengthy "questioning" and that there is a long history of false confessions obtained by police from people with a higher IQ than Miskelley.

It's stunning to me that none of this bothers you.


The information about these suspects failing polygraph tests is either false or twisted. Let's take Miskelley's. The only question on his polygraph that indicated deception is whether he took drugs, not whether he had anything to do with these killings.


Here is the corroboration on that:
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/w_holmes_report…

Miskelley passed his lie detector test when it came to the murders but was told otherwise to gain a confession from him, a common technique in the history of false confessions.

I could go over more of this video in this same way, but I think it's useless. As mentioned, this has the makings of conspiracy therorists who will grab and twist anything -- logic or critical thinking be damned.

If you watch the three films, the filmmakers clearly develop an advocacy position the deeper the series goes. The first film is much more "impartial" than the last two. Suggesting that the fiilmmakers had the same agenda from the start belies what comes across in these films.

Moreover, the filmmakers were not the only ones who came to believe these men were innocent. The journalist who covered the case from the start (see "Devil's Knot") came to the same conclusion only after she considered evidence or lack thereof. So did outside lawyers and experts who caught up with the case.


Finally, it is more than curious to me that you defend the state releasing three men who allegedly slaughtered three young boys simpy because the defense is now so well funded?

Does that really make sense to you? How could it?


If the evidence is "irrefutable," a favorite word of this advocacy group, then why would such a response from the state be excusable in any way? It's a dereliction of duty of the highest order. Moreover, it doesn't make any common sense.

It's more reasonable to conclude that had this case gone forward, there was more than enough evidence to free these men and to open up possibility of all kinds of costly lawsuits for a botched and arguably corrupt investigation from the start.


This wasn't about the state having iron-clad evidence but not wanting to go up against a "well-funded" defense. That's an argument that borders on pathetic.

It's about the state trying to fend off culpability -- both legally and financially -- for railroading three innocent boys whose late teenage and early adult years were taken away from them.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike