|
This is another one of those cases that demonstrates how frustrating(an understatement, I know) it can be to try to get to the truth of things when human memory and eyewitness testimony is so unreliable. There's just so much of the timeline of events that was never conclusively established because the various witnesses never seemed to agree on what they saw or heard. Its hard to close a case under those circumstances unless you have a confession or DNA, and in this case even DNA may not have led to a conviction because Hobbs had an excuse for why the boys would have his hair on them.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Just dropping in that West of Memphis seems to be up on the Canadian version of Netflix, if anyone's interested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:This is another one of those cases that demonstrates how frustrating(an understatement, I know) it can be to try to get to the truth of things when human memory and eyewitness testimony is so unreliable. There's just so much of the timeline of events that was never conclusively established because the various witnesses never seemed to agree on what they saw or heard. Agreed. The WMPD cold have cleared this up a lot by simply doing basic police work (interviewing family members and canvassing the neighborhood). That's why over the years, I've learned to largely follow the physical evidence (DNA, no knife wounds, animal predation, rebar, bite mark, etc., which all points to hobbs. There was also incentive to provide information in the form of the $10,000 reward so a lot of people were talking poo poo just for a stab at it, starting with Jessie Miskelly and Vicky Hutcheson. Basebf555 posted:Its hard to close a case under those circumstances unless you have a confession or DNA, and in this case even DNA may not have led to a conviction because Hobbs had an excuse for why the boys would have his hair on them. What about Jacoby's hair? How did that get there? How'd the Hobbs hair get into the knot of the shoelace? This is another reason I think it was a dump site. If the hair was on the lace and not in the knot, it would have washed away. It was in the knot because the person who bound the kids (Hobbs, IMO) did it on dry land, elsewhere, and transferred it then. Also, what's the likelihood of that hair being there when Hobbs said he never saw the boys that day and that Stevie Branch never came home? That would be one stubborn motherfucking hair. Where are all the other hairs? the Moore's, Byers' and the WM3's? The problem is determining which lace belonged to which child's shoe, something that's never been determined. Lastly, what do you think caused this wound? http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w113/paidfersumbitch/rebarflatedge.jpg Certainly nothing in the creek, right? Dr.Caligari posted:To me, Hobbs is easily one of the top 3 suspects... I asked before, but who are the other two? I suspect since you have three, counting Hobbs, you believe the WM3 are innocent? Unless you're grouping them together as one in which case I apologize for the misunderstanding. the_chavi posted:Hey team, no expert on the details, but I am from West Memphis, so throw me some questions about local flavor... Does your family still live there? Are you familiar with the geography and layout of the trailer park(s), the truck wash, Robin Hood Hills woods and all that, because I understand it's changed significantly. The woods aren't even there anymore. Ever go in there as a kid?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Does your family still live there? Are you familiar with the geography and layout of the trailer park(s), the truck wash, Robin Hood Hills woods and all that, because I understand it's changed significantly. The woods aren't even there anymore. Ever go in there as a kid? gently caress no, that place is scary as poo poo to this day. My family's still in WM and while the whole town is trashy, that place is worse than most. I never remember seeing woods there, though my memory probably would start around 1996.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
the_chavi posted:gently caress no, that place is scary as poo poo to this day. My family's still in WM and while the whole town is trashy, that place is worse than most. I never remember seeing woods there, though my memory probably would start around 1996. What are your personal thoughts regarding the innocence or guilt of the WM3 or anyone else for that matter? I can't believe it took me this long to ask you that one simple question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
BiggerBoat, I'm curious. What's the goal as a supporter? You mentioned that there are things happening "behind the scenes." Is this cause something people plan to stick with until.. the crime is solved? The government pardon the 3 guys? or try to maintain awareness forever? I absolutely believe the three of them are innocent. I always felt worst for Jason Baldwin because (with short hair) he looked just like a close relative mine, and I could have seem him being in the same exact situation. Stupid kids getting framed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I was reading and posting on boards that thought they were innocent and those that also thought they were guilty. Are there still pages or blogs around that try to make the case that they were guilty? Google hasn't revealed any to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:What are your personal thoughts regarding the innocence or guilt of the WM3 or anyone else for that matter? I can't believe it took me this long to ask you that one simple question. I have always assumed that the three kids were innocent, and I think most people my age in WM assume the same, but very few people talk about it. I don't know many people who've watched the movies, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Juanito posted:BiggerBoat, I'm curious. What's the goal as a supporter? You mentioned that there are things happening "behind the scenes." Is this cause something people plan to stick with until.. the crime is solved? The government pardon the 3 guys? or try to maintain awareness forever? The goal of supporters is exoneration and nailing the real killer(s). After the WM3 were released, most supporters sort of fizzled out, happy that they were finally out of prison. The boards used to be really active but now only a few remain and there's not much activity. If you empathize with Jason, you should read Dark Spell which focuses specifically on him. Phyzzle posted:Are there still pages or blogs around that try to make the case that they were guilty? Google hasn't revealed any to me. They're around but I hate to promote them. It's usually the same 5 or 10 people who post on all of them and most of them are really mean sprited, rude, vindictive and condescending. Here's a couple: http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/ http://wm3truth.com/ http://wm3truth.com/links/ There used to be a few "non-supporter" message boards but I guess they closed up shop. http://wm3guilty.proboards.com/ HEre's a thread on the supporter board with some heavy debate: http://westmemphisthreediscussion.yuku.com/topic/7777/How-the-WM3-are-actually-guilty
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
To pour some gas on this thread, and with the permission of the guys in the Documentary Thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3269030&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=91 I'm going to cross post some poo poo from over there. DrVenkman posted:What do you make of some of the information that got held back from the movies that painted Echols et al in a less than innocent light. I found it interesting that a 500 page report of Echols previous mental history was presented to the court and it wasn't mentioned at all during the movie (Or any of the others). I'd be interested to know if the filmmakers were aware of that stuff, though given they were there at all times you'd have to assume so. Dr.Caligari posted:Not only do I want to hear more, but I think this deserves an ask/tell or some other thread of it's own (surprised we don't have a WM3 thread already actually) It's not me who said the cause of death was drowning. It was Werner Spitz and his colleagues; several of the leading forensic experts in the world. I think the boys were beaten and left for dead close by. Most likely stashed in a manhole. There's an industrial patterned wound on the leg of one child that very much resembles rebar, which is used for the ladders inside these manholes. There were several manholes very close by the discovery site. These images have also been independently reviewed by people who would know and ALL OF THEM said that this wound is likely a rebar impression. No rebar in that creek. http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/3c326865ca053dca97a79a4df9e8b642c1d85337.pjpg The boys were tied with their won shoelaces later that night to ease transport where they likely succumbed to blunt force trauma, drowned and were predated upon by aquatic animals; most likely turtles and fish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-CDl_mXgHs The "bite mark" on Steve Branch that caused so much hulabaloo in PL2 matches a partial denture that was found in lock box owned by Terry Wayne Hobbs. Also in the lockbox was a 1993 (the year the boys were murdered) penny and Stevie's pocket knife. That was all that was in there. I can't find the gif image of the partial denture superimposed over the bite mark but the guy that came up with it is a dentist and a supporter of the WM3. It's chilling to watch. It's out there somewhere. Here's a still image. http://www.maraleveritt.com/images/Blog_Photos/BiteMarks03.png I'll e-mail the guy and see if he can point me to it. Last I heard, he was having it peer reviewed and planned on presenting it at a dentist conference or something. There were no stab wounds on any of the kids. They weren't loving scraped to death. The State has (had) no case which is why they were let go. They also have no interest in investigating it either. The more you look at this case, apply Occam's Razor and all that, it seems pretty likely it was Hobbs. *snip* redundant. Here's a transcript of his deposition from when he tried to sue Natalie Maines. There's video of it somewhere: http://callahan.8k.com/hobbs_pasdar/t_hobbs_depo1.html The dentist wrote me back. Here's some more of the denture mark: http://maraleveritt.com/some-humans-bite-revisiting-the-evidence/ DrVenkman posted:There was (blood at the crime scene). The early case summary noted that the bank looked 'slicked off' as if someone had tried washing something away. Ok that's vague enough however the police went back and sprayed Luminol around the crime scene which highlighted the blood. You can see the pictures here http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/luminol_photos.html - they also reported that after eliminating any blood patterns that pointed to blood being spilled in the process of the bodies being moved, they found more than enough blood to indicate that something happened at the ditch. The issue in court came around asking the question of 'visible blood', of which there was none. But again that's what the luminol testing was for. DrVenkman posted:It's a strange issue because, no matter how it's put, there was blood at the crime scene. However the judge eventually came to the decision that he couldn't allow the luminol testing - that site has the transcript of that conversation with the lawyers - but I'm not entirely sure why. He rules it's not 'strong' enough to be used as evidence against the three, but concedes that it does show blood was at the scene. It was actually one of the decisions that the judge made in favour of the defence, but it's left out of the movie (As is the whole blood issue). Regarding the luminol testing, not only was it done after the fact, but was done in an area where the bodies were placed on the ditch. Deer urine (and other animal urine) reacts to luminol tests and deer were very prevalent in that area also. There's a reason the judge disallowed it. A dump site would also produce trace evidence of blood. When supporters say "no blood was found at the crime scene" what they mean is "if 3 children were murdered RIGHT HERE and stabbed to death in a drunken Satanic ritual orgy, there'd be blood EVERYWHERE". Byers didn't do it either. Granted, he comes off as a crazy person (but so does everyone else in those films) and has copped to being drunk and on drugs for at least 10 years after the murders, but his known timeline and alibis don't fit nor does any of physical evidence link him to the crime. Why would Byers, were he guilty, suddenly flip sides and loudly turn into a supporter, write Damien letters of apology and fight for their releaseif he was confident that he already had other people locked up for something he did? The Kershaw knife is a red herring because none of the children were stabbed. Same with the lake knife found behind Jason's house. The deeper you get into this case, the more you have to apply Occam's razor because there's so such innuendo, heresay and shoddy police work that it's hard to know who or what to believe. *snip* Look at that denture impression and the rebar pattern I posted. That's the closest thing there is to a smoking gun, along with Hobbs' and Jacoby's DNA, the Natalie Maines deposition and Hobbs placing himself at the crime scene at the time the murders were supposedly committed. If the WM3 did it, they're criminal masterminds. Do they strike any of you as tremendously bright or clever? quote:Also, both Misskelley and Echols revealed details about the murder before they were known to the public or to the detectives. No they didn't. quote:Misskelley knew that a boy had been cut on the face, and that only one boy had been sexually mutilated. Neither of those things happened. quote:Echols said something about urine in the mouth/stomach before it was found in the autopsy. There was no urine found in anyone's stomachs. bunky posted:Jessie Misskelley, a dude with a 70-ish IQ was interrogated long enough (who cares if it was actually a full 12 hours) for him to admit exactly what the detectives needed him to say. That's what cops do. His confession was the crux of the trial. Go read Miskelly's confession(s). None of them make any loving sense. Dude first wanted the reward then wanted to please authority figures, none of whom he was sure who to trust. DrVenkman posted:It matters if it's a full 12 hours or not because one of the big soundbites of the whole thing is that he was questioned for 12 hours, not allowed access to his parents and denied a lawyer, therefore he must be totally innocent and everything recanted. The problem is that those 3 things are repeated again and again but are not true. Saying he goes into the police station at 10am and isn't questioned any longer than two hours at a time (He's interviewed for an hour, then his father signs off on a polygraph, Miskelley takes the polygraph and then is questioned again) doesn't quite have the same ring to it. The real truth of the matter is that there's not enough to convict them and sadly there's not enough to say they definitely didn't do it either. Personally, yes I think they're innocent, but for my own curiosity I like to look at what's widely reported (That 12 hour confessions has been recently blooming to over 18 hours by the way) and what actually happened. Some of this is fair and some of it's not. Again, go read it. There are no stab wounds, no Satanic ritual sacrifice, no sexual molestation, no rope used to bind the kids. As dumb as he is, he certainly knows the difference between night and day. DrVenkman posted:I took the same for granted that it's as the movie says and he was questioned over 12 hours with no representation etc. It's more the fiction around the case that makes me curious, like the issue of Echols psych file. To play Devil's Advocate, in regards to his initial confession, Miskelley seems muddled on his times and the cops establish that fact because he says he received a call that morning, that he was in the woods that morning and that he had a call that evening. In his initial confession itself there's nothing more untoward than police doing what they do and actually trying to establish something. They only recorded 45 - 90 minutes or so of Miskelly's statements and correct him repeatedly throughout what was recorded. Why do you suppose that might be? Jessie's story does not add up no matter how many times he repeats it. Jessie thought at one point that his lawyer was a cop. Guy's a retard, straight up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
The "Non" sites linked place a huge emphasis on Echol's mental health prior to the murders. But they don't seem to say anything concrete about his mental health after. Are their records of him behaving psychotically after entering prison?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
thousandcranes posted:The "Non" sites linked place a huge emphasis on Echol's mental health prior to the murders. But they don't seem to say anything concrete about his mental health after. Are their records of him behaving psychotically after entering prison? He was and still is mentally ill. He definitely had issued in prison. Psychotic? Not that I'm aware of. He's depressed/bi-polar and prisons aren't the best place to treat that. It's a terrible environment, obviously, and prisons aren't very good with medications.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
I am developing a course (Psychology and the Law), and I was going to use the WM3 as a case study. I have watched all three Paradise Lost documentaries, but I cannot really assign 6+ hours to students. I have not watched West of Memphis. Would you recommend that? Does it cover the crime and the trial phase well? I was thinking of showing the first Paradise Lost film and supplementing that with an article or two on the postscript. The broad topics that I want to cover w/r/t the WM3 are: eyewitness testimony, false confessions, moral panics ("Satanic Panic"), juror bias and jury decision-making, and (maybe)the effects of long-term incarceration. Nice thread! Lots of good links.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:I am developing a course (Psychology and the Law), and I was going to use the WM3 as a case study. West of Memphis is the best film, IMO. PL1 would be a good case study on psychology because it's objective and the most "documentary-ish" of the three. If you just want a synopsis of the whole saga, PL3 is probably the best one. WOM covers a lot from what I recall. If you just want to show your students the case and ask them "are they guilty?" then definitely PL1. If you show them that, they'll probably seek out the rest of the films on their own anyway. If you want them thinking about all the other stuff and the totality of the case, then PL3 or WOM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
New theory: It was a suicide pact, the boys did all of that stuff to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:West of Memphis is the best film, IMO. PL1 would be a good case study on psychology because it's objective and the most "documentary-ish" of the three. If you just want a synopsis of the whole saga, PL3 is probably the best one. WOM covers a lot from what I recall. Thanks. I will order a copy of WOM and also re-watch PL3. I was leaning toward one of the PL's because it is available for free on Amazon Prime (this is an online class, so I look for free/cheap videos--since I am not just showing it to traditional class, students have to procure a copy).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:Thanks. I will order a copy of WOM and also re-watch PL3. I was leaning toward one of the PL's because it is available for free on Amazon Prime (this is an online class, so I look for free/cheap videos--since I am not just showing it to traditional class, students have to procure a copy). Post your findings if you feel like it. I'd be curious to learn their thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Post your findings if you feel like it. I'd be curious to learn their thoughts. I am just developing the courses, not teaching them in the near future (it may be another instructor altogether--Visiting Prof.  ). But if I do teach this in the future, I'll track you down and let you know. I think the students will be interested, even people I know socially, who are totally disinterested in law, criminal justice, criminology, etc., have been really interested in this case when I brought it to light for them.e: Also ordered WOM today, I'll post after watching; I will get it next week. usbombshell fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:e: Also ordered WOM today, I'll post after watching; I will get it next week. You'll like it. What are your thoughts/opinions on the case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
I guess one of my problems with WoM is that it does what the town of Memphis originally did. Also what PL2 did, and that is paint the picture of who the killer was, instead of just presenting the facts and letting the viewer decide. I agree (at this time) it does make a strong case, but I have to admit that after I watched PL2 I thought the same about Byers. As far as what 'suspects' I have.. I can't say for sure, if that makes since. The closest I will ever be to the case is a few states and a two decades away. That is to say I wasn't there and will not know everything the police/prosecutor did or should have known. Hobbs is a prime suspect, but I would say the WM3 and other locals or even a random stranger from the near by truck stop could have done it or played some part in it. It's probably a stereotype, but quite a few locals they interviewed in the PL series seemed shifty and probably easily influenced with the right motivation (they believed in some murderous, active satanic cult after all). Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I guess one of my problems with WoM is that it does what the town of Memphis originally did. Also what PL2 did, and that is paint the picture of who the killer was, instead of just presenting the facts and letting the viewer decide. I agree (at this time) it does make a strong case, but I have to admit that after I watched PL2 I thought the same about Byers. So did I. I think WOM is different in that it really does center around the presentation of facts. A lot of them are just new facts. Byers was a legit suspect for a while and the police were right to crawl up his rear end with a microscope. Hobbs was never really looked at (or even interviewed) until his DNA turned up and that's what WOM was looking into. I can see your point though. Dr.Caligari posted:As far as what 'suspects' I have.. I can't say for sure, if that makes sense. Hobbs is a prime suspect, but I would say the WM3 and other locals or even a random stranger from the near by truck stop could have done it or played some part in it. It doesn't really make sense because you said "Hobbs is in my top 3" so I'd assumed you'd made a list. What evidence have you seen that points to the WM3? I get the confession(s) but I honestly don't see anything else. Thrill kill homicides like this one are exceedingly rare to have been perpetrated by kids as young as they were at the time, and "Satanic sacrifices" and such are practically an urban legend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:I am developing a course (Psychology and the Law), and I was going to use the WM3 as a case study. West of Memphis is on Canadian Netflix and I just watched it the other day after reading this thread. I felt it could have been better if it had focused more on the procedural errors the police made, but it was an interesting film. I didn't realize until about halfway through that it was directed by Echols, and that was my only complaint about the film, around the middle it picks up some "Echols is an awesome guy, Hobbs is Satan" kind of feel and that hurts the overall piece. I do have a couple questions, WoM never mentions the Bojangles man, was this not seen as an important part of the case at the time? Also they mention very briefly that Jessie Misskelly had a pretty good alibi the night of the murder, something like 6 people saying he was at a wrestling match with them? Why was this ignored completely at the first trial, was the testimony of the witnesses doubted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:I didn't realize until about halfway through that it was directed by Echols, and that was my only complaint about the film No it wasn't. It was directed by Amy Berg, a protege and colleague of Peter Jackson. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2130321/ A Typical Goon posted:I do have a couple questions, WoM never mentions the Bojangles man, was this not seen as an important part of the case at the time? They just didn't have anything new related to it so there wasn't much to focus on. A Typical Goon posted:Also they mention very briefly that Jessie Misskelly had a pretty good alibi the night of the murder, something like 6 people saying he was at a wrestling match with them? Why was this ignored completely at the first trial, was the testimony of the witnesses doubted? It wasn't ignored, it was doubted. Jessie's alibi witnesses got destroyed on the witness stand. Three was a wrestling meet the prior weekend and practice on the evening of the murders. Supporters say the kids got mixed up about "practice" versus a "meet" and non-supporters and the prosecution say they're lying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
I've never been all that interested in the West Memphis Three, but this has been a really fascinating thread. Also, BiggerBoat posted:Thrill kill homicides like this one are exceedingly rare to have been perpetrated by kids as young as they were at the time, and "Satanic sacrifices" and such are practically an urban legend. Satanic sacrifices aren't "pracically an urban leggend," they straight-up ARE an urban legend. There is not a single law enforcement agency in the US--on any level, local or federal--that has uncovered even one case of Satanic ritual abuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Bobbie Wickham posted:I've never been all that interested in the West Memphis Three, but this has been a really fascinating thread. Also, You're right, I just wanted to qualify the statement. I was thinking about one case I saw on ID where some teenage killers straight up said they were vampires or some poo poo. Along those same lines, when the WMPD were having trouble solving the case they enlisted the help of the FBI. The Feds straight up told them not to pursue the Satan worship angle (since it was bullshit) and to investigate the family members and close friends instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
appleskates posted:I also used to work at the Arkansas Times, which has covered this story extensively. I know Mara Leveritt, the author of Devil's Knot. I missed this. How well do you know Mara Leveritt and what do you think of her books?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
In 2011 I saw Paradise Lost 1 & 2, and it was the first time I ever felt like writing a letter due to viewing a documentary. About six months after I saw the first two, Paradise Lost 3 came out and I was able to catch up with the Alford Plea outcome. (It's not a "win", because they've had to endure far too much injustice.) But I want to say that, upon coming to the end of Paradise Lost 1 - which I had more listened to than watched - I honestly expected the documentary to end on a note of "Gosh, if it wasn't these three or that weirdo with the brain tumor, what are the prosecutors going to do?". I literally did a double-take when they read the verdict, and instantly went to Amazon to get Paradise Lost 1&2 as I'd just been viewing this on HBO On Demand. Then I properly watched the documentaries, and basically obsessed over it for a few days or so afterward. It was like a King novel. Small town people pointing their fingers and calling these innocents monsters after seeing some bad pictures, too ignorant to realize that they are the monsters, that they compounded those horrific murders by sentencing three more kids to death. In the 1990s. It was unreal to me, especially because I think I'm ~3 years younger than Echols. BiggerBoat posted:(The Bojangles man) The Bojangles thing was a total loss right? I mean, the cops never picked him up nor found him, so that was pretty much the end of him I thought. It still seems like a front-runner for glaring problems in the investigation. Sure we've got these three outcast children to blame with their fictional devil-worship, but maybe the blood-covered maniac who rushed into a restaurant bathroom before vanishing just as quickly had something to do wi- naww. Probably those drat kids. As far as the doubt cast upon Jessie and his wrestling event, I have never seen a worse prosecution narrative. What world are we living in that the terms "meet" and "practice" are grounds enough for dismissing testimony if they'd been (at some point) interchanged? Good lord. Sorry to textwall this but I've been privately enthused about the Memphis Three for long enough that it's exciting to see anyone else discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It doesn't really make sense because you said "Hobbs is in my top 3" so I'd assumed you'd made a list. What evidence have you seen that points to the WM3? I get the confession(s) but I honestly don't see anything else. Thrill kill homicides like this one are exceedingly rare to have been perpetrated by kids as young as they were at the time, and "Satanic sacrifices" and such are practically an urban legend. I think my suspicion comes from the confessions, the changing alibis and their behavior (mainly Damiens) after the arrest. The more I think on it though, I know how intimidating authorities can be, and being as young as they were I can see them saying anything just to get the questioning to stop. This doesn't excuse Damiens behavior, but its no secret he had some issues and he may not have acted or responded to things as 'normal' folks would expect. Do you think the 'satanic panic' made the WM3 an easy scapegoat, and that is why the police arrested the WM3? I'm not disagreeing that this is what a happened, but if that is the case, I am mystified as why they just didn't grab Byers. Trying one person will always be easier than trying three, and I think Byers would have self-destructed. Also painting him as an out of control drug addict would have been easy (as we all know from PL2). You might not know the answer to this, but since the case is closed, has all the information from the crime scene been released? I know that it is protocol to withhold some information from murder scenes so if someone comes forward and confesses, there story can be verified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I missed this. How well do you know Mara Leveritt and what do you think of her books? I do not know her well, I have only met her a handful of times at parties and such (and once at the office.) She's really amazing. Now that the WM3 are out, she is still fighting for wrongfully incarcerated people, especially those on death row. I loved Devil's Knot, (the book, not the movie.) I think she has become the most respectable journalist who has taken on this story. Another book she wrote, Boys on the Tracks, exposed the corrupt government in a county in Arkansas and that left some kids who probably witnessed a drug deal murdered on some railroad tracks. That case was also poorly handled by the authorities and is seen as "a mystery" when really it's pretty clear those kids got involved in shady (probably police involved) dealings. I don't think it's in print anymore, but I was lucky enough to find it in a used bookstore a long time ago, before I knew who Mara is or anything about the WM3. I haven't read Dark Spell yet, but I will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
James Trickington posted:The Bojangles thing was a total loss right? Since the cops lost the blood sample there's not much to be done with Bojangles. Jessie's wrestling match was done in my the guy who sponsors the matches saying there were no matches that evening. Don't worry about text. I love discussing this case. Dr.Caligari posted:Do you think the 'satanic panic' made the WM3 an easy scapegoat, and that is why the police arrested the WM3? I'm not disagreeing that this is what a happened, but if that is the case, I am mystified as why they just didn't grab Byers. Trying one person will always be easier than trying three, and I think Byers would have self-destructed. Also painting him as an out of control drug addict would have been easy (as we all know from PL2). Byers was thoroughly investigated and has an alibi for the most of the night. He was interviewed several times. He was also a drug informant for the police which may have led them to treat him with some kid gloves. I'm 100% convinced of Byers' innocence though. I know that Damien's probation officer had a hard on for Satanism and Damien in particular and he very early on mentioned Echols as a suspect. Cops were going around asking people about Echols so rumors spread that he'd done it which led to Jessie "confessing". He went downtown to basicaly say "I heard Damien was responsible" and hoped to collect the ten grand reward money. After that the State felt it was a slam dunk, until Jessie refused to testify against Echols and Baldwin. Dr.Caligari posted:You might not know the answer to this, but since the case is closed, has all the information from the crime scene been released? I know that it is protocol to withhold some information from murder scenes so if someone comes forward and confesses, there story can be verified. No it has not. The State has laid out all of there cards, except for the stuff that the judge disallowed, but the defense team and their investigators have not. Trust me, there is more but there are conflicts of opinion about how to release it, or even if to release it. There's no real cohesion between the defense teams for all three men and no one can get a straight answer from Ellington about anything so it's just kind of sitting there. If Ellington is not investigating the case then it makes no sense to release anything except to cause a stir and get the public riled up. Some people think this is a good idea (including me) but others feel it will jeopardize and taint the evidence and the information if there is indeed ever an arrest made on a new suspect. Oddly, the State refuses to grant Mark Byers and Pam Hobbs access to the evidence, citing "an ongoing investigation." Pam and Mark sued the State and lost but if there's an ongoing investigation being done by the DA, Scott Ellington, I haven't seen anything to verify it. They just want it to go away. The whole thing sucks and now that the WM3 are out, it's like everyone else went home too. appleskates posted:Boys on the Tracks, I need to read this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Byers was thoroughly investigated and has an alibi for the most of the night. He was interviewed several times. He was also a drug informant for the police which may have led them to treat him with some kid gloves. I'm 100% convinced of Byers' innocence though. Yeah, I wasn't convinced of Byers because frankly it seemed above his head to both commit the crime and get away with it so cleanly. Also he kind of spiked on my meter of "No way, that's just too obvious," not that said meter is based on solid reasoning. I didn't know that he was an informant, but I'm willing to bet that was easy for them to press on him after his first time getting cuffed. No doubt they could've built up a pretty mundane case against him for this if they wanted - but more than just a PO had to have a hard-on for Satanism for them to run through this whole circus. That reminds me - I'd forgotten my favorite "expert" witness. That ridiculous "doctor" with his equally ridiculous vault of Dateline tapes. He was so wonderful. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
One thing I forgot to mention that struck me today. That partial denture that Hobbs wore that was found in the lockbox, all by itself along with one penny? The one that matches the bite mark? He doesn't use it anymore. He's had new dentures for years. Why would he keep the old one and, more importantly, why in a lock box? It sounds like the "trophy" stuff you hear about that killers do. That, or he locked it in there when he learned about a bite mark, like he was unsure about how to dispose of it and then forgot about it once the heat died down. I just find that weird. That bite mark "eats at me" so to speak. Take a look at the "X" mark right in the middle of it too. It's been the subject of much speculation. What caused that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:One thing I forgot to mention that struck me today. That partial denture that Hobbs wore that was found in the lockbox, all by itself along with one penny? The one that matches the bite mark? He doesn't use it anymore. He's had new dentures for years. Sorry I'm frantically searching my DVDs right now, but Hobbs was the emergent abusive husband and stepfather of one of the victims, yes? The one that by PL3 we very strongly suspect and had a legal battle with the Dixie Chicks? If so, then I'm gonna have to say check off another nail in the coffin. The way that guy flinched over a racial slur in his interview - if even just a glimpse - said a lot to me. Definitely don't know the guy, definitely not a well-versed expert, but he sends up way more red flags to me than Byers ever did, no matter how freakshow creepy Byers got.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:One thing I forgot to mention that struck me today. That partial denture that Hobbs wore that was found in the lockbox, all by itself along with one penny? The one that matches the bite mark? He doesn't use it anymore. He's had new dentures for years. It's definitely suspicious, but there are issues with bite marks as evidence. You can get several bite patterns out of one set of teeth, and virtually identical patterns from several sets of teeth. You also have to consider that bites are often distorted by clothing, swelling, bruising, or by the assailant biting at an awkward angle that would put more pressure on some teeth than others, and so on. Unless someone has extremely unusual teeth that can be identified by several unique markers, you can't ever say with 100% certainty that a bite mark is "conclusive" evidence. The Innocence Project is now doing a lot of work with cases that use bite marks to convict people, and something like 25 people or so have been exonerated as a result.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
^interesting My thing with the 'lock box', is that from what we read we don't know if it's a fire-proof top-secret grade box, or some dollar store trinket that has a flimsy clasp. I know I have an old 'catch all' wooden box that has never locked since I've had it, and not anytime in the last 5 decades I imagine, but could still technically be called a 'lock box'. Are there any pictures of these items as they were found?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:^interesting Why would you keep any sort of useless poo poo in a box, locking or not, (like a penny and old dentures) unless you're a loving lunatic? Unless he's some sort of very weird hoarder, I don't think those are things that people keep, and they certainly make no sense being put together unless something very strange is going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Thanks for this thread, I've been interested in the WM3 for a while now. I do have a question. While I'm pretty convinced of that the West Memphis Three are innocent and should probably be exonerated, I'm not sure a real culprit could ever be taken to court. I read stuff like this: PT6A posted:Why would you keep any sort of useless poo poo in a box, locking or not, (like a penny and old dentures) unless you're a loving lunatic? Unless he's some sort of very weird hoarder, I don't think those are things that people keep, and they certainly make no sense being put together unless something very strange is going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why would you keep any sort of useless poo poo in a box, locking or not, (like a penny and old dentures) unless you're a loving lunatic? Unless he's some sort of very weird hoarder, I don't think those are things that people keep, and they certainly make no sense being put together unless something very strange is going on. You would have a hay-day in my garage. Just the other day I found a spare key to a car I haven't owned in two years, why would I still have that? Clearly I ran over someone with that car and am keeping it as a souvenir. All I am saying is that it (maybe) shows is that Hobbs is a slob. This argument is stupid and doesn't help anything. My point is that the 'evidence' being discussed is (perhaps) being presented in a way which manipulates us into thinking there is more to it than there is. Besides, if Hobbs was not investigated, how do we know the objects were found in this way? Are we just taking Mrs. Hobbs word for it? Or are there actual police photos of these items as they were found? Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:Are there any pictures of these items as they were found? I don't think so. Pam Hobbs found the items I believe. The dentures are a weird thing to keep because had new ones made and he no longer had use for them. I agree, it's circumstantial but combined with the bite mark it has more significance. Tin Hat posted:Thanks for this thread, I've been interested in the WM3 for a while now. His DNA at the crime scene, conflicting alibis, possession of Stevie's pocket knife, placing himself at the crime scene, being one of the last ones to see the boys (which he denied), previous history of child abuse...I'm not sure it's enough to convict either but that bite mark is very unique. It was a partial denture custom made for Terry Hobbs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
Yea, its important to remember that theoretically if we were building a cast against Hobbs, nobody is saying the lock box with the dentures in it would be some smoking gun that would lead to an easy conviction. A lot of murders are solved because the totality of the evidence adds up to a big picture, and when you step back and look at the big picture the possibilities become limited, or even point to one specific person. Almost any piece of evidence short of DNA(sometimes even then) can be explained away on its own, you have to put all the pieces together before you can really make an informed judgment. People expect there to always be one single piece of evidence that proves guilt without a shadow of a doubt, and that rarely happens. Even confessions, as we've seen in this case, can be highly suspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 14:54
|
|