Forgotten west memphis 3

[7Wm3100]

Just watched the recent documentary. Not followed the case in years but still cant shake off the thought that these guys are guilty.

About time someone done a documentary focussing on these 3 as suspects. We only really get it from the other side. Which is basically anybody but them.

Its like listening to the expert fbi profiler...i know hes meant to be an expert but to me one of the biggest pieces of evidence was....the three knots each being tied a different way. Surely any reasonable person expert or not realises it points towards....at least 3 people being involved in the crime.

That defo wasnt a one man job.

With that evidence alone....you start to add the 3 memphis kids had no alibi. We,re found to be lying about their alibi. They also spent a good bit of time in them woods.

Damiens mental records points towards him being well capable of it. He defo would fit a real profile of the crime at the least.

Thats without looking at the other evidence. You,ve got a kid that continually confesses to it. Etc etc.

The crime itself does point towards it not being adults involved for me. Its far more likely that 3 or more we,re involved. I m not sure you,d easily find 3 full grown adults that would go along with something like that. One messed up to do it fair enough but 3 up for it. I m not so sure. Its highly improbable anyway. It looks more like the work of 3 teenagers who are a lot more likely to be impressionable. Still reckon the ringleaders being damien has got the other two fully involved.

Its not exactly a stretch. Think common sense alone pretty much tells you who killed them kids.

Dont think they will ever get it solved 100 percent. Tragic for all involved tbh.

 

[DHT1339]

3 teenagers committed a crime of that magnitude and managed to leave behind a spotless crime scene?

 

[7Wm3100]

3 teenagers committed a crime of that magnitude and managed to leave behind a spotless crime scene?

Surely whoever done it left a spotless crime scene therefore. No suspect has ever really fitted the bill for being capable of that certainly not byers or hobbs.

Therefore surely common sense prevails and a combination of the dna being too degraded....luminol not being used in court at that time and it actually being harder to get a dna match than people think back in 1994 is the sensible answer.

Again using common sense....the west memphis 3 look far and away the biggest suspects. How certain can you be...i,d say about 99 percent depends how far you go with reasonable doubt before your looking at unreasonable doubt.

Think its probably time to put it behind us all tho....in terms of they served 18 years....and hopefully they go on to live reasonable law abiding lives. But i m pretty sure anyone that doesnt approach the case trying to point at anyone but the west memphis 3 leaves thinking they can be pretty certain....they killed them kids.

Think common sense tells us it wasnt a one man job. It points to 3 or more people being involved. That narrows the search down massively. Anyone really believe anyone was capable of it alone. Any suspect? Just wasnt the time or oppertunity.

You,ve got 3 kids....that frequent the woods. That have no alibi....and at least one of them kids has a fetish for sacrifice/blood etc. Their alibi,s all turned out to be false. To this day no one has really ever backed up what they we,re up to that night. Seems to be a long period they we,re unaccounted for.

Thats before we start looking at confessions etc.

Without going into the law etc....or looking at desperate peoples arguments with ulterior motives just using common sense...i think you can be pretty certain they killed them poor kids. Enough to put them away forever...i think so. Like a lot of cases there will always be that one percent of uncertainly but with reasonable doubt...i think we can be pretty certain.

Just hope lessons are learned from it...that moronic kids should be discouraged from going down the path echols went down. The whole goth scene. Most are harmless enough i,d imagine. But with a dangerous mind like echols...bad things can end up happening.

 

[DHT1339]

Surely whoever done it left a spotless crime scene therefore. No suspect has ever really fitted the bill for being capable of that certainly not byers or hobbs.

Therefore surely common sense prevails and a combination of the dna being too degraded....luminol not being used in court at that time and it actually being harder to get a dna match than people think back in 1994 is the sensible answer.

Again using common sense....the west memphis 3 look far and away the biggest suspects. How certain can you be...i,d say about 99 percent depends how far you go with reasonable doubt before your looking at unreasonable doubt.

Think its probably time to put it behind us all tho....in terms of they served 18 years....and hopefully they go on to live reasonable law abiding lives. But i m pretty sure anyone that doesnt approach the case trying to point at anyone but the west memphis 3 leaves thinking they can be pretty certain....they killed them kids.

Think common sense tells us it wasnt a one man job. It points to 3 or more people being involved. That narrows the search down massively. Anyone really believe anyone was capable of it alone. Any suspect? Just wasnt the time or oppertunity.

You,ve got 3 kids....that frequent the woods. That have no alibi....and at least one of them kids has a fetish for sacrifice/blood etc. Their alibi,s all turned out to be false. To this day no one has really ever backed up what they we,re up to that night. Seems to be a long period they we,re unaccounted for.

Thats before we start looking at confessions etc.

Without going into the law etc....or looking at desperate peoples arguments with ulterior motives just using common sense...i think you can be pretty certain they killed them poor kids. Enough to put them away forever...i think so. Like a lot of cases there will always be that one percent of uncertainly but with reasonable doubt...i think we can be pretty certain.

Just hope lessons are learned from it...that moronic kids should be discouraged from going down the path echols went down. The whole goth scene. Most are harmless enough i,d imagine. But with a dangerous mind like echols...bad things can end up happening.

common sense tells me that 3 teenage boys would simply not have been able to murder 3 young boys in the woods and leave a spotless crime scene

you do know that other substances react to luminol, right? plus, luminol is only a "presumptive" test, and further testing is required in order for the results to be admissible in court. since no further testing was done to confirm that it was indeed blood the luminol reacted to, the results of the testing were not admissible in court.

i really don't think DE's alibi is "alarming" at all. may 5th was just another night for him. why would he remember in great detail the events of an ordinary night? hell, if i was asked what i was doing on a tuesday night two weeks ago, i wouldn't be able to remember everything in detail. so imagine being a teen and being asked to remember everything you did on an ordinary night weeks/months ago. why would he have any reason to be able to recall with precision, all of his activities from that night? his activities that night were typical of any teen. talk on the phone with _____, hangout with _____. not to mention that aside from the very shady hollingsworth "sighting," there were no sightings of echols around the woods that night. even with all those people there searching

echols being an odd person is in no way an indicator of guilt. there are plenty of people into weird things who do not murder people, just like there are plenty of murderers who look to be the most ordinary people inside and out. how can you be certain that they killed those 3 boys when there is zero evidence of any kind linking them to the crime scene? i don't see any way that you can say anyone is "for sure" guilty in this case

personally, i don't think one person would've been capable of doing this if the woods were the murder site. if the boys were killed in the woods, i suspect hobbs+partner(s) were behind it. but the spotless crime scene, and the way that the clothes+bikes seemed to be disposed of in a hurry, it wouldn't be crazy to suspect that a trucker was behind the killings. a trucker parked at the 76 truck stop would've been able to lure the boys into the truck, commit the murders there, and then dump the bodies in the woods sometime prior to when they were discovered

 

[7Wm3100]

Again the same thing happens with supporters...they try to break down each piece of evidence and treat it as a single piece of evidence without looking at the totality of the evidence together.

Echols was just a bit odd. Echols was a severely troubled kid with mental problems and a long list of violent behaviours and deeply worrying thoughts etc.

Not having an alibi...isnt odd at all you say....except his alibis we,re proving false. Not one of the 3 boys have any sort of alibi. One is shady but all 3 not having one. Straight away....you become a worthy suspect.

Only one person seen echols and its a dodgy testimony you say. Except miskelly also placed him there. Echols himself doesnt have any sort of alibi. Pretty sure someone could have came up with an accounting of at least one of the kids. To this day no one has accounted for any of them for the time period. You,d think if your life depended on it...you,d remember an account of some kind. No family member or otherwise....has testified to a proper working alibi.

In a lot of cases that go to trial most of them are never 100 percent certain. What we have to do is look at it with a high probability of certainty. What people are looking at is unreasonable doubt. I think we can be pretty certain...they got the right guys.

Unfortunately what you,ve got is average people looking at lawyers arguments....and taking it at face value. Underestimating the ability these lawyers have at telling a story. They do it for a living...their good at making themselves believable. It doesnt make it true tho.

As someone said in another thread....how come the other two are so certain misskelly never murdered those kids. Bearing in mind echols never even heard his confession till years later what makes them so sure miskelly had no part of it?

 

[7Wm3100]

common sense tells me that 3 teenage boys would simply not have been able to murder 3 young boys in the woods and leave a spotless crime scene

you do know that other substances react to luminol, right? plus, luminol is only a "presumptive" test, and further testing is required in order for the results to be admissible in court. since no further testing was done to confirm that it was indeed blood the luminol reacted to, the results of the testing were not admissible in court.

i really don't think DE's alibi is "alarming" at all. may 5th was just another night for him. why would he remember in great detail the events of an ordinary night? hell, if i was asked what i was doing on a tuesday night two weeks ago, i wouldn't be able to remember everything in detail. so imagine being a teen and being asked to remember everything you did on an ordinary night weeks/months ago. why would he have any reason to be able to recall with precision, all of his activities from that night? his activities that night were typical of any teen. talk on the phone with _____, hangout with _____. not to mention that aside from the very shady hollingsworth "sighting," there were no sightings of echols around the woods that night. even with all those people there searching

echols being an odd person is in no way an indicator of guilt. there are plenty of people into weird things who do not murder people, just like there are plenty of murderers who look to be the most ordinary people inside and out. how can you be certain that they killed those 3 boys when there is zero evidence of any kind linking them to the crime scene? i don't see any way that you can say anyone is "for sure" guilty in this case

personally, i don't think one person would've been capable of doing this if the woods were the murder site. if the boys were killed in the woods, i suspect hobbs+partner(s) were behind it. but the spotless crime scene, and the way that the clothes+bikes seemed to be disposed of in a hurry, it wouldn't be crazy to suspect that a trucker was behind the killings. a trucker parked at the 76 truck stop would've been able to lure the boys into the truck, commit the murders there, and then dump the bodies in the woods sometime prior to when they were discovered

Who is capable of killing 3 boys and leaving a spotless crime scene?

Or are you overestimating the ability to actually get dna from a crime scene like that. I m sure dna,s a good bit more advanced nowadays...the procedures better followed etc. But back then i m not sure dna was all that advanced and i think people overestimate how easily it is to get a 100 percent definitive answer to it for a crime like this from dna.

As long as the parents of them kids are at as much peace as they possibly can be i think most people are happy with that. They never got justice but they did get 18 years for it...hopefully they can take some solace from it.

I actually think it shines a light on all the people that say the stuff echols was involved in is/was harmless. The truth is its not....and people especially vulnerable like echols was....can easily find themselves going too far.

 

[DHT1339]

Again the same thing happens with supporters...they try to break down each piece of evidence and treat it as a single piece of evidence without looking at the totality of the evidence together.

Echols was just a bit odd. Echols was a severely troubled kid with mental problems and a long list of violent behaviours and deeply worrying thoughts etc.

Not having an alibi...isnt odd at all you say....except his alibis we,re proving false. Not one of the 3 boys have any sort of alibi. One is shady but all 3 not having one. Straight away....you become a worthy suspect.

Only one person seen echols and its a dodgy testimony you say. Except miskelly also placed him there. Echols himself doesnt have any sort of alibi. Pretty sure someone could have came up with an accounting of at least one of the kids. To this day no one has accounted for any of them for the time period. You,d think if your life depended on it...you,d remember an account of some kind. No family member or otherwise....has testified to a proper working alibi.

In a lot of cases that go to trial most of them are never 100 percent certain. What we have to do is look at it with a high probability of certainty. What people are looking at is unreasonable doubt. I think we can be pretty certain...they got the right guys.

Unfortunately what you,ve got is average people looking at lawyers arguments....and taking it at face value. Underestimating the ability these lawyers have at telling a story. They do it for a living...their good at making themselves believable. It doesnt make it true tho.

As someone said in another thread....how come the other two are so certain misskelly never murdered those kids. Bearing in mind echols never even heard his confession till years later what makes them so sure miskelly had no part of it?

lots of severely troubled kids don't grow up to be murderers. it's quite something how you "nons" always link those two things together. by that logic, every troubled kid should grow up to be a murderer. echols's past is in no way an indication of his guilt

JM's confessions are not reliable in the slightest. they changed numerous times and more detail was added as he learned more information from the trial and people in town. are we just gonna ignore that in his first confession he said that the murders occurred at noon and that the boys were raped and tied with rope? also, look up the hollingsworth sighting of echols if you don't believe me. i should believe that narleen hollingsworth drove a couple miles to pick up her aunt from work and packed in 10 people in a car to do so? funny how everyone who was apparently in that car has a different account of who was there....almost as if she simply added more people just to make her claim look more legit.

echols does have an alibi. but that goes back to what i said about him not having any reason to remember what he was doing on an ordinary night weeks/months back. let's also not forget how many times the prosecution shifted on what time the murders occurred. first they occurred in the morning and the kids skipped school....then it happened in the afternoon, but wait...jason was in school at that time. ok, how about 6? oh wait, can't do that because JB is mowing his uncles lawn. same thing with JM's confessions. the time of the murders changed with each one until the police got one they liked

terry hobbs doesn't have an alibi either. and every single person he named in his alibi denied ever being with him or seeing him at the times he mentioned. does that mean he's 100% guilty?

 

[Strangeworld]

It shocks me how many people support Damien. IMO it's like those that are manipulated in cults or by serial killers who feed into the sensationalism and media portrayal of themselves as mysterious, fascinating and/or 'attractive' in some way, rather than reflecting on their actions and criminal activity. I guess it's just when manipulation and vulnerability collide.

 

[DHT1339]

It shocks me how many people support Damien. IMO it's like those that are manipulated in cults or by serial killers who feed into the sensationalism and media portrayal of themselves as mysterious, fascinating and/or 'attractive' in some way, rather than reflecting on their actions and criminal activity. I guess it's just when manipulation and vulnerability collide.

which of his actions point to him being guilty of the murders?

 

[7Wm3100]

lots of severely troubled kids don't grow up to be murderers. it's quite something how you "nons" always link those two things together. by that logic, every troubled kid should grow up to be a murderer. echols's past is in no way an indication of his guilt

JM's confessions are not reliable in the slightest. they changed numerous times and more detail was added as he learned more information from the trial and people in town. are we just gonna ignore that in his first confession he said that the murders occurred at noon and that the boys were raped and tied with rope? also, look up the hollingsworth sighting of echols if you don't believe me. i should believe that narleen hollingsworth drove a couple miles to pick up her aunt from work and packed in 10 people in a car to do so? funny how everyone who was apparently in that car has a different account of who was there....almost as if she simply added more people just to make her claim look more legit.

echols does have an alibi. but that goes back to what i said about him not having any reason to remember what he was doing on an ordinary night weeks/months back. let's also not forget how many times the prosecution shifted on what time the murders occurred. first they occurred in the morning and the kids skipped school....then it happened in the afternoon, but wait...jason was in school at that time. ok, how about 6? oh wait, can't do that because JB is mowing his uncles lawn. same thing with JM's confessions. the time of the murders changed with each one until the police got one they liked

terry hobbs doesn't have an alibi either. and every single person he named in his alibi denied ever being with him or seeing him at the times he mentioned. does that mean he's 100% guilty?

We can agree that echols was severely troubled? How many times do we hear he was just into wearing black...and liked metallica. What i m saying tho is....if any serious profiler profiled this case...surely he would be 100 percent in that frame. His mental health records alone make him an interest to the police. Not sure if anyones seen it...but it screams out someone more than capable of comitting the crime.

Why then do we get a profile that matches exactly terry hobbs from the defences side of things. People talk like the expert said it so it must be true. The truth is these experts are guns for hire. Without any training i m pretty sure we can match up echols mental health reports with the crime scene far more than we can match up hobbs. Would anyone on here seriously not have had echols on their radar as a person of interest?

I dont think any of the defences new evidence is true btw. These lawyers use the exact same methods. Who remembers the staircase....an owl done it. Or brendan dasseys a complete dunce so it has to be a lie. Find another suspect and try to make mud stick. They done it with byers. Then when he cleared himself. It was on to the next one.

Intelligent people sit round a table....trying to concoct a story that can cast any sort of doubt from there its a case of trying to get someone to back it up as being possible.

Their first goal was to change the crime. When they got that...it led away from damien. Because the crime itself actually pointed to him.

Same as the making a murderer two i think they done it. They,ve got the same problem. To this day they cant even make up a single sensible working theory...same with this case. Because the high probability and the by far sensible answer is it was the west memphis 3.

Pretty sure jacoby said terry hobbs was with him three times that night or something like that. Are people believing terry hobbs....was going from killing the boys to meeting up with jacoby...to going away again etc. Hobbs is killing three boys and tying each of them up with different knots etc. While going back to see jacoby every so often. No one can come up with anything thats even near to sensible or even half way probable.

On the other hand we have a confession. 2 failed polygraph tests out of 2. We have kids being told by echols himself he done it. A claim that echols doesnt deny. We,ve got an extensive list of serious mental problems. A guy that was interested in the occult. Pretty sure damiens original name was actually michael he changed it in his early teenage years to damien....people need to ask why he choose damien? Of all the names he could have picked. 3 different knots. 3 guys without an alibi. An eye witness who seen him but misidentified the person with him as a girl. Then we look at pictures of the accompliss who has long hair like a girl. Thats just if we chuck out all the dna evidence...give them the benefit of the doubt.

Its by far and away the most probable answer. And definetely enough to put them away for life after echols was destroyed on the stand.

Sad they,ve been released but thats life. Money talks at the end of the day. A lot of money was put towards getting them out. Cant help but think a lot of people we,re financially incentified on the way.

The police officer himself....on the day of the alford plea said....They dont really need to go looking for anyone else....they already know they had the right men.

 

[7Wm3100]

It shocks me how many people support Damien. IMO it's like those that are manipulated in cults or by serial killers who feed into the sensationalism and media portrayal of themselves as mysterious, fascinating and/or 'attractive' in some way, rather than reflecting on their actions and criminal activity. I guess it's just when manipulation and vulnerability collide.

Completely agree. Unfortunately in life you,ll get people that seem to have some kind of mental block. Unfortunately when these people come together they can be dangerous.

For all the stupid comments i ve heard regarding byers. And tbf he was a zany fella...he still came across a lot more dignified and smarter than the people in the echols fan club from paradise lost.

By all accounts byers life was erratic...he was off the wall...he might not have been more intelligent on paper...he came across as smarter than them in discussions tho.

Its not that their morally bankrupt they just decieve themselves into believing somethings true. The scary part is they become so sure....and yet all these years later...when they got them out they had no real interest in the case apart from soundbites. Makes you wonder if they really cared or if it was all about an infatuation with echols all along.

Surely they need to be talking more with miskelley. Where was he that day? Why did miskelley make it up? Where was echols? And jason?

Lets talk about the crime with them more? Why are the other two so sure miskelly never done it himself? How we,re they to know. A lot of unanswered questions. If they are indeed innocent surely they,d want to talk about it all. Do pllygraph tests. Anything that would help clesr their name.

The truth is no one will ever be caught for that crime now...because the three that done it we,re already released.

 

[DHT1339]

We can agree that echols was severely troubled? How many times do we hear he was just into wearing black...and liked metallica. What i m saying tho is....if any serious profiler profiled this case...surely he would be 100 percent in that frame. His mental health records alone make him an interest to the police. Not sure if anyones seen it...but it screams out someone more than capable of comitting the crime.

Why then do we get a profile that matches exactly terry hobbs from the defences side of things. People talk like the expert said it so it must be true. The truth is these experts are guns for hire. Without any training i m pretty sure we can match up echols mental health reports with the crime scene far more than we can match up hobbs. Would anyone on here seriously not have had echols on their radar as a person of interest?

I dont think any of the defences new evidence is true btw. These lawyers use the exact same methods. Who remembers the staircase....an owl done it. Or brendan dasseys a complete dunce so it has to be a lie. Find another suspect and try to make mud stick. They done it with byers. Then when he cleared himself. It was on to the next one.

Intelligent people sit round a table....trying to concoct a story that can cast any sort of doubt from there its a case of trying to get someone to back it up as being possible.

Their first goal was to change the crime. When they got that...it led away from damien. Because the crime itself actually pointed to him.

Same as the making a murderer two i think they done it. They,ve got the same problem. To this day they cant even make up a single sensible working theory...same with this case. Because the high probability and the by far sensible answer is it was the west memphis 3.

Pretty sure jacoby said terry hobbs was with him three times that night or something like that. Are people believing terry hobbs....was going from killing the boys to meeting up with jacoby...to going away again etc. Hobbs is killing three boys and tying each of them up with different knots etc. While going back to see jacoby every so often. No one can come up with anything thats even near to sensible or even half way probable.

On the other hand we have a confession. 2 failed polygraph tests out of 2. We have kids being told by echols himself he done it. A claim that echols doesnt deny. We,ve got an extensive list of serious mental problems. A guy that was interested in the occult. Pretty sure damiens original name was actually michael he changed it in his early teenage years to damien....people need to ask why he choose damien? Of all the names he could have picked. 3 different knots. 3 guys without an alibi. An eye witness who seen him but misidentified the person with him as a girl. Then we look at pictures of the accompliss who has long hair like a girl. Thats just if we chuck out all the dna evidence...give them the benefit of the doubt.

Its by far and away the most probable answer. And definetely enough to put them away for life after echols was destroyed on the stand.

Sad they,ve been released but thats life. Money talks at the end of the day. A lot of money was put towards getting them out. Cant help but think a lot of people we,re financially incentified on the way.

The police officer himself....on the day of the alford plea said....They dont really need to go looking for anyone else....they already know they had the right men.

someone's mental records and past are not indicators of guilt. not sure how many times that needs to be said

a lot of people could be considered "capable" of murdering someone. does that mean they will?

not sure how the crime points to echols when there's nothing linking him to the crime scene or victime...but ok....

hobbs said he was a lot of places that night. but hey, if we go off that, hobbs places himself in the woods between 6-630, which is around the time the boys supposedly entered the woods. he also claimed that while he was there, there were masses of people searching, which is obviously false since the boys weren't reported missing until later that evening. jacoby also denies that he was in the woods with hobbs at that time and that aside from their time "playing guitars" at his house, the only other times he was with hobbs was when they briefly drove around looking for stevie

again you bring up the narlene hollingsworth "sighting" of damien. do a bit more research and you'll realize that it's pure BS.

if they had even the slightest bit of evidence that those 3 killed those boys, you really think they would've been released? come on now

 

[7Wm3100]

someone's mental records and past are not indicators of guilt. not sure how many times that needs to be said

a lot of people could be considered "capable" of murdering someone. does that mean they will?

not sure how the crime points to echols when there's nothing linking him to the crime scene or victime...but ok....

hobbs said he was a lot of places that night. but hey, if we go off that, hobbs places himself in the woods between 6-630, which is around the time the boys supposedly entered the woods. he also claimed that while he was there, there were masses of people searching, which is obviously false since the boys weren't reported missing until later that evening. jacoby also denies that he was in the woods with hobbs at that time and that aside from their time "playing guitars" at his house, the only other times he was with hobbs was when they briefly drove around looking for stevie

again you bring up the narlene hollingsworth "sighting" of damien. do a bit more research and you'll realize that it's pure BS.

if they had even the slightest bit of evidence that those 3 killed those boys, you really think they would've been released? come on now

I think the problem is people are corruptible. How many times do we see people recant years later usually when we get a top hot shot lawyer on the case. People waiting twenty years before recanting? People sudenly turning up twenty years later to bring new information. When they had every oppertunity to come forward. My suspicion is money talks.

Even the guy in charge of it said...they dont need to look for anyone else....they know the three released we,re guilty on the day they we,re released with the alford plea. Think the lesson learned should be people lying in court should go to jail. Even if its recanted years later.

No one says it was proof of guilt. It was proof that damien echols wasnt picked up....because he wore black and liked metalica. Thats the problem the very first thing supporters came into the case was based off a lie. They still cant see that. That alone should have destroyed their credibility
The very first thing they got wrong.

Damian was a person of interest because someone put his name forward becsuse he showed behaviours capable of carrying out a crime like this. Then someone else confessed saying echols was involved. He then fails a polygraph test. His alibi falls apart. Hes unaccounted for to this day. No one seen him. He doesnt have david jacoby. Or his mum or his dad. Or anyone. Neither does jason or miskelley. We,ve got an account saying they we,re all together. We have another account from damiens alibi saying he was out with jason. Then we have an account saying echols was there.

At ghst point hes 100 percent a person of interest. Its ridiculous to think otherwise.

 

[7Wm3100]

Look at byers. Who paid for him to go to the hearings. He couldnt afford to go to the hearings of his own child or step child.

Who paid for and organised his polygraph.

Both we,re the producers of paradise lost. Suddenly he becomes a supporter from being 100 percent against them. It makes you wonder if money changed hands. Never be proven. But byers was a vulnerable guy...living on the breadline. The legal team behind echols had serious money...makes you wonder what happened or what could happen. We know how desperate some of the echols supporters we,re.

Nothing will ever be proven...but it does make you wonder.

Again money talks. Its funny how nothing happened in this case...till they got money behind them. Suddenly everyone started changing stories. Thats why they got released is my guess. They still killed them poor kids tho. Sad case.

What will be will be. But they kids didnt get the justice they deserved.

 

[DHT1339]

I think the problem is people are corruptible. How many times do we see people recant years later usually when we get a top hot shot lawyer on the case. People waiting twenty years before recanting? People sudenly turning up twenty years later to bring new information. When they had every oppertunity to come forward. My suspicion is money talks.

Even the guy in charge of it said...they dont need to look for anyone else....they know the three released we,re guilty on the day they we,re released with the alford plea. Think the lesson learned should be people lying in court should go to jail. Even if its recanted years later.

No one says it was proof of guilt. It was proof that damien echols wasnt picked up....because he wore black and liked metalica. Thats the problem the very first thing supporters came into the case was based off a lie. They still cant see that. That alone should have destroyed their credibility
The very first thing they got wrong.

Damian was a person of interest because someone put his name forward becsuse he showed behaviours capable of carrying out a crime like this. Then someone else confessed saying echols was involved. He then fails a polygraph test. His alibi falls apart. Hes unaccounted for to this day. No one seen him. He doesnt have david jacoby. Or his mum or his dad. Or anyone. Neither does jason or miskelley. We,ve got an account saying they we,re all together. We have another account from damiens alibi saying he was out with jason. Then we have an account saying echols was there.

At ghst point hes 100 percent a person of interest. Its ridiculous to think otherwise.

never said echols became the focus because of how he dressed

he became the WMPD's main focus because jerry driver had it out for echols. his past behavior and the way he dressed played a role as well, but driver's influence was the main factor. a polygraph test is not in any way an indicator of guilt. an account that they were all together? got a source for that? haha and you just keep on bringing up that hollingsworth sighting of echols, hey, if you believe that's legit then go ahead

 

[7Wm3100]

never said echols became the focus because of how he dressed

he became the WMPD's main focus because jerry driver had it out for echols. his past behavior and the way he dressed played a role as well, but driver's influence was the main factor. a polygraph test is not in any way an indicator of guilt. an account that they were all together? got a source for that? haha and you just keep on bringing up that hollingsworth sighting of echols, hey, if you believe that's legit then go ahead

How many times have we seen this tho. The town had it out for steve avery. Jerry driver had it out for echols. Its a common tactic used by lawyers. Almost the same arguments get brought up time and time again. Someone had it out for them. It was an owl or a snapping turtle. The lawyers they had we,re no good. Anyone remember buting and strang. Same stuff all the time.


The truth is echols past behaviours and mental health documentation is the main reason he was a person of interest...that then it turns out he has no alibi at all. Driver put his name forward but for good reason...echols by all accounts was a seriously messed up fella.

Thats the problem the defence are willing to tell themselves that first lie. That echols only became a suspect because driver had it in for him a vendetta as such. From there....their willing to tell themselves lie upon lie. You cant really argue against that.

Have you read his mental health notes? Echols was violent and pretty much crazy dabbled in occults etc changed hid name to damien from jack...the list goes on and on how he was a well worthy suspect.

Misskelly places them all together. The girl that phoned echols said him and jason we,re out together also. Hollinsworth puts echols at the scene. You keep calling on it...but tbh jason looked like a girl. He could easily have been mistaking for one. When you add not one of them has an alibi. 2 of them done polygraphs and failed. Echols told people he done it. Miskelly told people outwith the prosecutors he done it. Confessed numerous times. At some point this starts to stack up. Not one person has an alibi for them that works. No mum and dad. No brother or sister. No girlfriend or boyfriend. No friend. No one. All three and not one alibi.

People keep saying theirs no dna evidence that 100 percent places them at the crime. Theres no 100 percent dna evidence for anyone.

This is another deception from their defence team tho...because the truth is not all that many crimes that go to trial have 100 percent dna evidence against the perpetrator. What they work on is high probability. The problem is people dont quite understand that....their looking for 100 percent definate guilt. If they dont have that...its reasonable doubt. The truth is theres no real reasonable doubt....only unreasonable doubt. They killed them kids. They know it...and so do most people that aren,t willing to tell themselves lie after lie.

 

[DHT1339]

How many times have we seen this tho. The town had it out for steve avery. Jerry driver had it out for echols. Its a common tactic used by lawyers. Almost the same arguments get brought up time and time again. Someone had it out for them. It was an owl or a snapping turtle. The lawyers they had we,re no good. Anyone remember buting and strang. Same stuff all the time.


The truth is echols past behaviours and mental health documentation is the main reason he was a person of interest...that then it turns out he has no alibi at all. Driver put his name forward but for good reason...echols by all accounts was a seriously messed up fella.

Thats the problem the defence are willing to tell themselves that first lie. That echols only became a suspect because driver had it in for him a vendetta as such. From there....their willing to tell themselves lie upon lie. You cant really argue against that.

Have you read his mental health notes? Echols was violent and pretty much crazy dabbled in occults etc changed hid name to damien from jack...the list goes on and on how he was a well worthy suspect.

Misskelly places them all together. The girl that phoned echols said him and jason we,re out together also. Hollinsworth puts echols at the scene. You keep calling ******** on it...but tbh jason looked like a girl. He could easily have been mistaking for one. When you add not one of them has an alibi. 2 of them done polygraphs and failed. Echols told people he done it. Miskelly told people outwith the prosecutors he done it. Confessed numerous times. At some point this starts to stack up. Not one person has an alibi for them that works. No mum and dad. No brother or sister. No girlfriend or boyfriend. No friend. No one. All three and not one alibi.

People keep saying theirs no dna evidence that 100 percent places them at the crime. Theres no 100 percent dna evidence for anyone.

This is another deception from their defence team tho...because the truth is not all that many crimes that go to trial have 100 percent dna evidence against the perpetrator. What they work on is high probability. The problem is people dont quite understand that....their looking for 100 percent definate guilt. If they dont have that...its reasonable doubt. The truth is theres no real reasonable doubt....only unreasonable doubt. They killed them kids. They know it...and so do most people that aren,t willing to tell themselves lie after lie.

driver having it out for echols isn't a "tactic," its the truth. do more research on him and you'll see what i'm talking about. also, you continue to use DE's past as an indicator of guilt. why don't we do the same for hobbs then. he had a history of physical and sexual abuse. does that mean he's guilty?

why do you keep ignoring the fact that JM's confessions changed wildly over the course of time? he got some details about the layout of the crime scene right, but nothing about the actual crime itself? you also keep leaning on the hollingsworth sighting despite its numerous flaws, but hey, anything to keep trying to prove your point..i get it. also, all those people out searching that night and not one of them reported seeing echols, baldwin, or JM near the woods. hmmmm.....

echols did have an alibi. the prosecution could've subpoenad the phone records but didn't do so. without that, you'd just have a bunch of DE's friends/family testifying on his behalf. his attorneys saw how that went in JM's trial and decided not to go that route. in the case of the "softball girls" who supposedly heard DE claim he was the killer, why didn't the prosecution call them to testify? they took statements, but the girls were never brought in.

exactly, which is why you cannot say that anyone is 100% guilty in this case. but hey, you claim that you know 100% the WM3 are guilty. congrats! looks like after 27 years the case finally been solved!

 

[7Wm3100]

Echols alliby proved to be false. He claimed he was on the phone to three different girls. The problem was they we,re all earlier in the day. One girl said jasons gran told her jason and damien we,re out together.

No one can account for any one of the west memphis three to this day. Jason put forward no alibi. Echols and miskelley,s alibi,s fell apart. We,re both proven to be false.

Whats the likeliehood that 3 innocent people have no alibi whatsoever. I,d say its pretty unlikely...one is bad luck...two becomes unlikely and 3 your now going into the high probability zone. especially when it turns out three different knots we,re tied for the kids.

Upsetting case because its obvious they killed them kids. No one else will ever be convicted for it. At least they got 18 years out of them tho.

 

[DHT1339]

Echols alliby proved to be false. He claimed he was on the phone to three different girls. The problem was they we,re all earlier in the day. One girl said jasons gran told her jason and damien we,re out together.

No one can account for any one of the west memphis three to this day. Jason put forward no alibi. Echols and miskelley,s alibi,s fell apart. We,re both proven to be false.

Whats the likeliehood that 3 innocent people have no alibi whatsoever. I,d say its pretty unlikely...one is bad luck...two becomes unlikely and 3 your now going into the high probability zone. especially when it turns out three different knots we,re tied for the kids.

Upsetting case because its obvious they killed them kids. No one else will ever be convicted for it. At least they got 18 years out of them tho.

congratulations on solving the case

 

[7Wm3100]

congratulations on solving the case

You dont actually need to be that intelligent to solve it tbf. Its glaringly obvious to anyone thats not a damien echols fanclub member.