Timeline of Events

[Compassionate Reader]

I think that what happened is the three older boys were in the woods drinking, then the three younger boys went in there just to play as kids do, and the older ones jumped them, I don't tend to go along with the satanic stuff much - I think it was more an act of bullying that got out of hand with Damien, Jason and Jessie each outdoing the other until it ended up as a horrific murder of all three. I think Jessie was more involved than he's ever admitted and find his confessions paint him as the least involved which may or may not be true. More likely all three played an equal role.

When would you assume that this occurred?

 

[kyleb]

As Misskelley explained in his initial confession before demonstrating his inability to grasp the concept of noon or describe time of day in numbers, "all of this stuff happened that night". And as he clarified later that day:

DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Just sit there. Jessie, uh, when when you got with the with the boys and with Jason and Baldwin when you three were in the woods and then the little boys come up, about what time was it? When the boys came up to the woods?
*B01 MISSKELLEY: I would say it was about it was about five or six, five or six.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Now, did you have your watch on at the time?
*B02 MISSKELLEY: Un-uh.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: You didn't have your watch on?
*B03 MISSKELLEY: Un-uh.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Uh, alright you told me earlier around seven or eight or, wh-which time is it?
*B04 MISSKELLEY: It was seven or eight.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Are are you sh-
*B05 MISSKELLEY: I remember it was starting to get dark.
DETECTIVE GITCHELL: Ok, it
*B06 MISSKELLEY: I remember it was starting to get dark.

Sunset in West Memphis on 5/5/93 was at approximately 7:48, so "starting to get dark" was around thirty minutes before that, which approximately thirty minutes after Bryan Woody apparently saw the boys near the south east edge of the woods.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I think the three older boys were already in the woods when the younger three went in, so it would be after they were seen riding off, I cannot remember exact times now, by memory it was around 6:30pm that night they entered the RHH. Here is a good summation of what I think happened by Pat Brown http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/dont-free-west-memphis-three.html

 

[Ausgirl]

Funnily enough, I was just five minutes ago re-reading Pat Brown's timeline (and thinking that there's way too many profiles given in this case that were created with suspects in mind, and thus badly flawed IMO...) and here's what I was thinking as I read:

Here is what I believe happened:

The crimes were committed by more than one person.
(I think this is very possible.)

The offenders lived nearby the crime scene.
(I also think this is quite probable)

The boys were targeted because they were easy to access and control.
(One kid is easy to access and control. Three boys, two of whom are said by their own parents to be handfuls at times are not so easy to control.)

The boys were probably followed and conned or lured into the woods.
(Yes, probably one of those options is correct..)

The boys were overpowered by larger assailants
(I have trouble seeing smaller ones doing so, Pat...)

and the crime was committed at the scene, most likely in the water during the waning daylight hours.
(yeah, this is a reasonable POV)

The crime was planned but not in the sense that it would necessarily end with homicide.
(I'd like to see the reasoning behind the 'planned' part. )

Nothing but a knife or two was brought with the offenders nor was anything but the weapons taken away. This shows lack of maturity or criminal experience.
(It also shows that Pat Brown apparently is omniscient. How can she possibly know what was taken and/or removed, if it's never been seen? Plus, there's lots of crimes where well experienced killers have taken nothing a weapon - or two? what about three? -and then taken it away again)

The offenders did not attempt to get rid of the evidence. The water was a lucky break.
(The. Victims. Were in the water. = getting rid of evidence. The clothes were poked down into the water by sticks - getting rid of evidence. The weapons were not left there = getting rid of evidence....jeez.)

The crime was violent and was a show of power. Essentially, it was a thrill crime.
(I cannot one bit disagree that it was 'violent'. I agree with the rest, also.)

I think this is a pretty crap profile/timeline, whatever it is, though. I kind of expected better from a professional.

 

[reedus23]

This is the thing, why on earth would he yell at them to get home, then drag / chase them into the woods and rape / murder them? The idea of TH doing this crime doesn't stand up to any logic at all. It's really just a red-herring.

There is not a lot about crimes like this that stand up to logic. I would suppose the most obvious answer is because he had to go somewhere. Couldn't be out in the open. Couldn't keep them around the house. It's a wooded area. It's nearby where he wouldn't be missing for a great amount of time. I do get what you're saying though.

 

[reedus23]

I think that what happened is the three older boys were in the woods drinking, then the three younger boys went in there just to play as kids do, and the older ones jumped them, I don't tend to go along with the satanic stuff much - I think it was more an act of bullying that got out of hand with Damien, Jason and Jessie each outdoing the other until it ended up as a horrific murder of all three. I think Jessie was more involved than he's ever admitted and find his confessions paint him as the least involved which may or may not be true. More likely all three played an equal role.

MGN, I think I've said it before, but if I were to put out a hypothetical situation by which the WM3 actually committed the crime, it would probably be along the lines of what you described. A crime of opportunity that just arose as opposed to a planned out crime that targeted these 3 boys.

 

[kyleb]

And that's exactly what the prosecution demonstrated at the trials, regardless of how much anyone prefers to talk in hypotheticals and misrepresentations to obscure such facts.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

If the three teens killed the boys in the waning daylight hours of May 5, 1993, why didn't Terry Hobbs (who was supposedly searching the area at the time) see or hear anything? Since the sun set on May 5, 1993 at around 8 pm, I would assume that "waning daylight hours" could be anytime from 7 pm to 9 pm. By that time, there were many searchers looking for the missing boys, including the police. In Jessie's stories, no attempt to gag or silence the boys was mentioned, and they would have surely been screaming their heads off, right? Again, why didn't one of the searchers hear something?



Ausgirl,

IMO, Pat Brown and Nancy Grace are two examples of people who think too much of their own abilities! Both of them attempted to "explain" this case, and both failed miserably!

 

[kyleb]

If the three teens killed the boys in the waning daylight hours of May 5, 1993, why didn't Terry Hobbs (who was supposedly searching the area at the time) see or hear anything?

The same reason others who searching the area at that time didn't see or hear anything, because they didn't come close enough to that portion of the woods during whatever periods of time the boys were conscious enough to scream, perhaps as little as a few minutes total.

In Jessie's stories, no attempt to gag or silence the boys was mentioned

You're the one telling tall tails here, as Misskelley explained in his initial confession "They stick their hands over their mouths first, and then they stick their shirts to their mouth."

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The same reason others who searching the area at that time didn't see or hear anything, because they didn't come close enough to that portion of the woods during whatever periods of time the boys were conscious enough to scream, perhaps as little as a few minutes total.

The woods aren't that big. If the murders occurred near sunset, the woods were full of searchers, according to TH. Someone would have heard something if what TH says is true is true. Sound carries, and by sunset, the search was full on, and the parents would have been listening for any sounds from the woods.

You're the one telling tall tails here, as Misskelley explained in his initial confession "They stick their hands over their mouths first, and then they stick their shirts to their mouth."

That wouldn't be an effective gag - and is just another example of how unbelievable Jessie's stories are. When MM ran off and Jessie had to chase him down, don't you believe MM would be screaming his head off? Sorry, it just doesn't wash.

 

[kyleb]

The woods aren't that big... That wouldn't be an effective gag

Sure, and Echols didn't actually live in West Memphis at the time of the murders either, despite all the documentation including his own testimony at trial all saying he did live with his parents in Broadway Trailer Park, eh? :facepalm:

 

[Alyssa2013]

Sure, and Echols didn't actually live in West Memphis at the time of the murders either, despite all the documentation including his own testimony at trial all saying he did live with his parents in Broadway Trailer Park, eh? :facepalm:

I don't know why Echols is your target. There are plenty of other people other than Hobbs who could have committed this crime as well, he just has the *strongest* motive. How about someone who lived near the Robin Hood Hills area? Or someone who lived in the apartments nearby? Still focusing your attention on Echols after all of this time is simply ridiculous.

 

[kyleb]

I don't know why Echols is your target.

Well you could find out why Echols is one of my three targets by reading the trial transcripts and familiarizing yourself with the body of evidence in this case. I suspect you'd rather not know such things though, eh?

How about someone who lived near the Robin Hood Hills area?

Have you ever bothered too look at where Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley lived in relation Robin Hood Hills on a map? Ignoring such simple matters of fact and focusing attention away from those three all these years by conducting witch hunts on one parent of the victims after another is ridiculous.

 

[Alyssa2013]

Well you could find out by reading the trial transcripts and familiarizing yourself with the body of evidence against Echols. I suspect that would be too much to ask of you though, eh?

I know what the evidence is against Echols. I'd like to see DNA or forensic evidence that places him directly at the crime scene before I take any of this "body of evidence" into consideration.

Have you ever bothered too look at where Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley lived in relation Robin Hood Hills on a map? Focusing attention away from them all these years by ignoring such simple matters of fact and conducting witch hunts on one parent of the victims after another is ridiculous.

Yes, I know where they all lived in relation to Robin Hood Hills. So what? That doesn't mean anything. Plenty of people who had MORE opportunity and MORE motive than the WM3 lived nearby as well. Stranger murders, which is what you are suggesting, are FAR more rare than murders by relatives of the victims. Ignoring that information is ridiculous. And it's funny that you use the word "witch hunt" to discuss the parents of the victims instead of what it is really associated with...using the WM3 as scapegoats for the real killer(s).

 

[kyleb]

I'd like to see DNA or forensic evidence that places him directly at the crime scene before I take any of this "body of evidence" into consideration.

Well then you've been overcome by the CSI Effect, as the notion that perpetrators always leave physical evidence which directly connect to them to their crimes is fair removed from reality.

Stranger murders, which is what you are suggesting, are FAR more rare than murders by relatives of the victims.

Rather, stranger murders what the evidence in this case suggests, but those of you who've duped by a guy who fancy's himself a witch into falsely crying witch hunt trying to scapegoat the parents have been blinded to that evidence, to the point that many here can't even acknowledge the facts of where Echols lived on the time of the murders. Can you even bring yourself to his home address at that time just for the record, or are you just going to keep insisting that any such facts are meaningless?

 

[Alyssa2013]

Well then you've been overcome by the CSI Effect, as the notion that perpetrators always leave physical evidence which directly connect to them to their crimes is fair removed from reality.

Rather, stranger murders what the evidence in this case suggests, but those of you who've duped by a guy who fancy's himself a witch into falsely crying witch hunt trying to scapegoat the parents have been blinded to that evidence, to the point that many here can't even acknowledge the facts of where Echols lived on the time of the murders. Can you even bring yourself to his home address at that time just for the record, or are you just going to keep insisting that any such facts are meaningless?

I did not say that they "always" leave physical evidence, but in this case, I do believe physical evidence was left. And such facts ARE meaningless...even if he did live there at the time of the murders, that does not make me believe that he actually committed them.

 

[reedus23]

Well you could find out why Echols is one of my three targets by reading the trial transcripts and familiarizing yourself with the body of evidence in this case. I suspect you'd rather not know such things though, eh?


Have you ever bothered too look at where Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley lived in relation Robin Hood Hills on a map? Ignoring such simple matters of fact and focusing attention away from those three all these years by conducting witch hunts on one parent of the victims after another is ridiculous.

I am curious to know what you see as the significance of where they, particularly Echols, lived. They all lived a good distance from Robin Hood Hills. Others certainly were closer. Robin Hood is certainly somewhere in between Echols and Baldwin. Is that the significance that you see?

 

[kyleb]

All facts have some significance, and long as you're willing to humor Echols and others lying about the facts of where he lived at the time of the murders, and only talk in vagaries about such facts yourself, I don't see any point in explaining their significance to you.

 

[kyleb]

I did not say that they "always" leave physical evidence, but in this case, I do believe physical evidence was left.

And again, that's because a sociopath who fancies himself a witch has duped you into believing what is far from always true must be true in this case.

 

[reedus23]

All facts have some significance, and long as you're willing to humor Echols and others lying about the facts of where he lived at the time of the murders, and only talk in vagaries about such facts yourself, I don't see any point in explaining their significance to you.

So you're not placing importance on where he lives but are placing importance on the fact that Damien lied about where he lived?