New Damien Echols Interview

[reedus23]

The many confessions alone add up to far more than all the supposed evidence against Hobbs.

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure that is all you were referencing. Even if you do believe the confession, I would point out though, that a confession only counts one time. Just because someone says the sky is blue 10 times doesn't mean there are 10 different pieces of evidence that the sky is, in fact, blue. There is one piece of evidence regurgitated more than once. Otherwise it would be a childish match of one kid saying "Did too" and the other saying "Did not" and whoever says it the most times wins.

The evidence presented at WM3 Truth is fact, all with links to the documents on Callahan archives. If you ever care to attempt to substantiate your argument against WM3 Truth's presentation of that evidence, I'd be happy to hear you out, but the evidence exists regardless of how anyone presents it.

Stating someone is incompetent or dishonest is stating an opinion. Whether you believe that statement is true or not does not change it from being a statement of opinion. Their description of Mr. Douglas is just one example and enough for me to take everything they say as spin. Callahans is objective and only sets forth facts as far as I have seen.

 

[kyleb]

Just wanted to make sure that is all you were referencing.

No, the many confessions are for starters, as I said. Besides, do you not recall discussing other evidence with me before?

Just because someone says the sky is blue 10 times doesn't mean there are 10 different pieces of evidence that the sky is, in fact, blue. There is one piece of evidence regurgitated more than once.

Rather, there's many pieces of evidence which substantiate various facts. The fact that the sky often appears blue is one example with mounds of evidence to support it, witness reports being just the tip of the iceberg.

Otherwise it would be a childish match of one kid saying "Did too" and the other saying "Did not" and whoever says it the most times wins.

No, that might work on children, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Hence the reason Echols' and Misskelley's attempts at alibis fell apart on the stand, and why Baldwin's lawyer knew better than to attempt one.

Stating someone is incompetent or dishonest is stating an opinion.

For some people it is, but not everyone makes such accusations without presenting evidence to substantiate them.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Just because something is "linked" with information on Callahan's doesn't mean it's not spin! As I have previously stated, I have read all of the transcripts, etc. on Callahan's, and, for me, they prove the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie. The juries, being human and susceptible to the "Satanic panic" of the time and being manipulated by a skillful prosecutor using the graphic images of the bodies and grapefruits and fear (and other leading tactics, I might add), aided by a judge who disallowed much testimony that ran counter to the prosecution's case, interpreted certain facts in ways that, for them, were sufficient to allow them to enter guilty verdicts. They were wrong.

Here's the bottom line. Many discussion boards, that "truth" site included, take information from Callahan's and interpret it for their readers (who, I guess, are incapable of drawing conclusions on their own). That doesn't make the interpretations true. That's "spin" - pure and simple! Anyone who reads on a site like that without thoroughly investigating on their own beforehand is likely to be swayed by the biased information.

 

[kyleb]

Were I one to be swayed by spin, I would've been mislead by omissions and falsehoods on the Wikipedia page regarding the murders, various references cited there including West of Memphis, and a few other sources I reviewed before I stumbled upon WM3 Truth. That said, I'm at a loss as to how one could manage to thoroughly investigate this case on their own before ever coming across an argument bias in one way or another. If you're implying you've done as much, how exactly did you accomplish that?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Were I one to be swayed by spin, I would've been mislead by omissions and falsehoods on the Wikipedia page regarding the murders, various references cited there including West of Memphis, and a few other sources I reviewed before I stumbled upon WM3 Truth. That said, I'm at a loss as to how one could manage to thoroughly investigate this case on their own before ever coming across an argument bias in one way or another. If you're implying you've done as much, how exactly did you accomplish that?

As you mentioned, not everyone is swayed by bias or spin. As soon as I heard of the case (from my son who is one month younger than Damien and was "into" heavy metal in high school), I started reading on Callahan's. Yes, I had seen the first documentary. That's how my son introduced me to the case. However, I wanted to form my own opinion. So, I read the trial transcripts on Callahan's.

From those (mainly the parts the jury didn't hear - the pre-trial hearings and the discussions held outside the jury's presence/hearing) I formed my opinion that the three were innocent. It was bolstered by my experience (25 years of teaching teenagers, including many similar to Jessie and Damien), and nothing I've read or heard since then has swayed me. In short, I've been studying this case for over 15 years. I've participated in several discussion boards and participated via comment sections in many other venues. I am still convinced that Damien, Jason and Jessie are innocent.

I must admit that, upon reading The Manhole Theory, it struck me at a gut level just how neatly that theory explains the events. The new affidavits have put a different slant on things, but nothing has convinced me that three drunk teenaged boys (if you believe Jessie's stories) could have committed these murders and left the scene so "clean" of evidence. Remember, I know teenagers - very well! Until someone can present me with an explanation of that "clean" crime scene more believable than sloshing water over the ground afterwards (and with much more compelling evidence than presented at trial against the three), I will remain convinced of their innocence.

 

[reedus23]

That said, I'm at a loss as to how one could manage to thoroughly investigate this case on their own before ever coming across an argument bias in one way or another. If you're implying you've done as much, how exactly did you accomplish that?

I can only say what I did and I think I've stated it before. I read the investigative reports and trial transcripts first before reading any sites that put their interpretation on the data so that I could try to form my own opinion before being influenced or swayed by anyone else, for or against. I have since watched the documentaries and read news articles and read other sites, including the one you often cite. Having said that, I wouldn't say I ever have or ever could do a thorough investigation of this case. I don't have boots on the ground as they say. I can only review what is available. I'm not going about interviewing witnesses.

 

[reedus23]

Until someone can present me with an explanation of that "clean" crime scene more believable than sloshing water over the ground afterwards (and with much more compelling evidence than presented at trial against the three), I will remain convinced of their innocence.

For me, I would also add that someone would have to satisfactorily explain why the State of Arkansas would allow 3 individuals to be released if they truly believed they guilty in light of the fact that they already had convictions hanging over them. Not a chance they let those 3 walk out of prison if they had any belief that they actually committed the crime.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

For me, I would also add that someone would have to satisfactorily explain why the State of Arkansas would allow 3 individuals to be released if they truly believed they guilty in light of the fact that they already had convictions hanging over them. Not a chance they let those 3 walk out of prison if they had any belief that they actually committed the crime.

My thoughts exactly!

Damien, Jason and Jessie were already in prison. Damien was on Death Row! An Alford plea is usually entered before a trial begins, not eighteen years later! It simply boggles the mind. Were I a citizen of Arkansas, I would demand a much more thorough explanation than has been given to date.

If you haven't read the GQ post-release article (the December, 2011 issue, I invite you to do so. Here is a link. You might find Ellington's comments especially enlightening.

 

[Deleted member 96356]

For me, I would also add that someone would have to satisfactorily explain why the State of Arkansas would allow 3 individuals to be released if they truly believed they guilty in light of the fact that they already had convictions hanging over them. Not a chance they let those 3 walk out of prison if they had any belief that they actually committed the crime.

IIRC, the State of Arkansas wanted to spare the tax-payers the cost of any more trials and appeals, since this has been dragging out for so long. So they went with the Alford Plea, in the best interests of the state.

Color me skeptical.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

IIRC, the State of Arkansas wanted to spare the tax-payers the cost of any more trials and appeals, since this has been dragging out for so long. So they went with the Alford Plea, in the best interests of the state.

Color me skeptical.

Totally agree .. the boys had been in prison for 18 years, take out all the inflammatory 'evidence' in this trial and you have a group of teens killing 3 boys in a horrible thrill crime that could probably have been argued down to Murder 2 .. 18 years would have been a fair sentence for that .. and on top of that you keep guilt on the record. State wins.

 

[reedus23]

My thoughts exactly!

Damien, Jason and Jessie were already in prison. Damien was on Death Row! An Alford plea is usually entered before a trial begins, not eighteen years later! It simply boggles the mind. Were I a citizen of Arkansas, I would demand a much more thorough explanation than has been given to date.

If you haven't read the GQ post-release article (the December, 2011 issue, I invite you to do so. Here is a link. You might find Ellington's comments especially enlightening.

Pretty telling comments. Rarely do you hear a prosecutor say such words.

 

[reedus23]

IIRC, the State of Arkansas wanted to spare the tax-payers the cost of any more trials and appeals, since this has been dragging out for so long. So they went with the Alford Plea, in the best interests of the state.

Color me skeptical.

Color me skeptical too. No state in the country allows men already convicted of murder to walk back out on the streets simply because of costs and time. The Alford Plea was in the best interests of the State because as Ellington put it, he was going to get his *advertiser censored* kicked at trial. Pardon the french. His words, not mine.

 

[Deleted member 96356]

Color me skeptical too. No state in the country allows men already convicted of murder to walk back out on the streets simply because of costs and time. The Alford Plea was in the best interests of the State because as Ellington put it, he was going to get his *advertiser censored* kicked at trial. Pardon the french. His words, not mine.

That's nutty. Since when does the State drop a case because the prosecutor doesn't like an *advertiser censored*-kicking? Can you imagine if a defense attorney said that?

Meanwhile, we've got three boys tortured and dead. I don't care if it's 20 years ago or 20 months, the State needed to get serious with this. Don't get me started about allowing all that satan-worship testimony from the fake doctor.

And they're worried about money? Then why seek the death penalty, as they did with Damien Echols. That's all kinds of expensive.

Sheesh.

p.s. your french is fine

 

[kyleb]

In short, I've been studying this case for over 15 years.

Has Callahan been around for over 15 years? Best I've been able to tell it's only about 12 years old.

I must admit that, upon reading The Manhole Theory, it struck me at a gut level just how neatly that theory explains the events.

The manhole nonsense doesn't even fit with the recent affidavits from imprisoned rapists you cite as evidence against Hobbs. But more importantly, the bodies would've decomposed considerably more had they not been submerged in cool water all night.

Until someone can present me with an explanation of that "clean" crime scene more believable than sloshing water over the ground afterwards (and with much more compelling evidence than presented at trial against the three), I will remain convinced of their innocence.

You could always get some fresh blood from a butcher, dump it on dirt, and note how it soaks into the ground. Splash some water over it and it will soak in even better, then leave that overnight and you'll be unlikely to notice any blood the next day. Granted, luminol testing will reveal blood, which explains the luminol testing results from the area where Misskelley said the murders took place.

I read the investigative reports and trial transcripts first before reading any sites that put their interpretation on the data so that I could try to form my own opinion before being influenced or swayed by anyone else, for or against.

How did become interested in the case in the first place, and when did you learn about the Alford plea deal?

The Alford Plea was in the best interests of the State because as Ellington put it, he was going to get his *advertiser censored* kicked at trial. Pardon the french. His words, not mine.

That's not quite what he said.

 

[reedus23]

That's not quite what he said.

"I kind of feel like I came out of this the victor by not getting my *advertiser censored* handed to me."

Not kicked, handed to him. First learned of the case actually here. Don't ever remember hearing about the documentaries. Certainly didn't hear of the case back when it was happening. Had heard the phrase West Memphis 3 used, but I had no idea what it was about until reading hear, which led me to callahans and of course having now read other sites as well.

 

[reedus23]

Here's what I don't get. If the kids were beaten as bad as they were. If a knife was used. Where is the blood splatter all over the trees or foliage? Not just the pooling blood. People can argue the washing off or scuffing up of the immediate ground, or whatever. But there is no way you avoid nor remove all of the blood splatter. That is what has always perplexed me and made me question 1. If that was the site of the initial assaults or 2. Did LE simply do an extremely poor job of processing the scene or 3. A combination of both.

 

[Cappuccino]

They are all good questions, now here are mine - how come those who are so convinced that the wm3 are guilty don't just leave us alone? Its not like supporters are trying to free them or anything, we're only asking for the case to be re-opened and the evidence re-examined. They're already free, that fight was won.

If the case is re-opened and looked at with the eyes of 2013 and it still leads to Damien, Jason and Jessie, then so be it. I'll happily admit I was wrong. But I am confident that it won't. So why should we not push for the case to be re-examined?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Has Callahan been around for over 15 years? Best I've been able to tell it's only about 12 years old.

I saw the first documentary in 1996, when it came out. At that time, I was still teaching school. I had very little time for the Internet, and even less time for the in depth study required to form a valid opinion of this case. The book, Blood of the Innocents was the first thing I read in, IIRC, 1999. Then, I saw the second documentary. Later I read Devil's Knot. It wasn't until 2002 or 2003 that I began to research on the Internet about the crime, although I had given much thought to it over the years. That's when I discovered Callahan's and read the trial transcripts and all pre-trial hearings, etc. Then and only then did I decide that the three were innocent. I continued to read whatever I could in my spare time. When I retired in 2009, I began to participate in discussion boards, etc. I first became aware of this case in 1996 and have thought about it, studied it, etc. since that time. It is now 2013, so I guess I've actually been studying the case for 17 years all total.

The manhole nonsense doesn't even fit with the recent affidavits from imprisoned rapists you cite as evidence against Hobbs. But more importantly, the bodies would've decomposed considerably more had they not been submerged in cool water all night.

Your first statement is your opinion. I disagree. As to the manhole and the new affidavits, I believe that the bodies could have been placed in the manhole after Lucas and Hollingsworth left. Hobbs and Jacoby could have stayed together and returned to move the bodies to a more secret location. They could have also cleaned up a bit, too.

You could always get some fresh blood from a butcher, dump it on dirt, and note how it soaks into the ground. Splash some water over it and it will soak in even better, then leave that overnight and you'll be unlikely to notice any blood the next day. Granted, luminol testing will reveal blood, which explains the luminol testing results from the area where Misskelley said the murders took place.

The area where blood was indicated by the Luminol testing was also the area where LE placed the bodies when they recovered them from the ditch. However, I believe that the blood there (if it was blood, since LE didn't follow up the Luminol testing with testing with another agent - which is why the Luminol testing was inadmissable) was a result of the killer placing the still oozing bodies on the ground when they were moved from the manhole to the drainage ditch.

 

[kyleb]

Not kicked, handed to him.

More importantly: not "was going to", "didn't". The difference being that the latter only acknowledges the possibility that something could've happened, while the former insists it would've.

Where is the blood splatter all over the trees or foliage?

I've not seen any wounds which suggest there would have been notable splattering beyond what could've landed on the large areas of barren dirt along the banks of creek and in the water.

how come those who are so convinced that the wm3 are guilty don't just leave us alone?

I've got a general distaste for misinformation, and I find murders being heralded as victims while others are slandered as murders particularly revolting. That said, it's not like I'm stalking anyone, this is a public forum.

Your first statement is your opinion.

Rather, it's a reference to the fact that Bennie Guy's affidavit says "L G told me that they cleaned up the area as it was getting dark, that they placed the clothes and shoes in the water, and lastly submerged the bicycles in the bayou" and Billy Stewart's affidavit says "Then Buddy said that all four of them took the three boys and threw them and their clothes in the water, and threw the bicycles in the bayou." And again, the bodies would've decomposed considerably more had they not been submerged in cool water all night.

LE didn't follow up the Luminol testing with testing with another agent

What other agent could've proven whether or not the luminol reaction was caused by blood?

 

[Cappuccino]

I've got a general distaste for misinformation, and I find murders being heralded as victims while others are slandered as murders particularly revolting. That said, it's not like I'm stalking anyone, this is a public forum.

We want this case to be re-opened, and re-examined thoroughly. Do you have a problem with that, KyleB, and if you do why?