The Most Logical Suspect

[Cappuccino]

BBM

I think is an understatement when you look at Echols.

I skimmed his site and he does have some good points, but I haven't gotten into doing much research there.

I don't think its an understatement at all when you look at Echols. In fact, I don't think it matters whether or not Echols is the biggest fruitcake on earth, that makes no difference to Ramsey's level of lunacy.

Ramsey is still a ridiculous nutjob. Check out his theories about 9/11 and the Jews. lease:

 

[kyleb]

Were exactly can one check out what you allude to? I've done a search for "Jews" on both William Ramsey's sites, www.occult911.com and occult911.wordpress.com, and the only refrence to Jews which comes up is on this page where Ramsey details the similiarity in idology between Aleister Crowley and Adolph Hitler which includes this quote from Crowley's Commentaries on his The Book of the Law:

Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle? And exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians?

Now, before getting into whatever "theories about 9/11 and the Jews" you you allege Ramsey has presented, at what "level of lunacy" would you rate them in comparison to what Crowley said regarding Jews and Protestants?

 

[Alyssa2013]

The most logical suspect is someone that knew the boys. A stranger, IMO, could not subdue them. A stranger attack usually requires compliance, and, based on the information given, I don't think these boys would have just sat there. These boys were not that weak. Stevie Branch was frequently beaten by his father and he usually carried a knife; in other words, he wasn't a wimp. The person that murdered them knew that they could be a handful. I think that if anyone other than an authority figure or someone who they previously feared tried to attack them they WOULD have stood up for themselves. They would have screamed, would have tried to run away or make a scene. The person(s) that killed them knew their weaknesses, IMO. Also, the theory that someone that knew them murdered them is supported by the fact that ALL THREE of them were murdered. If it was a stranger and he had just murdered one of the boys, he probably wouldn't go through the trouble of killing ALL THREE unless they KNEW HIM. The suspect already knew that if he killed one he would have to kill all three because they must have known him already. Even if they had seen a strangers face, they are only 8 years old. Any logical person would just let them go once reaching the intended target. It just doesn't make sense that all three would be murdered unless they knew the actual killer. This was a personal crime, IMO. I also believe that this was not premeditated and I say this because the killer happened to use objects at his disposal...the boys' shoelaces were used to tie them up, most likely the weapon of choice was a blunt object on the ground...he used things that were just lying around. IF it were premeditated, I think we would have seen duct tape, rope...more evidence that this was an organized criminal, more evidence that this was planned. The killer was smart and resourceful but I don't think he was very organized. I think he just used what he had and he happened to be incredibly lucky in that regard. All of this is my opinion of course...

 

[Compassionate Reader]

L.G. Hollingsworth is a distinct possibility IMO. Christopher Morgan not so much. Hollingsworth was a suspect early on and was never really cleared IMO. Unfortunately, he is dead now so we will not be able to question him. We do have the affidavits of Guy and Stewart who claimed that Buddy Lucas and Hollingsworth were participants in the murders along with Hobbs and Jacoby. Personally, I'd like to see Hollingsworth investigated more thoroughly. I still suspect that, despite her protestations, Narlene was trying to clear L.G. when she pointed the finger at Damien. Not sure why she attempted to implicate her own niece, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Ausgirl]

Maybe not THE most likely.. but.. Who was that chubby dude with the three wheeler again? I can't think of his name. Went wheeling around RHH giving the younger kids a ride, joine3d in the search.. In my present state, I can't even recall what specifically was red flaggy about him, but there was something! ahaha.

Anyways. That guy.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Maybe not THE most likely.. but.. Who was that chubby dude with the three wheeler again? I can't think of his name. Went wheeling around RHH giving the younger kids a ride, joine3d in the search.. In my present state, I can't even recall what specifically was red flaggy about him, but there was something! ahaha.

Anyways. That guy.

OMG! You're really stretching my memory on that one! Let me see if any of the bunch from West Memphis can identify him. If I get a name, I'll post it, or maybe someone here at Websleuths who's from the area can help out?!

 

[kyleb]

One doesn't rightly need to be from the area to know the guy's name is Bryan Woody. That only takes being reasonably familiar with the details of the case, seeing as how he testified at the Baldwin/Echols trial.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

One doesn't rightly need to be from the area to know the guy's name is Bryan Woody. That only takes being reasonably familiar with the details of the case, seeing as how he testified at the Baldwin/Echols trial.

BBM

First, are you presuming to imply that I'm not "reasonably familiar with the details of the case" because I cannot remember the rather uneventful testimony of one witness? I do remember that one of those riding around testified. However, I'm not going to presume that this particular person is the one whose identity is being questioned.

Second, as there were several people riding on three-and four-wheelers, what makes you so sure that Bryan Woody is the one for whom Ausgirl was seeking identification? If he is, again, why do you have to make accusations such as the one you leveled at me? Normally I don't respond to your rudeness, but this was too much! Sorry for the derail.

 

[kyleb]

Actually I was just explaining how I knew who "the chubby dude with the three wheeler" is, despite not being someone who is "who's from the area" as you inferred would required to know such things. As for the inference that you're not reasonably familiar with the details of this case, I don't see why anyone should consider it any less polite than the inference in the "That's what intelligent people do" quip which [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9997350&postcount=21"]you'd just previously directed at me[/ame].

 

[Ausgirl]

YES - Brian Woody.

Now, why was he a suitable weirdo? I have a feeling it was because he gave the kids rides on his chubby trike and said something odd to somebody.

Probably not a very good suspect, eh. Though I have a feeling I've forgotten something important about it.

like.. everything? nearly

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I agree that Bryan Woody is not a good suspect. I wonder about some of the others out there scouring the woods, the ones whose names we might not know because they weren't on the witness list, etc. Is there any reason to believe that they are "killers returning to the scene of the crime" or some such?

(BTW, kyleb, I wasn't implying what you inferred. My reference to lack of intelligence was regarding people who refuse to look at the new information. IMO, that's different than someone who looks at the information and interprets it in what is, to my mind, an illogical fashion. I'm assuming that you have examined the new information, or am I wrong?)

 

[kyleb]

If you're referring to Paid's attempts to dredge up the long debunked bite mark nonsense to fuel the witch hunt against Hobbs, not only have I seen it, [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9863891#post9863891"]we discussed it at length[/ame] around a month and a half ago.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No, I wasn't talking about the bite mark. I was talking generally about all of the information that has surfaced since the original trials.