Viable suspect: Damien Echols

[happyday]

Interesting to see this thread at the top. I recently listened to an interview w/John Douglas on True Crime Garage podcast (fascinating!). Since I respect his opinions so much as he is the father of profiling, I was interested in hearing what he thinks about the WM3. He does not think they did it. He thinks it’s one of the fathers, and not MB.

All I know is that the WM3 didn’t get a fair trial or a fair anything for that matter, and I haven’t heard or seen any evidence whatsoever that would make me believe they’re responsible. Satanic Panic was very real back then, and their trial was just an absolute travesty.

 

[Doctari]

Before I get to the rest of my post, I'll clarify by saying that I believe it's highly likely the WM3 committed the murders. I would be surprised if it was proven one day that anyone else did it. That said, there were multiple concerns with evidence, witness and trial handling so while they may have been found not guilty from a legal sense if they were tried again, that does not make them innocent. People confuse the two far too often. As for Damien, he checks multiple boxes that you'd look for in a viable suspect:

- Proven history of violence against animals and attempted violence against humans
- Lengthy mental health history including multiple incidents relating to homicidal, suicidal and psychopathic behavior
- No proven alibi for the timeframe when the murders likely took place
- Bragged about committing the murders to girls at the softball field (regardless if he was "joking" as he now claims)
- Knowing several details about the murders not known to the public - then playing it off in court that he had heard them from TV, "people talking", etc.

These are even before Jessie's obviously damning confession. I won't get into an argument about the validity of it. My personal opinion is that while the WMPD did ask multiple leading questions and could have done a much better job with the questioning itself, the confession is genuine and Jessie was actually describing how the murders occurred. This is backed up by his multiple other confessions that you never hear about including the ones on February 5th and 8th 1994 after he was convicted where he confessed to the police on the drive to prison and to his own defense attorney when there was no deal or legal benefit to do so.

I can see supporters viewpoint of some of the errors made by LE during the investigation and trials, however to convince yourself that the WM3 - especially Damien - were normal, regular guys that were singled out because of what they wore, listened to, etc. is just nonsense. There are so many factual and reality leaps you have to do to get to that conclusion, I'll just never understand it hence why I can see why a jury might find them not guilty legally but to say they are completely factually innocent of this crime is absurd imo.

It is so refreshing to hear that someone else actually understands this case. I grew up in a suburb of Memphis and was about 15 when the crime occurred. The narrative that this was some sort of witch hunt based on “Satanic Panic” is completely ludicrous. They were just “different”, listened to Metallica and read Stephen King. All that might be true, but had NOTHING to do with the arrest of these three murderers. West Memphis Arkansas is just a little poor redneck town with not much to do accept hang out at the Walmart. I guess it would be easy to assume that their police department isn’t top notch, which again might be true, but in this case they actually did an amazing job on this case.
If it wasn’t for those Paradise Lost documentaries, we would have never heard of this case again. Is it even legal to produce a documentary that leaves out ALL of the evidence that was presented against them in the trial? Do viewers realize that in these “movies” they accuse TWO different step-fathers as being guilty? With literally ZERO evidence against either of them. As you said, there was NO concrete evidence that anyone committed this crime. No DNA, nothing. Meanwhile there is loads of circumstantial evidence that the WM3 are guilty. One of the big things to me is that not 1 of 3 high school boys can come up with a valid, confirmable alibi on a weeknight? Nuts. And Misskelly confessed 5 f-ing times. Giving specifics about that night that were not available to the public. So whether or not there was enough evidence to convict, is certainly debatable. But to declare that they are certainly innocent is insane. I just don't understand....Cheers mate! I was starting to think I was losing my mind.

Interesting to see this thread at the top. I recently listened to an interview w/John Douglas on True Crime Garage podcast (fascinating!). Since I respect his opinions so much as he is the father of profiling, I was interested in hearing what he thinks about the WM3. He does not think they did it. He thinks it’s one of the fathers, and not MB.

All I know is that the WM3 didn’t get a fair trial or a fair anything for that matter, and I haven’t heard or seen any evidence whatsoever that would make me believe they’re responsible. Satanic Panic was very real back then, and their trial was just an absolute travesty.

Interesting to see this thread at the top. I recently listened to an interview w/John Douglas on True Crime Garage podcast (fascinating!). Since I respect his opinions so much as he is the father of profiling, I was interested in hearing what he thinks about the WM3. He does not think they did it. He thinks it’s one of the fathers, and not MB.

All I know is that the WM3 didn’t get a fair trial or a fair anything for that matter, and I haven’t heard or seen any evidence whatsoever that would make me believe they’re responsible. Satanic Panic was very real back then, and their trial was just an absolute travesty.

I used to be a big Douglas fan as well. Devoured those early books on profiling. He lost credibility for me when he was paid by the Ramsey family to look into the Jon Bennet murder and guess what? He thinks the parents and brother are innocent. Literally no other investigators (that haven’t been paid) agree with that preposterous idea. Also, can someone help me with the idea that it’s ok to just “think it’s a stepfather” with literally not one shred of evidence to point that way. Whether Satanic Panic was real or not, that doesn’t change the fact that Damien was/is a clinically diagnosed Psychopath. His psychiatric history was well documented in the trial. His own parents were terrified of him, and his psychiatrist noted that he was an “immediate danger to himself and others”. Damien has repeatedly been caught in lies even to this day, and as I’ve said before, the lack of alibi’s for all three is VERY damning to their case. Remember TWO separate jury’s found the 3 Guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Please let me know which part of the trial that you don’t find “fair”.

 

[Doctari]

I think a grown man could do this without much effort particularly in a wide open area where the boys would need to travel quite a bit to reach other people. Wouldn't be difficult for a grown man to incapacitate children their age with a single blow, hit two of them then catch the third. This situation would also be terrifying for the boys it's possible they were too scared to leave. Awful.

Whether you believe one person could commit the crime or not doesn’t really matter too much. If you read the court transcripts, it was submitted that the three knots used to tie the boys were two different knots and the third knot did match one of the others indicating at least 2 different people were involved. This is consistent with Misskelly’s FIFTH confession after the trial was over when he explained how Damien and Jason had tied the boys up.
This is certainly an interesting case, but I seem to find that anyone who believes in their innocence doesn’t really have a full understanding of the case.

 

[DHT1339]

Whether you believe one person could commit the crime or not doesn’t really matter too much. If you read the court transcripts, it was submitted that the three knots used to tie the boys were two different knots and the third knot did match one of the others indicating at least 2 different people were involved. This is consistent with Misskelly’s FIFTH confession after the trial was over when he explained how Damien and Jason had tied the boys up.
This is certainly an interesting case, but I seem to find that anyone who believes in their innocence doesn’t really have a full understanding of the case.

<modnsip>

zero evidence linking them to the crime scene or victims. there is absolutely no way those 3 committed that crime and left behind a spotless crime scene

 

[happyday]

It is so refreshing to hear that someone else actually understands this case. I grew up in a suburb of Memphis and was about 15 when the crime occurred. The narrative that this was some sort of witch hunt based on “Satanic Panic” is completely ludicrous. They were just “different”, listened to Metallica and read Stephen King. All that might be true, but had NOTHING to do with the arrest of these three murderers. West Memphis Arkansas is just a little poor redneck town with not much to do accept hang out at the Walmart. I guess it would be easy to assume that their police department isn’t top notch, which again might be true, but in this case they actually did an amazing job on this case.
If it wasn’t for those Paradise Lost documentaries, we would have never heard of this case again. Is it even legal to produce a documentary that leaves out ALL of the evidence that was presented against them in the trial? Do viewers realize that in these “movies” they accuse TWO different step-fathers as being guilty? With literally ZERO evidence against either of them. As you said, there was NO concrete evidence that anyone committed this crime. No DNA, nothing. Meanwhile there is loads of circumstantial evidence that the WM3 are guilty. One of the big things to me is that not 1 of 3 high school boys can come up with a valid, confirmable alibi on a weeknight? Nuts. And Misskelly confessed 5 f-ing times. Giving specifics about that night that were not available to the public. So whether or not there was enough evidence to convict, is certainly debatable. But to declare that they are certainly innocent is insane. I just don't understand....Cheers mate! I was starting to think I was losing my mind.


I used to be a big Douglas fan as well. Devoured those early books on profiling. He lost credibility for me when he was paid by the Ramsey family to look into the Jon Bennet murder and guess what? He thinks the parents and brother are innocent. Literally no other investigators (that haven’t been paid) agree with that preposterous idea. Also, can someone help me with the idea that it’s ok to just “think it’s a stepfather” with literally not one shred of evidence to point that way. Whether Satanic Panic was real or not, that doesn’t change the fact that Damien was/is a clinically diagnosed Psychopath. His psychiatric history was well documented in the trial. His own parents were terrified of him, and his psychiatrist noted that he was an “immediate danger to himself and others”. Damien has repeatedly been caught in lies even to this day, and as I’ve said before, the lack of alibi’s for all three is VERY damning to their case. Remember TWO separate jury’s found the 3 Guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Please let me know which part of the trial that you don’t find “fair”.

There was NO evidence that they committed the crime. I know what clothes were worn, music was listened to, poetry was written, attitudes that were had, but what actual evidence is there? I sure haven’t seen any. And IMO people shouldn’t be convicted of horrific murders and sentenced to death when there is no actual evidence they did it. That’s not how the system is supposed to work, but here we have occult “experts” giving opinions and 3 people convicted of a terrible crime with little more than that. Don’t even get me started on the “confession.” We all know the problems with that. That’s ultimately why they were at least offered the Alfred plea. Not enough IMO, but it’s something. Whether someone thinks they could have done it or not doesn’t matter. DID they do it and what actual evidence supports that?

 

[Doctari]

"your opinion is different than mine so clearly you don't know what you're talking about." haha, great approach to take

zero evidence linking them to the crime scene or victims. there is absolutely no way those 3 committed that crime and left behind a spotless crime scene

Again, I agree that it doesn’t seem likely that Anyone could commit this crime and leave behind evidence. But someone did. And the very little(actually decent amount) of evidence suggests the three are the perpetrators. There is ZERO evidence against anyone else. It’s not about “opinion”. And I’m definitely not suggesting that you don’t know what you are talking about. I’m just trying to explain facts, that for some reason, people that follow this case don’t seem to understand.

 

[Doctari]

Leave behind “NO” evidence in the above post

 

[Doctari]

My


The police had no suspects or clue who did this. They then interpreted the wounds on the body as being part of a satanic killing. They asked a juvenile officer if he knew of any kids that practiced satanism, he said Echols and his buddies. Now, if one accepts that the wounds on the bodies were turtle bites, etc. that means that the suspects were literally pulled out of nowhere and based on a myth.

The reason that they were “pulled out of nowhere” is due to much more than turtle bites. Lack of Alibi’s, multiple confessions with details not released to public, clinically diagnosed psychopath that continues to lie to this day. You should read about the case if interested. I believe it is 65-45 on the amount of evidence being sufficient to convict them. 99-1 on whether they actually committed the crime. Again, there is literally ZERO evidence that points anywhere but the WM3.

I’m hoping that they come out with Paradise Lost 4 where they choose a step-MOTHER this time to accuse. Again with literally ZERO evidence.

 

[Doctari]

Also guys, I think I mentioned I lived in Memphis at the time of this crime and have followed it and researched it virtually ever since. I think the “Satanic Panic” aspect throws people off track here. The police and investigators didn’t single out Echols because they thought he was a Satanist. They were,however, interested in Damion just because of his horrid reputation and scary psychiatric evaluation. At the outset of the investigation, one of the detectives said the phrase “oh Jesus, looks like ol Damien Echols finally killed someone”. Something to that effect. Of course we can say “well thats not fair, just because he was clinically crazy doesn’t mean he killed anyone. That’s right, but for better or worse, it’s why they took a look at Damien. If the crazy dude upstairs that bangs his head against the wall and spits pee soup everywhere and screams that he’s going to blow the building up......when the building blows up, someone’s going to suggest we take a look at the guy upstairs. It’s just common police work.

 

[DHT1339]

Again, I agree that it doesn’t seem likely that Anyone could commit this crime and leave behind evidence. But someone did. And the very little(actually decent amount) of evidence suggests the three are the perpetrators. There is ZERO evidence against anyone else. It’s not about “opinion”. And I’m definitely not suggesting that you don’t know what you are talking about. I’m just trying to explain facts, that for some reason, people that follow this case don’t seem to understand.

there is zero evidence linking the WM3 to the crime scene. they also had zero connections to the victims. what "decent amount" of evidence suggests they are the killers? let me guess, JM's "confessions" which just so happened to become more accurate as the trial went on?

 

[Doctari]

there is zero evidence linking the WM3 to the crime scene. they also had zero connections to the victims. what "decent amount" of evidence suggests they are the killers? let me guess, JM's "confessions" which just so happened to become more accurate as the trial went on?

Yeah, I think the confessions are at least Something though right? The last one that took place when he was being transported to jail seemed especially damning. The lack of alibi’s is really bad. Damiens mental diagnosis and history of violence/erratic behavior. Multiple witnesses saying they overheard Damien bragging about the killings. The knife found in the pond behind Jason Baldwins house. Again, all circumstantial evidence for sure, and nothing at all that could 100% Prove their innocence. That said, it’s at least 10x more than we have against anyone else.

 

[DHT1339]

Yeah, I think the confessions are at least Something though right? The last one that took place when he was being transported to jail seemed especially damning. The lack of alibi’s is really bad. Damiens mental diagnosis and history of violence/erratic behavior. Multiple witnesses saying they overheard Damien bragging about the killings. The knife found in the pond behind Jason Baldwins house. Again, all circumstantial evidence for sure, and nothing at all that could 100% Prove their innocence. That said, it’s at least 10x more than we have against anyone else.

in JM's first confession, he said the crime occurred at noon, the boys were tied with rope, and that they were raped. then as the trial went on, his confessions just so happened to become more accurate. coincidence?

DE had an alibi. JB had one too but his lawyer didn't present it in front of the court

DE's past history is not evidence that he committed the crime. plenty of people with past histories of mental issues do not become murderers. just like plenty of people with spotless pasts do

there was no evidence that indicated DE or JB ever owned the lake knife

zero evidence linking them to the crime scene

 

[**juju**]

The police and investigators didn’t single out Echols because they thought he was a Satanist. They were,however, interested in Damion just because of his horrid reputation and scary psychiatric evaluation.

Which psychiatric evaluation are you referencing ? The exhibit 500 eval was after his conviction.

 

[Doctari]

in JM's first confession, he said the crime occurred at noon, the boys were tied with rope, and that they were raped. then as the trial went on, his confessions just so happened to become more accurate. coincidence?

DE had an alibi. JB had one too but his lawyer didn't present it in front of the court

DE's past history is not evidence that he committed the crime. plenty of people with past histories of mental issues do not become murderers. just like plenty of people with spotless pasts do

there was no evidence that indicated DE or JB ever owned the lake knife

zero evidence linking them to the crime scene

Like I say, the confessions are what they are right? He said SO much over the course of all five that yeah some is inaccurate and some is wildly accurate (Evan Williams bottle).

However, once again supporters of these three murderers always seem to have a limited, or poor knowledge of the actual case.
The case files and transcripts are easily available and I can send you links to specifics if you’d like.
DE submitted that he was talking to three separate girls time of the murders. His attorneys looked into it, of course, and each of the three girls were interviewed and said that they were in fact on the phone with Damien that night but at totally different times than Damien had indicated. Not off by 15 minutes mind you, but by over 5 hours giving him plenty of time to commit the murders. So realizing that Damien lied, his attorneys obviously didn’t call those girls to the stand. Thus no alibi was presented. This is a FACT of the trial.
“JB had an alibi but his lawyer didn’t want to present it in court”? Huh? Why not? A solid corroborated alibi can completely throw the case out on the spot. In the submitted documents to the judge, Baldwins attorney submitted that no alibi will be presented.” Again, this is a Fact. JB originally tried to say he was with his brother but no one could corroborate so they went with nothing.
JM’s “alibi” was that he was at a wrestling tournament but when his attorneys looked into in, they found the tournament was the week prior or after. So he was also left with No Alibi.
So seriously, why do people say that DE et al had alibi’s when one of the main factors in the case is that they did not. I’ve seen interviews with the judge when he discusses how there were no alibi’s presented.
Everyone here seems to have a pretty good knowledge of the case and seem really respectful of everyone’s different views. It’s refreshing since people on both sides seem to be Uber passionate about this case.
Please let me know though, what do people mean by “DE had an Alibi?” Its a fact that he did not.

 

[DHT1339]

Like I say, the confessions are what they are right? He said SO much over the course of all five that yeah some is inaccurate and some is wildly accurate (Evan Williams bottle).

However, once again supporters of these three murderers always seem to have a limited, or poor knowledge of the actual case.
The case files and transcripts are easily available and I can send you links to specifics if you’d like.
DE submitted that he was talking to three separate girls time of the murders. His attorneys looked into it, of course, and each of the three girls were interviewed and said that they were in fact on the phone with Damien that night but at totally different times than Damien had indicated. Not off by 15 minutes mind you, but by over 5 hours giving him plenty of time to commit the murders. So realizing that Damien lied, his attorneys obviously didn’t call those girls to the stand. Thus no alibi was presented. This is a FACT of the trial.
“JB had an alibi but his lawyer didn’t want to present it in court”? Huh? Why not? A solid corroborated alibi can completely throw the case out on the spot. In the submitted documents to the judge, Baldwins attorney submitted that no alibi will be presented.” Again, this is a Fact. JB originally tried to say he was with his brother but no one could corroborate so they went with nothing.
JM’s “alibi” was that he was at a wrestling tournament but when his attorneys looked into in, they found the tournament was the week prior or after. So he was also left with No Alibi.
So seriously, why do people say that DE et al had alibi’s when one of the main factors in the case is that they did not. I’ve seen interviews with the judge when he discusses how there were no alibi’s presented.
Everyone here seems to have a pretty good knowledge of the case and seem really respectful of everyone’s different views. It’s refreshing since people on both sides seem to be Uber passionate about this case.
Please let me know though, what do people mean by “DE had an Alibi?” Its a fact that he did not.

i post on here a little while back about why the evan williams thing is complete <modsnip>. tl;dr version: JM's account of how he got the bottle and who he saw prior to getting it is completely different in his two interviews from early '94. also, the way the prosecution talked about how they found it is very sketchy. something along the lines of how they "searched under every overpass in WM until they found it." if they knew where it was, why did they have to search everywhere? i'm not gonna go back and find it, but i'm sure if you search evan williams or something you''ll find my detailed post

<modsnip>

would you remember what you did on a random tuesday night 4-5 months ago? why should DE or those girls he talked to on the phone have to remember what they did in exact detail on a random weekday night months ago? that's just silly. DE did things for shock value. him saying that he killed the boys at the softball game or roller rink is in no way evidence of his guilt. look at the way he acted during the trial. again, shock value. in contrast, someone like hobbs or byers should've been able to recall the night of 5/5 with great detail? why? because that was the night their sons went missing. not an ordinary weekday night for them

JB's lawyer did a poor job defending him. that's why no alibi was presented on his behalf. JM's alibi fell apart because a couple of the people involved in the whole wrestling thing got their dates/times mixed up and the prosecution jumped all over it and used that to convince the jury that the entire alibi was bad. doesn't mean the alibi was BS. just good work by the prosecution

DE's alibi is basically that of any typical teenager (on the phone with ______, hanging out with ______, etc) no reason why he should've been able to recall every move in exact detail 5 months later. so yes, he had an alibi and yes it was inconsistent for the reasons i mentioned

 

[Doctari]

Yeah, I agree with most of this. However, there is a massive flaw in your argument here. In this same post you explain that JM not being accurate in his confessions(which he actually explained he was trying to “throw them off track” “clearly shows that he is full of it. But Damien not getting his alibi corroborated is just normal memory lapse and of course no one could remember what they were doing on a random day months ago. you’re comment “so yes, he had an alibi and yes it was inconsistent for the reasons i mentioned’ is silly.

If I kill someone and say I was at your house during the murder, and you say “no I wasn’t”. That doesn’t mean I have an alibi but it’s just inconsistent. It literally means I have no alibi. By definition.

“JB's lawyer did a poor job defending him. that's why no alibi was presented on his behalf.”
I’m not sure what this means. Are you saying that JB’s lawyer was so incompetent that he just decided to skip mentioning a solid alibi that would free his client?

Damiens constant lies bother the heck out of me as well. Help me understand why Damien says these days that he never really went to Robin Hood Hills. Barely knew the area.
The truth is that he lived in a trailer park across the street from the crime scene. Ha!


Again, I think most supporters of these guys and most people who believe they are guilty actually Agree for the most part and are arguing different things.
I agree that the evidence is flimsy and circumstantial in this case. Ha! I used to tell buddies that “hell, you can find a dozen broken, cheap liquor bottles under any bridge in West Memphis. Ha!

I mean, it’s a valuable discussion as to whether these boys committed this crime or not based on the extremely limited evidence. No forensic evidence, all circumstantial right? I agree. I just feel like we’d have to be crazy to not believe the 3 were always, and still are The Most Likely suspects. Right?

 

[DHT1339]

Yeah, I agree with most of this. However, there is a massive flaw in your argument here. In this same post you explain that JM not being accurate in his confessions(which he actually explained he was trying to “throw them off track” “clearly shows that he is full of it. But Damien not getting his alibi corroborated is just normal memory lapse and of course no one could remember what they were doing on a random day months ago. you’re comment “so yes, he had an alibi and yes it was inconsistent for the reasons i mentioned’ is silly.

If I kill someone and say I was at your house during the murder, and you say “no I wasn’t”. That doesn’t mean I have an alibi but it’s just inconsistent. It literally means I have no alibi. By definition.

“JB's lawyer did a poor job defending him. that's why no alibi was presented on his behalf.”
I’m not sure what this means. Are you saying that JB’s lawyer was so incompetent that he just decided to skip mentioning a solid alibi that would free his client?

Damiens constant lies bother the heck out of me as well. Help me understand why Damien says these days that he never really went to Robin Hood Hills. Barely knew the area.
The truth is that he lived in a trailer park across the street from the crime scene. Ha!


Again, I think most supporters of these guys and most people who believe they are guilty actually Agree for the most part and are arguing different things.
I agree that the evidence is flimsy and circumstantial in this case. Ha! I used to tell buddies that “hell, you can find a dozen broken, cheap liquor bottles under any bridge in West Memphis. Ha!

I mean, it’s a valuable discussion as to whether these boys committed this crime or not based on the extremely limited evidence. No forensic evidence, all circumstantial right? I agree. I just feel like we’d have to be crazy to not believe the 3 were always, and still are The Most Likely suspects. Right?

there's a massive difference between being asked to recall a murder you witnessed, and what you were doing on a random weekday night months ago. if you were witness to a murder, i would assume you would remember every single detail of it. if you were asked to recall what you were doing on a tuesday night 3 months ago, you would most likely not remember much of it at all.

and just how truthful was JM when he claimed he was "just leading the police on" by lying to them? that's something a person who knew they were guilty would do, right? he sure doesn't seem like he's admitting guilt in this letter he wrote in early june of '93
http://callahan.mysite.com/images3/jm_letter.jpg

note how in the letter he still believes that the afternoon timeframe is the one in question since he brings up that he was "ruffin" (roofing) when he believes the crime took place

you make it seem like every single part of DE's alibi was not corroborated. in reality, there were many parts of his alibi that were corroborated by one person or another. the inconsistencies with the timing are what got the prosecution to jump all over it. and that goes back to what i've been saying about the problems with being asked to remember things you did on a certain night months ago

JB's alibi is much like DE's. lots of people claiming different things, inconsistencies with times, etc. maybe his lawyer saw how they jumped on DE's alibi for the same issues and figured it'd be best not to present one? can't say for sure

how can we say they're the most likely suspects when there is no evidence linking them to the crime scene and they had no prior connection to the victims? in my opinion, there is just no way we can call anyone "likely suspects" in this case because of the complete lack of evidence

 

[Nadal]

Interesting to see this thread at the top. I recently listened to an interview w/John Douglas on True Crime Garage podcast (fascinating!). Since I respect his opinions so much as he is the father of profiling, I was interested in hearing what he thinks about the WM3. He does not think they did it. He thinks it’s one of the fathers, and not MB.

All I know is that the WM3 didn’t get a fair trial or a fair anything for that matter, and I haven’t heard or seen any evidence whatsoever that would make me believe they’re responsible. Satanic Panic was very real back then, and their trial was just an absolute travesty.

Profiling is pseudoscience. Douglas is a great detective but Profiling has been demonstrated to be next to nonsense that performs barely above laymen, over and over again. No scientific study of profiling has ever been positive and there's heavy suggestion that Douglas contributed to at least one wrongful conviction (the wrongful conviction was more from faulty bitemark evidence but Douglas claiming absurd things like he knew what car the perp drove certainly didn't help) which fully demonstrated that profiling shouldn't be trusted.

I don't believe the WM3 did it either just pointing out profiling isn't reliable.

 

[Doctari]

“in my opinion, there is just no way we can call anyone "likely suspects" in this case because of the complete lack of evidence”.

I agree with this in principle. There is no evidence at the scene linking anyone to the crime though, right? Someone did it. I think I mentioned that I understand supporting these guys because the evidence was scant. It’s the folks that say “There is NO WAY these guys are guilty!!” That I have a hard time understanding.

When i say “likely” I don’t even really man that its more likely that they are guilty that not. I just mean if you were to bet the house on who murdered those boys. Based on the little that we have, wouldn’t the safest bet be on the WM3? Of course it would. Who else would you bet on? A stepfather killed his son and two friends? Maybe. But nothing supports that. Nothing. A disoriented man with blood on his arm in a sling in a Bojangles bathroom? Maybe. But of course that would not be the best bet. We dont even know the man exists for certain. .

Does anyone remember that at the end of the trial, the attorneys and the 3 basically gave up and resigned to their fate. I think this was even in the first PL documentary. They asked Damien how he thought he’d be remembered, and he said he “Wants to be remembered as the West Memphis Boogy Man, and kids will be scared forever and wonder if Damien was under their bed”
Damien also says something like “No more whiskey for me for a while” after the lawyers mention a possible celebratory drink. The lawyers chuckle as well as its seemingly a nod to Miskellys claim that they were drinking heavily in the woods.

“you make it seem like every single part of DE's alibi was not corroborated. in reality, there were many parts of his alibi that were corroborated by one person or another.”

I don’t make it seem like anything. I’ll say it very plainly; “EVERY SINGLE PART OF DAMIENS ALIBI WAS NOT CORROBORATED”. Its not nearly as confusing as you seem to think. He said he was on the phone with 3 girls around the time of the murder and they all said Nope, it was closer to midnight. Their statements are available.

Oh, and I apologize as you said if someone doesn’t agree with me I just think they dont know what they are talking about. Not at all. You definiely know what you are talking about. However, comments like that about lawyers not wanting to submit corroborated alibis, just seems like you’ve read a lot of misinformation or something.
If I’m wrong I’ll stand corrected, but I’d like to see where any of the 3’s alibis were corroborated and the reason the attorney decided to leave it out.
Cheers!

 

[DHT1339]

“in my opinion, there is just no way we can call anyone "likely suspects" in this case because of the complete lack of evidence”.

I agree with this in principle. There is no evidence at the scene linking anyone to the crime though, right? Someone did it. I think I mentioned that I understand supporting these guys because the evidence was scant. It’s the folks that say “There is NO WAY these guys are guilty!!” That I have a hard time understanding.

When i say “likely” I don’t even really man that its more likely that they are guilty that not. I just mean if you were to bet the house on who murdered those boys. Based on the little that we have, wouldn’t the safest bet be on the WM3? Of course it would. Who else would you bet on? A stepfather killed his son and two friends? Maybe. But nothing supports that. Nothing. A disoriented man with blood on his arm in a sling in a Bojangles bathroom? Maybe. But of course that would not be the best bet. We dont even know the man exists for certain. .

Does anyone remember that at the end of the trial, the attorneys and the 3 basically gave up and resigned to their fate. I think this was even in the first PL documentary. They asked Damien how he thought he’d be remembered, and he said he “Wants to be remembered as the West Memphis Boogy Man, and kids will be scared forever and wonder if Damien was under their bed”
Damien also says something like “No more whiskey for me for a while” after the lawyers mention a possible celebratory drink. The lawyers chuckle as well as its seemingly a nod to Miskellys claim that they were drinking heavily in the woods.

“you make it seem like every single part of DE's alibi was not corroborated. in reality, there were many parts of his alibi that were corroborated by one person or another.”

I don’t make it seem like anything. I’ll say it very plainly; “EVERY SINGLE PART OF DAMIENS ALIBI WAS NOT CORROBORATED”. Its not nearly as confusing as you seem to think. He said he was on the phone with 3 girls around the time of the murder and they all said Nope, it was closer to midnight. Their statements are available.

Oh, and I apologize as you said if someone doesn’t agree with me I just think they dont know what they are talking about. Not at all. You definiely know what you are talking about. However, comments like that about lawyers not wanting to submit corroborated alibis, just seems like you’ve read a lot of misinformation or something.
If I’m wrong I’ll stand corrected, but I’d like to see where any of the 3’s alibis were corroborated and the reason the attorney decided to leave it out.
Cheers!

if i had to guess, i'd say it was probably a random trucker. given the spotless crime scene and complete lack of DNA evidence (minus the hobbs and jacoby hairs.) unless the person(s) who did it took the time to clean up after themselves and somehow managed to erase every single trace they were there, i don't think the discovery site was the crime scene

yeah exactly, DE said things for shock value. that's another great example of that

again, the issue with DE's alibi was the times. and i'll ask you again, would you remember with 100% precise detail what you were doing on a weekday night 5 months ago?

not misinformation at all. and it was just JB's attorney who chose not to present an alibi on his behalf. you can look it up if you have doubts. many parts of DE's alibi were corroborated, the problem was just the times. same goes for JM's alibi. like i posted earlier, some of the people who were involved in the wrestling thing got their date/times mixed up and the prosecution used that to make the alibi look bad

if you want to talk about a real problem alibi, look no further than hobbs. there's some real BS claims in that one. not to mention jacoby denied so many key parts of it where hobbs said he was with him