Sorry, CR. That will never happen because my approach to this case came from looking at it as I imagine most LE would. Plus I had read a number of books on profiling, do know something about how the criminal mind works, and I absolutely believe the three are guilty through a process of elimination of potential other suspects. I started with the crime scene, and went from there.
As you know, I don't base my decision on celebrities or Damien Echols worship. I have read the documents on Callahan's, all of the books about the subject (at least all I know are in existence) and, of course, seen the Paradise Lost documentaries and many other shows about the case. I have also read all of the non's arguments.
You say that you've read books on profiling. Actual criminal profilers who have looked at this case believe it to be the work of an adult who knew the victims. You say you know something about how the criminal mind works. I know something about teenagers, especially teenagers living in poverty and what is done to help them and what they do.
I also "followed the evidence" in this case. Unlike the WMPD, I didn't find a person who I wanted as the suspect and fabricate a case against him, using a mentally deficient minor as the mainstay of that case. Instead, like you, I looked at all of the evidence.
In the beginning, I thought that JMB was guilty, but, as more information came forth, I changed my mind. You see, I believe that evidence is fluid - that evidence can come forth even years later. There are a plethora of cases in which this has happened, and IMO this is another one.
Like you, I eliminated suspects, starting with the WMFree, and looked for plausible explanations that matched the evidence. As you said, that is how a properly functioning LE department would approach a case like this one. I concluded that Terry Hobbs is the perpetrator.
Far too many people came forward to LE with stories about Echols to discount them all. Where were the voices of fellow students and teachers who might have vouched for Jason Baldwin? They remained silent. Why? Was there something about him that didn't seem just quite right to them? Was he too good to be true? That's how I view him. I couldn't ignore his hesitations in answering the questions his attorney asked of him in "Paradise Lost." It struck me that he was weighing in his mind what he wanted to say, and what he thought he should hold back on before speaking.
People like those who "came forward to LE with stories about Echols" exist in most small towns. They're akin to the ones who accused the "witches" in Salem, MA, years ago. That is just indicative of two things: the town had preconceived notions of his guilt, and Damien was very effective in his efforts to distance himself from the rest of the town with his strange behavior. Was this a smart thing to do? Absolutely not! However, he was a teenager at the time.
As to Jason, his attorney was derelict in his duty IMO by not introducing more character witnesses. The State told Joyce Cureton (the worker at the juvenile center who was set to testify on Jason's behalf) to be "unavailable" for the trial. (She did testify, however, at the Rule 37 hearing.) One of his teachers, Sally Ware, testified at the Rule 37 hearing on Jason's behalf.
As to Jason's hesitation in Paradise Lost, I interpreted it as fear. He had just seen the prosecutors twist Damien's words and make him look guilty when he testified. Jason knew that they were innocent. He was choosing words carefully (yes, even with his attorney) because he was scared. Of what? Of exactly what happened - being falsely convicted of murders that he did not commit.
It strikes me that Echols is a loose cannon in all this, but so is Jessie, but for different reasons. I think Echols, in his twisted mind, was proud of this horrendous crime, while Jessie felt remorse or perhaps it wasn't so much remorse as it was to be certain he wasn't the only one going down for this crime. Somewhere I have seen a report on Jessie that describes him as someone with antisocial personality disorder. I believe him to be a psychopathic liar as well with more street smarts than book smarts, but not enough to keep himself out of trouble. I absolutely agree he has a low IQ, but he's not retarded. I also believe he has explosive anger disorder, but I don't see it as playing a role in this crime. Neither do I view Echols as the "brains" behind this crime, and I wouldn't call it brains for this was a very stupid crime in many respects, so stupid in fact, it's far more easy to imagine it was done by young people, bored and frustrated, and off-centered, than by any full grown adult. Hobbs didn't do this. Hobbs is too street smart, and far too wary to have left those boys in that ditch, and it just doesn't fit that either JMB or Hobbs would have committed this crime. If I had to pick one of them though, I would have to go with JMB, not Hobbs. JMB is not as smart as Hobbs. Gut instinct tells me, if any adult had done this, those bodies would be far away, and this would have been a cleaner kill. There's a law of averages at play, concerning certain types of crime, and in order to come up with Hobbs or JMB as the perp, a person has to step way outside that law of averages. I just can't buy that on the basis of what I know about crime. Certain crimes are committed by certain types of usual suspects. LE will always go with those known odds, and so will I.
As to Damien being a "loose cannon," he is outspoken, but he has always maintained his innocence. I see him as well-spoken now, but as an arrogant teen at the time of the murders. That arrogance, not the commission of a triple murder, at least in part, landed him on Death Row for 18.5 years.
Jessie may appear to be anti social, I agree. (However, I don't remember seeing such a diagnosis, but it wouldn't surprise me if one existed.) In my experience with teens of his IQ, they are often anti social, being afraid that someone will discover their disability.
His full scale IQ score places him in the borderline retarded range. I have never said that he was anything else. I agree that he had anger issues back in 1993-4. I'm not sure about now, however. I also see him as gentle with children, which is one reason that I can never see him as a child killer.
You say that Echols wasn't the "brains" behind the crime. I presume that you believe Jason was, then. Sorry, I don't see that at all. In the 18.5 years that he was incarcerated, there was never a case of him being violent. In fact, he was a model prisoner and the personnel at the prison cried tears of joy upon his release.
As to your assessment of Hobbs being "too street smart" to have committed this crime, I totally disagree. While I agree that he was "street smart," I also agree with FBI profiler John Douglas. This crime was committed by someone who knew the victims, intimately, and Hobbs fits the bill.
JMB did cast a lot of suspicion on himself with his outrageous behavior, but long ago I realized that it was the behavior of a grief-stricken parent, not a murderer. The fact that Hobbs has always tried to stay out of the spotlight, even to the point of avoiding interrogation until 2007, indicates to me someone with something to hide. He has demonstrated, at least on two documented occasions (Mildred French and Jackie Hicks, Jr.), that he can be violent.
His experience working in a slaughterhouse ties directly to the method of tying the bodies. It was not done for restraint, as a video by imout2sea proved, but for transport, just like hog carcasses in the slaughterhouse. Add his mtDNA (and that of his friend and alibi) being at the discovery site, some of Stevie's possessions (including his prized knife) being found in Hobbs' possession, and his demeanor during the WMPD interview and the Pasdar deposition and IMO you have the killer of those little boys.
The fact that he didn't dispose of the bodies better was his big mistake. I suppose he simply didn't have the time. As I'm sure you know, killers usually make mistakes, which is why that they are eventually caught. This was Terry's big mistake. Well, that and bragging to Sharon Nelson about finding the bodies before the police did.
Yes, certain crimes are committed by certain types of suspects, and IMO Terry Hobbs fits the description of John Douglas very well. I still question why the WMPD didn't interview him in 1993. He should have been interviewed, as he was a step parent of a victim. It makes me wonder why.
What does he have on the WMPD that gave him a free pass when JMB was intensely questioned? (BTW, Todd Moore was cleared because he was out of town as an OTR driver.) I just don't understand why Terry got a "free pass" unless there's something he knows about the WMPD that they didn't want to become public knowledge.
Every person who commits a criminal act does so with a logic in his or her mind. Now it stands that their logic is off, way off, and this particular type crime is never ever one that could be attributed to a reasonable, rational, and empathic person which is not to say that either JMB or Hobbs fits that bill nor any of the three convicted, the way I see them.
What you're really talking about here is motive. What motive did the teens have? The cult killing is ridiculous. A thrill kill is possible, but usually bodies aren't hidden in a thrill kill.
As to Terry's motive, he resented Pam's time with Stevie, and therefore he resented Stevie. Personally, I don't think Terry planned this. I think it was discipline gone wrong, but I think that he had thought about the possibility of getting rid of Stevie. I don't think he was too torn up over Stevie's death, however. In fact, within two weeks, he had temporarily moved away from Pam because she couldn't "get over it."
What you expect me to believe is that Mr. Goody Two Shoes, Baldwin, could run around with and call someone like Damien Echols his best friend. It doesn't fit, and it never did. People are who they associate with, there's no getting around that. Of course, you want to see Echols in the same light as you see Baldwin, and that doesn't fit either, not with his mental history, not with his known lies. Oh I'm sure you can point to people whose friends are at odds with their seeming personality, but something unseen or unknown to others draws them together, and that something is usually not something that would ever see them charged with a crime of this nature.
